PDA

View Full Version : 'One Matter' - Empiricism & Alchemy - Discerning Truth from Deception



Pages : [1] 2

Andro
12-12-2017, 11:41 PM
Thread Intro:

This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.

Dragon's Tail
12-13-2017, 12:42 AM
Thank you Andro! :)

To kick this off on topic (not to argue, just as food for thought), lots of compounds in sea water. Water + salts + dissolved gasses + many many processes, biologic/thermal/etc. IF I were going to start with one matter, or consider a good matter to start concocting the solvent, I would start here. I tinker with water, and there's tons to learn from it, but since my operations are chymical/spagyric 99.998% of the time, right now it's just speculation. I'm not so sure that "the stone" can be procured just from sea water, or any alchemical reconstruction of it, but it's a baseline, I think, for speculation and enlightenment that will provide clues as to "nature's method," which remember is NOT our current understanding, but that which is directly observable and speculated on. Many ancient cultures speculated differently than modern science on the formation of rocks, crystals, and metals.

Andro
12-13-2017, 08:32 AM
Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?

Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron :)) what is matter, ultimately?

And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"

Perhaps there is something fundamental that ALL matter has in common (in its composition)? Some Alchemy researchers suggest/speculate that what Alchemists termed "Universal Spirit" may be a sort of "electron cloud". Or perhaps there is a more "occult" (= hidden) aspect to the composition of matter, something that quite a few researchers have addressed in their own unique ways.

What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?

Florius Frammel
12-13-2017, 10:52 AM
I came to the assumtion recently that maybe there indeed is a link between mind and matter. The sages often underline similar statements. Some might say however, that if it is so, then why did they not speak openly in their recipies. Because you would never get the results if you don't know how to make an influence on matter with your mind and therefore the encrypting of texts dealing with making the stone would seem pretty useless.

Even modern science (which unfortunately is often rejected here) is nowadays dealing with this mind-matter link. You can for example look up here for some information concerning this subject http://www.consciousness-app.com/. They even seem to have developed an app for your mobiles to research on this topic on your own.
Not all scientists agree with the interpretation of most of the results of their experiments, but there seems to be a small but significant effect. On the other hand this might be explained with errors in the setup of the experiment.

Some scientists -for example the german psychologist and physician Walter von Lucadou even believe that so called supernatural events can be eliminated when trying to examine them empirically. As a councelor for people who experience or think they experience paranormal activities (for example "poltergeist" phenomenas) he gives the advice to write down the exact time and space on which the events occur. This way lots of those activities seem to stop. It is interesting and of cource not emprically provable if this mind-matter interactions (which Lucadou thinks are the reasons for most of these phenomenas) are somehow "afraid" of empirical research methods. Of course you can't say something about the obvious comments of critics on this topic either.

Dragon's Tail
12-13-2017, 02:01 PM
I think part of it comes from our misunderstanding of nuclear physics in the modern age. We can predict radioactive decay, for example, but the mechanism that causes it (and the WAY it carries itself out) is left to statistics and nature. The mainstream group acknowledges statistics like some kind of governing force that acts on the quantum scale, but there are plenty who disagree.

And I'm convinced that there are more than a handful of mistakes/representations in our understanding of chemistry. There's still much to learn about the little things in life. I have my own views/theories on gods, spirits, etc, and how they can "interact" with the world around us. Even how our souls interact at a distance and with our bodies, But the cause-effect relationships are quite fuzzy.

These holes in science aren't hard to find. Just find a baffled scientist saying "this shouldn't be." They are on the verge of discovery but fail to see that there's a larger world outside of their paradigm. Lot's of scientists said it shouldn't be true that the speed of light can be calculated from known constants and outside of any frame of reference, but that turned out to be quite true. There was no problem with the Maxwell equations, only our understanding of them, because until relativity, we assumed that a velocity necessitated a frame of reference, and that Newton's laws applied in every frame of reference.

Newton was awesome, but he couldn't explain the procession of Mercury. :P There's always more to be discovered, and what we find to be fascinating transmutations might some day be understood as a special kind of chemical reaction, once we sufficiently change our frame of reference.

Florius Frammel
12-13-2017, 02:45 PM
By the way, I'm sure that some of you might have heard or read about the Kervran experiments which for me seem to be pretty well made in an emprical sense. What I can not find is a work that actually has results speaking against his data and interpretation. Most people just say it is impossible and that's it. If anyone has a source please let me know.

JDP
12-13-2017, 05:13 PM
Dragon's Tail, thanks for kick-starting this...

Elsewhere, I have posed the question "what is matter". Is it stuff we find in a natural state? In an artificially refined state? Chemically manufactured?

Who knows. Does it really "matter"? It exists. Period.


Also, all matter can be broken down into components, such as elements of the periodic table variety (if we use this paradigm). Elements can be further broken down to atoms, electrons, etc...

So, within the accepted scientific model (although I've never actually seen an electron :)) what is matter, ultimately?

Those are the notions and ideas of physics. According to them, matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.


And does alchemy ultimately come down to chemical reactions between different "matters" that the academia hasn't discovered? Because, IMO, if there is no "x-factor" (secret/hidden component) involved in Alchemy, then it may be essentially no different at all from chemistry or "chymistry"

We can easily reverse this arbitrary pronouncement: And do "chymistry" and chemistry ultimately come down to "debased" alchemical reactions between different "matters" that the alchemists themselves gave a wide berth to since they knew they were ineffective for the purpose of making the Stone, their one and only objective? In such a case, "chymistry" and chemistry would be just the "leftovers" of what the alchemists rejected or ignored.

Note regarding "chymistry", though: unlike chemistry, this discipline managed to find its own ways of accomplishing transmutations. So this prompts the also very important question: what distinguishes it from ordinary chemistry, which still believes that transmutation through any reactions between any substances is "impossible"? What "supernatural" element does "chymistry" supposedly need to distinguish it from chemistry, then? If you have been successful at replicating some "chymical" transmutations you know well that the answer is: NONE. I did not need any "Divine Revelations/Gifts/Permissions", or special spoon-bending Jedi-like psychic super-powers, or bizarre "magic" rituals, or mysterious unseen "universal somethings" to succeed in replicating some of these "chymical" processes that can produce small amounts of gold and silver. It's just a matter of discovering the right substances, operations and conditions to accomplish the goal (and thankfully some "chymists" have been more open and generous than others, describing some of these processes in practically full detail, with little or no attempts at misleading, so the subject is not as difficult to investigate as alchemy, where virtually all its "masters", even the more generous and clear ones, write in more or less imprecise/vague/ambiguous/misleading terms regarding what matters to use to make the Stone.) The large majority of reactions are useless and leave the metals involved in them quite intact and just like they were before the reactions took place. But a comparative minority of them do work and alter a portion of the metals involved. This is what distinguishes "chymistry" from "chemistry". I don't expect alchemy to be any different, the difference being that the results of its techniques are quite quantitatively more spectacular than those of "chymistry" (while the majority of "chymical" processes can only turn relatively small fractions of certain metals into gold & silver, even the more mediocre results of alchemy produce substances that can turn at least several times their own weight in gold & silver.)


What should be regarded as "one matter" in alchemy, regardless if our position is to seek this "one matter" OR to avoid it at any cost?

Let me clarify again that when I criticize the "one matter only" claim I am referring to the QUANTITATIVE context in which this claim appears in many alchemical texts, not so much the theoretical/speculative musings of most alchemists regarding the alleged unity of all matter. The type of misleading alchemists I am referring to are the ones who purposefully want their readers to believe that all you really need to make the Stone is literally "one matter only", meaning ONE SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ONLY. They don't mean "matter" here in a metaphysical or theoretical sense, but as a single specific substance with its own peculiar characteristics/properties, like say, antimony, or the leaves of a tree, or a piece of old moldy cheese.

Florius Frammel
12-13-2017, 06:14 PM
I got your point, JDP.
Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?

JDP
12-14-2017, 12:45 AM
Thread Intro:

This thread has been created as a host for all further debates and dissertations surrounding various 'one matter' (& related) controversies and possible misunderstandings, so as to avoid serially hijacking other threads.


It has become impossible to build up exchanges involving work with "one matter" (& related) without them being hijacked with variations on the same theme, over and over (and over) again. A few times here and there is OK, but this has become a serial thing, systemically derailing multiple threads.

This will have to stop now, one way or another.

If people wish to discuss their approach and/or their work with 'One Matter" as a foundation, they should be able to do so without constant interruption.

If so inclined, all further dissertations and debates on this matter(!) can be done here from now on: 'One Matter' - Discerning Truth from Deception (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5467-One-Matter-Discerning-Truth-from-Deception)

This decision is incomprehensible in a thread that in fact deals directly with the issue at hand: the Stone is supposedly made from "one matter only". But is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim? Trying to censor and marginalize the opposing view to a specific separate thread does nothing but further emphasize that those who promote the "one matter" claim have hardly any arguments to defend their beliefs from more critical scrutiny. Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy, with supposed appeals against "hijacking" to try to justify it. But can discussion of the validity of any given claim be seen as "hijacking" if it happens in a thread that in fact deals with the subject being discussed??? That's what discussion forums are for in the first place. It would qualify as "hijacking" if the thread somehow started to deal with other topics than the one being discussed. But that's not what was going on in the "One, Two, Three" thread. The purpose of that thread is obviously to promote the claim that from "one matter only" you can make the Stone.

Awani
12-14-2017, 12:55 AM
...is it really "one matter only" as some want to claim?

Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?

If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.


Sounds like the form of fascist-like forum censorship that was promoted by that "Zoas" guy.

Zoas is gone.

But you are right regarding fascism. This ain't really a democracy, even if it seems like it. ;) (1)

That is all I am going to say about that. The rest I leave in the hands of the God(s).

https://www.rentecdirect.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Entitled-Tenants-.png

:p
_________________________________________

(1) it kind of is a democracy amongst the dictators themselves

JDP
12-14-2017, 01:24 AM
I got your point, JDP.
Can you name one/some good sources/texts of chymists with which you can produce small quantities of transmutated silver or gold?

The author of the rather mistitled "Alchymia Denudata" has written some plain truths, so has "Sincerus Renatus" in some of his books that deal with "particulars". Glauber, Becher and Kunckel also have written some truths rather plainly. Kellner sometimes points to processes that do give positive results (some of Kellner's works were published anonymously, but you can easily recognize his style once you get familiar with the works he openly published under his name.) But all of the older "chymists" have unfortunately also infested their works with lots of lies, empty boasts and false processes (just look at Becher's massive "Chymischer Glücks-Hafen", for example. Around 3/4, if not actually more, of this gigantic collection of "particulars" are false.) It's what makes investigating "chymistry" difficult because it forces the researcher to have to sift through tons of nonsense in order to stumble upon a comparative few worthy things. That takes time and money to do. But if you examine the works by some of the later "chymists", like Juncker, Creiling, Henckel, von Justi, Rouelle, etc., they help clear up some of the nonsense and false claims and more directly point to some of the worthy things to start investigating.

JDP
12-14-2017, 01:34 AM
Can gay people have a thread about a gay issue in peace, without homophobic redneck KKK people butting in every five minutes to say homosexuality is EVIL?

This is not a very good comparison, though. We are not talking about subjective things like "evil" vs "good", but about EMPIRICALLY probable vs improbable, as well as what exactly did this or that alchemist actually say or mean or imply regarding the subject.


If someone wants to talk about "one matter only" then it is fine to raise the issue that this is wrong... but again, and again, and again, and again... well that is not the same thing. Such things call for a new thread... some people want to discuss "one matter only", because it is TRUTH for them. You are not the Truth Police.

I would agree with this if this was going on in other threads, the ones that have hardly much to do with the subject, but what's wrong with the threads where this is in fact the subject being discussed, or appertains closely to it??? Also, "truth" is NOT subjective when we are dealing with EMPIRICAL FACTS. These are the same for all. That's why the comparison with "good" vs "evil" is not very good. That is more subjective.

Awani
12-14-2017, 01:45 AM
Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.


However, since the 1960s, a persistent critique most associated with Thomas Kuhn, has argued that these methods [meaning Empirical Evidence] are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently, it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data. - source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence)

There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

Case closed.

:p

JDP
12-14-2017, 02:04 AM
Empirical Facts and Alchemy is, to a scientist, a joke. Pseudo-science cannot be fact. You are interested in mumbo-jumbo according to 90 % of the Western World.



There is really no such thing as Empirical Fact. There is such a thing as Empirical Evidence, and the reason the term "evidence" is important is because "evidence" can be thrown out of court when NEW evidence is brought forth.

Case closed.

:p

Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies. :p

The quotation about Khun is valid as far as it goes into the realm of mixing preconceived notions (i.e. theories) with the observable empirical facts. However, when truly considered by a truly independent observer that does not a priori subscribe to any theory, empirical facts stand by themselves. Does Khun really have any possible valid argument against the reality of gravity, for example? Nope, he doesn't. That gravity is very real and exists is INDEPENDENT of what one thinks is causing it.

Yes, NEW EVIDENCE can do that TO THEORIES, but that does not invalidate the previously observed facts that those theories were built upon, though. Let me bring the "phlogiston" theory as an example: 18th century chemists were convinced of the reality of this "thing", and they tried to back it up by such OBSERVABLE phenomena as combustion and calcination. But then came Lavoisier armed with a whole set of NEW ACCUMULATED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE regarding the composition of the atmosphere and totally invalidated the THEORY of "phlogiston", but it DID NOT INVALIDATE the combustion and calcination that the "phlogistonists" were observing over and over again, he just gave these EMPIRICAL FACTS a more satisfactory explanation. The "phlogistonists" just MISINTERPRETED the same empirical evidence that Lavoisier himself used in his investigations, but Lavoisier also had the added advantage over his predecessors that he had EVEN MORE empirical evidence at his disposal to more correctly assess the issue and give it a more satisfactory explanation.

Awani
12-14-2017, 02:28 AM
Makes one wonder why did you bother to make an "Alchemy Forums" in the first place if you think it is all mumbo-jumbo and lies. :p

I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.

:p

JDP
12-14-2017, 06:07 AM
I was saying that the people who INVENTED the concept of Empirical Evidence, the rational scientific fact based community... those people think you are a crack pot.

:p

Who says they "invented" it? Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around. What may change is the way of interpreting them, but the facts remain the same.

Awani
12-14-2017, 09:56 PM
Observation of empirical facts goes back to prehistoric times, since man has been around.

No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.

:p

JDP
12-14-2017, 11:27 PM
No one can know for certain, but since it is my main field of study I would place a large bet on the "fact" that prehistoric times shared opinions closer to mine than yours... in the sense that they "believed" and "saw" a lot of paranormal things that cannot have any other empirical evidence than the experience of the subject itself. Science is good for making tooth paste... pretty much ends there IMO.

:p

Maybe in regards to "opinions", like when they probably thought that naturally occurring fire was some sort of "Divine Gift" (but eventually figured out that they could make it too, and there was no need for some "supernatural" cause in starting a fire; watch the 1981 film Quest for Fire for an entertaining take on this), but when it comes to just observing naked facts and not trying to meddle with the always uncertain issue of "interpreting" what is causing those facts (like when they learnt that falling down a cliff invariably means certain death, for example; no questions asked, they just accepted it as a fact corroborated by repeated experience) they were closer to my points of view than to yours.

Awani
12-14-2017, 11:50 PM
...certain death...

Certain? He he...

:p

JDP
12-14-2017, 11:59 PM
Certain? He he...

:p

Would you care to put it to the test? Find the nearest cliff and plunge in... :p

Andro
12-15-2017, 12:14 AM
‘I fell off the Cliffs of Moher and lived to tell the tale’ (https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/health-features/i-fell-off-the-cliffs-of-moher-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale-irish-man-on-his-miracle-survival-after-tumbling-more-than-40ft-34997971.html)

Certainty is an abstract and unproven concept. It is also not empirically provable, since not all possibilities (which are infinite) can be taken into consideration, unless one is able to dedicate all eternity to exhaust all of them :)

"Highly probable" would be a more appropriate term than "certain" - and certainly so for die-hard empiricists :)


One might argue that at least physical death is a certainty for everyone, but, again, one cannot study EVERYONE from all of time, thus an OPEN empirical mind should also account for margins of error.

Declaring "certainty" is shaky ground for an empiricist.

JDP
12-15-2017, 02:44 AM
‘I fell off the Cliffs of Moher and lived to tell the tale’ (https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/health-features/i-fell-off-the-cliffs-of-moher-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale-irish-man-on-his-miracle-survival-after-tumbling-more-than-40ft-34997971.html)

Certainty is an abstract and unproven concept. It is also not empirically provable, since not all possibilities (which are infinite) can be taken into consideration, unless one is able to dedicate all eternity to exhaust all of them :)

"Highly probable" would be a more appropriate term than "certain" - and certainly so for die-hard empiricists :)


One might argue that at least physical death is a certainty for everyone, but, again, one cannot study EVERYONE from all of time, thus an OPEN empirical mind should also account for margins of error.

Declaring "certainty" is shaky ground for an empiricist.

Freak accidents do happen every now and then. One American air gunner in WW2 was unbelievably lucky to survive a 20,000 foot fall from a downed B-17 bomber! (look up Alan Magee, one of the luckiest men ever!) But under normal/ordinary conditions, falling off of a cliff will kill you. Take that as a fact.

Andro
12-15-2017, 08:14 AM
under normal/ordinary conditions, falling off of a cliff will kill you. Take that as a fact.

You're the one who said "certain death". I posted what I did to challenge the "certainty" claim, not the high statistical probability of dying.

There is NO certainty (only statistical odds, be they high or low) and there are no predictions that can possibly be "certain facts" (because they haven't happened yet), just like there are NO "normal/ordinary" conditions.

You're being surprisingly vague as an empiricist when it suits you...

So please stop cheating by inserting into your equations factors that are vague and open to interpretation, such as "normal/ordinary conditions" (unless you can empirically define what they are)...

Provide empirically measurable PARAMETERS of such conditions!

Provide clear parameters that we can actually insert into the probability equation, and then, and only then, IF the result is 100% (unlikely), I might take you seriously!

BUT, if you predict "certainty" instead of calculated odds (and consider your predictions to be "facts") - you're not an empiricist, you're a believer and a self-proclaimed prophet - and your "empirical" debates are no more than religious wars!

Attaching the term FACT to events that have not happened yet, categorizes your approach to such debates as irrational and, if anything, more "mystically" inclined.

Replace "fact" with "highly probable", and you're back in the land of empirical reasoning.

----------------------------------------------------------

JDP
12-15-2017, 05:54 PM
You're the one who said "certain death". I posted what I did to challenge the "certainty" claim, not the high statistical probability of dying.

There is NO certainty (only statistical odds, be they high or low) and there are no predictions that can possibly be "certain facts" (because they haven't happened yet), just like there are NO "normal/ordinary" conditions.

You're being surprisingly vague as an empiricist when it suits you...

So please stop cheating by inserting into your equations factors that are vague and open to interpretation, such as "normal/ordinary conditions" (unless you can empirically define what they are)...

Provide empirically measurable PARAMETERS of such conditions!

Provide clear parameters that we can actually insert into the probability equation, and then, and only then, IF the result is 100% (unlikely), I might take you seriously!

BUT, if you predict "certainty" instead of calculated odds (and consider your predictions to be "facts") - you're not an empiricist, you're a believer and a self-proclaimed prophet - and your "empirical" debates are no more than religious wars!

Attaching the term FACT to events that have not happened yet, categorizes your approach to such debates as irrational and, if anything, more "mystically" inclined.

Replace "fact" with "highly probable", and you're back in the land of empirical reasoning.

----------------------------------------------------------

It goes without saying that falling down from a cliff or an airplane where there is nothing along your falling path that might gradually slow down your fall you will die. Those are the "normal/ordinary" conditions. Now, if you fall off of a cliff/plane where there is something along your descending path that might slow down your fall, then the conditions would be met by which you might survive such an event. But this falls under the realm of "coincidence". The fact that such freakish events of incredible good luck only happen rarely should tell you that they are not the normal/ordinary conditions but the exceptions.

Andro
12-15-2017, 07:06 PM
Regardless, referring as "fact" to something that has not occurred yet is acting like a prophet, not an empiricist. An empiricist would speak in terms of statistical odds, not of certainty.


It goes without saying that falling down from a cliff or an airplane where there is nothing along your falling path that might gradually slow down your fall you will die. Those are the "normal/ordinary" conditions.

Still, we've made some progress. You have defined the parameter referred to as "normal/ordinary circumstances", although by using the term "nothing" in the definition - which is an abstract, UN-provable concept. Define "nothing" and then we can progress some more.

JDP
12-16-2017, 01:20 AM
Regardless, referring as "fact" to something that has not occurred yet is acting like a prophet, not an empiricist. An empiricist would speak in terms of statistical odds, not of certainty.



Still, we've made some progress. You have defined the parameter referred to as "normal/ordinary circumstances", although by using the term "nothing" in the definition - which is an abstract, UN-provable concept. Define "nothing" and then we can progress some more.

"Nothing along your falling path that might gradually slow down your fall" means exactly what it implies: any physical object that could slow down your fall without it killing you first. In the case of Alan Magee cited above, that "something" that saved his life against such incredible odds was the glass panels on the ceiling of the train station where he ended up falling into (can you believe that guy's incredible luck?!) It slowed him down enough to survive the impact when he hit the solid ground of the station. Had that glass ceiling not been there, he would have died from the massive trauma to pretty much all his body when he had hit either a more solid roof material or the solid ground at full free-falling speed.

Andro
12-16-2017, 01:42 AM
Had that glass ceiling not been there, he would have died.

OK.

"He would have died" - is this a "fact" or a highly probable scenario?

Also, have you factored for other possible variables, even if highly unlikely, statistically speaking?

Please note that I am not contesting the very high probability, but the re-branding those high odds as "fact".

And going back to alchemy - in your view, is the production of the Stone from 'one matter' highly unlikely, or a factual impossibility?

JDP
12-16-2017, 04:28 PM
OK.

"He would have died" - is this a "fact" or a highly probable scenario?

Also, have you factored for other possible variables, even if highly unlikely, statistically speaking?

Please note that I am not contesting the very high probability, but the re-branding those high odds as "fact".

Since there was nothing else between him and the ground that could have slowed him down, I'd say it is about 99.9% sure he would have died from the full speed free-fall impact.


And going back to alchemy - in your view, is the production of the Stone from 'one matter' highly unlikely, or a factual impossibility?

It is highly unlikely for a few reasons: 1- the large number of seekers throughout history who failed by trying to follow such an over-simplistic approach (one would expect that a claim that has been floating around for some 2000 years would have actually produced a much higher rate of success if it really was true that only one single substance is required, and in fact alchemy should have ceased to be "mystery" to most people a long time ago if it in fact was really so easy and simple as to require nothing else but one single starting substance) 2- accumulated empirical experience hasn't found yet any single substance that can perform all the things the alchemists describe (like the multitude of color & phase changes) during the making of the Stone 3- people who are historically known (i.e. by the witness accounts of independent observers who were not alchemists themselves) to have had the Stone do not describe the process as being carried out with only one single starting substance (some of them, like "Mundanus", for example, still pay lip-service to the old theory that the matter of the Stone is supposedly "found everywhere", but when it comes to the nitty-gritty, they pull out the also old excuse that "some matters work better than others" and then proceed to describe the making of the Stone very obviously as the interaction between several starting substances, but, of course, never under the real, common, ordinary names that everyone knows for those substances but under "decknamen" in order to not make it easy to figure out.)

Andro
12-16-2017, 05:27 PM
falling off of a cliff will kill you. Take that as a fact.


⬇ ⬇ ⬇ ⬇ ⬇


I'd say it is about 99.9% sure he would have died


It is highly unlikely

Highly unlikely = NOT impossible.

Now we're making progress!

Avatar
12-17-2017, 07:38 AM
My understanding is that this one matter is mercury. An that mercury is a prepared substance.
So in this, it depends what your goal is.
Say I go the plant route.
I can extract the oil.
I can burn the body. Then suspend the ash and siphon off the upper liquid, dry, repeat in order to procure a fine body.
I can even burn the oil to procure it's salt.
To be quicker I could burn the body and catch the smoke, an then extract the oil. The smoke will be finer than any refined ash gained through refining ash.
I feel alchemy is the realm of nano particles.
In plant or metal alchemy, it is an attempt to extract the virtue of substance from the poisonous aspect. Purification an then increasing the potency of the virtue.

Any particle made nano size penetrates the body easily.
Smoke at best is what? 0.2 micrometers?
Grinding can bring you to a very small size. A ball mill is very effective for this. Coupled with repeated moistening and drying may yield a smaller size. For it makes substances more brittle. Yet! That is for plants.
I have heard reports that gold is sometimes toxic, sometimes not at a nano size. I have not really heard a reasoning behind it being toxic at times. More research needed.
Also have heard it takes on multiple colors at a nano size.

Yet nano gold is usually made from a bottom up approach, not a top down method.
Hypothetically gold is the hardest substance to work with No?
That's if we say gold is a literal substance to work with, an we are working with metals.
Meaning mercury can be prepared with a weaker more impure metal. An is more easily done in that way.

Many work with morning 'dew'. Hell many praise it.
If it is hot during the day, cold at night. An the earth is moist, dew will be heavy. Fog is a dew concentrate. A water colloid near the earth. It takes special tempatures for fog to appear.
It is the earth pushing it's moisture out, anything light enough to be carried up comes with it. Nano and micro and any biological component small enough ascend with it.
A body is not fine enough until it ascends during distillation and evaporation.

No answers here. Just ideas.

Amon
12-17-2017, 11:01 PM
I will expose my humble opinion as well.

To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.

Dragon's Tail
12-17-2017, 11:59 PM
I will expose my humble opinion as well.

To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.

Great post, Amon. I bash my head into that wall frequently, and have to turn of the "scientific" part of my brain and just observe what is happening in the flask. But special thanks to the world for figuring out glass making. We can see what's in our crucible!! A chinese text I was looking at had a nice long (as in a month) recipe for heating up a crucible with absolutely no visual reference as to what was happening inside the sealed pot.

My boiling flask at the moment has a lot of things happening inside it, and it was one "ingredient" plus distilled water. If I try to consider it scientifically, I'll go nowhere. I just have to watch and wonder what it's going to do next. Organic materials are complex.

I think the biggest issue with modern chemistry as it applies to medicine is this silly notion of "active ingredient." Trying to separate out "chemical compounds" has gotten me nowhere. My tinctures are better medicine than a lot of the other stuff. Also chemical mindsets tend to shortcut the process I think, very often. We need to give the reactions the time and environment to take place, rather than trying to hurry along. And of course this veil of secrecy over "alchemical" processes is sometimes annoying. I'd be happy to discuss my notes with anyone doing plant work, to compare what we are seeing in our flasks, and which steps are sort of "working" vs "not working" for lesser circulations. Till that day comes though, I'll just keep bubbling away, open to all of the possibilities that I haven't tried yet, and even redoing some in a different way.

JDP
12-18-2017, 04:07 AM
I will expose my humble opinion as well.

To start off, "One Matter" is a pretty vague term (Captain Obvious). It is certainly true if you think that its referring to the One Substance of God, since all that we call visible universe ( and invisible) are but "variations" of that one. But if we assume its referring to a "material matter" (like a rock or a liquid) then who knows.

And second, i don't think approaching alchemy from a modern chemistry viewpoint is all that helpful. And thats why i fear i am gonna have some serious trouble in the future. In Alchemy, the theory does give some clues as to how to proceed. For example to make something beneficial, separate, purify and recombine the 3 principles, to put it simply. You perform this treatment to a plant, assuming you did it properly, its gonna be beneficial. But when you approach it from a chemist's standpoint, you have no clue how to act about. "Make me a remedy out of this plant" says someone to a chemist. What are you going to do? Distill the plant dry? Treat the distillate with some water absorbant and then disolve it in some organic solvent? Chemistry is not oriented around making remedies, its about learning how matter, as we currently understand it, behaves and gives us some understanding as to how to prepare specific substances. Substances which you don't really find in nature all by themselves, and therefore have no idea how they behave in their natural environment, which is therefore, pretty useless for what an Alchemist does. All its good for is teaching you how certain things happen and what to avoid. Thats as far as it goes. Approaching Alchemy as a chemist is like attempting to swim in honey.

Knowing about chemistry (and physics, and geology, and mineralogy) has its advantages and disadvantages regarding alchemy. On the one hand, thanks to them we can easily tell that the speculations of the alchemists regarding many things (like the supposed "generation of metals" in the "bowels of the earth", for example) were quite mistaken. Nature does not work like they imagined it did, so trying to follow their theoretical musings when it comes to nature and its "modus operandi" is a total dead-end, it will lead nowhere. On the other hand, the anti-transmutation mania that chemistry inherited from its 18th century pioneers, and the impositions that physics eventually made upon chemistry regarding theories of matter, gives anyone who swallows it hook, line and sinker a big disadvantage, as he will be accepting defeat a priori, so in fact there would be hardly much of a point in even trying to investigate the subject empirically when you have already accepted the dogma that transmutation via "chemical reactions" is supposedly "impossible". Alchemy, then, becomes merely a historical curiosity, a sort of "precursor" to chemistry, in the eyes of such people. But if they only bothered to do a more systematic empirical investigation of the subject they would realize that the metals that they consider as "elements" are not as "solid", stable and unchanging to "reactions" and "outside influences" as they think, and that some processes/reactions do have surprising effects on at least some metals.

Andro
12-18-2017, 10:25 AM
Personally, when I mention "one matter", I am not referring to something that can be found in nature, readily available to collect and cook to perfection "as is". I don't deny the possibility, but such thing would most likely only be viable if ALL superfluities are transmuted in the process of "cooking", something I personally haven't encountered yet with "raw" matters . Also, all matters have their own "radical humidity" component, so if the superfluous/"accidental" humidity is removed, the "matter" can basically cook itself. Everyone interested can try it themselves. Personally, in my work so far with NATURALLY AVAILABLE matters (with no additional preparation/processing), I have only obtained either alchemically magnetic products, OR learned great lessons regarding the conditions required to condense the "matter" that is NOT naturally and readily available (antimony, for example, can be a good teacher in this regard).


it will lead nowhere.

It will most likely lead nowhere?

:)

Edit: Separate "the pure from the impure", "the earth from the fire", "the subtle from the gross", etc...

Andro
12-18-2017, 12:55 PM
Bonus meme :)

https://okdork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/success-deal-uncertainty-e1493578420954.jpg

Awani
12-18-2017, 03:24 PM
...it slowed him down enough to survive the impact when he hit the solid ground of the station. Had that glass ceiling not been there, he would have died from the massive trauma to pretty much all his body when he had hit either a more solid roof material or the solid ground at full free-falling speed.

Hidden within the comedy of the quote below, there is factual truth... I mean probable models...


You must learn how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. Pick a nice day and try it. The first part is easy. All it requires is the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight and the willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt. That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground. If you are really trying properly, the likelyhood is that you will fail to miss the ground fairly hard.

Clearly, it is the second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.

One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't. You have to have your attention suddenly distracted by something else then you're halfway there, so that you are no longer thinking about falling, or about the ground, or about how much it's going to hurt if you fail to miss it.

It is notoriously difficult to prise your attention away from these three things during the split second you have at your disposal. Hence most people's failure, and their eventual disillusionment with this exhilarating and spectacular sport.

If, however, you are lucky enough to have your attention momentarily distracted at the crucial moment by, say, a gorgeous pair of legs (tentacles, pseudopodia, according to phyllum and/or personal inclination), or a bomb going off in your vicinity, or by suddenly spotting an extremely rare species of beetle crawling along a nearby twig, then in your astonishment you will miss the ground completely and remain bobbing just a few inches above the ground in what might seem to be a slightly foolish manner.

This is the moment for superb and delicate concentration.

Bob and float. Float and bob.

Ignore all considerations of your own weight and simply let yourself waft higher.

Do not listen to what anybody says to you at this point because they are unlikely to say anything helpful.

They are most likely to say something along the lines of "Good God, man, you can't possibly be flying!" It is vitally important not to believe them or they will suddenly be right.

Waft higher and higher. Try a few swoops, gentle ones at first, then drift above the treetops, breathing regularly.

DO NOT WAVE AT ANYBODY.

- from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

:p

Andro
12-18-2017, 04:06 PM
Embedded in the above quote from Douglas Adams, there is a very interesting (theoretical) model for tricking one's mind/consciousness into influencing probability.

I have ONCE in my life had a spontaneous physical levitation experience, with no conscious intention of my own. I was in my late 20s.

No, I wasn't sleeping/dreaming and I wasn't "on" anything. I was fully awake and aware.

The experience lasted around 10 minutes, with my body about 10-20 cm above the floor.

It only took this one time to abolish any sort of "statistical certainty" in my mind. Since then, I was never able to consciously replicate this. Perhaps one day I will. But it was a highly initiatory experience for me.

JDP
12-18-2017, 04:31 PM
Embedded in the above quote from Douglas Adams, there is a very interesting (theoretical) model for tricking one's mind/consciousness into influencing probability.

I have ONCE in my life had a spontaneous physical levitation experience, with no conscious intention of my own. I was in my late 20s.

No, I wasn't sleeping/dreaming and I wasn't "on" anything. I was fully awake and aware.

The experience lasted around 10 minutes, with my body about 10-20 cm above the floor.

It only took this one time to abolish any sort of "statistical certainty" in my mind. Since then, I was never able to consciously replicate this. Perhaps one day I will. But it was a highly initiatory experience for me.

https://musicpleer.bz/#!0e2e6d9c4d95c72f973b1eba8c0b113c

JDP
12-18-2017, 04:34 PM
Hidden within the comedy of the quote below, there is factual truth... I mean probable models...



:p

The only factual part is the comedy. Trying to take what it says seriously will only result in bodily harm to anyone insane or out of touch with reality enough to try it. Empirical facts do not care one bit how much you try to "ignore" them, they will continue to be what they always have been, quite oblivious of what you think about them.

Andro
12-18-2017, 04:50 PM
Trying to take what it says seriously will only result in bodily harm to anyone insane or out of touch with reality enough to try it.

How many people have you studied who attempted this exact method? What empirical research have you conducted in respect to this particular technique? If you haven't conducted any research on this specific model, you are in no position to argue empiricism, let alone "predict facts". I'm not being contrarian, I'm just arguing for scientific empiricism based on actually researching the discussed model, as opposed to mere speculation, without taking into consideration the added variables. One either is or isn't an empiricist. No cutting corners and/or dismissing model-focused research just for the sake of making "easier" predictions. Many scientists actually have this "problem" - they dismiss more "fringe" models because those models contradict their own interpretation of "common sense", for which there is no place in proper scientific/empirical research.

JDP
12-18-2017, 04:54 PM
Personally, when I mention "one matter", I am not referring to something that can be found in nature, readily available to collect and cook to perfection "as is". I don't deny the possibility, but such thing would most likely only be viable if ALL superfluities are transmuted in the process of "cooking", something I personally haven't encountered yet with "raw" matters . Also, all matters have their own "radical humidity" component, so if the superfluous/"accidental" humidity is removed, the "matter" can basically cook itself. Everyone interested can try it themselves. Personally, in my work so far with NATURALLY AVAILABLE matters (with no additional preparation/processing), I have only obtained either alchemically magnetic products, OR learned great lessons regarding the conditions required to condense the "matter" that is NOT naturally and readily available (antimony, for example, can be a good teacher in this regard).



It will most likely lead nowhere?

:)

Edit: Separate "the pure from the impure", "the earth from the fire", "the subtle from the gross", etc...

If you follow the full "version" of the "one matter only" claim, namely, "one matter, one vessel, one furnace, one regimen" then the only possible thing to do is to "cook" this mysterious and elusive "one matter" that no seeker ever seems to be able to find anywhere already made for his convenience, no matter how long and hard they try. There is no other choice. You can do nothing but "cook" it. If you try to distill it in order to separate something from it, for example, you would be in direct violation of the "one vessel" part of the trap. But like I keep explaining: this is all a big malicious deception. The alchemists who promote this trap want to fool you into wasting your time trying to find such a peculiar "one matter" somewhere, but since nature cannot make such a thing you will never find it, so if you swallow the bait then you are very effectively taken out of the picture, condemned to waste the rest of your life in a hopeless search for what is in fact an artificial product. It has to be made by the operator by putting the right starting substances (notice the plural) together in the right proportions and making them react. But nature will pretty much never be able to carry this out for you on her own, if for no other reason that it lacks the appropriate tools to be able to carry out the required operations.

JDP
12-18-2017, 04:58 PM
How many people have you studied who attempted this exact method? What empirical research have you conducted in respect to this particular technique? If you haven't conducted any research on this specific model, you are in no position to argue empiricism, let alone "predict facts". I'm not being contrarian, I'm just arguing for scientific empiricism based on actually researching the discussed model, as opposed to mere speculation, without taking into consideration the added variables. One either is or isn't an empiricist. No cutting corners and/or dismissing model-focused research just for the sake of making "easier" predictions. Many scientists actually have this "problem" - they dismiss more "fringe" models because those models contradict their own interpretation of "common sense", for which there is no place in proper scientific/empirical research.

Do we really need any "special research" for something that we can plainly see the results of in everyday life??? Millions of people fall down and hit the ground on a daily basis. It's part of our collective daily lives. How many of them have "avoided" the collision with it? Trying to request "proof" of something so obvious is hardly necessary.

Andro
12-18-2017, 04:58 PM
https://musicpleer.bz/#!0e2e6d9c4d95c72f973b1eba8c0b113c

Are you me?

No you aren't.

You are in NO position to to place value judgement on my experience, or to classify it as "illusion", "imagination" or whatever fits your belief system.

An open minded and genuine empiricist, rather than trolling away with mockery, would have more likely inquired about the conditions of that experience, whether there was anything different in my thought patterns or circumstances, etc... But no, mockery is of course the first (or possibly even only?) resort for a self-proclaimed "empiricist" such as yourself. Your posts sound less and less scientific and increasingly "religious". Genuine scientific curiosity and open-mindedness to less "accepted/acceptable" probable outcomes have become unwelcome strangers in these parts...

Andro
12-18-2017, 05:04 PM
Do we really need any "special research" for something that we can plainly see the results of in everyday life??? Millions of people fall down and hit the ground on a daily basis.

Yes, we DO need special research, because of the added variables. New variables = new research. New variables (at least temporarily) take the "obvious" out of the equation. That's the correct EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC way, of which you don't seem to be particularly fond.

Can you be certain that those "millions of people" have applied the technique described in that particular model? No, you can't.

JDP
12-18-2017, 05:06 PM
Are you me?

No you aren't.

You are in NO position to to place value judgement on my experience, or to classify it as "illusion", "imagination" or whatever fits your belief system.

An open minded and genuine empiricist, rather than trolling away with mockery, would have more likely inquired about the conditions of that experience, whether there was anything different in my thought patterns or circumstances, etc... But no, mockery is of course the first (or possibly even only?) resort for a self-proclaimed "empiricist" such as yourself. Your posts sound less and less scientific and increasingly "religious". Genuine scientific curiosity and open-mindedness to less "accepted/acceptable" probable outcomes have become unwelcome strangers in these parts...

You yourself admitted that you have never been able to replicate the supposed effect. I merely provided what is the most likely answer: you imagined the event. Nothing wrong with that. Many people think they saw things that when more properly investigated turn out to have very different explanation.

Andro
12-18-2017, 05:11 PM
I merely provided what is the most likely answer: you imagined the event.

Mild improvement. From direct mockery to "most likely". And yet, without displaying ANY scientific drive for further inquiry, you automatically settle for the "most likely". That's NOT how progress works. We need to be curious, alert, inquisitive and especially non-dogmatic for genuine scientific breakthroughs to occur.

JDP
12-18-2017, 05:13 PM
Yes, we DO need special research, because of the added variables. New variables = new research. New variables (at least temporarily) take the "obvious" out of the equation. That's the correct EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC way, of which you don't seem to be particularly fond.

Can you be certain that those "millions of people" have applied the technique described in that particular model? No, you can't.

The "variables" in this case are useless since it relies on the old & debunked "mind over matter" claim. This has been tested UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS MANY TIMES, and we know very well it does not work. Why, then, would it work in this particular case of supposedly being able to "avoid" a collision with the ground? We can easily predict it will fail just about as much as supposedly moving or bending objects with your mind, or "levitating" or "flying" by simply wanting it to be so or by flapping your arms real hard and "concentrating" on flying, for example. James Randi in fact made a second career out of investigating and challenging these kinds of suspicious claims.

Andro
12-18-2017, 05:25 PM
We can easily predict it will fail just about as much as supposedly moving or bending objects with your mind, or "levitating" or "flying" by simply wanting it to be so or by flapping your arms real hard and "concentrating" on flying, for example. James Randi in fact made a second career out of investigating and challenging these kinds of suspicious claims.


One problem is that you have to miss the ground accidentally. It's no good deliberately intending to miss the ground because you won't.

That's what's so interesting about this model. It EXCLUDES direct intention to levitate. "Wanting it to be so" (in this model) would in fact guarantee the fatal fall.

JDP
12-18-2017, 05:29 PM
That's what's so interesting about this model. It EXCLUDES direct intention to levitate. "Wanting it to be so" (in this model) would in fact guarantee the fatal fall.

Then it would be a case simply impossible to investigate. You could spend 1000 years trying to test it everyday and it could just not happen. The people who defend the claim won't be able to prove it either for the same reason. It's a dead-end either way. But I think you are taking that bit of COMEDY too seriously.

Awani
12-18-2017, 05:41 PM
The "variables" in this case are useless since it relies on the old & debunked "mind over matter" claim.

Nothing has been debunked, and if you study history you know that many things have been debunked in the past that later turned out to be NOT debunked.

As for the rest, especially your "knowledge" of Andro's experience, I will go back to what we talked about long ago when I told you to give me proof that you love your parents/wife/child (if you love them that is). You can't prove it, and you don't really have an obligaton to do so either.

I knew this guy who drank too much, but now he is in AA. I told him about my interests in altered states and other realities, and he told me that when he wakes up in the morning he wants to know, with 100 % certainty, that everything around him is 100 % real and solid... because that is what keeps him both sane and safe.

There is one aspect here that has not been adressed: fear

The mysterious, the abyss, the unknown, infinity, God... afterlife... all of it... to face such things, to experience such things... well there is no shame in saying that it can be very scary. Even if the fear is not there at the surface, it lies within all of us. We all have it I think, some have it more, some have it less. Some overcome the fear. Some never.

Are you afraid? ;)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8xNyipbl3Rx0WaL2JFm0b_-H6CsloAuzkjjgOUBhQBQUrlAz9

:p

Andro
12-18-2017, 05:49 PM
You could spend 1000 years trying to test it everyday and it could just not happen.

Or it could happen. We won't know until we actually spend this time, BUT:


it would be a case simply impossible to investigate.

YES!

Just like it is IMPOSSIBLE to investigate (not to mention prove or predict!) pretty much anything (model/outcome) with certainty. ALL models, be they scientific, mathematical, logical, etc - are founded on assumptions/axioms that are IMPOSSIBLE to ever prove with certainty. That's why we also need to "make allowance" in our inquisitive minds for the least probable, for the "irrational", for what seems to defy "common sense". If we don't "make allowance" for this, we're not scientists - we're zealots.

I have deliberately used the Douglas Adams example to take this exchange to a particular extreme, leading to the aforementioned impossibility of proving certainty. This impossibility is just as valid for less "extreme" cases. The scientific/empirical mind needs to account/adjust for this.

----------------------------------------------------------------

JDP
12-18-2017, 10:36 PM
Nothing has been debunked, and if you study history you know that many things have been debunked in the past that later turned out to be NOT debunked.

Hundreds of such claims have been investigated and tested. None of them showed that what the claimants said was real. We can safely conclude that no such phenomena has ever been truly observed by anyone.


As for the rest, especially your "knowledge" of Andro's experience, I will go back to what we talked about long ago when I told you to give me proof that you love your parents/wife/child (if you love them that is). You can't prove it, and you don't really have an obligaton to do so either.

There is a big difference between "love", a subjective feeling, and "levitating", which should it really happen would be defying the pull of gravity, something that everyone can objectively observe and does not vary from one individual to the next. One can be debated, the other one can't. Either you can defy the pull of gravity through some mysterious "power" or you can't.

JDP
12-18-2017, 10:49 PM
Or it could happen. We won't know until we actually spend this time, BUT:



YES!

Just like it is IMPOSSIBLE to investigate (not to mention prove or predict!) pretty much anything (model/outcome) with certainty. ALL models, be they scientific, mathematical, logical, etc - are founded on assumptions/axioms that are IMPOSSIBLE to ever prove with certainty. That's why we also need to "make allowance" in our inquisitive minds for the least probable, for the "irrational", for what seems to defy "common sense". If we don't "make allowance" for this, we're not scientists - we're zealots.

I have deliberately used the Douglas Adams example to take this exchange to a particular extreme, leading to the aforementioned impossibility of proving certainty. This impossibility is just as valid for less "extreme" cases. The scientific/empirical mind needs to account/adjust for this.

----------------------------------------------------------------

It can be "predicted" because our daily experience shows us that such a thing does not happen. Saying that something cannot be investigated on purpose because of the uncertain nature of the claim itself (i.e. it may happen or it may not happen, since the human test subject is not in control of the claimed phenomenon) does not mean that it does or it must exist. Sticking to our example of "avoiding" a collision with the ground when you fall: since falling down happens on a daily basis to millions of people all over the planet, we should expect reports of such freak "avoidance" to happen at least every now and then. We are talking about the collective experience of mankind here, not just of one or a few individuals. Over the years we would certainly get a few reports of witnesses who saw someone fall down and incredibly enough not hit the ground. But how many such reports have you ever heard of? So far I can't recall even one. That by itself already does not give much of any encouragement that such a phenomenon can actually be real.

Andro
12-18-2017, 10:50 PM
Hundreds of such claims have been investigated and tested. None of them showed that what the claimants said was real. We can safely conclude that no such phenomena has ever been truly observed by anyone.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/historys-most-outstanding-case-of-levitation-witnessed-by-multitudes-expert-discusses_1413136.html (https://www.theepochtimes.com/historys-most-outstanding-case-of-levitation-witnessed-by-multitudes-expert-discusses_1413136.html)

JDP
12-18-2017, 11:04 PM
https://www.theepochtimes.com/historys-most-outstanding-case-of-levitation-witnessed-by-multitudes-expert-discusses_1413136.html (https://www.theepochtimes.com/historys-most-outstanding-case-of-levitation-witnessed-by-multitudes-expert-discusses_1413136.html)

You tell me what's more likely to be the case: Copertino really "levitated" or maybe, just maybe, he was a pretty good illusionist? For example, I saw David Copperfield make an elephant disappear. It sure seems like he did! But I happen to know he uses tricks to achieve such illusions. I also saw David Blaine "levitate" in front of people, right on the streets of cities, without any stage! But I also happen to know he is no "saint" that somehow can really defy gravity. He is just a clever illusionist. What I mean by this is that people can be misled into seeing things which are not really there, or are not really happening like they look like they are happening. The difference is that illusionists/magicians are honest and admit that the whole thing is a trick. The charlatans do not, and try to deceive others into thinking that such things are real. That's why such extraordinary claims need testing under controlled conditions (where cheating is taken out of the equation) in order to be really proven.

Andro
12-18-2017, 11:06 PM
That by itself already does not give much of any encouragement that such a phenomenon can actually be real.

Indeed. But it doesn't empirically prove the impossibility of it, either. Therefore, it is not a FACT. While we can predict a very high probability to fall, we still cannot predict is as a FACT.

I'm not saying it's a common occurrence to float in the air. What I'm saying is that an open & inquisitive mind should most definitely not rule out the possibility, as slight as it might be.

Another interesting possibility is that such cases are more common than we might suspect, but the people involved make a conscious decision NOT to come forward. The prospects of becoming a lab rat are not so encouraging, either... And how about successful adepts? Why aren't THEY "coming out"? Why aren't THEY going to be have their transmutations tested by Randy in a "controlled environment"?

What would be more disturbing to the status quo? Official proof of alchemical transmutation? Or human levitation?

Randy himself didn't come out as gay until late in life. Certain people prefer to keep their "different-ness" a secret, and often for good reason, such as for fear of persecution, demonization or the likes of it.

Andro
12-18-2017, 11:18 PM
such extraordinary claims need testing under controlled conditions (where cheating is taken out of the equation) in order to be really proven.

And what if those "controlled environments" also take the associated emotional/meditative states out of the equation? It's a double-edged sword. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of charlatans, but I for one deeply doubt that people with genuine abilities would allow themselves to be "tested" in this manner.

Most historical accounts of levitation occur under unique circumstances, not very easy to recreate in a "controlled environment".

Here are the main categories of recorded occurrences of human levitation:


After studying all the accounts, it becomes clear that levitation can be broken down into seven main categories:

ONE: Ecstatic Levitation. Most commonly experienced by Saints or the very religious, this type of levitation involves the witness experiencing a state of divine union with God. The episodes usually (but not always) occur after years of prayer and devotion and may be provoked by exposure to religious paraphernalia, Nature, music, or during prayer, at which point the witness falls into an ecstatic trance. The body may become rigid as it is slowly lifted up into the air where it remains suspended for the duration of the trance, which can last from minutes to hours. In some cases, visible light is emitted from the body. These states are usually involuntary, unexpected and uncontrollable. They are said to be caused by the grace of God.

TWO: Meditative Levitation. Most commonly experienced by yogis, ascetics, shamans, mystics, sorcerers…this is differentiated from ecstatic levitation in that it is an apparently fostered talent, one that is intentionally cultivated, controlled and developed through specific techniques involving breath-control, meditation, fasting, chastity, mantras or other methods. It is presumably internally generated by the power of the human organism and is controllable. Otherwise, it seems closely related or nearly identical to ecstatic levitation.

THREE: Crisis Levitation. This type of levitation is reported by all kinds of people regardless of culture, age, race, sex, religion or level of spiritual development. It occurs during a time of emergency or trauma, usually falls or in some cases illness, saving the witness from injury or death. The episodes are typically of brief duration and are not controlled. They are usually attributed by the witnesses to guardian spirits or angels.

FOUR: Mediumistic Levitation. This occurs to all people, but most often to so-called psychic mediums. The episodes are usually brief, lasting a few seconds to a few minutes. Like meditative levitation, mediumistic levitation is controllable, though this is not always the case. However, it is differentiated from meditative levitation in that it appears to be generated by an outside force, usually postulated as spirits or ghosts, or sometimes God or the Devil, as opposed to being internally generated. It also differs from meditative levitation in that it occurs with little or no spiritual training from the witness.

FIVE: Spontaneous Levitation. This category involves those levitations that seem to have no obvious trigger. Occurring most often to young children, it can happen at any time. It usually lasts only moments and there is little control over the events, but they may return briefly, on and off, for a period of months. They seem to occur more commonly to people who have strong spiritual inclinations.

SIX: Sleeping Levitation. This rare form of levitation occurs only when the percipient is asleep. It is reported by all kinds of people and can last for seconds, minutes or longer. The levitator remains in a horizontal floating position. Sometimes the levitator may awaken. Other times, the levitation is witnessed by others.

SEVEN: Traveling Levitation. Also called running levitation or supernatural agility, this form of levitation involves rising not so much upwards as forwards. It is reported in many different cultures. It is controllable and allows the person to travel long distances. While in this state, the runner touches the ground but only barely, and with long leaping bounds, allowing travel at extremely high speeds. In other cases, the levitator doesn’t touch the ground at all, but may fly for distances of up to a mile or more. Otherwise, it is likely closely related to meditative and ecstatic levitation.

These seven types of levitation have occurred in virtually every culture in the world.
SOURCE (https://prestondennett.weebly.com/human-levitation.html)

Awani
12-19-2017, 12:34 AM
That's why such extraordinary claims need testing under controlled conditions...

Controlled? LOL. There is no such thing. The illusion of control, yes perhaps.

Statistically the people most likely to go through a paranormal experience are those that are not "into" such things. People who really want to see a ghost, UFO or such things rarely do. The way to tell if someone is a charlatan is if they "want" to be a shaman or a healer etc. The "real" healers/shamans never want to be one initially, and they do not strive to be become one. Rather they are recruited by ? [what I call The Divine Mystery]. Kind of goes back to the wisdom of that Douglas Adams quote earlier... so hold on to your hat JDP...

Also you might have missed it (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5467-One-Matter-Empiricism-amp-Alchemy-Discerning-Truth-from-Deception&p=53562#post53562), but I think the issue is "fear" [conscious or not]... usually the root of all bigotry, racism, phobia, ignorance, boxed-in-thinking etc etc... and I think it is the root of the scientific mind as well...

:p

Awani
12-19-2017, 12:42 AM
There is a big difference between "love", a subjective feeling, and "levitating", which should it really happen would be defying the pull of gravity, something that everyone can objectively observe and does not vary from one individual to the next. One can be debated, the other one can't. Either you can defy the pull of gravity through some mysterious "power" or you can't.

No, because I was using love as an allegory to explain that you cannot prove/disprove someones experience.

Also I do study science a lot and follow its development weekly... and it would be wise to understand that "gravity" is NOT solved yet by mainstream science... and a scientist that says something is a LAW is a fool and a bad scientist. Real scientists speak about theories and models, because that is all they have until new developments happen. Finally there is no proof that any "law" of anything in the Universe is constant.

Even the Big Bang is a theory, as well as the THEORY of Evolution... both are actually starting to crumble with new "evidence", and new models made NOT by crackpots... but by established mainstream REAL scientists.

:p

Kibric
12-19-2017, 01:49 AM
theres an argument for consensus reality

The term "ships not seen", in the context of scientific discovery, is reference to the famous Christopher Columbus story of how, upon arrival to the new world, the native Indians, supposedly, could “not see the ships” in the harbor, even though they were in plain sight, supposedly, because they did not have the proper mental slots or receptors to process or accept such foreign or rather never before seen views—meaning that, often times, scientists and modern thinkers, closed into a certain way of seeing or thinking about things, will often not "see" what is directly in front of them; a term which has a cousin similarity to not seeing the forest amid the trees and or not seeing the trees amid the forest, depending on discussion; and is related to the glass walls phenomenon.
http://www.eoht.info/page/Ships+not+seen

empty atoms

So, the space in atoms isn’t empty. A more accurate thing to say is that the overwhelming majority of the matter in an atom is concentrated in the nucleus, which is tiny compared to the region where the electrons are found. However, even in the nucleus the same “problem” crops up; protons and neutrons are just “the ringing of bells” and aren’t simply particles either. The question “where exactly is this electron/proton/whatever?” isn’t merely difficult to answer, the question genuinely doesn’t have an answer. In quantum physics things tend spread out between a lot of states (in this case those different states include different positions).
http://www.askamathematician.com/2015/07/q-if-atoms-are-99-99-space-what-kind-of-space-is-it-is-it-empty-vacuum/
https://education.jlab.org/qa/how-much-of-an-atom-is-empty-space.html


The human brain also emits waves, like when a person focuses her attention or remembers something. This activity fires thousands of neurons simultaneously at the same frequency generating a wave — but at a rate closer to 10 to 100 cycles per second.
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/can-brain-waves-interfere-with-radio-waves/

its a good explanation how we create the universe we experience

We do not accept, nowadays, as it happened in the past, that our perceptive world is just the plain result of an encounter between a ''naive" brain and the physical properties of a stimulus. Actually, perceptions differ, in quality, from those physical characteristics, because the brain extracts an information from the stimulus and interprets it, according to previous similar experiences.
We experiment electromagnetic waves, not as waves, but as images and colours. We experiment vibrating objects, not as vibrations, but as sounds. We experiment chemical compounds dissolved in air or water, not as chemicals, but as specific smells and tastes. Colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds, built from sensory experiences.
They do not exist, as such, outside our brain. Actually, the universe is colourless, inodorous, insipid and silent. Therefore, we can now answer one of the questions of traditional philosophy : Does a sound exist when a tree falls in a forest, if nobody is present to hear it ? No, the fall of the tree only creates vibrations. The sound occurs if vibrations are perceived by a living being.
Information from the environment or from the body itself, is picked up by the sensory systems and utilized by the brain for perception, regulating corporeal movements and maintaining arousal. A sensory system starts to work when a stimulus, usually from the outside world, is detected by a sensitive neuron, the first sensorial receptor. This receptor converts the physical expression of the stimulus (light, sound, heat, pressure, taste, smell) into action potentials , which transforms it into electric signs.
From there, the signs are conducted to a nearby area of primary processing, where the initial characteristics of the information are elaborated, according to the nature of the original stimulus : colour, shape, distance, shade, etc. Then, the already modified information is transmitted to zones of secondary processing in the thalamus (if originated by olfactory stimuli, it is processed in the olfactory bulbs and then directly conducted to the medial area of the temporal lobe).
In the thalamic zones, older data, originated from both the cortex and the limbic system and containing similar experiences, link to the new information, in order to form a message, which is carried to its specific cortical centre. There, the meaning and importance of the new detected stimulus are determined by a conscious process of identification called perception.
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/opiniao/percepcao_i.htm

we dont experience all that exists within the universe, only a picture the brain can build for us
what else exists in the universe that humans are yet to perceive ?
empirical proof of a miracle or supernatural event raises questions to how we can explain it
magick becomes science we are yet to understand, more of the universe we were previously unaware of

science prefers to have an answer rather than no answer
so if the shoe fits....?


“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge”
- Daniel Boorstin

JDP
12-19-2017, 06:48 AM
Indeed. But it doesn't empirically prove the impossibility of it, either. Therefore, it is not a FACT. While we can predict a very high probability to fall, we still cannot predict is as a FACT.

I'm not saying it's a common occurrence to float in the air. What I'm saying is that an open & inquisitive mind should most definitely not rule out the possibility, as slight as it might be.

Another interesting possibility is that such cases are more common than we might suspect, but the people involved make a conscious decision NOT to come forward. The prospects of becoming a lab rat are not so encouraging, either... And how about successful adepts? Why aren't THEY "coming out"? Why aren't THEY going to be have their transmutations tested by Randy in a "controlled environment"?

What would be more disturbing to the status quo? Official proof of alchemical transmutation? Or human levitation?

Randy himself didn't come out as gay until late in life. Certain people prefer to keep their "different-ness" a secret, and often for good reason, such as for fear of persecution, demonization or the likes of it.

Randi & his people tested hundreds of such claims over all the years his million dollar paranormal challenge was around. None even made it through the preliminary tests. They all miserably failed to achieve anything of what they boasted they could do. That should tell you something about how little credibility this whole world of "paranormal" claims has

Transmutation is very different from such bizarre claims, though. This one I know for sure it is real. If by the time I am ready to demonstrate the reality of transmutation to the world Randi happens to still be alive and willing to put his foundation's $1 million prize on the line again, I will gladly take on his challenge. And he will lose this time.

JDP
12-19-2017, 06:56 AM
No, because I was using love as an allegory to explain that you cannot prove/disprove someones experience.

Also I do study science a lot and follow its development weekly... and it would be wise to understand that "gravity" is NOT solved yet by mainstream science... and a scientist that says something is a LAW is a fool and a bad scientist. Real scientists speak about theories and models, because that is all they have until new developments happen. Finally there is no proof that any "law" of anything in the Universe is constant.

Even the Big Bang is a theory, as well as the THEORY of Evolution... both are actually starting to crumble with new "evidence", and new models made NOT by crackpots... but by established mainstream REAL scientists.

:p

But "love" is subjective, not everyone may experience it in the same way. However, we all experience gravity in the exact same way. Again, a big difference between both.

I agree with you regarding theories, but those are just interpretations of EMPIRICAL FACTS. Theories have changed, and will continue to change. But it is the FACTS those theories are trying to "explain" that do not change. More new FACTS may come forth, but they merely supplement the older ones. They do not invalidate them. For example, sticking with gravity as a perfect example: no amount of theories or new FACTS will eliminate the FACT that gravity always pulls things in. That is a FACT. NOTHING will ever change that.

JDP
12-19-2017, 07:04 AM
Controlled? LOL. There is no such thing. The illusion of control, yes perhaps.

Statistically the people most likely to go through a paranormal experience are those that are not "into" such things. People who really want to see a ghost, UFO or such things rarely do. The way to tell if someone is a charlatan is if they "want" to be a shaman or a healer etc. The "real" healers/shamans never want to be one initially, and they do not strive to be become one. Rather they are recruited by ? [what I call The Divine Mystery]. Kind of goes back to the wisdom of that Douglas Adams quote earlier... so hold on to your hat JDP...

Also you might have missed it (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5467-One-Matter-Empiricism-amp-Alchemy-Discerning-Truth-from-Deception&p=53562#post53562), but I think the issue is "fear" [conscious or not]... usually the root of all bigotry, racism, phobia, ignorance, boxed-in-thinking etc etc... and I think it is the root of the scientific mind as well...

:p

Of course there is such a thing as controlled conditions. Watch Randi debunk this guy's claims:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

See what he did? See what measures he took so that the guy could NOT cheat? What happened to his supposed "powers" once the possibility of TRICKERY was taken away? Yep, he totally failed! Why? Well, simple, because HE WAS CHEATING AND DID NOT REALLY HAVE ANY SUCH "POWERS" AS HE CLAIMED. That is "controlled conditions". They sure as heck exist and work. And that's how such "paranormal" claims should be tested.

Andro
12-19-2017, 07:07 AM
Randi & his people tested hundreds of such claims over all the years his million dollar paranormal challenge was around. None even made it through the preliminary tests. They all miserably failed to achieve anything of what they boasted they could do. That should tell you something about how little credibility this whole world of "paranormal" claims has.

That's because those with genuine abilities are unlikely to seek that kind of attention.


Transmutation is very different from such bizarre claims, though. This one I know for sure it is real.

I personally believe it's real for you. But some may argue you "imagined it" (when hearing such claims). Or that there was some gold in there to start with. Some would possibly even compare you to Agent Mulder: "I want to believe" (in transmutation).

Know what? I changed my mind. Your experience with particular transmutation was entirely imagined. You just wanted it so badly, that it became real in your mind.

If it was real (which it wasn't) you would already have enough to go to Randy and collect that check. Transmutation is transmutation, right? But no, you didn't go to Randy with your "bizarre" claim, so I am therefore establishing that you entirely imagined it :) Oh, but wait, the prize is not currently valid, so there's a great excuse...


If by the time I am ready to demonstrate the reality of transmutation to the world Randi happens to still be alive and willing to put his foundation's $1 million prize on the line again, I will gladly take on his challenge. And he will lose this time.

Not sure who's going to be the "looser" in the bigger picture, and I doubt you'll ever get to enjoy that million $ ... People with such accomplishments stay silent for a reason...

By the time I'm ready to prove the reality of "superhuman" abilities, I won't go to Randy, I'll teleport directly to your living room :)

Also, people who make extraordinary claims and take them to the media are not the ones we should base our deductions on. Deduction based exclusively on attention seekers? Not very reliable...

One would require a database that also includes those who remain hidden, and as this is not really possible, there goes the research...

---------------------------------------------------------

Andro
12-19-2017, 07:38 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17aP2mFi7Ko

JDP
12-19-2017, 07:46 AM
That's because those with genuine abilities are unlikely to seek that kind of attention.

I don't buy that. You could easily arrange a more private test, where you have the possibility of remaining anonymous and still show the reality of what you claim (and still get handsomely rewarded for your troubles.) The fact is that all people making such fishy claims miserably fail to perform when they are properly tested.


I personally believe it's real for you. But some may argue you "imagined it" (when hearing such claims). Or that there was some gold in there to start with. Some would possibly even compare you to Agent Mulder: "I want to believe" (in transmutation).

Know what? I changed my mind. Your experience with particular transmutation was entirely imagined. You just wanted it so badly, that it became real in your mind.

How can it be "imagined" when I have repeated several of these processes many times, always with the same success??? This is not any "coincidence" or any "imagined" thing. It is very real and repeatable. You can do it too. Anyone can. It has NOTHING to do with any "supernatural" powers or abilities. They are just EMPIRICAL FACTS. And FACTS are the same for all, not just for me.


If it was real (which it wasn't) you would already have enough to go to Randy and collect that check. Transmutation is transmutation, right? But no, you didn't go to Randy with your "bizarre" claim, so I am therefore establishing that you entirely imagined it :)

Since this is a subject still under investigation, of course I am not ready to openly teach it to the world. And first I want to make a nice profit out of it too, after all the time and money I have invested in investigating it. Once transmutation is an established FACT, the price of silver & gold will inevitably fall down. So unless I can get patents for some of these processes, there is no way I will make much of any profit from them once the cat's out of the bag.


Oh, but wait, the prize is not currently valid, so there's a great excuse...

If he is willing to bring it back at some future time when I am done with my research, I will gladly take him on. And he will lose that prize money this time. Transmutation is a FACT. And since it does not require any supposed special "powers", anyone can carry it out, even Randi himself, so it should be pretty easy to put to the test. Any able experimenter following the directions correctly will obtain small amounts of gold or silver from materials where there previously were none.


Not sure who's going to be the "looser" in the bigger picture, and I doubt you'll ever get to enjoy that million $ ... People with such accomplishments stay silent for a reason...

By the time I'm ready to prove the reality of "superhuman" abilities, I won't go to Randy, I'll teleport directly to your living room :)

Also, people who make extraordinary claims and take them to the media are not the ones we should base our deductions on. Deduction based exclusively on attention seekers? Not very reliable...

One would require a database that also includes those who remain hidden, and as this is not really possible, there goes the research...

---------------------------------------------------------

Not really a valid argument. You could demonstrate the reality of your claims and make arrangements for some privacy at the same time. It's a matter of reaching an agreement with the people doing the testing. Many of the people who have been tested actually really believed the things they claimed, others were just cheats and charlatans. It's a mixed bag. The fact they all have in common is that they ALL fail to perform what they claim once they are properly tested.

Andro
12-19-2017, 07:57 AM
you could easily arrange a more private test, where you have the possibility of remaining anonymous

While some things may be interpreted as "facts", privacy/anonymity is not one of them... Especially if one "comes out" intentionally.


How can it be "imagined" when I have repeated several of these processes many times, always with the same success??? This is not any "coincidence" or any "imagined" thing. It is very real and repeatable. You can do it too. Anyone can. It has NOTHING to do with any "supernatural" powers or abilities. They are just EMPIRICAL FACTS. And FACTS are the same for all, not just for me.

At this point, those "facts" you claim about transmutation are real only to you. There has been no peer-reviewed empirical evidence to back up your claims of transmutation. As far as I can tell, you imagined the whole story. Reminds me of Paracelsus who constantly bragged about his "elixirs of long life" and died in his 40s. Or Philalethes/Starkey.


Since this is a subject still under investigation, of course I am not ready to openly teach it to the world.

Of course you would say that. Because it never happened and you imagined it all. Repeatedly! :)

But I get it. My own research into UN-aided human teleportation is still in research and I am also not yet ready to share it with the world :)

________________________________

Edit: I'm joking about the "imagined" part. I DO believe you. You are a dedicated researcher and you are obsessed with Alchemy. I see no reason why you would imagine such claims.

On the other hand, I would expect the courtesy of you not dismissing my own (and others') experiences with serial mockery and obsessive "debunking".

True Initiate
12-19-2017, 10:29 AM
By the way, I'm sure that some of you might have heard or read about the Kervran experiments which for me seem to be pretty well made in an emprical sense. What I can not find is a work that actually has results speaking against his data and interpretation. Most people just say it is impossible and that's it. If anyone has a source please let me know.

Edward Esko, a pupil of Michio Kushi has published the results of some Kervran experiments in his book "Cool Fusion"
http://www.coolfusion.org/

https://s31.postimg.org/k9uim8ltj/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/k9uim8ltj/)
https://s31.postimg.org/6u7hwi2yf/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/6u7hwi2yf/)

and he even made two youtube videos about Kervan's carbon to iron experiment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElTEeucgBic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoFfVstzIU4

Interesting commentary by Mathias Grabiak on carbon to iron experiments.

https://s31.postimg.org/y3ivb21hj/image.jpg (https://postimg.org/image/y3ivb21hj/)

Florius Frammel
12-19-2017, 09:26 PM
Thank you!

Florius Frammel
12-20-2017, 05:04 PM
@Andro
May I ask if you or a member of your household at that point in time were/was in a highly emotional state of mind? What I read about this kinds of phenomenas is that in any case it was connected to deep emotions.
I don't want to argue about the possibility of levitation per se, I am just curious.

theFool
12-20-2017, 05:39 PM
By the way, I'm sure that some of you might have heard or read about the Kervran experiments which for me seem to be pretty well made in an emprical sense. What I can not find is a work that actually has results speaking against his data and interpretation. Most people just say it is impossible and that's it. If anyone has a source please let me know.This experiment is very easy to replicate successfully. It does give a magnetic carbon dust.

I doubt it is iron and also I doubt it is a magnetic form of carbon. The latter explanation is a JDP-like claim completely unfounded but for some reason accepted, just to save someone from trying the experiment and get into all this trouble. The former is very optimistic, almost belonging in the imaginary realm. Kevran or whoever tried it could have checked for the existence of iron through some common test. What kind of scientist says "this is iron" just because it is magnetic.

Florius Frammel
12-20-2017, 05:48 PM
It should be found out rather easily if it is Iron or Carbon with for example a mass spectrometer. It would take a few seconds to get sensible results. Unfortunately those who posses these Instruments do not seem to be very interested in these kind of experiments, or they just don't know about them.

I am rather interested in Kervrans work about biological transmutation.

True Initiate
12-20-2017, 06:35 PM
As i said previously the results of the Carbon to Iron experiment are published in the book "Cool Fusion" by Edward Esko, page 56 in the second edition.
https://www.amazon.com/Cool-Fusion-Edward-Esko/dp/1477563725
It is also published in "Infinite Energy Magazine" Issue 78, March/April 2008; Chapter: "Production of Metals from Non-Metallic Graphite".
http://infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue78/index.html

Florius Frammel
12-20-2017, 06:57 PM
And I thank you again!
I ordered the book and am curious about its content.

True Initiate
12-20-2017, 07:13 PM
You will not be disappointed! For those who still remember there are also results from Ohsawa and Kushi experiments described in "Philosphers Stone" which we fund raised it on this forum.

I have just watched this video which ties in on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmb0CSXF53w

black
12-21-2017, 03:16 AM
Hi JDP

Not sure if you are into this type of research ?

Possibly an Alchemist with an extended consciousness could manifest all the
gold he wanted. This may be seen as One Matter ???

Just a case of Mind over Matter.



As described in Celeste Adams's interview (see The Conscious Creation of a New Paradigm), Dr. William A. Tiller's studies and experiments have proven that human consciousness "changes space." And he explains how this works in a way that's easy for us to follow and understand.

But further — and of importance to the subject matter of our current issue — he demonstrates not only that Zero Point Energy is, for all practical purposes, absolutely limitless, but that in it lies our future potential.

It's not a hoax, and it's not "science fiction." It's science fact. It's real, and it's coming soon.

Proving Scientifically that Mind Affects Matter

Dr. Tiller's experiments to demonstrate the effect of mind over matter began by imprinting electrical devices with a specific intention. The imprinting was done by four experienced meditators, people who Tiller says were "highly inner-self-managed people."

Then this device — imprinted with the intent — was wrapped in aluminum and sent by overnight shipping to a laboratory 2000 miles away, where it was placed beside the "target experiment" and turned on.

So, for example, the electrical device might be imprinted with the idea of raising or lowering the pH of water. And if the device was turned on in the vicinity of a jar of water, the expectation was that the pH of the water would be raised or lowered, depending upon the original intent.

In the case of that particular experiment, they were looking for at least a full pH unit of difference, something large enough that the results could not be attributed to faulty measurement (it's possible to measure 1/100th or even 1/1000th of a degree of change in pH, so one full unit is a lot).

So the first result was that they were in fact able to achieve an unambiguous change in the water's pH state simply through its being in the vicinity of an electrical device that had been imprinted with that intent. And they were able to raise pH (or lower it, depending upon the intent) in this way by as much as 1-1/2 full units, a very large amount.

The Effect of Repeated Experiments

It was when the same experiment was repeated over and over, however, that the really significant effects began to show. For Tiller has found and proved that when intent is repeated in the same space, eventually it becomes permanent. And when that happens, the laws of physics in that space no longer operate as they did before! (For a homely but meaningful analogy, can you remember when it was "impossible" for man to run a four-minute mile?)

When they kept running the same experiment over and over again, Tiller says, the laboratory began to become "conditioned," so that the same result would happen more strongly or more quickly. And eventually, it would happen even after the device was no longer in the room.

"In one of the spaces that we have used," Tiller says, "the alteration in the space of the room has remained stable for well over a year, and it's still going strong." (Today, if you can't run a four-minute mile they won't let you on the track team.)

In physical terms, what does this mean? What has actually happened to the "space" of the laboratory room?

Tiller explains, "The experimental data we gather seems to indicate that it raises what is called the 'physics gauge symmetry' of the room."

For example, in one experiment they would put a disk-like DC magnet under the jar of water for three days with the north pole up, and measure the pH. Then they would do the same with the south pole up. They wanted to know whether there would be a difference in pH change in the water depending upon which pole was up.

"In a 'normal space,' which is called a U{1}-Gauge space," Tiller says,
. . .the magnetic force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the magnetic field. This simply means that if you do that experiment in a "normal space," there will be no difference, no matter which way the magnet is turned.

In this "conditioned space," though, we have been able to get differences of 1-1/2 pH units depending upon which way the magnet was turned. Very big effects.
What this basically means is that the law of physics which says that the magnetic force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the magnetic field has been changed in this space! Tiller says:


The only way that can happen is if you've raised the gauge symmetry from the U{1} Gauge to something approximating what is called the SU{2} Gauge. With SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, you have electric monopole and magnetic monopole substances functioning, not magnetic dipoles as you have in a U{1} space.

So somehow, by our procedures, we have created mixed-gauge symmetry. We've produced some elements of SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, because that's the only way you can get a polarity effect.

That says that we are producing domains of order in the vacuum!
The Vacuum Contains Non-Physical "Stuff"

But isn't the vacuum a — well, a vacuum? Like, nothing?

No, Tiller points out, actually a vacuum contains dense energy potential. But in U{1}-Gauge symmetry, that potential is chaotic and amorphous. It has no basic effect on the physical universe.

But with SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, he says, there is an ordered alteration, a change that takes place. SU{2}-Gauge symmetry actually changes the state of the particles that make up physical reality. And since Tiller has shown that the order thus created in the vacuum is based upon human intent, this shows that we can actually harness the power of the vacuum through our consciousness.

How Much Power Are We Talking About

Assuming that we can use experiments like this to learn how to tap the energy of the vacuum, how much potential is there within this "vacuum stuff"?

Again, the answer to this begins with the understanding that the vacuum is not empty or void. It's empty only of physical matter.However, the vacuum contains "energy density." This is actually the central concept of "free energy."

As Tiller says:


Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are the two prime theoretical constructs of modern physics, and for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent, their calculations require that the vacuum must contain an energy density 1094 grams per cubic centimeter.
How much energy is that? To find out, Tiller says, you simply use Einstein's equation: e=MC2.

Here's how this comes out in practical terms. You could take the volume of, say, a single hydrogen atom (which is incredibly small, an infinitesimally small fraction of a cubic centimeter), and multiply that by the average mass density of the cosmos, a number which is known to astronomers. And what you find out, Tiller says, is that within the amount of vacuum contained in this hydrogen atom there is, according to this calculation, "almost a trillion times as much energy as in all of the stars and all of the planets out to a radius of 20 billion light years!"


If human consciousness can interact with that even a little bit, it can change things in matter. Because the ground state energies of all particles have that energy level due to their interaction with this stuff of the vacuum. So if you can shift that stuff of the vacuum, change its degree of order or coherence even a little bit, you can change the ground state energies of particles, atoms, molecules, and chemical equations.
In conclusion, despite our attachment to it and our feeling of its solidity and persistence, what we think of as the physical universe is an almost incomprehensibly miniscule part of the immensity of All That Is.

Our future, Dr. Tiller is telling us, lies in harnessing the energies that lie hidden in the spaces between the particles, atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies of the physical universe. . .

"Matter as we know it," Tiller concludes poetically, "is hardly a fragrance of a whisper."

JDP
12-21-2017, 09:05 AM
Hi JDP

Not sure if you are into this type of research ?

Possibly an Alchemist with an extended consciousness could manifest all the
gold he wanted. This may be seen as One Matter ???

Just a case of Mind over Matter.



As described in Celeste Adams's interview (see The Conscious Creation of a New Paradigm), Dr. William A. Tiller's studies and experiments have proven that human consciousness "changes space." And he explains how this works in a way that's easy for us to follow and understand.

But further — and of importance to the subject matter of our current issue — he demonstrates not only that Zero Point Energy is, for all practical purposes, absolutely limitless, but that in it lies our future potential.

It's not a hoax, and it's not "science fiction." It's science fact. It's real, and it's coming soon.

Proving Scientifically that Mind Affects Matter

Dr. Tiller's experiments to demonstrate the effect of mind over matter began by imprinting electrical devices with a specific intention. The imprinting was done by four experienced meditators, people who Tiller says were "highly inner-self-managed people."

Then this device — imprinted with the intent — was wrapped in aluminum and sent by overnight shipping to a laboratory 2000 miles away, where it was placed beside the "target experiment" and turned on.

So, for example, the electrical device might be imprinted with the idea of raising or lowering the pH of water. And if the device was turned on in the vicinity of a jar of water, the expectation was that the pH of the water would be raised or lowered, depending upon the original intent.

In the case of that particular experiment, they were looking for at least a full pH unit of difference, something large enough that the results could not be attributed to faulty measurement (it's possible to measure 1/100th or even 1/1000th of a degree of change in pH, so one full unit is a lot).

So the first result was that they were in fact able to achieve an unambiguous change in the water's pH state simply through its being in the vicinity of an electrical device that had been imprinted with that intent. And they were able to raise pH (or lower it, depending upon the intent) in this way by as much as 1-1/2 full units, a very large amount.

The Effect of Repeated Experiments

It was when the same experiment was repeated over and over, however, that the really significant effects began to show. For Tiller has found and proved that when intent is repeated in the same space, eventually it becomes permanent. And when that happens, the laws of physics in that space no longer operate as they did before! (For a homely but meaningful analogy, can you remember when it was "impossible" for man to run a four-minute mile?)

When they kept running the same experiment over and over again, Tiller says, the laboratory began to become "conditioned," so that the same result would happen more strongly or more quickly. And eventually, it would happen even after the device was no longer in the room.

"In one of the spaces that we have used," Tiller says, "the alteration in the space of the room has remained stable for well over a year, and it's still going strong." (Today, if you can't run a four-minute mile they won't let you on the track team.)

In physical terms, what does this mean? What has actually happened to the "space" of the laboratory room?

Tiller explains, "The experimental data we gather seems to indicate that it raises what is called the 'physics gauge symmetry' of the room."

For example, in one experiment they would put a disk-like DC magnet under the jar of water for three days with the north pole up, and measure the pH. Then they would do the same with the south pole up. They wanted to know whether there would be a difference in pH change in the water depending upon which pole was up.

"In a 'normal space,' which is called a U{1}-Gauge space," Tiller says,
. . .the magnetic force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the magnetic field. This simply means that if you do that experiment in a "normal space," there will be no difference, no matter which way the magnet is turned.

In this "conditioned space," though, we have been able to get differences of 1-1/2 pH units depending upon which way the magnet was turned. Very big effects.
What this basically means is that the law of physics which says that the magnetic force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the magnetic field has been changed in this space! Tiller says:


The only way that can happen is if you've raised the gauge symmetry from the U{1} Gauge to something approximating what is called the SU{2} Gauge. With SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, you have electric monopole and magnetic monopole substances functioning, not magnetic dipoles as you have in a U{1} space.

So somehow, by our procedures, we have created mixed-gauge symmetry. We've produced some elements of SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, because that's the only way you can get a polarity effect.

That says that we are producing domains of order in the vacuum!
The Vacuum Contains Non-Physical "Stuff"

But isn't the vacuum a — well, a vacuum? Like, nothing?

No, Tiller points out, actually a vacuum contains dense energy potential. But in U{1}-Gauge symmetry, that potential is chaotic and amorphous. It has no basic effect on the physical universe.

But with SU{2}-Gauge symmetry, he says, there is an ordered alteration, a change that takes place. SU{2}-Gauge symmetry actually changes the state of the particles that make up physical reality. And since Tiller has shown that the order thus created in the vacuum is based upon human intent, this shows that we can actually harness the power of the vacuum through our consciousness.

How Much Power Are We Talking About

Assuming that we can use experiments like this to learn how to tap the energy of the vacuum, how much potential is there within this "vacuum stuff"?

Again, the answer to this begins with the understanding that the vacuum is not empty or void. It's empty only of physical matter.However, the vacuum contains "energy density." This is actually the central concept of "free energy."

As Tiller says:


Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are the two prime theoretical constructs of modern physics, and for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent, their calculations require that the vacuum must contain an energy density 1094 grams per cubic centimeter.
How much energy is that? To find out, Tiller says, you simply use Einstein's equation: e=MC2.

Here's how this comes out in practical terms. You could take the volume of, say, a single hydrogen atom (which is incredibly small, an infinitesimally small fraction of a cubic centimeter), and multiply that by the average mass density of the cosmos, a number which is known to astronomers. And what you find out, Tiller says, is that within the amount of vacuum contained in this hydrogen atom there is, according to this calculation, "almost a trillion times as much energy as in all of the stars and all of the planets out to a radius of 20 billion light years!"


If human consciousness can interact with that even a little bit, it can change things in matter. Because the ground state energies of all particles have that energy level due to their interaction with this stuff of the vacuum. So if you can shift that stuff of the vacuum, change its degree of order or coherence even a little bit, you can change the ground state energies of particles, atoms, molecules, and chemical equations.
In conclusion, despite our attachment to it and our feeling of its solidity and persistence, what we think of as the physical universe is an almost incomprehensibly miniscule part of the immensity of All That Is.

Our future, Dr. Tiller is telling us, lies in harnessing the energies that lie hidden in the spaces between the particles, atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies of the physical universe. . .

"Matter as we know it," Tiller concludes poetically, "is hardly a fragrance of a whisper."

http://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2006625

Pigasus Award Winner

The Randi Foundation identified Tiller in 1979 as "the scientist who had said the silliest thing" relating to parapsychology in the past year.

Psychoenergetics and subtle energies

Tiller claims to have discovered a new class of natural phenomena which he calls "subtle energies", which manifest themselves in the practices of healers and other practitioners of the paranormal. Tiller defines the term psychoenergetics as the study of these energies in relation to human consciousness. He sees a connection between nonphysical consciousness and the quantum phenomena. These findings are not accepted in the mainstream scientific community.

I see nothing in the quoted claims of your post to make me differ from the above assessment. "Mind over matter" = totally unproven. There is no shred of evidence that such a thing exists. Such claims have been tested over and over, whether it's bending spoons, stopping clocks, moving pencils, turning pages, etc. with the supposed "powers" of your mind, the result is invariably the same in all properly tested cases: failure to achieve what is claimed. The only place where it seems to work is in the Star Wars movies. But we know that those Jedi mind-tricks are achieved with special effects.

Andro
12-21-2017, 09:37 AM
The Randi Foundation identified Tiller in 1979 as "the scientist who had said the silliest thing" relating to parapsychology in the past year.

Not to mention the highly scientific and empirically researched statement: "the scientist who had said the silliest thing".

Please Randy, empirically quantify "silly" for us!

So now, the Randy Foundation is our one-stop-shop scientific authority. LOL.

This is not science, this is show-business.

Proper science is completely unbiased, simultaneously skeptical AND open-minded, ready and willing to seriously consider possibilities outside the "accepted" status quo.

But no, instead of collaborating with a proper scientist to research non-mainstream phenomena, we should probably opt for getting Randy-verified, if we want to achieve real scientific credibility :)


These findings are not accepted in the mainstream scientific community.

As opposed to (for example) Alchemy, which is widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community. Double LOL.

JDP
12-21-2017, 09:57 AM
Not to mention the highly scientific and empirically researched statement: "the scientist who had said the silliest thing".

Please Randy, empirically quantify "silly" for us!

So now, the Randy Foundation is our one-stop-shop scientific authority. LOL.

This is not science, this is show-business.

Proper science is completely unbiased, simultaneously skeptical AND open-minded, ready and willing to seriously consider possibilities outside the "accepted" status quo.

But no, instead of collaborating with a proper scientist to research non-mainstream phenomena, we should probably opt for getting Randy-verified, if we want to achieve real scientific credibility :)

Randi has plenty of credibility. He is an honest fellow, plus he has droves of scientists on his side. Most of the testing of "paranormal" claims by his foundation is backed up and performed by scientists who cooperate with him. Randi just provides the funds and his expert advice on magic/illusionist tricks (which is what most of these "psychic" charlatans employ to try to fool people into thinking that such claims are real.)




As opposed to (for example) Alchemy, which is widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community. Double LOL.

The big difference is that there has hardly ever been any systematic testing of alchemy, while these supposed "paranormal" claims have been put to the test over and over. They invariably end up failing.

black
12-21-2017, 11:21 AM
Hi JDP

Have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment.

If you have ......

I would be very interested to hear what your views and Randi's views
are on the Double Slit Experiment ?

It has me totally baffled ........ and many scientists as well.

Kibric
12-21-2017, 12:08 PM
So now, the Randy Foundation is our one-stop-shop scientific authority. LOL.
Randi is honest and thorough and theres a history involving Houdini of debunking Fraud Psychics
because it cheapens blurs or distorts whatever genuine psychic power that might be out there

there is a distinction between whats Public knowledge and whats Private Knowledge
Governments in Private have tested all kinds of psychic phenomena
only till years later do the public hear about it. recently the Cia files on remote viewing were released
and they carried on the program because it had success

the mainstream scientific community is largely public
it doesn't include the countless private companies and governments who do research in private.
They're findings and successes we wont hear about.
from whats widely available to the Public, no one has proved psychic phenomena

Andro
12-21-2017, 12:39 PM
from whats widely available to the Public, no one has proved psychic phenomena

Of course not. It would be against certain special interest groups and discreet individuals who cherish their anonymity. What the public is getting is the Randy Circus, where all the fake psychics get debunked. It's actually so good, it could be a Psi-Op :)

I don't doubt Randy is genuine within the mainstream. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why so many attention seekers go there.

Just as it has always been, the "real shit" is going on behind closed doors.

Awani
12-21-2017, 12:43 PM
Some scientists are working on the "para"normal.

www.sheldrake.org (https://sheldrake.org)

"The paranormal is normal, the supernatural is natural." - Sheldrake

Again no one really needs proof that gravity is real, and no one needs proof that telepathy is real. Jumping of a cliff and falling is proof enough. Reading someones mind is proof enough. Etc.

Nail in the coffin, in my opinion.

:p

Andro
12-21-2017, 12:47 PM
And I'll "prove" it by reading JDP's mind:

"The comparison is invalid. Things falling down is a scientific FACT, but there is no empirical evidence for mind reading. Nail in the coffin indeed."

How did I do?

Awani
12-21-2017, 12:49 PM
Well that is proof of mind reading as far as I am concerned. :)

:p

Florius Frammel
12-21-2017, 03:52 PM
It is too easy explaining things with conspiracy theories.
This usually happens when things are getting a little bit complicated.
For example: Chem Trails, The Jewesh World Conspiracy, Secret Societies ruling the world, 9/11 was actually a conspiracy by the US themselves, etc.

I am not saying there are no groups that hide some more ore less powerful knowledge, but be careful. One can easily fall into such a trap, because it is comfortable to just explain everything this way. It is very easy to talk someone into believing a hoax. You can try it by yourself. Think about any topic (works best with something bad) and explain it to a friend. Add some real to some made up data to proof him that a small group of people are the reason.
I don't want to compare this discussion with Germany some 80 years ago, but there it was the same mechanism.

Like "Yay! Conspiracy Theory! Now everything is clear and I don't have to think about any other logical explanation anymore."

Andro
12-21-2017, 04:08 PM
No need for "conspiracy theories". Also a bad word, conspiracy. Every time we're having exchanges on this forum, we essentially "conspiring".

All we have to do is look into who profits from such matters, be it 9/11, keeping psyching phenomena and super advanced science away from the public, etc...

Let's not look at things without context. We have to consider the build-ups and the outcomes, both short and long term. WHO PROFITS ? ? ?

Careful study will be very revealing, without the need for "conspiracy theories", just smart, detached reasoning and well developed deduction skills.

Once excessive emotions, dogmatic beliefs and general paranoia & fear-mongering get involved, we can say goodbye to productive research.

Florius Frammel
12-21-2017, 04:21 PM
"Who profits?"
This should not be the only question on ones believes should be built. For example:
Let's say we both hate each other (which we hopefully don't but let's say it). We argue so much that eventually I hit you in your face and break your nose. I probably will get arrested and you profit because you got rid of me. You did not plan it, but you would be the one profiting.

Andro
12-21-2017, 04:30 PM
"Who profits?"
This should not be the only question on ones believes should be built. For example:
Let's say we both hate each other (which we hopefully don't but let's say it). We argue so much that eventually I hit you in your face and break your nose. I probably will get arrested and you profit because you got rid of me. You did not plan it, but you would be the one profiting.

You're missing the larger context IMO.

Why do people HATE each other, leading them to fight, from personal fights to "global" wars?

Who profits from people "hating " each other, from "Divide & Conquer" and from the Win/Loose paradigm/mentality?

We need to look beyond superficial appearances. The much larger context will provide a much wider perspective. An "Eagle Eye's View", so to speak...

Florius Frammel
12-21-2017, 04:55 PM
But first you said "all we have to do is ask who profits". Now you say it is only valid in a larger context. Are you sure?
Don't you think there is a possibility that actually no one intends to fight each other and if the action takes place anyway the reason is just not understanding each other? Instead you seem to induce that at least one of the party has a plan to do so (at least in a larger context). I highly doubt that.

Andro
12-21-2017, 05:01 PM
But first you said "all we have to do is ask who profits". Now you say it is only valid in a larger context. Are you sure?
Don't you think there is a possibility that actually no one intends to fight each other and if the action takes place anyway the reason is just not understanding each other? Instead you seem to induce that at least one of the party has a plan to do so (at least in a larger context). I highly doubt that.

A simple concept: When two parties fight, there is a THIRD party who benefits. This third party is often hidden, and is the real beneficiary.

Everything needs to be addressed in a larger context. I never said that the profiting party is partial in the conflict. It usually is everything but.

JDP
12-21-2017, 05:10 PM
Well that is proof of mind reading as far as I am concerned. :)

:p

No, but it is proof that despite Andro's pretense, he is more capable of critical thinking than he wants to display in this thread. :p

JDP
12-21-2017, 05:16 PM
Of course not. It would be against certain special interest groups and discreet individuals who cherish their anonymity. What the public is getting is the Randy Circus, where all the fake psychics get debunked. It's actually so good, it could be a Psi-Op :)

I don't doubt Randy is genuine within the mainstream. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why so many attention seekers go there.

Over the decades Randi & his people have tested hundreds of these claims by all sorts of people, from well-known "psychics" to people who no one has ever heard of before. The thing they all have in common: they ALL failed to demonstrate the reality of their claims/boasts when proper test conditions (where NO CHEATING was allowed) was applied. You can easily see the pattern emerge. No wonder Randi has remained so adamantly skeptic. He has spent a large part of his life seeking any shred of proof regarding ANY of such claims and he has yet to see even one single instance where the claim lived up to the hype.


Just as it has always been, the "real shit" is going on behind closed doors.

Yes, where NO PROPER TEST CONDITIONS TO AVOID CHEATING can be applied. Funny, isn't it? It's the only time we mysteriously hear any of these paranormal claims supposedly "working".

Florius Frammel
12-21-2017, 05:19 PM
A simple concept: When two parties fight, there is a THIRD party who benefits. This third party is often hidden, and is the real beneficiary.

Everything needs to be addressed in a larger context. I never said that the profiting party is partial in the conflict. It usually is everything but.

I can understand if one wants to explain these kind of things with a simple concept. It is also the common mechanism of conspiracy theories even if you try to avoid this term in raising yourself on some kind of meta level like an eagle.
The world and especially human interaction, politics and especially foreign relations in politics (in a larger context) is not simple. It's complicated. And therefore there is an understandable need for simple concepts like conspiracies.

I feel we are getting way off topic. Don't we rather want to let the eagles fly in a more alchemical sense?

Awani
12-21-2017, 05:22 PM
@JDP

Third time I try... so far silence has been the answer, which is an answer. Fear, I think it is fear?

:p

JDP
12-21-2017, 05:26 PM
Some scientists are working on the "para"normal.

www.sheldrake.org (https://sheldrake.org)

"The paranormal is normal, the supernatural is natural." - Sheldrake

Again no one really needs proof that gravity is real, and no one needs proof that telepathy is real. Jumping of a cliff and falling is proof enough. Reading someones mind is proof enough. Etc.

Nail in the coffin, in my opinion.

:p

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Sheldrake has had much success in proving his theories/claims:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Andro
12-21-2017, 05:45 PM
I can understand if one wants to explain these kind of things with a simple concept. It is also the common mechanism of conspiracy theories even if you try to avoid this term in raising yourself on some kind of meta level like an eagle.
The world and especially human interaction, politics and especially foreign relations in politics (in a larger context) is not simple. It's complicated. And therefore there is an understandable need for simple concepts like conspiracies.

I feel we are getting way off topic. Don't we rather want to let the eagles fly in a more alchemical sense?

"Simplicity is the Seal of Truth"

"Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication"

I don't remember the authors of those quotes, but there is power in simplicity, unless we confuse simplicity with mediocrity and tunnel vision.

When the Eagles fly alchemically, their flight is simple and beautifully elegant. Alchemy seems complicated because people make it so, looking for it where it isn't.

Just my perspective... And I think this thread is pretty much on topic, because the topic itself is quite varied and open-ended...

A shift is required in our approach to the never ending narratives surrounding and bombarding us 24/7. People who adhere to any core model of "many things" are IMO bound to be met by complications at every step... in Alchemy and in "wordily affairs" alike :)

Florius Frammel
12-21-2017, 06:08 PM
Sheldrake poses interesting questions. It is for example interesting what he writes about the behaviour of pigeons. What you definately can say is that he makes way more money in selling books that most other scientists.

Awani
12-21-2017, 07:58 PM
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Sheldrake has had much success in proving his theories/claims...

There are countless examples of mainstream science casting out one of their own because they think outside the box. 200+ years ago or so we imprisoned and murdered them... now we simply shame them.

For those that notice: fear must be the answer

LOL.

:p

black
12-21-2017, 11:13 PM
Hi JDP

I think you may have missed this post so I have entered it again.

Have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment.

If you have ......

I would be very interested to hear what your views and Randi's views
are on the Double Slit Experiment ?

It has me totally baffled ........ and many scientists as well.

My point here being the OBSERVER EFFECT.

Florius Frammel
12-22-2017, 05:03 AM
Hi JDP

I think you may have missed this post so I have entered it again.

Have you heard of the Double Slit Experiment.

If you have ......

I would be very interested to hear what your views and Randi's views
are on the Double Slit Experiment ?

It has me totally baffled ........ and many scientists as well.

My point here being the OBSERVER EFFECT.

This experiment is well known and accepted and a good example for the difference between a fact and an interpretation. For further studies regarding the observer effect I recommend the book "Physics and Philosophy" by Werner Heisenberg and/or something about the Kopenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Philosophical
01-01-2018, 11:09 PM
I've been reading the 1-1-1 discussion and think I want to say my thoughts on it as it may help our brothers/sisters out there who stuggle with the matter/compound/substance/one matter debacle, though if I am not correct in my thinking I am definitely open to being corrected. I'm not saying this is right but just consider the equal and opposite side to this coin [Full disclosure: A 'composite substance' by a scientific view is how I view the one matter though but this is alchemy not science]. Firstly I ask that one take a minute to put aside disbelief, take ones skeptic eyes off and just listen, be open. I have got some background in science and, while it is more physics than chemistry which I have most understanding, I feel I truly understand the logic presented. There is nothing wrong with the logic, it is sound, correct, by definitions of some in the main thread sea water or other alike matters are composite. What if that wasn't what the alchemists were trying to get at?

Can one get pure water to do what the alchemists claim? Can the qualities of such water change in the ways described in adept literature. If the answer is no then maybe it is time to consider that what was implied is something else. Now-a-days parts thinking is so wide spread and while one can separate the flora, fauna, water, minerals from an eco system if one did one isn't left with an eco-system any longer. There was an ecosystem which when divided can no longer be reassembled into the ecosystem it was without a huge process of adjustment and no doubt hundreds/thousands of years and even then due to different initial conditions would probably look very different. Indigenous thinking is more from of a wholes/process perspective and considering the ancient origins of alchemy is it not even worthy of considering that hermetic philosophy may resemble thinking from an earlier time? Primitive or not in order to understand them consider the historical perspective.

A human being could be broken down into bones, sinews, muscle, organ etc. What if sea-water is considered by alchemists to be more like a being? A whole which while can be divided and so in that sense isn't 'one matter' but in another sense if we take all the 'parts' of a human and lay them side by side we don't have a human anymore, the whole has been broken and cannot be put back together, something is missing. If left to develop from the one matter of the embryo (which indeed is a compound of many 'elements') evolves into the magnificent human beings we all are, what are the conditions that allow this being to express it self more fully?

I respect ones knowledge when it comes to science but consider that science isn't alchemy. Can alchemy be quantified scientifically? Maybe, I'm not the right person to ask. I do think that this is generally a semantic debate though and one that would be best just appreciated for what it is and further discussion continued on without the need for this to fill up pages and pages of discourse. Though in all honesty I am thankful because the discussion has given rise to some interesting sharings. If we cannot entertain various different world views we will forever be trapped in the jail of our minds.


https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/c0.31.697.697/12479318_1489755121333124_2041435891_n.jpg?ig_cach e_key=MTE1Njk4MDA0NjkyNTQ1NTU1Ng%3D%3D.2.c

Respectfully,

Philosophical

Warmheart
01-03-2018, 11:05 AM
Mod Note: Continued from HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5486-Saturn-amp-Blackness-Lead-amp-Galena&p=54002#post54002)
_________________

I think that while we deal with chemical compounds we miss something important in the big picture.


----------------------------------------

Florius Frammel
01-03-2018, 01:48 PM
I think that while we deal with chemical compounds we miss something important in the big picture.

What do you mean with chemical compounds? Are chemical Elements or mixtures of Elements allowed?
Do you suggest in not dealing with matter at all? What is left then? Energy? A vacuum? Manifestations of someones mind? Or the in other threads mentioned gateways between this and other worlds? Maybe, but I would guess you have to start with some material first.

True Initiate
01-03-2018, 02:06 PM
What do you mean with chemical compounds? Are chemical Elements or mixtures of Elements allowed?
Do you suggest in not dealing with matter at all? What is left then? Energy? A vacuum? Manifestations of someones mind?

The turkish freemasons practice exactly this type of alchemy. :cool:
https://cld.pt/dl/download/06d8ba1a-ecc0-4360-bf59-50ec14684e28/sufi%20freemasons.pdf

Warmheart
01-03-2018, 03:27 PM
On the man it is written: "Qui in Merdam seminat, Merdam et metet" - "He who sows shit, also reaps shit."
Shit is only disgusting because man thinks it is :) From the universal point of view, shit is a good thing, which serves as natural fertilizer.

What concerns "chemical" and "non-chemical", I think that popular science is a very wrong thing, combination of many mutually exclusive theories and useless gibberish. When one comes to practical part, he realizes, that it is totally different from the public science.

The main point of difference lies in "life". There is no place for life in chemical formulas and chemical theories, life is far beyond totally unknown for modern science.

I think, that if someone wants to get Elixir, which might give him immortality, first should learn what is actual life in order to make it eternal. What differs one life form from another, etc. - all that should be a subject of research for true seeker of Knowledge.

Modern science deals with corpses and so it is useless to try its theories and experiments in Alchemical operations.

And yes, Alchemy deals with tangible substances, no pseudo-spiritual New Age fluff. However, I think that in order to understand Alchemy, one needs to think against the crowd. Almost 100% of people are wrong on the subject of Alchemy so they never get success. It means that in order to get success you should choose entirely different, highly abnormal (in eyes of mankind) way of thinking.

That's how I see it. I also suppose that this way of thinking is HIGHLY dangerous, as it opens many secrets of matter and Cosmos and might even open the gates to totally different worlds. Thus it is kept as the most guarded secret in this totally spoiled human society, which would use this secret to try and drain the life out of Cosmos itself (just as it is draining life from the Earth and already turning its greedy eyes toward draining resources from nearby Planets).

I have problems seeing how all of that can be achieved by vulgar chemical operations.

Andro
01-03-2018, 03:38 PM
What concerns "chemical" and "non-chemical", I think that popular science is a very wrong thing, combination of many mutually exclusive theories and useless gibberish. When one comes to practical part, he realizes, that it is totally different from the public science.

The main point of difference lies in "life". There is no place for life in chemical formulas and chemical theories, life is far beyond totally unknown for modern science.

I think, that if someone wants to get Elixir, which might give him immortality, first should learn what is actual life in order to make it eternal. What differs one life form from another, etc. - all that should be a subject of research for true seeker of Knowledge.

Modern science deals with corpses and so it is useless to try its theories and experiments in Alchemical operations.

And yes, Alchemy deals with tangible substances, no pseudo-spiritual New Age fluff. However, I think that in order to understand Alchemy, one needs to think against the crowd. Almost 100% of people are wrong on the subject of Alchemy so they never get success. It means that in order to get success you should choose entirely different, highly abnormal (in eyes of mankind) way of thinking.

That's how I see it. I also suppose that this way of thinking is HIGHLY dangerous, as it opens many secrets of matter and Cosmos and might even open the gates to totally different worlds. Thus it is kept as the most guarded secret in this totally spoiled human society, which would use this secret to try and drain the life out of Cosmos itself (just as it is draining life from the Earth and already turning its greedy eyes toward draining resources from nearby Planets).

I have problems seeing how all of that can be achieved by vulgar chemical operations.

Indeed. That pretty much summarizes it :)

Mod PS: I'm moving those last posts to a thread that's better suited for such exchanges.

Florius Frammel
01-03-2018, 03:45 PM
Shit is only disgusting because man thinks it is :) From the universal point of view, shit is a good thing, which serves as natural fertilizer.

What concerns "chemical" and "non-chemical", I think that popular science is a very wrong thing.
Nevertheless what alchemy really is and what it's not, shit is not only a good thing. It has, as most things two sides of a coin. The thinking of shit being a bad thing can be healthy too, as you might know it not only fertilizes the ground, but gives good conditions to bacteria and some might lead to serious illness.
Same with modern science. Of course some knowledge is used in a bad way. But may I ask if you enjoy for example using your electronic device and the internet, or do you have only negative feelings using them?

Coming back to shit: There seems to be a long tradition of seekers praising it in general as important to the great work. Other though warn not to use it.

Andro
01-03-2018, 04:32 PM
The main point of difference lies in "life". There is no place for life in chemical formulas and chemical theories, life is far beyond totally unknown for modern science.

Yet, we can see how many people still hope to solve the alchemical enigma with "mainstream" scientific thinking. It's a shame, really... Such brilliant & erudite people - imprisoned in such limiting mental paradigms...


Modern science deals with corpses and so it is useless to try its theories and experiments in Alchemical operations.

See THIS (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4235-Potentially-Controversial-Paragraph-in-Hermes-Old-amp-True-Natural-Path&p=36664#post36664) :)


And yes, Alchemy deals with tangible substances, no pseudo-spiritual New Age fluff. However, I think that in order to understand Alchemy, one needs to think against the crowd. Almost 100% of people are wrong on the subject of Alchemy so they never get success. It means that in order to get success you should choose entirely different, highly abnormal (in eyes of mankind) way of thinking.

Those very tangible substances, products of truly Alchemical operations, seem to serve as a COVER - of sorts - for this "X-Factor" (life, or any other fitting name we may give to it). In doing so, their properties are significantly altered. Relevant quote below:


He has done a deep scientific analysis of the "Spirit" and he obtained interesting results (i.e, its atomic structures... in plural, because he has found more than one depending on what has been done to obtain it... the weird thing is that these structures do not make any kind of sense from the point of view of chemistry, but I can't say why... though the reason is not exactly its atomic formula, but it is similar to analyzing the PH of a pure sample of Potassium Hydroxide and finding out that the PH is 2... when it should be close to 11, but that's a metaphor).
_______________________________


Thus it is kept as the most guarded secret in this totally spoiled human society, which would use this secret to try and drain the life out of Cosmos itself.

Some magicians resort to stealing this life force from other beings who possess it in limited "quantity". The number of those who can harvest it directly from its limitless source/fountain is apparently very small :)

JDP
01-03-2018, 09:33 PM
The turkish freemasons practice exactly this type of alchemy. :cool:
https://cld.pt/dl/download/06d8ba1a-ecc0-4360-bf59-50ec14684e28/sufi%20freemasons.pdf

"This type of alchemy"??? LOL! There is no such thing as "several types of alchemy". That would be as invalid as saying "this kind of physics", or "this kind of chemistry", or "this kind of mechanics", or "this kind of astronomy", or "this kind of geology", etc. Alchemy = making the Philosophers' Stone. There are no other "alchemys". Everything else that wants to appropriate the word "alchemy" to itself is just a charade, a farce, not the real thing.

JDP
01-03-2018, 09:56 PM
Shit is only disgusting because man thinks it is :) From the universal point of view, shit is a good thing, which serves as natural fertilizer.

What concerns "chemical" and "non-chemical", I think that popular science is a very wrong thing, combination of many mutually exclusive theories and useless gibberish. When one comes to practical part, he realizes, that it is totally different from the public science.

The main point of difference lies in "life". There is no place for life in chemical formulas and chemical theories, life is far beyond totally unknown for modern science.

I think, that if someone wants to get Elixir, which might give him immortality, first should learn what is actual life in order to make it eternal. What differs one life form from another, etc. - all that should be a subject of research for true seeker of Knowledge.

Modern science deals with corpses and so it is useless to try its theories and experiments in Alchemical operations.

And yes, Alchemy deals with tangible substances, no pseudo-spiritual New Age fluff. However, I think that in order to understand Alchemy, one needs to think against the crowd. Almost 100% of people are wrong on the subject of Alchemy so they never get success. It means that in order to get success you should choose entirely different, highly abnormal (in eyes of mankind) way of thinking.

That's how I see it. I also suppose that this way of thinking is HIGHLY dangerous, as it opens many secrets of matter and Cosmos and might even open the gates to totally different worlds. Thus it is kept as the most guarded secret in this totally spoiled human society, which would use this secret to try and drain the life out of Cosmos itself (just as it is draining life from the Earth and already turning its greedy eyes toward draining resources from nearby Planets).

I have problems seeing how all of that can be achieved by vulgar chemical operations.

But "shit" itself is nothing other than a bunch of "vulgar" organic & inorganic compounds jumbled together. There is no other alternative to starting with "vulgar" substances, whether you are following the methods and objectives of chemistry or alchemy. Both of them work with the same raw materials, since nature makes NOTHING ELSE BUT "vulgar" substances. Chemistry and alchemy have the exact same raw materials at their disposal to begin their respective endeavors. The difference is in how these "vulgar" substances are handled, treated, mixed and/or operated upon. That is what distinguishes these two disciplines. No need to try to conjure up weird "supernatural" and superstitious "explanations" that have ZERO evidence to back them up. As Chaucer would say: "This is explaining the unknown by the even more unknown!"

black
01-03-2018, 11:23 PM
But "shit" itself is nothing other than a bunch of "vulgar" organic & inorganic compounds jumbled together. There is no other alternative to starting with "vulgar" substances, whether you are following the methods and objectives of chemistry or alchemy. Both of them work with the same raw materials, since nature makes NOTHING ELSE BUT "vulgar" substances. Chemistry and alchemy have the exact same raw materials at their disposal to begin their respective endeavors. The difference is in how these "vulgar" substances are handled, treated, mixed and/or operated upon. That is what distinguishes these two disciplines. No need to try to conjure up weird "supernatural" and superstitious "explanations" that have ZERO evidence to back them up. As Chaucer would say: "This is explaining the unknown by the even more unknown!"

Nature creates living things... plants, animals, people, etc by using
the life force and to my understanding so does the alchemist.

Chemists have no understanding of how to work with this Life Force.

JDP
01-03-2018, 11:42 PM
Nature creates living things... plants, animals, people, etc by using
the life force and to my understanding so does the alchemist.

Chemists have no understanding of how to work with this Life Force.

Modern scientists know much more about life and its processes than the alchemists could ever dream of. So this obviously has nothing to do with this issue of making the Stone.

black
01-04-2018, 12:27 AM
Modern scientists know much more about life and its processes than the alchemists could ever dream of. So this obviously has nothing to do with this issue of making the Stone.


I think you would have to be a Real Alchemist to have the understanding
of what they do and do not know !!!

After all it appears they can do some things the rest of the world
can't .... Transmutations, SM, Universal Solvent, Philosophers Stone, etc.

JDP
01-04-2018, 03:35 AM
I think you would have to be a Real Alchemist to have the understanding
of what they do and do not know !!!

After all it appears they can do some things the rest of the world
can't .... Transmutations, SM, Universal Solvent, Philosophers Stone, etc.

From their own writings one can pretty much tell what they knew and what they didn't know. The Stone and transmutation, yes, but "SM" and the "Universal Solvent" (in the literal sense of a solvent that would dissolve everything) are relatively modern fairy tales.

The alchemists obviously didn't know about things like genetics or modern biology. Their ideas about living organisms and life itself were for the most part Aristotelian. Aristotle was a clever fellow, but he was mistaken on many things. We know that today. But in the time of the alchemists Aristotle was almost an unimpeachable authority on most subjects.

black
01-04-2018, 04:43 AM
From their own writings one can pretty much tell what they knew and what they didn't know. The Stone and transmutation, yes, but "SM" and the "Universal Solvent" (in the literal sense of a solvent that would dissolve everything) are relatively modern fairy tales.

The alchemists obviously didn't know about things like genetics or modern biology. Their ideas about living organisms and life itself were for the most part Aristotelian. Aristotle was a clever fellow, but he was mistaken on many things. We know that today. But in the time of the alchemists Aristotle was almost an unimpeachable authority on most subjects.

If we could so easily tell from their writings what they new we would all have the
Philosophers Stone and be transmuting base metals into gold.

I would probably be on a 65 foot yacht in the Bahamas sipping on a mango daiquiri.

As for the Universal Solvent....I can't be sure that it dissolved everything, but I do
believe that it dissolved that most specific matter that needed to be dissolved to
advance them in The Work.

They often wrote about working with living metals and not the ones where the
life force / virtue had already left the metal.

So perhaps we are all missing some thing ?

Warmheart
01-04-2018, 05:44 AM
Same with modern science. Of course some knowledge is used in a bad way. But may I ask if you enjoy for example using your electronic device and the internet, or do you have only negative feelings using them?
From what I saw - true knowledge, its potential and byproducts surpass the current technologies, not even by miles, but by PARSECS. And it seems that people of the past had access to such things, which make us look like cave men. Our electronic devices and internet would look to them as some very crude and highly inefficient tools.

But "shit" itself is nothing other than a bunch of "vulgar" organic & inorganic compounds jumbled together. There is no other alternative to starting with "vulgar" substances, whether you are following the methods and objectives of chemistry or alchemy. Both of them work with the same raw materials, since nature makes NOTHING ELSE BUT "vulgar" substances.
As Florius Frammel also mentioned bacterias, so what are bacterias? What are viruses? Where they come from? What was happening with you before you was born? What will happen with you after you die? How to distinguish dead person from alive, when some people, looking dead (with traces of starting decay) suddenly wakes up and continues to live? What can modern science answer to this?

Scientists deny probability of life appearing out of nowhere, why? Because when they made their stupid experiments with tubes with vacuum, they expected that something could actually live under those conditions.

Nature is alive. Scientists cuts away things from it, which die after being removed from their Mother, and try to make some conclusions by researching those corpses, those vulgar materials.

Also no need to forget that modern science is living by efforts of men like Tesla, who never disclosed its source of inspiration and many inventions of whom were treated as illegal and highly dangerous for Cult of Golden Calf, like Einstein, who actually didn't have a clue about [stupid] theories of science of his time - he actually could be considered as dumb person by modern "scientific" world if they'd try to talk with him, and other sole people like that. Most of other "scientists" are like some fanatical people religiously believing in inductive/deductive methods of research.

And after all, if science is so all-knowing and all-mighty, why people bother with Alchemy, that, as "science" says it, rudiment of ancient time, when people lived in caves, had primitive language, no writing systems and were barely making it to 30 years? If science knows it all, then why poverty is all around, planet is dying, air, water, earth are intoxicated in most regions? If science knows it all, where are its actual results, did the make anything even slightly resembling the Stone? :)

See THIS
<link in quote: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4235-Potentially-Controversial-Paragraph-in-Hermes-Old-amp-True-Natural-Path&p=36664#post36664 >
I see nothing controversial in that, just need to read it with mind not being blinded by modern religious interpretations of things. I also think that the quoted text is of major importance for anyone who aspires to get any success in Alchemy.

Andro
01-04-2018, 06:05 AM
I see nothing controversial in that, just need to read it with mind not being blinded by modern religious interpretations of things. I also think that the quoted text is of major importance for anyone who aspires to get any success in Alchemy.

It's not controversial to me :)

I posted that segment to ask how other see it. Obviously it wasn't a random selection :)

Dragon's Tail
01-04-2018, 06:27 AM
From their own writings one can pretty much tell what they knew and what they didn't know. The Stone and transmutation, yes, but "SM" and the "Universal Solvent" (in the literal sense of a solvent that would dissolve everything) are relatively modern fairy tales.

The alchemists obviously didn't know about things like genetics or modern biology. Their ideas about living organisms and life itself were for the most part Aristotelian. Aristotle was a clever fellow, but he was mistaken on many things. We know that today. But in the time of the alchemists Aristotle was almost an unimpeachable authority on most subjects.

I particularly like Marcus Aurelius' view: "What is semen, but a little bit of mucus?" Funny perhaps to us, but enlightening of his time period's views on the matter to be sure.

JDP
01-04-2018, 11:06 AM
If we could so easily tell from their writings what they new we would all have the
Philosophers Stone and be transmuting base metals into gold.

I would probably be on a 65 foot yacht in the Bahamas sipping on a mango daiquiri.

As for the Universal Solvent....I can't be sure that it dissolved everything, but I do
believe that it dissolved that most specific matter that needed to be dissolved to
advance them in The Work.

They often wrote about working with living metals and not the ones where the
life force / virtue had already left the metal.

So perhaps we are all missing some thing ?

That's because they did not teach what they discovered in a totally clear manner. But we can easily tell their theories and ideas about nature since they do not make any secrets out of that. Most of their ideas and theories in this regard stem from Aristotle.

Regarding the "universal solvent", here is one pertinent quote by Fulcanelli that aptly clarifies the confusion:

"Thus it has been called the universal solvent, not because it is capable of dissolving all bodies in nature --- as many wrongly believe --- but because it can do everything in the small universe which the Great Work constitutes."


Those who took this specific code-name for the secret solvent of alchemy in a totally literal manner obviously misunderstood what it meant. The alchemists did not claim that it would dissolve "everything". The confusion very likely has its roots in the claims of the chymist van Helmont, who claimed that he discovered a peculiar solvent, which he arbitrarily called "alkahest" (a name he plagiarized from Paracelsus, who by that word actually meant a specific medicine for the liver, and not any "solvent"), that was allegedly capable of dissolving and reducing all substances into their "elements". A whole bunch of people in the 17th century then started confusing this supposed "alkahest" with the secret solvent of the alchemists, even though van Helmont himself never claimed that this was the secret solvent of alchemy, and in fact never claimed that he knew how to prepare the Stone.

Andro
01-04-2018, 11:20 AM
I honestly doubt there are any serious alchemy experimenters (today) who take the word "universal solvent" literally. It doesn't "dissolve" (like water dissolves salt, for example). Its actions are quite different. Another "good" word for this "solvent" is "Philosophical Mercury" - not to be confused with "Common Mercury" or "First Mercury", which in turn is not to be confused with "Vulgar Mercury" (Hg). Its action is most definitely NOT the same as the conventional action of "dissolving".

I think this is a very useful distinction, that apparently needs to be clarified publicly every once in a while :)


Regarding the "universal solvent", here is one pertinent quote by Fulcanelli that aptly clarifies the confusion:

"Thus it has been called the universal solvent, not because it is capable of dissolving all bodies in nature --- as many wrongly believe --- but because it can do everything in the small universe which the Great Work constitutes."

Those who took this specific code-name for the secret solvent of alchemy in a totally literal manner obviously misunderstood what it meant. The alchemists did not claim that it would dissolve "everything".

Warmheart
01-04-2018, 11:27 AM
Regarding the "universal solvent", here is one pertinent quote by Fulcanelli that aptly clarifies the confusion:

"Thus it has been called the universal solvent, not because it is capable of dissolving all bodies in nature --- as many wrongly believe --- but because it can do everything in the small universe which the Great Work constitutes."

But can we really believe "Fulcanelli"? As story goes, person who went under this name was a plagiarist, he ate some toxic stuff and died a horrible death. Seems like his view on solvents, and on matter in general, didn't help him much...

Andro
01-04-2018, 11:36 AM
But can we really believe "Fulcanelli"?

I don't think we can simply just "trust" everyone. Best way to go IMO, is to see beyond the apparent contradictions, develop a good instinct/intuition, find the common ground and the universal laws that apply basically everywhere, establish a basic conceptual model/hypothesis and test it in the lab.


As story goes, person who went under this name was a plagiarist, he ate some toxic stuff and died a horrible death. Seems like his view on solvents, and on matter in general, didn't help him much...

If you are referring to Jean Julien Champagne, I think there is already plenty of evidence indicating that he was not "Fulcanelli".

JDP
01-04-2018, 11:43 AM
As Florius Frammel also mentioned bacterias, so what are bacterias? What are viruses? Where they come from? What was happening with you before you was born? What will happen with you after you die?

Viruses and bacteria are just living organisms. Where do they come from? Evolution, like all other organisms. What was happening before you were born? Pick up a history book and you will find out a lot of what was happening long before you were born. What will happen after you die? Who knows! Science does not claim to know everything and have all the answers. Religions are the ones who claim they supposedly know what happens after you kick the bucket. Of course, they haven't got a shred of evidence for anything of what they claim, but that doesn't stop them from blindly believing their own unproven speculations.


How to distinguish dead person from alive, when some people, looking dead (with traces of starting decay) suddenly wakes up and continues to live? What can modern science answer to this?

One thing only: that there is no proof that zombies exist outside of the movies. If you happen to have captured one in the real world, I am sure that plenty of scientists are going to be interested in examining "it".


Scientists deny probability of life appearing out of nowhere, why? Because when they made their stupid experiments with tubes with vacuum, they expected that something could actually live under those conditions.

You have some rather strange ideas about what scientists supposedly do.


Nature is alive. Scientists cuts away things from it, which die after being removed from their Mother, and try to make some conclusions by researching those corpses, those vulgar materials.

Like I told you in another place, the contemporary seekers after the Stone that the alchemists kept attacking also employed the exact same natural substances the alchemists used, yet they kept on failing nonetheless. So there is no proof that there is something "living" in the materials they used which makes the difference between failure and success, and which the modern scientists that you keep demonizing supposedly ignore or destroy.


Also no need to forget that modern science is living by efforts of men like Tesla, who never disclosed its source of inspiration and many inventions of whom were treated as illegal and highly dangerous for Cult of Golden Calf, like Einstein, who actually didn't have a clue about [stupid] theories of science of his time - he actually could be considered as dumb person by modern "scientific" world if they'd try to talk with him, and other sole people like that. Most of other "scientists" are like some fanatical people religiously believing in inductive/deductive methods of research.

Tesla and Einstein were rather eccentric individuals, but, contrary to what you say, science has no problem acknowledging their contributions.


And after all, if science is so all-knowing and all-mighty, why people bother with Alchemy, that, as "science" says it, rudiment of ancient time, when people lived in caves, had primitive language, no writing systems and were barely making it to 30 years? If science knows it all, then why poverty is all around, planet is dying, air, water, earth are intoxicated in most regions? If science knows it all, where are its actual results, did the make anything even slightly resembling the Stone? :)

I think you are confusing things that were said in a previous discussion. We were talking about PREHISTORIC times, long before alchemy even existed. Alchemy was developed in late antiquity. By that time mankind had already made great progress in all fields of human endeavor since the days of the primitive cavemen.

As for why modern science doesn't know how to make the Stone: because its practitioners have never truly bothered to investigate the subject in a systematic empirical manner. They have made a series of assumptions and generalizations regarding the subject, based on what facts they know and have used for formulating what they consider as "laws" of the universe. Since the Stone appears to violate these supposed "laws" (which, again, are just assumptions and generalizations based on what empirical facts they know), then they simply dismiss it as "impossible" or very unlikely. Unfortunately for them, sooner or later all theories and supposed "laws" are destined to either fail and be replaced or modified as new, previously ignored or overlooked empirical facts come to the surface which contradict said theories/laws. That's why the truest form of science is empiricism.

Florius Frammel
01-04-2018, 11:43 AM
If you are referring to Jean Julien Champagne, I think there is already plenty of evidence indicating that he was not "Fulcanelli".

Interesting. Can you please name a few of these evidences? There are a lot of theories about the identity/identities of Fulcanelli.

Warmheart
01-04-2018, 07:19 PM
Viruses and bacteria are just living organisms. Where do they come from? Evolution, like all other organisms. What was happening before you were born? Pick up a history book and you will find out a lot of what was happening long before you were born. What will happen after you die? Who knows!
Do you think that evolution really exists and it isn't just some groundless theory, which already became like religious dogma in scientific circles?

History books also only describe what happened just recently, up to some 10000 years ago. And even with those little 10000 we can see by our own eyes even now that history = lie. History is being written by oligarchs and politicians and have little in common with reality.

Also the question stood, what was happening with YOU before you were born, not what historicians wrote :) What will happen with YOU after death is also important. And if it those questions are stupid, then why bother with Ultimate Medicine?

One thing only: that there is no proof that zombies exist outside of the movies. If you happen to have captured one in the real world, I am sure that plenty of scientists are going to be interested in examining "it".
Outside of zombies there are "lethargic" states gone "wrong". There are still many cases when people are buried alive. Science doesn't know what is life and how to separate living from dead.

You have some rather strange ideas about what scientists supposedly do.
Scientists are supposed to know or, at least, attempt to learn. But most of the "scientists" have huge books full of dogmas which have answers for all questions. And if they have no answers for some questions, than those questions are wrong, those things are impossible, "science" knows it better. It already has bizarre theories of evolution, cavemen and other crazy stuff for any possible case. And it strives only thanks to several people, who used totally "unscientific" ways of learning things around them.

I actually made a very long post, but decided to shorten it. I don't want to shatter people's faith in modern science, but what do they want from Alchemy then? Science already has all answers and it is already much more progressed as never before, and Alchemy is just that... stupid mother of Chemistry as it is called in some schools.

What concerns Fulcanelli, the man behind him (supposedly Champagne) was trying to push coal and chalk as double matter of Alchemists, but he thought that antimony is probably important too. After Fulcanelli died from self-poisoning, Canseliet decided that antimony was actually THE right matter. It seems neither of those things was the right matter, or Champagne and Canseliet didn't know the proper method of operation.

Awani
01-04-2018, 07:39 PM
There are plenty of respected scientists that are currently rewriting the THEORY of evolution. If science ever claims something other than "theory", "evidence" or "model" it is nothing more than fundamentalistic dogma. No "true" scientist ever utters the word fact.


“The ultimate singularity is the Big Bang, which physicists believe was responsible for the birth of the universe. We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything. It is a notion that is, in fact, utterly absurd, yet terribly important. Those so-called rational assumptions flow from this initial impossible situation. Western religion has its own singularity in the form of the apocalypse, an event placed not at the beginning of the universe but at its end. This seems a more logical position than that of science. If singularities exist at all it seems easier to suppose that they might arise out of an ancient and highly complexified cosmos, such as our own, than out of a featureless and dimensionless mega-void.” - Terence McKenna
:p

JDP
01-04-2018, 09:39 PM
Do you think that evolution really exists and it isn't just some groundless theory, which already became like religious dogma in scientific circles?

The fossil record is pretty clear. Evolution is supported by empirical evidence. Unless you want to believe that all organisms alive today were around since day 1 in the exact same form, with no changes whatsoever through the ages, which is not supported by the said fossil record.


History books also only describe what happened just recently, up to some 10000 years ago. And even with those little 10000 we can see by our own eyes even now that history = lie. History is being written by oligarchs and politicians and have little in common with reality.
Also the question stood, what was happening with YOU before you were born, not what historicians wrote :)

Your conspiracy theories aside, thousands of years worth of history (not only in the form of the written record, but even the archaeological and still older fossil record) should pretty much prove that there were things going on long before you were born. The universe did not stop existing just because you weren't around back then.


What will happen with YOU after death is also important. And if it those questions are stupid, then why bother with Ultimate Medicine?

Science never claimed it knows what happens after you die. It is religion that pretends to know such a thing (without any evidence whatsoever to back up its claims, mind you.) Science can only limit itself to commenting on what it can know from the evidence available: your consciousness seems to "vanish" as your brain can no longer function, and your body starts a gradual process of decay. That's all it knows from the available evidence.

Science may actually achieve a sort of "immortality" for living organisms, though, if progress in cryonics continues. It might very well be possible to "freeze" living organisms (including people) and "revive" them at some point in the future, thus extending their life-span. The possibilities here seem very interesting. Theoretically, it should be possible for living organisms to go on living for centuries. The problem right now is not in the "freezing", but in the "unfreezing" process, which still damages the cells. Research is going on in this department to come up with a way of doing it without such damage. Then technically the organism would still be "intact" and capable of living again, many years or even centuries after it should have "died" if it had continued its existence at normal temperatures.


Outside of zombies there are "lethargic" states gone "wrong". There are still many cases when people are buried alive. Science doesn't know what is life and how to separate living from dead.

If you are talking about things like "premature burial" and such, science has been aware of such things for a long time:

http://alcor.org/Library/html/PersonsApparentlyDead.htm



Scientists are supposed to know or, at least, attempt to learn. But most of the "scientists" have huge books full of dogmas which have answers for all questions. And if they have no answers for some questions, than those questions are wrong, those things are impossible, "science" knows it better. It already has bizarre theories of evolution, cavemen and other crazy stuff for any possible case. And it strives only thanks to several people, who used totally "unscientific" ways of learning things around them.

Science bases its notions on empirical evidence, or more precisely the empirical evidence it knows about. Religion, on the other hand, relies solely on faith. And what is faith? Belief in things for which you have no evidence whatsoever. So give me science any day!


I actually made a very long post, but decided to shorten it. I don't want to shatter people's faith in modern science, but what do they want from Alchemy then? Science already has all answers and it is already much more progressed as never before, and Alchemy is just that... stupid mother of Chemistry as it is called in some schools.

Again, that's because science has not made any true serious effort to investigate alchemy and the empirical facts it rested on (which are difficult to discover, unlike its theories/speculations, which are plainly set down in writing.) Had it done so it would have a rather different opinion of the subject.


What concerns Fulcanelli, the man behind him (supposedly Champagne) was trying to push coal and chalk as double matter of Alchemists, but he thought that antimony is probably important too. After Fulcanelli died from self-poisoning, Canseliet decided that antimony was actually THE right matter. It seems neither of those things was the right matter, or Champagne and Canseliet didn't know the proper method of operation.

I don't know where you are getting these strange ideas from. For example, Fulcanelli very clearly rejected antimony and stibnite as the matter to make either the secret solvent or the Stone itself. It was Canseliet, one of his self-proclaimed "disciples", who for some strange reason became fixated with antimony.

Florius Frammel
01-04-2018, 10:35 PM
@Warmheart

I know some scientists who are just like you describe them. But believe me that most scientists are far away from that picture. Of course there are dogmas and false theories. And there exist some evidences that don't fit into the theories, including evolution. But the majority of evidences back those theories despite of the few exceptions. It is a matter of possibility. There are other/alternative theories around backed with fewer evidences and therefore less regarded, but maybe more in future times. It is like a bet based upon the sum of evidences that are empirically known today. Tomorrow or in some years things might look different.

I will never forget a note attached on the door of the office of the professor of physical chemistry at the university where I was working as a student, although I probably forgot the exact words. It went like this:

"Being out of school you know you know everything.
Being student at the university you know you have way more to learn.
Being a professor at the university you know that you know nothing."

Wise words, at least for me

Edit: Actually what was written on that note is quite old. It's a variation of Socrates most famous words.

Warmheart
01-05-2018, 05:47 AM
"Being out of school you know you know everything.
Being student at the university you know you have way more to learn.
Being a professor at the university you know that you know nothing."

Wise words, at least for me

Edit: Actually what was written on that note is quite old. It's a variation of Socrates most famous words.
Indeed. Socrates was a wise and respected man, but people didn't really think much about his words, rather laughed at him.

My point was: people take any information for granted. They barely question anything. People don't know what is life, what is fossil, what is thought, what is age, what is time, what is consciousness, etc., they operate with premade templates. Same about matter, they don't question what actually is the matter, can there be totally different variants of matter, can matter be "immaterial" but more than tangible?

Does matter exist?

Do people exist or they are just reflection of yourself?

Do you exist?

When such questions are being asked in the dream, the consciousness shifts to higher degree. There are similar ways to shift consciousness while awoke to the totally different level - one of such ways is to keep questioning everything, questioning the very basics of things.

Hence it makes me sad when people start operating with some totally bizarre theories and demonstrate those as facts, just because someone has proved something somewhere.

Tomorrow you might awake and know that Christophore Colombo was president of America 10 years ago, in 2013. You won't even notice any difference - everything else will be the same, because your thoughts, which people falsely associate with themselves, will limit you and create margins of your mental perception: you won't even feel any substitution. When people talk about the past - it is like they are sure that past truly happened, what is the past? People only see shades, reflections, temporary wisdom, very relative knowledge. Past changes as people are changing, or rather all changes are just a delusion, they are the playground of Nature, while human only watches.

When people will realize that, and that there is only one pure thing out of all and above them all, then they will be able to contact it and get direct knowledge of totally incredible things.

It requires a certain level of maturity to drive away illusions, they are so charming and keep human's mind occupied for trillions of years. But once you realize that you are basically locked in them, you will want to find way out. And that's when your quest for the Stone will begin. You will realize that Ultimate Reality has so much more than these unstable reflections, which people take for one and only possible reality.

Life of a man is like a dream, which already passed, only remembrance of that dream is left. Dreams are always full of subverted knowledge, reflections of primal emanations of Logos. There are things which are much more tangible than this dreamful world. Matter which is para-physical, which is para-objective, just like there is para-electricity and para-magnetism. Everything in human's world is like poor reflection of Ultimate Reality, but for Alchemical operations you need the matter from Ultimate Reality, not from this one. It is everywhere, but it can't be perceived unless, speaking Hermetically, you drive Satan off the throne of your Heart.

People might disregard my posts as some insane walls of texts, but I will be glad if they will help someone to deepen their view on this world and on Nature.

pierre
01-05-2018, 10:56 PM
I don't think we can simply just "trust" everyone. Best way to go IMO, is to see beyond the apparent contradictions, develop a good instinct/intuition, find the common ground and the universal laws that apply basically everywhere, establish a basic conceptual model/hypothesis and test it in the lab.



If you are referring to Jean Julien Champagne, I think there is already plenty of evidence indicating that he was not "Fulcanelli".

Some people think that Julien Champagne "inherited" the writings of an adept from pierre dujols, and that later they were the two fulcanelli's books.
But its just a theory...

Schmuldvich
01-20-2018, 04:21 AM
My point was: people take any information for granted.

Indeed, Warmheart!








1

There is only one thing in the whole world from which our Mercury can be obtained. It is like gold in essence, but different in substance, and if you change its elements you will have what you seek.

The whole knowledge of our Art consists in the discovery of this our sea; any Alchemist who is ignorant of it, is simply wasting his money.


2

Now this one only Matter though it be common is not known by everyone, everyone carries it with them, and only one of a hundred thousand shall know it: you cannot take a step without finding it in your way, for it is without you as well as within you, and yet the number is very small of those who know it: a million seek it and not one finds it.


3

Now in answer to your question as to whether this operation has one root or many, know that it has but one, and but one matter and one substance of which and with which alone it is done, nor is anything added to it or subtracted to it.

As Hermes said, just as all things come of one, so also is the Great Work done with one thing and one substance.


4

Thou needest but one thing, namely Water, and one operation, to wit Decoction, to White and Red, in one vessell, understand of one kind.


5

Therefore doth the name remain concealed, for the evils' sake which might thence proceed. All the strange Parables which the Philosophers have spoken mystically, of a Stone, a Moon, a Furnace, a Vessel, all this is Saturn; for you must not put any strange thing unto it, only what comes from it, therefore there is none so poor in this world, which cannot operate and promote this work; for Luna may be easily made of Saturn, in a short time, and in a little longer time Sol may be made out of it.

And though a man be poor, yet may he very well attain unto it, and may be employed to make the Philosopher's Stone


6

Therefore our stone is from one thing only, as is aforesaid, and it is performed by one act or work, with decoction: and by one digestion, or operation, which is the changing of it first to black, then to white, thirdly, to red: and by one projection, by which the whole act and work is finished. From henceforth, let all pseudo-chemist, and their followers, cease from their vain distillations, sublimations, conjunctions, calcinations, dissolutions, contritions, and other like vanities.

When the elixir is well prepared, it ought to be made liquid, that it may melt as wax upon a plate red fire-hot, or upon coals. Now observe what you do in the white, the same you must do in the red, for the work is all one. The same operation that is in the one, is in the other, as well in multiplication as projection.

The vessel for our stone is but one, in which the whole magistery or elixir is performed and perfected; this is a cucurbit, hose bottom is round like an egg, or an urinal, smooth within, that it may ascend and descend the more easily, covered with a limbeck round and smooth every where, and not very high, and whose bottom is round also like an egg. Its largeness ought to be such, that the medicine or matter may not fill above a fourth part of it, made of strong durable glass, clear and transparent, that you may see through it, all the colours appertaining to, and appearing in the work; in which the spirit moving continually, cannot pass or fly away.

Let it also be so closed, that as nothing can go out of it, so nothing can enter into it; as Lucas saith, lute the vessel strongly with lutum sapientiae, that nothing may get in or go out of it. For the flowers, or matter subliming, should breathe out, or any strange air or matter enter in, your work will be spoiled and lost. And though the philosophers oftentimes say, that the matter is to be put into the vessel, and closed up fast, yet it is sufficient for the operator, once to put the said matter in, once to close it up, and so to keep it even to the very perfection and finishing of the work. If these things be often repeated, the work will be spoiled.

Therefore saith Rhasis, keep your vessel continually close, encompassed with dew, which demonstrates what kind of heat you are to use, and so well luted that none of the flowers, or that which sublimes, may get out, or vanish in vapour or fume. And in Speculum Alchimiae, it is said, let the philosophers’ stone remain shut within the vessel strongly, until such time that it has drunk up the humidity; and let it be nourished with a continual heat till it becomes white.


7

But instead of considering that one only compound is sufficient for the philosopher, you enjoy yourself, stupid chemists, to put several products together, and instead of the philosopher, who boils, with a gentle and solar heat, in a single vessel, a single vapour which thickens slowly, you put one thousand different ingredients together, and instead of God, who made all things from nothing, you debase everything to nothing.

Because our science encloses the whole Magistery in one root, which I made you know already, and perhaps more than I had to. This root contains two substances, which have only one essence however, and these substances, which are intitially only Gold and Silver in power, become eventually Gold and Silver in act, provided we can well equalise their weights. Yes, these substances make actual Gold and Silver.


8

By the omnipotent God, and on the salvation of my soul, I here declare to you earnest seekers, in pity to your earnest searching, the whole Philosophical Work, which is only taken from one subject and perfected in one thing.


9

Let us take heed; for although Sol and Luna may be subtiliated and mixed with tinctures, and so reduced into lesser tinctures, and Elixirs with mean profit; yet the true way according to the Doctrine of Philosophers, is not in them: for Sol and Luna are two tinctures Principal, red and white, buried in one and the same body, which by nature were never brought to perfect compliment, yet they are separable from their dirty and accidental dross, and afterward according to their proper qualities, are made most fit ferments for pure earth, white and red, so as in no sort they are said to breed any other thing. For the whole Work is one, and the thing itself is one, and all the whole is derived from an Image.


10

Sure sealed up therein concoct thy Gold.
For our one thing that is to wit our Stone
And by one way which is decoction
And in one Vessel do we putrify, Dissolve, Congeal, and Seeth continually.
First grows he Black in dissolution Until the end of Putrifaction.
That as the moisture doth congeal and dry
Gay Orient Colours therein thou shalt espye
And afterwards true Whiteness shall appear
Like Fishes Eyes or Diamonds shining clear
Thus White at last when water yields to air
Which yields to fire then red it doth appear.
And often yellow red changing hue
And oft it melt, congeals before Whiteness true
It doth dissolve, colour and putrify Killing itself reviving joyfully
After his Whiteness do increase the fire
Keep safe the Ashes which thou dost desire
Which God shall give thee molten crowned to red
Which King, Philosophers have honoured.


11

My Son, I would tell you yet a true word, namely that the whole Work is made by a single, ordinary, common, united with itself Matter, in a single well-sealed vessel, and a single oven; it has everything in it, which is necessary for perfection, and is finished by a single Regimen of the Fire. Who now knows the correct Matter, prepares the same also in a well-sealed vessel, and puts everything properly into its Oven, that one need no longer delay the Work.

To strive after the Matter, which will give me the beautiful Argentum Viva, by means of thine effective division; such would I do, in a well-sealed clean vessel, and put under an oven, which has been surrounded by A Wall: Then thou Nature will know to do the Work further, as it ought: I give honest thanks therefore to Thee, of all Arts, that thou hast given me, and to make thine Inheritance such a high good. I will follow thy Teachings, that I may acquire this Noble Tincture from the Elements, by means of divine assistance, and thy Help.

It is only a stone, namely our Philosophical Solar Water, our one true way, a medicine which adds nothing externally, but nonetheless something is accomplished thereby, for this one removes the superfluities in the preparation; for if something external were to be effected, the work would be immediately disturbed, and nothing that is sought would be obtained therefrom.

You should trouble yourselves neither with the putting together of many things, nor with those things which the Philosophers have set in their books; for the secret of the truth is a single nature, and that has hidden it in its belly, invisibly, and is known only by the sages.



When I read words from the old Masters in such concurrency with each other over so many centuries I tend to take what they say to heart! Some of these select quotes are extraordinarily revealing, and there are plenty more quotes out there supporting that our Matter is ONE.

Andro
01-20-2018, 05:46 AM
there are plenty more quotes out there supporting that our Matter is ONE.

Chemical Moonshine is one of my favorite texts. It also says it is better to look to the Astral for our (one) matter. Very similar to the 'Astral Spirit' of ICH, Cyliani and Recreations.

I'm pretty sure the counter-quotes are coming soon, the ones saying the matter is a composite :)

JDP
01-20-2018, 09:09 AM
Chemical Moonshine is one of my favorite texts. It also says it is better to look to the Astral for our (one) matter. Very similar to the 'Astral Spirit' of ICH, Cyliani and Recreations.

I'm pretty sure the counter-quotes are coming soon, the ones saying the matter is a composite :)

As it should naturally be expected, unless you enjoy people falling for very obvious traps and waste their time and money looking for something that does not exist anywhere until you (the operator) actually make it from several necessary substances. The more honest alchemists do bother to point out what the REAL meaning of this supposed "one matter" actually is:


The matter of the Tincture is One Thing that, by fire, has been extracted out of three


But that which prepares this body is blood, or virgin's milk, for it unites and joins all the various substances and properties into one body, it being only necessary to apply to them a gentle heat that long continues at the same degree, neither increasing nor decreasing...

The whole key to accomplishment of this operation is in the fire, with which the minerals are prepared and the bad spirits held back, and with which the spirit and body are joined.



Secondly there are some that say the Stone is made only of one matter, viz. argent vive; some of two; others of three; yet neither do these sentences oppose one another, for it is compounded of sulphur & mercury, both which are one thing: and although it is said to consist of 3 things, viz. individuals of sal, Sulphur & Mercury, in the purity of its nature it is simple Mercury, of a threefold form only in its external shape: and although many things are brought together for our use, yet all these things ought to come into one, before they are fit ingredients for our work.

Fourthly some do determine the matter of the philosophic Stone to be merely mettalline, others both vegetable, & animal, which diversity is to be taken in share, in reality there is no difference: for all the true & general searchers of Nature agree in this, that the Stone may be made of any subject of these kinds, and that it is best of all made of these conjoined in one; but because it is necessary that the sulphur & mercuries of the other 2 bodies are to be reduced into a pure homogenous & unctuous substance, (which is the condition of a metallic nature) before they can be accommodated to the great work; therefore the matter may rightly be called mettalline, yea a metal.

It is granted me to say this, that the Fountain, where our Diana doth bath & wash herself, is nothing else but our Aqua vitae, in which the salt & white sulphur of Nature that is our Diana is dissolved, & by digestion made wonderfully pure & potent. This Aqua vitae is thus made. Take the choicest sulphur which is very acid, & the best mercury which is very oleous, accurately remove all earthy feculency by sublimation or distillation, make the mercury very pure & subtle with common salt, vitriol, or both together: when they are so purified, resolve them, & unite them by the means of a distilled water. Afterwards, by due fermentation & digestion, you shall have a clear & uniform liquor, which is our Wine.


Take our Artificial Antimony, but not the Natural Antimony as it comes out of the Earth, for that is too dry for our work, and hath little or no humidity, or fatness in it, but take as I say, our Artificial Antimonial Compound, which is abundantly replenished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God, to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath enclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole World.

This our Antimonial Compound is only to be revealed to the Children of Art, who firmly believe the constant truth thereof, and whom in all fraternal love and charity we say, that it is made of one Sulphur, and of two Mercuries, which otherwise by the wise Philosophers are called, the Sun, Moon, and Mercury, or as some of them will more plainly have it, Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, which are the three several and distinct substances and bodies, although for the most part we term them but one Thing, because in the conclusion of our work they make but one Thing, that is our admirable Elixir, and they have alone original, and tend altogether but to one end. For if we had not in our Work a triune aspect of these Planets, and did not begin it with a Trinity, all would be lost labour and inutilous profile.

Wherefore if thou wilt thrive in our Art, we wish thee to begin with our Mineral Trinity, whereof this our Artificial Antimonial compound is made. Take then first in the prime beginning of thy Work, these three noble Kinsmen, who are immediately imbued with all the strong and subtile qualities of the four Elements, and in their due and most natural proportions, (in which proportions see thou do not err, for if thou do, thou shalt never reduce those bodies into our true Chaos, and so thou wilt be constrained to begin again, which will be a most tedious discouragement unto thee).


Our work derives from one root, and from two mercurial substances taken crude from the mine, extracted pure and clean, with fire conjoined in friendship, as required by this matter, and continually cooked until from the two one thing is made, in which one is Body, Spirit; and this body is made from a mixture.

Note: "root" is VERY different from "matter" or "substance". Trevisan considers it is "one root" (i.e. the mineral/metallic "root") but openly acknowledges that it is definitely NOT just "one substance" (i.e. in quantity)


This water is extracted from a certain stinking menstruum, OBTAINED FROM THE MIXTURE OF FOUR THINGS, which is stronger than the water of the world, which only spirit amplifies the tincture of the ferment.


Know, may Allah the Exalted have mercy on thee, that the prime matter from which the Elixir is formed is WEIGHED from little and then is equalised, SINCE IT IS COMPOUNDED FROM DRY PARTS AND MOIST PARTS, the one of them greater than the other in weight; then it is equalised, for the weight is compensated by the arrangement of THREE PARTS, ONE OF THEM SINGLE and the second OF TWO and the THIRD OF FOUR, and EACH OF THESE THREE has a name. The name of THE FIRST is "The Egyptian", that of THE SECOND is "The Twin", and that of THE LAST is "The Sealing Clay". As for the WEIGHT OF EACH ONE OF THEM, verily, that of "The Sealing Clay" is ONE PART, that of "The Twin" is HALF A PART, and that of "The Egyptian" is 2 1/4 TIMES AS MUCH AS THAT OF "The Sealing Clay" and 4 1/2 TIMES AS MUCH AS THAT OF "The Twin"...

Therefore the DRY PART of the prime matter is taken, by the WEIGHT ABOVE MENTIONED, AND THE TWO ARE WELL MIXED BY POUNDING AND PLACED IN A VESSEL AND ALLOWED TO REMAIN UNTIL THE MOISTNESS HAS UNITED WITH THE DRYNESS AS WATER UNITES WITH WINE.


They also named it the vessel, the alembic, the temple and the congregational mosque because it gathers all persons of our science, and likewise the vessel collected in it THE MIXTURE, in which they have all that is in it, and therefore they named THIS MIXTURE ---which is their stone, Lead-Copper, and Magnesia--- the temple.


And you, O my Lady, if you think that the MIXING of the magnesia has to take place in two bodies, you would be wrong. However, I say that the MIXING has to be in THREE BODIES, and the operations of THESE BODIES should be IN THE RIGHT WEIGHT..."

With regard to the magnesia, IT IS THREE BODIES about which I told you that the mercury is solidified IN THEM.

I already told you about its making solid, its making white, its burning, its breaking into fragments, its pounding and its making red. It is the sulphur, which entered into the water AT THE BEGINNING OF THE COMPOSITION.

But I rather say and explain to you that the sulphur CANNOT BE FROM THE SULPHUR ALONE. But the sage names ALL THE THINGS AS HE MIXES THEM - AND THEY TURN INTO ONE THING - SULPHUR, and that thing which he named sulphur TURNED INTO VARIOUS THINGS.

With regard to this, the sage Agathodaimon said: "The salting with the gum is what quickly burns THE COMPONENTS OF THE MIXTURES... it (the gum) is fixed by THE COMPONENTS OF THE MIXTURE. And it looks as if its sharpness, its hardness and its persistence is based on its (the gum's) desire FOR THE COMPONENTS OF THE MIXTURE..."

And it is what the sages meant in the interpretation: "Pound THE COMPOSITION on the fire and mix the water with it until the dye rises up from EVERY THING."

Therefore Maria said: "If you pound THE THINGS fine by the fire until they rise up as vapour and become mature, they would complete what you are looking for."

Know that when THE THINGS ARE MIXED, they named ALL OF THEM WITH ONE NAME, either copper, silver, magnesia, or mercury; and know that what they named copper has within it THE COPPERS AND COMBINED BODIES.

Therefore, when you read ANY OF THE BOOKS BY THE SAGES, and find that THEY GAVE ONE NAME, THEN DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS ONE. And if they gave TWO OR THREE NAMES, then you must know THAT THERE ARE EVEN MORE THAN THAT. It is the same as with the origin of arithmetic that is based on the number one, and then extends to many numbers. Our work is just like that: IT IS NAMED ONE, ALTHOUGH IT HAS IN IT VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE MIXTURES.

I already told you that this nature, which the sages named nature, is (based on) VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE MIXTURES. BUT WHEN THEY ARE MIXED THEY MARRY EACH OTHER, THUS BECOMING ONE THING which they named nature.

After this, I should perhaps tell you about THE ONE NATURE THAT IS COMPOSED FROM VARIOUS NATURES AND THAT IS NAMED ONE THING.

From statements such as these, you should know that THIS ONE TO WHICH THEY GAVE ONE NAME COMES FROM VARIOUS THINGS. Then afterwards, sharpen your understanding IN THE MIXING OF THESE THINGS TILL THEY MARRY, MIX AND HOLD EACH OTHER.

When I read the words from the more honest and clear of the old Masters in such concurrency with each other over so many centuries I tend to take what they say to heart! Some of these select quotes are extraordinarily revealing, and there are plenty more quotes out there supporting that our Matter is MOST CERTAINLY NOT JUST "ONE" (quantitatively) BUT SEVERAL "JOINED" TOGETHER, AND NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN NATURE ALREADY MADE FOR ANYONE'S WISHFUL CONVENIENCE BUT BROUGHT TOGETHER BY THE OPERATOR HIMSELF.

Andro
01-20-2018, 09:20 AM
When I read words from the more honest and clear of the old Masters in such concurrency with each other over so many centuries I tend to take what they say to heart! Some of these select quotes are extraordinarily revealing, and there are plenty more quotes out there supporting that our Matter is MOST CERTAINLY NOT JUST "ONE" (quantitatively) BUT SEVERAL "JOINED" TOGETHER, AND NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN NATURE ALREADY MADE FOR ANYONE'S WISHFUL CONVENIENCE BUT BROUGHT TOGETHER BY THE OPERATOR HIMSELF.


Note: "root" is VERY different from "matter" or "substance". Trevisan considers it is "one root" (i.e. the mineral/metallic "root") but openly acknowledges that it is definitely NOT just "one substance" (i.e. in quantity)

This "one root" bit can be a bit tricky :)

"One root" does not necessarily imply "mineral/metallic root" (as in taking different substances that are all mineral and/or metallic, i.e. different metals/minerals).

"One root" may also mean we are using "different" matters that have alchemically "evolved" from our one/prime matter/root.

So it's also a question of how we interpret "One Root", IMO.

Schmuldvich
01-20-2018, 09:21 AM
I appreciate you posting these quotes! Fantastic quotes!

Many of them, such as "Book of Knowledge Acquired Concerning the Cultivation of Gold" by al-Iraq, back up what I have been saying. We read things with different eyes, JDP.

Until you accept (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire/page20) that Blood is a compound/mixture, Rain-Water is a compound/mixture, and that Mud is a compound/mixture...yet each are still respectively One Matter you will continue to be lost in the labyrinth.

Other than this one issue that ticks at you so hard, you have almost all the foundational knowledge you need to be a successful practicing Alchemist!

What happened when you subjected these single substances (Rain-Water, Sea-Water, or Blood) to your known processes...? :confused:

JDP
01-20-2018, 09:39 AM
I appreciate you posting these quotes! Fantastic quotes!

Many of them, such as "Book of Knowledge Acquired Concerning the Cultivation of Gold" by al-Iraq, back up what I have been saying. We read things with different eyes, JDP.

Until you accept (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1310-One-Matter-One-Vessel-One-Fire/page20) that Blood is a compound/mixture, Rain-Water is a compound/mixture, and that Mud is a compound/mixture...yet each are still respectively One Matter you will continue to be lost in the labyrinth.

Other than this one issue that ticks at you so hard, you have almost all the foundational knowledge you need to be a successful practicing Alchemist!

What happened when you subjected these single substances (Rain-Water, Sea-Water, or Blood) to your known processes...? :confused:

I think that the difference is actually that I am a more careful reader than you. For example: you seem to not be able to grasp that al-Iraqi is obviously and quite plainly talking about COMPOSING the "Elixir" with WEIGHTS FROM AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE SUBSTANCES (which he hides under the following "decknamen": "The Egyptian", "The Twin" and "The Sealing Clay"), so this is NOT the "work of nature" but of a MAN (i.e. the alchemist himself.) It requires scales and an intelligent, conscious, decision-making, purposeful hand here to do this weighing, mixing and heating. Nature has none of these and therefore does not operate in such a manner as man. So no wonder you keep being "lost" in this "labyrinth" and keep falling for the same old "one matter only" obvious trap. Nature will NEVER be able to make this crucial mixture for you. The only thing it can do is give you the raw matters for YOU to do it.

JDP
01-20-2018, 09:48 AM
This "one root" bit can be a bit tricky :)

"One root" does not necessarily imply "mineral/metallic root" (as in taking different substances that are all mineral and/or metallic, i.e. different metals/minerals).

"One root" may also mean we are using "different" matters that have alchemically "evolved" from our one/prime matter/root.

So it's also a question of how we interpret "One Root", IMO.

The quote itself refers to the "mercurial substances" (notice the plural) taken from "the mine", and that the resulting "body" from the operations BY MEANS OF FIRE is a MIXTURE from (at least) TWO "CONJOINED IN FRIENDSHIP", not the other way around (viz. from one starting matter + fire ---> two or more substances.) So the "one root" bit obviously is not making the inferences you propose.

Schmuldvich
01-20-2018, 10:05 AM
I think that the difference is actually that I am a more careful reader than you. For example: you seem to not be able to grasp that al-Iraqi is obviously and quite plainly talking about COMPOSING the "Elixir" with WEIGHTS FROM AT LEAST THREE SEPARATE SUBSTANCES (which he hides under the following "decknamen": "The Egyptian", "The Twin" and "The Sealing Clay"), so this is NOT the "work of nature" but of a MAN (i.e. the alchemist himself.) It requires scales and an intelligent, conscious, decision-making, purposeful hand here to do this weighing, mixing and heating. Nature has none of these and therefore does not operate in such a manner as man. So no wonder you keep being "lost" in this "labyrinth" and keep falling for the same old "one matter only" obvious trap. Nature will NEVER be able to make this crucial mixture for you. The only thing it can do is give you the raw matters for YOU to do it.

What happened when you subjected each of these matters (Rain-Water, Sea-Water, Blood, Mud) individually to your processes...?

...Or have you never worked with One Matter?

Being "more careful" may not be what is needed! See:: How To Read Alchemy Texts (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5465-How-To-Read-Alchemy-Texts)

I mean this not to be derogatory at all, JDP, but can you not comprehend what al-Iraq is attempting to convey when he refers to "The Egyptian", "The Twin", and "The Sealing Clay"???

Is this not utmost obvious to you in all your practice and experimenting?

To me the meaning is obvious, although from your above quote it appears you do not grasp the esoteric, hidden sense of what al-Iraq is saying. Instead, you take the superficial literal exoteric meaning of the words and expect to see Success with this?

Again, I am not trying to put you down at all, JDP. I very much respect you and your knowledge, I am just doing my best to understand where you are coming from.

I completely disagree with what you say in the above post. We do not need to physically weigh things out or use scales. This is the work of fools! "Nature" does all this for us (and more!). The mixing is also done by "Nature". We as Artists just need to prepare our Matter and provide an appropriate microcosm so that our Matter can evolve. If we manage our microcosm as the Sages did, we see Success.

JDP
01-20-2018, 10:35 AM
What happened when you subjected each of these matters (Rain-Water, Sea-Water, Blood, Mud) individually to your processes...?

...Or have you never worked with One Matter?

Being "more careful" may not be what is needed! See:: How To Read Alchemy Texts (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?5465-How-To-Read-Alchemy-Texts)

I mean this not to be derogatory at all, JDP, but can you not comprehend what al-Iraq is attempting to convey when he refers to "The Egyptian", "The Twin", and "The Sealing Clay"???

Is this not utmost obvious to you in all your practice and experimenting?

To me the meaning is obvious, although from your above quote it appears you do not grasp the esoteric, hidden sense of what al-Iraq is saying. Instead, you take the superficial literal exoteric meaning of the words and expect to see Success with this?

Again, I am not trying to put you down at all, JDP. I very much respect you and your knowledge, I am just doing my best to understand where you are coming from.

I completely disagree with what you say in the above post. We do not need to physically weigh things out or use scales. This is the work of fools! "Nature" does all this for us (and more!). The mixing is also done by "Nature". We as Artists just need to prepare our Matter and provide an appropriate microcosm so that our Matter can evolve. If we manage our microcosm as the Sages did, we see Success.

I think that you have a mistaken view on how alchemy texts were composed and how they are to be read & understood. When al-Iraqi is telling you to MIX "The Egyptian", "The Sealing Clay" and "The Twins" in certain PROPORTIONS he is not trying to "deceive" you in any other way other than giving you "DECKNAMEN" (if you don't know what this word means, look it up) so that no casual "unworthy" reader can easily know what are the REAL NAMES of the substances being used. There is no need for any more "obfuscation" here. Using "decknamen" was THE FAVORITE MEANS OF CONCEALMENT of the alchemists. And for a good reason: it works! All you have to do is give phony or fantastic names to real substances to cause humongous amounts of confusion and doubt among seekers. The alchemists knew it was a "tried & tested" method and very liberally used it. Their books are literally filled with HUNDREDS of them. Some authors (like the above cited Ibn Umail, for example) even devoted ENTIRE WORKS to help clarify what actual substances all these code-names referred to. You need to reexamine the way you read these texts because you are PROJECTING your own arbitrary ideas on what these guys actually wrote and meant.

It is hardly necessary to heat single natural matters like rain water or blood to actually know what byproducts they give off; plenty of "puffers", "chymists" and chemists already did that since centuries ago. Read Lemery's or Glaser's "chymical" text-books and all the naturally-occurring single substances they submitted to analysis, for example. There is NONE that by itself can be said to fit all of what the alchemists describe in their books.

Schmuldvich
01-20-2018, 10:53 AM
Wow!

You have never worked with One Matter...?

I am absolutely amazed, astounded, flabbergasted at the insane amount of effort you put into debunking something you have never even tried.

More and more each day we see how much of an 'empiricist' you actually are and now present yourself more like a preacher than anything, JDP.

Incredible!

You have never touched the Secret Solvent...

You have never produced the Philosopher's Stone...

You have never worked with One Matter...

Everything you say is speculation.

Mind.Blown.

Ever attended seminary school? ;)

Andro
01-20-2018, 11:18 AM
More and more each day we see how much of an 'empiricist' you actually are and now present yourself more like a preacher than anything, JDP.

I'm actually kind of getting the same vibe here...

Like:


THERE IS NO OTHER WAY

That's something a priest/preacher would say, like for example: "there is no other way but to accept christ as you lord and savior", etc... otherwise there's hell and damnation (and of course alchemical failure) and what not...




If you intend to preach 'your way or the highway' - you will not fit in well... All ideas are welcome at Alchemy Forums, as truth is not in the hands of any single person.



So, are we Men of Science? Or Men of Faith?

I'd say we sort of need to be both, only to subsequently realize that they are ultimately the same :)

JDP
01-20-2018, 03:04 PM
Wow!

You have never worked with One Matter...?

I am absolutely amazed, astounded, flabbergasted at the insane amount of effort you put into debunking something you have never even tried.

More and more each day we see how much of an 'empiricist' you actually are and now present yourself more like a preacher than anything, JDP.

Incredible!

You have never touched the Secret Solvent...

You have never produced the Philosopher's Stone...

You have never worked with One Matter...

Everything you say is speculation.

Mind.Blown.

Ever attended seminary school? ;)

Funny coming from a complete and total speculator, who tries to bend & twist even the clear words of people who obviously did not swallow the "one matter only" ruse and actually explained what it really means (i.e. "one matter" only in outward appearance, but made by manipulating several things), who also openly admits that he has reaped nothing but failure so far and yet keeps stubbornly on clinging to the same erroneous approach of manipulating single natural substances, despite the clear warnings by some alchemists that by manipulating things like blood on its own leads nowhere but failure. :)

JDP
01-20-2018, 03:10 PM
I'm actually kind of getting the same vibe here...

Like:



That's something a priest/preacher would say, like for example: "there is no other way but to accept christ as you lord and savior", etc... otherwise there's hell and damnation (and of course alchemical failure) and what not...

The difference is that what I "preach" is REALISTIC (it is simply trial & error and process of elimination, nothing else; gee, I must be a "guru", the champion of all "mystics"!!!), and it is the SAME EMPIRICAL REALITY FOR ALL, not some mysterious "chosen" or what have you. Some of the people that you don't seem very keen on criticizing but actually rather prone on siding with are the ones that actually preach strange unproven ideas and things. :)

Andro
01-20-2018, 03:29 PM
The difference is that what I "preach" is REALISTIC (it is simply trial & error and process of elimination, nothing else; gee, I must be a "guru", the champion of all "mystics"!!!), and it is the SAME EMPIRICAL REALITY FOR ALL, not some mysterious "chosen" or what have you.

Same difference, as they say. The "what" of what's being preached is irrelevant. The moment it becomes "the only way"... well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...


Some of the people that you don't seem very keen on criticizing but actually rather prone on siding with are the ones that actually preach strange unproven ideas and things.

There ya go again :) I allegedly "side" with those who "preach" other things than you, which will of course be labeled as "strange" ideas and things, because they're not "gospel" :)

Actually, I only "side" with my own experience (so far), while not negating other possibilities. Why am I not negating other possibilities? Because of lack of direct experience. Nothing more. Personally, I haven't discovered "one matter" that is "readily available in nature" and can perform the work from beginning to end. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means I haven't come across such a thing. It's as simple as that. However, from personal research and lab work so far, there IS such a matter that is NOT readily available in nature, but that's a different story.

Yes, I could say that Schmuldvich (for example), is "preaching" the "one matter" gospel. But he doesn't appear to be on a "holy crusade" about it. At least not yet... :)

JDP
01-20-2018, 03:40 PM
Same difference, as they say. The "what" of what's being preached is irrelevant. The moment it becomes "the only way"... well, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck...

Of course it is relevant. There is a huge difference between "preaching" normal methods of investigation practiced by millions of people since the dawn of mankind, & which are open to everyone, and things like "revelations", "Divine Interventions", "psychic powers" that can force matter to do things it doesn't want to, ill-defined "things" popping out of thin air, etc., which I am pretty sure no one has ever proven they actually exist in the first place. No one will come to me requiring "proof" of trial & error and process of elimination, rest assured of that. Everyone knows how real they are. They don't need my word for it!


There ya go again :) I allegedly "side" with those who "preach" other things than you, which will of course be labeled as "strange" ideas and things, because they're not "gospel" :)

Well, you tell me what else can you call an ill-defined "something" seemingly popping out of thin air if not "strange ideas and things"???


Actually, I only "side" with my own experience (so far), while not negating other possibilities. Why am I not negating other possibilities? Because of lack of direct experience. Nothing more. Personally, I haven't discovered "one matter" that is "readily available in nature" and can perform the work from beginning to end. However, there is such a matter that is NOT readily available in nature, but that's a different story.

Yes, I could say that Schmuldvich (for example), is "preaching" the "one matter" gospel. But he's not on a "holy crusade" about it. At least not yet :)

He isn't? Is that why he plasters the same carefully selected quotes (even from some authors who openly contradict what he claims) whenever he gets a chance and, unlike yours truly, even opens entire threads devoted to the subject of promoting that claim? :)

Andro
01-20-2018, 03:54 PM
Of course it is relevant. There is a huge difference between "preaching" normal methods of investigation practiced by millions of people since the dawn of mankind, & which are open to everyone, and things like "revelations", "Divine Interventions", "psychic powers" that can force matter to do things it doesn't want to

What's "normal"? All those "millions of people" and their "normal methods of investigation", have they completed the stone? And how many people here are even talking about psychic powers and divine interventions? Very few, I think, at least in the context of lab work. So no need to insert the tooth fairy and her extended family in every sermon :)


I am pretty sure no one has ever proven they actually exist in the first place. No one will come to me requiring "proof" of trial & error and process of elimination, rest assured of that. Everyone knows how real they are. They don't need my word for it!

No one should come to you "requiring proof", because it's impossible to prove a negative. About elimination: You have to have plenty of experience with the topic you are discrediting in order to "eliminate it". In fact, it is practically impossible to ever have enough data to eliminate anything... the amount of data one would need to eliminate something with absolute certainty is infinite.


Well, you tell me what else can you call an ill-defined "something" seemingly popping out of thin air if not "strange ideas and things"???

Right now, I can call it: "Something that JDP has no direct, personal experience with".


He isn't? Is that why he plasters the same carefully selected quotes (even from some authors who openly contradict what he claims) whenever he gets a chance and, unlike yours truly, even opens entire threads devoted to the subject of promoting that claim? :)

No problem with starting threads about any topic. It's the way to do it, actually. Live and let live. It's a different thing to jump on almost every non-gospel thread and hijack it with the same type of sermons.

This being said, if Schmuldvich will be found to systemically derail "multiple matters" threads with "one matter" sermons, he will proudly join the ranks of religious warfare and we will have a genuine holy war :)

No problem with starting a "church" here, as long as one is able to peacefully co-exist with all the other "churches".

However, systemically infiltrating other "churches" and attempting to "recruit" - is a big no-no :)

Ghislain
01-20-2018, 08:37 PM
Well, you tell me what else can you call an ill-defined "something" seemingly popping out of thin air if not "strange ideas and things"???

http://rabbisacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/bigbang.jpg

THE BIG BANG :confused:

Ghislain

Awani
01-20-2018, 11:32 PM
...normal methods of investigation practiced by millions of people since the dawn of mankind, & which are open to everyone...

Are you honestly debating empirical science on an on-line forum about alchemy?

Bottom line is, you may preach "proof"... and your "enemies" may preach "mumbo-jumbo"... but THIS whole debate is taking place in - what millions of people around the world - and what thousands and thousands of scientists, deem complete nonsense. From the perspective of empirical science and their kin: you are like a fool trying to make other fools be your kind of fool. LOL.

:p

JDP
01-21-2018, 08:41 AM
Are you honestly debating empirical science on an on-line forum about alchemy?

Bottom line is, you may preach "proof"... and your "enemies" may preach "mumbo-jumbo"... but THIS whole debate is taking place in - what millions of people around the world - and what thousands and thousands of scientists, deem complete nonsense. From the perspective of empirical science and their kin: you are like a fool trying to make other fools be your kind of fool. LOL.

:p

I know it seems "strange" to you and maybe to some "scientists" with very little acquaintance with the subject, but that is in fact how the alchemists worked: trial & error and process of elimination. Plan "A" does not work; move to plan "B"; if plan "B" does not work, move on to plan "C". And so on. Unless you seriously want to entertain the idea that they had some sort of "supernatural" help or knowledge that most other people did not.

JDP
01-21-2018, 08:44 AM
http://rabbisacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/bigbang.jpg

THE BIG BANG :confused:

Ghislain

But the "Big Bang" did not pop up out of "thin air". Supposedly the whole mass of the universe was "there", just in a super compacted form. In any event, that is obviously just a THEORY. I was talking about EMPIRICAL FACTS that can be verified by anyone.

Schmuldvich
02-05-2018, 10:46 PM
I've been reading the 1-1-1 discussion and think I want to say my thoughts on it as it may help our brothers/sisters out there who stuggle with the matter/compound/substance/one matter debacle, though if I am not correct in my thinking I am definitely open to being corrected. I'm not saying this is right but just consider the equal and opposite side to this coin [Full disclosure: A 'composite substance' by a scientific view is how I view the one matter though but this is alchemy not science]. Firstly I ask that one take a minute to put aside disbelief, take ones skeptic eyes off and just listen, be open. I have got some background in science and, while it is more physics than chemistry which I have most understanding, I feel I truly understand the logic presented. There is nothing wrong with the logic, it is sound, correct, by definitions of some in the main thread sea water or other alike matters are composite. What if that wasn't what the alchemists were trying to get at?

Can one get pure water to do what the alchemists claim? Can the qualities of such water change in the ways described in adept literature. If the answer is no then maybe it is time to consider that what was implied is something else. Now-a-days parts thinking is so wide spread and while one can separate the flora, fauna, water, minerals from an eco system if one did one isn't left with an eco-system any longer. There was an ecosystem which when divided can no longer be reassembled into the ecosystem it was without a huge process of adjustment and no doubt hundreds/thousands of years and even then due to different initial conditions would probably look very different. Indigenous thinking is more from of a wholes/process perspective and considering the ancient origins of alchemy is it not even worthy of considering that hermetic philosophy may resemble thinking from an earlier time? Primitive or not in order to understand them consider the historical perspective.

A human being could be broken down into bones, sinews, muscle, organ etc. What if sea-water is considered by alchemists to be more like a being? A whole which while can be divided and so in that sense isn't 'one matter' but in another sense if we take all the 'parts' of a human and lay them side by side we don't have a human anymore, the whole has been broken and cannot be put back together, something is missing. If left to develop from the one matter of the embryo (which indeed is a compound of many 'elements') evolves into the magnificent human beings we all are, what are the conditions that allow this being to express it self more fully?


https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/c0.31.697.697/12479318_1489755121333124_2041435891_n.jpg?ig_cach e_key=MTE1Njk4MDA0NjkyNTQ1NTU1Ng%3D%3D.2.c

Respectfully,

Philosophical

Have you read the "Epistle by Antonio Abbatia"?

This treatise does a great job of explaining the difference between a compound of substances and One Matter.

Nice musings, Philosophical!

JDP
02-06-2018, 12:08 AM
Have you read the "Epistle by Antonio Abbatia"?

This treatise does a great job of explaining the difference between a compound of substances and One Matter.


That author can sometimes be "tricky" and in some passages uses a rather deceptive name: "compositum of Nature". This name, taken at face value and combined with some of his comments, will fool many into thinking that nature all by itself produces this composite matter and all you have to do is just find it already made for your convenience, and then either "cook it" as is, or, separate two, three, or several more things from it and then re-unite them to make the Stone. But Abbatia sometimes was more honest regarding this topic and inserts some comments that clarify that the hand of man is actually involved even here in this supposed "work of nature", and that nature by itself really does not make this composite matter, or at least it takes it a whole bunch of time to be able to do so (but how could he know this? Evidently he was not around for 1000 years in order to check out if his claim was actually true):

"My dear Brothers, Let each and all mark these words carefully, because great wisdom is hidden in them. Yet another error I will disclose to you concerning our compositum from which other composita are produced. (notice this last part well, since he here is not talking about the other "compositums" that can be made from this first one; he is talking about the initial composite matter here, the one he sometimes likes to mislead you into thinking that nature will make for you by calling it "compositum of Nature".) For some have dared to produce it anew, which is impossible to do because it is a work of Nature, and, without the assistance of the Art, it is hardly generated by Nature alone in a thousand years. Therefore, the Art takes the same and works in it in such a way as to accomplish and complete in one day, that is, in a short time, what Nature alone can hardly do in a thousand years."

So, this "compositum of Nature" is NOT really "made by nature" (statement which should properly be understood only as meaning "without man's intervention", not in this tricky way many alchemists misuse it in order to fool unwary seekers into thinking they will find it already made somewhere in nature for their convenience.) It requires the intervention and manipulations of man in order for this "compositum" to be produced. So the actual truth is that nature itself DOES NOT MAKE THIS COMPOSITE "MATTER", MAN DOES. Without his appropriate intervention it would never be made. Nature simply CAN'T make this composite (no matter what Abbatia thought about "1000 years", which he obviously could never check to see if it was actually true.)

PS - Incidentally, Abbatia, specially in his first epistle (which has not been translated into English), will also give you a nice chit-chat on the important difference between common solvents, like "aqua fortises", which DO NOT PERMANENTLY REMAIN WITH THE METALS THEY DISSOLVE, and the secret solvent of alchemy, WHICH PERMANENTLY REMAINS WITH THEM.

Kiorionis
02-06-2018, 12:22 AM
Curious.


For some have dared to produce it anew, which is impossible to do because it is a work of Nature

From your quote, JDP, I gathered something entirely different. Abbatia specifically says, as quoted just now, that the compositum is “a work of Nature” and not a “work of Man”. Which necessarily means his compositum is generated “without man’s intervention” — though in very small amounts.

How do you rationalize this?

JDP
02-06-2018, 12:31 AM
Curious.



From your quote, JDP, I gathered something entirely different. Abbatia specifically says, as quoted just now, that the compositum is “a work of Nature” and not a “work of Man”. Which necessarily means his compositum is generated “without man’s intervention” — though in very small amounts.

How do you rationalize this?

I guess you missed what he says rigtht after, namely: "and, without the assistance of the Art, it is hardly generated by Nature alone in a thousand years. Therefore, the Art takes the same and works in it in such a way as to accomplish and complete in one day, that is, in a short time, what Nature alone can hardly do in a thousand years." Can't you see the obvious contradiction in what he says? It's a "work of nature" that, curiously enough, nature can't actually make (or, as he prefers to believe due to his "philosophical" speculations, it cannot do it within a reasonable amount of time) unless "Art" (i.e. man's hand) intervenes.

Kiorionis
02-06-2018, 01:28 AM
Nope, didn’t miss it, just interpreted it differently. Just because he says nature produces the compositum over a long period of time doesn’t mean we can jump to the idea that nature doesn’t produce it.

From that quotation it sounds to me like he’s talking about taking a small amount of a created thing (so-called compositum) and then multiplying it, like lighting one candle from another.

But that’s just me :). Is that text a translation into English? If so, I’m sure some of the real meaning has been lost.

elixirmixer
02-06-2018, 01:32 AM
I'd like to bring up the case of Calsite as the potential materia, taking potentially thousands of years to produce, stalagmites grow extremely slowly. The ones in the cave near me have been measured for 80 years and grew 2mm. And that's actually a fast growing cave. I would have trashed literally tens of thousands of years of mineral development in a single day by taking those crystals

JDP
02-06-2018, 01:33 AM
Nope, didn’t miss it, just interpreted it differently. Just because he says nature produces the compositum over a long period of time doesn’t mean we can jump to the idea that nature doesn’t produce it.

From that quotation it sounds to me like he’s talking about taking a small amount of a created thing (so-called compositum) and then multiplying it, like lighting one candle from another.

But that’s just me :). Is that text a translation into English? If so, I’m sure some of the real meaning has been lost.

And you seriously think he was able to stick around for 1000 years or more to actually confirm his claim that nature can eventually make this composite all on its own, without man's intervention? For a couple of good reasons (one of them being the already pointed out fact that Abbatia could not possibly have stuck around so long to check out if what he thought was actually true), I am not buying his claim even for a second.

elixirmixer
02-06-2018, 01:58 AM
Nature could theoretically create SM in the bowls of the earth. "Thunder eggs" grow, and I'd bet anything that as they grow a natural vacuum is created in the space where the crystals dry out, acting as an incredible, natural orgone accumulator AND an SM vessel simultaneously, however, this would take 1000's of year obviously.

Also, isn't gold made from a condensation of our secret solvent? So if nature is making gold, then she is most likely making the solvent, to some degree, unless of course you still believe in supa-nova being the chief cause of metals on earth (which is a fucking fairytale IMO)

Kiorionis
02-06-2018, 02:11 AM
And you seriously think he was able to stick around for 1000 years or more to actually confirm his claim that nature can eventually make this composite all on its own, without man's intervention? For a couple of good reasons (one of them being the already pointed out fact that Abbatia could not possibly have stuck around so long to check out if what he thought was actually true), I am not buying his claim even for a second.


Nope. I find it more reasonable to think that Abbatia was being a bit dramatic in order to emphasize the scarcity of the compositum. What I do find hard to believe is that figurative and flowery language can be taken literally.

It’s not the first time alchemists or others writing on the subject have mentioned it either. For example Sendivogius, when talking about the “central atom of the seed”, says it is the 1/8200th part of the grain. It’s also pretty easy to draw a comparison between a “compositum” and Sendivogius’ seed, which is generated out of the elements (thus being a composite substance).

Which brings up a good question. Why can’t one thing be more than one thing? A child is one thing, but composed of mother and father, if you want to look at the facts.

JDP
02-06-2018, 06:14 AM
Nope. I find it more reasonable to think that Abbatia was being a bit dramatic in order to emphasize the scarcity of the compositum. What I do find hard to believe is that figurative and flowery language can be taken literally.

It’s not the first time alchemists or others writing on the subject have mentioned it either. For example Sendivogius, when talking about the “central atom of the seed”, says it is the 1/8200th part of the grain. It’s also pretty easy to draw a comparison between a “compositum” and Sendivogius’ seed, which is generated out of the elements (thus being a composite substance).

Which brings up a good question. Why can’t one thing be more than one thing? A child is one thing, but composed of mother and father, if you want to look at the facts.

But look at the context in which Abbatia uses the word "compositum". This Latin word literally means "compound", "composition". He is talking about a mixture of substances from which the "water" of alchemy is made. This is very different from supposed "seeds" of metals, which is theoretical speculation.

Also, another thing that betrays the fact that Abbatia does not even for a second really believe that you can make the Stone with only one matter, despite some of his misleading insinuations: his obvious preoccupation with the subject that common solvents, like aqua fortis, do not permanently remain with the metals that they dissolve, while the secret solvent of alchemy does. In his first epistle (his second epistle was translated into English, while the first one was unfortunately not translated) he talks about this subject and uses a similar example as was already used by Thomas Norton in his Ordinal of Alchemy(but, unlike Abbatia, Norton does not make misleading insinuations about some supposed "one matter only"; Norton clearly worked with at least 4 substances to make the Stone) to illustrate this point: silver dissolved in "corrosive waters", like aqua fortis, does not remain with them, the corrosive "spirits" can always be separated from the dissolved metal, yet the same metal dissolved with the secret solvent permanently remains with it like an "oil". Now, why would anyone who really believed that the Stone can be made from "one matter only" have so much preoccupation with what the "water" of the alchemists does to metals? This by itself should have sent a very clear warning signal to all the seekers who swallowed the "one matter only" ruse that something is awfully suspicious -to say the least!- regarding this hardly believable claim. If it was true, we would expect most alchemists to have very little interest in such a subject, since supposedly no other matter must be used. You can learn a lot from the old saying "practice what you preach". When you see that what people preach and what they actually do is very different, then you should immediately have serious doubts regarding the "preaching" part. Obviously such people do not believe what they pay lip service to, otherwise they would practice it themselves. So, Mr. Antonio de Abbatia and all other alchemists who contradicted their words with their actions, wherever you are, my rascally friends, this one is for you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVbTXg8x2EA

JDP
02-20-2018, 01:52 PM
I'm not saying to outright discard any potential value out there.

But my research has taught me to be careful with "recipes". Especially if some images look like they have been staged just for the photo-shoot and some elements don't make a lot of sense in a laboratory setting.

I have "studied" and even replicated a lot of methods from books and from the web in my earlier stages of research. Didn't really get me anywhere :)

With time, came a new way of looking at things and the mechanics behind them, to the point of being able to devise my own models and accompanying experiments.

IME, once the "principles" and "mechanics" are better understood and seen with "new eyes", the emerging models and resulting experiments take a completely different turn.

I suggest to ask ourselves what this "Spiritus Mundi" is, what role it plays in the works of nature/reality, "where" is it found and mostly, what conditions can make it tangible/accessible (like for example "upsetting" a pre-existing "balance", as Salazius said). This approach may free us from endlessly analyzing "recipes" that will most likely never provide all the necessary keys. It can also save us a lot of money, BTW :)

About the "tangible" aspect: We are used to words like "manifestation", "corporification", etc... This tends to put off the more scientifically-minded researchers.

Why not DE-mystify the whole thing in our own heads first?

Perhaps we can learn something from the "ormus" people. The word "precipitate" is much more user-friendly and is IMO also a perfectly valid term to describe what is happening in the Alchemical practice.

It "precipitates" out of earth/air/water/space/whatever, when certain conditions are met and when certain "balances" are upset/agitated. For example, while I myself am not a fan of "chemical" agents in Alchemical work, I am most certainly not dogmatically opposed to people using them to achieve said conditions. I think that even Cyliani and St. Didier at some point mention some knowledge of chemistry.

Whatever works, right?

So I would much rather recommend working to devise/outline (and subsequently test and refine) a MODEL of how this machinery called "life" or "spirit" operates, and gradually DE-mystify the whole thing... Then, our own "methods" and "recipes" will more likely follow...

And maybe it's equally our "fault" that some people hear the term "Spiritus Mundi" and the first thing that crosses their minds is the Tooth Fairy :)


---------------------------------------------------------------

You might as well believe in her, since there is just about as much evidence of her existence as that of the "Spiritus Mundi", namely: none. Here is another idea: try to "capture" Santa. The "magnet" or "trap" are cookies and a glass of milk right next to your chimney. Oooops, wait, there's no evidence that he exists either!

Andro
02-20-2018, 05:21 PM
The post above was moved here from the "Spiritus Mundi" thread.

Regurgitating the ole "no evidence" rote everywhere the "Spiritus Mundi" topic pops up (or other topics like "One Matter"), only means that you (and those you know of) "have no evidence". That's ALL that it means. It doesn't mean there is "no evidence". It only means YOU don't have evidence (or know of such to be available).

NONE of us speaks "for the universe" - we can only speak from the limitations of our own knowledge, understanding and experiences.

This is getting tiring.

Please do not reply to this post.

Aham
02-22-2018, 04:09 AM
You might as well believe in her, since there is just about as much evidence of her existence as that of the "Spiritus Mundi", namely: none. Here is another idea: try to "capture" Santa. The "magnet" or "trap" are cookies and a glass of milk right next to your chimney. Oooops, wait, there's no evidence that he exists either!

JDP, so here's what's going through my mind... This is just my personal opinion so you don't have to respond if you don't want to or feel the need to...

While others, including you ;) may disagree with this or part of this opinion, I think you're one of the smartest and well read guys on here. You seem to have a lot of really good info and share quite a bit of the alchemical info freely with us. For that, you are a rock star in my book. This also means to me that just like some of the others on this forum know how to manifest SM, I think you know how to do this too.

So... the times when you seem to go completely 'out of character' is when someone brings up 'one matter' and 'SM'. So that's one data point that doesn't make sense to me given how intense you are about making sure that every post on this forum related to those two topics is bound to get a negative response from you. Yes... I've read your many many many posts on the value of experiential data but still your insane focus on discounting the one matter and SM perspective is admirable, albeit getting old in my book. :)

A long time ago, I remember you saying that you wanted to make sure that you could extract all the value possible from turning lead into gold before sharing your secret with others (I'm paraphrasing). That's the second data point I remember about your posts and speaks to your primary motivation.

For obvious reasons you want to be first to complete the transmutation on a large scale so we can call that the third data point or an offshoot of the second data point.

Given these three data points/motivations, I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path. I don't have any evidence one way or another and I don't know you from Adam, pun intended ;) other than your contributions on the forum but it does bring to question your motivation for pushing as hard as you do on discrediting the content related to these two discussions.

Also wondering if your arguments would be more effective, for me to believe you, if you were judicious about when you wade into these discussions. Obviously you are free to do as you wish and you do :D

This has been on my mind for a while so thought that I would post it here and give you something else to beat up :p

http://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72347644/peace-out.jpg

Andro
02-22-2018, 07:01 AM
I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path.

Interesting point. Hasn't crossed my mind before...


I don't know you from Adam

Who's Adam :confused:

JDP
02-22-2018, 07:27 AM
JDP, so here's what's going through my mind... This is just my personal opinion so you don't have to respond if you don't want to or feel the need to...

While others, including you ;) may disagree with this or part of this opinion, I think you're one of the smartest and well read guys on here. You seem to have a lot of really good info and share quite a bit of the alchemical info freely with us. For that, you are a rock star in my book. This also means to me that just like some of the others on this forum know how to manifest SM, I think you know how to do this too.

So... the times when you seem to go completely 'out of character' is when someone brings up 'one matter' and 'SM'. So that's one data point that doesn't make sense to me given how intense you are about making sure that every post on this forum related to those two topics is bound to get a negative response from you. Yes... I've read your many many many posts on the value of experiential data but still your insane focus on discounting the one matter and SM perspective is admirable, albeit getting old in my book. :)

A long time ago, I remember you saying that you wanted to make sure that you could extract all the value possible from turning lead into gold before sharing your secret with others (I'm paraphrasing). That's the second data point I remember about your posts and speaks to your primary motivation.

For obvious reasons you want to be first to complete the transmutation on a large scale so we can call that the third data point or an offshoot of the second data point.

Given these three data points/motivations, I often wonder if your attempts at discrediting the one matter (philosophically speaking) or SM are maybe your single-minded focus to distract all others from the path while you work out the details of the path. I don't have any evidence one way or another and I don't know you from Adam, pun intended ;) other than your contributions on the forum but it does bring to question your motivation for pushing as hard as you do on discrediting the content related to these two discussions.

Also wondering if your arguments would be more effective, for me to believe you, if you were judicious about when you wade into these discussions. Obviously you are free to do as you wish and you do :D

This has been on my mind for a while so thought that I would post it here and give you something else to beat up :p

http://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72347644/peace-out.jpg

Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy" (he knows I like to compare the HYPOTHETICAL notion of "Spiritus Mundi" with mythical beings, since there is no evidence that either one of them exists.)

"Spiritus Mundi" is nothing else than a theoretical speculation of some writers of centuries past. It is not a different case as with the "phlogiston" principle. They were created to try to "explain" some observable phenomena. But things moved on since those centuries, more empirical facts about the world we live in gradually accumulated, particularly about the invisible gases that make up our atmosphere, and such ideas were proven to be incorrect. What those guys attributed to these mysterious "principles" were really just caused by actual substances with their own peculiar set of characteristics. For example, what many writers, like Glauber or Stahl, attributed to "Spiritus Mundi" or to "phlogiston" was in fact all due to nitrogen and/or oxygen, two invisible gases unknown to those chymists. The observed phenomena were not the result of any "universal" principles but actual, real, tangible substances with their set of peculiar properties causing them. "Spiritus Mundi" and "phlogiston" are theoretical relics. They have no place in our modern world.

Andro
02-22-2018, 08:16 AM
Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy"

I'll elaborate: Perhaps it's the "fault" of the more "hermetically inclined" Alchemists (i.e. those who also work with Astrology & Theurgy IN ADDITION to the Alchemy lab work) that people who are more scientifically oriented are put off by such terminology. Maybe we could use a more 'scientifically appealing' nomenclature, like "precipitating" instead of "manifesting" and even "Insanely Rectified Sublimate" (IRS) instead of "Spiritus Mundi".

:)

Florius Frammel
02-22-2018, 09:49 AM
Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy" (he knows I like to compare the HYPOTHETICAL notion of "Spiritus Mundi" with mythical beings, since there is no evidence that either one of them exists.)

"Spiritus Mundi" is nothing else than a theoretical speculation of some writers of centuries past. It is not a different case as with the "phlogiston" principle. They were created to try to "explain" some observable phenomena. But things moved on since those centuries, more empirical facts about the world we live in gradually accumulated, particularly about the invisible gases that make up our atmosphere, and such ideas were proven to be incorrect. What those guys attributed to these mysterious "principles" were really just caused by actual substances with their own peculiar set of characteristics. For example, what many writers, like Glauber or Stahl, attributed to "Spiritus Mundi" or to "phlogiston" was in fact all due to nitrogen and/or oxygen, two invisible gases unknown to those chymists. The observed phenomena were not the result of any "universal" principles but actual, real, tangible substances with their set of peculiar properties causing them. "Spiritus Mundi" and "phlogiston" are theoretical relics. They have no place in our modern world.

I think that Phlogiston was just another word for the Sulfur principle invented by Stahl. It maybe was an attempt to make the sulfur more palpable. Nowadays these concepts can be found in thermodynamic terms like "enthalpy" or "inner energy".

JDP
02-22-2018, 05:29 PM
I think that Phlogiston was just another word for the Sulfur principle invented by Stahl. It maybe was an attempt to make the sulfur more palpable. Nowadays these concepts can be found in thermodynamic terms like "enthalpy" or "inner energy".

The "sulphur" concept is obviously much older than Stahl. It goes all the way back to the Aristotelian concepts of metallogenesis expressed in the Meteorologica, where he explains that minerals/metals have their origin in two "exhalations" within the earth, one "humid & vaporous" and the other one "dry & smoky". When the early Muslims got a hold of Aristotle's books they started identifying these two "exhalations" with a "mercurial" (the "humid & vaporous") and a "sulfureous" (the "dry & smoky") principles that supposedly composed all mineral/metallic bodies. The "sulphur" principle was seen as the cause of combustion and calcination. So when you calcined a metal, the "ash" or calx that remained was the metal deprived of its more crude and superficial "sulphur", which had been ejected/eliminated from the metal by the fire. Centuries later the German chymist Becher and his pupil Stahl took this old theory as the basis for their "phlogiston" theory. It was up to Lavoisier later in the 18th century, taking full advantage of still more accumulated data on the subject of combustion/calcination, to show that all the observed phenomena of combustion and calcination was due to the oxygen of the atmosphere and how it combined or separated with other substances, and not any internal "principle" found in all combustible/calcinable substances, like this supposed "phlogiston".

Florius Frammel
02-22-2018, 05:39 PM
I agree. I did not want to say that the sulfur principle was invented by Stahl but the phlogiston theory that based on this principle. Sorry if that was written unclear.

In addition I think that Becher, Stahl and Lavoisier were wrong on their interpretation of the sulphur principle. It should have been noticed very early that the calxes of metals are heavier than the metal itself and therefore the sulfur principle must be understood in another way. Priestley and Lavoisier detected oxygen and its role in calcination. But the increasement of mass sure has been observed way before and no one saw a problem with the sulfur principle. It only was a problem with the phlogiston theory which was a (false) interpretation of the sulfur principle obviously.

JDP
02-22-2018, 06:12 PM
I agree. I did not want to say that the sulfur principle was invented by Stahl but the phlogiston theory that based on this principle. Sorry if that was written unclear.

In addition I think that Becher, Stahl and Lavoisier were wrong on their interpretation of the sulphur principle. It should have been noticed very early that the calxes of metals are heavier than the metal itself and therefore the sulfur principle must be understood in another way. Priestley and Lavoisier detected oxygen and its role in calcination. But the increasement of mass sure has been observed way before and no one saw a problem with the sulfur principle. It only was a problem with the phlogiston theory which was a (false) interpretation of the sulfur principle obviously.

Lavoisier was not fooled by the increase in weight, since he saw it as oxygen attaching or removing itself from the combustible/calcinable matters, but all those who preceded him, including those who tried to explain these phenomena via the "sulphur" principle, were in fact falling into contradictions with their own theories. Why were the metallic calxes heavier, if, as they claimed, something (whether "sulphur" or "phlogiston") was supposedly being ejected/eliminated from them? This "annoying" empirical fact went without a satisfactory explanation for centuries until Lavoisier finally gave it the most logical and adequate answer, the one we are still using today.

Florius Frammel
02-22-2018, 06:57 PM
But that depends on ones interpretation of "sulphur". Basilius Valentinus definitions for example are far away from a "phlogiston-like substance". In fact he says (in "de microcosme) matter and form are based on earth and water. Salt is in the earth and therefore a change of mass according to him would rather be seen as an effect of the salt principle.

JDP
02-22-2018, 07:24 PM
But that depends on ones interpretation of "sulphur". Basilius Valentinus definitions for example are far away from a "phlogiston-like substance". In fact he says (in "de microcosme) matter and form are based on earth and water. Salt is in the earth and therefore a change of mass according to him would rather be seen as an effect of the salt principle.

Basil Valentine does not seem to go into the issue of what causes calcination, though. The alchemists who did go into it, like the Latin Geber, explain it as a loss of an impure and superficial "sulphur", even though they also noticed that the metals did not keep their "proper" weight in calcination. They just could not account for the gain & loss in weight when metals are calcined and then reduced back to metal. It was all due to something they had right in under their noses but they could not actually see it. This (to us in retrospective) simple fact was a stumbling block for the alchemical & chymical mind for hundreds of years. None of them could come up with a satisfactory explanation to account for such a discrepancy between the observed facts and the theories/speculations designed to supposedly "explain" them. Not even Priestly, the guy from whom Lavoisier himself benefited the most out of his investigations on this subject, could abandon these old theories and explain the observed phenomena in a more satisfactory manner (Priestly remained a "phlogistonist" for the rest of his life, even when most chemists had already abandoned the debunked "phlogiston" in favor of Lavoisier's more satisfactory explanations.)

Florius Frammel
02-22-2018, 08:10 PM
That's what I said. It depends on the definition and that depends on whose books you read. The question should rather be if it is necessary to obtain a certain knowledge of theory of the alchemists and if yes which ones knowledge. For Basil an explanaiton of the "increasing mass phenomena" was not necessary or explained otherwise. This especially makes it hard to identify proper ways to produce alchemical products (and the stone), as there already were different theories and decknamen around in the past. I think even Zosimos already complained about this.

Aham
02-23-2018, 03:24 AM
Who's Adam :confused:

Who knows... other than maybe the guys in "ANDRO's" lab :)

Aham
02-23-2018, 03:40 AM
Keep in mind that my latest response (now moved to this thread) regarding "Spiritus Mundi" was because Andro conjured me up by making references to the "Tooth Fairy" (he knows I like to compare the HYPOTHETICAL notion of "Spiritus Mundi" with mythical beings, since there is no evidence that either one of them exists.)

"Spiritus Mundi" is nothing else than a theoretical speculation of some writers of centuries past. It is not a different case as with the "phlogiston" principle. They were created to try to "explain" some observable phenomena. But things moved on since those centuries, more empirical facts about the world we live in gradually accumulated, particularly about the invisible gases that make up our atmosphere, and such ideas were proven to be incorrect. What those guys attributed to these mysterious "principles" were really just caused by actual substances with their own peculiar set of characteristics. For example, what many writers, like Glauber or Stahl, attributed to "Spiritus Mundi" or to "phlogiston" was in fact all due to nitrogen and/or oxygen, two invisible gases unknown to those chymists. The observed phenomena were not the result of any "universal" principles but actual, real, tangible substances with their set of peculiar properties causing them. "Spiritus Mundi" and "phlogiston" are theoretical relics. They have no place in our modern world.

Sorry, not buying it... I think you know very well how to manifest SM :)

JDP
02-23-2018, 04:18 AM
Sorry, not buying it... I think you know very well how to manifest SM :)

I also know how to manifest the Tooth Fairy: put a tooth under your pillow! But the actual result of such attempts is the same as with all methods proposed to supposedly "manifest" this "SM": nothing! So far there is no proof that either one of them actually exist beyond the wishful imagination of some people.

elixirmixer
02-23-2018, 04:40 AM
I also know how to manifest the Tooth Fairy: put a tooth under your pillow! But the actual result of such attempts is the same as with all methods proposed to supposedly "manifest" this "SM": nothing! So far there is no proof that either one of them actually exist beyond the wishful imagination of some people.

Does that mean you have attempted these experiments JDP?

JDP
02-23-2018, 05:54 AM
Does that mean you have attempted these experiments JDP?

Yes, some of them. They are nonsense. All you get is vulgar humidity from the air, or carbon dioxide (which is "fixed" by some salts), or nitrogenous compounds (through some clever empirical observations Glauber correctly suspected that saltpeter was generated from "something" in the air, which he thought was a "Universal Spirit" which would "fix" itself with many substances, but in reality it was just nitrogen and oxygen, which he failed to truly discover due to his stubborn clinging to these kind of universalist "Spiritus Mundi" type of theories.) There is no evidence that there is any mysterious "thing" floating around everywhere and that it can be "captured". If exposing some substances to the air does something to them and makes them undergo some changes, it is because of the already known gases and vapors present in that complex invisible "soup" called "our atmosphere", certainly not because of any supposed "Spiritus Mundi" that strangely enough nobody has ever seen or isolated. Get it through your heads, folks: "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing but a fossil theory. That's all there is to it. It has been relegated to the footnotes of history, together with its brother "phlogiston". We don't need them, we have way more accumulated empirical facts at our disposal that can much more satisfactorily explain such phenomena.

Andro
02-23-2018, 06:34 AM
Yes, some of them. They are nonsense. All you get is vulgar humidity from the air.

Then maybe try again, only this time exclude the air (i.e. vacuum/very low pressure). The results/yields may be terrible in terms of ROI, but it can make for an interesting proof of concept, as the resulting mass can not be attributed to the infinitesimal amount of gases present in a very low pressure environment.

Florius Frammel
02-23-2018, 07:28 AM
What's ROI?

Andro
02-23-2018, 07:32 AM
What's ROI?

Return On Investment

Dragonsblood
02-26-2018, 01:54 PM
..any supposed "Spiritus Mundi" that strangely enough nobody has ever seen or isolated. Get it through your heads, folks: "Spiritus Mundi" is nothing but a fossil theory. That's all there is to it.

The same can be said for Dark Matter or Dark Energy (in terms of being seen or isolated).. There are individuals (some have participated in this forum at one point or another) who claim to have interacted with SM.
Maybe "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio". There are those of us who have seen things which cannot be satisfactorily explained presently, but don't think the SM theory will ever go away completely.. as long as there is Consciousness to contend with.

z0 K
03-22-2018, 04:36 PM
Or in fact something infinitely more plausible, logical and in accordance to the historical context in which the expression appeared than such modern misinterpretations of alchemy... I will let Fulcanelli explain it, since he did a very nice job at it:

Thus it has been called the universal solvent, not because it is capable of dissolving all bodies in nature --- as many wrongly believe --- but because it can do everything in the small universe which the Great Work constitutes.

The mistake many made was to take such a denomination as "universal solvent" totally literally. It obviously does not dissolve literally "everything", otherwise the subject would fall into impossible paradoxes like those Kunckel pointed out.

It is called the Universal Solvent because it is the Secret Solvent that does the work in all three kingdoms of reducing the starting material to its first matter, Water (liquifaction). One can obtain Ripley's Artificial Antimonial Compound the starting matter, from the plant kingdom or the animal kingdom. Sericon is obtained from the correct putrefaction of the Artificial Antimonial Compound. Proper distillation of the Sericon yields the secret solvent which consists in varying proportions of burnt wine: our blessed water, Sulfur: Fire, and Mercury: Air. The burnt wine is pyro-water. The Sulfur Fire is a ruby red oil pleasantly nutty in aroma that is soluble in burnt wine. Mercury is the armoniac Spirit that is fixed into the burnt wine along with the Fire. When all these kinsmen have been purified and joined to the pure Earth of Sericon one has the Vegetable Stone or medicine for man.

JDP
03-22-2018, 07:09 PM
It is called the Universal Solvent because it is the Secret Solvent that does the work in all three kingdoms of reducing the starting material to its first matter, Water (liquifaction). One can obtain Ripley's Artificial Antimonial Compound the starting matter, from the plant kingdom or the animal kingdom. Sericon is obtained from the correct putrefaction of the Artificial Antimonial Compound. Proper distillation of the Sericon yields the secret solvent which consists in varying proportions of burnt wine: our blessed water, Sulfur: Fire, and Mercury: Air. The burnt wine is pyro-water. The Sulfur Fire is a ruby red oil pleasantly nutty in aroma that is soluble in burnt wine. Mercury is the armoniac Spirit that is fixed into the burnt wine along with the Fire. When all these kinsmen have been purified and joined to the pure Earth of Sericon one has the Vegetable Stone or medicine for man.

He describes a composite made by the alchemist himself, by joining three separate distinct substances (which he arbitrarily calls "one Sulphur, and... two Mercuries".) If nature made this thing it would NOT be "artificial", it would be just another natural matter, plus he obviously could not possibly know how many substances were employed (by nature) to make it. Yet he is quite sure it is 3 substances. The only way you could possibly know this is if YOU are the one making this "artificial antimonial compound".

z0 K
03-22-2018, 08:48 PM
He describes a composite made by the alchemist himself, by joining three separate distinct substances (which he arbitrarily calls "one Sulphur, and... two Mercuries".)

Of course the "compost" is made by the alchemist himself -- you cannot buy it; you have to make it yourself! That might not be possible if you cannot even attempt to explore the idea that three separate distinct substances can nevertheless be obtained from one thing which is found most everywhere on Earth. It is a Philosophical Principle that has been distorted into a dogma by organized religion: the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit: hijacked from Body, Soul, Spirit, or Salt, Sulfur, Mercury.

Embracing that Principle in the laboratory one can observe that what Ripley calls "one Sulfur, and... two Mercuries" is an arbitrary designation which he admits by clarifying that the whole thing is Mercury from beginning to end. All of the operations are carried out by Mercury on Mercury -- the vessels are secondary for the manipulation of the Elements. Manipulate the Elements in the one thing according to Ripley which I have observed as well and you will receive one Sulfur and two Mercuries: a description of the products from one thing: the starting matter.


If nature made this thing it would NOT be "artificial", it would be just another natural matter,

Nature makes everything. Anything man made is artificial: made by human art and craftwork out of natural things.


plus he obviously could not possibly know how many substances were employed (by nature) to make it.

Ripley obviously knew how many substances he obtained from the one thing Nature made and he by art and craftwork composted into Sericon.


Yet he is quite sure it is 3 substances.

Of course Ripley is quite sure it is 3 substances. It is the Three Philosophical Principles, the Holy Trinity, that Nature provides and alchemists transform by artifice.


The only way you could possibly know this is if YOU are the one making this "artificial antimonial compound".

Obviously. By analogy if you want to bake bread you will have to make some dough first. Is dough made by Nature? Look high and low for Nature's dough? No! Dough is artificial.

JDP
03-22-2018, 09:53 PM
Of course the "compost" is made by the alchemist himself -- you cannot buy it; you have to make it yourself! That might not be possible if you cannot even attempt to explore the idea that three separate distinct substances can nevertheless be obtained from one thing which is found most everywhere on Earth. It is a Philosophical Principle that has been distorted into a dogma by organized religion: the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit: hijacked from Body, Soul, Spirit, or Salt, Sulfur, Mercury.

Embracing that Principle in the laboratory one can observe that what Ripley calls "one Sulfur, and... two Mercuries" is an arbitrary designation which he admits by clarifying that the whole thing is Mercury from beginning to end. All of the operations are carried out by Mercury on Mercury -- the vessels are secondary for the manipulation of the Elements. Manipulate the Elements in the one thing according to Ripley which I have observed as well and you will receive one Sulfur and two Mercuries: a description of the products from one thing: the starting matter.

Read carefully, he does not quite say that. He clearly says that it is these three DISTINCT STARTING substances that then BECOME ONE:

This our Antimonial Compound is only to be revealed to the Children of Art, who firmly believe the constant truth thereof, and whom in all fraternal love and charity we say, that it is made of one Sulphur, and of two Mercuries, which otherwise by the wise Philosophers are called, the Sun, Moon, and Mercury, or as some of them will more plainly have it, Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, which are the three several and distinct substances and bodies, although for the most part we term them but one Thing, because in the conclusion of our work they make but one Thing, that is our admirable Elixir, and they have alone original, and tend altogether but to one end. For if we had not in our Work a triune aspect of these Planets, and did not begin it with a Trinity, all would be lost labour and inutilous profile.

That's why it is ARTIFICIAL: man makes it, not nature! That is also why Ripley can know how many substances compose it, which he obviously could not if nature had made this thing on its own. Let us take some other natural substance as an example. How could Ripley know how many substances nature employed to make, say, milk? He just could not know, he would never know because he could not be there watching inside a cow's metabolism to see what exactly is nature using to produce milk inside the cow. But he could know such a thing if milk was in fact made by man. On the other hand, Ripley could easily have known how many substances were employed in making an artificial substance like beer or ale, for example, which nature does not make on its own.


Nature makes everything. Anything man made is artificial: made by human art and craftwork out of natural things.

If we go by that, then nothing is "man-made" and everything is "natural". Even the waste of a chemical factory is "natural". George Carlin used to make a comedy routine out of that semantic nuance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qrezmrrW0


Ripley obviously knew how many substances he obtained from the one thing Nature made and he by art and craftwork composted into Sericon.


He is not talking about obtaining three things from one, but of making one out of three DISTINCT STARTING substances.


Of course Ripley is quite sure it is 3 substances. It is the Three Philosophical Principles, the Holy Trinity, that Nature provides and alchemists transform by artifice.

But nature provides these raw substances separately, not together as "one". Then the alchemist puts them together and makes them react in the appropriate manner and proportions. Nature itself cannot do any of this. It lacks the tools and the appropriate working conditions to carry out such operations. Without man's purposeful and conscious intervention it just would not happen.


Obviously. By analogy if you want to bake bread you will have to make some dough first. Is dough made by Nature? Look high and low for Nature's dough? No! Dough is artificial.

Obviously, because nature could not make flour, dough or bread on its own, even though it provides the raw matters to make them, but it itself cannot do it without man's intervention. So you are in fact agreeing with me: nature CANNOT make either the secret solvent or the Stone. Man's intervention is needed.

alfr
03-23-2018, 12:07 AM
sure JDP you're right when you tell us that the solvent is made by the artist and that he must made

but on what the secret solvent is made with antimony as it says Zo k
I have many doubts unless it is a cover name for other mineral salts, etc. to create from the solvent a vegetable animal an atrop rubber from which the two wines are extracted and from them obtain the water of life or the dianic salmiacs

sure JDP you're right when you tell us that the solvent made by the artist and made and I add that as we indicate the weindenfeld that must be done by the 3 kingdoms (as I said in other posts on this) and to understand the mechanism that implies solvent secret advice to read carefully its prodromus and the parts when they are joined the oleosun the acidum and aridum
and this is how solvent is obtained as the weidenlfel says in his various writings and his misunderstood manuscripts circulating in his enturage
and the same method that also makes the chain of humerus and also the dikinson understand etc is that the philosophical solvent is composed of 3 intersected elements of animal and mineral plants

as weidenfeld would say the oleosun plant and or animal should be combined with acidum and an aridum and from it union with an artifice and elaboration we obtain a water that it will compose the solvent that will be extracted by the gum adrop create in the first water derivate and exstract it by the caos see about it its prodronus
https://www.scribd.com/document/341659938/From-Weidenfeld-s-Prodromus-Libri-Secundi-1


KUNKEL AND ITS EXPRESS ON THE PHILOSOPHERAL SOLVENT?

does anyone have kunkel writings that deepen his research on the spiritus wines and acidum? can give here some reference of his texts titles lin of the pdf etc in English or French and that they treat his experiments on the solvent philosophical but that we are not perostampati German in gothic in particular I am looking for epistola contra spirus wines sine acid
----------------------------------------------------


certo JDP hai ragione quando ci dici che il solvente composto dall'artista e fa fatto e che lui deve fare questo

ma su che il solvente segreto si faccia con antimonio come dice Zo K
ho molte perplessita a meno che non sia un nome di copertura per alri sali minerali etc per creare dal solvente inziale animale vegetale una gomma atrop da cui estratte i due vini e da essi ottenere l'acqua di vita o li salmiac di diana si

certo JDP hai ragione quando ci dici che il solvente composto dall'artista e fa fatto e aggiungo che come ci indica il weindenfeld che va fatto dai 3 regni (come ho detto in altri post su cio ) e per capire il meccanismo che sottointende il solvente segreto consiglio di leggere con attenzione suo prodromus e le parti quando vanno uniti l'oleosun l'acidum e aridum
ed è cosi che si ottiene il solvente come dice il weidenlfel nei suoi vari scritti e suoi misconosciuti manoscritti che circolavano nel suo enturage
ed lo stesso metodo che fa capire anche la catena d'omero e anche il dikinson etc è che il solvente filosofale è composto da 3 elementi intersecati vegetale animale e minerale

come direbbe weidenfeld l'oleosun pianta e o animale va unito ad acidum e a un aridum e da essa unione con un artifici ed elaborazione si ottiene un acqua che essa comporrà il solvente che sara estratto dalla gomma adrop che si è formata dalla acqua derivata ed estratta dal caos iniziale see about it il suo prodronus
https://www.scribd.com/document/341659938/From-Weidenfeld-s-Prodromus-Libri-Secundi-1


KUNKEL ED SUOI ESPRIMENTI SUL SOLVENTE FILOSOFALE ?

qualcuno ha degli scritti di kunkel che approfondiscono le sue ricerche sullo spiritus vini e acidum ? puo dare qui qualche riferimento di suoi testi titoli lin dei pdf etc in inglese o francese e che trattino i suoi esperimenti sul solvente filosofale ma che non siamo perostampati tedesco in gotico in particolare sto cercando epistola contra spirus vini sine acido

elixirmixer
03-23-2018, 10:56 AM
I know I seem to change my train of thought more often than I change my socks, but that's because I don't own many pairs of socks.

The spagyric thing quoted from me above by JDP was a juvenile comment made some time before I understood what alchemy was (and was not)

Now I see Alchemy as basically a mix between Andros hermit driven principles; followed by JDP's no cock and bull mix of compounds, with just a touch of Leo Regulus's "Can do" attitude.

I have to disagree with "The agent and patient" Mr Black; simply because it does seem that the odds are overwhelmingly in JDPs favour of the stone having multiple constituency. I am talking here only about THE stone, and none of its lesser friends. I personally believe Black that you could start with the agent and patient and through putrefaction and other steps end up with something quite amazing. Its my personal view that imbibing any salt with the spirit is going to create something very useful. However... It seems that in regards to the philosophers stone we are looking at potentially 4 different solutes, and the secret solvent. (5 things)

These would be;

Sol (a salt)
Luna (a salt)
Our saltpetre (you guessed it)
Our Sea salt, Virgin Earth, Central Salt ect.

I am confused about the difference between our saltpetre and our sea salt. I'm not sure which one Andros was referring to when he refers to central salt.

I am co fused mainly because Our Saltpetre; in the schemata illustrated Great Work (the Italian text) it depicts Our Saltpetre as being extracted from "the ocean" which could easily designate it as "our sea salt, or central salt" however, we know quite well that it is in fact not the sea SALT since it is in fact NITRE and not salt!? Paradoxical, I think that "our saltpetre" is extracted from the "ocean" and is used throughout the entire process, when the central salt or philosophically prepared NaCl to be specific, is only used to purify the mercury and to create the green lion. (Which I still dont know fuck all about).

Womans work and child's play? They must have had really really smart women and kids back then....

There is no sulphur or mercury to worry about right now. The Sulphur is made via the left over body of the putrefaction going through a dry distillation so its not exactly a starting matter. (At least not in our preparatory stages)

Andro
03-23-2018, 11:39 AM
I'm not sure which one Andros was referring to when he refers to central salt.

It's Andro, not "Andros".

Either spell my name right, or don't mention it at all :mad::p:cool:

True Initiate
03-23-2018, 11:53 AM
I am co fused mainly because Our Saltpetre; in the schemata illustrated Great Work (the Italian text) it depicts Our Saltpetre as being extracted from "the ocean" )

The Ocean in this case could mean the humidity in the Air aka "dew".

z0 K
03-23-2018, 06:04 PM
Read carefully, he does not quite say that. He clearly says that it is these three DISTINCT STARTING substances that then BECOME ONE:

This our Antimonial Compound is only to be revealed to the Children of Art, who firmly believe the constant truth thereof, and whom in all fraternal love and charity we say, that it is made of one Sulphur, and of two Mercuries, which otherwise by the wise Philosophers are called, the Sun, Moon, and Mercury, or as some of them will more plainly have it, Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, which are the three several and distinct substances and bodies, although for the most part we term them but one Thing, because in the conclusion of our work they make but one Thing, that is our admirable Elixir, and they have alone original, and tend altogether but to one end. For if we had not in our Work a triune aspect of these Planets, and did not begin it with a Trinity, all would be lost labour and inutilous profile.

That's why it is ARTIFICIAL: man makes it, not nature! That is also why Ripley can know how many substances compose it, which he obviously could not if nature had made this thing on its own. Let us take some other natural substance as an example. How could Ripley know how many substances nature employed to make, say, milk? He just could not know, he would never know because he could not be there watching inside a cow's metabolism to see what exactly is nature using to produce milk inside the cow. But he could know such a thing if milk was in fact made by man. On the other hand, Ripley could easily have known how many substances were employed in making an artificial substance like beer or ale, for example, which nature does not make on its own.



If we go by that, then nothing is "man-made" and everything is "natural". Even the waste of a chemical factory is "natural". George Carlin used to make a comedy routine out of that semantic nuance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qrezmrrW0



He is not talking about obtaining three things from one, but of making one out of three DISTINCT STARTING substances.



But nature provides these raw substances separately, not together as "one". Then the alchemist puts them together and makes them react in the appropriate manner and proportions. Nature itself cannot do any of this. It lacks the tools and the appropriate working conditions to carry out such operations. Without man's purposeful and conscious intervention it just would not happen.



Obviously, because nature could not make flour, dough or bread on its own, even though it provides the raw matters to make them, but it itself cannot do it without man's intervention. So you are in fact agreeing with me: nature CANNOT make either the secret solvent or the Stone. Man's intervention is needed.

A careful reading is one thing; a clear understanding of what is read is another. Such understanding must be put to the test in the laboratory. What you think he clearly says does not appear to be based on results you have observed in your lab. Otherwise you would know that one thing contains three substances that through artful craft create a new thing becoming one again.

The Ripley quote you chose to underline demonstrates the muddiness of hypothetical musings without experimentation to arrive at the theory. The theory being the Holy Trinity our Philosophical Principles that you will never achieve with your current train of thought since you have no hope of proving me wrong in the lab.

For Ripley sayeth in his Corpus:

IX. This Alchymick Body is called Leprous Gold, wherein Gold and Silver, are in Essence and Power, but not in fight or appearance; in its Profundity or Depth, it is Airous or Spiritual Gold, which none can obtain, unless the same Body be first made clean and pure. The which impure Body after mundification, is a thousand times better than are the Bodies of common Sol and Luna, Decocted by natural heat.

X. This Leprous Gold the Philosophers call, Adrop, or Adrup, which Gold is the Philosophers Lead. This Alchymick Body (in his Concord) he calls Venus in the lesser Work, both for Gold and Silver, because it is a Neutral Body, and very easie to be changed to either: and by this the sense of Sect. 4 and 8. aforegoing may be more easily understood. The Earth, the uncleansed Body, is to be putrified with its own Water, and afterwards nourished with its Mothers Milk, which is called the Sulphur of nature.

XI. The first Matter of this unclean Alchymical Body is a Viscous Water, which is thickened in the Bowels of the Earth. And therefore of this Impure Body (as Vincent saith) is made the great Elixir of the Red and White, whose name is Adrop, or Adrup, viz. the Philosophers Lead. From the which Raymundus commands an Oyl to be drawn: from the Lead of the Philosophers (saith he) let there be an Oyl drawn of a Golden Colour; if you can separate this Oyl (wherein is Our second Tincture and Fire of Nature) from its Phlegm, which is its waterishness, and wisely search out the Secret thereof, you may in the space of thirty days perform the Work of the Philosophers Stone.

Ripley does not agree with your too oft repeated unproven hypothesis:

Besides in these our times we seldom find
any (or none at all) seriously & truely searching after
the tinctures of the philosopheres, but most men do absurdly
& vainly labour & broil in common mercury & common gold
& silver, & therefore most few they are to whom this grace
happens, whereas contrarywise we have seen men who

1 have boyled away all their estates. & therefore beware
2 for although gold & silver may be mixed & subtilized
3 tinctures, & so be brought into lesser elixirs & that with gain,
4 yet the true way (according to the intention of the philosophers)
5 is not in them for their gold & silver are two chief tinctures
6 red & white, buryed in one & the same body the which never by
7 nature, arrived unto their perfect complement or ripeness.
8 Yet are they separable from their earthy lubricity(*) or slimi-
9 ness & their accidental dross, in which they ly hid, & are so
10 commixtible according to their proper nature, with pure earth
11 of white & red, & are accounted such fit ferments
12 thereof that they cannot be at all sayd to want any other strange
13 thing. For the whole work is one, & the thing itself one,
14 & the whole hath its derivation from one image. For the parts
15 of our stone are in it, coëssential & concrete, the which would be
16 altogether absurd if there wanted common gold & silver to
17 the composition thereof. For the philosophers say take a body in which
18 is argent vive, pure, bright, unspotted, & uncompleated by nature.
19 & such a body (after its compleat & perfect mundification is
20 much more excellent than the body of gold & silver of the mine.
21 As concerning this body of the matter of this stone, there are
22 three things most chiefly spoken, & it is called, the green
23 lyon, asa foetida, & the white fume. But yet this is so con-
24 trived by the philosophers that they may deceive fooles, and that by

* lutosity

Page 15

1 reason of the multitude & diversities of the names they may be
2 blinded & mistaken. But see, that thou doest understand
3 & know that one thing is always & really signifyed although there
4 are three named & accidental for the green lyon, asa foetida
5 & the white fume, are denominated from one & the self same
6 subject, in the which they do altogether & always ly hid until
7 they are manifested by art.


But nature provides these raw substances separately, not together as "one". Then the alchemist puts them together and makes them react in the appropriate manner and proportions. Nature itself cannot do any of this. It lacks the tools and the appropriate working conditions to carry out such operations. Without man's purposeful and conscious intervention it just would not happen.

That is not what Ripley sayeth above in red. No speculation; I have seen it in may lab. You are wrong in your assumption concerning fundamental Aspects of Alchemy: But see that thou doest understand and know that ONE THING is always and really signifyed although there are three named and accidental for the Green Lyon, Asa Foetida, and the white fume, are denominated from one and the self same subject, in the which they do and always ly hid until they are manifested by Art. Oops there's that Holy Trinity again. Ripley must wrong... right JDP? Baloney!


Obviously, because nature could not make flour, dough or bread on its own, even though it provides the raw matters to make them, but it itself cannot do it without man's intervention. So you are in fact agreeing with me: nature CANNOT make either the secret solvent or the Stone. Man's intervention is needed.

No I do not agree with you at all. Nature makes everything. Who made you. I made the Vegetable Stone and Nature made me. It is my Nature to exercise Philosophical Principles and Elements in the Amphitheater of Eternal Wisdom. Why? Because my Soul/Spirit is compounded into a Body which works that way by its very Nature.

Schmuldvich
03-23-2018, 06:46 PM
Awesome recent posts, z0 K. Always appreciate you chiming in!


I made the Vegetable Stone.

What are you able to do with it?

JDP
03-23-2018, 08:40 PM
A careful reading is one thing; a clear understanding of what is read is another. Such understanding must be put to the test in the laboratory. What you think he clearly says does not appear to be based on results you have observed in your lab.

How do you know what I have observed in my lab? In fact, what I have observed not only in mine but in those of countless other experimenters who submitted virtually every single naturally occurring matter to "fire analysis" is that this whole "one matter only" claim is obviously nothing but a transparent RUSE, a TRAP. There is NO such single natural matter that displays everything the alchemists describe.


Otherwise you would know that one thing contains three substances that through artful craft create a new thing becoming one again.

You are projecting what other texts say on what he says in "Liber Secretisimus". He clearly says in this text that there's THREE DISTINCT SUBSTANCES, and that you begin the work with this "TRINITY". He does not say anything about any "one matter" containing three. That is a bogus claim that many alchemists peddled in order to make you waste your time seeking for this mysterious "one matter" which does not exist anywhere in nature. That's why you had to bring up what is said in another work attributed to the same author. Which, by the way, he also contradicts in those other writings.


The Ripley quote you chose to underline demonstrates the muddiness of hypothetical musings without experimentation to arrive at the theory. The theory being the Holy Trinity our Philosophical Principles that you will never achieve with your current train of thought since you have no hope of proving me wrong in the lab.

We were talking about what he clearly says in that text, not other texts. It is you who is bringing theories and speculations based on what other texts say. In "Liber Secretisimus" he clearly says that this "trinity" IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK, and they are THREE DISTINCT SEVERAL SUBSTANCES, not "one". This indeed conforms to reality and empirical experience, not the fantasy & fairy tale that there is a mysterious "one matter" found somewhere already made in nature that somehow conveniently contains everything needed for the work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a fairy tale. The fact that this suspicious claim has been floating around since at least the times of Zosimos (who already clearly exposed it for the obvious misleading trap that it is) and that no one in all this time has been able to find any such "one thing" anywhere in nature that can perform everything the alchemists describe, should already have given you a big hint that something is very wrong with this claim.


For Ripley sayeth in his Corpus:

IX. This Alchymick Body is called Leprous Gold, wherein Gold and Silver, are in Essence and Power, but not in fight or appearance; in its Profundity or Depth, it is Airous or Spiritual Gold, which none can obtain, unless the same Body be first made clean and pure. The which impure Body after mundification, is a thousand times better than are the Bodies of common Sol and Luna, Decocted by natural heat.

X. This Leprous Gold the Philosophers call, Adrop, or Adrup, which Gold is the Philosophers Lead. This Alchymick Body (in his Concord) he calls Venus in the lesser Work, both for Gold and Silver, because it is a Neutral Body, and very easie to be changed to either: and by this the sense of Sect. 4 and 8. aforegoing may be more easily understood. The Earth, the uncleansed Body, is to be putrified with its own Water, and afterwards nourished with its Mothers Milk, which is called the Sulphur of nature.

XI. The first Matter of this unclean Alchymical Body is a Viscous Water, which is thickened in the Bowels of the Earth. And therefore of this Impure Body (as Vincent saith) is made the great Elixir of the Red and White, whose name is Adrop, or Adrup, viz. the Philosophers Lead. From the which Raymundus commands an Oyl to be drawn: from the Lead of the Philosophers (saith he) let there be an Oyl drawn of a Golden Colour; if you can separate this Oyl (wherein is Our second Tincture and Fire of Nature) from its Phlegm, which is its waterishness, and wisely search out the Secret thereof, you may in the space of thirty days perform the Work of the Philosophers Stone.

Ripley does not agree with your too oft repeated unproven hypothesis:

Besides in these our times we seldom find
any (or none at all) seriously & truely searching after
the tinctures of the philosopheres, but most men do absurdly
& vainly labour & broil in common mercury & common gold
& silver, & therefore most few they are to whom this grace
happens, whereas contrarywise we have seen men who

1 have boyled away all their estates. & therefore beware
2 for although gold & silver may be mixed & subtilized
3 tinctures, & so be brought into lesser elixirs & that with gain,
4 yet the true way (according to the intention of the philosophers)
5 is not in them for their gold & silver are two chief tinctures
6 red & white, buryed in one & the same body the which never by
7 nature, arrived unto their perfect complement or ripeness.
8 Yet are they separable from their earthy lubricity(*) or slimi-
9 ness & their accidental dross, in which they ly hid, & are so
10 commixtible according to their proper nature, with pure earth
11 of white & red, & are accounted such fit ferments
12 thereof that they cannot be at all sayd to want any other strange
13 thing. For the whole work is one, & the thing itself one,
14 & the whole hath its derivation from one image. For the parts
15 of our stone are in it, coëssential & concrete, the which would be
16 altogether absurd if there wanted common gold & silver to
17 the composition thereof. For the philosophers say take a body in which
18 is argent vive, pure, bright, unspotted, & uncompleated by nature.
19 & such a body (after its compleat & perfect mundification is
20 much more excellent than the body of gold & silver of the mine.
21 As concerning this body of the matter of this stone, there are
22 three things most chiefly spoken, & it is called, the green
23 lyon, asa foetida, & the white fume. But yet this is so con-
24 trived by the philosophers that they may deceive fooles, and that by

* lutosity

Page 15

1 reason of the multitude & diversities of the names they may be
2 blinded & mistaken. But see, that thou doest understand
3 & know that one thing is always & really signifyed although there
4 are three named & accidental for the green lyon, asa foetida
5 & the white fume, are denominated from one & the self same
6 subject, in the which they do altogether & always ly hid until
7 they are manifested by art.



That is not what Ripley sayeth above in red. No speculation; I have seen it in may lab. You are wrong in your assumption concerning fundamental Aspects of Alchemy: But see that thou doest understand and know that ONE THING is always and really signifyed although there are three named and accidental for the Green Lyon, Asa Foetida, and the white fume, are denominated from one and the self same subject, in the which they do and always ly hid until they are manifested by Art. Oops there's that Holy Trinity again. Ripley must wrong... right JDP? Baloney!

You are conveniently also "forgetting" that he also "sayeth" in the same "corpus":

X. And First we will Treat of the Mineral Elixir, then of the other in order. The Fire against Nature (viz. the Humour or Tincture drawn out of the Body of Venus Dissolved in its Mineral Spirit) very strong and Mortal, serving only to the Mineral Elixir.

XI. This Mineral Water, or Fire against Nature, is drawn fire Elemental, from a certain stinking Menstruum, as Raymundus saith, and is made of four things. It is the strongest Water in the World, whose only Spirit (saith he), does wonderfully increase and multiply the Tincture of the Ferment: for here Sol or Gold is Tinged with the Mineral Spirit, the which Mineral Spirit is the strength of the most simple Sulphur without much Earthiness.

XII. Thin Mineral Water is the dropping of Adrop or Adrup, Venus, which is the noble Tincture called the natural Roman Vitriol, and which for the abundance of its noble Tincture, is called Roman Gold.

XIII. This some do call the Spirit of the Green Lyon, others the blood of the Green Lyon: wherein almost all Err, and are deceived: for the Green Lyon of the Philosophers, is that Lyon, by whose Virtue attractive, all things are lifted up from the bowels of the Earth, and the Winter-like Caverns, making them to Wax green and flourish: whose Child (for all the Elixirs are to be had from it) is to us most acceptable and sufficient.

XIV. The Child of the Philosophers is generated of their Green Lyon, of which Child is had the strength of Sulphur, both White and Red; our two Sulphurs of Nature are the Gold and Silver of the Philosophers, and their hidden Treasure.

XV. Of this Child of the Green Lyon of the Philosophers is drawn the strength of Sulphur White and Red, but not Burning as Avicen saith, which are the two best things the Alchymist can take to make his Gold and Silver of: and this is sufficient to be said, for the attaining the knowledge of the Green Lyon: which is so called, because, that when he is dissolved, he is straight ways adorned with a green Vesture (i.e., When our Sulphur of Nature is dissolved in its own menstruum, which is the Virgin’s Milk, it is clothed with this greenness, and therefore called the Green Lyon).

XVI. But of the Green Lyon of Fools, this we say, that from it with a strong fire is drawn Aquafortis, in the which, the aforesaid Philosophers’ Lyon of the Mineral Stone, ought to be Elixirated, and assumes its Name. Raymundus saith, it were better, or safer, to eat the Eyes of a Basilisk, than that Gold, which is made with the Fire against Nature.

XVII. And I say also, that the things from whence the same Aquafortis is drawn is green Vitriol and Azoth: i.e., Vitriol Natural, not Artificial, viz. the droppings of Copper, called also Roman Vitriol, Roman Gold, by many of the Philosophers, from the abundance of its noble Tincture, the which Tincture must be fermented with common Gold.

X. But to proceed: sublime Quick Silver with Roman Vitriol and prepared or Calcined Salt; and after that sublime it by itself alone three times from its foeculent substance. This done, and the same made into Powder, put this sublimate Powder into a fixatory Vessel, and put thereto a certain quantity of your aforesaid Oyl of Gold, but so much only, as may scarcely cover the sublimate: firmly close the Vessel, and set it in a soft Fire, till the Natures are perfectly joined together.

X. And First we will Treat of the Mineral Elixir, then of the other in order. The Fire against Nature (viz. the Humour or Tincture drawn out of the Body of Venus Dissolved in its Mineral Spirit) very strong and Mortal, serving only to the Mineral Elixir.

XI. This Mineral Water, or Fire against Nature, is drawn fire Elemental, from a certain stinking Menstruum, as Raymundas saith, and is made of four things. It is the strongest Water in the World, whose only Spirit (saith he), does wonderfully increase and multiply the Tincture of the Ferment: for here Sol or Gold is Tinged with the Mineral Spirit, the which Mineral Spirit is the strength of the most simple Sulphur without much Earthiness.

XII. Thin Mineral Water is the dropping of Adrop or Adrup, Venus, which is the noble Tincture called the natural Roman Vitriol, and which for the abundance of its noble Tincture, is called Roman Gold.

XIII. This some do call the Spirit of the Green Lyon, others the blood of the Green Lyon: wherein almost all Err, and are deceived: for the Green Lyon of the Philosophers, is that Lyon, by whose Virtue attractive, all things are lifted up from the bowels of the Earth, and the Winter-like Caverns, making them to Wax green and flourish: whose Child (for all the Elixirs are to be had from it) is to us most acceptable and sufficient.

XIV. The Child of the Philosophers is generated of their Green Lyon, of which Child is had the strength of Sulphur, both White and Red; our two Sulphurs of Nature are the Gold and Silver of the Philosophers, and their hidden Treasure.

XV. Of this Child of the Green Lyon of the Philosophers is drawn the strength of Sulphur White and Red, but not Burning as Avicen saith, which are the two best things the Alchymist can take to make his Gold and Silver of: and this is sufficient to be said, for the attaining the knowledge of the Green Lyon: which is so called, because, that when he is dissolved, he is straight ways adorned with a green Vesture (i.e., When our Sulphur of Nature is dissolved in its own menstruum, which is the Virgin’s Milk, it is clothed with this greenness, and therefore called the Green Lyon).

XVI. But of the Green Lyon of Fools, this we say, that from it with a strong fire is drawn Aquafortis, in the which, the aforesaid Philosophers’ Lyon of the Mineral Stone, ought to be Elixirated, and assumes its Name. Raymundus saith, it were better, or safer, to eat the Eyes of a Basilisk, than that Gold, which is made with the Fire against Nature.

XVII. And I say also, that the things from whence the same Aquafortis is drawn is green Vitriol and Azoth: i.e., Vitriol Natural, not Artificial, viz. the droppings of Copper, called also Roman Vitriol, Roman Gold, by many of the Philosophers, from the abundance of its noble Tincture, the which Tincture must be fermented with common Gold.

I. Our Stone is called the microcosm; One and Three; Magnesia and Sulphur and Mercury, all proportioned by Nature her self. Now understand that there are three Mercuries, which being the Key of the while Science, Raymundus calls his Menstruums, without which, nothing is to be done in this Art: but the Essential Mercury of the Bodies is the chief material of our Stone.

II. Our Stone is a Soul and a substance, by which the Earth does receive its splendor: what other thing is Sol or Luna than a Terra Munda, a pure Earth, Red and White? The whole Composition we call Our Plumbum or Lead, the Quality of whose splendor proceeds from Sol and Luna.

III. No impure Body, one excepted, which the Philosophers vulgarly call the Green Lyon (which is the medium which Conjoyns the Tinctures between Sol and Luna with perfection), does Enter into our magistery.

IV. These Menstruums you ought to know, without which no true Calcination, or natural dissolution can possibly be done. But our principal Menstruum may be said indeed to be Invisible or Spiritual; yet by the help of our Aqua Philosophica Secunda, through a separation of the Elements, in the form of clear water, it is brought to light, and made to appear.

X. 2. De Dissolutione: Seek not that in a thing which is not in it, as in Eggs, Blood, Wine, Vitriol, and the other middle Minerals; there is no profit to be had in things not Metallick: In Metals, from Metals, and by or through Metals, Metals are made perfect.

XV. There are three things necessary to this Art, of which you ought not to be ignorant, viz. 1. The Fire wherewith: the fire of Nature, Innatural, elemental, and which is against Nature, destroying the special form of all that is dissolved therein. 2. The Water whereby: as in the Compound Water. 3. And the thing whereof: is made the congealed Earth, as White as Snow. Of all which in their proper order.

Which do not agree with your unproven hypothesis that he was really working with "only one matter". Anyone can plainly see that he most definitely was NOT, no matter what strange and misleading claims regarding "unity" he drops here and there out of "philosophical" reasons, which are either theoretical musings about matter or deliberately misleading & contradictory statements to cause confusion among inexperienced readers.


No I do not agree with you at all. Nature makes everything. Who made you. I made the Vegetable Stone and Nature made me. It is my Nature to exercise Philosophical Principles and Elements in the Amphitheater of Eternal Wisdom. Why? Because my Soul/Spirit is compounded into a Body which works that way by its very Nature.

You actually do, as seen in your previous statements. You do recognize that without man's intervention the Stone would NEVER be made, just like Coca-Cola, a bacon cheeseburger and a side of fries would never be made either if it wasn't for man, despite the fact that nature does provide all the raw matters for such things to be able to be made. It hardly qualifies as "natural" in the common sense that word should be understood (i.e. made by nature itself without anyone else's help or intervention.)

z0 K
03-23-2018, 08:41 PM
Awesome recent posts, z0 K. Always appreciate you chiming in!



What are you able to do with it?

Philosophical transactions (https://vimeo.com/110074251?utm_source=email&utm_medium=clip-transcode_complete-finished-20120100&utm_campaign=7701&email_id=Y2xpcF90cmFuc2NvZGVkfDI2ZDM2MzljZWE1NDEzN TJiNGFmOTYzZWQ0M2ZhYjE5NjYyfDMzNzQ3NTYyfDE0MTQzNDg 5NzN8NzcwMQ%3D%3D)

elixirmixer
03-23-2018, 09:05 PM
The Ocean in this case could mean the humidity in the Air aka "dew".

I agree with you,

However, that would make it Sea Salt, would it not? But then, if that's the case, what is the schemata illustrata grand opus referring to when it mentions 'common salt' when purifying the mercury and creating the green lion. There is a clear distinction between the two salts and I think that this paradoxical aspect of the work could be a huge stumbling block for those trying to prepare the stone since, sea salt, is NaCL, however this is not Sea Salt. However, sea salt, NaCL is STILL requires in the work!!! Mind = Kaboom(?).

So we see that there is TWO " SEA" salts and BOTH are required and NEITHER of them is our Sol and Luna!!!!!!! And this is why JDP does have a lot of grounds to be smashing down peoples claims of 'one matter' since it is very far from the truth, except on a purely theoretical and philosophical point of view, where we can loom at "all things" coming from the "one thing" (the ether)

Schmuldvich
03-23-2018, 09:18 PM
Philosophical transactions (https://vimeo.com/110074251?utm_source=email&utm_medium=clip-transcode_complete-finished-20120100&utm_campaign=7701&email_id=Y2xpcF90cmFuc2NvZGVkfDI2ZDM2MzljZWE1NDEzN TJiNGFmOTYzZWQ0M2ZhYjE5NjYyfDMzNzQ3NTYyfDE0MTQzNDg 5NzN8NzcwMQ%3D%3D)

Thanks!

I have watched all of your videos (including this one), read most of the articles you have published, and read every one of your posts I could find on the internet.

You have a magnificent lab, and your pictures are some of the best!

What gets me though, is that you are hesitant to speak directly or share your accomplishments.

I am not asking about processes or anything like that; just simply asking "What can you do with what you have made...?"

How do you use the things you have matured in the lab applicably or tangibly in your life?

Are you able to accomplish anything worthwhile?



I agree with you,

However, that would make it Sea Salt, would it not? But then, if that's the case, what is the schemata illustrata grand opus referring to when it mentions 'common salt' when purifying the mercury and creating the green lion. There is a clear distinction between the two salts and I think that this paradoxical aspect of the work could be a huge stumbling block for those trying to prepare the stone since, sea salt, is NaCL, however this is not Sea Salt. However, sea salt, NaCL is STILL requires in the work!!! Mind = Kaboom(?).

So we see that there is TWO " SEA" salts and BOTH are required and NEITHER of them is our Sol and Luna!!!!!!! And this is why JDP does have a lot of grounds to be smashing down peoples claims of 'one matter' since it is very far from the truth, except on a purely theoretical and philosophical point of view, where we can loom at "all things" coming from the "one thing" (the ether)

The confusion still remains! When you get chemistry out of your mind and "zoom out" to view these substances as principles it starts to make more sense. We've beaten the dead horse 'til only a pulp remains, but think for a second: If water is our One Matter, and when we freeze it it turns to ice, this ice can be viewed as an entirely different substance than water with very different properties than water, yet it is still water. If someone were to describe ice to you and the same person were to describe water to you, you would think they were describing two totally unrelated things, but when you realize and know that liquid water and ice are two different substances that come from the same One Matter being manipulated, the veil becomes lifted and obscurity flees from ye mind. The same principle applies in our Work, elixirmixir.

elixirmixer
03-23-2018, 11:09 PM
Hmmm..... So give it to me straight Schmuldvich. Are you a "one matter" kind of guy? Because you have given me some interesting thoughts worth experimenting with...

One matter you reacon?

z0 K
03-23-2018, 11:31 PM
How do you know what I have observed in my lab? In fact, what I have observed not only in mine but in those of countless other experimenters who submitted virtually every single naturally occurring matter to "fire analysis" is that this whole "one matter only" claim is obviously nothing but a transparent RUSE, a TRAP. There is NO such single natural matter that displays everything the alchemists describe.





I do not know what you have observed in your lab. I do know what you have not observed because if you did your single minded rant against the Holy Trinity would have come to an end. Your reference to fire analysis only demonstrates how to kill the Spirit and Soul in the Wine. Chemistry works on dead matter and to get it they kill the Philosophical Principles during the transactions. That is the Gross application of the Uncertainty Principle where you just smash the thing to smithereens then try to divine what the wreck means.



You are projecting what other texts say on what he says in "Liber Secretisimus". He clearly says in this text that there's THREE DISTINCT SUBSTANCES, and that you begin the work with this "TRINITY". He does not say anything about any "one matter" containing three. That is a bogus claim that many alchemists peddled in order to make you waste your time seeking for this mysterious "one matter" which does not exist anywhere in nature. That's why you had to bring up what is said in another work attributed to the same author. Which, by the way, he also contradicts in those other writings.

I'm not projecting anything onto what Ripley says in Liber Secretisimus. I have just followed Ripley's advice and methods by building a Concordancy within the Ripley Canon as catalogued by Rampling. Ripley wrote a Concordancy between Lull and Guido and himself based upon what he observed in this laboratory. I thought that would be a good idea to do the same with Ripley's works. So I did. It is an ongoing process years in development yielding alchemical results. It could have been faster but responses like yours are the majority of what I have received over the years. Most interested in Ripley have already been deluded by the myth of an Acetate Path attributed to Ripley. They work with Pb and Sb in vain against the written advice of Ripley himself.

Ripley's Canon is a body of work that does not contradict itself as you seem to imply by saying I had to bring up what Ripley said in other works in his Canon to stay on my theme. It is just the opposite. I have been pointing out the concordancy between his works and you do not see it because you admittedly killed the Spirit and Soul in whatever thing by subjecting virtually every single naturally occurring matter to "fire analysis."


We were talking about what he clearly says in that text, not other texts. It is you who is bringing theories and speculations based on what other texts say. In "Liber Secretisimus" he clearly says that this "trinity" IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK, and they are THREE DISTINCT SEVERAL SUBSTANCES, not "one". This indeed conforms to reality and empirical experience, not the fantasy & fairy tale that there is a mysterious "one matter" found somewhere already made in nature that somehow conveniently contains everything needed for the work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a fairy tale. The fact that this suspicious claim has been floating around since at least the times of Zosimos (who already clearly exposed it for the obvious misleading trap that it is) and that no one in all this time has been able to find any such "one thing" anywhere in nature that can perform everything the alchemists describe, should already have given you a big hint that something is very wrong with this claim.

I never mentioned Liber Secretisimus. I did attempt to discuss the sequential progression of the starting material according to Ripley which I routinely use in my lab. In that recent post I made no quoted references to Ripley merely a description of the Elements received. To which you replied via argument that avoided questioning the validity of my lab observations. Instead you went for the Straw Dog Argument: artificial vs natural.

I have brought fourth no speculations on what other Ripley Canon texts say. I have given an honest description of what I have received and observed in my lab from experimentation within Ripley's Canon. The Trinity is clearly the beginning of the work for sure. And they are three distinct substances that come from one thing. And you cannot really separate them from one another but you can purify them of the gross inert matter that resulted from the death of the thing.

But you don't want to hear this. You imply that I am a liar or the victim of a fairy tale living in a fantasy world. Fomenting much rhetoric, then saying, "Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a fairy tale." Sure looks like a projection of yours. I am not sorry to burst your bubble; it is not a fairy tale: yours is a nightmare. I can feel your frustration imbedded in your almost continual ranting diatribe against anyone suggesting that the Philosophical Elements and Principles of Alchemy are compounded by Art from one thing.


Which do not agree with your unproven hypothesis that he was really working with "only one matter". Anyone can plainly see that he most definitely was NOT, no matter what strange and misleading claims regarding "unity" he drops here and there out of "philosophical" reasons, which are either theoretical musings about matter or deliberately misleading & contradictory statements to cause confusion among inexperienced readers.

What you state above is a mendacious assumption on your part concerning my proven hypothesis which you then support with hyperbole. Really? Ripley is either musing hypothetical fantasies of his 15th Century mind or he is deliberately causing confusion among inexperienced readers? Hillarious! You are owning the confusion as if it were gold.

Ripley:

And therefore to confirm this, Raymundus saith, O my Son, Our Tincture is drawn out of one Vile thing, and is decked, finished, and ended with another thing which is more Noble; for we do Ferment it with Vulgar Gold: He calls it Vile, because he saith it is sometimes found in Vile Places, as in Old Draughts: also it is Vile, because (as Raymundus saith) it is found not only in a filthy form, and ugly shape, but because it is in every thing, of the which (saith Albertus) is made a Permanent or fixt Water.

To which I will add that I found one vile place years ago because of experiments with pyrolysys (and thanks to you pointing out a reference in Ripley's Marrow of Alchemy) and from there following Ripley's advice gathered that artificial antimonial compound from an Old Draught in my stove pipe. It was one thing: soot, derived from one thing: wood, made by one thing trees, which Nature made. I took it to the lab and found that it was:

"abundantly replinished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God," --Liber Secretisimus.

Since then I have found that all forms of biomass not killed by fire analysis to be abundantly replenished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God. The great and wonderful mysteries of God Almighty... Well, the Mystery of God is the Holy Trinity which ignorant deriders' eyes cannot see.

Schmuldvich
03-23-2018, 11:47 PM
Hmmm..... So give it to me straight Schmuldvich. Are you a "one matter" kind of guy? Because you have given me some interesting thoughts worth experimenting with...

One matter you reacon?

Absolutely!

z0 K's post above is a wonderful worded testament of this Truth. Even though he can't do the things real Alchemists did (like transmuting metals to gold) he is on the right track and clearly demonstrates a profound understanding of Alchemy that most lack. z0 K is a very advanced Seeker with tons of practical lab experience we can all learn from.

Every Master vouched for this One Matter fact. Reading the genuine Alchemy treatises I have suggestedyou read for years now will confirm this.

elixirmixer
03-24-2018, 12:47 AM
Well if your right that makes it MUCH easier, so I'll keep that part of my brain open and use it in experimentation. The lab is going through its final upheaval today in preparation for my first ever attempt of making the stone. In fact the entire property is undergoing a metamorphic process of calcination. I'm un-hoarding my life. I sent the wife and kids to the city for the weekend so I could focus on bringing this place up to scratch.

I am open to the "one matter only" however, I'm a little scared. Because when I consider the consequences of basically "spiritualizing a matter that is the very agent of spirit dualization of matter, my brain starts to explode into fractal geometry and I feel like Awani going into ceremony ;) (that's just a DMT joke, dont read into it mate)

I believe that the Spirit empowers all things. I have considered the fact that The Spirit, could empower The Spirit, which is what I'm talking about. Infinite spiritual growth!! Sounds fucking scary!!!!

elixirmixer
03-24-2018, 01:04 AM
He describes a composite made by the alchemist himself, by joining three separate distinct substances (which he arbitrarily calls "one Sulphur, and... two Mercuries".) If nature made this thing it would NOT be "artificial", it would be just another natural matter, plus he obviously could not possibly know how many substances were employed (by nature) to make it. Yet he is quite sure it is 3 substances. The only way you could possibly know this is if YOU are the one making this "artificial antimonial compound".



Thank you and best of luck, and may love dominate your life.


And may the odds, be ever in your favour ;)

elixirmixer
03-24-2018, 05:03 AM
Philosophical transactions (https://vimeo.com/110074251?utm_source=email&utm_medium=clip-transcode_complete-finished-20120100&utm_campaign=7701&email_id=Y2xpcF90cmFuc2NvZGVkfDI2ZDM2MzljZWE1NDEzN TJiNGFmOTYzZWQ0M2ZhYjE5NjYyfDMzNzQ3NTYyfDE0MTQzNDg 5NzN8NzcwMQ%3D%3D)

hahahahahahah that video was awesome!

I loved the soundtrack :cool:

JDP
03-27-2018, 04:44 AM
I do not know what you have observed in your lab. I do know what you have not observed because if you did your single minded rant against the Holy Trinity would have come to an end. Your reference to fire analysis only demonstrates how to kill the Spirit and Soul in the Wine. Chemistry works on dead matter and to get it they kill the Philosophical Principles during the transactions. That is the Gross application of the Uncertainty Principle where you just smash the thing to smithereens then try to divine what the wreck means.




I'm not projecting anything onto what Ripley says in Liber Secretisimus. I have just followed Ripley's advice and methods by building a Concordancy within the Ripley Canon as catalogued by Rampling. Ripley wrote a Concordancy between Lull and Guido and himself based upon what he observed in this laboratory. I thought that would be a good idea to do the same with Ripley's works. So I did. It is an ongoing process years in development yielding alchemical results. It could have been faster but responses like yours are the majority of what I have received over the years. Most interested in Ripley have already been deluded by the myth of an Acetate Path attributed to Ripley. They work with Pb and Sb in vain against the written advice of Ripley himself.

Ripley's Canon is a body of work that does not contradict itself as you seem to imply by saying I had to bring up what Ripley said in other works in his Canon to stay on my theme. It is just the opposite. I have been pointing out the concordancy between his works and you do not see it because you admittedly killed the Spirit and Soul in whatever thing by subjecting virtually every single naturally occurring matter to "fire analysis."



I never mentioned Liber Secretisimus. I did attempt to discuss the sequential progression of the starting material according to Ripley which I routinely use in my lab. In that recent post I made no quoted references to Ripley merely a description of the Elements received. To which you replied via argument that avoided questioning the validity of my lab observations. Instead you went for the Straw Dog Argument: artificial vs natural.

I have brought fourth no speculations on what other Ripley Canon texts say. I have given an honest description of what I have received and observed in my lab from experimentation within Ripley's Canon. The Trinity is clearly the beginning of the work for sure. And they are three distinct substances that come from one thing. And you cannot really separate them from one another but you can purify them of the gross inert matter that resulted from the death of the thing.

But you don't want to hear this. You imply that I am a liar or the victim of a fairy tale living in a fantasy world. Fomenting much rhetoric, then saying, "Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is a fairy tale." Sure looks like a projection of yours. I am not sorry to burst your bubble; it is not a fairy tale: yours is a nightmare. I can feel your frustration imbedded in your almost continual ranting diatribe against anyone suggesting that the Philosophical Elements and Principles of Alchemy are compounded by Art from one thing.



What you state above is a mendacious assumption on your part concerning my proven hypothesis which you then support with hyperbole. Really? Ripley is either musing hypothetical fantasies of his 15th Century mind or he is deliberately causing confusion among inexperienced readers? Hillarious! You are owning the confusion as if it were gold.

Ripley:

And therefore to confirm this, Raymundus saith, O my Son, Our Tincture is drawn out of one Vile thing, and is decked, finished, and ended with another thing which is more Noble; for we do Ferment it with Vulgar Gold: He calls it Vile, because he saith it is sometimes found in Vile Places, as in Old Draughts: also it is Vile, because (as Raymundus saith) it is found not only in a filthy form, and ugly shape, but because it is in every thing, of the which (saith Albertus) is made a Permanent or fixt Water.

To which I will add that I found one vile place years ago because of experiments with pyrolysys (and thanks to you pointing out a reference in Ripley's Marrow of Alchemy) and from there following Ripley's advice gathered that artificial antimonial compound from an Old Draught in my stove pipe. It was one thing: soot, derived from one thing: wood, made by one thing trees, which Nature made. I took it to the lab and found that it was:

"abundantly replinished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God," --Liber Secretisimus.

Since then I have found that all forms of biomass not killed by fire analysis to be abundantly replenished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God. The great and wonderful mysteries of God Almighty... Well, the Mystery of God is the Holy Trinity which ignorant deriders' eyes cannot see.

Since we were talking about the "artificial antimonial compound" the most logical conclusion was that we were talking about his "Liber Secretisimus", since he primarily uses this expression in that text.

Regarding "fire analysis": I am surprised by your comments since in fact this favorite method of analysis by 16th-18th century spagyrists and chymists was in fact "lifted" from one of the main methods of the alchemists themselves, namely: putting the substance or mixture of substances being investigated inside an alembic/retort and gradually heating it, and then examining the byproducts obtained. If you have read all those descriptions of the distillation of "Adrop", "The Green Lion", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Sericon", etc. in countless alchemical texts you know very well what I am talking about.

One of my main objections to the "one matter only" theory still stands: if you read all those descriptions by the spagyrists & chymists of the 16th to the 18th century, you will see that none of the single natural matters they submitted to such "analysis by fire" corresponds exactly to the descriptions the alchemists make of the operations on their "Magnesia", "Adrop", "Red Lead", "Green Lion", "Sericon", etc. and the byproducts they obtained from this mysterious "matter". What does that strongly suggest to you? Keep in mind that those spagyrists/chymists submitted almost all natural substances they were acquainted with to such analysis (which was based on one of the main lab techniques of the alchemists themselves.) And it gets even worse by the time we hit "chemistry", more properly, because those guys in the late 18th and all through the 19th century submitted even more natural matters to all kinds of analysis (including gradual destructive distillation), and yet none of them fits well with those descriptions the alchemists make of their "matter" and its byproducts.

So, in conclusion, it is way more possible, realistic and logical that the reason why no one in these past few centuries seems to have stumbled upon any such "one matter" as the alchemists describe is in fact because it DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE. But the alchemists were not lying either. The "matter" exists... potentially. BUT YOU HAVE TO "ASSEMBLE" IT YOURSELF OUT OF SEVERAL (and these raw substances, from which the "artificial antimonial compound" is made, nature can provide you with.) Nature is not conveniently going to make this composite matter for you and save you all the toil & trouble of having to discover how to make it (which is the most difficult of all things to figure out in alchemy, and the stumbling block of countless seekers throughout history.)

Schmuldvich
03-27-2018, 04:53 AM
Nature is not conveniently going to make this composite matter for you and save you all the toil & trouble of having to discover how to make it (which is the most difficult of all things to figure out in alchemy, and the stumbling block of countless seekers throughout history.)

...Are you sure about that? :confused:



What is water but a compound of Nature...

Hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms composed together by Nature forms what we call water.

Many of us have enough sense to know that even though we call water a single matter and give it one name that it is really a composite of two different substances which have entirely different properties than water when not combined together.

The fact that you will not openly admit this, or even for a second look past your dogmatic viewpoint and simply accept this to be FACT(!) is mindblowing.

You, JDP, are intelligent enough to already know this, are you not? My neighbor in 4th grade knows this!

If you could get past this one roadblock I have no doubt that you would be further along in our Art than you are now!

I eagerly await they day that you accept that even though something like water, blood, or mud is called One Matter, all of these things are a composite of many elements (or substances).

Looking forward to it!

Florius Frammel
03-27-2018, 06:16 AM
...Are you sure about that? :confused:



What is water but a compound of Nature...

Hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms composed together by Nature forms what we call water.

Many of us have enough sense to know that even though we call water a single matter and give it one name that it is really a composite of two different substances which have entirely different properties than water when not combined together.

The fact that you will not openly admit this, or even for a second look past your dogmatic viewpoint and simply accept this to be FACT(!) is mindblowing.

You, JDP, are intelligent enough to already know this, are you not? My neighbor in 4th grade knows this!

If you could get past this one roadblock I have no doubt that you would be further along in our Art than you are now!

I eagerly await they day that you accept that even though something like water, blood, or mud is called One Matter, all of these things are a composite of many elements (or substances).

Looking forward to it!

I don't think we are talking about one single element, Schmuldvich. And you seem to confuse some terms or concepts. Your own example with water is a good one to explain this.

Elements AND Compounds are considered to be one matter only. The reason for this is that they can't be further separated with (common) physical methods like destillation, decant, sedimentation, solute, resolute, filter, aso..Try to separate Hydrogen and Oxygen out of water with those methods.

Now the difference between an element and a compound is that compounds can be separated with chemical methods and electricity and elements can't.

An alteration of Elements treated with alchemical methods is yet to be proven officially.

And it is not necessary to use modern chemist nomenclature. Everything I wrote is what can be observed in the lab without it.

Andro
03-27-2018, 08:34 AM
So, in conclusion, it is way more possible, realistic and logical that the reason why no one in these past few centuries seems to have stumbled upon any such "one matter" as the alchemists describe is in fact because it DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE. But the alchemists were not lying either. The "matter" exists... potentially. BUT YOU HAVE TO "ASSEMBLE" IT YOURSELF OUT OF SEVERAL (and these raw substances, from which the "artificial antimonial compound" is made, nature can provide you with.) Nature is not conveniently going to make this composite matter for you and save you all the toil & trouble of having to discover how to make it (which is the most difficult of all things to figure out in alchemy, and the stumbling block of countless seekers throughout history.)It is understandable why there is so much confusion and debate around this 'One Matter' topic.

I've been reading the recently published translation (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3709-R%E9cr%E9ations-Herm%E9tiques-in-English&p=55622#post55622) of 'Hermetic Recreations', and a few pages really stand out in this regard.

I will go through the trouble of transcribing a few paragraphs here manually, because I think it's a valuable addition to this discussion. Bolds are mine.

"All the wise are in agreement when they say, and it is an undeniable truth, that the work is made of only one single thing, to which nothing foreign is added and from which nothing is removed but the filth and superfluities. B. Trevisan expressed himself so; and his remark that he borrowed from the philosophers who preceded him has been unanimously supported and repeated by all those who followed him.

Many people, misunderstanding the unity of the stone, place a single matter of their choice into a vessel which they call a philosophical egg; they keep it over the lamp-fire or such other as they fancy, and thus wait in vain for its dissolution. Others make amalgams, and are no better advised. They make no progress for numerous reasons, principal among which are:



They work on dead matter. And even when it is the true subject of philosophy, the vessel and the fire are not proportionate to it.
They are unaware that from the beginning to the end of the work, our matter is double. I mean that it has an agent and a patient, without which there would be no action in the vessel; that the agent serves as the male and the patient as the female; and that both together, although separated by their nature, constitute but one single body, which for this purpose is called Rebis, or two things in one.
Finally, their work runs completely counter to that of Nature, because they do not know how to dissolve, putrefy, distill, sublimate, or perform any of our operations. However, they do not refrain from undertaking it, saying to themselves: this work is that of Nature to whom we only need to lend a helping hand, it is for her to complete it. Proceeding thus in blindness, yet with such confidence, they cannot avoid stumbling with each step that they take in so dark a maze."

Now I will also add an excerpt from a text by another anonymous author, further strengthening this point:

"As the two central fires of nature lie in the Microcosmo, so are they also in the Macrocosmo, and in species in the Spiritual fire. In the fire is an Astral Spirit, as a subtle Nitre and is endowed with a living soul, which is the Archaus of the Motor Universalis, that is in all things and which opens its most inner Centrum and pours into it a fermenting property through which life awakens, and is brought to further use: Without this astral spirit [Agent] the two corporeal fires [Patient] are dead and not working, but when they are opened by the fermenting property they are made volatile, and all life awakens. Nothing can exist without this Astral Spirit which is the life of all things, and in Alchemy nothing new can be born without it, or be placed in the Plusquam perfection, for the Spirit alone gives life to all."

[---------------------------------------]

"Work the upper open Spirit with the lower secret one, so will the living one awaken the dead, and be to it as a Well of Life and work great wonders. The Holy Spirit is indeed the agent which awakens and subtilizes the two corporeal central fires."

And perhaps one of the most revealing phrases in this text is the following:

"If one cannot find out the remedy, place one similar upon another similar and healing will result."

We can add to this the diagram from the Golden Chain of Homer, where "Our Matter" is also twofold: The (so-called) "acid" corporified Spirit (symbolized by a vertical line), combined with its (so-called) "alkali" (Earth) counterpart (symbolized by a horizontal line), are forming our "first matter" or "Rebis" (symbolized by the cross within a circle).

We can see the same in the recently posted 5th degree of the Golden R+C, where the first operations are, before everything else, obtaining the "Air Spirit" (Luft Geist (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=56152#post56152)) and the "Virgin Earth" (Jungfräuliche Erde (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=56182#post56182)). The "Rebis" follows.

From this point on, the remaining operations are deemed "Woman's Work & Child's Play", and/or (mostly) cycles of "Dissolve & Coagulate".

A few texts from R+C lineages are extremely generous in revealing to us the entire process, except the techniques of obtaining our two-fold matter (The "Air-Spirit" and the Virgin Earth/Central Salt). Such texts include (for example) ICH, Cyliani and Hermetic Recreations. The latter even goes as far as mentioning the employment of an 'Apparatus" for obtaining the "Air-Spirit".

Going even further, the recently posted R+C practice from the 5th degree also reveals some of the METHODOLOGY and DEVICES used for obtaining those two aspects of Our Matter. This methodology can be a bit cumbersome and dependent on various environmental and seasonal conditions, but it will nevertheless give us results, even if it takes a relatively long "time". However, a deeper understanding of the Principles, combined with the "smarter" technology available today, can give us a certain degree of independence from those aforementioned factors, so we can "hack" the preliminary "Labors of Hercules" to last less "time" and to reduce (or even eliminate) some of the complexities.



✂-------------------------------------------------------------------------

elixirmixer
03-27-2018, 09:39 AM
One thing that constantly overwhelms my brain is why is the patient described as TWO fires?

Andro
03-27-2018, 10:14 AM
One thing that constantly overwhelms my brain is why is the patient described as TWO fires?

Willie Nelson may have the answer for you:

Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly (Fond of Each Other)

Well, there's many a strange impulse out on the plains of West Texas.
There's many a young boy who feels things he can't comprehend.
And a small town don't like it when somebody falls between sexes.
No, a small town don't like it when a cowboy has feelings for men.


And I believe to my soul that inside every man there's the feminine.
And inside every lady there's a deep manly voice loud and clear.
Well, a cowboy may brag about things that he's done with his women.
But the ones who brag loudest are the ones that are most likely queer.


Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other.
Say, what do you think all them saddles and boots was about?
And there's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels for his brother.
And inside every cowboy there's a lady that'd love to slip out.


And there's always somebody who says what the others just whisper.
And mostly that someone's the first one to get shot down dead.
So when you talk to a cowboy don't treat him like he was a sister.
You can't fuck with a lady that's sleepin' in each cowboy's head.


Cowboys are frequently secretly fond of each other.
What did you think all them saddles and boots was about?
And there's many a cowboy who don't understand the way that he feels for his brother.
And inside every lady there's a cowboy who wants to come out.
And inside every cowboy there's a lady that'd love to slip out.
________________________

PS: This song was originally written by Ned Sublette (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhyWmqjiEtw).

Also, combine what the bold lines in the song say with Cyliani's interesting choice of word for "Our Earth": Androgynous Matter.


✂-------------------------------------------------------------------------

JDP
03-27-2018, 01:36 PM
...Are you sure about that? :confused:



What is water but a compound of Nature...

Hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms composed together by Nature forms what we call water.

Many of us have enough sense to know that even though we call water a single matter and give it one name that it is really a composite of two different substances which have entirely different properties than water when not combined together.

The fact that you will not openly admit this, or even for a second look past your dogmatic viewpoint and simply accept this to be FACT(!) is mindblowing.

You, JDP, are intelligent enough to already know this, are you not? My neighbor in 4th grade knows this!

If you could get past this one roadblock I have no doubt that you would be further along in our Art than you are now!

I eagerly await they day that you accept that even though something like water, blood, or mud is called One Matter, all of these things are a composite of many elements (or substances).

Looking forward to it!

You need to look at this from the point of view of the people of those times, not only like we see it today. To them water seemed like truly "one matter", since their analytical methods did not allow them to decompose it into different byproducts. On the other hand, things like mud, sea-water, milk, blood, etc. could be easily decomposed into other substances by the methods known to them. But even here the objection could be made: are the byproducts obtained from these matters really their original components, or are they new substances generated by the "fire" while it "destroys" these matters? Robert Boyle pondered about this topic and this possibility was his main opposing argument against the conclusions reached by those who used "analysis by fire". Also, the fact that you could not put back together many of these substances to their natural form once they had been "analyzed by fire" also strongly argued that these were in fact not their true constituents, but new substances, the product of fire altering the original components of the substance in question.

And there's also this: none of the single natural substances that were submitted to "analysis by fire" by a host of people for centuries displayed all the things the alchemists described in their books. This is very incriminating evidence against the "one matter only" claim. One might try to argue here that perhaps the natural "one matter" that the alchemists were using was very rare and unusual and most people don't know it, but besides how implausible that claim sounds in our day & age, the alchemists also kept claiming that their "matter" was "everywhere", easily found, cheap and accessible to everyone. So, one more nail in the coffin for this highly suspicious claim! To me it is extremely obvious that the "one matter only" claim is NOTHING BUT A TRANSPARENT TRAP TO TRY TO FOOL YOU INTO WASTING YOUR TIME & MONEY SEEKING FOR THIS MYSTERIOUS "ONE THING" SOMEWHERE IN NATURE ALREADY MADE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. It's a will-o'-the-wisp. It doesn't exist in a natural setting. Nature can't make this "thing" on its own. For one, even if it wanted to, it lacks the proper tools to do so. Nature does not have flasks, alembics, retorts, receivers... Same reason why nature cannot make the finished Stone either. The reason why alchemy is so tough to unravel is in fact because this "matter" HAS TO BE COMPOSED BY THE OPERATOR HIMSELF, and discovering from what substances and how it is composed is what is tough as nails! This is what most alchemists kept trying to disguise and confuse with all sorts of tactics, some even resorting to malicious deliberate misleading statements ("do not work on mixtures, seek only one thing!")

JDP
03-27-2018, 02:00 PM
It is understandable why there is so much confusion and debate around this 'One Matter' topic.

I've been reading the recently published translation (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3709-R%E9cr%E9ations-Herm%E9tiques-in-English&p=55622#post55622) of 'Hermetic Recreations', and a few pages really stand out in this regard.

I will go through the trouble of transcribing a few paragraphs here manually, because I think it's a valuable addition to this discussion. Bolds are mine.

"All the wise are in agreement when they say, and it is an undeniable truth, that the work is made of only one single thing, to which nothing foreign is added and from which nothing is removed but the filth and superfluities. B. Trevisan expressed himself so; and his remark that he borrowed from the philosophers who preceded him has been unanimously supported and repeated by all those who followed him.

Many people, misunderstanding the unity of the stone, place a single matter of their choice into a vessel which they call a philosophical egg; they keep it over the lamp-fire or such other as they fancy, and thus wait in vain for its dissolution. Others make amalgams, and are no better advised. They make no progress for numerous reasons, principal among which are:



They work on dead matter. And even when it is the true subject of philosophy, the vessel and the fire are not proportionate to it.
They are unaware that from the beginning to the end of the work, our matter is double. I mean that it has an agent and a patient, without which there would be no action in the vessel; that the agent serves as the male and the patient as the female; and that both together, although separated by their nature, constitute but one single body, which for this purpose is called Rebis, or two things in one.
Finally, their work runs completely counter to that of Nature, because they do not know how to dissolve, putrefy, distill, sublimate, or perform any of our operations. However, they do not refrain from undertaking it, saying to themselves: this work is that of Nature to whom we only need to lend a helping hand, it is for her to complete it. Proceeding thus in blindness, yet with such confidence, they cannot avoid stumbling with each step that they take in so dark a maze."

Now I will also add an excerpt from a text by another anonymous author, further strengthening this point:

"As the two central fires of nature lie in the Microcosmo, so are they also in the Macrocosmo, and in species in the Spiritual fire. In the fire is an Astral Spirit, as a subtle Nitre and is endowed with a living soul, which is the Archaus of the Motor Universalis, that is in all things and which opens its most inner Centrum and pours into it a fermenting property through which life awakens, and is brought to further use: Without this astral spirit [Agent] the two corporeal fires [Patient] are dead and not working, but when they are opened by the fermenting property they are made volatile, and all life awakens. Nothing can exist without this Astral Spirit which is the life of all things, and in Alchemy nothing new can be born without it, or be placed in the Plusquam perfection, for the Spirit alone gives life to all."

[---------------------------------------]

"Work the upper open Spirit with the lower secret one, so will the living one awaken the dead, and be to it as a Well of Life and work great wonders. The Holy Spirit is indeed the agent which awakens and subtilizes the two corporeal central fires."

And perhaps one of the most revealing phrases in this text is the following:

"If one cannot find out the remedy, place one similar upon another similar and healing will result."

We can add to this the diagram from the Golden Chain of Homer, where "Our Matter" is also twofold: The (so-called) "acid" corporified Spirit (symbolized by a vertical line), combined with its (so-called) "alkali" (Earth) counterpart (symbolized by a horizontal line), are forming our "first matter" or "Rebis" (symbolized by the cross within a circle).

We can see the same in the recently posted 5th degree of the Golden R+C, where the first operations are, before everything else, obtaining the "Air Spirit" (Luft Geist (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=56152#post56152)) and the "Virgin Earth" (Jungfräuliche Erde (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi&p=56182#post56182)). The "Rebis" follows.

From this point on, the remaining operations are deemed "Woman's Work & Child's Play", and/or (mostly) cycles of "Dissolve & Coagulate".

A few texts from R+C lineages are extremely generous in revealing to us the entire process, except the techniques of obtaining our two-fold matter (The "Air-Spirit" and the Virgin Earth/Central Salt). Such texts include (for example) ICH, Cyliani and Hermetic Recreations. The latter even goes as far as mentioning the employment of an 'Apparatus" for obtaining the "Air-Spirit".

Going even further, the recently posted R+C practice from the 5th degree also reveals some of the METHODOLOGY and DEVICES used for obtaining those two aspects of Our Matter. This methodology can be a bit cumbersome and dependent on various environmental and seasonal conditions, but it will nevertheless give us results, even if it takes a relatively long "time". However, a deeper understanding of the Principles, combined with the "smarter" technology available today, can give us a certain degree of independence from those aforementioned factors, so we can "hack" the preliminary "Labors of Hercules" to last less "time" and to reduce (or even eliminate) some of the complexities.



✂-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That there's a "fixed" and a "volatile" component is unquestionable, the descriptions by countless alchemists make this very plain. The problem is the malicious claim that nature somehow has concocted this appropriate "double" matter and therefore you can find it "somewhere" already made for your convenience. That's not going to happen.

Andro
03-27-2018, 03:09 PM
The problem is the malicious claim that nature somehow has concocted this appropriate "double" matter and therefore you can find it "somewhere" already made for your convenience. That's not going to happen.

Personally, I do not adhere to this "one matter to be found everywhere readily made in nature, to be subjected to the (common) fire" either. This is double-talk mind-fuck IMO, since what they actually mean by the "Fire" is very likely the "counterpart" of the "Matter" (IMO), with common fire being used sparsely (or not at all) throughout the "cooking" process (according to the more "canonical" literature). Check out the recently posted 5th Grade of the Golden R+C. This shows us that the "two parts" of "Our Matter" are to be collected SEPARATELY, but more or less simultaneously, because we are going to need them both to get The Work started.

Still, I cannot possibly claim that such "One Matter" does not exist at all (i.e. one that is put in common digestion as found and subsequently spits out of itself all that is needed for The Work. I simply think the odds are rather slim, and, even if it DOES exist, my guess is that it would have to be extensively manipulated to obtain the needed ingredients separately, rectify them, etc (perhaps similar to z 0K's vegetable work, which I have no reason to doubt at all).

So, all this being said, I can NOT rule out something just because I haven't experienced it myself, even though I personally don't adhere to it or employ such in my own lab work.

Schmuldvich
03-27-2018, 03:42 PM
I don't think we are talking about one single element, Schmuldvich.

Read my post again.

This is exactly the point I was making!

Florius Frammel
03-27-2018, 04:25 PM
This is indeed tough!
Some compounds could be separated (e.g. some salts, especially those of the then known metals) then, and others could not(e.g water, potash seasalt). The analysis by fire of organic substances would lead to coal, which then could also be interpreted as a black stage of putrefaction. Maybe it could help making a list of all known substances until the 17th century. I think I have one somewhere but am not sure if it's complete.
Another thing are the processes. Here it could help reading what Basil Valentine in his chariot was saying about beer-making when he compared or described it as an alchemical process. No one would declare beer brewing as alchemical. On the other hand there must be good reason it has something to do with it. A lot of the very old breweries in germany have the seal of salomon on their label.

http://www.technoseum-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Braustern.jpg

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Mendel_I_020_v.jpg

Luxus
03-27-2018, 04:27 PM
what they actually mean by the "Fire" is very likely the "counterpart" of the "Matter" (IMO), with common fire being used sparsely (or not at all) throughout the "cooking" process

This is something I have been kinda stuck on, you see I have known the correct matter and the secret solvent since my early 20s...but its this whole mystery surrounding the correct application of fire and timing that is what is holding me back.

Schmuldvich
03-27-2018, 04:34 PM
This is something I have been kinda stuck on, you see I have known the correct matter and the secret solvent since my early 20s...but its this whole mystery surrounding the correct application of fire and timing that is what is holding me back.

What is our Starting Matter?

Andro
03-27-2018, 04:56 PM
This is something I have been kinda stuck on, you see I have known the correct matter and the secret solvent since my early 20s... but its this whole mystery surrounding the correct application of fire and timing that is what is holding me back.

The canonical Secret Solvent (AKA "Mercury Duplex" AKA "Philosophical Mercury", etc) is the end result of the First Rotation, in the sequence of extracting ("inversely rotating") the "elements" from the "Earth" Matter by means of the "Spirit" Matter.

If you know these as you claim, the rest of the work is (mostly) "wetting & drying". Read ICH and Cyliani (and Recreations as well) on how to proceed. That's (allegedly) the "easy" part and the instructions in those books are mostly quite relatively explicit (with minor exceptions, but one text fills in for what another text omits).

To me, it appears (from what you write) that you are mistaking the Fire/Spirit aspect of the Matter for the Secret Solvent/Philosophical Mercury. They are not the same. Perhaps that's what's holding you back?

Andro
03-27-2018, 05:05 PM
More on the two-fold nature of "Our One Matter" (:)) - something I posted a while ago:


Cyliani, for example, makes it very clear that only two vases/two matters are required. One is 'fixed' (and double-natured, proportions between the two Central Fires being known by Nature alone) and one is 'volatile', but both are in fact the 'One Thing' expressed in Duality, as 'Heaven' and 'Earth' (for example). This is what we need to 'render' into our realm of matter before we can go further, i.e. 'In the Beginning'. Check your bible for Genesis 101.

We can even progress a bit further into the biblical allegory, where at the creation of the first (pre-op) androgynous Adam, we have a 'lump' of fixed (and double-natured) so-called 'clay' (or dormant 'Adamic Earth'), which needs to be awakened/animated/brought to life by the volatile Spirit/'Heaven'/'Breath Of God'. Same story as Genesis 101 basically, when stripped down to the archetypal symbolism. It's also basically the same allegory as 'The Dew of Heaven' and 'The Fatness of the Earth'.

Also check out the image I have made in THIS POST (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2130-The-First-Matter...&p=33277#post33277).

Luxus
03-27-2018, 05:25 PM
What is our Starting Matter?

I often call it Adam, the fatness of the land or the word made flesh. If the word is light then the flesh is nothing but crystallised light.

Luxus
03-27-2018, 05:30 PM
The canonical Secret Solvent (AKA "Mercury Duplex" AKA "Philosophical Mercury", etc) is the end result of the First Rotation, in the sequence of extracting ("inversely rotating") the "elements" from the "Earth" Matter by means of the "Spirit" Matter.

If you know these as you claim, the rest of the work is (mostly) "wetting & drying". Read ICH and Cyliani (and Recreations as well) on how to proceed. That's (allegedly) the "easy" part and the instructions in those books are mostly quite relatively explicit (with minor exceptions, but one text fills in for what another text omits).

To me, it appears (from what you write) that you are mistaking the Fire/Spirit aspect of the Matter for the Secret Solvent/Philosophical Mercury. They are not the same. Perhaps that's what's holding you back?

I understand it only slightly different. To me mercury Duplex is our secret solvent and when it has dissolved our matter into our sea that is philosophical mercury. Therefore our stone is made of nothing but cocked/boiled philosophical mercury.

This boiling/cooking however for me its the hard part because its much more complex then one might think.

Schmuldvich
03-27-2018, 05:40 PM
I often call it Adam, the fatness of the land or the word made flesh. If the word is light then the flesh is nothing but crystallised light.

I get that you're trying to sound smart and all, but I didn't ask for a description of our Starting Matter. I know very well how it is described. What I asked was specifically what our Starting Matter is in your opinion.

Luxus
03-27-2018, 05:47 PM
I get that you're trying to sound smart and all, but I didn't ask for a description of our Starting Matter. I know very well how it is described. What I asked was specifically what our Starting Matter is in your opinion.

I'm sorry but you seem to imagine I'm a sinner, because you must know from your study of Alchemy to openly reveal this is a great sin!

Schmuldvich
03-27-2018, 06:48 PM
I'm sorry but you seem to imagine I'm a sinner, because you must know from your study of Alchemy to openly reveal this is a great sin!

https://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif https://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif

Andro
03-27-2018, 06:59 PM
This boiling/cooking however for me its the hard part because its much more complex then one might think.

Still, the cooking is well described in the texts I have mentioned.

If you know the right ingredients as you claim, just do it until you get it right :)

If you're still doing lab work and there is a particular stage you are stuck at, maybe some people here could be of assistance.

Luxus
03-27-2018, 07:28 PM
https://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif https://i.imgur.com/G5HEc3p.gif

That's right get on your knees and beg for forgiveness!

Luxus
03-27-2018, 07:30 PM
Still, the cooking is well described in the texts I have mentioned.

If you know the right ingredients as you claim, just do it until you get it right :)

If you're still doing lab work and there is a particular stage you are stuck at, maybe some people here could be of assistance.

Thanks I will locate that text and read it!

z0 K
03-27-2018, 09:33 PM
Since we were talking about the "artificial antimonial compound" the most logical conclusion was that we were talking about his "Liber Secretisimus", since he primarily uses this expression in that text.

Regarding "fire analysis": I am surprised by your comments since in fact this favorite method of analysis by 16th-18th century spagyrists and chymists was in fact "lifted" from one of the main methods of the alchemists themselves, namely: putting the substance or mixture of substances being investigated inside an alembic/retort and gradually heating it, and then examining the byproducts obtained. If you have read all those descriptions of the distillation of "Adrop", "The Green Lion", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Sericon", etc. in countless alchemical texts you know very well what I am talking about.

One of my main objections to the "one matter only" theory still stands: if you read all those descriptions by the spagyrists & chymists of the 16th to the 18th century, you will see that none of the single natural matters they submitted to such "analysis by fire" corresponds exactly to the descriptions the alchemists make of the operations on their "Magnesia", "Adrop", "Red Lead", "Green Lion", "Sericon", etc. and the byproducts they obtained from this mysterious "matter". What does that strongly suggest to you? Keep in mind that those spagyrists/chymists submitted almost all natural substances they were acquainted with to such analysis (which was based on one of the main lab techniques of the alchemists themselves.) And it gets even worse by the time we hit "chemistry", more properly, because those guys in the late 18th and all through the 19th century submitted even more natural matters to all kinds of analysis (including gradual destructive distillation), and yet none of them fits well with those descriptions the alchemists make of their "matter" and its byproducts.

So, in conclusion, it is way more possible, realistic and logical that the reason why no one in these past few centuries seems to have stumbled upon any such "one matter" as the alchemists describe is in fact because it DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE. But the alchemists were not lying either. The "matter" exists... potentially. BUT YOU HAVE TO "ASSEMBLE" IT YOURSELF OUT OF SEVERAL (and these raw substances, from which the "artificial antimonial compound" is made, nature can provide you with.) Nature is not conveniently going to make this composite matter for you and save you all the toil & trouble of having to discover how to make it (which is the most difficult of all things to figure out in alchemy, and the stumbling block of countless seekers throughout history.)

What it suggests to me is that you have insufficient understanding of what alchemists meant by Fire in the analysis of the Elements. Your position appears to be based upon the assumptions and pursuits of spagyrists and chymists concerning the enigmatic starting matter of the alchemists.

I have copies of many of those old chymistry bokes and their descriptions of the products of the destructive distillation of biomass do in fact match the descriptions of the Elements the alchemists considered to be Philosophical.

"No profit is to be got by this Art, unless the perfect Bodies by means of the Philosophers Fire, or Water of Mercury, be reduced into their primum Ens, which is a Sulphureous Water, and Not Mercury vive, as the Sophisters suppose. For the first matter of Metals is not Mercury vive, but a clammy Sulphureous Vapour, and a viscous Water, wherein the three principles, viz. Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, are coexistent. Consequently it is necessary to know the true blessed Water of Mercury, or the Heavenly supernatural Fire.” [Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 12-13]

“The Elements shall melt with fervent heat; the Earth also, and the Works that are therein, shall be burnt up, and that there will be a new World, very glorious, excellent and good…There shall happen a destruction of the Elementary World by Fire. Observe in this Art, that the Fire must perform the like in its type in Nature. Therefore, my Son set thy thoughts upon this Water, wherewith the Body of Sol (which, as Rogerius witnesseth, is a perfect created World) is burnt up, and destroyed and dissolved, that it is not a common Fire, in regard the common is not able to burn or destroy the Gold: but it is a supernatural incombustible Fire, the strongest of all Fires, yea a Hellish Fire, which only hath the power to burn the Gold, and to set the same free from its stiff hard bonds.”
[Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 15]

“I would advise those who insist on treading the path that leads towards the Philosopher's Stone, only to begin their journey after having followed several courses in chemistry so that they will know how to manipulate. Whatever many authors may say, if I had not had the knowledge of chemistry that I do possess, I would never have reached the goal.

“Seek to know the Vinegar of the Mountains because without it you can do nothing. Its knowledge will give you that of the fairy of the soul so called by Arnold of Villanova in his Little Rosary.

“I thought that I heard split the tree at whose feet I was sitting. The sound made me turn my head. I saw a nymph, a very epitome of beauty emerging from this tree. Her clothes were so diaphanous that they seemed transparent. She said to me: "From the heart of this holy tree I have heard the repetition of your misfortunes.

“Finally I made up my mind and made ready for the battle. Having collected branches of dry wood that were scattered on the spot where I found myself, I lit them with the help of a lens that I found to be on me and heated my spear almost white hot… Determined to win or to perish, I furiously seized my spear with one hand and the substance in the other and put a sufficient quantity of this latter on the lock. In a little while the lock disappeared entirely and the two leaves of the door to the temple opened with a loud noise. My eyes fell on a fierce dragon who was endowed with an enormous three pointed tongue with which he sought to throw his fatal breath on me…” [Hermes Unveiled, Cylani, 1831]

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 3600, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction. Wood heated in the same manner with half its weight of water, is converted into a substance resembling bituminous coal, and burning with a smoky flame. Wood yields, when heated in a sealed glass tube, gases which escape with violence when the tube is opened, a very faintly coloured, clear or milky liquid, and a solid residue, which resembles red coal if it has been charred between 1600 and 2000, black coal between 2200 and 2800, and caking coal if charred at still higher temperatures. At 280 it still retains the structure of wood; between 3000 and 3200 it is tumefied, at 3400 fused into a dense mass. Vegetable substances strongly pressed between moist clay, so that the vapours can escape but slowly, and heated to between 2000 and 3000, yield a residue resembling coal. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“To omit circumstances, the first Matter out of which the Philosophers Stone is to be had and taken, is a subject common and poor in outward appearance, and therefore it is called a little thing, and it is in every Mine, yet is nearer in some things than in others…

“Know that all Philosophers affirm, that the Matter is but one thing, and a vile thing which costeth nothing, cast in High-ways and trodden upon, which is the hope of Metals, or a thing containing all things needful for the Work within it self; and albeit curious Wits hold all these to be Aenigma's, yet they are true according to the letter. Briefly, to manifest the truth, you shall know that in all Mines whatsoever there doth lye certain Beds, of a lutinous or clayish substance, under the Earth, which in some places is harder than in others, the deeper the Mine is, the more unctuous is the Clay; and this Clay is the Mother of the Metals, the feeder of the Mines, for in it lies hid the Spirits, or the three Principles of Metals, (viz) Salt the Body, Sulphur the Soul, and Mercury the Spirit, not common nor running, but a white Vapour which resolves it self into a white Water; I say invisibly in this confused lump of Clay, lies hid the aforesaid Principles.” [Aurifontina Chymical, Privy Seal of Secrets]

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“By distilling off 10 to 15 per cent of the crude wood-vinegar, Crude Wood-spirit is obtained, consisting principally of the more volatile matters such as acetic acid, acetate of ammonia, methylic alcohol, acetate of methyl, lignone, acetone, aldehyde, mesite, pyrocatechin, and pyroxanthogen. It likewise contains, in greater or smaller quantity (probably according to the quantity of the product distilled from the crude wood-vinegar), volatile oils, a substance which turns brown on exposure to the air, and bodies identical with those which remain in larger quantity in the residue of the crude wood-vinegar, and in the tar.

“The residual portion of crude wood-vinegar is an aqueous solution of variable quantities of acetic acid, empyreumatic oil, and resin, and a peculiar extractive matter called empyreumatic extract. It likewise contains creosote, a small quantity of eupione, and other volatile oils. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“Fill a big retort with fresh sawdust of oakwood, and connect a large recipient, and distil a vinegar from it. Make as much as is necessary, and rectify it, until it is sharp enough. Than take shiny chimney soot that is without debris, and divide from it 10-12 pound (360 g.) in more flasks. Poor as much vinegar over it that the soot is dissolved in it, and let it putrefy it for a month, and it will decay.

“Thereafter put the first flask in a sand bath, distil all phlegm from it and keep the burning Spiritus. Rectify this until it is pure and clear. Be careful that it will not get struck by any light.

“Put the remainder in a luted retort with a large receiver and distil, that way the Acetum with a blood red Sal Volatile comes over. Separate the Oil, and rectify the Aceto, so that it becomes penetrating and strong.

“(It is better to rectify the vinegar and Oil together first for two times. That way the Oil becomes clear and red, and the tar stays at the bottom. The rectification of the Oil alone over the remaining Kohl that is recommended by Tölde, will let too much of the Oil remain behind in the charcoal, or it burns. Presumably the coals keep also some sharpness of vinegar. After the rectification together the Oil is separated from the vinegar with a separation funnel and kept for external use. The vinegar is rectified one or two times alone. Fr. DG).”

“Now you need a Sal Alcali. Make a brine from a lot of completely burned out Oak wood ashes, and cook it into (cook-in, thicken) a salt. Glow this salt thoroughly out and put in a flask. Poor the above vinegar on it so that it can dissolve, and slowly distil the phlegm off.

“Stop when it starts to taste sour, let it cool and poor as much Spiritus (which you have distilled and rectified at the start) that everything coagulates nicely. Separate again the Phlegm. Now cohobate all until a fatty Liquor rises up. Rectify this individually, and you will have a key that will dissolve Gold and Silver and their Mercurium, and bring them into a Liquor.

Another way
“Another way to make a liquid key from the black Raven, with which Gold and Silver can be dissolved and brought into their prima materia is this:

“When you have first distilled your vinegar from the sawdust and rectified as strong as possible, you poor this onto the burned-out wood chips and distil it off again with strong fire. This is stored in its entirety. The Spiritus is prepared as described above and also an Oil is rectified. The Sal Alkali is cleaned as good as possible through repeated dissolving, filtration and coagulation, until it stays behind like a fatty butter.

“Now mix the vinegar and the Oil, poor it on the salt, keep it two days in moderate heat (it is better if you circulate it a few weeks) and cohobate 10 or 12 times, until the vinegar separates as you had poured it on. (the vinegar and the Oil can then be mixed again, because in fact they have been rectified together 2-3 times, but thereafter they must be separated to clean the vinegar further. Fr. DG)

“Thereafter do the same with the Spiritus. Pour it on the coagulated principals (Salt, Oil and Vinegar), and cohobate together 10 or 12 times, after you have separated all the phlegm.

“Then cohobate per retortam, so that a liquor with many colours rises over, which you than have to rectify one or two times per se. Take from gold or silver chalk one part, and pour 4 parts of the liquor, and digest it together 12 hours in a retort. When you digest it too long, it will become too fixed. Than distil everything over, and you will have a red juice or a butter. Put this is in a Phiole, but let three parts of the flask stay empty. Close it well with a glass stopper or melted, and give it 4 months of per Gradus Fire. That way it will show all colours and at last a blood red stone, which, if you leave it in this state, is a great medicine.”
[Coelum Reseratum Chymicum, J.G. Toeltius, 1612/1736]

thoth
03-27-2018, 09:35 PM
He also talks about the importance of collecting the astral spirit from the North, on a clear night with no clouds or wind.

"It must now be known that the astral influence makes itself felt preferably towards the North. That is, it is towards the North that the magnetised needle constantly turns...."
"....it is towards this region that you point your apparatus..."

"It is necessary to be guided by the North Star"

I wonder does he mean towards terrestrial/magnetic North, or towards the celestial North, i.e. the pole star.
Could it be the charged particles of the aurora we are trying to collect.
According to Wiki, there are free protons and electrons involved in the aurora.
Where else can we source bachelor protons .....

Cyliani - also talks about the Pole Star
Philalethes - also talks about it ".....that it may direct its course to the NORTH STAR which our magnet will cause to appear to thee"
Fulcanelli also talks about the Star of the Magi being a guide, which may be related to it.

JDP
03-28-2018, 03:16 AM
What it suggests to me is that you have insufficient understanding of what alchemists meant by Fire in the analysis of the Elements. Your position appears to be based upon the assumptions and pursuits of spagyrists and chymists concerning the enigmatic starting matter of the alchemists.

I have copies of many of those old chymistry bokes and their descriptions of the products of the destructive distillation of biomass do in fact match the descriptions of the Elements the alchemists considered to be Philosophical.

"No profit is to be got by this Art, unless the perfect Bodies by means of the Philosophers Fire, or Water of Mercury, be reduced into their primum Ens, which is a Sulphureous Water, and Not Mercury vive, as the Sophisters suppose. For the first matter of Metals is not Mercury vive, but a clammy Sulphureous Vapour, and a viscous Water, wherein the three principles, viz. Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, are coexistent. Consequently it is necessary to know the true blessed Water of Mercury, or the Heavenly supernatural Fire.” [Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 12-13]

“The Elements shall melt with fervent heat; the Earth also, and the Works that are therein, shall be burnt up, and that there will be a new World, very glorious, excellent and good…There shall happen a destruction of the Elementary World by Fire. Observe in this Art, that the Fire must perform the like in its type in Nature. Therefore, my Son set thy thoughts upon this Water, wherewith the Body of Sol (which, as Rogerius witnesseth, is a perfect created World) is burnt up, and destroyed and dissolved, that it is not a common Fire, in regard the common is not able to burn or destroy the Gold: but it is a supernatural incombustible Fire, the strongest of all Fires, yea a Hellish Fire, which only hath the power to burn the Gold, and to set the same free from its stiff hard bonds.”
[Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 15]

“I would advise those who insist on treading the path that leads towards the Philosopher's Stone, only to begin their journey after having followed several courses in chemistry so that they will know how to manipulate. Whatever many authors may say, if I had not had the knowledge of chemistry that I do possess, I would never have reached the goal.

“Seek to know the Vinegar of the Mountains because without it you can do nothing. Its knowledge will give you that of the fairy of the soul so called by Arnold of Villanova in his Little Rosary.

“I thought that I heard split the tree at whose feet I was sitting. The sound made me turn my head. I saw a nymph, a very epitome of beauty emerging from this tree. Her clothes were so diaphanous that they seemed transparent. She said to me: "From the heart of this holy tree I have heard the repetition of your misfortunes.

“Finally I made up my mind and made ready for the battle. Having collected branches of dry wood that were scattered on the spot where I found myself, I lit them with the help of a lens that I found to be on me and heated my spear almost white hot… Determined to win or to perish, I furiously seized my spear with one hand and the substance in the other and put a sufficient quantity of this latter on the lock. In a little while the lock disappeared entirely and the two leaves of the door to the temple opened with a loud noise. My eyes fell on a fierce dragon who was endowed with an enormous three pointed tongue with which he sought to throw his fatal breath on me…” [Hermes Unveiled, Cylani, 1831]

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 3600, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction. Wood heated in the same manner with half its weight of water, is converted into a substance resembling bituminous coal, and burning with a smoky flame. Wood yields, when heated in a sealed glass tube, gases which escape with violence when the tube is opened, a very faintly coloured, clear or milky liquid, and a solid residue, which resembles red coal if it has been charred between 1600 and 2000, black coal between 2200 and 2800, and caking coal if charred at still higher temperatures. At 280 it still retains the structure of wood; between 3000 and 3200 it is tumefied, at 3400 fused into a dense mass. Vegetable substances strongly pressed between moist clay, so that the vapours can escape but slowly, and heated to between 2000 and 3000, yield a residue resembling coal. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“To omit circumstances, the first Matter out of which the Philosophers Stone is to be had and taken, is a subject common and poor in outward appearance, and therefore it is called a little thing, and it is in every Mine, yet is nearer in some things than in others…

“Know that all Philosophers affirm, that the Matter is but one thing, and a vile thing which costeth nothing, cast in High-ways and trodden upon, which is the hope of Metals, or a thing containing all things needful for the Work within it self; and albeit curious Wits hold all these to be Aenigma's, yet they are true according to the letter. Briefly, to manifest the truth, you shall know that in all Mines whatsoever there doth lye certain Beds, of a lutinous or clayish substance, under the Earth, which in some places is harder than in others, the deeper the Mine is, the more unctuous is the Clay; and this Clay is the Mother of the Metals, the feeder of the Mines, for in it lies hid the Spirits, or the three Principles of Metals, (viz) Salt the Body, Sulphur the Soul, and Mercury the Spirit, not common nor running, but a white Vapour which resolves it self into a white Water; I say invisibly in this confused lump of Clay, lies hid the aforesaid Principles.” [Aurifontina Chymical, Privy Seal of Secrets]

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“By distilling off 10 to 15 per cent of the crude wood-vinegar, Crude Wood-spirit is obtained, consisting principally of the more volatile matters such as acetic acid, acetate of ammonia, methylic alcohol, acetate of methyl, lignone, acetone, aldehyde, mesite, pyrocatechin, and pyroxanthogen. It likewise contains, in greater or smaller quantity (probably according to the quantity of the product distilled from the crude wood-vinegar), volatile oils, a substance which turns brown on exposure to the air, and bodies identical with those which remain in larger quantity in the residue of the crude wood-vinegar, and in the tar.

“The residual portion of crude wood-vinegar is an aqueous solution of variable quantities of acetic acid, empyreumatic oil, and resin, and a peculiar extractive matter called empyreumatic extract. It likewise contains creosote, a small quantity of eupione, and other volatile oils. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

“Fill a big retort with fresh sawdust of oakwood, and connect a large recipient, and distil a vinegar from it. Make as much as is necessary, and rectify it, until it is sharp enough. Than take shiny chimney soot that is without debris, and divide from it 10-12 pound (360 g.) in more flasks. Poor as much vinegar over it that the soot is dissolved in it, and let it putrefy it for a month, and it will decay.

“Thereafter put the first flask in a sand bath, distil all phlegm from it and keep the burning Spiritus. Rectify this until it is pure and clear. Be careful that it will not get struck by any light.

“Put the remainder in a luted retort with a large receiver and distil, that way the Acetum with a blood red Sal Volatile comes over. Separate the Oil, and rectify the Aceto, so that it becomes penetrating and strong.

“(It is better to rectify the vinegar and Oil together first for two times. That way the Oil becomes clear and red, and the tar stays at the bottom. The rectification of the Oil alone over the remaining Kohl that is recommended by Tölde, will let too much of the Oil remain behind in the charcoal, or it burns. Presumably the coals keep also some sharpness of vinegar. After the rectification together the Oil is separated from the vinegar with a separation funnel and kept for external use. The vinegar is rectified one or two times alone. Fr. DG).”

“Now you need a Sal Alcali. Make a brine from a lot of completely burned out Oak wood ashes, and cook it into (cook-in, thicken) a salt. Glow this salt thoroughly out and put in a flask. Poor the above vinegar on it so that it can dissolve, and slowly distil the phlegm off.

“Stop when it starts to taste sour, let it cool and poor as much Spiritus (which you have distilled and rectified at the start) that everything coagulates nicely. Separate again the Phlegm. Now cohobate all until a fatty Liquor rises up. Rectify this individually, and you will have a key that will dissolve Gold and Silver and their Mercurium, and bring them into a Liquor.

Another way
“Another way to make a liquid key from the black Raven, with which Gold and Silver can be dissolved and brought into their prima materia is this:

“When you have first distilled your vinegar from the sawdust and rectified as strong as possible, you poor this onto the burned-out wood chips and distil it off again with strong fire. This is stored in its entirety. The Spiritus is prepared as described above and also an Oil is rectified. The Sal Alkali is cleaned as good as possible through repeated dissolving, filtration and coagulation, until it stays behind like a fatty butter.

“Now mix the vinegar and the Oil, poor it on the salt, keep it two days in moderate heat (it is better if you circulate it a few weeks) and cohobate 10 or 12 times, until the vinegar separates as you had poured it on. (the vinegar and the Oil can then be mixed again, because in fact they have been rectified together 2-3 times, but thereafter they must be separated to clean the vinegar further. Fr. DG)

“Thereafter do the same with the Spiritus. Pour it on the coagulated principals (Salt, Oil and Vinegar), and cohobate together 10 or 12 times, after you have separated all the phlegm.

“Then cohobate per retortam, so that a liquor with many colours rises over, which you than have to rectify one or two times per se. Take from gold or silver chalk one part, and pour 4 parts of the liquor, and digest it together 12 hours in a retort. When you digest it too long, it will become too fixed. Than distil everything over, and you will have a red juice or a butter. Put this is in a Phiole, but let three parts of the flask stay empty. Close it well with a glass stopper or melted, and give it 4 months of per Gradus Fire. That way it will show all colours and at last a blood red stone, which, if you leave it in this state, is a great medicine.”
[Coelum Reseratum Chymicum, J.G. Toeltius, 1612/1736]

Some of the quotes you are reproducing concern operations with the secret solvent or "water" already prepared, not its preparation. Also, the quotes out of chymistry & chemistry books do NOT match with everything in the descriptions of the alchemists regarding the distillation of their "matter". Here is an example of one such description:

First take 30 pound weight of Sericon or Antimony, which will make 21 pound weight of Gum, or near thereabouts, if it be well dissolved, and the Vinegar very good, and dissolve each pound thereof in a Gallon of twice distilled Vinegar when cold again, and as it standeth in Dissolution in a fit Glass Vessel, stirr it about with a clean Stick very often every day, the oftner the better, and when it is well moulten to the bottom, then filter over the said Liquors three several times, which keep close covered, and cast away the Feces, for that is superfluous filth which must be removed, and entreth not into the Work but is called Terra damnata.

The making of our Gum or green Lyon.

Then put all these cold Liquors thus filtered into a fit Glass Vessel, and set it into Balneo Mariae to evaporate in a temperate heat, which done our Sericon will be coagulated into a green Gum called our green Lyon, which Gum dry well, yet beware thou burn not his Flowers not destroy his greeness.

The Extraction of our Menstue, or blood of our green Lyon.

Then take out the said Gum, and put it into a strong Retort of Glass very well Luted, and place it in your Furnace, and under that at the first, make sober Fire, and anon you shall see a faint Water issue forth, let it waste away; but when you see a white Smoak or fume issue forth, then put too a Receiver of Glass, which must have a very large Belly, and the mouth no wider then it may well receive into that the Neck of the Retort, which close well together that no fume issue forth of the Receiver. Then encrease your Fire by little and little till the fume which issueth be reddish, then continue the greater Fire, until drops like blood come forth, and no more fume will issue forth, and when that leaveth bleeding let it cool or asswage the Fire by little and little, and when all things are cold, then take away the Receiver, and close it fast suddenly, that the Spirits vanish not away, for this Liquor is called, our blessed Liquor, which Liquor keep close stopped in a Glass till hereafter. Then look into the Neck of the Retort, and therein you shall find a white hard Ryme as it were the Congelation of a Frosty vapour or much like sublimate, which gather with diligence and keep it apart, for therein are contained great Secrets which shall be shewed hereafter, after the great Work is ended.

I ask you again: which single natural matter have you ever heard of any spagyrist, chymist or chemist distill that showed all such byproducts (viz. a white "water/oil", a red "water/oil", a white sublimate) as the alchemists describe? One of the few things known to those experimenters that comes fairly close to the descriptions of the alchemists are some metallic acetates, but these ARE NOT SINGLE NATURAL MATTERS, BUT ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITES MADE BY MAN'S INDUSTRY (i.e. acetates are the product of dissolving metallic calxes in acetic acid, two separate distinct matters, and it is man who does this, not nature. Even if nature wanted to prepare such substances as metallic acetates, it just can't, it lacks the tools and proper working conditions to be able to make such substances on its own.)

And that's leaving aside the "other" problem that everyone who has experimented with acetates knows: that you can't make the Stone from them either, no matter how seemingly well their byproducts appear to fit the descriptions. The similarity of the distillation of some metallic acetates to what the alchemists describe prompted some seekers to become very convinced that what they were describing was in fact the distillation of metallic acetates, like those of lead or zinc. But then they found out, at their own expense in time & money, that the byproducts given off by metallic acetates do not react like the byproducts of the alchemists' secret composite "matter" and never "coagulate" into a permanently "fixed" substance that will penetrate molten metals and transmute them (but you can use some of the byproducts of metallic acetates in some "chymical" processes, though.) So that's an additional problem you will most likely run into even if you can manage to find some substances (whether natural or artificial) that might seem to fit with what the alchemists describe. So we are talking about two stumbling blocks that you will have to confront in your quest:

1- a substance (whether natural or artificial) or mixture of substances that when submitted to distillation will fit well with the descriptions of the byproducts given off by the alchemists' "matter"

2- byproducts that will react like those in the descriptions of the alchemists

alfr
03-28-2018, 08:21 AM
Hi JDP happy to have you back
but in my opinion there are indications that z0 K quotes refer to this process http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html

and therefore it must be analyzed evaluated
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hi z0 K
for z0 K you can elaborate on what you intend to indicate with these quotes perhaps the formation of wood vinegar? for your opinion and your research, therefore, according to you this has connections with the solvent ?

.................................................. .......

ciao JDP felice di riaverti
ma secondo me mote delle indicazioni che z0 K cita si riferiscono a questo processo http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html

e cio dunque va analizzato valutato
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hi z0 K
per z0 K puoi approfondire cosa intendi indicare con queste citazioni forse la formazione dell'aceto di legno ? per la tua opinione e tue ricerche dunque secondo te questo ha connessioni col solvente

z0 K
03-28-2018, 05:35 PM
Also, the quotes out of chymistry & chemistry books do NOT match with everything in the descriptions of the alchemists regarding the distillation of their "matter". Here is an example of one such description:


Your opinions are not facts:

I say they do match the substances the adepts call philosophical elements and principles. This is not my opinion. It is an empirical observation of the matters that have evolved in my lab. I did provide some very concise descriptions of the products received from the destructive distillation of wood in the Handbook of Chemistry 1862.

Your example of one such description is in fact a perfect example of the alchemical progress from the starting matter which Ripley says is one thing -- which you emphatically disagree with. He says you need 30 pounds of Sericon or Antimony to begin the work.

He tells you in another treatise that the One Thing is not common antimony. That is too dry and has no fat. He tells you in yet another treatise that the matter is everywhere and that Lull said it could be found in old draughts. One such old draught that was found everywhere people went and lived was a chimney. Soot is found in chimneys. Soot looks a lot like antimony sulfide, mineral stibnite.

Further, you know well that Ripley said there are 24 ways of working with the One Thing in his Philorcium.


I ask you again: which single natural matter have you ever heard of any spagyrist, chymist or chemist distill that showed all such byproducts (viz. a white "water/oil", a red "water/oil", a white sublimate) as the alchemists describe?

And I will tell you again the single natural matter is BIOMASS which Ripley knew at least 24 different ways of working it.

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

From Toeltius:

“Fill a big retort with fresh sawdust of oakwood, and connect a large recipient, and distil a vinegar from it. Make as much as is necessary, and rectify it, until it is sharp enough. Than take shiny chimney soot that is without debris, and divide from it 10-12 pound (360 g.) in more flasks. Poor as much vinegar over it that the soot is dissolved in it, and let it putrefy it for a month, and it will decay."

Your quote from Ripley:

"Then take out the said Gum, and put it into a strong Retort of Glass very well Luted, and place it in your Furnace, and under that at the first, make sober Fire, and anon you shall see a faint Water issue forth, let it waste away; but when you see a white Smoak or fume issue forth, then put too a Receiver of Glass, which must have a very large Belly, and the mouth no wider then it may well receive into that the Neck of the Retort, which close well together that no fume issue forth of the Receiver. Then encrease your Fire by little and little till the fume which issueth be reddish, then continue the greater Fire, until drops like blood come forth, and no more fume will issue forth, and when that leaveth bleeding let it cool or asswage the Fire by little and little, and when all things are cold, then take away the Receiver, and close it fast suddenly, that the Spirits vanish not away, for this Liquor is called, our blessed Liquor, which Liquor keep close stopped in a Glass till hereafter. Then look into the Neck of the Retort, and therein you shall find a white hard Ryme as it were the Congelation of a Frosty vapour or much like sublimate, which gather with diligence and keep it apart, for therein are contained great Secrets which shall be shewed hereafter, after the great Work is ended."


One of the few things known to those experimenters that comes fairly close to the descriptions of the alchemists are some metallic acetates...

...everyone who has experimented with acetates knows: that you can't make the Stone from them either, no matter how seemingly well their byproducts appear to fit the descriptions. The similarity of the distillation of some metallic acetates to what the alchemists describe prompted some seekers to become very convinced that what they were describing was in fact the distillation of metallic acetates, like those of lead or zinc. But then they found out, at their own expense in time & money, that the byproducts given off by metallic acetates do not react like the byproducts of the alchemists' secret composite "matter" and never "coagulate" into a permanently "fixed" substance that will penetrate molten metals and transmute them (but you can use some of the byproducts of metallic acetates in some "chymical" processes, though.) So that's an additional problem you will most likely run into even if you can manage to find some substances (whether natural or artificial) that might seem to fit with what the alchemists describe. So we are talking about two stumbling blocks that you will have to confront in your quest:

I totally agree with you about the Acetate Path delusions. That is the major reason why these days no one makes any progress in lab alchemy. The focus of the spagyrists on chymical transactions instead of alchemical transactions has been accepted by the major alchemy teachers in the last century. They think that acetic acid is the mercury of the mineral kingdom and mineral acids are necessary to "open" metals as well.

I am past the stumbling blocks that you are having trouble with:


1- a substance (whether natural or artificial) or mixture of substances that when submitted to distillation will fit well with the descriptions of the byproducts given off by the alchemists' "matter"

Biomass


2- byproducts that will react like those in the descriptions of the alchemists

No problem there. Biomass gives byproducts that do react like those in the descriptions of the alchemists. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself.

The real problem for me is the time it takes to process sufficient Philosophical Elements to run more experiments. As Ripley said you will need to:

"But observe by the Way, that thou must have great store of our Water, Air and Fire, and those extracted out of five or six several Compounds, or Chaos, so that after you have driven one Chaos out of the Oven, you must presently set in a new one, and so successively one after another, and then separate their elements, for else you will want waters and oils for imbibition, inceration, and multiplication, and if thy work be discontinued for want of such materials, all is spoiled and will come to nothing, for if thou once begin, thou must proceed without stay or interruption unto the full end."

JDP
03-28-2018, 08:06 PM
Your opinions are not facts:

Neither are yours; and mine are based on comparison of what both descriptions say. Where is the green substance or "gum" produced from "biomass" dissolved in "vinegar"? Where is the white sublimate? The distillation of wood does not match with everything the alchemists say.


I say they do match the substances the adepts call philosophical elements and principles. This is not my opinion.

Yes, it is. And we are talking now about the descriptions found in published chymical and chemical books.


It is an empirical observation of the matters that have evolved in my lab. I did provide some very concise descriptions of the products received from the destructive distillation of wood in the Handbook of Chemistry 1862.

And it does not match with everything the alchemists describe.


Your example of one such description is in fact a perfect example of the alchemical progress from the starting matter which Ripley says is one thing -- which you emphatically disagree with.

For obvious reasons: 1- It is suspicious to begin with, since no such "one matter" that has been submitted to "analysis by fire" by a bunch of people through the centuries matches with everything the alchemists describe. 2- Ripley himself explains what the "one matter/thing" REALLY IS in his "Liber Secretisimus" (viz. AN ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITE OF THREE DISTINCT SEVERAL SUBSTANCES, put together and made to react in the appropriate manner by the alchemist himself, not nature, which could never do this on its own even in a million years; the amount of "coincidences" for that to happen in a random natural setting would be ASTRONOMICAL), unlike in some of his other texts, where he is more ambiguous and vague regarding what this "one thing" actually is.


He says you need 30 pounds of Sericon or Antimony to begin the work.

This might be a printing or copying error, as it sounds like an unusually large weight. In other texts Ripley also mentions smaller amounts.


He tells you in another treatise that the One Thing is not common antimony.

And that it is also made from THREE DISTINCT SEVERAL THINGS, and that you BEGIN THE WORK WITH THIS "TRINITY", NOT FROM ANY "UNITY". Don't conveniently forget this important bit just because it puts a huge dent into the misleading "one matter" claim.


That is too dry and has no fat.

Yes, indeed, because most minerals and metals by themselves can't give any such liquid byproducts as the alchemists describe. I don't deny at all that alchemy in fact uses some substances that are NOT mineral/metallic in nature. What I deny is that with only one substance (whether mineral/metallic or organic) you can actually make the Stone, from beginning to end, nothing else needed. That is a fairy tale designed to mislead you into blind alleys.


He tells you in yet another treatise that the matter is everywhere and that Lull said it could be found in old draughts. One such old draught that was found everywhere people went and lived was a chimney. Soot is found in chimneys. Soot looks a lot like antimony sulfide, mineral stibnite.

Yes, but unfortunately soot does not dissolve in vinegar, it does not form a green substance or "gum", and it does not give exactly the same byproducts as the alchemists describe when it is submitted to distillation (the "oil" that soot gives is a blackish empyreumatic oil, not white and/or red.) So, by itself, soot can't fit everything they describe.


Further, you know well that Ripley said there are 24 ways of working with the One Thing in his Philorcium.

Which in another text he clearly explains that IT BECOMES "ONE" FROM THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THREE DISTINCT SEVERAL THINGS, and that it is an ARTIFICIAL COMPOUND, not a natural matter like the common antimony that comes from the mines.


And I will tell you again the single natural matter is BIOMASS which Ripley knew at least 24 different ways of working it.

Wood & soot do not fit with everything the alchemists describe. Wood and soot do not dissolve in vinegar, and do not form a green substance or "gum" from it. Soot produces no white & red "oils" when distilled. Wood produces no white sublimate when distilled.

Schmuldvich
03-29-2018, 02:40 PM
He also talks about the importance of collecting the astral spirit from the North, on a clear night with no clouds or wind.

"It must now be known that the astral influence makes itself felt preferably towards the North. That is, it is towards the North that the magnetised needle constantly turns...."
"....it is towards this region that you point your apparatus..."

"It is necessary to be guided by the North Star"

I wonder does he mean towards terrestrial/magnetic North, or towards the celestial North, i.e. the pole star.
Could it be the charged particles of the aurora we are trying to collect.
According to Wiki, there are free protons and electrons involved in the aurora.
Where else can we source bachelor protons .....

Cyliani - also talks about the Pole Star
Philalethes - also talks about it ".....that it may direct its course to the NORTH STAR which our magnet will cause to appear to thee"
Fulcanelli also talks about the Star of the Magi being a guide, which may be related to it.

But how do we find the North Star, this Astral Spirit, these charged Particles? ...When we look up of course!

Have you begun our Great Work, thoth?

z0 K
03-29-2018, 06:55 PM
Wood & soot do not fit with everything the alchemists describe. Wood and soot do not dissolve in vinegar, and do not form a green substance or "gum" from it. Soot produces no white & red "oils" when distilled. Wood produces no white sublimate when distilled.

If you see the connecting principles then you know where to start. Some never will "to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath inclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole world."

z0 K
03-29-2018, 07:02 PM
Hi JDP happy to have you back
but in my opinion there are indications that z0 K quotes refer to this process http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html

and therefore it must be analyzed evaluated
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hi z0 K
for z0 K you can elaborate on what you intend to indicate with these quotes perhaps the formation of wood vinegar? for your opinion and your research, therefore, according to you this has connections with the solvent ?

.................................................. .......

ciao JDP felice di riaverti
ma secondo me mote delle indicazioni che z0 K cita si riferiscono a questo processo http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html

e cio dunque va analizzato valutato
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hi z0 K
per z0 K puoi approfondire cosa intendi indicare con queste citazioni forse la formazione dell'aceto di legno ? per la tua opinione e tue ricerche dunque secondo te questo ha connessioni col solvente

The secret solvent is an alchemical menstrum derived from Philosophical wine. Philosophical wine can be made from common grape wine or any other herb according to Hollandus. Bolnest gives the best process for preparing the Philosophical wine from grape wine. Hollandus gives the best process for any herb.

The quotes I provided from the Handbook of Chemistry about the destructive distillation of wood describe products received that match the descriptions of all the adepts concerning the generation of their sulfur and mercury or oil and water.

"The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar." [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

I used the very clear descriptions of alchemist Toeltius to indicate the process to prepare the solvent or Mercury from wood soot matches the description of how Ripley prepared his gum from his artificial antimonial compound.

“Fill a big retort with fresh sawdust of oakwood, and connect a large recipient, and distil a vinegar from it. Make as much as is necessary, and rectify it, until it is sharp enough. Than take shiny chimney soot that is without debris, and divide from it 10-12 pound (360 g.) in more flasks. Poor as much vinegar over it that the soot is dissolved in it, and let it putrefy it for a month, and it will decay. Toeltius

"Put them into a good and strong cucurbit, or glass body, and close it well on the Top, that none of the spirits exhale, for if they find a Vent to evaporate, thou art undone, because thereby thou loosest and wasteth the flowers of our Gold. When thy Vessel is well closed, put it into the Philosophers Oven, and set it in Ashes or sand, with a temperate fire under it, for the space of a Philosophers Month, which is six whole weeks, and in that time our grosse bodies will be dissolved and mortified and made fit to begin a more royal generation." Ripley

Then I used quotes from Ripley's Bosom Book to show that compound Toeltius prepared from one thing, wood, was a clear description of Ripley's Sericon.

"First take 30 pound weight of Sericon or Antimony, which will make 21 pound weight of Gum, or near thereabouts, if it be well dissolved, and the Vinegar very good, and dissolve each pound thereof in a Gallon of twice distilled Vinegar when cold again, and as it standeth in Dissolution in a fit Glass Vessel, stirr it about with a clean Stick very often every day, the oftner the better, and when it is well moulten to the bottom, then filter over the said Liquors three several times, which keep close covered, and cast away the Feces, for that is superfluous filth which must be removed, and entreth not into the Work but is called Terra damnata."

Also another adept I quoted, Cyliani, says to seek Vinegar of the Mountains without it you can do nothing in our work. He gets his inspiration from a "wood nymph." Then he burns the wood to get the vinegar.

I used quotes from the Handbook of Chemistry to show the products specifically obtained from crude wood vinegar.

“By distilling off 10 to 15 per cent of the crude wood-vinegar, Crude Wood-spirit is obtained, consisting principally of the more volatile matters such as acetic acid, acetate of ammonia, methylic alcohol, acetate of methyl, lignone, acetone, aldehyde, mesite, pyrocatechin, and pyroxanthogen. It likewise contains, in greater or smaller quantity (probably according to the quantity of the product distilled from the crude wood-vinegar), volatile oils, a substance which turns brown on exposure to the air, and bodies identical with those which remain in larger quantity in the residue of the crude wood-vinegar, and in the tar.

“The residual portion of crude wood-vinegar is an aqueous solution of variable quantities of acetic acid, empyreumatic oil, and resin, and a peculiar extractive matter called empyreumatic extract. It likewise contains creosote, a small quantity of eupione, and other volatile oils." [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

All of those spirits and waters and oils listed in the Handbook of Chemistry come from One Thing: wood. Together they are the Philosopher's Mercury and Sulfur. Together they are a complex Philosophical unit containing vinegar, alcohol, ammonia, acetone and volatile oils. The adepts all agree that the Mercury and Sulfur must be purified not burned up. They are purified by repeated distillation usually in a water bath.

"but take I say, our Artificial Antimonial Compound, which is abundantly replinished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God, to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath inclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole World." Ripley

If you see the connecting principles then you know where to start. Some never will "to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath inclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole world."

thoth
03-29-2018, 09:03 PM
Hi

Well I have started it in a few different directions, really as dry runs to test different ideas.

You know those special nights around now, until early summer, when there are no clouds in the sky, and you get that really beautiful palette in the sky, from aquamarine to indigo blue. I think those are the nights when we should get our criss cross XXX Bacchus baskets and nets and catch the elusive fish.

What I was wondering is, do we point our collection Cup to the north of our compass, or point it towards the Polar star. The further south you live on the globe, the bigger the difference between the two options
i.e if you were at the North pole, your collector would be point almost straight up (offset 23 degrees), whereas if you were living in Ecaudor your would be pointing closer to to the northern horizon

I wonder if there are any practical alchemists... oops I mean scientists....., working in one of the Polar stations like Eureka or Thule .....

Dragon's Tail
03-29-2018, 09:25 PM
z0 K as always your inputs and advice are awesome.

My only question about the process you've described has to do with the way the first 4-5 paragraphs of Liber Secretisimus seem to dip and sway through the timeline. I believe they are intentionally placed out of chronological order.

Thus, my understanding (and I need to study it more, I'll admit) is that the three common and contemptable things are placed in the flask and digested, the red liquor is distilled from the Green Lyon itself, along with the other humidities, leaving the black earth to be turned white or gray.

As I follow the term "Artificial Antimony" through those paragraphs, is not the "Mineral Trinity." The "three kinsmen" seem to be drawn from their natural state, then combined and fermented to produce the Artificial Antimony (the one true matter) to begin the work, which becomes dark and perfectly dissolved into one thing. Then the dry distillations of that thing, or the gum made from it.

this is just my understanding of the text. Now that I'm close to my property, I'll be able to fire up some dry distillations without drawing attention to myself, and in safety of wide ventilated outdoor spaces to carry out the work. I can be as smelly as I wish. I should be making quite a bit of the red wine/vinegar, most likely from wood and plants, but I'm not certain that this is one of the ingredients that Ripley refers to as "the kinsmen." Like I said, I think his words are out of order, just by the repetitive placement of certain terms.

Schmuldvich
03-29-2018, 09:37 PM
Hi Well I have started it in a few different directions, really as dry runs to test different ideas.

Awesome to hear!! Were you able to accomplish anything worthwhile with your experiments?


You know those special nights around now, until early summer, when there are no clouds in the sky, and you get that really beautiful palette in the sky, from aquamarine to indigo blue. I think those are the nights when we should get our criss cross XXX Bacchus baskets and nets and catch the elusive fish.

What I was wondering is, do we point our collection Cup to the north of our compass, or point it towards the Polar star. The further south you live on the globe, the bigger the difference between the two options
i.e if you were at the North pole, your collector would be point almost straight up (offset 23 degrees), whereas if you were living in Ecaudor your would be pointing closer to to the northern horizon

I wonder if there are any practical alchemists... oops I mean scientists....., working in one of the Polar stations like Eureka or Thule .....

I love those nights! When it's so clear you can see everything; so beautiful and serene!

Nice criss-cross reference; Fulcanelli speaks of this as a later stage in our Work when what you are talking about is the initial stage of our Work--the very first step, Collection.

It sounds like you're still caught up with hokey pokey mumbo jumbo that is meant to be viewed symbolically (not literally) in our Art.

You capitalize 'Cup' as if speaking Philosophically, but with what you are talking about (the actual Collection vessel) I cannot see how the 'Cup' can be viewed Philosophically, unless you are capitalizing this word because you deem it to be a Holy vessel (which it is, being that it holds the beginnings of the most incredible Matter known to man), but I do not think this is the case.

If we are collecting our Starting Matter, why would it matter which direction the Collection vessel is pointing? This makes no sense to me nor do I see how this is relevant to starting our Work. I would hope that you are pointing it towards the pole star else your Matter might fall out of your vessel, but pointing it in a specific direction is pointless in my eyes. Anyone can collect our Matter at anytime. All this "when the Sun is in Capricorn adjacent to the house of Aries" fluff is all bullshit imo. Collect whenever you want. What is important is how you Prepare your Starting Matter once it has been sufficiently collected.

JDP
03-29-2018, 10:53 PM
The secret solvent is an alchemical menstrum derived from Philosophical wine. Philosophical wine can be made from common grape wine or any other herb according to Hollandus. Bolnest gives the best process for preparing the Philosophical wine from grape wine. Hollandus gives the best process for any herb.

The quotes I provided from the Handbook of Chemistry about the destructive distillation of wood describe products received that match the descriptions of all the adepts concerning the generation of their sulfur and mercury or oil and water.

"The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar." [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

I used the very clear descriptions of alchemist Toeltius to indicate the process to prepare the solvent or Mercury from wood soot matches the description of how Ripley prepared his gum from his artificial antimonial compound.

“Fill a big retort with fresh sawdust of oakwood, and connect a large recipient, and distil a vinegar from it. Make as much as is necessary, and rectify it, until it is sharp enough. Than take shiny chimney soot that is without debris, and divide from it 10-12 pound (360 g.) in more flasks. Poor as much vinegar over it that the soot is dissolved in it, and let it putrefy it for a month, and it will decay. Toeltius

"Put them into a good and strong cucurbit, or glass body, and close it well on the Top, that none of the spirits exhale, for if they find a Vent to evaporate, thou art undone, because thereby thou loosest and wasteth the flowers of our Gold. When thy Vessel is well closed, put it into the Philosophers Oven, and set it in Ashes or sand, with a temperate fire under it, for the space of a Philosophers Month, which is six whole weeks, and in that time our grosse bodies will be dissolved and mortified and made fit to begin a more royal generation." Ripley

Then I used quotes from Ripley's Bosom Book to show that compound Toeltius prepared from one thing, wood, was a clear description of Ripley's Sericon.

"First take 30 pound weight of Sericon or Antimony, which will make 21 pound weight of Gum, or near thereabouts, if it be well dissolved, and the Vinegar very good, and dissolve each pound thereof in a Gallon of twice distilled Vinegar when cold again, and as it standeth in Dissolution in a fit Glass Vessel, stirr it about with a clean Stick very often every day, the oftner the better, and when it is well moulten to the bottom, then filter over the said Liquors three several times, which keep close covered, and cast away the Feces, for that is superfluous filth which must be removed, and entreth not into the Work but is called Terra damnata."

Also another adept I quoted, Cyliani, says to seek Vinegar of the Mountains without it you can do nothing in our work. He gets his inspiration from a "wood nymph." Then he burns the wood to get the vinegar.

I used quotes from the Handbook of Chemistry to show the products specifically obtained from crude wood vinegar.

“By distilling off 10 to 15 per cent of the crude wood-vinegar, Crude Wood-spirit is obtained, consisting principally of the more volatile matters such as acetic acid, acetate of ammonia, methylic alcohol, acetate of methyl, lignone, acetone, aldehyde, mesite, pyrocatechin, and pyroxanthogen. It likewise contains, in greater or smaller quantity (probably according to the quantity of the product distilled from the crude wood-vinegar), volatile oils, a substance which turns brown on exposure to the air, and bodies identical with those which remain in larger quantity in the residue of the crude wood-vinegar, and in the tar.

“The residual portion of crude wood-vinegar is an aqueous solution of variable quantities of acetic acid, empyreumatic oil, and resin, and a peculiar extractive matter called empyreumatic extract. It likewise contains creosote, a small quantity of eupione, and other volatile oils." [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

All of those spirits and waters and oils listed in the Handbook of Chemistry come from One Thing: wood. Together they are the Philosopher's Mercury and Sulfur. Together they are a complex Philosophical unit containing vinegar, alcohol, ammonia, acetone and volatile oils. The adepts all agree that the Mercury and Sulfur must be purified not burned up. They are purified by repeated distillation usually in a water bath.

"but take I say, our Artificial Antimonial Compound, which is abundantly replinished with the Dew of Heaven and the fatness and unctuosity of the earth, wherein precious Oils and rich Mercuries are by Nature closely sealed up, and hidden from the eyes of all ignorant deriders of the great and wonderful mysteries of Almighty God, to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath inclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole World." Ripley

If you see the connecting principles then you know where to start. Some never will "to the end that seeing they should not see, nor understand, what he hath inclosed in the most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole world."

I don't understand why you keep on insisting about this, when it is plain that neither the distillation of soot nor of wood are an adequate match to the descriptions of the alchemists, which anyone can plainly see by simple comparison. The secret composite matter of the alchemists, which can be prepared in more than just one way, gives off the following byproducts (depending, again, on the method and some of the substances used in its preparation):

1- a white/milky/silvery fluid (sometimes called "water", sometimes called "oil", depending on the authors)

2- a red or yellowish fluid (sometimes called "water", but more usually "oil", "tincture", "soul", "sulphur", etc.)

Note about the above byproducts: the older alchemists often preferred to prepare the two of them mixed with each other and not separate them. This mixture is the "Divine Water" they used to "feed" or "cook" the "earth" with. They often divided this "water" into 9 separate portions/parts. Three were gradually used to make the white Stone/Elixir. The next six portions were gradually used to make the red Stone/Elixir (all those interested in this older method, a favorite among the Muslim alchemists, can consult Ibn Umail or al-Iraqi, for example, who keep explaining this over, and over, and over, and over...)

3- a white sublimate (sometimes called "flowers", sometimes "crown" or "wreath" [a favorite expression for this product among the Muslim alchemists was "the Crown/Wreath of Victory"], or compared to other sublimates that have some similarity, like mercury sublimate, or sulphur, etc.)

4- a superflous humidity (only in some methods)

Soot gives a "water" or "spirit", a black empyreumatic oil and some sublimates. Wood gives several liquid products (including some acids), some oily matters (of varying colors, including black "tarry" ones), and no sublimates. So, nope, sorry. They are not a very adequate match to the descriptions of the alchemists.

By the way, see Bolnest's descriptions of the alchemical "mercury" in his Medicina Instaurata: "a clear, milky, crystalline, and silver liquor." Notice also how he is very persistent that at least a certain metal enters its composition. You won't find a proponent of the "one matter only" blind alley in Bolnest either. The more sincere writers all admit one way or another that several substances are used in the operations for making the Stone. Only the more misleading ones go around peddling the "one matter/thing" claim without ever clarifying what is really meant by this "one matter/thing", and thus letting the unwary seeker who "swallows the bait" become hopelessly lost in blind alleys searching for a literal "one matter/thing" that will fit everything they read such writers describe.

JDP
03-29-2018, 10:59 PM
z0 K as always your inputs and advice are awesome.

My only question about the process you've described has to do with the way the first 4-5 paragraphs of Liber Secretisimus seem to dip and sway through the timeline. I believe they are intentionally placed out of chronological order.

Thus, my understanding (and I need to study it more, I'll admit) is that the three common and contemptable things are placed in the flask and digested, the red liquor is distilled from the Green Lyon itself, along with the other humidities, leaving the black earth to be turned white or gray.

As I follow the term "Artificial Antimony" through those paragraphs, is not the "Mineral Trinity." The "three kinsmen" seem to be drawn from their natural state, then combined and fermented to produce the Artificial Antimony (the one true matter) to begin the work, which becomes dark and perfectly dissolved into one thing. Then the dry distillations of that thing, or the gum made from it.

this is just my understanding of the text. Now that I'm close to my property, I'll be able to fire up some dry distillations without drawing attention to myself, and in safety of wide ventilated outdoor spaces to carry out the work. I can be as smelly as I wish. I should be making quite a bit of the red wine/vinegar, most likely from wood and plants, but I'm not certain that this is one of the ingredients that Ripley refers to as "the kinsmen." Like I said, I think his words are out of order, just by the repetitive placement of certain terms.

Indeed, you have understood the text quite well. The initial "trinity" (in this method employed by Ripley; other alchemists actually used more substances. Thomas Norton, for example, used at least 4) begets this "unity", which in its turn begets several byproducts. The big problem is that some malicious and misleading writers wholly skip the actual beginning of the work and start at the apparent "one matter/thing", leaving their unwary readers totally in the blind regarding what went on BEFORE this apparent "unity" or "one matter/thing".

z0 K
03-29-2018, 11:43 PM
z0 K as always your inputs and advice are awesome.

My only question about the process you've described has to do with the way the first 4-5 paragraphs of Liber Secretisimus seem to dip and sway through the timeline. I believe they are intentionally placed out of chronological order.

Thus, my understanding (and I need to study it more, I'll admit) is that the three common and contemptable things are placed in the flask and digested, the red liquor is distilled from the Green Lyon itself, along with the other humidities, leaving the black earth to be turned white or gray.


As I follow the term "Artificial Antimony" through those paragraphs, is not the "Mineral Trinity." The "three kinsmen" seem to be drawn from their natural state, then combined and fermented to produce the Artificial Antimony (the one true matter) to begin the work, which becomes dark and perfectly dissolved into one thing. Then the dry distillations of that thing, or the gum made from it.

this is just my understanding of the text. Now that I'm close to my property, I'll be able to fire up some dry distillations without drawing attention to myself, and in safety of wide ventilated outdoor spaces to carry out the work. I can be as smelly as I wish. I should be making quite a bit of the red wine/vinegar, most likely from wood and plants, but I'm not certain that this is one of the ingredients that Ripley refers to as "the kinsmen." Like I said, I think his words are out of order, just by the repetitive placement of certain terms.

Ripley and Hollandus describe two different approaches to the same matters. Hollandus condemns the followers of Ripley castigating them as fools who rot the starting material and lose the delicate spirits. Ripley's methods are older and Ripley does not rot the matter. He turns it into the chaos of elements.

All forms of biomass that I have worked with when dry distilled give you a complex water then a complex oil then a volatile salt in the receiver. The materials in the water and oil are the same only the ratios are different with each species. Also the rate of temperature rise will affect the presentation of the waters, oils and volatile salt. Ripley and Hollandus did not have the ability to control the temperature as finely as we can. So their descriptions of the matters distilling into the receiver is based on a faster rise in temperature in the narrow ranges they could accommodate with water baths, ash baths and sand baths.

By precise control of the temperature you can actually observe the micro particle vapor stream and control it to form white vapors or clouds by raising the temp faster or condense the particle stream into flowing "dry water." It is still the same material only the presentation that you see is altered. Raise the temp even faster and you will see the red or brown smoke.

The Mineral Trinity is in the Artificial Antimony. The Artificial Antimony is starting material itself. Take any form of biomass though some yield far less than others then heat it in an open container as described in Handbook of Chemistry and you will get the materials described by Hollandus.

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer,"

Heat the biomass in a closed container as described in Handbook of Chemistry and you will get the material described by Ripley.

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 360F, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction."

"Put them into a good and strong cucurbit, or glass body, and close it well on the Top, that none of the spirits exhale, for if they find a Vent to evaporate, thou art undone, because thereby thou loosest and wasteth the flowers of our Gold. When thy Vessel is well closed, put it into the Philosophers Oven, and set it in Ashes or sand, with a temperate fire under it, for the space of a Philosophers Month, which is six whole weeks, and in that time our grosse bodies will be dissolved and mortified and made fit to begin a more royal generation."

Once you can handle this information well in the lab you can prepare your artificial antimony from a combination of plants and herbs of your choice. Once you have your artificial antimonial compound gathered you then heat it in a closed vessel until it is liquefied which the Handbook of Chemistry says will be around 360F. That temp can be attained in an ash or sand bath.

After the grosse bodies have been dissolved and mortified then you have Ripley's Sericon. Which can be dry distilled to receive the mercuries and sulfurs. Or dissolved in wood vinegar which is pyroligneous acid that has been distilled at least two times according to Ripley. When dissolved into wood vinegar then the vinegar is distilled off you have Ripley's Green Lyon.

Toeltius used a variation of Ripley's work and revealed that the vinegar is obtained from the dry distillation of oak wood saw dust. The vinegar is then used to dissolve wood soot. After which this composed matter is digested as Ripley suggests.

z0 K
03-30-2018, 12:19 AM
Soot gives a "water" or "spirit", a black empyreumatic oil and some sublimates. Wood gives several liquid products (including some acids), some oily matters (of varying colors, including black "tarry" ones), and no sublimates. So, nope, sorry. They are not a very adequate match to the descriptions of the alchemists.



You are adrift in the Band of Perpetual Disturbance. And full of many things shipped high in transit.

Scales of the Alchemical Dragon (https://youtu.be/22cFjxHEoBY)

That is wood soot dry distilled in the video. What?! Look at all of that Sal Armoniac in the receiver. Can't see that sublimate came from wood? The soot did also. Sad for you.

Oh, and that water will dissolve stainless steel. Also the oil is yellow not black. I could show you the fixed salt of soot. It is a beautiful citrine color. but why should I.

Schmuldvich
03-30-2018, 02:28 AM
That is wood soot dry distilled in the video. What?! Look at all of that Sal Armoniac in the receiver. Can't see that sublimate came from wood? The soot did also. Sad for you.

Oh, and that water will dissolve stainless steel.

Do you have video of your Water dissolving steel?

Dragon's Tail
03-30-2018, 04:21 AM
Ripley and Hollandus describe two different approaches to the same matters. Hollandus condemns the followers of Ripley castigating them as fools who rot the starting material and lose the delicate spirits. Ripley's methods are older and Ripley does not rot the matter. He turns it into the chaos of elements.

All forms of biomass that I have worked with when dry distilled give you a complex water then a complex oil then a volatile salt in the receiver. The materials in the water and oil are the same only the ratios are different with each species. Also the rate of temperature rise will affect the presentation of the waters, oils and volatile salt. Ripley and Hollandus did not have the ability to control the temperature as finely as we can. So their descriptions of the matters distilling into the receiver is based on a faster rise in temperature in the narrow ranges they could accommodate with water baths, ash baths and sand baths.

By precise control of the temperature you can actually observe the micro particle vapor stream and control it to form white vapors or clouds by raising the temp faster or condense the particle stream into flowing "dry water." It is still the same material only the presentation that you see is altered. Raise the temp even faster and you will see the red or brown smoke.

The Mineral Trinity is in the Artificial Antimony. The Artificial Antimony is starting material itself. Take any form of biomass though some yield far less than others then heat it in an open container as described in Handbook of Chemistry and you will get the materials described by Hollandus.

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer,"

Heat the biomass in a closed container as described in Handbook of Chemistry and you will get the material described by Ripley.

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 360F, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction."

"Put them into a good and strong cucurbit, or glass body, and close it well on the Top, that none of the spirits exhale, for if they find a Vent to evaporate, thou art undone, because thereby thou loosest and wasteth the flowers of our Gold. When thy Vessel is well closed, put it into the Philosophers Oven, and set it in Ashes or sand, with a temperate fire under it, for the space of a Philosophers Month, which is six whole weeks, and in that time our grosse bodies will be dissolved and mortified and made fit to begin a more royal generation."

Once you can handle this information well in the lab you can prepare your artificial antimony from a combination of plants and herbs of your choice. Once you have your artificial antimonial compound gathered you then heat it in a closed vessel until it is liquefied which the Handbook of Chemistry says will be around 360F. That temp can be attained in an ash or sand bath.

After the grosse bodies have been dissolved and mortified then you have Ripley's Sericon. Which can be dry distilled to receive the mercuries and sulfurs. Or dissolved in wood vinegar which is pyroligneous acid that has been distilled at least two times according to Ripley. When dissolved into wood vinegar then the vinegar is distilled off you have Ripley's Green Lyon.

Toeltius used a variation of Ripley's work and revealed that the vinegar is obtained from the dry distillation of oak wood saw dust. The vinegar is then used to dissolve wood soot. After which this composed matter is digested as Ripley suggests.

Ah, okay. I see what you are saying now. Thank you for clarifying. I missed something in the other post, even though you've mentioned the liquefication (blackening) in reference. I'm kind of excited to try my hand at these higher temp stinky procedures, but I have some things that need to be worked out before I can really start. I was thinking about using a metal retort for some initial experiments, as I can set it up over a crude fire without worry of it melting or shattering. I need to get some electricity hooked up before I start on other bits.

I also had in mind a lower temp for the blackening stage, *shrugs*, but I've found a black stinking mass which I'm sure is VERY similar on low heat by other means, a greenish resinous gum. Though it's a lot of work to get a tiny amount by that method. It's time to up the scale of my projects a bit.

I have a small wishlist of starting materials that are not plants too, just trying to figure out what my process is going to look like. I have a funny feeling that one of Ripley's ingredients is air, which is why he suggests filling the bottle a certain amount, and his little reference about seeing what can't be seen. Of the other two, I suspect one is the universal solvent, and the other the unctuous disregarded earth. If that's true, finding their natural proportions shouldn't be a problem. Let the games begin.

Kibric
03-30-2018, 04:44 AM
So, saith Rhasis, simple generation, and natural transformation is the operation of the elements. But it is necessary, that the elements be of one kind, and not divers, to wit, simple: for otherwise neither action nor passion could happen between them. So saith Aristotle, there is no true generation, but of things agreeing in nature. So that things be not made but according to their natures. The elder or oak trees will not bring forth pears; nor can you gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles, things bring not forth, but only their like, or what agrees with the in nature, each tree its own fruit.
So by going by what alchemists might of subscribed to, if there are multiple substances to make the stone
they all must of had something in common or there could be no proper conjuncture between each of them in order to produce the stone.
If " Nature rejoices in nature " was a prevalent school of thought among alchemists odds are some would go looking for different substances which all had something in common.
The " one matter claim " technically not lying but leaving out the part where the matter is made from multiple substances which have a shared root or something in common,
and the " one matter" they refer to being this shared root between them. Without which there could be no proper generation of the stone.
A common root between multiple substances that appears in and alongside a variety of other substances in many different forms,
could explain the claims the " one matter " is found everywhere and available to all. Technically it would be.

Schmuldvich
03-30-2018, 04:46 AM
So by going by what alchemists might of subscribed too, if there were multiple substances to make the stone
they all must of had something in common or there could be no proper conjuncture between each of them in order to produce the stone.
If " Nature rejoices in nature " was a prevalent school of thought among alchemists odds are some would go looking for different substances which all had something in common.
The " one matter claim " technically not lying but leaving out the part where the matter is made from multiple substances which have a shared root or something in common, and the " one matter" they refer to being the shared root between them. Without which there could be no proper generation of the stone.
A common root between multiple substances that appeared in and alongside a variety of other substances in many different forms,
could explain the claims this " one matter " is found everywhere and available to all. Technically it would be.

Do you view mud as one one matter?

What about blood and ocean water?

Would you say that dew is a single matter?

Kibric
03-30-2018, 05:26 AM
Do you view mud as one one matter?

What about blood and ocean water?

Would you say that dew is a single matter?

Without knowing the different chemical elements in each of them an alchemist could view them as a single matter
but what particular chemical element could they all share that might be the basis for the stone ?

If nature rejoices in nature
If i were to take a dose of the completed stone
what ever i was taking would have to agree with the chemical composition of my body in order for its effects to be beneficial
so what ever i was taking would have to contain something in common with my body

Schmuldvich
03-30-2018, 05:46 AM
Without knowing the different chemical elements in each of them an alchemist could view them as a single matter
but what particular chemical element could they all share that might be the basis for the stone ?

If nature rejoices in nature
If i were to take a dose of the completed stone
what ever i was taking would have to agree with the chemical composition of my body in order for its effects to be beneficial
so what ever i was taking would have to contain something in common with my body

Even knowing the different chemical elements in mud, blood, dew, and ocean water an Alchemist will still view each of these as One Matter.

Alchemy is not chemistry and is to be viewed through different eyes. Alchemy, in my opinion, deals with principles whereas chemistry deals with specifics.

Matter is composed of substances. Chemistry calls these substances elements.

Kibric
03-30-2018, 06:33 AM
Alchemy is not chemistry and is to be viewed through different eyes
it is natural chemistry, there has to be chemical reactions in order to make the stone

Alchemy, in my opinion, deals with principles whereas chemistry deals with specifics.
Principles applied applied to specific chemical elements or element.
Alchemy and chemistry are inextricably linked, the past pursuit of alchemy has contributed to the chemistry we use today

JDP
03-30-2018, 09:05 AM
Do you view mud as one one matter?

What about blood and ocean water?

Would you say that dew is a single matter?

No, no, no, and no. And even for the old alchemists it would have been hard to consider some of these as "one matter" since they could easily be separated into two or more constituents and then put back together again. People since ancient times knew that sea-water was a mixture of salt and water. Water and salt themselves, on the other hand, were seen as simpler substances, or "one matter", if you will, precisely because they did not know any way of decomposing them into simpler substances (even though we today know how to and therefore we are aware that they are not really "one matter" in the true sense.)