Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is M-State Alchemy?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,100
    Blog Entries
    13
    Transmutation.

    I will not reveal his name, although I do suspect he probably visits here from time to time.

    My secret Mentor is quite distinguished, and while he will not tell me exactly how to produce the stone, he has shared with me a lot of secrets concerning it.

    Like, for instance, the fact that there are different stones for different folks. Some of us think that 'one particular stone' is THE STONE

    But who is to decide this? If both stones with transmute?

    The Water stone of the Wise, (in my top two favourites) is reported to be able to perform transmutation. Nevertheless, we are often told by other authors that "IF you seek transmutation of metals, it is within metals blah blah blah blah..."

    So often am I on here and it seems like some people are always trying to in some way 'de-bunk' my confidence in my alchemical understanding.

    So I went through some of the books, and some of the threads, that were recommended, and I've realised that your all tripping.. I've been able to understand these texts for years now.

    I just have a lot of work to do in the realm of spagyrics before I move forward.

    I am not interested in simply creating the stone. I am seeking proficiency across the alchemical board, so to speak.

    It appears to me that sometimes, people on this thread put a certain 'label' on an alchemical concept, and then start acting all high and mighty because they are the only ones privy to the meaning of the word, and that's because they MADE UP THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

    Such as this weird non-spagyrical meaning of Alchemy. Alchemy means the Art of Transformation, right? So.... wouldn't any practise, that is done with the intention of transformation, be considered Alchemy?

    "The word alchemy was borrowed from Old French alquemie, alkimie, taken from Medieval Latin alchymia, and which is in turn borrowed from Arabic al-kīmiyā’ (الكيمياء‎). The Arabic word is borrowed from Late Greek chēmeía (χημεία), chēmía (χημία),[9] with the agglutination of the Arabic definite article al- (الـ‎).[10] This ancient Greek word was derived from[11] the early Greek name for Egypt, Chēmia (Χημία), based on the Egyptian name for Egypt, kēme (hieroglyphic �������� khmi, lit. ‘black earth’, as opposed to red desert sand).[10]
    The Medieval Latin form was influenced by Greek chymeia (χυμεία) meaning ‘mixture’ and referring to pharmaceutical chemistry.[12]"

    Where the fuck does it mention that the definition of Alchemy implies putrefaction, S.M. embodiment and the like? It is much more directly translated as "The Art of the Transmutation of Metals"

    Seth-Ra, has a nice stone right?

    And all the more reason, if this place claims 'no stone' then why are you all so forceful with your views, since it seems, your viewing, somewhat of an empty flask, or a failed black sludge.

    Yes, it seems there is a lot of projecting going on around here, ya know where you accuse someone of something that you yourself are actually guilty of.

    This post is not a direct reply to your post Mr. S, its a general post, which also addresses your questions on the stone. This is not a personal statement directed at you, it is a generalised statement only.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,100
    Blog Entries
    13
    And.... Back on topic....

    Calx of Gold is one of the stages for the Sol/Luna Stone

    So how is it not alchemy?

    To me, alchemy encircles the whole earth and everything in it. Alchemy is everywhere, in everything, the secret mystical forces of the universe, constantly transforming everything that we see.

    You guys are boxing yourself into one place. That might be a nice place, but there are other, just as nice places to be
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,083
    Dictionary definitions do not tell the whole story and are written by people with only a passing acquaintance with the subject. The differences between "alchemy" and other laboratory pursuits go beyond a matter of simple etymology as well. Anyone who wants to know what "alchemy" is needs to do a lot of reading first and be able to detect the "patterns" that easily separate all these various authors and their claims. The alchemists usually rejected anything regarding the subject of transmutation that is not related to the making of the Stone as the ramblings of "sophists", "fools", "charlatans" and dilettantes. In fact, the rejection of transmutation by any means other than the Stone/Elixir is so strong among the alchemists that some people with a not very good acquaintance with the subject might even come to absurd conclusions that some alchemists did not believe or were not interested in transmutation at all! This is exactly what has happened to supposed modern "experts" like de Jong, Vladimir Karpenko, Ivo Purš, Joscelyn Goodwin and Hereward Tilton, all whom have surprisingly and absurdly concluded that Michael Maier was supposedly not interested or did not believe in transmutation, an idea that anyone acquainted with the works of this alchemist simply will easily dismiss as utter nonsense. As pointed out by Lawrence Principe, who has a better understanding of the subject than most of his academic colleagues, Maier even wrote a whole text ("Examen Fucorum Pseudo-Chymicorum") devoted to exposing phonies and charlatans and how to recognize real transmutations from fake ones. So much for this purely imaginary lack of interest in the subject from Maier's part! The fact that Maier strongly rejected almost all other transmutation claims as false and sophistical does not mean he did not believe in transmutation, he in fact defended the reality of the subject but through the "kosher" methods of alchemy (which he often calls "chymia", by the way, using a Latinization of the older Greek term rather than the Arabization of it as "al-kimiya/alchemy". So he often refers to those he does not consider to be genuine alchemists as "pseudo-chymists" or even, hold on to your hats, "alchemists"!!!; once again showing that this whole "alchemy vs other things that also happen in a lab" goes well beyond matters of simple etymologies): in other words, through the Stone/Elixir. Kunrath is another typical example of an alchemist who, if you are not well acquainted with the subject, you might incorrectly think that he does not believe in transmutation, simply because he rejects virtually all transmutation claims, except by means of the Stone/Elixir or methods related to its production (so Khunrath did believe in some "particulars", but providing that they are performed with the secret solvent of alchemy. Basil Valentine also thought similarly; all the "particulars" he approves of are made with the participation of the "Spirit of Mercury", which is how he often calls the secret solvent.)

    In summary: no one in his right mind can confuse someone like Rolfinck, with his utter denial of transmutation (yet he was interested in "chymical" operations and reactions nonetheless) with someone like Kunckel, who though he never claimed he knew how to make the Stone he nonetheless stoutly defended the reality of transmutation through various other methods, with someone like Ripley, with his assertion to have made the Stone and his utter rejection of anything that does not have to do with it. To pretend that all these authors were one and the same "alchemists", or "chymists", or "chemists", or "spagyrists", or what-have-you, is not supported by a critical review of their writings. The fact that all of them dealt with reactions between substances does not mean they all were the same group of investigators, thought the same things and reached the same conclusions. As I pointed out in another thread, writers from around the 16th century onward start detecting and pointing out such differences between "alchemy" and "vulgar chymistry" (previous to this the alchemists had already distinguished between themselves and the "sophists", "fools", "multipliers", "puffers", etc. and their methods), and some even a "chymistry" that also pursued transmutation but was not exactly "alchemy" either, it employed its own "particular" methods (as opposed to the "universal" Tincture/Stone/Elixir of alchemy.)
    Last edited by JDP; 02-20-2017 at 12:44 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,100
    Blog Entries
    13
    So whats YOUR definition, JDP? Since you are able to have a:

    critical review of their writings
    ?
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    So whats YOUR definition, JDP? Since you are able to have a:



    ?
    Alchemy = the production of the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir

    PS: and no, there aren't "many" of these; how many substances have you actually seen that can transmute many times their own weight of base metals into silver and gold? What's that? None, you say? I thought so! Neither have I. There is no way of confusing the Stone/Elixir with other things.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,100
    Blog Entries
    13
    There are more than one 'method'

    Starting from more than one 'prima materia'

    That have had CLAIMS to perform transutations.

    If you are suggesting that there is only ONE true stone, than surely it be this water stone.

    Nevertheless, my mentor assures me that he knows not of this water stone, but that his stone is made of gold and produces the same.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,083
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    There are more than one 'method'

    Starting from more than one 'prima materia'

    That have had CLAIMS to perform transutations.

    If you are suggesting that there is only ONE true stone, than surely it be this water stone.

    Nevertheless, my mentor assures me that he knows not of this water stone, but that his stone is made of gold and produces the same.
    There are several methods, but they all revolve around the preparation of a special dissolving agent. This secret solvent can take on liquid or solid forms, depending on the method of preparation. It is usually called "water" or "mercury" in alchemical texts, but it has also been given a multitude of other code-words. Without this secret solvent, alchemy is simply impossible and would not exist.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,582
    Blog Entries
    1
    'M-State' / 'Ormus' -> not Alchemy (the precipitate family, etc...)

    HOWEVER...

    An interesting possible tangent has been (or is still being) explored by some friends of mine. I'm not very up to date with this.

    Around two and a half years ago I had some conversations with one of these friends, who is a very serious and dedicated researcher and experimenter and who was making various 'Ormus' precipitates. He noticed some interesting positive effects from ingestion, and we thought to give it a try and purify the precipitate "to the extreme", wash away all the magnesium salts, etc...

    After there were no more 'common' salts left, what remained behind seemed to be quite inert and didn't seem to have any effects at all when ingested (if I remember correctly).

    Another friend, from halfway across the plane, independently performed another (completely different, non-Ormus) experiment which apparently resulted in a relatively similar, inert and insoluble matter, IMO not much unlike the 'Ormus' precipitate after being 'cleansed to death'.

    The hypothesis was (is?) that this inert matter may be a form of 'Philosophical Gold' - amorphous, completely inert and non-reactive by itself, and ONLY affected/'awakened' when imbibed with a prepared ALCHEMICAL menstruum, in which case it starts to go through interesting stages. It is apparently not affected at all by ANY common chemicals/solvents. Not even AR.

    I would speculate that it might be an 'exotic' form of Silica, perhaps something more akin to Hudson's 'ORMEs'.

    IF this is the case, we might have a possible connection between M-State/Ormus and Alchemy, in the sense that a fully purified/inert/insoluble precipitate may serve as the 'Philosophical Earth', loaded with locked/inaccessible 'Secret Fire', that we further need to imbibe & open with the Philosophical Spirit, towards the confection of the Stone.

    This is not my own research, so I can not provide any further details, because I don't have them and because it is not my research. But it's interesting to consider the possibilities...

    Yet, like JDP wrote above, it is all of no use without the 'Mercury'.


    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by Andro; 02-20-2017 at 09:05 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,100
    Blog Entries
    13
    YES! That! What he said! That's what I meant.

    NOTE: If we seek powdered inert gold, surely we can simply start with gold?
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts