Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 224

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #211
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I think that you do realize that all this is theoretical speculation. There is no iota of proof that there is such thing as "indeterminate matter" anywhere on or in our planet, for example, or that nature has ever had any intention whatsoever to make the Stone. The alchemists would often come up with such fanciful theories, usually based on the theories of Aristotle regarding nature, to try to give their empirical "art" what they envisioned as more intellectual respectability by inserting these theories into their work. But what they were doing in their labs actually had very little to do with what we see nature actually do and produce.

    Regarding how nature makes gold: leaving aside not only the theories/conjectures/speculations of the alchemists & chymists, but also those of modern physics, the fact is that no one really knows how nature does it. But guess what? I have made small amounts of gold & silver by "chymical" processes that nature in its turn knows nothing about either. Does nature have crucibles, and cementation pots, and scorifiers, and cupels, and distillation & sublimation apparatuses, etc.? Nope, it does not. Yet I know several ways of making small amounts of gold & silver by using such equipment, which is the result of many centuries of accumulated human experience and ingenuity. So, do we really need to know how nature makes these metals? I don't think so. We can do it in our own ways. Alchemy is one of them. Chymistry is another.

    And even if we could figure out how nature makes them (and physics actually thinks it knows this), the odds are extremely likely that it would still serve us nothing because nature operates with different means & forces than we do. We just cannot command the same forces it employs to make & shape things, they are out of our reach, or they would cost too much to make such attempts profitable at all (in fact, this is what physics claims: it allegedly knows how nature does it, but the processes are so costly in energy that it's just not worth it for man to try to do the same.) Yet, on the other hand, nature itself is at odds at trying to perform what we can perform with our crucibles, retorts, flasks, beakers, etc. Nature has no such devices at its command and therefore it cannot manipulate matter in the same way we do. Therefore we can produce a whole bunch of stuff that nature itself simply will never be able to.



    Indeed, because the "true Vinegar" is just another decknamen for the secret solvent. Also, in that quote, when he says it is written to deceive, he is referring to the barrage of decknamen he uses in the description of the preparation. Without knowing the proper names of the actual matters involved in the operations, of course it will deceive many.
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Before we proceed further, what exactly is the secret solvent? What is its chemical composition if any according to you?

    Without gaining your perspective on this, it would be difficult for me to give a reply to the rest of your reply.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
    It's fine. Happens all the time with all of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    Antimony?
    Yes, the globe surmounted with cross, got nothing to do with Sb though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    No, I assumed that you were not using the secret solvent at all. I'm not at all against the possibility that the matter may already contain the secret solvent in potential. If that's what the quotes you have provided state, then I will re-read them more carefully.
    Then you need to go back and understand what exactly is the mineral matter made of, chemically and spiritually?
    How is it made?
    What is the difference between this mineral and the spirit?
    What is the difference between mineral and the stone?
    Also, Evolution of diferent materials in Nature from one initial matter.

    This will help in answering some of that questions: http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showt...hemical-Tracts

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    180
    Antimony is the wolf of metals which hungrily devours the king.

  4. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    Antimony is the wolf of metals which hungrily devours the king.
    Antimony often comes in play in alchemical texts. However some (for example Fulcanelli) deny the use of Antimony at any stage of the great work. Nevertheless the Tinctures of Antimon by Basil Valentine were scientifically examined by David Schein https://books.google.de/books?id=ljH...timony&f=false. This work is available as an ebook in englisch from Amazon. The original text however is german.
    In summary Schein found out that the tinctures made by him after the "recipies" of Valentine appear to have the properties described by Valentine. He did however not examine the medicinical significances Valentine attributed to them.

    Alchemists like Basil Valentine seem to indeed have worked with Antimony. However it is not quite sure if they used it in their great work or did other things with it. I don't think that all alchemists only worked on the great work. They also seem to have made other experiments espacially some with medicinical purpose (Paracelsus too).

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Sorry for the late reply.

    Before we proceed further, what exactly is the secret solvent? What is its chemical composition if any according to you?

    Without gaining your perspective on this, it would be difficult for me to give a reply to the rest of your reply.
    It must have a "composition" of some kind or another, just like any other substance in the universe, but exactly what remains anyone's guess at these experimental stages. One thing seems extremely likely, though: contrary to the assertions of some alchemists, the secret solvent does not appear to be 100% mineral/metallic. If you have lots of experience handling metals and their compounds (either natural or artificial) you will notice that only on rare occasions can they produce any liquid or semi-liquid byproducts. A couple of examples would be "aqua fortis" and "butter of antimony". These types of liquid/semi-liquid substances are manufactured by exclusively using metallic/mineral/inorganic compounds. But none of them have the properties of the secret solvent of alchemy (viz. it can present itself in both liquid & solid forms, depending on the manner of preparation; it has the property of eventually "coagulating" with the appropriate mineral/metallic "earths" or "sulphurs" into the Stone or other transmuting "tinctures"; it becomes INSEPARABLE from the metallic/mineral matters it dissolves.) These fully mineral/metallic/inorganic solvents only work for some "chymical" processes (usually for "direct" methods for making silver yield some gold), but not for making the Stone or any true alchemical "tincture" (i.e. substances that can transmute more than their own weight of other metals into silver or gold.) As some alchemists pointed out, the minerals/metals are just "too dry" to be able to afford the secret solvent on their own.

  6. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It must have a "composition" of some kind or another, just like any other substance in the universe, but exactly what remains anyone's guess at these experimental stages. One thing seems extremely likely, though: contrary to the assertions of some alchemists, the secret solvent does not appear to be 100% mineral/metallic. If you have lots of experience handling metals and their compounds (either natural or artificial) you will notice that only on rare occasions can they produce any liquid or semi-liquid byproducts. A couple of examples would be "aqua fortis" and "butter of antimony". These types of liquid/semi-liquid substances are manufactured by exclusively using metallic/mineral/inorganic compounds. But none of them have the properties of the secret solvent of alchemy (viz. it can present itself in both liquid & solid forms, depending on the manner of preparation; it has the property of eventually "coagulating" with the appropriate mineral/metallic "earths" or "sulphurs" into the Stone or other transmuting "tinctures"; it becomes INSEPARABLE from the metallic/mineral matters it dissolves.) These fully mineral/metallic/inorganic solvents only work for some "chymical" processes (usually for "direct" methods for making silver yield some gold), but not for making the Stone or any true alchemical "tincture" (i.e. substances that can transmute more than their own weight of other metals into silver or gold.) As some alchemists pointed out, the minerals/metals are just "too dry" to be able to afford the secret solvent on their own.
    When talking about this liquid and solid form, would you approve a substance that is hygroscopic?

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post

    Yes, the globe surmounted with cross, got nothing to do with Sb though.
    Good answer! There are too many today who are convinced that the initial matter is antimony/stibnite.

    Then you need to go back and understand what exactly is the mineral matter made of, chemically and spiritually?
    To be clear, what exactly do you mean by "mineral matter"? Are you referring to the matter from which the mercury/sulfur is extracted? Or the extraction itself?

  8. #218
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It must have a "composition" of some kind or another, just like any other substance in the universe, but exactly what remains anyone's guess at these experimental stages. One thing seems extremely likely, though: contrary to the assertions of some alchemists, the secret solvent does not appear to be 100% mineral/metallic. If you have lots of experience handling metals and their compounds (either natural or artificial) you will notice that only on rare occasions can they produce any liquid or semi-liquid byproducts. A couple of examples would be "aqua fortis" and "butter of antimony". These types of liquid/semi-liquid substances are manufactured by exclusively using metallic/mineral/inorganic compounds. But none of them have the properties of the secret solvent of alchemy (viz. it can present itself in both liquid & solid forms, depending on the manner of preparation; it has the property of eventually "coagulating" with the appropriate mineral/metallic "earths" or "sulphurs" into the Stone or other transmuting "tinctures"; it becomes INSEPARABLE from the metallic/mineral matters it dissolves.) These fully mineral/metallic/inorganic solvents only work for some "chymical" processes (usually for "direct" methods for making silver yield some gold), but not for making the Stone or any true alchemical "tincture" (i.e. substances that can transmute more than their own weight of other metals into silver or gold.) As some alchemists pointed out, the minerals/metals are just "too dry" to be able to afford the secret solvent on their own.
    From what you have said above, can I conclude that there must exist a first matter in the universe especially from the first line of your reply?

    When alchemists say metallic, they mean in terms of spirit not actual physical terms. I also do not think that we are dealing with vulgar materials. So, the particular processes cannot be carried forward to Alchemy IMO.

    Yes metals and minerals to varying degree are dry but there may exist a certain mineral which is sufficiently wet & dry so as to partake in the work.
    Last edited by Dwellings; 4 Days Ago at 06:34 PM.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    Antimony is the wolf of metals which hungrily devours the king.
    Oh please Luxus, don't talk like them. What they preach to the public is different from what they say in private. I still do not understand majority of their Bullshit.

    Keep it simple when reading as well as communicating with others. It will be of immense benefit to you and the other party and your progress will be quicker.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    There are too many today who are convinced that the initial matter is antimony/stibnite.
    They can also convince themselves that they are on the wrong track or working with the wrong minerals by thinking in terms of planets. 7 planets , 7 metals, 7 regimens.
    There is no planet/metal/regimen corresponding to Stibinite/Vulgar Antimony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    To be clear, what exactly do you mean by "mineral matter"? Are you referring to the matter from which the mercury/sulfur is extracted? Or the extraction itself?
    From the replies that I have been getting from you during the last couple of days, you are still stuck at the path level. What you need to understand is the System Level. So, if you understand the system correctly and know the framework upon which the system functions. All the paths will become an outcome for you depending upon certain inputs and certain actions. That is, you gain control over Alchemy through your understanding of the system. Then you will never talk of paths or think along these lines.

    Green Lion in the past said not to focus on paths and arguing with each other over this path that path. What he wanted to say was above but could not simplify it back then IMO.

    You can see myself as an example. When I joined this forum, I also debated in terms of paths, not these days. It is more of giving others understanding of the System so that they too can logically derive the outcome i.e. the stone. The path is not considered from then on. My thread which I have linked to you in a previous reply illustrates it further. The questions that I framed to you were also for the same purpose. To think at the System Level.

    Open Entrance
    Hence if you know our Art, extract our gold from our Mercury (this is the shorter way), and thus perform the whole operation with one substance (viz., Mercury); if you can do this, you will have attained to the perfection of philosophy. In this method, there is no superfluous trouble: the whole work, from beginning to end, is based upon one broad foundation -- whereas if you take common gold, you must operate on two substances, and both will have to be purified by an elaborate process. If you diligently consider what I have said, you have in your hand a means of unravelling all the apparent contradictions of the Sages.
    There is no Bullshit in the above lines. If you understand it thoroughly, you know Alchemy in its entirety and nothing can stop you from succeeding likewise if you do not understand it you know nothing of Alchemy.

    So, judge for yourself.

    This is the golden passage and acts as the "moment of truth" for your understanding. Go try it.
    Last edited by Dwellings; 4 Days Ago at 06:44 PM.

+ 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