Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: The Emerald Tablet - What Does It Mean?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    This 'single matter' to be prepared is our starting material, is it not?
    For the umptieth time: no. You seem to have a knack for falling for this ruse (are you sure you are not that "Chasm" guy with another "identity"?) But you are most cordially invited to pick any "only one matter" found in nature and see if you can make it yield all the byproducts and display all the reactions the alchemists describe. Good luck, you will need tons of it. Just like countless unwary seekers of the past who fell for this "philosophical" trap, you will waste your time and money, because it does not exist in nature. Nature does not make the Stone or the "proximate" matter from which it is made. It only makes the "remote" matters from which it can be prepared. It is up to the alchemist to compose it, nature won't do it for you. Since you are so fond of picking and choosing quotes that you think suit your belief in this trap, here is one very explicit one for you, from a rather generous alchemist (Ripley) who did not want people to fall for the "one matter only" gimmick:

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/ripsecretissimus.html


    "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."


    Here Ripley is being very honest and kind (but still without openly mentioning the real names of the three substances used, obviously), unlike many of his colleagues who delight in sending those they deemed "unworthy" into wild goose chases after a "one matter" which they knew very well no one would ever find already made anywhere, since it is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you. That ARTIFICIAL COMPOSITE (according to some authors it is made from two substances, according to others from three, others say four, and yet still others imply that as much as five substances are used to make it) is the real "one matter only" that many texts talk about in a deceiving manner (because, unlike Ripley and other of the more sincere alchemists, they don't bother to clarify for the reader the ARTIFICIAL AND COMPOSITE nature of this "one matter" of the Stone), not something that conveniently lies waiting for you to find it already made, pick it up and heat it inside a flask. Now, how relatively easy and simple to discover would alchemy be if that was all there really was to it! Just "find" the matter of the Stone, it is just conveniently waiting for you out there somewhere, for you to just pick up and "cook" it! Malicious fairy tales designed to fool you into wasting time and money searching for something that does not exist unless you actually make it, my friend. Wise up.

    Does not this one starting matter contain in itself everything which we diligently seek?
    Yes, but because the alchemists put them there on purpose to begin with. It is not nature that makes this composite matter. You won't find it anywhere except when you actually learn/discover how to make it, something that the majority of alchemists did not have the least intention of letting you know anything about since the whole secret of the Stone depends on this initial and crucial stage of the work. Many alchemists do not even mention the initial stage and go straight to descriptions of the "coction" of the already made matter! Countless seekers have been fooled by this simple deceitful tactic.

    Just like I originally posted by Hollandus, Bernard Trevisan here states that our matter is three in nature but one composition, and that nothing is added.
    Yes, but, unlike several of the less kind writers you have quoted, Trevisan was sincere enough to point out that it is in fact an ARTIFICIAL ("BY ARTIFICE") product:

    "The Matter from whence is extracted the Sovereign Medicine and Secret of the Philosophers, is only most fine Gold and most fine Silver and Argent Vive, all which thou seest daily altered nevertheless, and moved by artifice in the nature of a Matter White and dry in the manner of a Stone..."

    Incidentally, in another treatise by this same author he says that the Stone is made from two matters. Yes, sometimes you find authors who imply different numbers of starting substances in their very own texts (possible variations in the procedures for making the Stone might account for this apparent "discrepancy" in the number of starting substances, just like in ordinary chemistry there might also be more than one possible set of starting substances for preparing a given compound, depending on the method used.)
    Last edited by JDP; 10-16-2016 at 07:22 AM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You are most cordially invited to pick any "only one matter" found in nature and see if you can make it yield all the byproducts and display all the reactions the alchemists describe. Good luck, you will need tons of it.

    Just like countless unwary seekers of the past who fell for this "philosophical" trap, you will waste your time and money, because it does not exist in nature.
    What trap are you speaking of, JDP?

    What product of nature will I need tons of in order to display all the reactions the Alchemists describe?



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Nature does not make the Stone or the "proximate" matter from which it is made. It only makes the "remote" matters from which it can be prepared.
    Here is a quote from "The New Pearl Of Great Price" fully in context regarding proximate matter, and a few other books too


    The New Pearl Of Great Price, 1339

    Observe here The Operation And Experience Of Alchemy, How It Calls For Constant Manual Operations, And The Teaching Of Experience, For The Artist To Purify The Elements, And To Combine Them When Purified, Etc...

    In our glorious Art nothing is more necessary than constant reference to the facts of Nature, which can be ascertained only by actual experiment. The dross which is purged off by means of the natural operation must be removed by the artist, if his work is to prosper. The philosopher Socrates directs us to seek the cold of the Moon that we may find the heat of the Sun, and to exercise the hands so that the laborious nature of the work may be lightened. Hence it is all but impossible, as we may learn from Geber in his Sum of Perfection, for a blind man, or one whose sense of touch is defective, to be successful in or Magistery. The experience of sight is essential, more especially at the end of the decoction; when all superfluous matter has been removed, the artist will behold an awful and amazing splendour, the occultation of Sol in Luna, the marriage of East and West, the union of heaven and earth, and the conjunction, as the ancients tell us, of the spiritual with the corporeal. In that process of cooling, as we may learn from the Turba Philosophorum, Hermes, and Avicenna, the manifest is concealed, while that which was concealed is made manifest. The first operation, which is done by hand, is the first stage of the work, which consists in Sublimation and Purification. The second operation, in which the artist has nothing to do but look on, is the second stage of the work. Here the purified and sublimed substance is fixed and becomes solid. This operation should bring about the perfection of our substance. No one can exercise our Magistery in the absence of the practical teaching of experience, without which the most diligent poring over books would be useless. The words of the Sages may mean anything or nothing to one who is not acquainted with the facts which they describe. If the son of knowledge will persevere in the practical study of our Art, it will in due time burst upon his enchanted vision. The study of books cannot be dispensed with, but the study of books alone is not sufficient. There must be a profound natural faculty for interpreting the significance of those symbols and analogies of the philosophers, which in one place have one meaning and in another a different. For, as Morienus tells us, all books on Alchemy are figuratively written.

    By theory and practice working together, you will be led to the fruition of the most precious Arcanum, which is the greatest and most wonderful treasure of this world. If you think that you have understood the directions of the Sages, put your impression to a practical test; if you were mistaken, Nature will take good care to correct your error, and if you will follow her guidance and take her suggestions, she may, after several experiments, put you in the right path. Thus you must go on, letting theory suggest practice, until at length all difficulties are resolved, and your way lies plain before you. Meditation, says Rhasis, is of no value without experience, but it is possible for you to gain your object by experience without meditation. The practical method will a once enable you to detect any false or sophistical statement, and to avoid being infected with the folly of our modern Alchemists. You will never, for instance, fall into so gross a mistake as to suppose that our Art can change common flints into diamonds or other precious stones. Those who put forward such a statement do not seem to understand that there is here wanting that identity of first substance which undoubtedly exists in the case of base and precious metals. The products of such an art (falsely so called) are not diamonds or precious stones, but pieces of glass, the colouring matter of which is supplied from without, and not --- as it ought to be --- from within. Moreover, even if we really knew the precise nature of the first substance of precious stones, we could hardly produce them, because they are not fusible like metals. Against all such errors the practical Alchemist will be on his guard. It is impossible for us to imitate Nature in the production of substances of which we have only the proximate matter, and are in ignorance of the mode of their acting, as, for example, in marcasite, tutia, and antimony, of which the matter is quicksilver and sulphur; much less then can we imitate her in the manufacture of precious stones when we are ignorant in both points.

    The remarkable agreement of all Sages demonstrated that this Art is more certain than any other. There is amongst them a wonderful speculative and practical harmony, and their contradictions are only verbal and superficial. The whole Magistery of our Art can be learned in a single hour of one who knows --- which is the case with no other science or art. Yet one who can perform the practical operations of Alchemy is not yet an Alchemists, just as not everyone who speaks grammatically is a grammarian. Such persons still lack that knowledge of the causes of things which exalts the mind of man, and raises it to God. Hermes, in the beginning of his Book of Mysteries, calls Alchemy a most true and certain Art, shewing that what is above is like that which is beneath, and that which is beneath is like that which is above, etc., etc. Again, our Art is more noble and precious than any other science, Art, or system, with the single exception of the glorious doctrine of Redemption through our Saviour Jesus Christ. It must be studied, like other Arts, for gain, but for its own sake; because itself has power to bestow gold and silver, and knowledge more precious than either gold or silver. It may also be called noble, because there is in it a Divine and supernatural element. It is the key of all good things, the Art of Arts, the science of sciences. There are, according to Aristotle, four noble sciences: Astrology, Physics, Magic, and Alchemy --- but Alchemy bears the palm from them all. Moreover, it is a science which leads to still more glorious knowledge; nor can there be found a branch of human wisdom, either speculative or practical, to equal it. We naturally desire, says Aristotle, to know a little of a noble and profound science, rather than to understand thoroughly some commonplace branch of knowledge. Our Art frees not only the body, but also the soul from the snares of servitude and bondage; it ennobles the rich, and comfort and relieves the poor. Indeed, it may be said to supply every human want, and to provide a remedy for every form of suffering.

    It has been set forth by the Sages in the most perplexing and misleading manner, in order to baffle foolish and idly curious persons, who look rather at the sound than at the meaning of what is said. Yet, in spite of foolish and ignorant people, the Art is one, and it is true. Were it stripped of all figures and parables, it would be possible to compress it into the space of eight or twelve lines. This Art is noble, brief, and easy. It requires one thing, which everybody knows. It is in many things, yet it is one thing. It is found everywhere, yet it is most precious. You must fix it and tame it in the fire; you must make it rise, and again descend. When conjunction has taken place, straightway it is fixed. Then it gives riches to the poor and rest to the weary.
    Testament Of Flamel, 1414

    The aforesaid Mercury is ignited, acuated, wholly engrossed and full of the male sulphur, and fortified with the astral juice which was in the deep bowels of the gold and of our saturnine dragon. Be assured that I am now writing for thee things which by no philosopher was ever declared or written. For this Mercury is the wonderful caduceus, of which the sages have so much spoken in their books, and which they attest has the power of itself of accomplishing the philosophic work, and they say the truth, as I have done it myself by it alone, and thou wilt be enabled to do it thyself, if thou art so disposed: for it is this and none else which is the proximate matter and the root of all the metals.

    Now is done and accomplished the preparation of the Mercury, rendered cuting and proper to dissolve into its nature gold and silver, to work out naturally and simply the Philosophic Tincture, or the powder transmuting all metals into gold and silver.
    153 Chymical Aphorisms, 1687

    The Matter of Metals is either remote or proximate.

    The Remote is the Rayes of the Sun and Moon, by whose Concourse all Natural Compounds are produced.

    The Proximate is Sulfur and Argent-vive, or the Rayes of the Sun and the Moon determined to a Metallick Production, under the form of certain humid, unctious, and viscous Substance.
    How can you say 'Nature does not make the Stone or the "proximate" matter from which it is made. It only makes the "remote" matters from which it can be prepared'? 153 Chymical Aphorisms describes the proximate matter of metals as Sulfur & Argent-vive. The Testament Of Flamel describes the proximate matter and root of all the metals as our actuated, living, double Mercury. The New Pearl Of Great Price tells us it is impossible for us to imitate Nature in the production of substances when we have only the proximate matter.



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    It is up to the alchemist to compose it, nature won't do it for you.
    From this position it is difficult to tell if you are purposefully parsing words, or if we are not in alignment on this point. It appears as if we do not agree here because I would say that it is up to the Alchemist to collect "it", and up to Nature to compose it.



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/ripsecretissimus.html

    "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."

    Here Ripley is being very honest and kind (but still without openly mentioning the real names of the three substances used, obviously), unlike many of his colleagues who delight in sending those they deemed "unworthy" into wild goose chases after a "one matter" which they knew very well no one would ever find already made anywhere, since it is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you.

    That Artificial Composite (according to some authors it is made from two substances, according to others from three, others say four, and yet still others imply that as much as five substances are used to make it) is the real "one matter only" that many texts talk about in a deceiving manner (because, unlike Ripley and other of the more sincere alchemists, they don't bother to clarify for the reader the Artificial and Composite nature of this "one matter" of the Stone), not something that conveniently lies waiting for you to find it already made, pick it up and heat it inside a flask.
    Let's analyze the quote you posted by George Ripley...

    He opens up by saying to 'take our Artificial Antimony, but not the Natural Antimony as it comes out of the Earth', obviously differentiating between two different substances, as you pointed out.

    So what is he actually writing about?

    Ripley tells us that "Artificial Antimonial Compound" 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'. He gives us a lucid description of what he is describing to us, this "Artificial Antimonial Compound". But what is it?

    He gives us another clue later in the same paragraph where he points out that this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" comes from the 'most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole World'. What could he be speaking of?

    In the next paragraph Ripley tell us that this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" 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', further describing this mysterious substance...and again confirming that what we work with is One singular matter which we manipulate to produce the results we seek.

    At the end of the quote you posted, Mr. Ripley asserts that ' if thou wilt thrive in our Art, we wish thee to begin with our Mineral Trinity, whereof this our Artificial Antimonial compound is made'.

    This sounds entirely like Chaos to me.

    So there we have it: This "Artificial Antimonial Compound" described quite unambiguously, but do we agree what this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" is?


    You say that "It is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you", but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I am more apt to say that "it" is not for the Alchemist to make himself, but rather for Nature to make for you.

    It's up to the Alchemist to procure "it", yes, but totally up to Nature to make for you.

    Nature, aided by the skillful Artist completes the Work.



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Now, how relatively easy and simple to discover would alchemy be if that was all there really was to it! Just "find" the matter of the Stone, it is just conveniently waiting for you out there somewhere, for you to just pick up and "cook" it! Malicious fairy tales designed to fool you into wasting time and money searching for something that does not exist.
    Agreed!


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    That Artificial Composite is the real "one matter only" that many texts talk about in a deceiving manner, not something that conveniently lies waiting for you to find it already made, pick it up and heat it inside a flask.
    Yes! Total agreement!


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Many alchemists do not even mention the initial stage and go straight to descriptions of the "coction" of the already made matter! Countless seekers have been fooled by this simple deceitful tactic.
    Truth!!



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Yes, but, unlike several of the less kind writers you have quoted, Trevisan was sincere enough to point out that it is in fact an artificial ("by artiface") product.
    An artificial product, created by Nature, aided by the Artist.



    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Incidentally, in another treatise by this same author he says that the Stone is made from two matters.

    Yes, sometimes you find authors who imply different numbers of starting substances in their very own texts (possible variations in the procedures for making the Stone might account for this apparent "discrepancy" in the number of starting substances, just like in ordinary chemistry there might also be more than one possible set of starting substances for preparing a given compound, depending on the method used.)
    The reason why he says that the Stone is made from two matters in another treatise but that it is made from three matters in this treatise...and the reason Ripley and so many authors before and after him vary the number of what you call "starting substances" is because these passages describe a certain starting substance artificially created by the Artist's knowhow.

    The numbers vary not because the number of substances vary but because of how the Sages are choosing to describe their material (but you already know this; Alchemists like to veil their speech).


    I like this quote by Haly

    Know, brother, that our whole Magistery is one Stone, which is self-sufficient, is not mixed with anything else, proceeds from one root, becomes several things, and yet again is restored to its unity. This one thing is described by the Sages in many ways, and thus it has been supposed to be many things. But such mistaken impression are characteristic of those who profess our Art without really knowing anything about it.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    What trap are you speaking of, JDP?

    What product of nature will I need tons of in order to display all the reactions the Alchemists describe?
    Is that you, "Chasm"? The trap that you already are more than familiar with by now. And what you will need tons of is "luck", and it won't help you in the end because the matter of the Stone does not exist already made anywhere in nature. If you don't make it, or have someone who knows how to compose it make it for you, you will never find it. Good ol' nature is not about to make it for you any time soon.


    Here is a quote from "The New Pearl Of Great Price" fully in context regarding proximate matter, and a few other books too
    Keeping in mind that Petrus Bonus, the guy who wrote it, at the time he wrote that treatise openly admits that he still had not managed to make the Stone. As interesting as his treatise is, it can't be taken as the work of an "adept", just that of a seeker after the Stone.

    How can you say 'Nature does not make the Stone or the "proximate" matter from which it is made. It only makes the "remote" matters from which it can be prepared'? 153 Chymical Aphorisms describes the proximate matter of metals as Sulfur & Argent-vive. The Testament Of Flamel describes the proximate matter and root of all the metals as our actuated, living, double Mercury. The New Pearl Of Great Price tells us it is impossible for us to imitate Nature in the production of substances when we have only the proximate matter.

    From this position it is difficult to tell if you are purposefully parsing words, or if we are not in alignment on this point. It appears as if we do not agree here because I would say that it is up to the Alchemist to collect "it", and up to Nature to compose it.
    The only thing you have succeeded in doing with these three quotes is show us that the three writers in question used such expressions as "proximate matter" with different meanings and contexts from one another. When I say "proximate matter of the Stone" I mean the matter from which the Stone is directly made, all that is required is "cooking" it and periodically "imbibing" it with portions of its "Water" as it gradually "coagulates" with its "Earth". When I say "remote matters of the Stone" I mean the substances that were used in making this "proximate matter" of the Stone. It is these substances that you CAN find already made by nature (man also has learned how to make several of these substances with his own methods), but not the "proximate" one. That one needs to be made by the intelligent intervention of man, nature itself can't make it.

    Let's analyze the quote you posted by George Ripley...
    More like you are getting ready to "spin" and mutilate the quote, as we will see below.

    He opens up by saying to 'take our Artificial Antimony, but not the Natural Antimony as it comes out of the Earth', obviously differentiating between two different substances, as you pointed out.

    So what is he actually writing about?
    An artificial compound, not a single natural matter found in the "earth", like antimony, from which (by itself, without anything else added, as would be dictated by the "one matter only" trap) you will NEVER see all the things the alchemists described, no matter how you "treat" it (alone, by itself.) As he implies, such natural minerals as antimony are "too dry" and do not contain the necessary "humidities" for making the Stone. Could he tell you this even clearer than he already does?

    Ripley tells us that "Artificial Antimonial Compound" 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'. He gives us a lucid description of what he is describing to us, this "Artificial Antimonial Compound". But what is it?
    An artificial compound, as he keeps plainly telling you, during which production you can see this "dew", "fatness", "unctuosity", etc. Yet you persist in trying to twist what he plainly says and that he is supposedly talking about a single "matter" found in nature. Go figure!

    He gives us another clue later in the same paragraph where he points out that this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" comes from the 'most obvious, common, and contemptible beginnings of all Things in the whole World'. What could he be speaking of?
    Who knows, like most alchemists, Ripley also liked to "pepper" his texts with strange or puzzling statements or with theoretical musings (maybe he thought that these substances used in making the Stone were "contemptible"; a purely subjective opinion.) Strange that you would like to fixate on this obscurity and pass over or attempt to "spin" the more matter-of-fact statements.

    In the next paragraph Ripley tell us that this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" 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', further describing this mysterious substance...and again confirming that what we work with is One singular matter which we manipulate to produce the results we seek.
    I guess you thought that we would not notice how you very conveniently "forgot" to cite this part that comes immediately after what you quoted above, which once again dismantles your spins & manipulations of what Ripley is plainly saying in a desperate attempt to try to fit it into your faith in the "only one matter" ruse:

    "...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.


    Plus on top of that, you still could not get rid of this total contradiction to your "conclusions" since you could not mutilate this part from the passage without compromising the sense too much:

    "...which are the three several and distinct substances and bodies..."

    Notice the "several" and "distinct" part of the passage; which THREE SEVERAL AND DISTINCT SUBSTANCES are used to MAKE (i.e. ARTIFICIAL, i.e. made by man, as he keeps pointing out over and over, not "natural") this "one matter" (in outward appearance only, because internally the alchemist is very well aware of its composite nature, since he made it himself out of several substances!) Keep on trying to "spin" and conveniently mutilate passages, my friend. You are not fooling anyone.

    At the end of the quote you posted, Mr. Ripley asserts that ' if thou wilt thrive in our Art, we wish thee to begin with our Mineral Trinity, whereof this our Artificial Antimonial compound is made'.

    This sounds entirely like Chaos to me.
    Yes, "Chaos", "Magnesia", "Adrop", "Antimony", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Minium", "Black Lead", or whatever other "deckname" you want to call it, and notice how he very clearly tells you that it is a "Trinity" (i.e. THREE THINGS) and that this ARTIFICIAL (i.e. NOT NATURAL) COMPOUND (i.e. MADE OUT OF TWO OR MORE THINGS) is MADE (i.e. NOT ALREADY "FOUND" SOMEWHERE.)

    So there we have it: This "Artificial Antimonial Compound" described quite unambiguously, but do we agree what this "Artificial Antimonial Compound" is?

    You say that "It is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you", but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I am more apt to say that "it" is not for the Alchemist to make himself, but rather for Nature to make for you.
    Then I cordially invite you, again, to waste your time and money in search for this impossibility, like countless seekers from the past who also fell for the exact same ruse. Sooner or later, after repeated failures, you will come to the same conclusion that this is a total dead-end (that's why many malicious writers keep on repeating it: it leads nowhere. You keep incorrectly assuming that the alchemists were incapable of willfully lying and misleading others. Think again. A lot of them absolutely LOVED it. In their eyes and minds they were not doing anything wrong, only deceiving "the unworthy", so they had no second-thoughts about what they were doing, despite all the misfortunes and trouble they caused to countless innocent people) and no such "one matter" that can display all the reactions the alchemists describe exist already made anywhere in nature.

    It's up to the Alchemist to procure "it", yes, but totally up to Nature to make for you.

    Nature, aided by the skillful Artist completes the Work.


    An artificial product, created by Nature, aided by the Artist.
    As soon as the intervention of the "artist" comes into play for something to be able to exist, that something can no longer qualify as "created by nature". It is an "artificial" thing. Nature can't make it on its own. And why can't she do this? Well, among a couple of reasons, because it lacks the conditions to put together the right combination of substances, in the proper proportions, and apply the proper treatments to it. If it did, then nature would not need the "artist" at all for making either the "proximate" matter of the Stone or even the Stone itself: it would just go ahead and make them itself, and we would in fact find either one of them in nature. But we don't.

    The reason why he says that the Stone is made from two matters in another treatise but that it is made from three matters in this treatise...and the reason Ripley and so many authors before and after him vary the number of what you call "starting substances" is because these passages describe a certain starting substance artificially created by the Artist's knowhow.

    The numbers vary not because the number of substances vary but because of how the Sages are choosing to describe their material (but you already know this; Alchemists like to veil their speech).
    Yes, and this "substance artificially created by the Artist's knowhow" is in fact an artifical (i.e. NOT NATURAL) composite, made by the "artist" himself and which is not found already made anywhere in nature. And the only way to accomplish this manufacture is by taking several possible substances and making them react in the right proportions and the appropriate sequence. This is what is meant by "artificial/artifice", i.e. NOT MADE BY NATURE BUT BY THE HAND OF MAN.


    I like this quote by Haly
    Which is in fact yet another example of the same booby-trap to try to make you waste time and money in a futile search for something that is not found anywhere in nature and which in fact requires that you do the very thing this malicious author is trying to dissuade you from doing: compose it from several substances.
    Last edited by JDP; 10-16-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    856
    Let us not forget


    WHAT IS ABOVE IS LIKE THAT WHICH IS BELOW,
    TO ACCOMPLISH THE MIRACLES OF ONE THING.
    AND AS ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ONE WORD OF ONE BEING,
    SO ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED FROM THIS ONE THING BY ADAPTATION.






    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    You will need tons of is "luck", and it won't help you in the end because the matter of the Stone does not exist already made anywhere in nature. If you don't make it, or have someone who knows how to compose it make it for you, you will never find it. When I say "proximate matter of the Stone" I mean the matter from which the Stone is directly made, all that is required is "cooking" it and periodically "imbibing" it with portions of its "Water" as it gradually "coagulates" with its "Earth". When I say "remote matters of the Stone" I mean the substances that were used in making this "proximate matter" of the Stone. It is these substances that you CAN find already made by nature (man also has learned how to make several of these substances with his own methods), but not the "proximate" one. That one needs to be made by the intelligent intervention of man, nature itself can't make it.

    More like you are getting ready to "spin" and mutilate the quote, as we will see below.
    An artificial compound, not a single natural matter found in the "earth"...
    An artificial compound, as he keeps plainly telling you, during which production you can see this "dew", "fatness", "unctuosity", etc. Yet you persist in trying to twist what he plainly says and that he is supposedly talking about a single "matter" found in nature...

    Strange that you would like to fixate on this obscurity and pass over or attempt to "spin" the more matter-of-fact statements.
    I guess you thought that we would not notice how you very conveniently "forgot" to cite this part that comes immediately after what you quoted above
    Plus on top of that, you still could not get rid of this total contradiction to your "conclusions" since you could not mutilate this part from the passage without compromising the sense too much:
    Notice the "several" and "distinct" part of the passage; which three several and distinct substances are used to make this "one matter" (in outward appearance only, because internally the alchemist is very well aware of its composite nature, since he made it himself out of several substances!)

    Yes, "Chaos", "Magnesia", "Adrop", "Antimony", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", "Minium", "Black Lead", or whatever other "deckname" you want to call it, and notice how he very clearly tells you that it is a "Trinity" and that this artificial compound is made (i.e. not already "found" somewhere). No such "one matter" that can display all the reactions the alchemists describe exist already made anywhere in nature.

    As soon as the intervention of the "artist" comes into play for something to be able to exist, that something can no longer qualify as "created by nature". It is an "artificial" thing. Nature can't make it on its own. And why can't she do this? Well, among a couple of reasons, because it lacks the conditions to put together the right combination of substances, in the proper proportions, and apply the proper treatments to it. If it did, then nature would not need the "artist" at all for making either the "proximate" matter of the Stone or even the Stone itself: it would just go ahead and make them itself, and we would in fact find either one of them in nature. This "substance artificially created by the Artist's knowhow" is in fact an artificial composite, made by the "artist" himself and which is not found already made anywhere in nature. And the only way to accomplish this manufacture is by taking several possible substances and making them react in the right proportions and the appropriate sequence. This is what is meant by "artificial/artifice", i.e. not made by nature but by the hand of man.


    The Matter of the Stone does not exist already made anywhere in Nature. I completely agree. You are having trouble accepting this and keep reiterating this same point over and over, but we already totally agree that this does not exist already made in Nature!!


    It is not my desire to "twist" anything, JDP. I just do not believe that he is talking about a single Matter found in Nature.


    Why do you insist on harping on this point when it is extraordinarily apparent that you and I are both on the same page that no one is talking about some magical thing you find out in Nature, pick up, throw in a flask, heat up, and hope to accomplish all the wonders of the world?


    My intent was never to "spin" anything or lead anyone astray.

    Of course I did not think that y'all would not notice how I "forgot" to cite the part that comes immediately after what I quoted above. You are smart, JDP. You are also thorough. I know this.

    The reason I chose to omit the rest of the quote was because I felt it was thoroughly explained in the previous paragraph and did not need to be restated again.


    The paragraphs I posted above clearly state more times than one that this substance that you and I continue discussing is made of one Sulphur, and of two Mercuries, or in other words it is a substance that is triune. Some Alchemists prefer to term these "separate" substances Sun, Moon, & Mercury, while others would deem these Salt, Sulphur, & Mercury. The part where he says 'We wish thee to begin with our Mineral Trinity, whereof this our Artificial Antimonial compound is made' again reiterates all that has already been said.


    You say to 'Notice the "several" and "distinct" part of the passage; which three several and distinct substances are used to make this "one matter"'. Is that not what I just accomplished above...?

    These several and distinct substances are compounded into one composite material. This is an early stage of the Work, and an absolute prerequisite to successfully accomplish our Magnum Opus.


    That no such "one matter" that can display all the reactions the Alchemists describe exist already made anywhere in Nature...is a fact...that you keep...repeating...even though we both already agree here! Nature does not make this composite matter on its own. This Substance we speak of must be made artificially, by supplying Nature with the proper conditions that allow for its development; which means it must be created by the aid of an Alchemist in the same sense that beer is "created" by a brewer when in actuality it is Nature doing the real Work.


    Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "proximate matter" and "remote matter"; much appreciated.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Let us not forget


    WHAT IS ABOVE IS LIKE THAT WHICH IS BELOW,
    TO ACCOMPLISH THE MIRACLES OF ONE THING.
    AND AS ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ONE WORD OF ONE BEING,
    SO ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED FROM THIS ONE THING BY ADAPTATION.








    The Matter of the Stone does not exist already made anywhere in Nature. I completely agree. You are having trouble accepting this and keep reiterating this same point over and over, but we already totally agree that this does not exist already made in Nature!!


    It is not my desire to "twist" anything, JDP. I just do not believe that he is talking about a single Matter found in Nature.


    Why do you insist on harping on this point when it is extraordinarily apparent that you and I are both on the same page that no one is talking about some magical thing you find out in Nature, pick up, throw in a flask, heat up, and hope to accomplish all the wonders of the world?


    My intent was never to "spin" anything or lead anyone astray.

    Of course I did not think that y'all would not notice how I "forgot" to cite the part that comes immediately after what I quoted above. You are smart, JDP. You are also thorough. I know this.

    The reason I chose to omit the rest of the quote was because I felt it was thoroughly explained in the previous paragraph and did not need to be restated again.


    The paragraphs I posted above clearly state more times than one that this substance that you and I continue discussing is made of one Sulphur, and of two Mercuries, or in other words it is a substance that is triune. Some Alchemists prefer to term these "separate" substances Sun, Moon, & Mercury, while others would deem these Salt, Sulphur, & Mercury. The part where he says 'We wish thee to begin with our Mineral Trinity, whereof this our Artificial Antimonial compound is made' again reiterates all that has already been said.


    You say to 'Notice the "several" and "distinct" part of the passage; which three several and distinct substances are used to make this "one matter"'. Is that not what I just accomplished above...?

    These several and distinct substances are compounded into one composite material. This is an early stage of the Work, and an absolute prerequisite to successfully accomplish our Magnum Opus.


    That no such "one matter" that can display all the reactions the Alchemists describe exist already made anywhere in Nature...is a fact...that you keep...repeating...even though we both already agree here! Nature does not make this composite matter on its own. This Substance we speak of must be made artificially, by supplying Nature with the proper conditions that allow for its development; which means it must be created by the aid of an Alchemist in the same sense that beer is "created" by a brewer when in actuality it is Nature doing the real Work.


    Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "proximate matter" and "remote matter"; much appreciated.
    But the difference here seems to be that you believe that the composite matter in question, which as you yourself accept is not really "single" in the true sense of the word (i.e. only made up of one thing, nothing else whatsoever), is found in nature and the operator only needs to perform some operations with it. But what I am pointing out is that nature does not make this composite on her own, it just can't. The alchemist has to gather the substances that compose this artificial compound and make them react in the right proportion and manner. This is what is meant by "artificial compound" (Ripley) or made "by artifice" (Trevisan) in the previously quoted passages. Without this intervention of man the said compound would not be made because nature can't put together all the requisites for its formation on her own.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,284
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    [...] you believe that the composite matter in question [...] is found in nature
    It seems he believes no such thing:

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Nature does not make this composite matter on its own.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    It seems he believes no such thing:
    But look at what he said before:

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    I would say that it is up to the Alchemist to collect "it", and up to Nature to compose it.

    ...we work with is One singular matter which we manipulate to produce the results we seek.

    You say that "It is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you", but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I am more apt to say that "it" is not for the Alchemist to make himself, but rather for Nature to make for you.

    It's up to the Alchemist to procure "it", yes, but totally up to Nature to make for you.
    Maybe now he has changed his mind and recognizes that it is actually made by human intervention, because the necessary conditions for its manufacture do not happen naturally.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But the difference here seems to be that you believe that the composite matter in question, which as you yourself accept is not really "single" in the true sense of the word (i.e. only made up of one thing, nothing else whatsoever), is found in nature and the operator only needs to perform some operations with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    It seems he believes no such thing:
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Maybe now he has changed his mind and recognizes that it is actually made by human intervention, because the necessary conditions for its manufacture do not happen naturally.
    JDP,


    Why do you have a difficult time understanding this? I have done my best to clearly state that I believe no such thing, yet for some peculiar reason, you find it within yourself to convince yourself of such a thing, then go on and try to convince me of something we already agree upon!


    What is it about my posts that gets under your skin so much?


    Does it really take another member to come here into this thread, point out the blatantly obvious fact that you continue to fail to see (...that you and I both agree that our starting Matter is not found ready-made in Nature)? C'mon now, you are smarter than that and you don't need anyone to point simple facts so easy to see; unless you are blinded by your ego, which is a trap easy to fall into.










    In case some clarification is needed, here are the many times in this thread that I stated that our Matter is not found ready-made in Nature and must be prepared by the Artist in order to successfully accomplish our Magnus Opus


    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    Is the author implying that we must prepare our matter before we can simply put it inside a flask and heat it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    Do we not make our original matter suitable for our use by first preparing it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    Do we not agree that in order to successfully accomplish the Magnum Opus only a single matter is collected and prepared, then comes the latter part of our Work?
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    This 'single matter' to be prepared is our starting material, is it not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    I would say that it is up to the Alchemist to collect "it", and up to Nature to compose it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    You say that "It is up to the alchemist to make it himself. Nature won't make it for you", but I wholeheartedly disagree.

    I am more apt to say that "it" is not for the Alchemist to make himself, but rather for Nature to make for you.

    It's up to the Alchemist to procure "it", yes, but totally up to Nature to make for you.

    Nature, aided by the skillful Artist completes the Work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    An artificial product, created by Nature, aided by the Artist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    The Matter of the Stone does not exist already made anywhere in Nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    We already totally agree that this does not exist already made in Nature!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    Why do you insist on harping on this point when it is extraordinarily apparent that you and I are both on the same page that no one is talking about some magical thing you find out in Nature, pick up, throw in a flask, heat up, and hope to accomplish all the wonders of the world?
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    That no such "one matter" that can display all the reactions the Alchemists describe exist already made anywhere in Nature...is a fact...that you keep...repeating...even though we both already agree here!
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich
    Nature does not make this composite matter on its own. This Substance we speak of must be made artificially, by supplying Nature with the proper conditions that allow for its development; which means it must be created by the aid of an Alchemist in the same sense that beer is "created" by a brewer when in actuality it is Nature doing the real Work.



    WHAT IS ABOVE IS LIKE THAT WHICH IS BELOW,
    TO ACCOMPLISH THE MIRACLES OF ONE THING.
    AND AS ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ONE WORD OF ONE BEING,
    SO ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED FROM THIS ONE THING BY ADAPTATION.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,284
    Blog Entries
    1

    Mod Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    unless you are blinded by your ego, which is a trap easy to fall into.
    There's no need to make this personal. Discuss the point, not the person. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope from here, as experience has taught us so far.

    Please do not reply to this post.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Andro; 10-17-2016 at 03:30 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    JDP,


    Why do you have a difficult time understanding this? I have done my best to clearly state that I believe no such thing, yet for some peculiar reason, you find it within yourself to convince yourself of such a thing, then go on and try to convince me of something we already agree upon!


    What is it about my posts that gets under your skin so much?


    Does it really take another member to come here into this thread, point out the blatantly obvious fact that you continue to fail to see (...that you and I both agree that our starting Matter is not found ready-made in Nature)? C'mon now, you are smarter than that and you don't need anyone to point simple facts so easy to see; unless you are blinded by your ego, which is a trap easy to fall into.










    In case some clarification is needed, here are the many times in this thread that I stated that our Matter is not found ready-made in Nature and must be prepared by the Artist in order to successfully accomplish our Magnus Opus





























    WHAT IS ABOVE IS LIKE THAT WHICH IS BELOW,
    TO ACCOMPLISH THE MIRACLES OF ONE THING.
    AND AS ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ONE WORD OF ONE BEING,
    SO ALL THINGS WERE PRODUCED FROM THIS ONE THING BY ADAPTATION.
    As I pointed out to Andro, in several of those quotes, some of which you just referred to yourself in the above post, you in fact asserted that the "matter" of the Stone is "one" and "created by nature", instead of an artificial composite of several substances and made by the alchemist. And this is the difference between us. You seem to think it is actually "one matter", found somewhere in nature, and which contains "three things" in it, which then the alchemist manipulates somehow and makes the matter of the Stone. While I say that the "one matter" is in fact the very matter of the Stone but it is found nowhere already made in nature, and the alchemist is the one who compounds this "one matter", and to do this it is absolutely necessary to use several substances, because no single "one matter" found anywhere in nature contains all that is necessary for making the Stone. If that was the case, then all that one would need to do is pick up this natural "one matter" and just "cook" it inside a flask. Sooner or later the Stone would be produced, as it already would contain all that is necessary for this to happen. Notice that the "one matter only" booby-trap is very frequently accompanied by the "one vessel, one furnace, one regimen" supplementary booby-trap. This is done intentionally by this type of deceitful writers to make it even clearer to their intended victims that the mythical "one matter only" being referred to is a single substance found in nature and that all you supposedly need to do is put it inside an appropriate vessel (preferably made of glass so you can watch the reactions that will take place) and "cook" it. Some of these writers are so malicious as to even very openly dissuade their unwary readers from laying their hands on and experimenting with multiple substances, so that mixtures of any kind are to be avoided at all costs (in fact the only possible way to operate in alchemy is through mixtures of the right materials to compose the matter of the Stone!), that way failure is surely guaranteed to anyone who takes the bait and wholeheartedly falls for the "one matter only" gimmick. But if you don't believe it, fine, please do continue to "digest" your samples of sea-water, or rain-water, or dew, or feces, or honey, or sugar, or any single mineral or metal, etc. and desperately waiting to see all the reactions described by the alchemists unfold before your eyes. I think that even if someone could live to be 1000 years old he would still never see them by following such a naive method.

+ 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