Apprentice WANTED

[Illen A. Cluf]

All I am saying is: there is a lot of members here in the forum who say other members are wrong, when in fact those people that say that has not created shit. So who are they? Nobodies. That is all I am saying.

I couldn't agree more. I also have often stated that, until one has actually made the PS and tested it with a transmutation, they have no right to say that others are wrong. Having said that, there are certain understandings in alchemy that are common sense, and there are people going WAY BEYOND common sense. Their 'theories' are so alien to alchemical understanding that they border on pure fantasy. They also offer no degree of proof or even references to their fantastical statements when asked. In these cases, I can see why some gently imply that their understanding is most likely not correct.

Conclusion: perhaps not pretend we know something about the lab process... since it seems everyone has a different view on this process, and no one is sure what the solvent is, and a ton more other discrepancies. It's like watching a crowd of people put together IKEA furniture in the dark.

:-) Good analogy! I think the main problem is when people state there opinions as though they are factual. Very seldom do people preface their statements with "in my opinion..." or "I believe that...". Also, when asked for verification or sources, they often get upset or angry, as though their opinion is all that matters and everyone else should just accept their opinion at face value without challenge. I have seen this again and again hundreds of times.

It's time that we all recognize the difference between opinion and fact, acknowledge that others may have valid opinions as well, and stop forcing our opinions on others as though they are fact, and treating all others as apprentices.

[Schmuldvich]

I don't know any such people. That is why I asked that question.

It seems that everyone who speaks knowingly about alchemy, people who also "talk down" on others regarding alchemy and all kinds of alchemists in-between... well they all seem to "know something"... yet none has made the Stone. But it seems "they" only lack one piece of the puzzle. And I asked if this piece was what the solvent actually is?

If your question is what the Solvent actually is, your question has been answered a couple times throughout this forum and places elsewhere online too. It is not some big mystery what the Solvent is or anything.

This thread is about masters and students (teacher/apprentice), and unless one has made the Stone in the lab, one can only be a student.

Other than the known charlatans who join this message board from time to time, has anyone here ever claimed to be a Master? Sure, some members post here with more assumed authority than others, but I have not seen any members claiming to be a Master. We are all Seekers here, are we not..?

[Dendritic Xylem]

Other than the known charlatans who join this message board from time to time, has anyone here ever claimed to be a Master? Sure, some members post here with more assumed authority than others, but I have not seen any members claiming to be a Master. We are all Seekers here, are we not..?

I don't think the real Masters are into advertising.

But, there are some long-time members here who have left some gems. Just have to dig.

[JDP]

i) Philalethes had accomplished the Great Work with his own hands or had observed all the stages of it in the lab of some other adept. He knew the work, his descriptions are the real ones, Von Sucthen, Bernard of Tresne, the author of Livre De Laveures and the other authors who defended the use of metallic mercury was in the good path and those who rejected metallic mercury in the false one.

I have been reviewing that "Book of the Washings" text and I would like to point out two things:

1- It appears that it is a French version of an older Latin text attributed to John Dastin, called "The Rosary" (this is yet ANOTHER alchemical "Rosary", not the older one attributed to Arnold of Villanova or the anonymous one that has the famous sequence of drawings.) This French version was evidently falsely attributed to Nicolas Flamel. I actually think that even the earlier Dastin attribution is mistaken. Dastin's genuine alchemical texts are quite different in style.

2- The author of this "Rosary" is very malicious in that he tries to make superficial inexperienced readers think that the operations being described are really carried out by making mercury amalgams with gold or silver and submitting them to various heat treatments and distillations. The author is evidently taking a cue from the "Rosary" attributed to Villanova, which had already used this malicious trap. But much like it happens with Arnold's "Rosary", the descriptions of the reactions and the byproducts obtained in this other "Rosary" are also sufficient to "disarm" this trap. Notice that the author in fact describes sublimates, "stinking/fetid" liquids and white/red "oils" among the substances being handled and obtained from the operations. No such things will ever happen by actually performing operations on amalgams alone, by themselves, as the author maliciously tries to make it look like for the uncritical and inexperienced reader, without at least adding other things to them. Amalgams are nothing but simple alloys, since mercury is nothing else but a metal that just happens to be liquid at room temperature. There is nothing "special" about amalgams. You will never obtain any such sublimates, "stinking/fetid" liquids and colored "oils" from any alloys alone, including amalgams. Expecting to obtain sublimates, "stinking/fetid" liquids and colored "oils" from amalgams alone is just as hopeless and silly as trying to obtain them from electrum, pewter, bronze, brass, steel, etc. without adding anything to them, just by heating them alone by themselves. Not gonna happen even in a million years. Any experienced investigator can easily disarm such traps in this type of malicious alchemical texts written in a style with the obvious intent of misleading inexperienced neophytes into wasting time and money in hopeless operations.

[Luxus]

Any of you guys ever seen one of those fat guys at the gym offering fitness training

[Aspiring Alkemist]

Most people charge anywhere between $1000 - $5000 to run you through the basic Spagyric course.

If there does happen to be anyone living in the Lime Stone Coast of Australia, you have an opportunity for a free apprenticeship.

Cost: 1 hr of glassware washing and other cleaning duties, per day.

I highly doubt there are any alchemist around here, but, just in case...

would gladly accept your offer if i was able to.

[elixirmixer]

Well im more organized now and dont need the dish bitch. But im happy to share the vast majority of what i have with anyone who bothers to ask me.

Mind you. After 15 years of studying alchemy, im finally a beginner

[Aspiring Alkemist]

Ive been working on it on and off for about 7 years now myself.

[tAlchemist]

15 Years?!?! I think reading this put a cramp in my neck.