Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Can you make the stone without the solvent?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
    But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
    The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
    Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
    I'm just thinking out loud...
    Exactly Pierre. This is where I wanted the line of thought to go.

    By using Gold, a substance perfected by nature and not by us, we are making the art "unnatural", as a result of this, it becomes complicated.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    The gold needs to be didissolved to extract his sulphur, no doubts about it.
    But, what if there could exist a substance of minera "origin" that we could make evolve imitating to the nature in our laboratories?
    The word "origin" implies that such substance, it's not in the minerals... but in a previous condition. Then a solvent would not be necessary, maybe.
    Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?
    I'm just thinking out loud...
    The problem with this theory is, as I can clearly see that you yourself have also considered (otherwise you would not be asking "Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?"): no one has ever found any such "mineral... in a previous condition" (by this you obviously mean "something" from which minerals supposedly spring up, but which itself is not "mineral".) As for your pertinent question of whether it can possibly exist: do you seriously think that if it really existed it could have totally escaped the attention of mineralogists for such a long time? Miners today have gone deeper and wider into the Earth than anyone from the time of the alchemists ever had, and such a supposed "mineral precursor" is still found nowhere. There is no such thing as "unspecified" matter of any kind, at least not down here on Earth. This is another one of those theoretical ASSUMPTIONS/SPECULATIONS/MYTHS which some alchemists simply uncritically accepted as if it was a reality, when in fact they had no shred of evidence that such a thing existed anywhere on the planet. If something exists in our planet, by force it has to be "specified". Nothing can exist in our planet that somehow does not belong in either the mineral, vegetable or animal "kingdoms", or to put it in more modern terms, nothing can exist which paradoxically is neither inorganic nor organic (or at least a "composite" between the two.) It is a paradox. It does NOT and it CANNOT exist, at least certainly not down here on Earth (which is where the alchemists lived, not in some parallel universe "somewhere along the infinite corridors of time", as they said on The Time Tunnel TV show.)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    The problem with this theory is, as I can clearly see that you yourself have also considered (otherwise you would not be asking "Do you think such a matter could possibly exist?"): no one has ever found any such "mineral... in a previous condition" (by this you obviously mean "something" from which minerals supposedly spring up, but which itself is not "mineral".) As for your pertinent question of whether it can possibly exist: do you seriously think that if it really existed it could have totally escaped the attention of mineralogists for such a long time? Miners today have gone deeper and wider into the Earth than anyone from the time of the alchemists ever had, and such a supposed "mineral precursor" is still found nowhere. There is no such thing as "unspecified" matter of any kind, at least not down here on Earth. This is another one of those theoretical ASSUMPTIONS/SPECULATIONS/MYTHS which some alchemists simply uncritically accepted as if it was a reality, when in fact they had no shred of evidence that such a thing existed anywhere on the planet. If something exists in our planet, by force it has to be "specified". Nothing can exist in our planet that somehow does not belong in either the mineral, vegetable or animal "kingdoms", or to put it in more modern terms, nothing can exist which paradoxically is neither inorganic nor organic (or at least a "composite" between the two.) It is a paradox. It does NOT and it CANNOT exist, at least certainly not down here on Earth (which is where the alchemists lived, not in some parallel universe "somewhere along the infinite corridors of time", as they said on The Time Tunnel TV show.)

    I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
    I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
    If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

    Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

    Thats what a I mean.
    That “mine”… what can it be?
    What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
    Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
    I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
    If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

    Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

    Thats what a I mean.
    That “mine”… what can it be?
    What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
    Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?
    Very well stated, Pierre. You're on the right track for sure!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    I apologize JDP, because I may not have been able to express myself correctly. English is not my mother lenguage.
    I just wanted to raise the idea that maybe we can get The mineral or metallic matter in an "embryonic" state, but not necessarily, already specified in a mineral, metal, or (less) in a “magical” matter, of course.
    If in the minerals (or gold) this “seed” is difficult to obtain, because we must use an unknown solvent, then I ask myself: What if we look for a matter where the metallic trace is in formation and we can manage (if its possible) to make it evolve, free of the future impurities in his cave? We will need to give him in the laboratory all the conditions that nature offers him for his evolution, obviously. A suitable "earth" where to grow ... etc.

    Fulcanelli told us in the chapter on antimony, that our material extracted from the "mine", is not “properly” (yet) mineral and less, metallic. Or something like that…

    Thats what a I mean.
    That “mine”… what can it be?
    What thing(s) can have mineral traces inside and no to be a mineral?
    Or we can only use our “metallic matter” coming from a “mineral rock”?
    Your meaning was already pretty clear enough in the first post. Like I said, it is impossible for something to exist on this planet which is neither mineral, nor animal, nor vegetable. If it existed somewhere it would already have been observed by people other than the alchemists as well.

    Fulcanelli was talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers", "Philosophical Mercury", "Double Mercury", or "our Mercury", which is the product of the action of the secret solvent (or "First Mercury") on metals (it extracts their alleged "sulphurs", or "seeds", or "spirits", supposedly "destroying" their metallic nature, thus making them irreducible back to metals, and will eventually, under proper thermal treatment, radically unite with them to form the alchemical "tinctures", the most powerful of which is the Stone/Elixir), he was not talking about some strange natural matter found in some mine somewhere. He was obviously referring to an artificial composite substance made by the alchemist himself by means of the secret solvent:

    "This product, allegorically expressed by an angel or by a man --- the attribute of the evangelist St Matthew --- is none other than the Mercury of the Philosophers, double in nature and quality, partly fixed and material, partly volatile and spiritual, which suffices to begin, achieve and multiply the work. It is the unique and only matter that we need, without having to worry about finding any other; but we must know, so as not to err, that authors generally begin their treatises with this mercury and how to acquire it. This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying. Eirenaeus Philalethes says with much truth, that our Mercury, barely mineral, is even less metallic because it only contains the spirit or metallic seed, while the body tends to move away from the mineral quality. It is nevertheless the spirit of gold, contained in a transparent oil, easily coagulable; the salt of metals, since all stone is salt, and the salt of our stone, since the stone of the philosophers, which is this mercury of which we speak, is the subject of the Philosophers’ Stone...

    Valentine gives philosophical mercury the nickname of pilgrim or traveler, because it must, says he, go through six celestial cities before fixing its residence in the seventh; if Philalethes affirms it is our only path this is not sufficient to invoke that these masters claimed to designate common antimony as the regenerator of philosophical mercury. This substance is too far from perfection, from purity, and the acquired spirituality of the humid root or metallic seed --- which one could anyway not find on earth --- to be genuinely useful to us. The antimony of the sages, raw matter directly extracted from the mine, "is not properly mineral, and even less metallic as Philalethes teaches us; but without partaking of these two substances it is something between one and the other."
    Last edited by JDP; 04-13-2017 at 03:58 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    Very well stated, Pierre. You're on the right track for sure!
    Time will tell, Illen... time will tell.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Your meaning was already pretty clear enough in the first post. Like I said, it is impossible for something to exist on this planet which is neither mineral, nor animal, nor vegetable. If it existed somewhere it would already have been observed by people other than the alchemists as well.

    Fulcanelli was talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers", "Philosophical Mercury", "Double Mercury", or "our Mercury", which is the product of the action of the secret solvent (or "First Mercury") on metals (it extracts their alleged "sulphurs", or "seeds", or "spirits", supposedly "destroying" their metallic nature, thus making them irreducible back to metals, and will eventually, under proper thermal treatment, radically unite with them to form the alchemical "tinctures", the most powerful of which is the Stone/Elixir), he was not talking about some strange natural matter found in some mine somewhere. He was obviously referring to an artificial composite substance made by the alchemist himself by means of the secret solvent:

    "This product, allegorically expressed by an angel or by a man --- the attribute of the evangelist St Matthew --- is none other than the Mercury of the Philosophers, double in nature and quality, partly fixed and material, partly volatile and spiritual, which suffices to begin, achieve and multiply the work. It is the unique and only matter that we need, without having to worry about finding any other; but we must know, so as not to err, that authors generally begin their treatises with this mercury and how to acquire it. This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying. Eirenaeus Philalethes says with much truth, that our Mercury, barely mineral, is even less metallic because it only contains the spirit or metallic seed, while the body tends to move away from the mineral quality. It is nevertheless the spirit of gold, contained in a transparent oil, easily coagulable; the salt of metals, since all stone is salt, and the salt of our stone, since the stone of the philosophers, which is this mercury of which we speak, is the subject of the Philosophers’ Stone...

    Valentine gives philosophical mercury the nickname of pilgrim or traveler, because it must, says he, go through six celestial cities before fixing its residence in the seventh; if Philalethes affirms it is our only path this is not sufficient to invoke that these masters claimed to designate common antimony as the regenerator of philosophical mercury. This substance is too far from perfection, from purity, and the acquired spirituality of the humid root or metallic seed --- which one could anyway not find on earth --- to be genuinely useful to us. The antimony of the sages, raw matter directly extracted from the mine, "is not properly mineral, and even less metallic as Philalethes teaches us; but without partaking of these two substances it is something between one and the other."

    I will say it this way:
    I believe there is a physical and palpable matter from which the alchemical metallic principle(s) can be drawn for our work, and such matter (phisycal) is neither mineral nor metallic, in the traditional sense (rock, stone or metal).
    No magic, no Harry Potter...

    I repeat ... it is just my belief.
    Letīs Fulcanelli out of this. It just confuses things.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    I will say it this way:
    I believe there is a physical and palpable matter from which the alchemical metallic principle(s) can be drawn for our work, and such matter (phisycal) is neither mineral nor metallic, in the traditional sense (rock, stone or metal).
    No magic, no Harry Potter...

    I repeat ... it is just my belief.
    Letīs Fulcanelli out of this. It just confuses things.
    But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

    OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

    OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.
    I think you need to consider alternative viewpoints.

    What if nature already gives everything you need in a package, kind of like a cake mix?

    It still poses the difficulty of exactly mimicking nature but that can be figured out by observation and comman sense.
    Last edited by Dwellings; 04-13-2017 at 06:49 PM.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    But you did mention Fulcanelli, that's why I quoted him.

    OK, even if it does exist, it is obviously not found in nature already made. It has to be made by the alchemist. It is an artificial product. And for that you need the secret solvent. There's no way out of it, no "shortcuts", no "alternatives" when it comes to this: alchemy wholly depends on the secret solvent, the Stone/Elixir CANNOT be made without it.
    I'll ask you this with a lot of respect JDP and I'll give this topic over for my part, I do not want to bore anyone with my crazy thoughts, but... have you ever considered that there may be a way that nothing is necessary to dissolve...?

+ 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