Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: How do the other forms of alchemy and extraction work?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    Your response is a most redundant refrain in a tired chorus bordering on obsessive malcontent. Just my observation of your continuous crusade to castigate on any phrase containing "one matter," or "one operation."
    Just opposing misleading notions that will send seekers into a never-ending path to nowhere. You seem to also have an "obsessive malcontent" with anyone that points out that pretty much all commonly available natural substances have been examined and analyzed to death already. There is nothing "new" here. The secrets of alchemy cannot depend on such simplicities that have become common knowledge centuries ago. It is extremely naive to think that they do.

    You know I have read Weidenfeld. Too bad he never was able to make the secret solvent even though he gathered all those collated recipes.
    Are you so sure? But even if he didn't, Theodorus Mundanus did. Much of what he says agrees with Weidenfeld.

    Have you ever distilled soot? What do you think of that "catalogue of the products obtained" from soot?
    Why? It has been distilled to death already by countless chymists and chemists. We know very well what can be obtained from it. There is nothing "new" or "unknown" in such simple operations with single matters.

    Where did I say that biomass was a "simple single substance?"
    Depends on what you have in mind by "biomass". I know you have done work with soot, though. That could count as a "single matter" from the point of view of a person from centuries ago (before it was known that the atmosphere is in fact a complex mixture of gases and vapors itself, and not any "element" or simple substance, and that the incomplete combustion of wood involves in fact a bunch of substances, not really "one".) But I repeat: distilling such single matters (from the point of view of the old-timers) will not by itself be enough to make the secret solvent or the Stone. Countless seekers tried that routine countless times with all manner of simple single matters at their disposal. It did not work. It will never work.

    You protest too much! The hyperbole of your deliberately confrontational and somewhat belittling interpretation of my words does not withstand the fact that I have made the secret solvent. It is a bit more complex than you know. Especially if your only point of view into the process is limited to a strictly chemical understanding of protocol. Yet it is as you have reiterated in this thread:
    If you have made the secret solvent then you should be able to make the Stone or some other transmuting "tincture". What's stopping you??? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, what you think is the secret solvent in fact is not? Be ready to reevaluate your conclusions when it comes to alchemy. Plenty of others also thought they had "succeeded", when in fact they had not. In the end, their alleged "tinctures" made from blood, feces, wine, clay, dew, etc. did not penetrate the molten metals but just burned up into smoke and left the metals just like they were before, not silver or gold.

    It can present itself in all those states I have seen. It can do that because it consists of exactly what the alchemists have detailed in so many ways. It is three things in one compounded from Elements received from the starting matter which is just one thing: biomass.

    It is a complex water meaning it is a supersaturated complex of what the alchemists called Elements: Fire, Water, Earth and Air. Of course the Fire is not fire; it is a water soluble red oil. And the Water is not water it is a strange acid/base redox complex. And keeping with the program Air is not air; it is a chameleon being a most sharp invisible vapor that weeps into burning water before becoming a sparkling white salt. Put them all together in various kinetic settings and you can get "our mercury" to present itself in all those ways described. However that is only the beginning of the real alchemy.

    And that is where the Gum Adrop comes in. It is the portal. It is a mineralized gum composite of biomass putrefied by fire in a certain way described by Ripley. He also calls it Sericon. And when it is dried to powder Ripley calls it "antimony."
    If by "mineralized" you mean that some metallic matters enter the operation together with the "vegetable/animal mercuries/humidities", then yes, quite correct. But that puts a big damper on the "one matter" claim, doesn't it?

    Nature is the only one that can make the starting matter for you. You cannot make anything substantial only Nature can do that. All we can do is imitate Dr. Frankenstein. We take the shit Nature made and fashion our own crap out of it. And being alchemists we hope we expect miracles from that crap we made.

    Nature does make the Philosophers Stone every time an alchemist succeeds despite the folly.
    That would like saying that nature makes plastics, and paper, and glass, and ketchup, etc. Hmmmm... no! The reactions and combinations that lead to the creation of such substances are part of nature, sure, like all reactions, but nature itself never uses them on its own. I am pretty sure that without man, nature would never make any such things even in a million years. The same with the Stone. So the Stone is really man-made or man-caused. It will never be made by nature on its own.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Just opposing misleading notions that will send seekers into a never-ending path to nowhere. You seem to also have an "obsessive malcontent" with anyone that points out that pretty much all commonly available natural substances have been examined and analyzed to death already. There is nothing "new" here. The secrets of alchemy cannot depend on such simplicities that have become common knowledge centuries ago. It is extremely naive to think that they do.
    I am not obsessive nor malcontent. I have made the secret solvent and am content with the results. It is humorous to me that you have so much protest that is not based upon your own experience but what you have read. And your premise is weak: assuming "that pretty much all commonly available natural substances have been examined and analyzed to death already." You are right: "There is nothing new here." And by that I mean your ability to ignore any facts presented that do not fit into your premise running thin.

    Are you so sure? But even if he didn't, Theodorus Mundanus did. Much of what he says agrees with Weidenfeld.
    I don't disagree with any of the docs collated by Weidenfeld. It is evident from letters he wrote to a wealthy benefactor pleading for money to build his dream factory to mass produce the secret solvent that all he was waiting for was a couple of Dutch alchemists to reveal the secret to him. Never happened.

    Why? It has been distilled to death already by countless chymists and chemists. We know very well what can be obtained from it. There is nothing "new" or "unknown" in such simple operations with single matters.
    That is a humorous example of your premise running thin. If you know so well what can be obtained from soot then it should be easy for you to compare some of those descriptions of the materials with the descriptions by the alchemists. If you really gave it some attention you might see similarities worth a second look in your lab. You might also find as I did that all those countless chymists and chemists burnt the flowers as the alchemists warned. But their intention was to analyze the matter to death and catalog the feces.

    Depends on what you have in mind by "biomass". I know you have done work with soot, though. That could count as a "single matter" from the point of view of a person from centuries ago (before it was known that the atmosphere is in fact a complex mixture of gases and vapors itself, and not any "element" or simple substance, and that the incomplete combustion of wood involves in fact a bunch of substances, not really "one".) But I repeat: distilling such single matters (from the point of view of the old-timers) will not by itself be enough to make the secret solvent or the Stone. Countless seekers tried that routine countless times with all manner of simple single matters at their disposal. It did not work. It will never work.
    The definition of Biomass is covered quite well by Google, but Wikipedia will do Biomass (ecology)

    "Biomass is the mass of living biological organisms in a given area or ecosystem at a given time. Biomass can refer to species biomass, which is the mass of one or more species, or to community biomass, which is the mass of all species in the community. It can include microorganisms, plants or animals. The mass can be expressed as the average mass per unit area, or as the total mass in the community.
    The total live biomass on Earth is about 550 - 560 billion tonnes C, and the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr. The total live biomass of bacteria may be as much as that of plants and animals or may be much less. The total number of DNA base pairs on Earth, as a possible approximation of global biodiversity, is estimated at (5.33.6) x 1037, and weighs 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 x 1012 tonnes of carbon."

    Mostly you dodge the points in the argument as your premise runs thinner. I never said soot or biomass was a "single matter." I said the secret solvent was derived from one thing: biomass. Then you take your "straw dog" to argument assuming "that distilling such 'single matters' will not by itself be enough to make the secret solvent or the Stone." Of course such "single matters" as you refine it don't work. And you are right that the old alchemists view of "matter" is not the same as yours.

    If you have made the secret solvent then you should be able to make the Stone or some other transmuting "tincture". What's stopping you??? Could it be that maybe, just maybe, what you think is the secret solvent in fact is not? Be ready to reevaluate your conclusions when it comes to alchemy. Plenty of others also thought they had "succeeded", when in fact they had not. In the end, their alleged "tinctures" made from blood, feces, wine, clay, dew, etc. did not penetrate the molten metals but just burned up into smoke and left the metals just like they were before, not silver or gold.
    Yes I should be able to make the transmutation Stone with the secret solvent. It is not that simple. Y-Worth made the secret solvent as you may know from his private correspondences very well detailing his process which appears to be a hybrid between Hollandus and Ripley. If you read Bolnest's Aurora Chymica of chymical and apothecary recipes you can find mixed in among them the alchemical processes to make Lull's spirit of wine, isolation of armoniac from plants and animals, preparation of the solvent for addition of Au, and the purification of the alchemical Elements to be united. In his prolog he discusses the possibility of the Stone and that he is carving his own progress much the same as Y-worth and others.

    Nothing is stopping me. I have already confirmed the validity of the secret solvent by making the Vegetable Stone three different ways using the secret solvent. I'm working on validating the fourth way. When that is done I will have enough knowledge of the Elements in the solvent to continue the work on metals. I have already amassed good lab experiments with tin and lead and get experience with the alterations necessary for transmutation experiments to silver.

    If by "mineralized" you mean that some metallic matters enter the operation together with the "vegetable/animal mercuries/humidities", then yes, quite correct. But that puts a big damper on the "one matter" claim, doesn't it?
    That is what I mean even for the Vegetable Stone. And since I made the secret solvent from the one thing that does matter: biomass I find no damper to the claim at all. Especially when the Vegetable Stone is made from one thing only biomass where the metallic matters come from the calcined ashes of the biomass.

    That would like saying that nature makes plastics, and paper, and glass, and ketchup, etc. Hmmmm... no! The reactions and combinations that lead to the creation of such substances are part of nature, sure, like all reactions, but nature itself never uses them on its own. I am pretty sure that without man, nature would never make any such things even in a million years. The same with the Stone. So the Stone is really man-made or man-caused. It will never be made by nature on its own.
    This point is moot to the argument. I say that Nature made us and we have natural tendencies. And your distinction is valid.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    I am not obsessive nor malcontent. I have made the secret solvent and am content with the results. It is humorous to me that you have so much protest that is not based upon your own experience but what you have read. And your premise is weak: assuming "that pretty much all commonly available natural substances have been examined and analyzed to death already." You are right: "There is nothing new here." And by that I mean your ability to ignore any facts presented that do not fit into your premise running thin.
    How are such plain observations of facts "running thin"??? The spagyrical/chymical/iatrochemical books that clearly describe the "analysis by fire" of virtually all single commonly available natural matters have been around for centuries. Did they make the topic of how to make the secret solvent and the Stone any clearer to anyone? I don't think so!

    I don't disagree with any of the docs collated by Weidenfeld. It is evident from letters he wrote to a wealthy benefactor pleading for money to build his dream factory to mass produce the secret solvent that all he was waiting for was a couple of Dutch alchemists to reveal the secret to him. Never happened.
    Don't remember what document are you referring to. I know that in documents as late as the 1710s Weidenfeld was still communicating with the ruler of a German region regarding this topic. It seems he was being taken very seriously even that late. Plus if you read what Mundanus says in his epistle to Dickinson, you will see that there is a peculiar similarity with many of the things this adept says and what Weidenfeld claims.

    That is a humorous example of your premise running thin. If you know so well what can be obtained from soot then it should be easy for you to compare some of those descriptions of the materials with the descriptions by the alchemists. If you really gave it some attention you might see similarities worth a second look in your lab.
    I remind you again that you can also come to the same potentially misleading conclusions that you are on the right track by comparing what the alchemists describe and the results from distilling some other substances, like the already mentioned acetates. So this is still no guarantee.

    You might also find as I did that all those countless chymists and chemists burnt the flowers as the alchemists warned. But their intention was to analyze the matter to death and catalog the feces.
    But the techniques of "analysis by fire" of those chymists and chemists were in fact "lifted" straight from the techniques of the alchemists themselves! It consists of placing the substance or mixture of substances under investigation in a suitable distilling vessel (alembic, aludel, cucurbit, retort, distillation flask) made of glass or ceramics and provided with a still-head, a condenser and receiver, and then gradually heat the contents "by degrees", until the matter/matters inside the vessel are made glowing hot and no more products/byproducts are observed to occur. "Fire analysis" was in fact invented by the alchemists. The chymists and chemists just took it from them.

    The definition of Biomass is covered quite well by Google, but Wikipedia will do Biomass (ecology)

    "Biomass is the mass of living biological organisms in a given area or ecosystem at a given time. Biomass can refer to species biomass, which is the mass of one or more species, or to community biomass, which is the mass of all species in the community. It can include microorganisms, plants or animals. The mass can be expressed as the average mass per unit area, or as the total mass in the community.
    The total live biomass on Earth is about 550 - 560 billion tonnes C, and the total annual primary production of biomass is just over 100 billion tonnes C/yr. The total live biomass of bacteria may be as much as that of plants and animals or may be much less. The total number of DNA base pairs on Earth, as a possible approximation of global biodiversity, is estimated at (5.33.6) x 1037, and weighs 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as 4 x 1012 tonnes of carbon."
    This is very vague and general. The above definition includes a whole bunch of different substances/matters. Somehow I don't believe that you really think that all "biomass" can possibly work.

    Mostly you dodge the points in the argument as your premise runs thinner. I never said soot or biomass was a "single matter." I said the secret solvent was derived from one thing: biomass. Then you take your "straw dog" to argument assuming "that distilling such 'single matters' will not by itself be enough to make the secret solvent or the Stone." Of course such "single matters" as you refine it don't work. And you are right that the old alchemists view of "matter" is not the same as yours.
    But "biomass" includes a whole bunch of different stuff, as per your very own provided definition above. I still don't see how you can possibly consider such a thing "one matter". Some of the stuff included under such a general definition would likely not have been considered as "one matter" even by many people back in the day, let alone today!

    Yes I should be able to make the transmutation Stone with the secret solvent. It is not that simple. Y-Worth made the secret solvent as you may know from his private correspondences very well detailing his process which appears to be a hybrid between Hollandus and Ripley. If you read Bolnest's Aurora Chymica of chymical and apothecary recipes you can find mixed in among them the alchemical processes to make Lull's spirit of wine, isolation of armoniac from plants and animals, preparation of the solvent for addition of Au, and the purification of the alchemical Elements to be united. In his prolog he discusses the possibility of the Stone and that he is carving his own progress much the same as Y-worth and others.
    I don't recall the Y-Worth correspondence. From his published writings, though, I have my cautious reservations regarding this claim that he knew how to prepare the secret solvent. Regarding Bolnest: notice he did not work with "one matter only", but in fact with several. Plus read his other published book too. He clearly explains that metallic mercury enters the operations as well (in the method that he knew about, which results in the solvent/water being prepared as "a clear, milky, crystalline, and silver liquor".)

    Nothing is stopping me. I have already confirmed the validity of the secret solvent by making the Vegetable Stone three different ways using the secret solvent. I'm working on validating the fourth way. When that is done I will have enough knowledge of the Elements in the solvent to continue the work on metals. I have already amassed good lab experiments with tin and lead and get experience with the alterations necessary for transmutation experiments to silver.



    That is what I mean even for the Vegetable Stone. And since I made the secret solvent from the one thing that does matter: biomass I find no damper to the claim at all. Especially when the Vegetable Stone is made from one thing only biomass where the metallic matters come from the calcined ashes of the biomass.
    The metals contained in large amounts in "biomass" are not the kind the alchemists used, though. The alchemists worked with what they understood as "metals", in other words, the heavy metals (i.e. lead, tin, mercury, gold, silver, etc.) and their minerals/compounds. They did not know anything about alkali metals like potassium and sodium (these were discovered by the chemistry of the 19th century), even though they were very familiar with many of their compounds (which they did not consider to be of "metallic" origin but members of the "middle mineral" family.) Heavy metals are not found in great concentrations among living organisms precisely because most of them are toxic to life.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by KnowledgeSeeker View Post
    How do the other types of practical alchemy aside from spagyrics which mainly uses alcohol for extraction work if somebody would be helpful to elaborate? I saw some do the below and extract essences somehow.
    Which type would be the best to do in the scenario you can't get 'alcohol' for herbal alchemy or your supplies run out and make you wait for restock?
    Experiment with decoctions
    I use 190ABV grain alcohol for most of my tincturing, distilled water almost ubiquitously for everything else, though I'll admit that there are some interesting things that can evolve from vinegars, particularly strong ones. Vinegar is a pain in the butt to rectify, however, and you would probably be better off finding a lab supply for some glacial acetic.

    Just a little nugget for thought: Ancient people found ways to preserve their collected foods in different ways. The earliest was probably by drying. Coastal cultures would have learned that salts could aid in this curing process, and the benefits of using the sun on hot days to do the work. Cooking would have likely been the next step, and I imagine with the advent of pottery making (another relatively simple skill if we accept that ancients were not adverse to ingesting a little clay) would have brought them volumes in terms of "technology" in cooking. Learning how to harden it into usable earthenware would have been a natural discovery, and would have revolutionized their "cooking." wink, wink, hint, hint

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    How are such plain observations of facts "running thin"??? The spagyrical/chymical/iatrochemical books that clearly describe the "analysis by fire" of virtually all single commonly available natural matters have been around for centuries. Did they make the topic of how to make the secret solvent and the Stone any clearer to anyone? I don't think so!
    Plain observations of facts is not the premise. Your premise is the assumption or hypothesis that the "one matter" term used by the old alchemists can be reduced to the extreme notion that "one matter" shall be a periodic table element or a simple molecule. Both of which were not known by the old alchemists. Yet their observations and philosophical premise concerning the "one matter" symbolism is valid because they used their alchemy tech to confirm the results in their labs.

    That being said your decision to take that "one matter" theme to mean an atom or molecule is not valid by the standards you have chosen to champion because atoms can be broken down into components which themselves can be further resolved into spin notions such as charmed, strange, up and down that have nothing to do with alchemy per se. However the alchemical Elements themselves Fire, Water, Air and Earth do have qualities they have described in detail that can be categorized similar to Strange, Charmed, Up and Down: Fire is Strange, Water is Charmed, Air is Up and Earth is Down.

    There is a difference between "analysis by fire" and "transformation by fire." The former destroys the latter creates. What matters is knowing when to stop both of which the alchemists discussed in detail.

    Don't remember what document are you referring to. I know that in documents as late as the 1710s Weidenfeld was still communicating with the ruler of a German region regarding this topic. It seems he was being taken very seriously even that late. Plus if you read what Mundanus says in his epistle to Dickinson, you will see that there is a peculiar similarity with many of the things this adept says and what Weidenfeld claims.
    That was in some private correspondences translated by members of the old super encrypted forum that fell into ill repute. I don't know if it was ever published on the net. He was being taken seriously but failed to deliver the demonstration of the secret solvent to close the deal I assume because that was the last I've heard of him. I assume the Dutch alchemists he mentioned (not by name) were not keen on him mass producing their secret solvent.

    I remind you again that you can also come to the same potentially misleading conclusions that you are on the right track by comparing what the alchemists describe and the results from distilling some other substances, like the already mentioned acetates. So this is still no guarantee.
    That is true so the comparisons have to be brought to the test by passing the examination in the lab. Your example of the acetates is a good one. It fails to pass the test in the lab when one follows the original process using common vinegar and Pb or Sb. The strange thing is how some practioners this day still take Ripley's Bosom Book and Liber Secretissimus literally. One fellow even detailed the whole process with photo documentation actually showing the end product which he claimed was Ripley's Bosom Book Stone. Following the chemistry he documented looked like he did make an impressive piece of lead saturated artificial Amazonite.

    But the techniques of "analysis by fire" of those chymists and chemists were in fact "lifted" straight from the techniques of the alchemists themselves! It consists of placing the substance or mixture of substances under investigation in a suitable distilling vessel (alembic, aludel, cucurbit, retort, distillation flask) made of glass or ceramics and provided with a still-head, a condenser and receiver, and then gradually heat the contents "by degrees", until the matter/matters inside the vessel are made glowing hot and no more products/byproducts are observed to occur. "Fire analysis" was in fact invented by the alchemists. The chymists and chemists just took it from them.
    Sure they lifted the techniques of the alchemists to suit their purposes which were not intended to make the secret solvent. I have read many of the chymysts detailed reports of destructive distillation of biomass especially wood in closed and open vessels. They describe the crude primary products of that distillation, then the destructive distillation of the those products until it was all desiccated into feces of the Elements described by the alchemists. They also did various separations of the distillates into many by products. And then they were employed by the chemistry industry to find commercial uses for those products. Once you fraction up the water and tars the opportunity to fashion the redox complex is lost.

    This is very vague and general. The above definition includes a whole bunch of different substances/matters. Somehow I don't believe that you really think that all "biomass" can possibly work.
    Despite what you think about the definition of Biomass that is how Science defines it. I have seen that plant and animal biomass works the way described especially by Hollandus. The products accomplish the same thing being transformed into different species of the secret solvent. I have seen a peculiar handling of animal kingdom waters on tin make some interesting transformations to luster, malleability and tone. Not saying there was a transmutation going on there, but there seems to be a method to that madness.

    I don't recall the Y-Worth correspondence. From his published writings, though, I have my cautious reservations regarding this claim that he knew how to prepare the secret solvent. Regarding Bolnest: notice he did not work with "one matter only", but in fact with several. Plus read his other published book too. He clearly explains that metallic mercury enters the operations as well (in the method that he knew about, which results in the solvent/water being prepared as "a clear, milky, crystalline, and silver liquor".)
    Mellon Ms 80, Processus Mysterii Magni, 1702.

    The metals contained in large amounts in "biomass" are not the kind the alchemists used, though. The alchemists worked with what they understood as "metals", in other words, the heavy metals (i.e. lead, tin, mercury, gold, silver, etc.) and their minerals/compounds. They did not know anything about alkali metals like potassium and sodium (these were discovered by the chemistry of the 19th century), even though they were very familiar with many of their compounds (which they did not consider to be of "metallic" origin but members of the "middle mineral" family.) Heavy metals are not found in great concentrations among living organisms precisely because most of them are toxic to life.
    The alchemists did transform large amounts of biomass ultimately into the Vegetable Stone. The fact that we know what metals are in the calcined extracted ashes and they did not know that is moot because the process worked. They knew that plant or animal earth did not work for metallic transmutation. The same modus is what they used for the transmutation stone. The calx for that was compounded from the heavy metals know by them.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,719
    Blog Entries
    40
    While I honestly couldnt be fucked reading the entire debate; im siding with JDP here, who was basically giving another "beginner" (someone relatively new to the forum and who was asking questions about high spagyrics, thinking it was alchemy) a beautiful rundown of the differences between True Alchemy; and the poppycock that has derived from it.

    JDP gave me the same spill when i was little and it literally saved my alchemical life. I dont see anything wrong with what he's doing.

    He also talks from a wealth of experience.

    I have also read many of your posts z Ok and it often comes across to me that you speak from some chair of arrogance; while i havent, at all, seen any evidence for why you speak so arrogantly.

    Ive never heard you relay a deep understanding of hermetic principals and your literal interpretation of Hollandus; just following orders; leads you to believe you have "The Vegetable Stone" (even though you never address the fact that Hollandus blatently twlls you that his works are secret and o ly for the initiated) which I called you on your BS and yet to hear any REASON as to why its not BS.

    The reason ive interupted here; again, is because i strongly believe that this shit wouldnt become a problem at all if people would simply be more tolerant of someone who is trying to help; instead of pouring fuel on the fire every time JDP wants to have his say.

    He has; afterall, contributed around here far more than any of those who are Opposing him; hence the conflict.

    Yes "Mercury" can be taken from distillation, but it is not Our Mercury. It is not an Alchemical Mercury. It is a spagyrical mercury and really does fuck all to assist in making the stone.

    The stone is unspecified. It does not belong to; nor is found, in any one particular kingdom. The fact that you think it is, shows that your arrogance is very misplaced, in my equally arrogant opinion.

    I even do believe there is a way to very slowly and over long periods of time, extract Our Mercury from plants; however it is far too tedious to be of any value and has absolutly NOTHING to do with pyrodistillations and red oils.

    Spagyrics is not Alchemy; and thank God for JDP teaching me that; otherwise you and I would be sitting in that chair of ignorance together.

    (And this is coming from someone who still 50% disagrees with JDP's notions of the secret solvent)

    But how do i tackle the argument? By activly dis-proving him with laboratory evidence; not by kicking and screeming every time i see his name pop up.

    As far as the one matter battle; even though i believe it to be true; it requires an EXCEEDINGLY great understanding of nature that most people are simply NEVER going to achieve and so i see it a great benefit to all seekers here for JDP to be pushing them away from it; it is imo too mich for the average seeker. You have to be weird and competely addicted to alchemy (like me) to want to go that deep.

    My response to the OP is: Listen to JDP's definitions as to what Alchemy IS and IS NOT. They cant be faulted. Other than that, assess your goals. If you want medicine and learning than spagyrics is great; if your looking for The Stone of Alchemy; then spagyrics is of little use, other than the laboratory experienced gained.

    The Mercury, Sulfur, and Salt of Alchemy, is not the same as the Mercury, Sulfur and Salt of Spagyrics; despite contrary belief.
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    I get around.
    Posts
    26
    Last edited by Kiorionis; 5 Days Ago at 12:02 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    Agreed. And we all probably need to agree to disagree about the nature of the "true" way until one of us sends a few pounds of gold to everyone else. then we'll have a winner, and even then, nothing they say with be trusted, for entirely new reasons Someone buy someone else a beer and lets get some new and different opinions in here. I like hearing a plethora.

    Simple questions can breed some interesting insights on occasion.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this 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