Academic Background

[WCH]

I'm curious about what academic or other background people on this forum had before they got into alchemy (although I guess anything they got after already being involved in alchemy would be relevant too). Like, for instance, if we have anyone here who's done academic chemistry, medicine or whatnot.

Personally, all my training is in social science and harm reduction. The harm reduction stuff has provided me with a basic knowledge of drug chemistry, but it's far from extensive, and the sociology isn't really relevant to alchemy at all.

[phliosehea]

sociology isn't really relevant to alchemy at all

For myself, I believe without alchemy a cultivated society would have never happened. At the very least (from what I have gathered) alchemy is roughly 6000 years old, perhaps older...it certainly was not a purely medieval invention. And it is our patron Hermes Trismegistus who brought the sciences and written word to man (and if we understand Fulcanelli correctly, Hermes Trismegistus is an allegory for our true mercury, perhaps the very substance that caused this knowledge to exist). Again- for myself, I believe you would learn more about alchemy by watching society and the stage it interacts upon then you would chemistry. Here I mean more from the farmer, less from the city...though you could learn much from a city as well. But do not be mislead by this, there are very physical, tangible, and immense changes that take place within the work.

I am very fortunate, I never followed an academic path. I am very much self taught in things that are useless in the "real world". There is a certain level of unlearning that Fulcanelli hinted he may have gone through before he was able to realize what the work entailed.

[WCH]

Yes, Alchemy, if we believe the tradition, is 6,000 years old. Sociology isn't... we consider Karl Marx to be the founder. Sociology is certainly interesting for studying alchemy... right now I'm investigating the ways in which alchemy is unlike complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)... one major difference is the approach to regulation, for instance: you don't see alchemists coming to the government asking for self regulation and referrals from doctors. You also don't (usually) see alchemists contradicting the truth claims of medicine/science... etc. That makes them very different than, say, Homeopaths, or Acupuncturists, to the extent that I'd argue alchemy is outside CAM, despite its interest in healing outside of the normal medical system.

Sociology really hasn't provided much in the way of alchemical insights, though, at least for me. It just puts the actions of the alchemists into a societal perspective and gives a sense of the nature of the social movement.

[phliosehea]

Wikipedia:Sociology, including economic, political, and cultural systems, has origins in the common stock of human knowledge and philosophy. Social analysis has been carried out by scholars and philosophers at least as early as the time of Plato.

Not that wikipedia is the end all be all for any matter, but the very definition of sociology has been around longer then the considered founder.

You also don't (usually) see alchemists contradicting the truth claims of medicine/science

I'm not sure if you are just speaking of modern day alchemists on this one... for me a true alchemist is a very rare bread (I believe the last was Fulcanelli) anyone nowadays I consider a student, spagyricist, or a puffer (I include myself in these categories as well). For some I suppose this is just semantics, but if it isn't in hand (the stone)and never has been then I am doubtful to use the term alchemist for any individual who does not or never has possessed it. That being said, if it weren't for Paracelsus (who went against the grain of medicine for his time) we would have probably endured another 100 or so years toying with the four humors.

[BeautifulEvil]

Let's see here, my academic background doesn't really relate to alchemy in any form or fashion. I'm trained as a computer scientist, mainly a programmer (I know tons of different computer languages), and also an electrical engineer (electronics & circuits are my thing). I also have some background in somewhat advanced mathematics, but this is only because it's required by my CS & EE major. I've also got some chemistry background, mainly from high school chemistry (Chem 2 AP). I've always been interested in chemistry though, even as a small child. I thought about minoring in some form of chemistry, maybe organic chemistry, but this is still up in the air.

There is a certain level of unlearning that Fulcanelli hinted he may have gone through before he was able to realize what the work entailed.

Yes, I believe this is absolutely true. I've spent a lot of time learning about so called "alchemy" but apparently I haven't been learning true "alchemy." This came as a surprise to me when I realized it not too long ago. It's really a maze, there's so much out there, and so many dead-end paths.

I'm not sure if you are just speaking of modern day alchemists on this one... for me a true alchemist is a very rare bread (I believe the last was Fulcanelli) anyone nowadays I consider a student, spagyricist, or a puffer (I include myself in these categories as well). For some I suppose this is just semantics, but if it isn't in hand (the stone)and never has been then I am doubtful to use the term alchemist for any individual who does not or never has possessed it.

I suppose you're right with this one. I once thought myself to be an alchemist, but now it's come to my attention that I'm probably more likely best described as a pseudo-spagyricist/puffer. It is a game of semantics, and a few months ago I would've argued with you on this point. I suppose I should say I am a student of alchemy, and that may actually be the best description for myself. However, I am not sure that the stone is required to be an "alchemist," but more likely an alchemist with the stone should be termed a "master alchemist" or an "adept." I guess I'm going in circles though!

[WCH]

@phliosehea
Paracelsus, I would argue, was a man of science. He founded a discipline (toxicology) which is still taught in high academe; when I say that alchemists don't usually contradict medicine/science, I don't mean that they don't make contributions or come up with new ideas... simply that they're unlikely to claim things which are patently false and verifiably so, as do homeopaths, for instance.

Or, more precisely, there is nothing inherent to any definition of alchemy which puts it at odds with academic chemistry -- except that it's broader in scope, including things such as symbolism and art which are generally considered outside the normal operation of science. This is very different than CAM disciplines which often argue along the lines that science based medicine has "got it all wrong" and that their approach to health is a superior one. That's just not what alchemy is about. Then again, naturopaths, acupuncturists, etc all claim that their methods have been proven and would be supported by scientific inquiries were those done fairly... so maybe it's a false distinction.

Re: historical origins of sociology, it's certainly true that there are some ancient authors whose writings could be considered sociological. Plato I don't think is the best example of that... Ibn Khaldun would be better. Our contemporary discipline, however, was founded in 1890, and Karl Marx (dead 7 years prior) I would argue was its greatest influence. You could probably also make a strong argument for Comte rather than Marx, but in either case, it's a fairly "young" discipline. That society is worth analysis is not a new idea, but the institutions and methods we call sociology today simply don't go back any farther than Comte -- even though Khaldun and others wrote on similar topics much earlier.

[phliosehea]

You might be overlooking transmutation of base metals into gold. I believe that it is something that is very much at odds with science. Bear in mind we are not talking the particle accelerator variety of transmutations (as no alchemist would likely possess such a device). As far as modern chemistry is concerned chemical transmutation is an impossibility. Fulcanelli elucidates further when he quotes many notable scientists outright dismissal of transmutation.

I would like to hear your definition of alchemy, or I suppose the definitions you are finding that are not at odds with modern science. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the setting of the topic.

[WCH]

Well I might just be misunderstanding my own topic. I'm still researching... haven't even begun interviews yet. I'm sure anything I say now will change a lot before I write the paper in April.

It's important to realise though that alchemy today comes in a very particular social context. What's being done today is not the same as what was happening in the day of Paracelsus, just as what was happening then was different than what was being done in the day of Lully or anyone else for that matter. They all had their particular social context in which they operated, and it informed to a large extent both their methods and their results. As I've heard said on a number of occasions, "Alchemy has always used the best science available to it at the time." I think we had this discussion here a while ago, in fact... I quoted the Golden Tract which quotes another alchemist saying "He who has no elementary knowledge of nature is far from a proper appreciation of this Art." and another saying something similar... the point being that, at the time, they were always using the best science they could, and that was different at each stage, so while one was experimenting with alcohol to make tinctures, another earlier didn't have alcohol to experiment with, because it hadn't been distilled yet.

I think we lose sight of that a lot of the time. It's a strongly compelling archetype that each master figured out everything on his own, from almost no clues... like by focusing on the Emerald Tablet, you can become a great alchemist, and that's how Paracelsus, Lully, Valentine and Fulcanelli did it... not necessarily with the Tablet, but with something to that extent. The fact is, though, that they did learn alchemy from those around them... had there been scientific journals, you can bet they'd be subscribers.

The fall from that system via the Skepticism of modern Chemistry (as distinct from Alchemy, which preceded it) changed the dynamic a lot, so that now people following in the tradition aren't really sure which to do... like follow after the ancient alchemists who aren't around anymore to advise them personally, or to learn Modern Chemistry. A lot do both, and I think those have the most success... they potentially have advantages at their fingertips that the ancient alchemists simply didn't. And those help.

However, what I'm looking at today is not just physicists and chemists... who are, in a way, the intellectual descendants of Alchemists... but rather at the revival of the metaphysical concept of alchemy. The magical tradition of chemistry... or, more exactly, the tradition that chemistry is magical whenever you do it, and that "Chemists" just don't realise that. Some results of this include behaviour such as growing the plant yourself to invest it with your vital essence and then grinding it in a mortar and pestle and doing it at an astrologically significant hour, after praying or whatnot. Whereas a Chemist would see that as a waste of time and think using pre-ground herb is just as good, even if they're performing almost exactly the same procedure. And, I think, the sheer act of focusing that intently on it will make for better results, because you're more invested in it... you'll notice errors way sooner, for instance, make less mistakes and have a better idea of what to try next time if it doesn't work, because you saw where it went wrong. I'm not saying Chemists don't do it... just that when you accept the spiritual side of what you're doing, that becomes much easier.

So... that's what I think is out there, and that's what I'm looking for by researching alchemy. Could be that I'm just flat wrong... I don't know, I haven't done my interviews yet. But that's the idea that's in my mind... and it's there because I have this desire. I'm looking to see if there are others like me who think that chemistry is a sacred act, and, if there are, I want to prove that they are and discuss their role in society in a sociological paper that probably nobody will ever read except my prof and people I send it to... but maybe if it's good enough it could be my ticket into grad school to do another study, maybe along similar lines, maybe not. But for now it's my obsession... to see what I can find. If it happens that I'm wrong and alchemy as practiced today is completely different... well I'll write about that instead. I've got until April.

[phliosehea]

What's being done today is not the same as what was happening in the day of Paracelsus, just as what was happening then was different than what was being done in the day of Lully or anyone else for that matter.

...and it informed to a large extent both their methods and their results.

To be honest it is difficult to respond to this appropriately and in a way that would back my perspective. The way has definitely been shortened for true initiates and alchemists over time. Paracelsus is credited to some degree for this shortened process called the "ars brevis"...but I will avoid talking about it for now. Suffice to say it is more readily called the dry way, but bears little resemblance to the ridiculous processes many modern day "alchemist" place it under. Beyond this method- and perhaps one or two other abbreviations that happened some time ago... there is very little different concerning the true art. What a true initiate would practice now, is the same that Paracelsus, Geber, or the writers of the Old Testament would have practiced their first time performing the process. You seem very sure of your perspective on these men, alchemy, and the processes they followed (which is fine, because I readily admit that I too am sure of myself) but you should verify your stance with substantiating source material. There are plenty of people that are sure of themselves- that are no closer to the truth of alchemy then the day they began researching. I know your paper is important to you, but this art is far more important then any stance you are trying to convey using alchemy. Carl Jung is a prime example of the need for justification- he used alchemy and made it conform to his notions. Because of this, his ideas (in my mind) have set many people back without them being aware.

The fact is, though, that they did learn alchemy from those around them

If you mean other true alchemists then yes, they most likely did find truth and understanding in the writings of their contemporaries. But they waded through as much nonsense as a modern student does. And it is my opinion that after learning some of the theory behind the art, they would be less inclined to follow the science of the time...which to this day has not cracked the secret of the art. I believe for anyone reading- it would be best to separate ourselves from the notion that our "advanced" science and age has brought us anything comparable to the claims made by the true alchemists.
This is a simple art, not confounded or hindered by modern contraptions, chemicals, or sophistic notions. Why else would Flamel call it child's play or wifes work?

Paracelsus: Similarly, in the mountain commonly called Kuttenberg, they obtain a lixivium out of marcasites, in which iron is forthwith turned into Venus of a high grade, and more malleable than the other produced by Nature. These things, and more like them, are known to simple men rather than to sophists, namely, those which turn one appearance of a metal into another.

Apollogia Alchymiae: The mercury of the sages is apparently undifferentiated or undetermined, and is a simple, not a compound substance, from their point of view. The alleged universal diffusion of their mercury makes one at first think of water, as fluid or vapour. Eugenius Philalethes says : "For this thing is not water otherwise than to sight." Euphrates. Again : "They (the sages) mean not water of the well, nor dew. . ." Coelum Terrae. Neither can we imagine water to be in the solid metals. Eugenius in his remarkable Euphrates, writes : "Whosoever seeks the philosopher's mercury in metals, of what kind soever they be, is already out of the way. . .in metal, water there is none."

Albertus Magnus:The science I have learned without invention, I transmit to you without regret. Envy disrupts everything, an envious man cannot be just before God. All science, all knowledge comes from God; it is a simple way of speaking to indicate that it comes from the Holy Spirit. No one can say: Our Lord Jesus Christ without also understanding: Son of God the Father, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. In the same way, this science of truth cannot be separated from Him who communicated it to me.

Hollandus:Therefore, stay with the Great Art, or the great Elixir, as your forefathers did. When you have accomplished that, you may try other operations of Nature with greater confidence. But if you do otherwise, you are not following my advice. To begin with, take in hand the Great Work, because there is no worry in it. Nothing in it is distilled, dissolved, coagulated or purified.

However, what I'm looking at today is not just physicists and chemists... who are, in a way, the intellectual descendants of Alchemists

No true alchemist would agree with you on this one. Reread Fulcanelli who in fact will tell you that alchemy is in no way the father of chemistry. By his reckoning It is the spagyrists and archemists that are the forefathers of modern chemistry. He was quite clear when he said, that although they may have had common goals with the alchemists, they did not approach the matter in the same way, shape, or form. He goes on further to say that these men would have results far inferior to those of the true alchemists.

The magical tradition of chemistry... or, more exactly, the tradition that chemistry is magical whenever you do it, and that "Chemists" just don't realise that. Some results of this include behaviour such as growing the plant yourself to invest it with your vital essence and then grinding it in a mortar and pestle and doing it at an astrologically significant hour, after praying or whatnot.

I would ask that you and anyone reading this who agrees with this notion of imparting a vital essence into a thing at a specified astrologically significant hour to read deeper into alchemical writings, or find the relevant text that backs this notion (preferably from a non modern source). There is significance to timing, but where this notion of the stars, planets, or moon imparting some magical essence came from I do not know. Think with reason when approaching this subject that is buried in allegory and metaphor. Ask yourself- why is active sulphur found in the house of the ram...? But again, use reasoning...it is through the natural that the key to the supernatural is unlocked...not the other way around.

Chemistry is interesting, much has improved from it...but it is nothing sacred compared to alchemy, which is the science- and way to God.

[solomon levi]

I'm trying to think of what "academic" could relate to alchemy.
It seems alchemy by nature is non-academic.
But if I had to try to join the two, I'd have to go with quantum physics as the only
academic science that relates to alchemy. I don't know, is astrology academic?
If so, I'd include that too.

There is much we can do through spagyria, but true alchemy is a "sidereal distillation of the stars".
Can you learn cabala through the academic?
Some cabalists say you must learn of each of the three worlds (I know in modern cabala there are four).
The first to master is the elementary world.
Then the coelestial (astrology).
Then the divine (theology).

I don't think anything I've retained from academy has helped with alchemy, not that I can claim
to truly know anything of alchemy - I am a self-confessed spagyrist.
I know a bit of astrology and understand how the 12 radiations of the sun cause the months and different
alchemical operations as seen in nature. For example, at the beginning of the alchemical astrological year,
well - when the sun dies and is reborn, which is two saturn months together opposite the solar and lunar months.
Saturn is the only sign that has two consecutive months and this occurs in our winter and it is necessary for the
fixation of the solar and lunar emanations. Saturn is the opposite of the sun and moon in quality -
cold to the sun's/leo's hot, and dry to the lunar/cancer wetness.
This is what effects the fixing of their volatility at this time of year and thus winter, freezing, etc.

I don't know if I said that well enough to make sense. Maybe I'll try a seperate post on the zodiac.
But you wouldn't learn this is normal academic school.

[WCH]

My statement that today's chemists are the intellectual successors of the alchemists is based on a few things.

1) The term "chemistry" was not initially intended to distinguish from alchemy. They were, in fact, interchangeable for some time.
2) Some of the biggest figures in the history of academic chemistry (and also medicine) were undoubtedly alchemists. Paracelsus is perhaps the best example here... this is a man who supposedly created the Philosophic Gold, but also had a huge impact on the disciplines of chemistry and medicine, including the founding of toxicology. He was a man of science, and so were many other alchemists.
3) As I see it, one of the main goals of alchemy has always been to better and more fully understand the universe. It used to be that this was mainly up to sages and their disciples, but now it's been pretty much co-opted by the academic institutions. The scientists are the ones who're doing the kind of work today that the alchemists did before the academic institution was around.

Now, I have some issues with institutionalized academia. And I'm also not saying that what you or anybody else is doing isn't alchemical. But I think it's a mistake to think that alchemy was historically learned in a vacuum. One alchemist develops a technique, shows it to others, and from then on it gets used. They didn't just start from the Emerald Tablet and leave it at that.

As an example of a late 19th century chemistry technique which is "superior" to those available previously... soxhletating. It's pretty straightforward, you just set up a strained solution to reflux with the strained matter between the condenser and the flask with your solution. So, when the vapours condense they drip through the strained matter, back into the flask, meaning that you can run this for a couple hours and be sure that you've extracted absolutely everything that can be extracted. You can accomplish a similar thing by washing the matter in more solvent repeatedly, but that's imprecise and annoying because you end up having to use a lot more solvent than is necessary. The method I described is superior... and that's something that could be done with normal equipment, so it's possible that something similar was used and there just wasn't a name for it. Check out this piece of labwear, though:

That's some advantageous shit right there. And that's all I have to say on the subject for now.

[phliosehea]

I think you may be assuming you understand the fundamentals of alchemy as you would chemistry. As I see it you really cannot compare the two, if they were so closely tied we would be alot better off as a society what with the advances of chemistry. But as I said earlier, chemistry in any of its forms (be it in its infancy or the modern "marvels" we enjoy today) has yet to come close to the claims made by the alchemists. Is it because chemistry lacks a soul...I kinda doubt it. It is highly unlikely that Geber, Hermes, Cyliani, Paracelsus, or Fulcanelli would have need for such a contraption you showed to perform their works...I've been at this for a very long time, you cannot read these texts and pick what you want from them. If you buy into the notion that Roger Bacons chymistry is the same or in any way close to what the chemists of his time -or now would follow, then you have bought his bluff and dead end. Alchemy has a soul and a voice that screams for the right person- but says nothing for the wrong person. Let's all learn from Trevisan's half century of mistakes and avoid his errors- and we should also learn and understand by him the perseverance necessary to finish the work.

Tell you what, buy all of the lab equipment you deem necessary and attempt to follow some of the procedures laid out by anyone of your choosing. Or you can just cut to the chase and read the interview I posted of Rubellus Petrinus, who has some years, knowledge, and lab skills on you- yet he will readily admit he has never found the stone, or anything approaching the claims laid out by the alchemists...bear in mind he's been doing this in our time, and has been struggling for as long as Bernard Trevisan did. He is not the exception but the rule that many have been judged...a library card is better alchemical tool then anything you could potentially buy would be.

[WCH]

I'm not saying you can make the stone easily if you've got enough equipment, that'd be ridiculous. What the piece of equipment I showed there is for is just to ensure a complete extraction of... whatever. Using just an alembic, you can do a pretty good job of extracting a plant's oils (or whatever it is you're doing), but it'll be a lot longer and more complicated than if you have a device like that one. That's all it does, saves you a couple steps when doing an extraction. It certainly isn't going to help with any spiritual exercises... and my understanding is that, to produce the stone, you need to do both the physical and mental work. Fancy gear makes the physical a little easier but does nothing for the mental/psychic/spiritual.

At this point, I'm thinking I should probably take a step back and do some more reading. It's still pretty early on, and obviously this is a contentious subject... I've got some opinions with which you obviously disagree, and maybe I'll disagree with them too in time, they're just what seems reasonable to me right now. I'm certainly not closing my mind to other interpretations. Sorry if I've given you the wrong impression.

[BeautifulEvil]

WCH, I think your post before mine is really good. You sort of came to the same conclusion I did.

That's all it does, saves you a couple steps when doing an extraction.

This also shortens the time in which the human "energy" will have a chance to interact with the process, and also the end results of the process. It will always yield a product with hardly any real soul. I think the human interaction has a very real outcome on the effectiveness of the end product. Even though I say this, I believe if it were held up to a valid scientific analysis then this may not be the case. We would only encounter this in very rare circumstances, and this will also highly rely on the adeptship of the alchemist (or the would be alchemist). However, even though I say this, I am still slightly skeptical.

This is a good thread though! I'm enjoying reading each and everything that's being mentioned. There are very valid points being made by each side, and even though it may seem like an endless maze, there are three ultimate outcomes:

1. Both of you are right.
2. Both of you are wrong.
3. One of you is right, and the other is wrong.

This brings us back to the original issue: "What is Alchemy?"

To understand this is quite a chore. It is a closed book, and I believe you need a special library card to read it.

[phliosehea]

Yes...lets open up the Library of Spirit. It will exist everywhere and nowhere...just like our stone.

[deviadah]

Schools original purpose was to indoctrinate the young... and still does...

I never trust somone just because of a PhD!

[BeautifulEvil]

Schools original purpose was to indoctrinate the young... and still does...

Yes, they indoctrinate the young to follow the leader, but they do not actually teach the most important thing: to be one's own leader. Curiosity is also lacking in the young, and I blame this directly on the shortcomings of the modern education system. Without curiosity it's all worth nil, and apathy results - this is the dumbing down of an entire nation. Do they even realize this is happening? Was it planned to happen like this? I don't know, but I do know one thing: I have a grudge against the US educational system.

It's not about learning anymore. No, it's only about memorization. Most teachers are inept at their own art!

[deviadah]

It's not about learning anymore. No, it's only about memorization.

Yes, exactly. All these test they have in schools... it is all about memory. And the students study like crazy to remember everything for the test... but do they KNOW it?

I studied German for many years and I got good marks on my tests, but I still don't know German. It is because I only remembered the language long enough to pass the test...

What a scam!

[Jepetto]

I studied German for many years and I got good marks on my tests, but I still don't know German. It is because I only remembered the language long enough to pass the test...

I too studied German in high school for a year, and French for two years in middle school. For German, I can still count to ten and remember a small handfull of words. Same with French. Though from having cooked in kitchens, I have learned a lot more Spanish than any of the languages I was learning in school.

After high school, I had gone to school for music production and engineering. Never did turn a career out of it, but I still can entertain myself for hours on end creating patches for my synths and recording audio. It wasn't cheap, but I don't regret the decision either.

[kerkring]

I'm curious about what academic or other background people on this forum had before they got into alchemy (although I guess anything they got after already being involved in alchemy would be relevant too). Like, for instance, if we have anyone here who's done academic chemistry, medicine or whatnot.

Personally, all my training is in social science and harm reduction. The harm reduction stuff has provided me with a basic knowledge of drug chemistry, but it's far from extensive, and the sociology isn't really relevant to alchemy at all.

Master in Chemistry and master of pharmacy here.

[BeautifulEvil]

Master in Chemistry and master of pharmacy here.

Oh wow, I'm sure you cringe at some of the outlandish claims we make here!

[kerkring]

Master in Chemistry and master of pharmacy here.

Oh wow, I'm sure you cringe at some of the outlandish claims we make here!

When I first left school I did have the unhealthy scientific attitude to reject such things but then with the internet I came into contact with things of a spiritual and paranormal nature which made me change my mind. But I still want to test things out myself and see if I get practical results that matter though.

[BeautifulEvil]

When I first left school I did have the unhealthy scientific attitude to reject such things but then with the internet I came into contact with things of a spiritual and paranormal nature which made me change my mind. But I still want to test things out myself and see if I get practical results that matter though.

I like your perspective on this issue. Such a perspective is very healthy to possess.

An open mind is the first step. You've got that! So now comes the fun part - the actual work and experimentation - the verification.

[Sponsored content]