Talk:Alchemy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

KV perceived bias and replies

What follows is KV's lengthy reply (unindented) to my question #1 above. I have inserted subsection breaks and intercalated my replies (indented). 143.106.24.25 02:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer #1

Head paragraph

"Alchemy is an early protoscientific and philosophical discipline combining the elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, and art."

This sentence fails to be even clear, it certainly fails to recognize that it's indeed TWO disciplines. The first time I read this I had no idea that there was anything to do with spiritual alchemy in this article at all.

[JS] As far as I can tell, the existence of two disciplines is strictly a modern interpretation; the alchemists themselves (and contemporary commentators) did not seem to be aware of that. It would be POV to say upfront that "there were two types of alchemy", as if it were an established fact, and assume this "fact" throughout the article. (Since this seems to be the main bone of contention, I won't address it again in the following item-by-item replies; we shoud discuss this separately.)

Anyway, I honestly thought that the spiritual side of alchemy was covered under "philosophical" and "mysticism". If the spiritual alchemists do not feel included in "pilosophical", we can add "religious" or "spiritual" after "pilosophical", and/or add "spiritualism" together with "mysticism". Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes of the alchemists

"and much of the 'knowledge' they produced was later found to be banal, limited, wrong, or just meaningless."

This sentence appears to be referring to much of the spiritual arts which of course would appear banal, limited, wrong, or just meaningless if taken at face value. Whether or not it does, it completely takes a specifically negative view on alchemy as a whole, which is something that articles are not supposed to do.

[JS] The sentence is quite factual. The alchemists themselves are always pointing out failures and frustrations, not only of their colleagues but of themselves. And why would alchemists be so much better than all other thinkers of antiquity, from medical doctors to astronomers?

The sentence also seems quite neutral w.r.t. physical/spiritual. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral? It's about as neutral as having a bit in the George W Bush article that says 'Bush is of limited intelligence and often gets his words mixed up, he's about as useful as a retarded baboon as president'. It's also not true, a lot of the things the alchemists did or tried to do (eg transmutation of metals) is used in modern chemistry. All modern science has mystical roots, from medicine to astrophysics, whether they'll acknowledge it or not. --Stevefarrell 10:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but had given up.

KV 17:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Present status

"Today, the discipline is of interest mainly to historians of science and philosophy, and for its mystic, esoteric, and artistic aspects. Nevertheless, alchemy was one of the main precursors of modern sciences, and we owe to the ancient alchemists the discovery of many substances and processes that are the mainstay of modern chemical and metallurgical industries."

This passage ignores spiritual alchemy altogether and doesn't discuss any of it's accomplishments, and it also fails to realize that occultists do have much interest in alchemy, for the spiritual reasons.

[JS] Again, I thought that "mystic and esoteric aspects" covered the spiritual ones too. If that is not the case, we can easily fix it. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why alchemists resorted to symbolism

"Given these conditions, the mystic character of alchemy is quite understandable: to the early alchemist, chemical transformations could only seem magical phenomena governed by incomprehensible laws, whose potential and limitations he or she had no way of knowing."

Here, we have the image that spiritual alchemy arose from the seeming magic of metallurgy, without allowing my view, to balance it out.

[JS] While it would be hard to give a specific proof or reference, I contend that the sentence above is still "factual" in the sense that it both follows from common sense and can be felt in all alchemical literature. That is the state of mind of pioneers in every single field of knowledge; I cannot see how it could have been otherwise, in alchemy or anything else. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Another explenation would be that some formulas where simply not explainable in words, so to make themselves clear to other alchemists, they used symbols.

Also not to be forgotten, saying aloud, or writing down certain claims where dangerous, especially in the Middle Ages. So the use of symbols can also be explained as practical.

Alchemy as a protoscience

The entire Alchemy as a protoscience section deals solely with physical alchemy, other than the one sentence there. Such a section shouldn't even mention spiritual alchemy other than to mention that it exists in opposition to what is in that section.

[JS] A section called "Alchemy as a protoscience" should obviously discuss alchemy as a protoscience. The next section, "The changing goals of alchemy" discusses the view of alchemy as a spiritual discipline. You may notice that it is a bit longer than the previous one. I may have edited that material for syntax and such, but I tried to keep all the information, as well as I could — even though, in my private opinion, that view would hardly be worth a paragraph. So much for my "bias".

However, perhaps we should change the section title to be "Alchemy as a spiritual discipline" for clarity. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was alchemy popular

"Alchemists enjoyed prestige and support through the centuries, though not for their pursuit of those unattainable goals, nor the mystic and philosophical speculation that dominates their literature." While this at least alludes to spiritual alchemy, and even suggests that it was more popular, the article completely fails to explain spiritual alchemy, something that I wanted to add in once I had the bias out of the introduction.

[JS] This paragraph tries to explain "why was alchemy popular", and I believe that it is factually correct. Is that in question? Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Separation of physical and spiritual

"On the other hand, alchemists never had the intellectual tools nor the motivation to separate the physical (chemical) aspects of their craft from the metaphysical interpretations."

This also fails to separate the two forms of alchemy.

[JS] See above. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of symbols: physical or spiritual?

"For one thing, the lack of common words for chemical concepts and processes, as well as the need for secrecy, led alchemists to borrow the terms and symbols of biblical and pagan mythology, astrology, kabbalah, and other mystic and esoteric fields; so that even the plainest chemical recipe ended up reading like an abstruse magic incantation."

Once again, we have my view completely ignored while it's opposite is stated without any reservation.

[JS] The opposite view would be that every occurrence of "Sun", "Moon", etc. in alchemic texts had a spiritual meaning, not a chemical one. Surely you don't mean that. You must have read books where the "key" Sun=gold etc is given out by the author. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

When did the spiritual side arise?

"Starting with the middle ages, alchemists increasingly came to view these metaphysical aspects as the true foundation of alchemy; and chemical substances, physical states, and material processes as mere metaphors for spiritual entities, states and transformations." The timeline is way off here.

[JS] This point certainly deserves to be discussed. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientists view is irrelevant?

"Some humanistic scholars now see these spiritual and metaphysical allegories as the truest and most valuable aspect of alchemy, and even claim that the development of chemistry out of alchemy was a "corruption" of the original Hermetic tradition. Most scientists, on the other hand, tend to take quite the opposite view: to them, the path from the material side of alchemy to modern chemistry was the "straight road" in the evolution of the discipline, while the metaphysically oriented brand of alchemy was a "wrong turn" that led to nowhere"

What most scientists believe about the nature of alchemy is completely irrelevant, it's what most scholars on the subject believe. If Dr. Frank Smith, neurobiologist who has never read more than a few lines on alchemy thinks a certain way about it, it doesn't matter, because he's not well educated in the field, and certainly not an expert. We need to find some evidence on those who are well-educated experts on the subject of alchemy..... of which occultists will tend one way, and science historians will have the other bias. If they truely differ as such, we should probably just state both of their biases and leave it at that.

[JS] Your definition of "well-educated expert" seems to be "one that agrees with my view". The opinion of chemists is 100% relevant, because they alone stand a chance of "decoding" the chemical recipes. On the contrary (as I said before) a scholar who sets out to study alchemy without a minimal knowledge of chemistry is certain to make a fool of himself. For instance, a chemist can make a good guess at what the "red oil of antimony" is, and therefore guess what the ingredients were, and so on. What can a Jung do with that, except egregious mistakes?

The little chemistry that I picked up in high school and college (and in my own "alchemical experiments" in my teens) already makes a big difference when reading alchemical books like Bacon's or Flamel's. In most cases I cannot tell exactly which substances are meant, but the little that I can understand does make sense — as plain chemistry! Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether scientists' or scholars' oppinions are more relevant as far as the value of the alchemical work is concerned is somewhat outside the scope of an entry in an encyclopedia. Valuations tend to be subjective. As far as the chemical content of alchemy is concerned, I prefer to listen to the chemists; when one on the other hand talks of its psychological significance, I would rather believe Carl Jung. The only discomfort that the paragraph causes me is the contrasting of "some humanist scholars" with "most scientists". "Some" here are unfairly numerically disadvantaged against the "most", since - as I can testify as a scientist - "most scientists" have only read about alchemy in an entry in an encyclopedia. That is, I agree that oppinion of many (though crucially not all) scientists is not relevant to the entry, since they do not know enough about alchemy. I am of the opinion that "spiritual" and "scientific" valuations of alchemy should be given an equal footing. Especially so since, as you (JS) have noted earler, the alchemists themselves did not appear to make a distinction between the two aspects of their work.

Alchemy and astrology

For this section, I'd like to add in some links between it and Hermetic philosophy, as both alchemy and astrology are two of the three "wisdoms of the sun" which Hermes gained the name Trismegistus for knowing.

From there in, I didnt' really see any bias, and though some of the information on spiritual alchemy is in this article....... it is practically unmentioned and certainly unclarified in the beginning, and so the reader isn't even prepared for it when it is brought up later in, the sections aren't even titled to suggest it's existence. It's that beginning part which needs to be fixed up.

Expanding on Hermeticism

I also want to add a section explaining alchemy from the Hermetic standpoint in so far as how it works, defining the different stages from coagulation to distillation, what mercury, sulphur, salt, gold, silver, and lead all mean, it's relationship to Hermeticism as a whole. Which, if you want to in turn add even more on physical alchemy, that's fine, just so long as the overview prepares the reader for both.

[JS] There is a separate article on Hermeticism. It is listed in the "see also" section, and in the "Egypt" section; but presumably we should link to it in the Overview too. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Physical, not scientific

And to clarify, it is not a spiritual view versus a scientific view, as the article already mentions, scientists as Carl Jung support the spiritual view.... it's a spiritual view versus a physical view. I have no problem with the physical view being shown, so long as it is clear, from the beginning, that there is a difference, and ideally, both should be displayed in an article like this on an even par; while alchemy is being described as a whole, the accomplishments of both branches needs to be discussed, a distinction must be made otherwise.

Point #2 - Church's persecution?

Now, for point #2, which should be much shorter:

"Your statements about the alchemists pretending to do chemistry for fear of the Church is still unsupported. Placing that claim in the head section as a fact is definitely POV."

Sure, it's POV, but it's not BiasedPOV, it helps the article become NPOV. It is not unsupported at all, but supported by history. The Church had killed people who differed from them only in that they didn't believe in fighting under any circumstances, those poor souls obviously were slaughtered without resistance. The crusades and inquisitions, the witchburnings and drownings, and throwing them off cliffs to see if they flew...... these all spoke fear into anyone who might be doing anything that the Church didnt' approve of. Nostradamus, is a good correlation which I mentioned. In occult circles, this is a basic fact. Perhaps the language had to be toned down, but that is all.

[JS] We can mention that theory, but its weight in the article should be commensurate to its plausibility. Just being accepted as a fact in (some?) occult circles is not much. I haven't seen any evidence that the Catholic Church had any general prejudice against alchemists; and anyway its power was no longer absolute after the Protestant revolution. Was Nostradamus, for instance, actually persecuted by the Church? Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Point #3 - Microcosm and macrocosm

point #3

"I wish I had time now to discuss where exctly the "microcosm and macrocosm" bit came from. Perhaps over the weekend. Perhaps you would like to research that meanwhile."

Sure, that's easy to explain. Microcosm refers to the self while the macrocosm refers to the All, the One, The Universe, God. "That which is above corresponds to that which is below. That which is below corresponds to that which is above." - The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus... or as it has been simplified "As above, so below. As below, so above."

[JS] The article cites a line from the tablet and says "This [line] is the macrocosm-microcosm belief central to the hermetic philosophy." The question I would like to discuss is precisely how one goes from one ot the other. Namely, whether it is OK to write "This line is", instead of "This line may be", or "Albertus Magnus guessed that this line may have been interpreted by Geber as being"... Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Point #4 - Chemists are not qualified to discuss alchemy

for point #4.... And no, it doesn't have to include all the materialistic scientists, they do not necessarily have any credentials...... why don't we also add in first year chemistry students... chances are that they're equally well read on the subject. In general, the science historians would as well be included, so long as they are experts on the subject of alchemy, which they may or may not be. The question is what those who are experts on alchemy believe, not what every group which may contain an expert believes.

[JS] See above. This is like saying that the opinion of medical doctors is irrelevant to the study of Islamic medicine, or that knowing geometry disqualifies one from understanding Greek mathematics.

Of course one cannot do a good analysis of alchemy without extensive historical training. Indeed, knowing Latin is a must, and it would help to know also Arabic, Greek, and a few Romance and Germanic languages. But knowledge of chemistry is essential. It is no wonder that there are so few scholars studying alchemical writings from the physical viewpoint. The other viewpoint is so much easier to climb to... Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the population, yes, it most people in the population, a vast majority, take alchemy literally. But when we get to scholars on the subject, I would have to disagree. I have named some experts, some sources, you haven't returned that favor to suggest that a majority supports your view. Before we can discuss that further, you have to build a similar case.

Point #5 - Bacon vs Jung

And the final point.... "Between a definition of alchemy written by Roger Bacon, and one written by Jung or McLean or any modern scholar, I would rather trust the guy who actually knows the subject."

Well, you can trust who you want, but you fail to realize that these modern scholars are also alchemists, and though I am not well-read on the coming out of alchemy, I would imagine that those who first brought this out were alchemists in the same tradition who didnt' feel the need to hide their art anymore, there was an age of reason rising, the intolerance of blind faith and blind passion was waning. Bacon had motivation to hide his work, Jung did not.

Now, I can relate this to a man on trial for a stabbing his wife. He has a motivation to not say that stabbed his wife and killed her, namely prison time (compare to alchemists not wanting to be killed, along with their families, and then having their work burnt). However, aside from his own testimony that he wasn't home (compare to alchemists pretending to do chemistry), the evidence ties him to being there (note that you haven't given evidence that physical alchemy is the purpose of alchemy outside of the ambiguous words of alchemists from the middle ages). He has a past (i.e. Hermes) of violent action. Do you claim he's innocent, because you cannot look at any of that, he's the only one who could know, and he never said that he did...... by God, he must be innocent, he said he was. He didn't commit a crime (i.e. blasphemy and practicing a pagan religious rite, or so viewed by the Church of the time).

PS, info on how to indent like you may be helpful.

[JS]Start each line with ":", "::', etc.. It is better to type each paragraph as a single unbroken line. Jorge Stolfi 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

KV 16:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is Above is Like What is Below

[JS] Now for the microcosm/macrocosm issue. As far as I know, the earliest known "alchemical" text is the so-called Emerald Tablet, and the earliest record of its existence is in two or three copies of Arabic books that were composed between 650 AD and 800 AD. [1]

In those books, the tablet is said to have been obtained by a certain "Balinas". One of the books reports (second-hand) Balinas's story: after my entrance into the chamber, where the talisman was set up, I came up to an old man sitting on a golden throne, who was holding an emerald table in one hand. And behold the following - in Syriac, the primordial language- was written thereon: ...

It seems a consensus of historians that the Emerald Tablet only became known in Europe through translations from Arabic sources -- perhaps those books above, or some others that have been lost. Anyway, it seems that from the tale above we can optimisticaly conclude the following:

1. The tablet that Balinas got was not an Egytian original, but a Syriac translation.
2. The Arabs got the tablet text centuries after "Egyptian alchemy" had ceased to exist .
3. The Arabic authors had no source about the meaning of the Tablet, other than the tablet itself.

(Pessimistically, of course, we would conclude that there never was an Emerald Tablet, and that the Arabic author just invented the whole story. But let's be optimistic, for the sake of argument.)

So the question is: how do we know that the line

That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above (version 1)

The above from the below, and the below from the above (version 2)

means the microcosm/macrocosm theory; namely, that the Egyptians used "above" to mean the cosmos, "below" to mean "the self"?

Just for the sake of argument, let me propose another "physical" interpretation, in modern chemical language:

The chemical elements in the distilled vapor are present in the original substance, and the elements in the condensate are present in the vapor.

Yes, this is basically saying that "transmutation is not possible". Now here is a "secret" that would be terribly useful for a practical alchemist. Indeed I bet that throughout the ages many alchemists eventually came to understand it or discovered it for themselves, although possibly in some fuzzy form; and probably without knowing that there were things like hydrogen and oxygen that fit into this picture, and made it better -- as they would find out in the 18th century.

Now, this principle is not as hard to discover as it may seem. They must surely have gleaned that much from the experiments that they were doing all the time, especially with their two favorite elements, mercury and sulfur. Sulfur can be driven off by heat from sulfides (like pyrites), and mercury from its amalgams. Once condensed, those elements could be combined again with the "faeces" left behind, and by and large the alchemists would get substances that resembled the original; if nothing else, because the S and Hg could be driven off again. And this trick could be repeated many times. But they must have learned that they could not get mercury from any random ore, or condense mercury vapor to anything other than mercury, or turn mercury into sulfur. And ditto for sulfur. That is, mercury could be disguised into many forms, but neither created nor destroyed (BTW, Bacon's line about mercury, quoted by Jung, bove, couldn't put this in clearer terms. He even hints that the conservation is quantitative, i.e. you cannot turn one pound of Hg into two pounds by distillation or any other chemistry.)

Ditto for the distillation of sulphates and chlorides (which Jabir & co already had mastered in the 9th century): after driving off H2SO4 from copper vitriol, you can combine it again with the oxide left behind, and you get back copper vitriol - never iron vitriol or gold or lead. Same for muriatic acid.

Indeed, the tablet of Hermes could be simply a sort of "data sheet" for mercury (the element, not the god -- let's ignore the coincidence 8-). Mercury does dissolve the "Sun" and the "Moon", and for that reason can be (and has always been) used to separate particles of those metals from the "gross" part of their ores. It penetrates even gold, the most refractory metal. And so on. It may sound strained, but think of what happens when you translate a text to another language without knowing its meaning...

OK, I would not bet a bottle of wine on this theory. But the point is that there are many other possible interpretations of that Tablet line besides the microcosm/macrocosm one. Now, I gather that the Tablet is basically the only evidence we have about the existence of a spiritual alchemy before the Arabs. Methinks that this "proof" is much less convincing that it is taken to be.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not simplifying this sentence onto any of its possible meanings, since it really applies at every level.

Trying to explain any part of Hermes tablet in pure-materialistic simplistic manner is just a reduction...

Yes, indeed it means micro and macro, but rather as the rule of mirroring lower levels from the higher ones... Or opposite...? Look into the water to see, what is the mirror of what...

It means inside and outside, spiritual and material, and more...

It also explains, why all parts of solar system spin (just because everything spins, at all levels, be it the galaxy, sun, planets, humans or atoms)... (Do you know, how a human spins? Most of you do it regularly while sleeping and waking and else...)

Every level mirrors the upper level with specific modifications. Consider the Platon's Idea world. This is also a description of this topic, in another words...

If you want to observe souls, watch wheat (or other) plants, since they are the soul's mirror in material plane.

But the mirroring goes in other direction also, since the macro level also mirrors its constitution at minor levels...? (I still think the overall mirroring direction is obvious, but the Emerald Tablet says, it is reciprocal, and the opposite direction can also be observed materially... It could be...)

There are 2 ends of infinity - one at the precission end, and one at the unity end.

and call the unity end of mirroring chains the God, or the Source Ideas if you understand that better. All other levels are only its mirrors.

The same rule on reading alchemical texts - meaning decryption - should be applied on reading Bible, which is less cryptic and much more multi-level...

In Bible, there is a first-sight level for beginners, which is the only one understood or criticised by materialists, but which had obsoletted nowadays mostly, seeming funny, simple, ancient, to some. But there are much more levels in Bible beside that, and those apply at all times of humanity... Indeed you could take another holy text also, there is not only Bible arround the world... Take that one, which could bring you more understanding (and hope you did not get the false one, since there are many arround and not all correct) but you must not regard the first-sight level, go deeper...

Alchemical texts involve soul conversion onto the gold. And really understanding Bible would help you understanding those texts and vice versa...

S.

The point is, how can one know that? Who discovered that the tablet was not to be read in "materialistic" terms? When and how? Who was the first to connect it to micro/macro, spiritual/material etc.? How did he conclude that? All the best, Jorge Stolfi 02:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can be read in the materialistic terms also... In any terms. Not who discovered... You could also... You need not.

Newton and astrology

This section was inserted into the article by an anonymous editor. It seems to belong to the Talk page. Jorge Stolfi 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As Isaac Newton was a well known alchemist of his time period, and astrology and alchemy were (so closely linked, it is very plausible that Newton had a very good working knowledge of astrology, or at the very least a basic understanding of astrological methodology as it was related to alchemy. Logically then, one would certainly have to know a good bit about astrology in order to use alchemy effectively, and Newton along with other prominent alchemists definitely knew this. For more informations see Isaac Newton's occult studies

Thank you for pointing me onto Sir Newton.

One could leave it there, I think the Sir Newton is well known and would not get problems for having a link from alchemy page, and indeed he was an alchemist also... This is a way for the seeker. There is more reading on that here and elsewhere, so it can be reconnected otherwise also, but some may seek it here. One could just think it need not be personalized, since it was already known to many, and was also found in books, not printed in your language. Their copyrights had surely expired in your terms...

Separating herm. alchemy page could be a good solution, but some things are better found when hidden... Need not be true exactly, but the own path to understanding is important, S...

One could just incorrectly marginalize, that Sir Newton was writing something else beside physics, but each time has its language...

Hermetic Alchemy Section

I've been busying myself with working on other articles related to Hermeticism for the most part, and I would just like to get this whole argument over with. As for my part, I am willing to stop worrying about what came first, the physical alchemy chicken or the spiritual alchemy egg, and I only want to do two things. One is make clear in the overview that there is a Hermetic art of alchemy which is spiritual in nature, nothing more needs to be said about that, a sentence will suffice. And two, I want to create a Hermetic Alchemy section which explains how these symbols are used metaphorically in spiritual, Hermetic alchemy. Are you willing to not immediately revert this?

KV 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the head section as a first draft that direction. Needless to say it up for edits; but in my view it should no be much longer than that, for reasons of fairness, balance, and writing style.

As for the Hermetic alchemy section, would you consider rewriting (and retitling) the "changing goals of alchemy" section? It was supposed to be about the spiritual side of alchemy, but of course I cannot do a good job at that. If you need more space than that, why not create a separate article on Hermetic Alchemy or spiritual alchemy? We are already past the recommended size.

Finally as for reverting: I cannot promise that I will let stand "facts" that I believe are incorrect, or are only unsupported interpretations that are not shared by mainstream scientists. But you have my promise that I will try hard to be reasonable, fair, open minded, etc.. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible New Article

Well, would it get by as a new article? Because I was under the impression that they'd slam it back in here anyways. If it's above the recommended size and all, I have no problem with doing but a brief reference in here and actually making a new article for it.

I'll chekc out the rest a bit later.

KV 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Early American alchemists?

This is an excellent, excellent article, but why no discussion of early American alchemists like George Starkey (though he moved to London)? Certainly alchemical ideas were influential to early Colonial scholars and religious leaders...?

Modern Alchemists

Should mention modern alchemy

The fact that the article doesn't mention that Alchemy was still practiced throughout the 20th Century, and is still practiced in the 21st century, is erroneous. Why no mention of well-known, contempory Alchemists such as Frater Albertus, Manfred Junious, A. Cockren, Isreal Regardie, Jean Dubius, Fullcanelli, and Dennis William Hauck, etc.?

There is a hook in this article to still-missing articles on spiritual alchemy (and/or Hermetic alchemy). The contemporary alchemists presumably would be discussed at length there. The section "changing goals of alchemy" (now retitled "Alchemy as a philosophical and spiritual discipline") mentions that.

The thing is, I speak of Modern Alchemists who continue to carry out Laboratory Alchemy, not just Spiritual and/or Philosophical Alchemy.

I am confused. If those modern alchemists are not interested in the spiritual and/or philosophical aspects, what are their goals? Jorge Stolfi 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Remember to sign your comments with "~~~~"

You misunderstood me, what I'm trieing to get across to you, is simply that the Alchemist's I've listed don't engage exclusively in philosophical and/or spiritual alchemy. But rather, in the physical practice of laboratory work. Keep in mind that Alchemy is a philosophical, spiritual, and practical art/science. --201.224.189.85 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This should be explained in the spiritual alchemy article. Jorge Stolfi 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As for their goals, they're the same as the goals of the Alchemist's of yore. --201.224.189.85 20:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• While the "alchemists of yore" called their work 'science', it does not have the same meaning as is used in modern times. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-2 20:54

• However, the goals of the ancient alchemists are apparently a topic of much dispute. It is definitely not a consensus that their goals were spiritual; see the long discussion above. Roger Bacon, for example, defined the goal of alchemy as being essentially that of modern chemistry. So one must assume that (1) alchemists like Bacon did not really mean what they wrote, and (2) we have now discovered what they really meant. Both assumptions seem quite unsupported to me. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is also not consensus that their goals werent' spiritual.

KV 18:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual and physical - Inseparable?

May I intrude , as both a scholar and practitioner of the Great Work, with a few points?

First: Your insistence upon the dichotomy of the 'Spiritual' and 'Physical' branches of Alchemy is awkward at best, though typical. If I were to edit the page on ecstatic Sufi dance by cuttingit in twain, seperately analysing Sufi beliefs and then the footwork, speed of revolution, and endorphin levels, would it serve to clarify anything? Or would such a bifurcation merely seperate the inseperable? Are there Sufis who just 'spin' and don't worship? Does a Buddhist prayer wheel 'do' anything if a robot spins it?

My oblique point: Any given alchemist will be a mixture of the two: The Chinese alchemists meditated upon internal states such as 'conception vessels', but they also worked with cinnabar, taking it to influence said states. Modern alchemists, such as Frater Albertus, who tought classes, write primarily about the chemical aspects, but also represent (and conceal) the 'spiritual side'. (See John Reid on Adam McClean's website under the practical alchemy archives, as well as Frater A's class notes)

This problem is , of course, as old as the false mind/body dichotomy; It is plain to even a fool that each acts upon the other in profound and essential ways. Second: You mention above "...alchemists like Bacon": there was only one alchemist like Bacon, namely, Bacon himself.

Third: Alchemy is an initiatory practice; all of the great alchemists had teachers. Chemistry was 'invented' by the experiments (both banal and painstakingly rigorous) of the UN-initiated. It is true, most of the alchemical oeuvre is the result of the flailings of putative alchemists: dilettantes, charlatans, and mere copyists, as you have mentioned. Of the many primary and secondary works i've read, very few have mentioned the difference of the esoteric and exoteric.

Riddle me this: Do Freemasons merely set about laying foundation after foundation, until they 'understand', and then write self-serving books about Pythagorean tetrakys theory? Do the Shaman of South America wander around in the jungle, sampling plants at random, 'til they become healers?

Fourth: The labours involved in the manipulations of physical substances, in this case for the production of the Stone, are meditative. I've spent many an hour observing distillations, circulations, projections and the like; the careful and attentive alchemist is also meditating while working. When I lie in the sun and sweat, while mulling over my knowledge of azeotropic distillation, am I merely 'performing' so-called "spiritual" alchemy? When I ponder the Melusine or the Anima while I distill some odd menstruum, am I just a "physical" alchemist?

Understand this: I make/raise these claims/questions not in a self-aggrandizing, 'more-alchemical-than-thou' sense, but more as a devil's advocate. When I say 'typical', or 'fool', I intend no pejorative intimations; i've no wish to start (or compound) a flame war.

My suggestions? That you take these obfuscations, hyperboles and suggestions, cum grano salis, and, if you wish, re-examine the wedge you've driven. The literature and practice of alchemy is a vast and multifarious subject, not easily summarized. Any good entry must admit at least this.

User:Doctorglasseye Early am. , March 5th, 2006 C.E.

  ----Aieeee! Sorry. I've much to learn about wikitext markup language. Bear with  me. Took me 8 tries to get this legible; steep learning curve on a new Argot. User:Doctorglasseye

Dear User:Doctorglasseye, I think do undertand the historical thesis of modern alchemists — namely that the ancient and medieval alchemists pursued alchemy for their spiritual value to the practitioner, as much as (or more than) for the purely chemical aspects. I also understand that the modern alchemists practice that discipline with that view and outlook.

If that historical thesis were correct, then I would agree that the comparison with Sufism and Freemasonry would indeed be appropriate. However, I still do not believe that the thesis is correct. In the limited sample of alchemical writings that I have seen, I can only see a preoccupation with chemistry (and that seems to be the view of most modern chemists). The so-called spiritual side seem to be clearly secondary.

Apart from being a convenient source of vocabulary for novel concepts (much as the Islamic alchemists used "oil" for sulphuric acid and "ghost" or "sweat" for alcohol), or a model for processes and classification schemas (e.g. "marriage" for chemical reactions), the the spiritual and cospmological speculation were attempts to fit the experimental data into a coherent theoretical schema (like Dalton's atomic theory, and the later chemical theories — chemical valence, orbitals, acid/base, oxidation/reduction, bond energy, the periodic table, and ultimately quantum mechanics). And, of course, many (or most) alchemists obviously believed that they would only achieve their chemical goals through spiritual improvement and/or supernatural help, whether "pagan" or Christian. That is, as far as I can tell, the spiritual side of alchemy was not the goal, but only one of the means to reach that goal.

Surely there were medieval alchemists who shared the modern alchemists' view (just as there were many charlatans who just pretended to share it, for expediency reasons). However, those "spiritual alchemists" seem to have been both a small minority and a relatively late development (say, 18th century or later, when chemical alchemy had already became too complex to leave space for amateurs). It seems a gross distortion of history to identify medieval alchemy with those 1%, and ignore the other 99% who were unambiguously interested chemistry. In fact, it is a terrible injustice to devote any space at all to people like Flamel and Kelley, whose contribution to mankind (scientific or spiritual) seems to have been null or negative, and not even mention the many alchemists who discovered the main chemical elements.

For an example of what I am driving at, consider that the original version of this article barely mentioned Islamic alchemy. I don't recall whether it named Geber, but it certainly did not give any idea of his role, and basically repeated the common view that the Islamic scholars were mere copysts whose only contribution was to safekeep the Greek writings while Europe was having a bad millennium. (By the way, even though I had chemistry classes up to my freshman year, and have been reading science books and magazines for the last 30 years, I had never heard o the guy either, until I had to lok it uf for Wikipedia. I was dimly aware of Western chauvinism, but never thought it could be so crass...) Now, given Geber's discoveries of the acids (which apparently were unknown to the Greek) and all his other contributions, he certainly deserves to be called the "father", not only of chemistry but of Western alchemy as well. Indeed, from what I have read, it seems that European alchemy was reborn only after the Arab books were translated into Latin; and from the 12th to the 16th century most of the "progress" made by European alchemists was to digest Geber's work. Moreover, I suspect that much of the "spiritual" side of Medieval alchemy was merely the result of mis-translations (which are inevitable when the translator does not understand the subject). So, I think it is unforgivable that the only info about Geber's contribution in this article is still the couple of paragraphs that I wrote a year ago, based only on net sources.

Well, sorry for so much verbosity. All the best, Jorge Stolfi 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)