. The Secret Solvent

[Michael Sternbach]

Correction: first making an assumption BASED ON OBSERVED FACTS, not "out of the blue"!

Accepting a venerable theory as a working hypothesis is anything but "out of the blue"!

 

[JDP]

Accepting a venerable theory as a working hypothesis is anything but "out of the blue"!

Aristotle's theory that heavy (like a rock) and light (like a feather) objects fall at different speeds was also "venerable", yet it eventually proved to be quite mistaken. It takes more than "venerability" to give solid support to a theory. As for the "Prima Materia" theory... it's pure speculation. No one has seen, touched or smelled any such thing. At least Aristotle's mistaken theory of free-falling bodies appeared to be supported by actual observation (but he failed to take into account friction from the atmosphere slowing down the lighter objects. It was later proved that in a vacuum, all bodies in fact fall at the same speed.)

 

[Kiorionis]

Aristotle's theory that heavy (like a rock) and light (like a feather) objects fall at different speeds was also "venerable", yet it eventually proved to be quite mistaken.

Aristotle wasn’t mistaken at all. In a Natural environment, unadulterated by the manipulation of variables, the heavier object (rock) will always fall faster than the light one (feather). Also, this ‘theory’ of Aristotle’s, if I remember correctly, isn’t a theory at all. It was an example in support of his theory of natural motion, in which all bodies exhibit a certain quality and direction of motion based on their natural form in the natural world. Heavy objects tend to sink (rocks), light ones tend to float (smoke).

Thus, modern science hasn’t proven Aristotle wrong with the vacuum experiment, because Aristotle was talking about something completely different: natural motion in relation to the natural world. This all built into his philosophy of the Unmoved Mover. For science to prove Aristotle wrong, they’ll have to actually use their heads and form a counter argument against his theory of the Unmoved Mover.

You could say that science has made an assumption that they’re correct in regards to Aristotle’s theory.
But you’ll have to remember that Aristotle was a philosopher primarily. His works on physics were only to provide a foundation for his work on metaphysics.

Basically, it’s better to accept the reality of metaphysics in order to understand something like the ‘secret solvent’ than it is to disregard the reality of the Un-real.

 

[Esche]

Please, what is the true meaning of dew? Is common dew? or distilled dew? or inverted dew? or sharpen dew? Can I syntheticise dew? It dew works to solve the matters? Why vinegar not?

Yes, ok I'm been rude. But please tell us the meaning of spirit of wine.

Generaly, the attribution of the word "vinegar" when do not reffers to literaly vinegar (in strictu sensu), is followed by another words to give the correct mean of a substance. The last word, general is Mercury. See the in the Les Composé des Composé the chain-code to the preparation of the fisrt water (probable sulphuric acid prepared by sublimation of roman vitriol powdered with calcined salt and quicksilver).

In this case, we find the resource wich you do mention between "vinegar and acid", in the hyperbolic conotative figure to Mercury, the word acid isn't on the text which build an elyptic parallel figure to the probable real meaning of the substance, on the case a kind of composition of suphuric acid. (sulfuric acid is commonly obtained from the sublimation of roman vitriol). Note on the text context the description of all characteristics of reference to determine if is this or that, the employement of it (solution, liquefaction, reducing, transmutation etc.) and above what matter (agent/patient).

Whatever, be well fine to take a drink!

 

[Esche]

Just to point the "." on the i

The secret solvent: in alchemy the compound specified is named "Alkahest".

Alkahest: is a hypothetical universal solvent, having the power to dissolve every other substance, including gold. It was highly sought by alchemists for what they thought would be its invaluable medicinal qualities.

Aether: according to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether and also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.[2] The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists.[3]

The word αἰθήρ (aithēr) in Homeric Greek means "pure, fresh air" or "clear sky". In Greek mythology, it was thought to be the pure essence that the gods breathed, filling the space where they lived, analogous to the air breathed by mortals.[4] It is also personified as a deity, Aether, the son of Erebus and Nyx in traditional Greek mythology.[4][5] Aether is related to αἴθω "to incinerate",[6] and intransitive "to burn, to shine" (related is the name Aithiopes (Ethiopians; see Aethiopia), meaning "people with a burnt (black) visage").

Aether did not follow Aristotelian physics either. Aether was also incapable of motion of quality or motion of quantity. Aether was only capable of local motion. Aether naturally moved in circles, and had no contrary, or unnatural, motion.[11] Aristotle also noted that crystalline spheres made of aether held the celestial bodies. The idea of crystalline spheres and natural circular motion of aether led to Aristotle's explanation of the observed orbits of stars and planets in perfectly circular motion in crystalline aether.

Robert Fludd stated that the aether was of the character that it was "subtler than light". Fludd cites the 3rd-century view of Plotinus, concerning the aether as penetrative and non-material.

In The book of Quintessence, a 15th-century English translation of a continental text, quintessence was used as a medicine for many of man's illnesses. A process given for the creation of quintessence is distillation of alcohol seven times.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

 

[elixirmixer]

Aristotle wasn’t mistaken at all. In a Natural environment, unadulterated by the manipulation of variables, the heavier object (rock) will always fall faster than the light one (feather). Also, this ‘theory’ of Aristotle’s, if I remember correctly, isn’t a theory at all. It was an example in support of his theory of natural motion, in which all bodies exhibit a certain quality and direction of motion based on their natural form in the natural world. Heavy objects tend to sink (rocks), light ones tend to float (smoke).

Thus, modern science hasn’t proven Aristotle wrong with the vacuum experiment, because Aristotle was talking about something completely different: natural motion in relation to the natural world. This all built into his philosophy of the Unmoved Mover. For science to prove Aristotle wrong, they’ll have to actually use their heads and form a counter argument against his theory of the Unmoved Mover.

You could say that science has made an assumption that they’re correct in regards to Aristotle’s theory.
But you’ll have to remember that Aristotle was a philosopher primarily. His works on physics were only to provide a foundation for his work on metaphysics.

Basically, it’s better to accept the reality of metaphysics in order to understand something like the ‘secret solvent’ than it is to disregard the reality of the Un-real.

I love you bro

@ Esche: You've got what it takes mate. Unfortunately, you will not often hear a direct answer to such questions, unless your lucky.

But your certainly asking the right questions

Ps: im loving all the 'fresh meat' around. Go AF!

 

[JDP]

Aristotle wasn’t mistaken at all. In a Natural environment, unadulterated by the manipulation of variables, the heavier object (rock) will always fall faster than the light one (feather). Also, this ‘theory’ of Aristotle’s, if I remember correctly, isn’t a theory at all. It was an example in support of his theory of natural motion, in which all bodies exhibit a certain quality and direction of motion based on their natural form in the natural world. Heavy objects tend to sink (rocks), light ones tend to float (smoke).

Thus, modern science hasn’t proven Aristotle wrong with the vacuum experiment, because Aristotle was talking about something completely different: natural motion in relation to the natural world. This all built into his philosophy of the Unmoved Mover. For science to prove Aristotle wrong, they’ll have to actually use their heads and form a counter argument against his theory of the Unmoved Mover.

You could say that science has made an assumption that they’re correct in regards to Aristotle’s theory.
But you’ll have to remember that Aristotle was a philosopher primarily. His works on physics were only to provide a foundation for his work on metaphysics.

Basically, it’s better to accept the reality of metaphysics in order to understand something like the ‘secret solvent’ than it is to disregard the reality of the Un-real.

Aristotle was wrong on this. Gravity accelerates all free-falling objects the same, independent of their mass. The reason for his mistake is well known: he did not take into account the resistance offered by the medium (in this case, our atmosphere) in which the free-falling objects move, which more easily slows down the lighter objects than the heavier ones. If you remove that friction from the equation, you can see that gravity accelerates all objects the same.

 

[elixirmixer]

Yes JDP, Kiorionis acknowledges this point, that Aristotle was not taking into account the action of vacuum. He was simply writing about his observations of nature, in her natural state, (which includes air resistance as a factor)

A good debate though. Very thought provoking.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Yes JDP, Kiorionis acknowledges this point, that Aristotle was not taking into account the action of vacuum. He was simply writing about his observations of nature, in her natural state, (which includes air resistance as a factor)

I was going to say to JDP just that.

However, it's actually quite irrelevant to this discussion whether Aristotle's statement was correct or not. I was talking about using a venerable theory (such as the existence of prime matter) as a working hypothesis - then testing it. As opposed to ruling it out a priori just because it doesn't seem to fit into modern day scientific understanding.

A theory that once was reasonable enough can indeed turn out to be inadequate in light of new knowledge. However, as the pursuit of knowledge progresses further, sometimes it is reinstated at a later stage, albeit generally in a modified form.I

No scientific theory is final. Science is an open-ended endeavour, always in a state of flux.

To still believe in something can be naivity - whereas to believe it again can be wisdom!

So while not disregarding anything humanity has learned in modern times, seekers of alchemical wisdom would do well to look into the old teachings with an open mind - not just into the practice of the ancients but also into their theories. For there is gold to be found there.

 

[Andro]

No scientific theory is final. Science is an open-ended endeavor, always in a state of flux. [------------------------------------------] So while not disregarding anything humanity has learned in modern times, seekers of alchemical wisdom would do well to look into the old teachings with an open mind - not just into the practice of the ancients but also into their theories. For there is gold to be found there.

Hear Hear!

And on top of that, we can actually take those "ancient theories & practices" to the lab. But a closed mind also closes the lab doors (for such experiments ).

And we must also differentiate between "Science" and "Scientism"...

 

[elixirmixer]

Mr Schmuldvich; do we have any quotes on the go that define/describe the Secret Solvent in terms of its development from prima materia?

Just to help get us back on track

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

If the secret solvent is something that exists in everything then would it mean we can prepare it from anything or everything that exists around us? So long as done correctly to make it depending on the things used?

So it would depend, firstly which kingdom of living things do the components for it exist in? Organic (plants and animals), the Mineral or Metallic kingdoms?

Energy is one thing that is said to make up the fabric of existence. Thus we would need to find a solvent that embodies or is a manifestation of that we can touch, work with in pure form for example if it’s true in this case?

 

[Florius Frammel]

If the secret solvent is something that exists in everything then would it mean we can prepare it from anything or everything that exists around us? So long as done correctly to make it depending on the things used?

So it would depend, firstly which kingdom of living things do the components for it exist in? Organic (plants and animals), the Mineral or Metallic kingdoms?

Congratulations!
You just poked in the most heated debate on this forum!

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Congratulations!
You just poked in the most heated debate on this forum!

I try to be as objective as possible. So if I get anything wrong a correction would be helpful. Since somebody mentioned the idea that the solvent embodies something that all existence is made up of or as we know it.

I got the thought that it would have to be something which embodies the energy that makes up all things in existence (If it is energy since that’s one thing which exists in all things). If not energy then what are the other components that exist in all things, think?

Our goal is not to bash each other but to work on finding the solvent constructively.

 

[Florius Frammel]

Who said something about bashing?

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Who said something about bashing?

Oh was talking because it’s often what people have in mind that happens sometimes when things get heated but anyway. Onto what the solvent is made of and corresponding theory.

 

[JDP]

If the secret solvent is something that exists in everything then would it mean we can prepare it from anything or everything that exists around us? So long as done correctly to make it depending on the things used?

So it would depend, firstly which kingdom of living things do the components for it exist in? Organic (plants and animals), the Mineral or Metallic kingdoms?

Energy is one thing that is said to make up the fabric of existence. Thus we would need to find a solvent that embodies or is a manifestation of that we can touch, work with in pure form for example if it’s true in this case?

Think about it logically and without the hindrance of theoretical speculations and superstitious beliefs: does it sound reasonable to you that if the secret solvent was "everywhere", and could be prepared from just about anything, that there could also be such a massive rate of failure among seekers through the centuries??? These tireless "puffers" worked on virtually every damn substance at man's hand, and yet most of them kept on failing. Why, if supposedly it's "everywhere"? The fact is simply because it isn't! It is a specific substance and can only be made from a limited number of substances that will combine and react in the appropriate manner and proportions to generate it. That's the real reason why it has proved so difficult to discover, and not because some hypothetical bearded man in the sky was really watching over everyone's shoulders all the time and preventing "unworthy" people from succeeding without his "permission", as a very common fairy tale concocted by the alchemists themselves to try to impress the superstitious masses about the alleged "divine" nature of alchemy dictates.

 

[black]

some hypothetical bearded man in the sky was really watching over everyone's shoulders all the time and preventing "unworthy" people from succeeding without his "permission", as a very common fairy tale concocted by the alchemists themselves to try to impress the superstitious masses about the alleged "divine" nature of alchemy dictates.

Now I can see a funny side to this .... because just if this old bearded guy
is real and you have pissed him off .... then you may as well start a new hobby
stamp or coin collection because he is probably not going to let you enter the
Gates of Alchemy.

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Could the solvent be an allegory for ‘knowledge’ as some suggested or its most definitely something literal?

Think about it logically and without the hindrance of theoretical speculations and superstitious beliefs: does it sound reasonable to you that if the secret solvent was "everywhere", and could be prepared from just about anything, that there could also be such a massive rate of failure among seekers through the centuries??? These tireless "puffers" worked on virtually every damn substance at man's hand, and yet most of them kept on failing. Why, if supposedly it's "everywhere"? The fact is simply because it isn't! It is a specific substance and can only be made from a limited number of substances that will combine and react in the appropriate manner and proportions to generate it. That's the real reason why it has proved so difficult to discover, and not because some hypothetical bearded man in the sky was really watching over everyone's shoulders all the time and preventing "unworthy" people from succeeding without his "permission", as a very common fairy tale concocted by the alchemists themselves to try to impress the superstitious masses about the alleged "divine" nature of alchemy dictates.

Well I didn’t literally mean to say in anything, but I mean a component which resides in everything right. But cannot be extracted from everything necessarily with what we have.

Thus in theory I meant if it’s that case for example we would need specific substances that can be used to harness them and not only that but a way of using them to make the solvent within a framework our universal laws allow with current technology, along with the senses we have from our current stage in evolution (‘we are only human’) atleast.

We can ‘try’ if it is something that is a universal component but within the current framework of what ‘reality’ allows it won’t work unless somebody discovers a way to harness them from ‘just about anything’. This is what I am trying to say if you pick up on it.

If for example it’s energy then the Alkahest would be a compound or mixture that is allowed by the framework of reality to embody that ‘energy which makes up all existence’ in its purest form possible.

P.S was the solvent mentioned to be something used by Paracelsus? Which specific people have used it if so?

 

[Florius Frammel]

The most revealing book about the secret solvent is Weidenfeld's "four books" (just google search).

One can argue about Paracelsius. He sure had some interesting menstrua ("the Alkahest"), but it's not clear if that really was the secret solvent, as he himself somewhere said he doesn't know how to make the stone.

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

The most revealing book about the secret solvent is Weidenfeld's "four books" (just google search).

One can argue about Paracelsius. He sure had some interesting menstrua ("the Alkahest"), but it's not clear if that really was the secret solvent, as he himself somewhere said he doesn't know how to make the stone.

The stone is not my first goal but more something eventual, if we can have a substance that can operate a basic level alchemical functions like his one if it does then it might be enough for me so far at least.

But for Paracelsus’ Alkahest was it maybe one attempt and the point is to discover the Alkahest in its best form idk? Or are there other prerequisites for the philosopher’s stone to discover once the solvent is made?

 

[JDP]

Could the solvent be an allegory for ‘knowledge’ as some suggested or its most definitely something literal?

100% literal. All these "interpretations" (misinterpretations, actually) about alchemy being some weird and ill-defined "something else" than what it very clearly presents itself to be are from later centuries and by people with rocambolesque ideas about the subject (like the 19th century "spiritualists" and "occultists".)

Well I didn’t literally mean to say in anything, but I mean a component which resides in everything right. But cannot be extracted from everything necessarily with what we have.

Thus in theory I meant if it’s that case for example we would need specific substances that can be used to harness them and not only that but a way of using them to make the solvent within a framework our universal laws allow with current technology, along with the senses we have from our current stage in evolution (‘we are only human’) atleast.

We can ‘try’ if it is something that is a universal component but within the current framework of what ‘reality’ allows it won’t work unless somebody discovers a way to harness them from ‘just about anything’. This is what I am trying to say if you pick up on it.

If for example it’s energy then the Alkahest would be a compound or mixture that is allowed by the framework of reality to embody that ‘energy which makes up all existence’ in its purest form possible.

P.S was the solvent mentioned to be something used by Paracelsus? Which specific people have used it if so?

See my comments about the "alkahest" in the thread about it that you started.

 

[JDP]

Now I can see a funny side to this .... because just if this old bearded guy
is real and you have pissed him off .... then you may as well start a new hobby
stamp or coin collection because he is probably not going to let you enter the
Gates of Alchemy.

Sure, if "He" is actually real. But wouldn't "He" be so totally pathetic and worthy of contempt if "He" spent his time looking over people's shoulders to see who is getting dangerously close to discovering how to make the Stone, only to capriciously decide if this or that individual is "worthy" or not, and then keep putting obstacles in his/her way to keep him/her from succeeding? Doesn't this fellow have better things to do, you know, with the universe being INFINITE and all??? I would think that such a supposed being would have his hands full with much bigger and urgent problems. "He" needs to get his priorities straight!

 

[Seth-Ra]

Sure, if "He" is actually real. But wouldn't "He" be so totally pathetic and worthy of contempt if "He" spent his time looking over people's shoulders to see who is getting dangerously close to discovering how to make the Stone, only to capriciously decide if this or that individual is "worthy" or not, and then keep putting obstacles in his/her way to keep him/her from succeeding? Doesn't this fellow have better things to do, you know, with the universe being INFINITE and all??? I would think that such a supposed being would have his hands full with much bigger and urgent problems. "He" needs to get his priorities straight!

Assuming "He" is real, for the sake of discussion, what would make your finite contempt anything more than a joke to such a being? If such a being were there, and was purposefully setting traps and obstacles - perhaps it is to grow the seeker, rather than cruelly inhibit them with no other reason. Regardless, you (or anyone else's) supposed understanding of what makes a being like that tick, or suppositional notions of what "He" has better to do with the time, would be the epitome of arrogance. If the being is, as we comprehend the meaning, a god, or God - or even some higher dimensional being that possess extraordinary (to our perception) knowledge of the universe and how to bend and apply it and make such malleable to its whims and will, then who are you (or anyone else) to have a problem with it, or to think your reasoning is justified in critiquing/criticizing such?
Just as it is better to learn from a wiser peer or elder, so too should one learn from the traps and obstacles the Powers throw on us; whether we believe in them or not.

~Seth-Ra

 

[JDP]

Assuming "He" is real, for the sake of discussion, what would make your finite contempt anything more than a joke to such a being? If such a being were there, and was purposefully setting traps and obstacles - perhaps it is to grow the seeker, rather than cruelly inhibit them with no other reason. Regardless, you (or anyone else's) supposed understanding of what makes a being like that tick, or suppositional notions of what "He" has better to do with the time, would be the epitome of arrogance. If the being is, as we comprehend the meaning, a god, or God - or even some higher dimensional being that possess extraordinary (to our perception) knowledge of the universe and how to bend and apply it and make such malleable to its whims and will, then who are you (or anyone else) to have a problem with it, or to think your reasoning is justified in critiquing/criticizing such?
Just as it is better to learn from a wiser peer or elder, so too should one learn from the traps and obstacles the Powers throw on us; whether we believe in them or not.

~Seth-Ra

We were allegedly made in "His image", so yes, we can get a pretty good idea of what "He" should be like. Doesn't "He" have much better things to do than go around capriciously wasting people's time & money just because "He" thinks they are "unworthy" of such knowledge? Maybe "He" should worry about more pressing matters, like black holes gradually "swallowing up" the universe that "He Himself" allegedly created. With this big ol' universe being INFINITE and all, I think "He" would have bigger things to catch his attention.