Talk:Alchemy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alchemy article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Alchemy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Alchemy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2005.

Alchemy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.

	This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).			Egyptology Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 What's with the overview 2 Archived some sections 3 Unsympathetic debunking 4 Original source, references, copyright 5 Islamic alchemists 6 Alchemical tradition in India? 7 Mesompotamian alchemy 8 Removed Newton paragraph 9 Suggest 36 possible wiki links for Alchemy. 10 Information other than on the history? 11 Ionianism? 12 naturalistic bias in article 13 Etymology 14 Universal Solvent 15 Alchemy article is biased 16 Materialistic Bias 17 Evidence of Alchemy having Mystical Inention 18 Chemistry, not Alchemy 19 Alchemy and Chemistry 20 KV perceived bias and replies 20.1 Head paragraph 20.2 Mistakes of the alchemists 20.3 Present status 20.4 Why alchemists resorted to symbolism 20.5 Alchemy as a protoscience 20.6 Why was alchemy popular 20.7 Separation of physical and spiritual 20.8 Meaning of symbols: physical or spiritual? 20.9 When did the spiritual side arise? 20.10 Scientists view is irrelevant? 20.11 Alchemy and astrology 20.12 Expanding on Hermeticism 20.13 Physical, not scientific 20.14 Point #2 - Church's persecution? 20.15 Point #3 - Microcosm and macrocosm 20.16 Point #4 - Chemists are not qualified to discuss alchemy 20.17 Point #5 - Bacon vs Jung 21 What is Above is Like What is Below 22 Newton and astrology 23 Hermetic Alchemy Section 24 Possible New Article 25 Early American alchemists? 26 Modern Alchemists 26.1 Should mention modern alchemy 26.2 Spiritual and physical - Inseparable? 27 On the goals of Alchemy relevant to Bacon 28 Alchemy in Video Games/Anime 29 Greek or Greeks 30 Modern alchemy 31 Modern Alchemsitry - New section proposition 32 Article needs work 33 Alchemy in the Bahá'í Faith 34 Film and Television section 35 Missing the point?

[edit] What's with the overview

it sounds like two relatives tip toeing around the sensitive circumstances of a divorce. where's the informative meaty parts? 68.225.26.210 21:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archived some sections

This talk page was getting too long. I Moved some sections to Talk:Alchemy/Archive1. Jorge Stolfi 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   * 1 "Alchemy in music"
   * 2 "Universal panacea" a tautology?
   * 3 Eclecticology
   * 4 Reverted anonymous contribution
   * 5 Transmutation
   * 6 Essay?
   * 7 Slant towards mystic/spiritual side of alchemy
   * 8 al-Razi
   * 9 Text junkyard
   * 10 Dubious passages about Dee and Kelley
   * 11 universal panacea
   * 12 Citations
   * 13 Request for your aid dealing with actions ...
   * 14 Reference conversion
   * 15 Unsupported Claims in Introduction

[edit] Unsympathetic debunking

This article is an unsympathetic, debunking of alchemy from a strictly material, Newtonian perspective of science. Come on, as C.G. Jung observed, any fool can see that the alchemists were on the wrong track as regards scientific enquiry. All of their terminology is to do with exploring the unconscious psyche and the individuation process. What the alchemists groped around for was a language to describe the psyche, and all of their chemical terminology was just a smoke-screen to the uninitiated. We would not even be disputing this point were it not for Jung's study of alchemy, take for example the quotation below

'I have often beheld as a miracle, that artificial resurrection and revivification of Mercury, how being mortified into a thousand shapes, it assumes again its own and returns into its numerical self'. A perfection quotation upon how the alchemist perceived the mystery of experimenting with chemicals. (Religio Medici Part 1:48)

An example of the alchemist experiencing the NUMINOUS in the laboratory rather than any attempting any scientific observation. Try reading the labrinthine texts of Norton, George Ripley or Browne and you will realise that these people were little interested in the laboratory for purely scientific purposes. Alchemy remains inter-related to the development not only of science, but also religion, art and philosophy, this article is deciodedly lop-sided in its discussion a a complex subject. Alchemy is much more a proto-psychology and an underground protestant symbolic language whose study was MAN as Jung stresses again and again and again. Read him . The laboratory of the alchemists was the unconscious and was concerned with self-knowledge and understanding of the self, chemistry was just an off-shoot. The true alchemists recognised THEY were the subject of experimentation much more than nature's properties. Read my essay at www.levity.com/alchemy/sir_thomas_browne.http Sorry but for myself and doubtless for other scholars of alchemythis article really smacks of poorly digested comprehension and as for the statement

'By Boyle's time, alchemists had disposed of most of the occultist beliefs that once plagued?? the Art, but still they clung to the hermetical beliefs?? that had been carried down through the millennia. Boyle did away with this.

This article as the above statement amply demonstrates demands either a rewriting or a more authorative scholar to expound upon what is amulti-facted topic embracing NOT ONLY embryonic scientific development but also psychology and religion . The Norwikian

While I do agree that we in the modern age are tooquick to dismiss once-truths, I find it amusing that you imply Newton would have dismissed achemy, considering he was a closet alchemist himself.

Haha yes, you're right, despite Newton being heralded as the founder of modern science by many, he was in fact fascinated with alchemy. However as of 02 June 05 the article does reflect that. All in all this article does appear excellent - I'm currently studying alchemy as part of a History of Science course at Cambridge, and have found little to disagree with.

Take a look at Frances Yates' books on the subject and you will find just how influential Alchemy has actually been on the influence of science. Click on the Ernest Rutherford article on the Wikipedia and you will find our old friend Hermes Trismegistus, supposed author of the Emerald Tablet which began alchemy, on his coat of arms. In fact you can't divide the fact that Newton was an Alchemist from his science. THey are integral. Its we who have misunderstood is brand of mechanistic science. ThePeg 22:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original source, references, copyright

This was a university research paper I wrote at USC and contributed to Wikipedia early on. The original is at http://www.neptune.net/~bryce/alchemy.txt . --BryceHarrington

Alchemists are more properly proto-scientists than pseudo-scientists; the latter term can't really be applied to a time before the development of the scientific method. I've removed a reference to something that Carl Jung supposedly missed. From my understanding of Jung this does not seem likely. I've removed the "golden goal" reference; that specific term does not appear to have been used by alchemists, and now its very common use in football becomes a significant distraction.

The references to various authors are in the format (Name, page) leaves something to be desired. Are these direct quotes? Are there copyright issues involved? (Nobody has raised this issue in the last six months so it's probably okay for now.) The Paracelsus quote should fall within fair use, but the page is from what edition? Burckhardt appears to be Titus Burckhardt (b. 1908) Eclecticology 13:23 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)

No, exactly quoted material is in quotation marks or indented. All fall under fair use, and in fact most are from translations of documents hundreds of years old. The paranthetical references indicate from whence the concepts, ideas, or assertions are taken, thus allowing the reader to verify their correctness or to gain further information along those lines. I left the attribution list off the original submission since at the time Wikipedia wasn't tracking that, and the list added length to an already long document. In any case, if folks think the info's worth having, the references are below. --BryceHarrington

Augustine, The Confessions of St. Augustine, trans by Rex Warner (1963)

Burckhardt, Titus, Alchemy, (1974)

Debus, Allen G. and Multhauf, Robert P., Alchemy and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (1966)

Edwardes, Michael, The Dark Side of History (1977)

Gettings, Fred, Encyclopedia of the Occult (1986)

Hitchcock, Ethan Allen, Remarks Upon Alchemy and the Alchemists, (1857)

Hollister, C. Warren, Medieval Europe: A Short History Sixth Edition (1990)

Lindsay, Jack, The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt (1970)

Marius, On the Elements trans. by Richard Dales (1976)

Norton, Thomas, Ordinal of Alchemy ed. by John Reidy (1975)

Pilkington, Roger, Robert Boyle: Father of Chemistry (1959)

Weaver, Jefferson Hane, The World of Physics (1987) includes:

• Aristotle, "Natural Science and its Principles"
• Bacon, Roger, "On Experimental Science"
• Paracelsus, Book of Vexations

Wilson, Colin, The Occult: A History (1971)

Zumdahl, Steven S., Chemistry 2nd ed. (1989)

Thanks, You alleviated my concerns on the copyright issue. Actually a modern translation of an ancient work could have its own separate copyrights, but that would be covered by fair use anyway. Following this subject (i.e. alchemy) is like walking along a mountain ridge where you can easily go over the edge on either side. I've clarified the source of the Paracelsus quote in the text. Eclecticology 11:12 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

IANAL; Just remember that by having our text under the GNU FDL we have to follow a less liberal definition of fair use even though we otherwise technically fall under the umbrella of "educational, not-for-profit purpose". The GNU FDL lets anybody copy our material and then sell it. Thus we have to follow a more conservative policy in regards to fair use which prevents the copying of entire works or substantial parts of works. With that said the stuff here seems to be OK in this regard. --mav

Yup. I was particularly careful when I wrote the original article about these issues (it was my term paper and I'd put too much time into the research to risk getting it knocked down for that! *grin*) --BryceHarrington

Oh, and by the way, I notice the original acknowledgement of authorship (as required by the [[Wikipedia::Copyrights|GFDL]]) appears to have gotten removed, and the history log no longer shows that I was the originator of the article. Perhaps if I put the attribution notice back on, it'd also help clarify copyright concerns as well?

[edit] Islamic alchemists

Also, there were many more Islamic alchemists (hermetic or not) besides al-Razi and ibn-Jabir. Perhaps there should be a list of them somewhere? Jorge Stolfi

[edit] Alchemical tradition in India?

Did India have a separate alchemical tradition? I Know that it had an extensive and well-known medical tradition, e.g. Aryuvedic medicine; but did it have a discipline that considered the study of matter transformations in general (i.e. a "proto-chemistry") and/or the philosophical connections betwen matter transmutation and spiritual development (akin to Western hermeticism)?Jorge Stolfi

Yes. You should particularly look at the Tamil form of "medicine" known as "Siddha", instead of Aryuveda. It is a quack alchemical pseudo-science based on minerals which is aimed at healing. This article has a western systemic bias, and should include quackery from all over the world. Carl Kenner 07:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mesompotamian alchemy

Also, I recall seeing mention of mesopotamian tablets with alchemical contents. Is there enough such material to make a "Mesompotamian alchemy" worth speaking of? If so, was Mesopotamian alchemy derived from or ancestral to Egyptian alchemy? Jorge Stolfi 02:04, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Newton paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the Astrology section:

As Isaac Newton was (indisputably) a well known alchemist of his time period, and astrology and alchemy were (and in some cases still are) 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. Did Newton Really practice the occult? This seems to go against what he openly believed. It's pretty much of a non-sequitor. I added the link to Newton's Occult Studies article to the part of the Overview section where Newton is discussed. PRIIS 22:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good call, although that Occult Studies article needs some work. Whilst Newton spent a lot of time working on alchemy he mostly kept his work private - I don't think it is correct to say he was a well known alchemist in his day. It is only recently that his papers have been studied. Although he is known to have read books on astrology, he almost certainly did no work on astrology. Newton was very organised in his research and maintained notebooks for everything he worked on. His library contains no papers suggesting that he worked on astrology. -- Solipsist 00:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest 36 possible wiki links for Alchemy.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alchemy article:

• Can link base metals: ... the most perfect of substances. By attempting to transmute base metals into gold, they were, in effect, trying to give the univers... (link to section)
• Can link materialism: ...within a new grand design of the universe based on rational materialism. ... (link to section)
• Can link Western religions: ...ical system, with only superficial connections to the major Western religions. It is still an open question whether these two strands sh... (link to section)
• Can link solar system: ...dge]]. Traditionally, each of the seven [[planet]]s in the solar system as known to the ancients was associated with, held dominion... (link to section)
• Can link Arab world: ...ina, the use of gunpowder spread to Japan, the Mongols, the Arab world and Europe. Gunpowder was used by the Mongols against the H... (link to section)
• Can link ancient Egyptian: ...dge, and retained its preeminence even after the decline of ancient Egyptian culture, through most of the Greek and Roman periods. Unfor... (link to section)
• Can link neo-Platonic: ...that sin is merely a consequence of ignorance. Platonic and neo-Platonic theories about universals and the omnipotence of God were a... (link to section)
• Can link the fall of the Roman Empire: ...ristian philosopher who wrote of his beliefs shortly before the fall of the Roman Empire. In essence, he felt that [[reason]] and [[faith]] could be... (link to section)
• Can link experimental techniques: ...eas were decidedly anti-experimental, yet when Aristotelian experimental techniques were made available to the West they were not shunned. Sti... (link to section)
• Can link the Middle East: ... Roman Empire, the focus of alchemical development moved to the Middle East. Much more is known about [[Islamic]] alchemy because it wa... (link to section)
• Can link Islamic world: ... preserved as Islamic translations. (Burckhardt p. 46) The Islamic world was a melting pot for alchemy. [[Plato|Platonic]] and [[Ari... (link to section)
• Can link Christian philosophy: ... Greek and Roman cultures, alchemy was easily accepted into Christian philosophy, and Medieval European alchemists extensively absorbed Isla... (link to section)
• Can link Islamic science: ...Pope Silvester II]], (d. 1003) was among the first to bring Islamic science to Europe from [[Spain]]. Later men such as [[Adelard of B... (link to section)
• Can link rationalism: ...[1109]]) was an Augustinian who believed faith must precede rationalism, as Augustine and most theologians prior to Anselm had beli... (link to section)
• Can link Medieval Europe: ...y]]. (Hollister p. 290-4, 355) The first true alchemist in Medieval Europe was [[Roger Bacon]]. His work did as much for alchemy as [... (link to section)
• Can link Christian theology: ...in the world of God. Immortality on Earth did not mesh with Christian theology. (Edwards p. 37-8)... (link to section)
• Can link fourteenth century: ...man could be reunited with God. (Burckhardt p. 149) In the fourteenth century, these views underwent a major change. [[William of Ockham]... (link to section)
• Can link sixteenth century: ...tute. One of these men who emerged at the beginning of the sixteenth century was named [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]]. This alchemist be... (link to section)
• Can link magic theory: ...luding experimental science, numerology, etc., but he added magic theory, which reinforced the idea of alchemy as an occultist belie... (link to section)
• Can link sleight of hand: ...ishing of [[con artist]]s who would use chemical tricks and sleight of hand to "demonstrate" the transmutation of common metals into go... (link to section)
• Can link medical doctor: ...1636]]), a [[Poland|Polish]] alchemist, [[philosopher]] and medical doctor, pioneer of chemistry. He assumed that air contains [[oxyge... (link to section)
• Can link blood circulation: ...gradually uncovered the workings of the human body, such as blood circulation ([[William Harvey|Harvey]], [[1616]]), and eventually trace... (link to section)
• Can link organic chemistry: ...Funk|Funk]], et al.). Supported by parallel developments in organic chemistry, the new science easily displaced alchemy from its medical ... (link to section)
• Can link material world: ... to an arcane philosophical system, poorly connected to the material world, it suffered the common fate of other [[esoteric]] discipli... (link to section)
• Can link intellectualism: ...ld be interpreted as part of a broader reaction in European intellectualism against the [[Romantic]] movement of the preceding century.... (link to section)
• Can link Rex Warner: ...eferences== * Augustine (1963). ''The Confessions.'' Trans. Rex Warner. New York: Mentor Books.... (link to section)
• Can link Ethan Allen: ...''Encyclopedia of the Occult.'' London: Rider. * Hitchcock, Ethan Allen (1857). ''Remarks Upon Alchemy and the Alchemists.'' Bosto... (link to section)
• Can link McGraw-Hill: ...edieval Europe: A Short History.'' 6th ed. Blacklick, Ohio: McGraw-Hill College.... (link to section)
• Can link University of California: ...1976). ''On the Elements.'' Trans. Richard Dales. Berkeley: University of California Press.... (link to section)
• Can link English Renaissance: ... Heath and Co. ==See also== *[[The Alchemist (play)]], an English Renaissance play by [[Ben Johnson]]... (link to section)

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A human editor has (conservatively) removed 6 of the bot's suggestions as inappropriate, listing them also at Please don't link to.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 16:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Information other than on the history?

I feel like something is missing from this article. We focus on history, but what about techniques, accomplishments of alchemists, etc.? I don't know, seems like we could add more outside the realm of "History," otherwise this could be called History of alchemy. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ionianism?

The Greeks appropriated the hermetical beliefs of the Egyptians and melded with them the philosophies of Pythagoreanism, ionianism, and gnosticism.

What is "ionianism"? I can't seem to find anything about it. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] naturalistic bias in article

I made a few changes in the overview section to better reflect that, while modern science has its opinions on Alchemy, those opinions are not necessarily the only authoritative ones. When viewed from behind the lens of methodological naturalism, which modern science uses for its first premise, Alchemy seems a bit absurd and superstitious. But did the Alchemists themselves use this background assumption? What would it do to our notions of the validity of Alchemy if we no longer held onto methodological naturalism so rigidly?

I notice you put a "disputed" tag on the article. Are there specific statements in the article as it stands now that you find to be factually inaccurate? PRiis 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits as Alchemists were just like modern scientists, trying to understand the world around them. The big difference is that they knew less than we do now. The changes you made removed relevant explainations as to why Alchemy may have seemed to be valid in the past. --Bletch 16:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bletch, you're simply wrong. Have you studied the philosophy of science? You will note that scientists before the 17th century did not adopt the naturalistic bias for a background assumption. Apart from that difference, their methods of observation and experimentation were the same as modern science. For instance, this sentence from your reverted version is spurious: "They were attempting to explore and investigate nature before many of the most basic scientific tools and practices were available, relying instead on rules of thumb, traditions, basic observations, and mysticism to fill in the gaps."

It will need to be backed up with documentation from primary sources.

As I said above, the entire article is skewed with the modern naturalistic bias. You haven't offered any substantive rebuttal to my points, Bletch, and I find your decision to revert to the prior edits to be wholly arbitrary. - 68.233.91.13

Yes I have studied the philosophy of science, and know about the advent of scientific method. That is precisely why your edits were reverted, because they removed explainations as to why alchemists did things that look silly to modern eyes. However, the intention was not to make them look 'silly', any more than articles about earlier obsolete models such as Geocentricity is supposed to make their adherents look silly. If you think that this is a concern, please propose a wording that does not delete relevant information. --Bletch 14:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this is one side of the story, true enough. But Bletch, anon does have a point, "The big difference is that they knew less than we do now." is very far off the mark, concerning Alchemy; they were exploring realms outside the scope of the scientific method, too. dab (ᛏ) 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with the anon too, and thought the edits were reasonable--it's critical in a subject like this that the article discuss what the alchemists themselves thought they were doing, in their own intellectual context (as well as ours). Most of statements the anon removed were historically naive. What I was most concerned about, though, was the "disputed" tag, which normally means there are specific statements in the article that are factually inaccurate, not that there is a missing information. Is there anything in there now (apart from the recent revert) that is wrong enough that we should turn away a student writing a paper on alchemy? And if so, what is it specifically, so we can get it changed? PRiis 17:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PRiis, please read the sentence I quoted above. I contend that this sentence from the article is spurious, and as you say, "historically naive." Alchemists used strict observation and experimentation techniques, and this is the primary reason that chemistry and physics branched off from Alchemy. To say that they were somehow handicapped is simply wrong. There methodological assumption was different, that is all. The article has several such historically naive, spurious claims. If they aren't going to be backed up by research from primary sources, they will have to be deleted.

Further, this sentence fails to come clean about the naturalistic assumptions behind it: "From today's perspective, their endeavours and beliefs have limited validity, but if we are to be objective we should judge them in the context of their times." Today's perspective is one couched in methodological naturalism, where modern science is concerned. It is important to understand the epistemological basis behind making any sort of "validity" claim. This quoted statement fails to do so.

Note that the Royal Society was heavily involved with Alchemy at the time of its inception. I changed "precursor" to "progenitor" because Chemistry would simply not exist if it were not for the efforts and experiments of the Alchemists. - 68.233.91.13

I have created a user account under the name Modulus.

Hi, Modulus. Yes, I agree with the changes you already made (that got reverted), but I was wondering if there was anything beyond that. Bletch, would you mind if we undid your reversion? The problem with the deleted statements, as I see it, is that they're projecting the modern scientific viewpoint backwards in an ahistorical way. Alchemists weren't trying to answer the kinds of questions that, say, Mendeleev or Dalton were concerned with. PRiis 05:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be some explanation as to why otherwise intelligent people would embrace ideas like the four classical elements, associations between the planets and materials and so forth. These are things that modern people who might take the idea scientific method and Occam's razor for granted may find baffling. I'm certainly open to the possibility that the text in question does not do a perfect job of explaining that, but simply deleting it outright (IMHO) is not a solution. --Bletch 15:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I removed the following:

The meaning can also be black soil rather than black in which case it may refer to Khem or nigredo.

There is no word Khem in ancient Egyptian that means "black" (that word is km(t)), nor is there a deity named Khem. Nefertum17 11:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a request for sources, etc. I will be happy to offer them here.

First of all, there is no word "khem" (properly ḫm) in ancient Egyptian that has a thing to do with "alchemy" or "black" or "Egypt" (as a country). The following words are known:

• ḫm: warm, dry
• ḫmw: dusty
• ḫm: to know not, to be ignorant of, to be unconscious of, etc.
• ḫm: ignorant man
• ḫm: shrine
• ḫm: sacred image
• ḫmt: cow
• ḫm: demolish; harm; exclude

Source: *Faulkner, Raymond Oliver. 1962. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: The Griffith Institute. 190–191.

(I am happy to provide citations from other dictionaries of ancient Egyptian as well, if requested.)

None of this has to do with to with "black" or "alchemy" in any way. Therefore the ancient Egyptian word "khem" (ḫm) can immediately be excluded from the picture.

Secondly, there have been various attempts to connect Arabic al-kīmiyaˀ with ancient Egyptian km, meaning "black" or km.t meaning "the black land" (i.e., Egypt). Yes, Egyptian km does mean "black" (as well as its derivatives, such as km.t ("black land"), km ("black bull"), km.t ("black cow"), km ("black leather"), km.t ("black stone vase"), etc.). If Arabic al-kīmiyaˀ and ancient Egyptian km(t) are to be connected, there must be a demostrable etymology, not just some vague claim that alchemy has to do with the "black" or "Egyptian" arts and the two words happen to have a /k/ and a /m/ in common.

Most Arabic words of ancient Egyptian origin come from one of two sources: ancient Greek and Coptic. (A small minority come from ancient Egyptian words recorded in the Bible and taken into Hebrew, though Arabic might have borrowed them from Syriac or Aramaic.) Therefore if Arabic al-kīmiyaˀ came from ancient Egyptian km(t), it had to have been taken indirectly from either Greek or Coptic. Greek did not borrow Egyptian km(t), so that is a non-starter. If this hypothesis is correct, Arabic then must have borrowed km(t) indirectly from Coptic (which of course does record kēme, from Demotic kmỉ, from Egyptian kmt). The problem with this is that a perfectly good Greek word khumeia (χυμεία) ("cast together", "pour together", "weld", "alloy", etc.) exists and it predates Coptic. Add the Arabic definite article al- to khumeia and you have the word alchemy.

Given that Arabic borrowed a great number of technical terms from Greek (as did Latin and other languages), this is not at all surprising. It also makes perfect sense from both a historical (text based) perspective and avoids vague notions of "black" arts, "black" lands and other claims that have more to do with folk etymologies than anything else. In my opinion, anyone wishing to connect the word "alchemy" to ancient Egyptian km(t) needs to find a demonstrable link between them via Coptic and not Greek. This has, as far as I know, yet to be offered. —Nefertum17 20:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universal Solvent

What? No discussion of this?

[edit] Alchemy article is biased

This article focuses almost completely on physical alchemy, while alchemy was never meant to be taken in this literal way. The concept of turning lead into gold is a metaphorical thing for the real alchemist who had to hide what he was doing for fear of persecution. Real alchemy is a spiritual process.

Now, I'm currently studying the subject, and I need to know if I should add a section on spiritual alchemy or just add an entire new article on the subject. One way or another the introduction will have to be changed.

Please reply here.

If the article has a bias, it is in favor of spiritual alchemy. I admit that I am no specialist in the field, and my conclusions come from a relatively small sample of writings by alchemists and about alchemy. Still, it seems quite clear to me that the vast majority of the alchemists, and the vast majority of their writings, were clearly about "chemical" alchemy --- in spite of the "spiritual"-sounding language of may of them.
The current version of the article makes it seem that the spiritual view was at least as important as the chemical one; to me it seems that the former has always been a minority view among the alchemists themselves, and probably even within the modern philosophical and spiritual communities.
Ufortunately, it very hard, perhaps impossible to tell what a certain alchemist meant by names like "toad", "dragon", "moon tree", etc.. We cannot even tell whether those words meant the same things to his fellow across the street. It is very risky, to say the least, to assume that those words were something more than labels for chemical concepts; especially if one is not familiar with the chemistry of the substances that the author was likely to have at his disposal. After all, today's "wine spirits" has nothing to do with spiritualism or with Bacchus and Satyrs, and hardly anything to do with "wine".
Indeed, trying to study alchemy without studying chemistry first may be like trying to read a linear algebra textbook without knowing algebra. One may end up assuming that it talks about "transformations" of one's spiritual "matrix" mediated by "space" aliens from another "dimension", who travel on "vectors" to bring us the "Great Determinant" . (Please, this is not meant to poke fun at all metaphysical analyses, but only to point out the very real danger of "flying off the handle" when one jumps into them without first excluding the chemical interpretations.)
Also, trying to understand the works of an alchemist by reading the "explanation" provided by another author, even by a mainstream historian of science, may be as productive as trying to learn the Egyptian hieroglyphs by reading Athanasius Kircher's great book on the subject.
So, please, let's be fair to the great "chemical" guys like Geber. Let's not try to make them look like "misguided simpletons" who did not understand what alchemy was really about; nor put them below people like Flamel or Kelley, who -- in spite of all their fame and nice prose -- have so far contributed very little to humankind, spiritually or otherwise.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Sure, physical alchemists outnumber the spiritual alchemists, let me quote a passage from Alchemy: The Art of Knowing, "When Geoffrey Chaucer was writing his Canterbury Tales in the late fourteenth century, alchemy was known by most people primarily in its guise of the transmutation of base metals into gold. The other forms of alchemy - as medical science and as a means of spiritual transformation - were obviously less appealing to the popular imagination." Now, this guise existed for a reason, if you're doing something spiritual in medieval Europe, that isn't Christian....... hell, sometimes they killed the Christians for not being quite right anyways, burned their work, etc. Being a Hermetic art, it was veiled in the guise of trying to do physical alchemy so that no one would catch on. The philosopher's stone, turning lead into gold, none of this was originally taken literally, but of course when people discover some of this work, and it is a guise, it is of course effective in misleading the ignorant about the art. So the ignorant (mind you I'm noting that they don't know the truth, not that they're stupid) start trying this with a fervor.

Now, the article is very derogatory towards alchemy, suggesting that they were all fools, and it is known primarily, from this article, as a protoscience. In reading the beginning few sections of this article, at least, the only reference to the original alchemy is the word "philosophical" which had I not known about spiritual alchemy, I sure wouldn't have seen as referring to it. Well, we had that, and this degrading and untruthful statement: "Alchemists were basically "proto-scientists" who attempted to explore and investigate the nature of chemical substances and processes before the basic scientific tools and practices were available. They had to rely on unsystematic experimentation, traditional know-how, rules of thumb, — and plenty of speculative thought to fill in the wide gaps in existing knowledge. Thus, the lapse into mysticism was unavoidable: to the early alchemist, chemical transformations could only seem magical phenomena governed by incomprehensible laws"

Now, the mysticism was what was originally there, the original intention, and when you see such writings you can be pretty sure that the alchemist isn't just speaking nonsense, they're talking about spiritual alchemy, not physical alchemy. Generally, such people are part of some secret society or another..... Newton being supposedly a Hermetic probably had some alchemical writing that would seem incomprehensible to have come from the father of Newtonian physics.

"The common perception of alchemists is that they were pseudo-scientists, crackpots and charlatans" This right here is not balanced by any counterstatement anywhere nearby, and in effect gives off the impression that the common perception is CORRECT. Now, that's just not right. Sure, physical alchemy was impossible, but saying that the spiritual alchemists were crackpots is mere anti-Hermetic bias, and should one of these articles have such bias against say Christians, there'd be uproar. What if it was said that all popes were crackpots and charlatans?

Then we have "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." Now, that completely ignores spiritual alchemy and suggests that all alchemists were professors of both spiritual and physical alchemy, while in general, professors of one don't profess the other. This passage also serves to make the reader look down upon the implied idiocy of the alchemist.

You feel that this is balanced?

Sorry, where is the evidence that "mysticism was ... the original intention" of the alchemists? Why did almost all of them, over the last 3000 years, spend long nights baby-sitting their smelly and toxic furnaces, instead of trying to find their spiritual enlightenment by studying more agreeable and promising subjects --- say, stars, plants, gemstones, kabbala, etc.? Why did they go to the trouble and expense of procuring those exotic chemicals?
Sorry, but to me it is quite obvious that most practicisng alchemists (including Newton) looked into misticism hoping to find the key to chemistry, not the other way around; and the "purely spiritual" alchemists were a minority movement, at best; best-selling authors, perhaps; but not representative of the "mainstream" alchemists.
Again, putting the mystic view before the materialistic one is doing a big injustice to the truly great alchemists like Geber, Al-Razi, Scheele, Priestley, etc., up to Dalton and Lavoisier. At least, their discoveries have been tremendously useful to others people, alchemists and not. Can you say the same of any "spiritual" alchemists? Have their hermetic books helped anyone, spiritualy or otherwise?
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 19:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just in case the last edit wasn't seen by the moderators

I'll just post here, so they do see it, right above, and respond

[edit] Materialistic Bias

Honestly, whether you believe that physical Alchemy is possible or not, it doesn't take an intellectual to sight the bias of this article. I think the author should be more objective about the possibility of Physical Alchemical processes, whether or not the Modern Scientific community supports Alchemy's claims or rather, does not. It should be left up to the reader, when it comes to the vadility of Alchemical claims and legends, mystical or otherwise.

One Reply: The article as a whole does mesh all alchemy together and does just attack it, as I've been complaining about, without getting a reply...... which means I'll have to go and completely alter it. Between me and you we should be able to make something positive happen with this article.

If by "physical alchemy" you mean transmutation, well... Suppose that there was a group of medieval "al-stronauts" who believed that the Moon was only a couple hundred feet away, and therefore spent lots of money and effort trying to build tower that would reach that far. Suppose, futhermore, that some of them claimed to have reached the Moon that way, by using a very clever tower design and a "secret" mortar recipe. However, they did not disclose the details and did not provide any tangible proof of that feat. How should those claims be reported?
Basic honesty requires that we warn the reader that those claims cannot possibly be true; and that would be a strictly "objective" assessment. Same thing with "physical alchemy".
All the best,Jorge Stolfi 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Please remember to sign your replies with "~~~~"

[edit] Evidence of Alchemy having Mystical Inention

I haven't been able to find all of my books on the subject yet, but let me put a little bit out for right now before I head to work.

In Alchemy: the Art of Knowing, we have "The most common view is that it originated in Egypt, and certainly some of the earliest recorded history of the Divine Art, as it was also known, comes from that country. According to ancient tradition, the originator of alchemy was Hermes Trismegistus, who is said to have lived some 2500 years before Christ, and who takes the role of teacher in a series of written dialogues of uncertain and mysterious origin."

Hermes' teachings are of course the inspiration for Hermeticism, and as I have been claiming, Alchemy is a Hermetic art.

The book goes on a few pages later: "To penetrate the many veils of secrecy and symbolism surrounding the practice of alchemy in medieval times would take a lifetime of study, and even then, the investigator would probably be not much nearer to the truth of what was happening in alchemical laboratories.... In addition it was common practice among alchemists to weave together legend, factual history, and alchemical secrets and to publish these allegorical tales as a way of passing on their knowledge to other adepts and initiates.."

The reason for this secrecy is simple.... you have a non-Christian art in the middle of Catholic Europe, during the high reign of the Church, the same one that killed people for such heresies as Arianism which believed that Jesus was inferior to the Father. Sabellianism argued that the trinity was three aspects of the same being. Heretics suffered, of course, the wrath of the Inquisition. Practicing spiritual alchemy, a non-christian art some would relate to magic, in the open would undoubtedly result in your death and the destruction of your work. So as Nostradamus veiled his work in riddles and non-chronological order, the spiritual alchemists veiled theirs. Of course, the moment that someone who was not initiated into the art read about it, they misunderstood it and focused on doing the physical rather than the spiritual transformation.

In Francis Mellville's The Book of Alchemy we see "Until recently, science historians have tended to consider alchemy as a forerunner of modern chemistry, and alchemists the deluded practitioners of an illusory pseudoscience who nevertheless managed to establish some useful scientific facts in the course of their experiments. But what of all the princes, saints, popes, and queens who have practiced this art? To say nothing of such eminent scientists as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, and Jan Van Helmont."

I do remember reading that Newton was a Hermetic as well, though more of a Hermetic-influenced Christian. This passage from a 2002 book shows that the stance of this article is a recently outdated majority opinion of science historians..... it's not seen as that anymore. As for what it is seen as:

"The anonomous author of the influential Sophic Hydrolith ('Waterstone of the Wise', 1619) tells us that '..the practice of this Art enables us to understand not merely the marvels of Nature, but the nature of God Himself. It shadows forth, in a wonderfal manner...all the articles of the Christian faith, and the reason why man must ass through much tribulation and anguish, and fall prey to death, before he can rise again to a new life.'"

I think that describes spiritual achemy pretty much there. The book goes on to ambiguously describe the art, explaining nothing more than halfway, as if to continue the secrecy.

A much clearer explanation is given in Manly Palmer Hall's The Hermetic Marriage: "Concealed beneath chemistry -- the science of relating chemicals and elements---these minds discovered the ancient Egyptian arcana, long hidden by the crafty priests of Ra and Ammon. Alchemy thereupon became the chemistry of the soul, for under the material symbol of chemistry was concealed the mystery of 'The Coming Forthy by Day.' These ancient wise men taught that the world was a great laboratory man learned how to combine the living chemicals of thought, action, and desire, and by learning the ways of Nature, became the master of Nature. He became a God by actually becoming a man."

Here the much acclaimed Hall explains that alchemy's true meaning is behind the symbolism of sulphur and mercury, lead and gold and silver. It is not meant to be chemistry, that's all metaphors. And as I am running out of time before work right now, I'll stop here until I have more time, and then I'll add more evidence and even explain the symbolism somewhat. I hope the formatting took.

KV 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that all those statements (including Jung's quotation further up) are modern interpretations, not facts. In particular, the passage that explains the alchemist's hermetic writing as attempts to hide their speculation from the Church is just a common modern cliché. Even at the most opressive times and places, the Church's censors and inquisitors would tolerate much more far-fetched metaphysical speculation, if it was nothing more than that. Their eyes were all set on people who (like Giordano Bruno or Galileo) actually threatened the Church's internal discipline, prestige, and political influence. So much so that Nostradamus, for example, did publish his predictions -- even though future-telling was unambiguously condemned by the Church.
On the whole, alchemy was not perceived to be heretical, and in fact it was practiced by many priests and devoted Catholics.
One should also be wary of making blanket statements about an activity that spanned from the 13th to the 18th century, from Portugal to Russia. Surely there were plenty of times and places where the alchemists could have been more open about their hidden spiritual knowledge -- if they in fact had something to hide.
Moreover, if one accepts that alchemists wrote about chemistry at least some of the time, one should not trust any book about alchemy whose author is not competent in chemistry -- Jung included. Obviously, a scholar who is not "chemically literate" will not be able to tell whether a phrase like that quoted by Jung is about the soul or about mercury the element.
Finally, one should note that Newton, Lavoisier, Dalton, Priestley, & co. were alchemists, too! The change in name from "alchemy" to "chemistry" is a mere detail, it does not mean a replacement of one disciplne by another. In other words, it is not the case that Chemistry pushed Alchemy out of the widow, rather Alchemy just kept advancing until it finally got answers to many of the questions it had been asking over the centuries. Trying to pass that for a "minor trend" or a "corruption" of alchemy would be a highly biased and inaccurate presentation of the facts.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry, not Alchemy

While you are mostly correct, Mr. Stolfi, you are wrong to state that Chemistry is a continuation of Alchemy. Infact, the late Alchemists despised Chemists, and thought of them as "puffers" and merely manipulators of nature, who knew not of her true secrets. And in their mind, the gap between an Adept and a Chemist grew ever larger.

But that is the opinion of some alchemists; the others had the opposite opinion. So the proper way to put it is that by the start of the 19th century there were two branches of alchemy, one that focused on the philosophical aspects and one that focused on the material aspects; and the latter eventually became modern chemistry. Each branch aparently thinks of itself as being true to the goals of the earlier alchemists. Well, this article should not take sides; we should present both views, and report the advances made by both branches. Perhaps the article is lacking on the hermetic side; but it is highly incomplete on the material side, too. There is very little information on the many chemical discoveries of the alchemists (and most of what there is was added by myself). That ain't fair...
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 15:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy and Chemistry

What you both are failing to see is that there's a reason that certain alchemists scoffed at chemistry, there were two different forms of alchemy, the spiritual alchemy that came from Egypt and the physical alchemy that played as a precursor to chemistry.

Now, what I am arguing about in the first place is not that we need to neglect the physical alchemy, but merely make it clear that there were two types being practiced at the same time. I want to rewrite the parts that attack alchemy as nothing more than a pseudoscience that only an idiot would agree with, and make them neutral rather than insulting the entire art. I would like to add an explanation of the spiritual alchemy. The last time I started down this path someone took it upon themselves to simply undo everything I did, not encorporating a single part of my edit, though I didn't even then touch the original text and only added some opposing view to the whole alchemy is a crock of **** views. Surely there is room for the view that alchemy was also originally a spiritual art which seeks not to make Pb from Au, but rather turn the alchemist from being metaphorically lead, base and dull, to becoming gold, brilliant and at a higher state. We don't have to remove anything about physical alchemy to do this, we just need people to not immediately delete any and every change I make to keep the first third of this article bashing alchemy at every turn.

So, at least between you and me, it seems that we have some sort of an agreement. I have no problem with more physical alchemy being added, so long as alchemy isn't reduced to mere physical alchemy, which it goes on to attack. There are two branches, and both need to be covered in full if this is to be a proper article. I suppose it's finally safe to start making some changes. KV 18:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've editted now, the introduction to make it what I believe is neutral. I clarified that there are two different types of alchemy, and I don't believe that either one was put down. Though I did suggest that physical alchemy sprang up from spiritual alchemy, I explained it thoroughly, and physical alchemists do not come across as fools or other negative qualities. If you disagree, please try to edit what I have added, not outright destroy it.

I also realize now that I have to do a lot of work on the page for Hermeticism yet.KV 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page for two reasons, one technical and one fundamental:

1. The format of the new (KV) version does not follow the Wikipedia guidelines.
2. The new (KV) version makes a number of claims that, to my knowledge, are unfundamented conjectures.
   1. First, I see no evidence that there were two types of alchemy before the 19th century. If you know of a source *from that period* who explicitly made that distinction, please name it. For all I know, the split is fairly recent, and the philosophical branch was and still is a minority.
   2. Second, as I said above, the theory that the spiritual alchemists pretended to do physical alchemy in order to escape the Church's inquisition does not stand up. It seems to be just an *interpretation* that is not based on evidence.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Please note also that alchemy was a real historical phenomenon. We are not discussing a videogame or a legend, the alchemists were real people. Our task is to describe what alchemy really *was*, not what we would like it to be (or to have been). Jorge Stolfi 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

PPS. I also object strongly to your claim that my version "attack alchemy as nothing more than a pseudoscience". It does nothing of the sort. The first parag calls it "protoscientific and philosphical", which covers both views and is not demeaning to either. The second parag points out some unquestionable failings and praises it for some unquesionable contributions. If there are other items to add to these two lists, let's hear them.
Jorge Stolfi 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unaware of how it didn't match Wikipedia format guidelines, so please explain there. As for for calling it a protoscientific and philosophical discipline..... that may technically cover both, but it is completely unclear....... especially since chemistry can be seen as a philosophy, astronomy can be seen as a philosophy....... highly evidenced or not....... for their belief that electrons and protons and positrons and anti-protons make up everything...... and then that there are all these laws on the macroscopic scale, etc, they are philosophies. It claims that most of what they have come up with is banal, wrong, or meaningless.... something which has a clear bias that there was nothing spiritual.

Now, there's a clear reason why there aren't writings that are clear and open about the true meaning of alchemy pouring out of that period..... if there were, it would probably be a book that would only be circulated amongst some secretive group like the Masons or have died with the Rosicrucians. Occult orders would cover it..... and even if I had access to those books (which I don't) I wouldn't be able to share them as sources.

What we do have is the testimony of those who have been in such orders, such as Manly P. Hall, Aleister Crowley, etc, explain that this was the symbolism used, the symbolism I was going to start adding a section on today makes perfect sense but would be near impossible to decipher prior to finding out what that symbolism is.

Now where do I give any notion that I think that alchemy is from some sort of fairytale world? Because I claimed it was a spiritual practice of self-improvement that directly links to psychology? I have already given several sources that suggest this, and if none of the others are, Manly P. Hall's work is highly credible, having worked extensively in occult circles for his entire life. There was a historian I was watching on the History Channel the other day who explained that his theory that Lincoln was sympathetic to the slaves because he saw the same happening to himself with his father is not generally accepted because he did not specifically write it, and the drawing of correlations and establishing that it is the most probable truth isn't enough for most in his field...... because he didnt' write it out specifically. You're falling in to that same trap... Just because there hasn't been found and publicly released some document that says that alchemy is the attempt to change oneself interally, though it may have been existed and if found was probably burnt, you claim that it cannot be, although all the evidence suggests that it was originally so, even though I have named 2 or 3 sources which specifically say that it is now the prevailing view!

Instead of including the conflicting view and perhaps editting to make it seem less assured...... you decided to get rid of it altogether, that's outright bias. I specifically asked that you don't destroy what I did, but rather edit it to make it compliant with your side, and we could go back and forth and eventually perfect it...... but instead you just deleted it, and it's really getting on my nerves that I've tried to edit this twice without any impact at all.

KV 15:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we try for formal mediation on this issue

KV 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for secrecy are often stated by the alchemists themselves: mostly the obvious reason (to protect "trade secrets"), but sometimes to prevent powerful knowledge from falling into the wrong hands. I haven't seen much preoccupation with the Church.

The medieval alchemists themselves often accuse each other of being charlatans, incompetent, ignorant, etc., and tell of themseleves and others wasting years trying to find a way to turn base metals into gold.

BTW, you can find many texts online here. A random quote:

Roger Bacon, The Mirror of Alchimy: In many ancient Books there are found many definitions of this Art, the intentions whereof we must consider in this Chapter. For Hermes said of this Science: Alchemy is a Corporal Science simply composed of one and by one, naturally conjoining things more precious, by knowledge and effect, and converting them by a natural commixtion into a better kind. A certain other said: Alchemy is a Science, teaching how to transform any kind of metal into another: and that by a proper medicine, as it appeared by many Philosophers' Books. Alchemy therefore is a science teaching how to make and compound a certain medicine, which is called Elixir, the which when it is cast upon metals or imperfect bodies, does fully perfect them in the very projection.

The bulk of the alchemical literature since the Islamic times is clearly concerned with chemistry, and declares itself explicitly so. I still see no evidence for the alternative view, namely that all those elaborately described chemical procedures were just a cover for spiritual investigations; nor that such a cover was needed. Sorry, but NPOV does not extend to giving equal space to theories that have no supporting evidence, especially when there is a simpler and perfectly satisfactory theory with tons of evidence for it.

As for destroying other people's work: I can assure you that I put much more work into the text that you destroyed than you put into yours...

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 08:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And so you read Bacon's book like the uninitiated, reading it literally, if it itself doesn't result from him reading it literally. However, I am familiar with levity.com that you so link, and we have this on the front page for alchemy: "On this web site you will be able to explore the riches of alchemical texts, some of which are wonderful works of allegorical literature, delve into its amazing, beautiful and enigmatic symbolism and ponder its underlying hermetic philosophy, which holds a picture of the interconnection of the Macrocosm and Microcosm." I would stress the "delve into its amazing, beautiful and enigmatic symbolism" part.

We also have an advertisement for the guy who made levity.com's work: "Adam McLean's study courses on alchemical symbolism

Foundation course
Alchemical sequences
Ripley Scroll
Trinosophia
Early English Alchemy
Metamorphoses of the planets
How to read alchemical texts
"

I have given you plenty of evidence, with plenty more being on it's way, showing that symbolism. As for NPOV: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is 'absolute and non-negotiable'."

There is no neutral view here, my view is completely kept out though I have shown you 4 books SO FAR which support my claims, I'm not a lone nut here, there is a significant scholar opinion (which my books claim has recently become predominant, where yours is the minority view) to justify my view being brought up and countering your view.

And of course, the NPOV policy goes on: "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

My view is a significant point of view, and maybe my language had to be watered down some, but that was all. Not only your view (which isn't even the popular view anymore) should be displayed on this matter. You cannot simply reduce spiritual alchemy into a recent diversion of alchemists in the 16th and 17th centuries when there are so many authorities disagreeing strongly.

"Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others." That's one clear way in which you are biased. Whereas this serves as a religious, spiritual process for some of us, you basically are telling us that we are crackpots and loons, that there is no evidence that we have any justification for our beliefs and practices.

Then, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; "

Well I can name a commonly accepted reference, such as levity.com which you surely seem to accept, who specifically said that it was symbolism. As for prominent adherents, I already named Manly P. Hall, and it wouldn't take too much of a search to find other prominent adherents which I could prove.

Then I see something that is much maligned in this article:

"How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

"If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false."

This article calls much of their knowledge (which it mockingly quotates) "limited, banal, or wrong", which specifically is evidence that these may have been spiritual alchemy rather than simply wrong...... even if they claim to be meant to be taken literally to confuse the uninitiated.

Of course, we find in the Dispute Resolution page, "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

You failed to edit my work, you simply reverted it to keep any gleam of my ideas and point of view outside, unwilling to let YOUR text be editted in any way.

Now, I need for you to discuss with me how you're going to work with me to instill my view, which has much support among a broad base of people who claim to be a majority. If you are going to simply argue that you disagree that it is the truth, I'm going to have to apply for a formal mediation, which you are not even discussing.

KV 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear KV,

1. Please point out exactly where you think that the current text is biased. I honestly don't see it. It does present the "spiritual" view, as well as the "scientific" view, and does not take sides. You seem to be unhappy with the "scientific" view being presented at all.
2. 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.
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.
4. The view that alchemy was primariry spiritual, and chemistry just a front, is indeed a majority view — if we take the vote only among those scholars that share that view! Sorry, the "vote" has to include also all the "materialistic" scientists and historians of science. If we do that, your "majority" turns out to be a very small minority indeed.
5. 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.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...?

[edit] Modern Alchemists

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] On the goals of Alchemy relevant to Bacon

When it comes to the goals of alchemy, specifically as pertaining to Bacon, it may appear that they are one in the same with the goals of modern Chemistry. But, from a purely Alchemical point of view, one must understand that, while the ideals might be the same, the means, and definitely the end, are not. --201.224.189.85 01:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy in Video Games/Anime

Note to self: add references to Fullmetal Alchemist and Secret of Evermore, both of which revolve around alchemy

[edit] Greek or Greeks

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=greek

Greek ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grk)
n.
1.

a. The Indo-European language of the Greeks.

b. Greek language and literature from the middle of the eighth century B.C. to the end of the third century A.D., especially the Attic Greek of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

2.

a. A native or inhabitant of Greece.

b. A person of Greek ancestry.

3. Informal. A member of a fraternity or sorority that has its name composed of Greek letters.
4. Informal. Something that is unintelligible: Quantum mechanics is Greek to me.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Greek is singular or an adjective form......... Greeks is the plural.

I know you don't speak English natively, but there are very few words which are the same in singular and plural, Greek is not one of them. Moose is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

KV 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jorge was probably building a (false) analogy to ethnonyms like "the English", "the French", "the Swiss", "the Japanese" etc. -- I think it is just the final sibilant that prevents these from marking the plural. dab (ᛏ) 20:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I am not a native speaker. The funny thing is that as a Portuguese speaker I would naturally write "the Greeks" (as I have always written "The Romans", "the Germans", etc.). That is, I have actually learned that mistake... 8-(
Jorge Stolfi 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the sections appears to have been renamed to "like ptatoes and leeks too" or some such. I do not know what the original title was and so cannot repair it.

[edit] Modern alchemy

I would like to comment on the phrase "In modern times, progress has been made toward achieving the goals of alchemy using scientific, rather than alchemic, means." To me an alchemist would not call these means "scientific" as to "alchemic". Alchemist also had a a name for a fast and slow way of the process. What here is called "scientific" would be called the "dry way" it is a fast way to make a transformation, but is also very dangerous. For example :kabbalistic (not enough space to explane this here)views have more or less led to the creation of the atom bomb, a fast transformation of hydrogen into helium, a very fast and dangerous transformation. But to alchemical beliefs their is a "wet way" to achieve transformation, a slower and safer way. Is it possible to incorporate this into the article? 217.136.171.130 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to reply to my question I'm going to place it in the article myself, and face the critisism after the edit 217.136.171.130 08:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Fulcanelli in the Modern Alchemy section? :-) ThePeg 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Alchemsitry - New section proposition

I have read an article of a known french magasine: Science & Vie meaning Science & Life. This article (in the book N°1040, May 2004, page 48- 66) is very complete and says that some alchemy-scientist actually succeeded to create a nuclear reastion at room temperature, in other words, they transformed one element into another one like in a nuclear reaction but without any heat being created.

The article is copyright protected but I won't be copying anything they say or use any of the pictures. I will just read and translate in my own words and in a wiki style.

If I get to write this section, it will be my first sub-article.

Josellis 10:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs work

On a first read, I'm surprised that this article made it to featured article status. Let me begin where I'm most familiar, in the Middle Ages.

The section begins with four paragraphs discussing Gerbert of Aurillac, Adelard of Bath, Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas. Only one of them (Albertus Magnus) can be associated with alchemy. The only quotations are to Hollister's introductory textbook on Medieval History. Certainly we can find more specific references dealing with the history of medieval alchemy.

Another surprise in the article was the failure to discuss Isaac Newton's work on alchemy in any detail. Here there is an extensive body of secondary literature, but none of it is cited.

I think I'll add it to the History of Science Project list of articles in need of heavy copy editing. --SteveMcCluskey 22:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alchemy in the Bahá'í Faith

I wrote a draft on this subject, please let me know if and where it could be included in this article:

Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í Faith, promised the realisation of the discovery of a radical approach to the transmutation of elements as one of the signs of the coming of age of humanity. He prophesied, as well, that after this discovery a great calamity would overcome the world, unless mankind would accept his Faith.(Taherzadeh p.268) Bahá'u'lláh also refers to the elixir and the philosopher's stone, but states that these are spiritual in nature, and refer to the Word of God.(Bahá'u'lláh p.200)(Lambden)

As there has been no reaction on this, I have taken the liberty to add the passage to the article. Wiki-uk 16:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Film and Television section

In the film and television section it stated the replicator and holodeck in Star Trek as alchemical plot elements, saying that they rearranged matter on the molecular level to create food and even people. This is incorrect the devices such as the replicator and transporter use materialization, the proccess of converting energy into matter to create food, and people. The holodeck uses projections of light and forcefields to create people and settings, there is nothing physical about them, they are just energy. The part of the section has been removed.

The edit described above (by User:74.108.19.137) was incorrectly reverted as vandalisim, I've reworded the passage to reflect the concerns mentioned. Upholder 04:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing the point?

Maybe I'm wrong but this article seems to completely miss the point of Alchemy. All the great Alchemists insisted that the idea that Alchemy was anything to do with finding a LITERAL Philosopher's Stone/Elixir of Life or even transformation of Lead into Gold was nonsense. It was a myth put about to sift the real searchers from the materialists. Genuine Alchemy was a mystical tradition aimed at transforming the base material of human nature (lead) into something transcendent (gold). Alchemists found out who was a genuine searcher by examining peoples' motives. If someone took the aim literally and hoped to become wealthy the Alchemists knew he was unsuitable for the path. You can read this in, for instance, the Rosicrucian manifestoes. The scientific lingo was all metaphor. The Lead and Gold were in the human soul. ThePeg 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)