Talk:Alchemy/Archive 4

Alchemy as Science

The section on alchemy being considered a serious science up until the sixteenth century is false, demonstrated by the fact that Isaac Newton used as a "for instance" to back up the claim was not alive in the sixteenth century (he was born in the seventeenth century). Belief in alchemy as a science persisted throughout the 1700's, and the line between early chemistry and alchemy is quite vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, in this section there was actual mention that Seaboerg or one of the other nuclear scientists actually did manage to turn lead into gold, but that the energy required was enough that it was not worthwhile. This should be re-included, it was vandalized to make room for what exactly? Nothing, because much of the rest of the page was also deleted. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious omission

Now it seems that no one has noticed the lack of Jewish alchemists in the article. While I will not contribute to this, I will point out that there is a veritable wealth of material in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud of examining properties of materials and their mixing, as well as mathematical concepts and other aspects later introduced into Alchemy. This is completely absent from early Greek literature (completely mythological). The etymological origin attributed to Arabic is curious because Arabs did not have this body of knowledge either, or indeed any reason to have it outside of their trading activities. However there were large Jewish communities residing in the areas conquered by Islam after Muhammed, including the nodern Iraq which had some of the oldest Jewish educational institutions in the Diaspora. Interestingly in Hebrew the word Kammah means 'how much', and Kimmah 'to quantify' which seems to very precisely define the basic idea in Alchemy, the determination of proportions in mixing, the concept central to science even today. Its interesting that IF alchemy was of Arab origin, that the Arabs did not go on to develop into a great scientific culture, but Islamic rulers would often employ Jewish doctors and astrologers for their knowledge (before alchemy evolved), and Jews still hold the record for the number of Nobel Prizes awarded to a single ethnic group while I think there are only two Islamic winners and only in recent times.--59.101.79.70 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I agree, and add that the Greek khemeioa should be included in the etymology of the word as well as the Arabic Flashinpon (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Show one instance in the Hebrew Bible (not rabinnic literature) that has anything to do with alchemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Alchemy in Video Games/Anime

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

I added FMA and Harry Potter to the article in the introduction, seeing as that is the only place I can see where it fits. I hope it's considered in good taste. - Boss1000 00:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. They are modern fiction and can never be considered definitive with respect to alchemy. The correct place to mention their relation to alchemy is in their own articles. IPSOS (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. The disambiguation takes care of a lot of that anyway. I still wonder if the article should have some sort of section or mention (obviously with a more worldly view) of perhaps more modern-day references? I wasn't a part of the group that got this to FA, so I'll certainly heed; I'm just curious. - Boss1000 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also Golden Sun where everything revolves around Alchemy.

Alchemy in Film/TV

What about mentioning The Lawnmower Man (1992 film)? There, the main character(Jobe) briefly says the re-activation of the "archaic" sides of the human psyché was the real goal of the alchemists. signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 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 explain 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)

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)

Yeah... this isn't really alchemy, it's just a sort of transmutation through nuclear science, turning one atom into another. I honestly don't think that nowadays alchemy can really be taken seriously. I mean, so you turn one element into another, big deal, the sun is doing that all the time. Supernovae are actually creating heavy metals from only energy. PS: I seriously doubt that any nuclear reaction can take place with no created heat. Don't write the section, and if you have already written the section, I would consider it a good idea to make it very short, or even better, delete it. Slartibartfast1992 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion as a process has been shown to be relatively simple, and well within the technology and experimental range of Alchemists; combining two lighter elements into a heavier element has been shown to occur in cold fusion research at room temperature. Clearly these unpopular findings requires at the least a paradigm shift, with consequent reconfiguring of views concerning claims of ancient alchemical accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimblebee (talk • contribs) 02:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

• ^a Bahá'u'lláh (1990) [1863-92]. Tablets Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Wilmette, Illinois, USA: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. ISBN 0877431876.
• ^a Lambden, Stephen N. (2004-01-08). "An Alchemical Epistle of Mírzá Husayn 'Alí Núrí, Bahá'u'lláh in Reply to a Question about the Philosophers' Stone". Retrieved 2006-09-19.
• ^a Taherzadeh, Adib (1977). The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 2. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. ISBN 0853980713.

Wiki-uk 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

The topic is "Alchemy in History", throughout this section, when moving from subtopic to subtopic each and every civilisation has contributed and discovered something new with respect to alchemy. Yet when the reader comes to this point, with all due respect Bahá'u'lláh did not discover, invent or contribute anything original to the History of Alchemy. As this is the situation I advise the creator of this subtopic to do one of two things. Either remove it completely, or remove and insert in a different more appropriate area. To repeat, this is a discussion about the history of alchemy not an opinion provided by a prophet. If others were to take this line of thought, there would be hundreds of quotes from the respectable prophets of all religions. If you are against removing it, please provide a reason why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.222.133 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

In the meanwhile, the section has been moved to the end of the 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 regards the actual practice of alchemy, in the Kitáb-i-Iqán, Baha'u'llah states that alchemy (among other sciences) is "contemptible in the eyes of the truly learned." (p. 187). Wiki-uk 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm pretty sure that alchemy's goal was the actual transmutation of metal. The highly spiritual Rosicrucian Order used the principles of alchemy in a metaphorical sense, but they originally practiced it in laboratories, and the notion of metal transmutation was widely accepted as a possibility until the final stages. In any case, this article is meant to reflect the practice of alchemy as a whole, not just the opinions of the so-called "great" alchemists, who dealt with the philosophical aspects. And you completely discounted the alchemists who developed the precursor to chemistry, such as Abdul Al-Jabir.Tsochar 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[User:Tsochar|Tsochar]] said "The highly spiritual Rosicrucian Order..." Which Rosicrucian group? There are quite a few. The only one that I know of that had practiced physical alchemy was AMORC. (I believe there was one Rosicrucian group in France that was into plant alchemy. Dont qoute me on that one.) The others I know of practiced mental or spiritual alchemy.

Bill (Feb 5, 2007)

I've since met someone who studied alchemy at university as part of his science course and he said that the aims of alchemy were primarily spiritual but that the scientific side was to do with the idea that the processes of nature reflected the processes of Man's inner nature (something Quantum Science is starting to find). The imagery of Gold etc WAS metaphorical,\not literal, as shown by the Emerald Tablet, which dates back to ancient Egyptian times. Chinese Alchemists definitely saw it as a spiritual journey to immortality. I think that'smuch closer to the truth. ThePeg 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Original "Alexandrian Alchemy" was concerned about the making of gold, but the reason alchemy has sustained people's interest for all of these years was because of the vastly more important implications for philosophy. Mere gold seekers were disdainfully dismissed as "puffers" by the true adepts. The alchemists thought that once they discovered The Pattern (". . . quarum Modus est hic"), then it would apply to the entire process of change. Since "Nature strives for Perfection" (Aristotle), the same process that applied to the growth of metals would also apply to the perfection of the soul of Man. (I have explained elsewhere that metals were considered to be alive and growing naturally in the earth--the alchemist just wanted to speed up what they considered a natural process.) Treehappy 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is down to the fact that Alchemy has multiple roots- some the earliest texts talk about nothing more than dying cheap metals to look like expensive ones, and making fake gemstones, but at the same time, other people were using such actions as metaphors and exemplars for their philosophies. This confusion continued all the way through the medieval period, with Alchemy being, depending upon the writer or alchemist, a spiritual quest, a physical quest for the stone or red elixir to male gold with, or a search for the best medicine possible and the perfection of physical health.Calcinations (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Alchemy from a Metaphysical Perspective

I think such a section would ease some of the tension here.

I would add that Alchemy from a metaphysical perspective was (in part) symbolic and does not neccessarily mean literal physical transmutation (with a few exceptions like Rasayāna- medicinal substance alchemy etc).

Keep in mind there are different types of alchemy like plant alchemy (spagyrics), internal alchemy or sexual alchemy, mental or psychological alchemy, spiritual alchemy etc.

Bill (Feb 5, 2007)

Some references: "Practical Handbook of Plant Alchemy" by Manfred M. Junius

"The secret of the golden flower" trans. by Richard Wilhelm

"The secret of everlasting life: the first translation of the ancient Chinese text of immortality" trans. Richard Bertschinger

etc.

no the philosipher stone wasnt an object it was used to symbolize the main goal in alchemy. wich was improving the quality of life. thus the metaphore turning lead into gold. the main goal of alchemy was to experiment and find ways to legnthen life spans and managing ore's and medicines. so there for the philosifer stone is the basic idea of alchemy

Alchemy in the 20th century

A well known 20th-century alchemist was known as Fulcanelli, real identity being unknown if it existed, masterworks "Les Demeures Philosophales" (Philosophal Mansions) and "Le Mystère de Cathédrales" (The Mistery of Cathedrals), his only known disciple Eugène Canseliet ("Quand sel y est", when salt is present) might be the real Fulcanelli. (See those works, namely Canseliet's many prefaces). It his unknown if Fulcanelli reached his objectives or not.

I was surprised to find a "Treatise on Alchemy" by some Solazareff, "Introitus as Philosophorum Lapidem", 1989, stenciled. Xyzt1234 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Physical and spiritual alchemy

There exists a controversy between partisans of physical (material) methodologies and those who defend strictly psychological methodologies. The latest viewpoint was begun with the supposition that the end of alchemy would be the transformation of the alchemist. The psychological current bases itself in excerpts of alchemical texts that suggest, more or less -- usually less) clearly that the seat for transmutation is in the operator's head, and that the pseudochemical descriptions are allegories of deep psychological phenomena, and lately the work of Carl-Gustav Jung -- who used alchemichal literature as a source for non-personified examples of his theory. The partisans of physical alchemy are absolutely against this stand of mind-only alchemy and insist on the absolute need of physical operations. Xyzt1234 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On viewpoints and goals

I'm quite afraid that people with a moderate interest in alchemy would find the concept of achieving alchemy's goals (whichever they are) by technology a misunderstanding, as science and alchemy share different viewpoints of the universe and the person altogether, although quantum mechanics theory of knowledge, as well as more recent viewpoints in Physics, seem to converge, though not to the letter, of course. It is not impossible to say that alchemy sprouted out science; it is possible to say that alchemy, being a very complex and rich cultural and psychological phenomenon, has not been replaced by science, in the same way religion hasn't and the religious attitude didn't disappear with the scientific method. Xyzt1234 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some good points Xyzt1234. Bob March 19,2007

Alchemy and Modern Science

I think in the scientific section something should be said about the fact that modern science has its roots in Alchemical studies and that the embaressement and ridicule felt by modern science is like a child being embaressed by its hippie parents. Newton was an Alchemist and based many of his ideas on Alchemy. Many of the Rennaissance scientists were interested in alchemical ideas. Elias Ashmole, who founded the Royal Society was an Alchemist.

Interestingly, many of the ideas of the Rennaissance Alchemist-Hermeticists are increasingly being borne out by modern Quantum discoveries. In Fludd, for instance, you will find many paralells between Alchemical/Hermetic ideas and Quantum Physics. Similarly, Einstein's study of the Kaballah furnished him with many theories about the Universe.

This should be in the article too. The notion that Alchemy is just a lot of period Mumbo Jumbo is pretty outdated now. ThePeg 23:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

though there is much to what you say (though i've neither heard of Einstein studying Kabbalah, nor think that Kabbalah has all that much to do with Alchemy), that's more appropriate to a specialty source regarding Alchemy than it is to an encyclopedia article. Whateley23 23:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, ThePeg is right. It should at least be mentioned, not necessarily diving into detail. This article contains a lot of detailed information about Alchemy; why not that bit? Sazielt c 10:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

well, then, someone write it up. if it makes sense, then it's a good thing. if it doesn't, we can always revert it. Whateley23 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes a very limited and specific amount of sense. Elias Ashmole was an alchemist because back then, alchemy was the only game in town. Newton's alchemical work was a waste of time. The only interest it has for us today is that Newton did it. Furthermore, "modern quantum discoveries" are *not* bearing out the ideas of the Renaissance Hermeticists. To the extent that modern science has its roots in alchemy, it's because the alchemists invented or refined a lot of basic laboratory equipment and procedures, and discovered many interesting properties of the materials they worked with. That was a real contribution. However, the distinction remains: modern science has its roots in alchemical practice, not alchemical thought. What the alchemists contributed to science was practical, hands-on lab procedures. Alchemy's ideas -- what the alchemists imagined they were doing with all that lab work -- were pretty much nonsense. Astrology is not a sound basis for scientific inquiry. Human biology is not based on the Four Humors. You can't literally distill spiritual transcendence out of the dross of earthly substance. And so forth. Modern science didn't inherit alchemical theory. Modern science threw it out because it was wrong. (TNH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.252 (talk) 00:59, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. This is the honest opinion of a honest, educated rationalist, and there are so very few, you have my praise. I could correct a few sentences, but I'll just rephrase the last: "Science threw it out because it was not reproducible nor universal." That is, is doesn't fit in the scientific method of probing nature. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

scientific research on enlightment

Please elaborate on your revert, you state that the section is not about alchemy, although the subject is enlightment, the philosofers stone and the holy grail (three very relevent subject connected to alchemy). The sources are indeed not independent, as they are means to express a view, it is not stated as a general accepted truth, it sources cleary state they are a certain point of view. This is indeed a controversial subject, so neutral sources will be very scarce. Please reconsider this edit.

Teardrop onthefire 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree that this belongs in the article.

• After looking at the web pages cited I note that they make no mention of the influence of alchemy on the thought of Gopi Krishna (except for a vague assertion that the alchemists were seeking enlightenment through the kundilani energy at the base of the spine). There is no documentation provided to support the assertions that alchemists believed "kundilani energy" existed and were seeking to employ it.
• The cited web pages are all produced by the Kundalini Research Foundation, an organization described as having been organized "at the request of Gopi Krishna." Thus they cannot be considered independent, reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The pages were indeed a quick glimps. Gopi Krishna however wrote several books in wich he explains (according to his experiences) different connections between old mystics, serpent symbols in history and alchemical symbols such as the staff of Hermes. They will however all be sources al being writen by gopi krishna. But I do consider someone own work being the best reffernce to ones view. If you would want to express a statement made by einstein, you would use his works to, no? Teardrop onthefire 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the risk of being labelled as "pseudo-intellectual" and/or "troll", I only would like to point out that, generally speaking, the sources on which the Wikipedia article about Alchemy is based are far from being realistic, unbiased, or reliable (not to say "NPOV-ed", which, IMNSHO, is nothing but a "myth" --- not much different from the whole "pre-historic cavemen" ``scientific´´ mumbo-jumbo). signed: KSM-2501ZX, IP address := 200.143.1.33 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

HTH

In the book "La Tradizione Ermetica", Julius Evola explicitly states not only that the actual goal of the actual alchemists was essentially of "spiritual nature", but also that "miraculous" or "preternatural" capabilities would come as a consequence of the spiritual development achieved through alchemic techniques or procedures; *one* of such new capabilities would be the power to transmutate metals(and not only, or necessarily, lead) into gold. Besides, René Guénon, by using other words, and either more or less explicitly than his Italian colleague, also affirmed the relationship and/or equivalence among the "Holy Grail", the "Philosopher's Stone", the "Sacred Heart" and the "soma"/"ambrosia".

P.S.: The "proto-scientists" who took part in giving birth to the materialist science of today were in fact the alchemists who interpreted the symbolic language of the real alchemy texts in a literal way; such false alchemists were derogatorily called <span lang="pt-BR">"assopradores"</span> by the authentic ones.

KSM-2501ZX &#0151; IP address:= 200.143.1.33 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

tweaked by: KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.1.33 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Restructure Article

OK, now that some major portions of the article have been moved to their own articles (see headings below), it is becoming evident to me that the current structure of the article is confused: why is the Bahá'í Faith not under the Spiritual section? Why is there "Modern alchemy" and also "Alchemy in the age of science," that is very confusing to the reader. The purpose of the structure of the article to help the comprehension of its content, but the current structure, in my view, does just the opposite. I would like to pretty much take the current headings under Overview, make them main headings, and fit the rest of the article's content under those headings, like this:

• 1 History - take the current Alchemy in history section which right now is just the first paragraph of the main History in Alchemy article, and make it more suitable as a section. Add a couple more paragraphs to give people a general history without the necessity of reading the detailed history article.
  • 1.1 Etymology
• 2 Alchemy as an investigation of Nature (possibly renamed as Alchemy as a Proto-Science)
• 3 Alchemy as a philosophical and spiritual discipline
  • 3.1 Alchemy and astrology
  • 3.2 Psychology
  • 3.3 Alchemy in the Bahá'í Faith
• 4 Alchemy in the age of science / Modern alchemy (merge these)
  • 4.1 Nuclear transmutation
  • 4.2 Unduplicated transmutation claims
• 5 Alchemy as a subject of historical research
• 6 References
• 7 See also
  • 7.1 Other alchemical pages
  • 7.2 Other resources
  • 7.3 Related and alternative philosophies
  • 7.4 Substances of the alchemists
  • 7.5 Scientific connections
• 8 External links

Please give any comments. I will implement in the next few days if no one objects. --T. Baphomet 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spin off Alchemy In History

The article has grown too large. I think the Alchemy in history section should be made into it's own article and a shorter summary placed in this article. --T. Baphomet 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that this is a fine idea, though I'm not prepared to begin initiating this change myself at this time. -Vritti 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is now done. Now the section in this article needs to be modified a bit to give a better summary of what the main article covers. --T. Baphomet 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed most of the dead references now found on this article. The remaining citations to not directly link to their reference in the article, so it will be more difficult to figure out if they should also be removed. --T. Baphomet 15:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spin off Alchemy in arts and entertainment

Same reasons as above, but I think I rather than summarizing the list and providing a link to the full one, just make a new page for it, take it out entirely from the main article and place a link in the See also. --T. Baphomet 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. --T. Baphomet 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Create Alchemy Navigation Bar

Alchemy is a huge subject and is evidenced by the large number of articles in the Alchemy category. I want to take the major articles and organize them into a navigation bar placed on the right. --T. Baphomet 14:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About categories: The bain-marie is attributed to Maria Prophetissa. Category Alchemy, Alchemical apparatus. I'm sorry I'm still not familiar with category coding or I obviously would have added it myself. --Xyzt1234 17:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Physicality Of The Brain"

this is a somewhat interesting theory. it simply has nothing to do with alchemy, which is the subject of this article. perhaps it would be of value at an article on neurochemistry or neurobiology. Whateley23 05:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"spagyric" plant alchemy

Why do you insist upon equating "spagyric" with plant alchemy? That is nonsense. It is inaccurate and misleading. Twice I have tried to correct that link to plant alchemy as "spagyric pharmacy" instead of just "Spagyric," but my edits have been removed. You might as well use "alchemy" as a link for your plant alchemy, while you are at it. Treehappy 10:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Dont look at me. I didnt touch it. But if you want to know why others insist equating spagyric to plant alchemy you can examine links such as this: http://www.herbdatanz.com/spagyric_or_plant_alchemy_-_1.htm http://www.jwmt.org/v1n9/spagyric.html

Or blame it on Manfred Junius's books like: "Spagyrics: The Alchemical Preparation of Medicinal Essences, Tinctures, and Elixirs" by Manfred M. Junius

Bill June 21, 2007

I think this has been the source for some confusion (if not lasting hidden discomfort) here indeed. Let's say that from the 1960s on, or so, some people started using words they don't understand to name processes they don't understand either (but are willing to push on others and eventually get some profit, if only emotional, in the meantime), borrowing for they activity a label that has at least a respectability of sorts but which is not theirs. Some recent "alchemies" shouldn't have that name. Sooner or later, willing or not, one must draw a line or get caught in a mudhole purposefully prepared. To draw an analogy, we can say that love is alchemy between people, but it's a common image, not a description. Being common doesn't give it more qualities beyond that of being common. (P.S.- I did look at the links.) --Xyzt1234 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually to qoute from wikipedia's article on spagyria: "The term ‘Spagyria’ has been used by Paracelsus in his book 'Liber Paragranum', deriving from the Greek words 'spao' and 'ageiro', the essential meaning of which is to 'separate and to combine'. He formulated that nature in itself was 'raw and unfinished' and man had the God-given task to evolve things to a higher level. As an example: The 'raw' medicinal plant would be separated into the basic components he termed 'mercurius', 'sulphur' and 'sal' and thereby cleaned of nonessential components. 'Mercurius', 'sulphur' and 'sal' were then recombined forming the medicine."

So the concept of spagyrics has been around for some time.

Bill- January, 2008

You're right, Bill, I know about Paracelsus. Paracelsus is ok, if a bit out of mainstream. I meant "from the 1960s on". Never mind. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of different ages

Is there anyway to get a timeline for approximate stages of Alchemy? I have a quote that might be aplicable: "Beginnings of alchemy (c. 410) with the search for Philosopher's Stone and Elixir of Life as chief objects" Grum, Bernard, The Timetables of History Simon & Schuster/touchstone, 1991 from page 31

Lead or Mercury

A general term used in relation to Alchemy is: "Turning lead into Gold". However this term is clearly a mystification of what was really going on. The Egyptian's used Gold on their pyramids and other holy buildings. Thus they needed high quantities of the stuff. A general way to get Gold from stones that hold Gold is dissolution in Mercury. Gold dissolves in Mercury. And Mercury looks much like molten Lead. Of course you don't want people to know the secrets of your trade. So you tell them that you are turning "Lead into Gold". These "mystics" which where very importantant to the gold-needing rulers of the world could thus keep this and other secrets without beeing prosicuted. This made it possible for certain "secrets", or better "teachings of former but now prosicuted religions" to survive the ages. This is also why we find many connections between the teachings of mystical secret initiation societies, the alchemic teachings and headen religions.

Medical alchemy

This section fall under "Alchemy in the Age of Science". Are you seriously elling me that there is one modern scientist who believes that prayer will change the properties of a substance. It may be a belief held by some people, but it is not a scientific one. Thus I deleted the section. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move it elsewhere?71.187.114.104 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1) yes

2) it is a part of alchemy and thus it does not matter if scientific view believes it to be possible. It would still be a valid part of the article. But of course you can look into the psychosomatic effect.

KV(Talk) 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe then the Placebo effect, as the above is red. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting this, I recall a recent experiment in which batches of coronary patients were prayed for or not prayed for regarding speedy recovery and those prayed for took longer to recover. I'd love to get the reference, but I'm sure the media gave coverage enough to this. So, it appears prayer changed the properties of an amount of matter in this particular study. Unfortunately, this not being physics, a single non-conforming experiment neither proves nor disproves much, it just depends on the "p".

Now the other aspect is what is supposed to be meant by "scientific". Scientific is the knowledge obtained by the full use of the scientific method. It is unrelated to whatever one believes in, and we all recall that Lavoisier rejected a stone as a meteorite with the magnificent "reasoning" that "it can't be a stone from the sky because there are no stones in the sky". Scientific knowledge can be "unbelievable" or counter-intuitive; it is acceptable provided it derives from an hypothesis and is experimental, reproducible, universal, falsifiable, etc. all that. Never mind how shocking or unpalatable. We are possibly losing a lot of really new and revolutionary, practical knowledge by not researching scientific taboo subjects and throwing good papers on these into the memory's trash bin, and we all are losing a lot with that (unscientific ostrich?) attitude. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency about number of goals

Under "Alchemy as a philosophical and spiritual discipline", three "best known goals" are given but in the same paragraph, it says "either or both of those goals". A slight inconsistency which needs correcting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.33.60 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section to this article should probably go a bit deeper into what alchemy actually involves - right now all it says is that it's a "philosophical and spiritual discipline", what sciences and philosophies it derives from, and where it's practiced. I guess the ideal thing would be a short, clear overview of the different sections which go into depth about the different applications... this whole area is a bit out of my depth, so this is just a small suggestion. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy link

There are a lot of resources on alchemy here: http://www.alchemyforums.com/resources.html

And a forum on alchemy here: http://www.alchemyforums.com

Description: Alchemy Forums is dedicated to all forms of alchemy, such as spiritual, practical, psychological, mutational and even its historical aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deviadah (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The second paragraph in this section has only one reference and is very cryptic for even alchemy. Its reference is a pop serious and is dubious. Can I get a response as to if the source covers the whole paragraph please. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

On the Philosopher's stone granting knowledge

The article states "The Philosophers Stone was believed to mystically amplify the user's knowledge of alchemy so much that anything was attainable."

Now, I'm not a recognised expert, but from what I've read on alchemy, it was beleived that The Philosopher's stone acted as a catylyst, removing "rust" from ordinary metals and thereby transuting them into gold. People supposedly rusted over time, too, and that an infusion of a "purer" metal (silver or gold) would help form an elixir of life, so that a product of one was the other. If early scientists' only example of a chemical reaction is rust, it's probably not surprising that they figured all reactions worked like that.

This is the first I've read that the Philosopher's Stone was supposed to grant knowledge, and I've read plenty from many sources that suggested that it didn't. I strongly beleive this to be wrong, and would like, at the very least, to see a source for it. Sim (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't defend the above sentence with its actual wording. Yet there are rare comments that hint that only by practising can the work reveal itself. In other words, by achieving some of the physical stages of the preparation other, more complex, and so far impossible to figure out, become obvious. The Philosopher's Stone is not the last or only stage. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources Of Lab Alchemy In The Occult

1.) The Kabbalah - Concerning purity and impurity 2.) Gnosticism - Concerning spiritual purity and impurity, as well as the impurity of the physical world. 3.) Astrology - Concerning the twelve signs of the zodiac and the seven philosophical metals. 4.) Sorcery - Concerning Familiar Spirits (i.e. the Homunculi), hermetically sealing a container, and reincarnation.

(Yes, I figured out how to correctly use the Book of Power.

Pre-requisites of Lab Alchemy And Interpreting Lab Alchemic Texts

1.) A deep understanding of ancient Gnostic Texts. 2.) A thorough understanding of Astrology. 3.) A basic understanding of the Kabbalah 4.) A thorough understanding of Sorcery in regards to making familiar spirits, how to hermetically seal a container, and reincarnation. 5.) A deep understanding of Philosophy and Theology 6.) At least a C+ or higher in High School Biology or Chemistry 7.) An awareness of some of the laws of physics, all of the laws of chemistry, and all of the laws of Biology. 8.) A deep understanding of the Three Books of Occult Philosophy by Cornelius Agrippa.

Alchemy in other countries removed?

If I recall correctly there was a section dedicated to other alchemical traditions such as those found in India, China and the Middle east. Now its only a few passing words about these traditions. The article now is no where close as informative as befor. I think it was wrong to have remove them. Its still alchemy and its relevent to this section.

--Bill--

17 June 2008

The Arabic origin of the word

In several Arabic resources, including the Arabic Wikipedia, the word for Alchemy is الخيمياء alkhīmyā, while the word for modern Chemistry is الكيمياء alkīmyā. Apparently the original Arabic word is الخيمياء while الكيمياء is an adaptation of the modern European pronunciation. DrorK (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Arabic origin

I'm not sure which is more correct, but as it stands the transliteration provided next to the Arabic text does not match. This should be changed either one way or the other. At the moment the Arabic text spells "al-kīmyā'". "Kh" refers to a very different sound in standard transliteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.247.10 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quintessence

I'm not sure where the Quintessence link in "Other alchemical pages" should point, but probably not to the disambiguation page. Otus (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I dared to write an intro to satisfy the "What is it?" condition. Please improve it. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the metaphysical aspects only start in the Middle Ages?

Should the Wiki really make such a definitive statement? People like Zosimos of Panopolis were already regarding alchemy as a spiritual, rather than material, discipline in the 4th century AD. I'm not sure how to include this without rewriting the entire paragraph. Kramden (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't find the statement that definitive: "Starting with the Middle Ages, some alchemists increasingly came to view metaphysical aspects as the true foundation of alchemy" suggests that a hint of a psychological/metaphysical foundation (true or false) was developing and already existed. At least I read it that way. As is known, that doesn't go without the material counterpart, etc. It could be interesting to mention Zosimos in the text as an example of a forerunner regarding that focus. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to insert it as seamlessly as possible, but it probably still needs some tweaks. The forerunners might need to be spun off into their own section, but that is best left for others.Kramden (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)