Talk:Alchemy/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

Universal Solvent

What? No discussion of this?

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

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 "~~~~"

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)

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)

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)