"Look, I distilled water, it's Alchemy !" ...
Oh yes, you made a tincture, it's Alchemy. You made a sublimation, it's Alchemy. You melted gold, antimony, bismuth or watever can melt, you made Alchemy ... that's nothing more than chemistry in the first hand. Then what ? You made a transmutation, it's Alchemy too ?
Now everything is Alchemy. (And yes of course, everything IS Alchemical .. since it's Nature's Path).
But that's not right, it's not the case. There's a big difference between the different branches of "the Alchemical Science". The Alchemical Science is a hole corpus of different type of practices, from the very chemical one, to the most incredible Alchemical Practices. So we have to make distinctions. When do we speak of Alchemy ? High Spagery ? Spagery ? Particulars ? Archemy ?
Too much confusion. I'll give and explain MY definitions.
So lets clarify the terms.
What is the difference between a simple chemical (and advanced chemical/exotic reaction) and Alchemy ?
Answer : the use of Spiritus Mundi.
If I make a tincture, of gems, metals, plants, human or animal products, I'm practicing Spagery.
If I make an evolution in a matter, (black, green, white/yellow, red), if I create a medicine and I can even make a transmutation (generally weak) with it, it's High Spagiria.
If I make a non potable product, only for making silver, or gold, in this case I'm practicing Archemy (because it's not for "medicine").
If I use Spiritus Mundi only, then it's Universal Alchemy.
If I use particular matters, like High Spagiric process + Spiritus Mundi, it's Particular Alchemy for me.
If I use Spiritus Mundi plus an Archemical process, it's High Archemy.
If I create a special product, not for gold, but for a special purpose, it's a Particular, if there is a use of S.M then High Particular.
Okay, you made a tincture, but at what level are you working now ?
9 comments:
Such disctinctions seem to be inherited of the modern analytic way of thinking, for from the analogic though of the elders (closer to the Zen though, with their pardox and contradictions).
As the Golden Dawn history shown, this mania of classification is a reason of the lack of creativity.
I am convinced that any truth based on exlusivity is false in the absolute, but can be methodic and useful. An inclusive truth (any truth wich regards it's contrary as equally true) is more open, and closer to the Truth.
At last, how it is possible to work WITHOUT Spiritus Mundi?
(about the title: I remember, last spring, I distilled (at Sun and Moon lights) water, and obtained some HCl… wasn't it alchemy?)
Une telle distinction me semble héritée de l'esprit analytique moderne et tout aussi éloigné de l'esprit analogique et souple des anciens (qui étaient peut-être assez proches de la pensée Zen, avec leurs paradoxes et leurs contradictions).
Un exemple moderne de ce mode de pensée qui classifie tout et met tout en boîtes est la Golden Dawn, qui s'est très vite sclérosée et a rapidement perdue sa créativité.
Je pense qu'une telle échelle distinguant les différentes façons de travailler est tout simplement fausse dans l'absolu, mais qu'elle peut être utile pour guider son travail (attention aux excès !).
Pour moi, la première chose à faire est d'accepter que la vérité soit aussi dans la différence, c'est-à-dire qu'elle soit inclusive et non exclusive, ce qui ouvre les frontières entre les catégories.
Au fait, comment fait-on pour travailler SANS Spiritus Mundi ?
(à propos du titre : ça me rappelle une distillation d'eau au Soleil et à la Lune qui m'a donné un peu d'HCl… ça n'était pas alchimique ?)
One Matter...
One Pattern...
Salut Matthieu,
Pourtant, il y a bel et bien une grosse distinction, ça change tout. En regard à cela mes distinctions ne sont utiles qu'à ceux qui ont vu de leur yeux la rosée ou le Lion Vert. Pour les autres ça n'est que lettre morte.
On ne peut pas travailler "sans" SM, car il y a duSM partout, tout le temps, mais son influence est nulle. Zéro, absente.
Le jour où c'et LUI qui fait le boulot, là c'est autre chose. On passe un cap, on ne travaille plus du tout pareil.
A bientôt !
SHD
Salut Sal,
Tu sais que je suis tout à fait d'accord avec toi, mais que j'aime aussi me faire l'avocat du diable, parce que c'est nécessaire n'est-ce pas ?…
Salazius, could you indicate or give some hints on how to approach the Spiritus Mundi?
It's difficult to grasp for me, and sometimes I feel I understand it, and some others I feel I am walking a wrong direction.
Thanks for the blog and your words.
Hi September Road,
I'm glad if you appreciate my blog. You are welcome :)
Talking about SM. This is one of the most difficult thing to do.
Saying without saying ... showing without showing...
I understand it's difficult for ou to grasp.
Maybe I'll write a little something, but understand that I always write what my Muse say. If she do not speaks about Spiritus Mundi, I can't convince her :)
In no possible way.
Merry Christmas.
Yeah, that's it. Saying without saying. I sense it's always working around, supporting everything happening in our phisick world, though you can never have an isolated experience of it, nor a clear thought of how it works.
I am revising your blog from top to bottom, and I see you have set a line of pearls that help to go understanding this KEY of phaenomenic and substancial SM world.
Merry Xmass for you as well.
Hi SR,
Merry Xmas :)
Thanks you for your previous videos of the illuminated rosettas, very nice ! :)
You are revising my Blog from top to bottom, okay ! I hope you'll find substantial informations able to make you progress in your quest toward SM...
I didn't explicitly spoke about it, but why should I, after all, all true philosophers sopke about it in their works, centirues before me. I can hardly do something better than them...
Take care,
Salazius
Je pense que cette classification est aussi utile pour comprendre ce que l'on fait, que pour comprendre ce que l'on lit.
Merci Salazius
I think that this classification is also useful to understand what we make, that to understand what we read.
Post a Comment