i have heard so many different views
some one once told me it was a coded language that hold the secrets of the universe with others have told me it is the foundation on which all science started but there is someone else who said that its a blueprint in which applied modern methods can make the impossible, possible well let me know what your feelings on the subject are.

It was a kind of precursor to chemistry,but with a lot of mystical mumbo jumbo thrown in.Alchemists primarily sought to transmute lead into gold,and create an elixir of immortality (amongst other things)

I would say the dictionary definition would be the correct definition....


1 : a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging life
2 : a power or process of transforming something common into something special
3 : an inexplicable or mysterious transmuting


Mirror has it...

Thanks Joy

thanks ladies i guess i am just laughable sometimes for my determination to find out whats real and whats not.

Um 1) Mirror is a man 2) you only need to a) pinch yourself to know what is real b) read non-propaganda c) stick around here so many will help you out...

Your welcome even though I'm a dude. Just think of alchemy as a cross between (very)basic chemistry and witchcraft / magic

What I get from it is it means: transformation from one thing to another for betterment or curing...

Yes, transmutation was a major theme in alchemy. Turning lead to gold,old to young,sick to healthy,etc.

They sought to create magic potions, powders, ointments, minerals, and things of that nature for profit.

Yes.. Good for the good/cure/betterment...

Alchemy was one the starting points of modern chemistry and science.

A failure in understanding Chemistry.

Okay, so. If a person changes their life for the better, would that constitute a process of alchemy or no because there chemical make-up remains unchanged?

Well, that's a rather negative view.

Why not think of alchemy as an original idea that eventually blossomed into chemistry?

I agree with Indian Princess. Alchemy is abstractly a concept of transformation. In the physical sciences it became chemistry. In spiritual teachings it continues to refer to a transformation of the spirit.

Same thing is true for the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and Water. From the point of view of the physical sciences these were the precursors to the discovery that the material world is made from fundamental building blocks. Those building blocks turned to to be different from Earth, Air, Fire and Water, but the basic idea hasn't changed.

From a spritual point of view the elements of Earth, Air, Fire and water have a totally different meaning. Meanings that are still in common use today and still make as much sense.

Earth = physical manifestation
Air = intellect, logic, reason
Fire = passion, creativity
Water = emotion, love

There is actually a fifth element associated with this called 'spirit'.

These four basic spiritual elements have stood the test of time. They pretty much cover all the major aspects of humanity and life. If all they are are concepts for the purpose of helping humans to organize thoughts for introspection that is most important to being human, then they have well served their purpose.

That would be spiritual alchemy.

Tranformation of spirit.

Clearly if they have changed the spirit with which they interact with their world, then they have undergone a spiritual transformation.

Alchemy, in it's ancient abstract sense, means 'transformation'.

Whether it is applied to material or ethereal things determines whether it is a physical or spiritual transformation.

At least this is how I view it. Your transformations may vary.

Alchemist's in the Lands of Bavidirian beyond the Sacred Woods of Silvernarion know how to make gold.

In a metaphorical sense perhaps

kewl

Alchemy is the act of change :)


I always think of it as herbs to potions tho hehe

I don't see it as negative, only true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist

Robert Boyle lays it out in rather marvelous detail.


Its here if you want to read it.
http://oldsite.library.upenn.edu/etext/collections/science/boyle/chymist/