Alchemy texts archives - Ergotism

From:William Scott Shelley
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997

I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
ergot mushroom. I have also demonstrated this plant to be the soma of the
hindus, and have identified this plant in the biblical literature. this work
has received the endorsements of scholars of the highest qualification. just
thought that some of you might be interested in this identification.

William Scott Shelley

From: Adam McLean
Date: 17th August 1997

William Scott Shelley writes:-

>I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
>ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
>ergot mushroom. I have also demonstrated this plant to be the soma of the
>hindus, and have identified this plant in the biblical literature. this work
>has received the endorsements of scholars of the highest qualification. just
>thought that some of you might be interested in this identification.

I am afraid I have heard over the years too many one-dimensional global
explanations of alchemy - people attempting to reduce the richness and
complexity of alchemy to a simplistic model. In order to do this the authors
of such theses have to chose their material selectively, that is, they look at
alchemy for short phrases which seem to support their thesis and then lift
them out of context and place them into their own context in order to
seemingly support their thesis. Ergot and other hallucinogenics seem to
be the recourse of those who must reduce things to brain chemistry.

I came across this recently, in the matter of the late 17th century mystical
writer DrJohn Pordage. An article written recently in 'History Today'
suggests that Pordage's mystical visions were a result of ergot poisoning.
Pordage was actually as follower of Jacob Boehme, and perhaps we
don't need the ad hoc hypothesis of ergot poisoning to explain his visions,
which strangely enough are all pictured in Boehmist terms!

Perhaps I can set William Scott Shelley a challenge, though I doubt he
will want to take it up. Instead of advancing on this e-mail discussion group
justifications for his thesis, can I ask him to look at an alchemical text and
demonstrate how ergot fits this text. I would like him to explain the
relevance of ergot to the 'Crowning of Nature' which is available on the
alchemy web site at

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/crowning.html

I suspect this challenge will not be taken up, because most people
who offer a one-dimension explanation of alchemy and "believe that [they]
have identified the philosophers stone" prefer to chose their material on
their own ground, to selectively gather material that seems to support
their thesis. In fact, to anyone who has studied alchemy in depth,
especially "scholars of the highest qualification" in alchemy who have
looked at the mass of material, such a thesis falls down at the first
hurdle.

To understand alchemy one must immerse oneself in the source material,
or in physical experimentation. The history of alchemy shows that it is not
amenable to being bombarded with exterior theories. Dame Alchimia
shrugs off such projections and remains essentially mysterious. It is this
that keeps alchemy alive and indeed I suspect that hundreds of years
from now people will still read the original texts and find them fascenating.

One dimensional views of the alchemy as ergot poisoning or a result
of inhaling mercury fumes (another old chestnut) will then reveal more
about the mindset and preconceptions of the closing decades of the
20th century, than they do about alchemy itself. The libarians of the
future (or even those of today) may choose to categorise this book
in the section on the social psychology of the late 20th century, rather
than in the section on alchemy. The Library of Congress has chosen to
categorise this book under GR790 - the mythology of plants and not
alchemy QD13 - 26.

Adam McLean

From: Noel Kettering
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997

William Scott Shelley wrote:

> I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my
> book THE ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I
> have shown to be the ergot mushroom.

"The matter itself is found everywhere. It flies with fowls
in the air, swims with fishes in the sea, it is discerned by
the reason of angels, and it governs man and woman." Ripley

"The matter lies before the eyes of all; everybody sees it,
touches it, loves it, but knows it not. It is glorious and
vile, precious and of small account, and is found everywhere
... But, to be brief, our Matter has as many names as there
are things in this world; that is why the foolish know it not."
The Golden Tract

For further descriptions of the Philosopher's Stone, see:
Ruland - On the Prima Materia @
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/ruland_excerpt.html

It is, indeed, the most blessed occupation of Man's talents,
to search for the Philosophers Stone, Frater Shelley. God
has blessed you with the desire to find that which has been
hidden. May His light continue to shine upon your quest.

"The object of your desire is the one thing out of which all
things are made." Rosinus

Noel

"How doth the sun, in secret, lie concealed, yet seen by every eye?"

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: william scott shelley

reply: adam mclean

skepticism to any claim of identifying the philosophers stone is both
scientific and appropriate. however, i am disappointed that you have chosen
to engage in personal attacks, and as the moderator of this discussion group
you have violated your own ground rules, setting a tone that will likely be
unfruitful, and certainly damaging your reputation if my work is correct. it
would seem that your role as the moderator is not to confuse the issue and
impose your dogmatic views on the group, but to facilitate an intelligent
exchange of ideas, which i am sorry to say, you have failed to uphold.

i would simply ask that you first read the book before attacking and
dismissing it. this book was published at notre dame, and those who have read
it have endorsed it in no uncertain terms, including "the father of
ethnobotany," professor richard evans schultes, (emeritus) director,
botanical museum, harvard university, among other highly respected scholars
from yale, notre dame, boston university, and the university of chicago. i
would be curious to know what contributions you have made to the fields of
scientific knowledge, and why you might think that you are in a better
position than these scholars to judge my work.

the challenge you issued was consistent with your entire response. i have not
seen this painting, and the commands you gave failed to produce it on the
computer. however, i have seen enough alchemy-related art to know that we are
dealing with the symbolic, and even if i could explain this painting to you,
you obviously wouldn't believe it, and besides, all other interpretations
would be equally valid. as plato says in his "protagoras": "arguing about
poetry (ie. art) is comparable to the wine parties of (the uneducated)."
rather than engage in the dubious art of interpreting ambiguous symbols,
perhaps you can explain to me the writings presented in my book (all of which
are primary source references, directly out of the unambiguous texts), and
tell me why they don't have anything to do with ergot. i doubt whether you
can or will accept this challenge.

finally, if in the future you are unable to demonstrate a little more
professionalism and tolerance for views that challenge your preconceived
notions, i will have to ask that you remove my name from the alchemy group.
also, if you are interested in understanding where your reaction to these
ideas originate, i would suggest that you pick up a copy of my next book,
"the origins of the europeans:classical observations in culture and
personality," which will be published in international scholars publications
early next year. if you take the time to read my work, i think you will find
that i am not as one-dimensional as your prejudices would lead you to
believe.

william scott shelley

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: william scott shelley

reply: noel kettering

thank you my friend.

happy is the man who finds Wisdom... (proverbs of solomon 3:13)

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: william scott shelley
>skepticism to any claim of identifying the philosophers stone is both
>scientific and appropriate. however, i am disappointed that you have chosen
>to engage in personal attacks, and as the moderator of this discussion group
>you have violated your own ground rules, setting a tone that will likely be
>unfruitful, and certainly damaging your reputation if my work is correct.

*Adam engaging in personal attacks?

*Quite frankly I read all preceding emails on the subject of "ergot
mushroom as philosopher's stone", and I do not recall any *personal
attacks*. I do recall Adam making a direct argument against your argument.
And then I think Noel came in with a more occluded reply.

>it would seem that your role as the moderator is not to confuse the issue
>and impose your dogmatic views on the group, but to facilitate an
>intelligent exchange of ideas, which i am sorry to say, you have failed
>to uphold.

*considering it is your idea he attacked, are you, dear sir, really in any
position whatsoever to judge Adam's actions with clarity and lack of
prejudice?

*in any case, while Adam certainly is attacking your assertion, he is most
open minded, at least that has been my experience in over two years of
these alchemy email forums.

*please note the following from Adam--in the first paragraph he uses
historical works to support his view, in the second he sets up a very fair
challenge to you. Quite frankly, I would relish such a challenge if I were
you. Unless of course, you hadn't thought of texts such as The Crowning of
Nature.

***QUOTED TEXT FROM MCLEAN******
I came across this recently, in the matter of the late 17th century mystical
writer DrJohn Pordage. An article written recently in 'History Today'
suggests that Pordage's mystical visions were a result of ergot poisoning.
Pordage was actually as follower of Jacob Boehme, and perhaps we
don't need the ad hoc hypothesis of ergot poisoning to explain his visions,
which strangely enough are all pictured in Boehmist terms!

Perhaps I can set William Scott Shelley a challenge, though I doubt he
will want to take it up. Instead of advancing on this e-mail discussion group
justifications for his thesis, can I ask him to look at an alchemical text and
demonstrate how ergot fits this text. I would like him to explain the
relevance of ergot to the 'Crowning of Nature' which is available on the
alchemy web site at

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/crowning.html
******END QUOTED TEXT********

>i would simply ask that you first read the book before attacking and
>dismissing it.

*but it obviously looks like the issue's been raised before. Adam isn't
just being prejudicial here, he's argued this already. In any case, if your
idea has merit, you should try to argue your case rather than stammer and
tell us its not fair because Adam is skeptical. What did you expect? Did
you expect us all to shut up and just buy your book? I myself am always
open to alternative points of views, but since my interests also extend to
subjects such as Tarot, I am quite familiar with people who posit baseless
theories (sincere or not) and equate the value of what they feel in a
scientific realm higher than anything argued theoretically or proven in the
lab.

this book was published at notre dame, and those who have read
>it have endorsed it in no uncertain terms, including "the father of
>ethnobotany," professor richard evans schultes, (emeritus) director,
>botanical museum, harvard university, among other highly respected scholars
>from yale, notre dame, boston university, and the university of chicago. i
>would be curious to know what contributions you have made to the fields of
>scientific knowledge, and why you might think that you are in a better
>position than these scholars to judge my work.

*then if its so substantial, you shouldn't be acting so insecure about a
challenge. As to Adam's contributions, if you seriously have to ask that
question, then I think that speaks for itself.

>the challenge you issued was consistent with your entire response. i have not
>seen this painting, and the commands you gave failed to produce it on the
>computer. however, i have seen enough alchemy-related art to know that we are
>dealing with the symbolic, and even if i could explain this painting to you,
>you obviously wouldn't believe it, and besides, all other interpretations
>would be equally valid.

*gawd, this is exactly the kind of rot that there's entirely too much of,
even in so-called "academic circles". Like a lot of the balderdash we read
about Jung, that tells you any impression you have is valid. Certainly, on
a personal level, one can have one's own symbol system, most of us do.
However, we're talking both the *transpersonal* here, and the *intended
message* of the artist, which, in the case of Crowning, was not produced in
a void.

as plato says in his "protagoras": "arguing about
>poetry (ie. art) is comparable to the wine parties of (the uneducated)."
>rather than engage in the dubious art of interpreting ambiguous symbols,
>perhaps you can explain to me the writings presented in my book (all of which
>are primary source references, directly out of the unambiguous texts), and
>tell me why they don't have anything to do with ergot. i doubt whether you
>can or will accept this challenge.

*Perhaps your book should be read with interest by all. But frankly, Adam
challenged you first, and secondly, speaking for myself, you have to prove
yourself more than Adam does.

>finally, if in the future you are unable to demonstrate a little more
>professionalism and tolerance for views that challenge your preconceived
>notions, i will have to ask that you remove my name from the alchemy group.

*unbelievable. Adam, I certainly hope you forward a copy of my reply to
this guy. I guess applying his theory to an actual alchemy text really was
too hard for him

>also, if you are interested in understanding where your reaction to these
>ideas originate, i would suggest that you pick up a copy of my next book,
>"the origins of the europeans:classical observations in culture and
>personality," which will be published in international scholars publications
>early next year. if you take the time to read my work, i think you will find
>that i am not as one-dimensional as your prejudices would lead you to
>believe.

*Adam made no such argument.

George Leake

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: william scott shelley
>
>reply: noel kettering
>
>thank you my friend.
>
>happy is the man who finds Wisdom... (proverbs of solomon 3:13)

*puh-leaze!!!

Therefore all those who desire to attain the blessing of this art should
apply themselves to study, should gather the truth from the books and not
from invented fables and untruthful works. There is no way by which this
art can truly be found (although men meet with many deceptions), except by
completing their studies and understanding the words of the philosophers
Theatrum Chemicum. Volume II. (H�redes: Zetzner, 1659), page 387

George Leake

From: Stuart Inman
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997

Well, perhaps Adam WAS being a bit hasty in jumping at William Scott
Shelley's claims, but anyone who has seen this sort of claim turn up
over a period of time will know why he reacted like that.

The problem is that Shelley's message makes an assertion without
backing it up in any way or even outlining his argument. I suspect
that most people on this list would at this point shrug and label
this as another "Jesus was a mushroom" type effort, it does not
excite curiosity in me. An explanation of Shelley's reasoning might
have.

I must admit to being less than impressed by his endorsements. I am
sure that Professor Richard Evans Schultes knows a lot about
ethnobotany, but what does he know about alchemy? In my experience,
academic qualification is no guarantee of knowledge or understanding.
My own field, Surrealism, is riddled with "experts" who lack both
knowledge and understanding of their subject. Needless to say,
academic qualifications do not disqualify understanding either! If
William Scott Shelley is going to use academic authority to enforce
his position he should perhaps say what research they have done on
alchemical texts.

I did not read Adam's reply as being in any way a personal attack on
Shelley, unlike Shelley's reply to Adam, which was snide and rude,
but it also justified Adam's remarks.

What is the "unambiguous text" in question? Most of alchemy seems to
be possessed of a degree of ambiguity and to be wrapped in symbols.
perhaps this particular text is perfectly straightforward, but it
can't be claimed to be representative or definitive of the first
matter as described in all alchemical texts. At least, not unless
Shelley can accept Adam's challenge of explaining the "Crowning of
Nature" or any other text. For a theory to have universal validity it
must fit ALL the known facts. As far as I can see, if his theory fits
the facts of the "unambiguous text" it only applies to that text.

Perhaps Adam has not made any contribution to science. I am
not aware of him being a scientist, and this might explain this
sad failure on his part. But he HAS contributed great deal to the
study of Alchemy, as the alchemy web site bears witness.

I am not a scientist either, having to put up with being a painter,
poet, photographer and a few other things besides. But my
understanding of science is that claims require evidence to support
them, and I would like a good reason why I should spend my time
reading a book that, from the author's own description, sounds like
the latest cranks outing rather than a piece of science. I hope that
Mr Shelley is capable of explaining his work in such a way as to at
least evoke curiosity in me, rather than bludgeoning us with his
"authorities", his attitudes and assertions so far only encourage
prejuidice, which I am sure we would all agree is a lamentable
thing.

Stuart Inman

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 97
From: Diane Munoz

Adam McLean wrote:

>I suspect this challenge will not be taken up, because most people
>who offer a one-dimension explanation of alchemy and "believe that [they]
>have identified the philosophers stone" prefer to chose their material on
>their own ground, to selectively gather material that seems to support
>their thesis. In fact, to anyone who has studied alchemy in depth,
>especially "scholars of the highest qualification" in alchemy who have
>looked at the mass of material, such a thesis falls down at the first
>hurdle.

It is my experience that what Adam has said above is true. Set upon
proving something, one can always find support, even for the most
outrgeously bizarre of ideas. It's as if the universe moves in
synchronicity all its powers and matter to prove what we want to be
true. Science has discovered the reality of this through their quantum
mechanics understanding of the "observer." experiments.

So to me the only thing that would be of interest is the transformation
of the person as a result of ingesting/discovering the material. And
even that is subject to the observer! I am waiting with great interest
the result of the ingestion of David Hudson's material [if that ever
does happen to be distributed)

The most important component of the Philosopher's Stone is how
the person who takes it is changed and what they become as a
result of the change. The wisdom that has settled into the words
and actions of those who have taken alchemy to its height
speak for themselves.

Diane Munoz

Armenua Publications & Graphics

From: Noel Kettering
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997

william scott shelley wrote:

> reply: noel kettering
>
> thank you my friend.
> happy is the man who finds Wisdom... (proverbs of solomon 3:13)

but to Adam he wrote:

> i would simply ask that you first read the book before attacking
> and dismissing it. this book was published at notre dame, and
> those who have read it have endorsed it in no uncertain terms,
> including "the father of ethnobotany," professor richard evans
> schultes, (emeritus) director, botanical museum, harvard university,
> among other highly respected scholars from yale, notre dame, boston
> university, and the university of chicago. i would be curious to
> know what contributions you have made to the fields of scientific
> knowledge, and why you might think that you are in a better position
> than these scholars to judge my work.
> (clip)
> i will have to ask that you remove my name from the alchemy group.

If you are still with us Frater Shelly, I would like to point out
that I believe that Adam and I are in agreement; you have NOT
identified the Philosopher's Stone, if it is your contention that
the Stone is "the ergot mushroom".

The quotations that I gave to you should have offended you as
much as those that Adam provided. To Alchemists, they clearly
define something else. And while your book may have been
endorsed by those listed above, I do not believe that a qualified
Alchemist will endorse the hypothesis.

Perhaps you were thanking me for the civil manner in which I told
you that you were wrong, in which case the welcome is as deserved
as the civility, but your questioning of Adam's qualifications for
judging your work, if it didn't display the innocence of ignorance,
would border on rudeness and petulance.

May your light continue to increase,

Noel

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: Jeffrey

In a message dated 8/18/97 william scott shelley wrote:

< perhaps you can explain to me the writings presented in my book (all of which
are primary source references, directly out of the unambiguous texts), and
tell me why they don't have anything to do with ergot.>>

Dear William: I find your dismissal of the symbolic and your equation of a
thousand year symbol to the ergot very amusing, and very reductive. I will
offer you not so ambiguous text you might have heard of-the Rosarium, in
which it is written: This stone is something which is fixed more in thee
[than elsewhere], created of God, and thou art its ore and it is extracted
from thee, and wheresoever thou art it remains separably with thee. . .And as
man is made up of the four elements, so also is the stone, and so it is dug
out of man, and thou art its ore, namely by working, for from thee it is
extracted, that is, by division, and in thee it remains inseparably, namely
by knowledge. . .[to express it otherwise] fixed in thee: namely in the
Mercurius of the wise; that art its ore: that is, it is enclosed in thee and
thou holdest it secretly; and from thee it is extracted when it is reduced
[to its essence] by thee and dissolved; for without thee it cannot be
fulfilled, and without it canst thou not live, and so the end looks to the
beginning, and contrariwise.

The stone is found within the human being, that is to say, within the psyche
of the human. It is in my view quite real but can never be reduced to the
only physical. Nevertheless, however you might understand the above
quote, can you honestly say that all such images and concopts can be
reduced to one physical item? Even if you could justify a hundred quotes
from the alchemists in terms of the ergot, what do you do with the rest?
Reject them because they don't fit as unscientific? And what scholars
do you cite? Scholars of alchemy, like Adam? I have spent over
twenty years studying alchemy not only in terms of books, but as a
living psychic experience. This has carried me many places, produced
many dozens of experiences of the Stone and never have I even come
close to the ergot? Do you dismiss my experiences and that of dozens
of others like me? Would it not be a more reasonable scientific hypothesi
to argue that the ergot duplicates some of the experiences attributed
to the stone, rather than claiming to have solved the problem of the
stone entirely?

Jeff

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: Beat Krummenacher

William Scott Shelley wrote:
>I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
ergot mushroom.<

I can only support the answer of Adam McLean. Since Adam however
is no practical alchemist, I would like to attach from my practical
experience the following: Who works in reality at the great work, sees
with his senses every day, that a reduction of the philosopher's stone
to the ergot is completely incorrect. If the affair would be so simple,
then the philosopher's stone would be a generally known and
obtainable good.

A question to Scott: The taking of the philosopher's stone or another
higher alchemical preparation leads to an intense feeling of warmth.
Among other things the blood circulation is improved essentially.
The taking of ergot causes against it a contraction of the periphera
blood vessels, which leads to a cold feeling in the extremities.
At overdosage the circulation is fully stopped, which ends in a dying
out of the limbs (gangrene).

How can ergot be the philosopher's stone, if such opposites exist
in their effects?

The thesis of Scott is one of the many simplifications of alchemy,
which is worthless. One could compare that to the simple atomic
models in comparison for the quantum-physical description of
atomic processes. Who does not dispose of the necessary
knowledge of mathematics, must just be satisfied with simple
models. Scott will be able to understand his error only then,
if he is ready to take possession of the simplest knowledge in
alchemy. However if he scratches only at the surface of alchemy,
so he never will arrive at an understanding of Our Art.

Sincerely
Lapis

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: Stuart Inman
>The problem is that Shelley's message makes an assertion without
>backing it up in any way or even outlining his argument.

*I think that Shelley intended us all to go buy his book and that would be
enough back up on its own. That and the fact Notre Dame published it.

>I suspect that most people on this list would at this point shrug and label
>this as another "Jesus was a mushroom" type effort, it does not
>excite curiosity in me. An explanation of Shelley's reasoning might
>have.

*I myself am of course always interested in new ideas (frankly I was
wondering why he wasn't talking about the psilocybin mushroom),
but yeah, for us to take his word without any argument...

>My own field, Surrealism, is riddled with "experts" who lack both
>knowledge and understanding of their subject.

*touche!

>What is the "unambiguous text" in question?

*I thought that was Shelley's book itself. Perhaps lagging book sales
are bothering him?

>Perhaps Adam has not made any contribution to science.

*I suppose that does depend on one's definition of science. Certainly the
many books he has edited have been a great contribution to furthering study
of alchemy in modern times.

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: Norman Engel

Is there such a thing as an ERGOT MUSHROOM?

Doesn't ergot come from moldy rye?

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 0
From: Michal Pober

dear friends,
this all makes perfect sense if the subject of mr shelley's book is
'philosophers stoned'.
sorry about that.. i'm still in summer silly season.

best,

michal

ps i was also having a hard time with ergot 'mushroom'.
mould, bacteria, perhaps fungus?

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: tim scott

(Should this also be in the PRACTICAL sub-list?)

Dear Mr Shelley and others:

I also have not read Mr Shelley's book, but I am interested in ethno
botany, the two most recent books I've read being Von Bibra's _Plant
Intoxicants_ and Rudgley' _Essential Substances_ (both excellent, IMO
and highly recommended).

I would like to add that, were I Adam, I too would bristle a little
bit at the apparent finality of Mr Shelley's original message:

> I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
> ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
> ergot mushroom.<

Now that I look at it, this sentence, as it stands, is sort of confusing.
It begins "I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone..."
which seems to be a statement of opinion but it ends "through the ancient
medical writings I have shown [the philosophers stone or the elixir?] to
be the ergot mushroom" which appears to be a conclusion.

For instance, Soma/Haoma has been "positively identified" before
by a number of writers, including experts both in academic and field
ethnobotany, with evidence and cogent arguments. But others disagree,
and some think that there might not be a substance to identify at
all. I think it's a little misleading to represent that the case is
closed to the readers of this list, where not all are likely to be
conversant with this issue.

All that said, I am open-minded with respect to, and very interested in,
the subject of consciousness altering substances both in relation to
magic, ritual, religion, personal growth, shamanism, etc. I look forward
to getting Mr Shelley's book and reading it closely. In fact as ergot
intoxication has been known over a wide span of time and geography there
may be a connection to alchemy, but I believe the person to elucidate
such a connection would need to be an expert in many fields (or work
with a bunch of of experts.)

On the other hand, I think I would have to defer to Adam McLean before
suggesting that the forum be open to include discussion of the use of
intoxicating substances in alchemy.

Best regards,

Tim Scott

From: Jon Marshall
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997

If I have understood Mr. Shelley's book correctly, it appears to be
a defense of the proposition that early to classical Indo-European
culture was permeated with the consumption of ergot, and that this
tradition passed to the alchemists, after it was repressed or lost
elsewhere throughout this entire world.

However a demonstration of the importance of ergot to this early
world, even if successful, does not prove the claim that all alchemy
was about the ingestion of ergot. Or even prove the claim that there
was a strand of alchemy that was entirely about ergot. If there was
such a tradition then it should be possible to identify the alchemists
involved and their conections to each other and the
uses that they made of the drug.

The classical scholarship is thorough, though in my opinion
somewhat over trusting of the identitifications made by writers of
the graeco-roman world. Myths and gods become given a similarity
through these identifications which may be more apparent than
real. As an example: Ergot produces a sticky sweet exudation,
references to things like the sweetness of wisdom are references
to ergot.

The book includes a large herbal section which seems to be
largely compiled from Pliny, Dioscorides and the Old Testament.
Almost nothing from Alchemical texts.

Sadly the sections on Alchemy are relatively sparse, and largely
consist of isolated quotations from a variety of works.

To convince me of the identification of the Stone would require,
as Adam has suggested, that Mr Shelley take an alchemical work,
or a family of works, and show how these works clearly illustrate the
preparation of ergot (and nothing else). It would require showing that
things like Newton's reference to the "true permanent air" being of
"metallic origin" actually were references to ergot (which off hand
seems exceedingly unlikely) by analysing how Newton uses these
terms within his system - not by reference to one usage alone.

I would suggest that it would be of great interest to all of us, if Mr.
Shelley would do this. The alchemical works I leave up to him,
though I would suggest that as 'puns' are sometimes important that
it might be of value to start with the works of recognised adepts who
wrote in English- Ripley, Norton, Eirenaus Philalethes for example.

in anticipation

jon

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: Frater Melchior

Salve Friends!

Observing the progress of this debate, i get a somewhat peculiar taste in my
mouth reminding me of inquisition.

I have no idea what the person who claimed to have "discovered the
Philosophers Stone" base his viewpoint on, but so far im not convinced about
any of his claims. I cannot reject it 100%, but 99% should do. Everything
else is dogmatical. Until he presents evidence which convince me beyond all
reasonable doubt, ill stick to this belief.

However, i respect his personal beliefs, and if he thinks he have found the
Stone, so be it. Its probably not my stone, but i accept our disagreement. I
also agree that this is best done in a civilized manner.

I did in fact perceive Adams words as a bit harsh, allthough they were
accurate and legitimate (even for a list manager). I understand that there
have been many wild claims of similarity earlier, and that such statements
therefore can become a bit irritating for many of the veterans of this
forum. This is only natural, and should be expected by everyone who dares to
present subjective beliefs as collective truth. But in order to avoid
fruitless conflicts of personal attacks, we must either be extremly beware
of how we express ourselves, or we can chose to not be so sensitive. I can
understand how the person of which THEORIES have been critized, can
experience it as a personal attack, as he probably has been very dedicated
and comitted to his work. But nevertheless, hard feelings should be
unnecessary, and especially in this case.

We must allow heretic ideas, even in alchemy, for pluralism is always
beneficial. Of course this doesn't mean that we have to accept every naive or
fanatical claims as facts. So i suggest that we overbear with these
convictions hereafter, and let the person which cursed in the church calm
down and realize that no one wishes him any harm. However, if he is up to
it, we wont stop him from presenting any radical evidence or arguments
supporting his subjective comprehension.

For the future, I wish him all the luck in the world in his great work.

Likewise, I greet Adams excellent work both on internet and through books.

sincerely,

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: Richard Roberts

>From:William Scott Shelley
>I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
>ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
>ergot mushroom. I have also demonstrated this plant to be the soma of the
>hindus, and have identified this plant in the biblical literature. this work
>has received the endorsements of scholars of the highest qualification. just
>thought that some of you might be interested in this identification.

Are you referring to the so-called "magic mushrooms" of the Huichol Indians
of the American Southwest, and was their propagation worldwide? What is the
botanical name?

I assume you mean that they can transform the consciousness of the
alchemist, but surely you do not attribute any power to transform metals to
these mushrooms.

Richard Roberts

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: william scott shelley

let me first apologize to those who have taken offense to my words
in defense of mr. mclean's reply. yes, i did take offense to what i
thought was mr. mclean's thinly-veiled reference to my work and
views as one-dimensional and somehow more appropriate to the
field of social psychology, as if my thinking and beliefs are somehow
historically aberrant and peculiar to the late twentieth century.
mr. mclean also seemed to be deriding those scholars who have
read the work (which i originally mentioned in passing to let the group
know that it has passed the proverbial "acid-test"), so i thought that he
should know who these gentlemen are. if i have misunderstood your
words mr. mclean, i would also extend this apology to you. however,
if i haven't, i believe that i am owed an apology from you.

i am both astonished and disappointed at the defensiveness
and negativity that has characterized the response. i find it curious
that no one can identify the stone (yes, it is in us as God is in us),
and no one has a background in entheogens or ethnobotany, and
yet many of you are sure that the two are unrelated. i have presented
the evidence for my views in my work, which any of you can borrow
from the library or interlibrary loan. it would seem appropriate that
you at least look at the material before jumping to conclusions and
dismissing it. if anyone has a better explanation for the ancient medical
writings of hippocrates, galen, soranus, aretaeus, etc. (who
were all following the hermetic teachings of the orphic-pythagorean
school that socrates, plato, aristotle, and the entire indo-european
priesthood followed, and this was later adopted by the alchemists),
i would be interested in hearing it. i would also be interested in knowing
what is the proper identity of moly, hyssop, frankincense, myrrh,
mandragora, solomon's plant, soma, and the panacea to name a few.
and remember, any explanation will have to fit not only the writings of
the poets and prophets, but also the physicians who prescribed these
medicines as treatments for thousands of years, clearly eliminating
from consideration the medically "worthless" plants that we now call
by these names.

let me also say that i do not think that every writing or art work that was
or was purported to be alchemical was a reference to ergot, much
as the words of Christ are not all references to ergot, even though
he is associated with the plant in several passages from the New
Testament. there were clearly many who claimed to be alchemists,
who were ignorant of the identity of the "stone" and the great mystery,
and this is what separated the "true" alchemists from the "vulgar"
alchemists (for the use of ergot in the greater mystery of eleusis
in greece, the religious rites of the great goddess (ie. Wisdom)
that were associated with orpheus and the orphic traditions, see
wasson, hofmann, ruck, the road to eleusis, 1977).

nor does ergot explain everything in the writings of the "true" alchemists.
"true" alchemy is clearly the acceleration of the maturation process, the
metaphor of "base metals into gold" was obviously a reference to the
individual transformation into "gold" (ie. perfection), that is, from a state
of sickness (ie. base metals) into health. the alchemists were among
the most celebrated physicians of their day, van helmont, or "doctor
opiatus" considered the alchemical elixir to be the cure for all disease,
and paracelsus was able to perform several miraculous cures because
of his secret medical knowledge, curing gout, epilepsy, and leprosy,
according to cyriacus jacobus. the indian rasaratnasamuchchaya
states, "by partaking in mercury (ie. the philosophers stone) men
are freed from a multitude of diseases..." there are many more
references to the philosophers stone as a medicine, but i think i
have made my point. i do not pretend this to be evidence for the
identification of the philosophers stone with ergot, i am only suggesting
here that the philosophers stone (which paracelsus says was identical
to the "elixir"), was a physical substance employed as a medicine.
everyone will have to make up their own mind as to whether my
identification is accurate, or whether there is another explanation
for these writings.

because of the response to my views and the feeling that i have
intruded upon a private party, i think that it is best for me to withdraw
from the discussion. i regret that i must request that my name be
removed from the alchemy group.

respectfully,

william scott shelley

From: INMAN J S
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997

William Scott Shelley's claims certainly stirred things up on this
list, but to little effect beyond blasting him off the list.
Although my opinions concerning his claims and his attitude towards
Adam's reactions are unchanged from those of the other day, I am
inclined to regret voicing them if they helped put off Shelley
justifying his claims. His farewell letter to us modified his
position to the point where it was unrecognisable from the confident
assertion that he had identified the philosophers stone.

I think that anybody should expect a salvo of criticism if they make
any unsubstantiated claims and they would do best to give a brief
abstract of their reasoning. Shelley's book may well be worth
reading, but what is there to tempt me? I have a back-log of reading
matter a few shelves long on a score of subjects and can not read
everything on everything, my time is limited.

I am far from understanding alchemy, perhaps there is the slightest
glimmering (there are those who would disagree) but I find that the
multiplicity of perspectives in these lists often light up unrelated,
or distantly related matters. I have been given enough material to
work over for a lifetime. I wish I had read a coherent argument for
Shelley's position. I still do not know what this very unambiguous
text was on which he based his thesis, and do not feel very much like
buying his book to find out. What a shame.

Stuart

PS: Someone mentioned the mescal button. It is not a mushroom but a
cactus. I have two in my greenhouse, one of them is in flower today.

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: Frater Melchior
>Observing the progress of this debate, i get a somewhat peculiar taste
>in my mouth reminding me of inquisition.
>However, i respect his personal beliefs, and if he thinks he have found the
>Stone, so be it. Its probably not my stone, but i accept our disagreement.
>I also agree that this is best done in a civilized manner.

*I certainly agree with you. If anyone should be accused of "behaving like
the inquisition" though, it should be Mr. Shelley. McLean disagreed (if a
bit vehemently) with Shelley's argument, but do note the fact that he
didn't go anything as the moderator. Shelley shifted the debate from his
point about the ergot mushroom, to accusations of personal attack.

>I can
>understand how the person of which THEORIES have been critized,
>can experience it as a personal attack, as he probably has been
>very dedicated and comitted to his work. But nevertheless, hard
>feelings should be unnecessary, and especially in this case.

*I also agree with you, yet I've found in any academic or serious
philosophical discourse anywhere, you're almost always going to
find people who are going to disagree with you (in fact I recently
read someone who said the beauty of all philosophy is that it
always ultimately *fails*). One's going to take hard knocks,
sometimes unfair ones. One has to be able to deal with them when
they come. In terms of the group, I think its our duty as members of
a forum to keep the discourse on the topic. I think Adam's frustration
mirrors mine--here you have this Shelley person making
claims with little to back him up. We've seen this before with that
"philosophical gold" thing of a year or so ago.

>We must allow heretic ideas, even in alchemy, for pluralism is always
>beneficial.

*Adam does a splendid job in this regard, there are postings here of
questionable relevance all the time. For instance, I've posted things here
related to tarot and Aleister Crowley, areas I know he's not interested
in--in fact one can say he thinks them tangential to the topic. But since
those of us writing about non mainstream alchemy topics make
the effort to demonstrate relevance, Adam allows such threads to continue.

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: tim scott
>All that said, I am open-minded with respect to, and very interested in,
>the subject of consciousness altering substances both in relation to
>magic, ritual, religion, personal growth, shamanism, etc. I look forward
>to getting Mr Shelley's book and reading it closely.

*speaking of which, I've noticed just now we have virtually no
bibliographic information on this book. UT has an excellent botany dept
with the literature in their library (current and old) to back up their
research, yet I've found no reference to Mr. Shelley on the online
catalogue. If someone out there can forward me some information, perhaps I
can get UT to buy a copy.

*which also raises this question: how can we be sure this Shelley person's
not scamming us? Has anyone actually seen independent reference to it?

From: Noel Kettering
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997

william scott shelley wrote:

> there were clearly many who claimed to be alchemists, who were
> ignorant of the identity of the "stone" and the great mystery,
> and this is what separated the "true" alchemists from the "vulgar"
> alchemists

But, Frater Shelly, you claimed to have identified the Stone.

> I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my
> book THE ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I
> have shown to be the ergot mushroom.

> "true" alchemy is clearly the acceleration of the maturation
> process, the metaphor of "base metals into gold" was obviously
> a reference to the individual transformation into "gold" (ie.
> perfection), that is, from a state of sickness (ie. base metals)
> into health.

Are you, therefore, saying that you have identified the Stone of
the "vulgar" alchemists?

> i do not pretend this to be evidence for the identification of
> the philosophers stone with ergot, i am only suggesting here
> that the philosophers stone (which paracelsus says was identical
> to the "elixir"), was a physical substance employed as a medicine.
> everyone will have to make up their own mind as to whether my
> identification is accurate, or whether there is another explanation
> for these writings.

I am a member of the INNER Alchemy contingent and would define
the Philosopher's Stone thus:

"The Philosopher's Stone is the Hermetic symbol for the things
made by the Great Work. It is a transmuted and perfected state
of Human personality. It is a stable awareness of the Central
Ego, a permanent knowledge of the true nature of the world,
and a conscious instrumentation of the Universal Will."

One who has confected the Stone, that is, one who has followed
the injuction to "Know Thyself", is enabled to manufacture a
physical substance which has the properties associated with the
Panacea. This substance can, indeed, cure the sick and transform
physical metals, etc.

The fact that both the physical substance and the INNER awareness
are labeled 'the Philosopher's Stone' does not confuse those who
have studied Alchemy with the 'burning desire' to know, they are
used to occluded references.

Remember what Rosinus said, "The object of your desire is the one
thing out of which all things are made", and with the Grace of God
you will discover the 'truth' for which we ALL seek.

> because of the response to my views and the feeling that i have
> intruded upon a private party, i think that it is best for me to
> withdraw from the discussion. i regret that i must request that
> my name be removed from the alchemy group.

If you enter a hive of bees and announce that the queen is a
mushroom, you might expect to get stung. ;)

The fury will soon die down and there is much to learn here. We ALL
seek the answers to the same questions as you - you are among those
who are much like yourself. There are many here who have dedicated
their lives to this Work, you are welcome to stay and participate.

Shalom, Peace to you Brother,

Noel

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: James Callaway

ergot mushroom ??? and he claims that Schultes passed this nonsense ?
forget it go for a walk, shake it off. Remember who you are and what
you came here to do.

Breathe Deep, Seek Peace. Rejoice in the Real.

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: tim scott

> *speaking of which, I've noticed just now we have virtually no
> bibliographic information on this book. UT has an excellent botany dept
> with the literature in their library (current and old) to back up their
> research, yet I've found no reference to Mr. Shelley on the online
> catalogue. If someone out there can forward me some information, perhaps I
> can get UT to buy a copy.
>
> *which also raises this question: how can we be sure this Shelley person's
> not scamming us? Has anyone actually seen independent reference to it?

From www.amazon.com

The Elixir : An Alchemical Study of the Ergot Mushrooms
by William Scott Shelley

Hardcover
Published by Cross Cultural Pubns/Crossroads
Publication date: March 1995
ISBN: 0940121212
List: $42.95 ~ Our Price: $42.95
Availability: This item usually ships within 4-6 weeks. Please
note that items occasionally go out of print or publishers run
out of stock. We will notify you within 2-3 weeks if we have
trouble obtaining this item.

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: Victoria GaVoian

Dear Mr. Shelley,

I had heard of Nostradamus using some sort of a method to help him in
his "seeing," i.e. the future. He was said to sit upon a tripod that
had a brass bowl filled with various oils. Are you familiar with what
he used, and also of the reference to specific oils?

Victoria GaVoian

From: Tzvi Langermann
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 97

The recent lively and interesting discussion on ergotism, alchemy, and so forth
prompts me to call attention to a few additional books--though I too have
shelves of books and stacks of papers awaiting my attention.

1. There is a fine (as far as I can judge) discussion of ergotism in John Mann,
Murder, Magic, and Medicine, Oxford, 1992. I am very interested in the
connections between alchemy and medicine, especially in the medieval period,
and I find it intriguing that some alchemists--notably Jabir (Geber)
himself--wrote books on poisons as well as on alchemy. Mann doesn't talk about
alchemy, but the book is fascinating.

2. A while ago when browsing at a bookstore I looked at a book called The
Alchemy of Illness. As I recall the author describes the personal
transformation which she underwent as a result of an illness. Has anyone read
it?

3. One book which I have just purchased, and I hope to find time to read soon,
is Ken Croswell, The Alchemy of the Heavens, Oxford paperback, 1996. According
to the blurbs, it's a popularization of recent astronomical discoveries.

Tzvi Langermann

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997
From: Johann Plattner

> From:William Scott Shelley
> I believe that i have identified the philosophers stone in my book THE
> ELIXIR, which through the ancient medical writings I have shown to be the
> ergot mushroom. I have also demonstrated this plant to be the soma of the
> hindus, and have identified this plant in the biblical literature. this work
> has received the endorsements of scholars of the highest qualification. just
> thought that some of you might be interested in this identification.
>
> William Scott Shelley

Sorry, I don`t think so !

Approx. since 25 years I am studying alchemical texts and got also
some experience in practical alchemy in this time, I don`t know very
much about the whole subject, but one thing is absolutely clear:

Therefore let me quote the Old Philosophers:

"Sal Metallorum Est Lapis Philosophorum"
"Visita Interiora Terrae, Rectificando Invenies Okkultum Lapidem ..."
"In Cavernis Metallorum ...."
etc. etc. etc.

There are only some axioms, which are generally claimed by the
Alchemists, the most important is, that the true Stone could only
be produced with aid of the metallic kingdom. (See Bas. Valentinus,
Artephius, Weidenfeld etc.)
So I cannot understand, why you come across the very strange idea, that
the ergot mushroom (alkaloid ergotamin or similar) could be familiar
with the Philosopher`s Stone.

Johann Plattner

- ignoramus et ignorabimus -

From: Misha Vincentovich Zikoriena
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997

WOW!

That was a pebble and a half to drop in this pond!

Misha Zigas.

========================================================
--- Although william scott shelley asked to be removed from the alchemy
e-mail group in his last letter of Tuesday 19th and I duly unsubscribed him,
he seems determined to have a last word, so I am posting his letter of today
Wednesday, even although he is no longer a member of the e-mail group.
- Adam McLean
========================================================

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997
From: william scott shelley

since an argument for my work that i would be comfortable with would require
far more space than is available to me, i thought that some of you would be
interested in the following endorsements from some of the leading publishers
in your field. mr. richard i. robb, owner and publisher of wizards bookshelf,
who as i'm sure many of you know, publishes quality hermetic texts, writes,
"(the elixir) is the best example of scholarship that we have received in 18
years of publishing, and constitutes a valuable study...perhaps a glossary of
natural science in antiquity." mr. w. emmett small, owner and publisher of
point loma publications, who publish similar books, also reviewed the work,
who wrote to say they also "think highly of it." And in a letter from Mr.
David Fideler, owner and publisher of phanes press, mr. mclean's employer and
the publisher of his books (in an earlier letter he informed me that his wife
had written a long paper on soma), he writes, "many thanks for the
opportunity to look at your manuscript which reflects a remarkable amount of
research!" (exclamation his). like the previous publishers, mr. fideler
kindly returned the work "regrettably" since it wasn't "quite right for us."

i hope that this is enough to gain the interest of the few undecided.

william scott shelley

From: Turiyan gold
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997

>From: Adam McLean
>--- Although william scott shelley asked to be removed from the alchemy
>e-mail group in his last letter of Tuesday 19th and I duly unsubscribed him,
>he seems determined to have a last word, so I am posting his letter of today
>Wednesday, even although he is no longer a member of the e-mail group.

This has seemed to gone to his head. Namedropping does not make it so.
Maybe he should start looking for the holy grail now?

>From: Gionni Di Gravio
>I can understand the reasons for what has transpired here concerning this
>thread, it has not been a pleasant experience to watch.

I've never seen the activity fire up on this list till now. Amazing.

Turiyan gold

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: Johann Plattner
>There are only some axioms, which are generally claimed by the
>Alchemists, the most important is, that the true Stone could only
>be produced with aid of the metallic kingdom. (See Bas. Valentinus,
>Artephius, Weidenfeld etc.)
>So I cannot understand, why you come across the very strange idea, that
>the ergot mushroom (alkaloid ergotamin or similar) could be familiar
>with the Philosopher`s Stone.

*I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that there is a
connection to the growing of mushrooms (if not most fungi and plants for
that matter) with the metallic kingdom. I'm fairly sure most mushrooms grow
naturally in soil, and most need minerals as nutrients. The connection
might be subtle, but I think that's there.

*still, Shelley's got a long way to go to convince me. Anyone notice that
one bit:

" there were clearly many who claimed to be alchemists,
who were ignorant of the identity of the "stone" and the great mystery,
and this is what separated the "true" alchemists from the "vulgar"
alchemists (for the use of ergot in the greater mystery of eleusis
in greece, the religious rites of the great goddess (ie. Wisdom)
that were associated with orpheus and the orphic traditions, see
wasson, hofmann, ruck, the road to eleusis, 1977)."???

*that part is going to take some explaining...

George Leake

Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997
From: Arthur J Versluis

Dear All,

I was amused by the revelation that Dr. John Pordage, with whose work and
life I have spent some years studying and working with, is supposed to have
ingested some sort of fungus in order to become a visionary. I cannot agree
more with Adam's comments on such an hypothesis, which, frankly, I find
outrageously funny. Pordage was part of the Boehmean tradition, which seems
quite fungus-free, so far as I can tell. This hypothesis reminds me of
students who invariably remark, upon seeing Nicholas Black Elk's visionary
account in *Black Elk Speaks*, that he must have been taking LSD (in the
nineteenth century to boot!).
Incidentally, has anyone suggestions for me on purchasing specialty
glassware? You could email me privately if you like
yours
with best wishes
arthur versluis

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997
From: George Leake

>From: Arthur J Versluis
> I was amused by the revelation that Dr. John Pordage, with whose work and
>life I have spent some years studying and working with, is supposed to have
>ingested some sort of fungus in order to become a visionary. I cannot agree
>more with Adam's comments on such an hypothesis, which, frankly, I find
>outrageously funny. Pordage was part of the Boehmean tradition, which seems
>quite fungus-free, so far as I can tell.

No doubt you are correct, and this is simply irresponsible speculation.

However, what about the possibility that Pordage ate old rye bread?

>This hypothesis reminds me of
>students who invariably remark, upon seeing Nicholas Black Elk's visionary
>account in *Black Elk Speaks*, that he must have been taking LSD (in the
>nineteenth century to boot!).

Yeah, well peyote is a distinct possibility.

But it seems that the tendency is to say all manner of mystic or divine or
alchemical revelation comes from hallucinogenic impetus...it seems
disingenuous to me to go to either extreme on this issue.

> Incidentally, has anyone suggestions for me on purchasing specialty
>glassware?

Purchasing things like specialy glassware is part of my profession.

George Leake