Solve et coagula, the Lovers and Art

Formicida

I'm trying to get my head around this expression and how it relates to these cards, and it isn't working.

DuQuette states that the Lovers represents "solve" while Art is "coagula." Crowley doesn't say this outright. He does say, of the Lovers, "The subject of this card is Analysis, followed by Synthesis." The syntax isn't entirely clear to me; he could be saying either that the Lovers represents both of these phases, or that the Lovers is Analysis, with some other card (Art, I should think) being Synthesis. The latter interpretation seems to be more in line with what I understand of what the alchemists meant by "solve et coagula."

But why did they mean that, anyway? My knowledge of alchemy is minimal, and though I'm trying to remedy that I haven't gotten this far yet. (And google isn't helping at the moment). What I can speculate is heavily tinted by modern chemistry, which I know much more about. I have a hard time understanding dissolution as a process of analysis. To me, it's taking two substances and mixing them to make one substance--which seems to have more to do with synthesis. Whereas coagulation could be thought of as the reverse--taking one substance and dividing it into (some of) its component parts. This seems to be pretty thoroughly the opposite of what anyone else means by these things--so what am I missing? What lens do I need to be looking at this through?

And is this all going to make these cards come clear? Please?

Abrac

Hi Formicida...interesting questions.

The English words "solve" as in *solve a puzzle*, and "dissolve" both have the same origin, the Latin "solvere" (to loosen). It is my understanding that in Alchemy, dissolution refers to the breaking up of something into parts. Analysis is just this, the breaking up of something into tinier and tinier pieces until there is nothing left; however mystically, we know that what is left is essence, or spirit. I can see how, if in your background and training you have been taught something just the opposite, this might get confusing. But in the process of what you called "synthesis," what you are actually doing is breaking down all the constituent parts and then recombining them in a new way. This is where coagulation comes in.

Coagulate, from the Latin "coagulare" (to coagulate). Basically, the formula of "solve et coagula" (loosen and congeal) means *solidifying the spiritual essence into material form.* Wirth has some great ideas on this subject in The Tarot of the Magicians.

How all this relates to Crowley's Tarot, specifically the Lovers and Art, I believe will maifest itself through meditation.

mooiedragon

Hi!

My knowledge of Thoth is somewhat limited, but here's my two cents.... I see the lovers as TWO energies coming together to decide one direction that benefits both. Art is ONE energy, trying to find balance or connectedness with two separate energies, to better serve ONE Purpose. The lovers use communication, while Art uses... Understanding. Lovers come to an understanding, then go through the process of Art. Or something like that.

Formicida

Thanks, Abrac.

I was thinking of "solve" in terms of something like dissolving a spoonful of table salt in water. In that case, you are breaking it up into tiny pieces--but the pieces already started out really small. I think I should have been thinking in terms of dissolving a larger chunk of something. Or better yet, a heterogeneous lump of material--say a sedimentary rock or something of that type. Then you're not just dissolving something at a uniform rate, you might be dissolving the boundaries between things. Some parts might be soluble under different conditions (temperature, pH...) than others, and so changing the conditions might increase the amount of stuff that's dissolved. Analysis.

Breaking something up into tiny bits until there's nothing left.

I'm not sure that made any sense to anyone else, but it helped me see how I could look at the metaphors expressed with these ideas.

And mooiedragon, that's also interesting and mirrors what I've come to think about these cards in a more practical sense. I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by this, though:

mooiedragon said:
Art is ONE energy, trying to find balance or connectedness with two separate energies

Where do the two separate energies come from? Are there a total of three energies--two to be balanced and one to balance them? I don't think that's what you're saying.

isthmus nekoi

Formicida said:
Where do the two separate energies come from? Are there a total of three energies--two to be balanced and one to balance them? I don't think that's what you're saying.

That is what synthesis means however. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Three to mediate and unite the two.

Oh, and since we're having etymological lessons, the lyse in analyse is just that, a lysis, a breaking up. The ana means "throughout." Break the whole thing down.

Another way to think about solve et coagula is imagining an aging king being torn to pieces and being reconstituted into a new king. Like Jesus dying and coming back a god. It's still Jesus but more like Super-Jesus, a man AND god, united in one concept.

Unfortunately, I think that trying to learn about alchemy via websites and online posts would be a torturous exercise in burning out your retinas. Do you have access to a good public library system or academic libraries? In terms of theory, you might find you'll make the most in depth progress by reading books about alchemy. I'd check out in particular, books studying a series of images (of which there are variations) called the Rosarium Philosophorum: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/rosarium.html

You might also want to check out the OTO Gnostic Mass which may help broaden your perception on the Lovers.

And Abrac gives good advice. Meditation and practice, if one is inclined to do so, would be where one would reap the most profound understanding.

mooiedragon

Formicida said:
Where do the two separate energies come from? Are there a total of three energies--two to be balanced and one to balance them? I don't think that's what you're saying.

Hi there

In my own personal, practical meaning (disclaimer: I am probably the least experienced regular poster on Thoth), there is one energy trying to balance two others. These two energies can be an aspect of the individuals own personality, two ideas that they want to incorporate into their life or they could even manifest as two individuals who don't get along..... something along those lines. The origonal energy is processing the information, trying to make sense of it, and trying balance the outcome into something workable from their point of view. Or something like that.

I probably shouldn't have posted to this thread as my knowledge of Alchemy is as close to zip as you can get, but I would assume that yes, in a sense there are three different energies, but in some ways these energies have split from one. Now you have the Art energy "remixing" the two others to reunite them. Or something like that.

Formicida

isthmus nekoi said:
Unfortunately, I think that trying to learn about alchemy via websites and online posts would be a torturous exercise in burning out your retinas. Do you have access to a good public library system or academic libraries? In terms of theory, you might find you'll make the most in depth progress by reading books about alchemy. I'd check out in particular, books studying a series of images (of which there are variations) called the Rosarium Philosophorum: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/rosarium.html

Oh, yes. I think trying to learn about practically anything complex online is a torturous exercise in burning out your retinas (though this conversation and others like it help a lot). Do you have any specific book recommendations? I'm currently reading Burland's The Arts of the Alchemists (the first recommendation on this list), and finding it to be useless for these purposes, if an interesting survey of the history.

"Super-Jesus" made me giggle, and I see what you're saying. Doesn't Crowley talk about the idea of the dying king and that sort of Golden Bough stuff in regards to an earlier card? I want to say it's the Fool, but I can't find the reference by quickly skimming the section.

mooiedragon: Don't say you shouldn't have posted! Your insights are good too, and a different perspective never hurt anyone. Look at me--hanging around here asking stupid questions all the time

But to go back to the topic, your idea about the three energies that split from one and are, in a sense, all the same energy is starting to sound a lot like the Christian concept of the trinity to me. I doubt that Crowley meant it that way, but I wonder if it fits? I'll have to do more thinking about that one. What do you think?

Aeon418

I've been meaning to reply to this thread for a few days but I'm in the process of moving house, so I've had little time to spare. The subject of alchemy is so difficult to talk about because it can be interpreted on so many different levels. It's the same with the Thoth Tarot.

Here's a quote from here: http://www.istanbul-yes-istanbul.co.uk/alchemy/Spiritual Alchemy.htm

The alchemical work has three basic stages: the nigredo, the albedo, and the rubedo. It is true that other stages corresponding to nuances of the alchemical process are mentioned in the texts but, although these would be of the utmost importance for an alchemist, they are not so critical for us. The essence of the alchemical movement is contained in the oft-quoted motto: "solve et coagula", "divide and unite." Like the three stages discussed above, these two movements are essential to the work and comprise cycles that are repeated over and over again, on increasingly subtle levels. Alchemy aimed at the resolution of material and spiritual opposites as conventionally understood. This resolution took place on different levels, corresponding to deepening levels of understanding of the true nature of the alchemical work. At a certain point a mediating term, often under the form of the alchemical Mercurius, would intervene in the process. The ultimate resolution was characterized by a mode of subtle mutual reciprocity and interpenetration in which each term of an opposition entered fully into the being of the other, simultaneously present to the other, transforming and being transformed. This union was frequently imaged as a hieros gamos, and its fruit was the the Philosopher's Stone.

The basic principle of alchemy is to take "something" in it's confused and natural state. You seperate it's component parts and purify them. Then you recombine them in a perfect way to create the Philosopher's Stone. But again this can be interpreted on so many different levels.

In a spiritual way you could see the alchemical process as the perfection of the lower self. The union of our divided selves into one unified whole. The union of the conscious mind (sun) and the subconscious mind (moon) creates super consciousness. In a way this is represented by Art and the High Priestess meeting in Tiphareth. But this is only one interpretation. There are sexual interpretations that will reveal themselves through meditation on the sysmbols of the Blood of the Lion and the Glutten of the Eagle mixing in the cauldron of Death.

This is one of those subjects where there is only so much that you can grasp and understand on an intellectual level.

P.S. Crowley does mention solve et coagula in his discussion of the Lovers, p.80

mooiedragon

Formicida said:
mooiedragon: Don't say you shouldn't have posted! Your insights are good too, and a different perspective never hurt anyone. Look at me--hanging around here asking stupid questions all the time

That was a very nice thing to say! And your question is FAR from stupid - in I think it's begun one of the more in-depth and philosophical threads here!

Formicida said:
But to go back to the topic, your idea about the three energies that split from one and are, in a sense, all the same energy is starting to sound a lot like the Christian concept of the trinity to me. I doubt that Crowley meant it that way, but I wonder if it fits? I'll have to do more thinking about that one. What do you think?

I think for the rest of this discussion I might just shut up and listen. I have only a vague idea of what you mean by the Christian idea of the trinity (other than it refers to the Father, Sun and the Holy Ghost) and less of an idea why Crowley wouldn't have meant it that way. But perhaps his ideas were far similar to Christian ideas on the base level than he would have liked.

Formicida

Aeon418 said:
P.S. Crowley does mention solve et coagula in his discussion of the Lovers, p.80

Oh, my goodness. How on earth did I miss THAT? I stand corrected.

In any case, thank you so much for the alchemical information and the link. Things are starting to come a bit clearer now.

Aeon418 said:
This is one of those subjects where there is only so much that you can grasp and understand on an intellectual level.

I think one of the hardest things about the Thoth is that it requires a lot of intellectual legwork to get up to speed with the concepts here, and then you have to drop the intellect and keep going on a higher level.

mooiedragon:

mooiedragon said:
I have only a vague idea of what you mean by the Christian idea of the trinity (other than it refers to the Father, Sun and the Holy Ghost) and less of an idea why Crowley wouldn't have meant it that way.

I'm sorry. I should have explained myself better. I didn't mean to scare you off

--I was just assuming more background knowledge than I should have. Christians (or at least, Catholics and the more closely related Protestant denominations) think of God as a trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as you said. That's three "persons," as they call them, but they are adamant about the fact that the three are, collectively, ONE God. 3 = 1. That's what your thoughts about the energies in alchemy reminded me of.

Crowley, as I understand, was pretty adamantly anti-Christian, and so while there is Christian-derived imagery in the deck, it has his own spin on it. I don't think he would have put in something taken so directly. But there are others who are far more qualified to talk on that particular topic than I.