it.....call me back then
2. On the one hand you are complicating the arguments by saying "we do not
know enough/anything about it", on the other hand you claim that by
explaining the way I work and understand homeopathy, I do betray it and
Hahnemann's work. Said differently you are modifying the argument to suit
the end result towards your own set of preconceived conclusions, exactly the
same way conventional pharmaceutical companies do their research....I seem
to remember this is called a solipsism.....
Newtonian physics is still perfectly correct and applicable; the relativity
theory expanded it, did not make it wrong; quantum physics did not nullify
any of them.
Homeopathy evolves. I have explained at length how I personally do it while
respecting its basic tenets. Whether you disagree or cannot see it, I could
not care less.
3. "Psychobabblian" ????? Do you happen to read your own emails??? If you
are going to go down the road of pseudo-intellectual insults, that
conversation is closed, at least with you.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-------Original Message-------
From: John Harvey
Date: 27/12/2011 11:44:24 a.m.
To: Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.; homeo list
Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
Hi, Joe!
On 25 December 2011 12:40, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. <jroz@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Nobody has ever demonstrated that the REMEDIES interacted in a bottle. It
Would be the same as saying that different pieces of music interact on the
Same CD, that you cannot watch Sky Movies if the Discovery Channel if
Broadcasting at the same time: we know this is not true, all the channels
Arrive on your TV at the same time, you decide what to watch and you can
Also have some TV sets with multi screen ability so you can watch a few
Different channels at the same time.
Really? The possibility that potentised substances could modify the
biological effect of each other through the complex processes that
dynamisation sets in train would be equivalent to the possibility that two
pieces of music recorded simultaneously would not be discernible separately,
or that two radio-frequency waves could interfere with each other? If we
knew that we could listen to two pieces of music recorded in the one track
and and restore them to our hearing as discrete works each unblemished by
the other, or if we knew that two radio transmissions did not interfere with
each other even if their frequencies were not kept sufficiently apart, then
that contention would be of some reassurance on that particular point.
Of course, the fact is that we are not able to readily discern two pieces of
music recorded simultaneously on a CD track -- unless they are played by
widely different instruments. We may of course record them in different
channels of a stereophonic image; even here, on vinyl (which implements
stereo modulation by engraving latitudinal waveforms whose directions of
amplitude are at right-angles to, and therefore theoretically independent of
one another), some crosstalk is, practically speaking, inevitable; and the
crosstalk between stereophonic signals from a CD is completely avoidable
only by using amplifiers for left and right that are on entirely different
circuits.
And the fact is that radio transmissions do interfere with one another
(unless either their frequency ranges are kept sufficiently separate for a
receiver to be capable of tuning one in and the other out or they use
entirely disparate modulation methods, such as amplitude modulation and
frequency modulations -- and even there some interference in the A.M. Signal
would occur due to the F.M. Signal).
But let's grant that we engineer those technologies accordingly so that they
meet the common ideal of non-interference.
What is of some assurance is that you're able to say that the dynamic
properties that the technology of potentisation imparts to water and alcohol
are absolutely as discrete as the ideal of, say, the separation of left and
right tracks in a stereo recording or non-interference by one radio signal
with another.
I wonder, though, on what basis you are able to offer that assurance with
such certainty. So little is known, even to leading materials scientists, of
the nature and properties of the phenomena of potentisation that it would
come as a great surprise to me to learn that a materials scientist was able
to state with certainty anything at all about the signals from a high
potency that a biological system responds to -- let alone anything about
that system's ability to discern (and intelligently prioritise!) any single
signal from the confusion without interference by the other signals.
Considering the very primitive state of potency detection at the present day
I'd be very surprised to learn merely that a materials scientist or anybody
else had established the existence of a mechanism ensuring that the mixed
signals were theoretically separable.
Are you quite sure that you have a basis for such certainties?
This all leaves untouched, of course, the notion that such a confusion of
potency signals, once the biological system has discerned its components and
sorted them by priority and relevance, has the means by which to assign them
in accordance with the physician's will, to the particular parts that the
physician's intellect has determined they should travel and no others and
should have there the effect that the physician's god-like understanding of
microbiology, functional anatomy, and pathophysiology determines with
unerring accuracy they should have. But I am too ignorant in that area to be
raise a mote of protest in that direction.
We do know how remedies behave from the provings of single remedies. Nobody
can predict how they will behave TOGETHER in a patient because this depends
on the individuality of the patient, not on what each remedy can or cannot
do. Therefore in certain specific circumstances we are in need to use what
we know, and learn from what we see.
Really, we need to do that? If I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're
asserting that Hahnemann's contention that we need only a thorough knowledge
of single medicines (and you'll recall that his materia medica were limited
to around a hundred such) and of the patient in order to succeed in curing
the patient is incorrect. I'm interested in that. Of course, I understand
that modern medicine has complicated the matter somewhat by interfering in
biological processes in ways subtle, profound, and complex and by sometimes
disabling biological systems requisite to efficient healing responses. But I
wonder still whether you can possibly be right. The most successful
homoeopaths I've encountered or read of, even in modern times, have used
with great consistency straightforwardly homoeopathic methods, without
resort either to psychic or other divinatory methods of diagnosis or to
polypharmacy. They don't seem to have this need you refer to. Why, then, do
the rest of us?
More than 20 years of using this type of combinations, and giving a fair
trial when necessity called to pre-made ones has taught me one thing: it is
possible, it is feasible, it respects the law of similarity at the level I
try to use it (i.e the organ, the system, not the whole patient) and yes, I
do call it homeopathy because I base it on similarity, period.
I'm sure that you'll agree that the word homoeopathy (not "homoeopathic
medicine", the happy coincidence of successful homoeopathicity, but the
practice) means something different from all other things. The question is
this: if it doesn't mean, as everybody imagines it does, the practice of
attempting to derive that homoeopathicity by means of known symptom
similarity, then what can it mean? Can it mean something no more specific
than an attempt to cure by guessing the identity of the homoeopathic
medicine, or even no more specific than an attempt to cure by natural means?
If homoeopathy means anything at all, then it clearly means that single
thing that delineates it from everything else. And, despite arguments to the
contrary, it does in fact still mean something, both in the dictionary and
in the minds of those who understand it.
When a practitioner wishes, for whatever reason (no matter how good it is!),
to depart from homoeopathy's single, simple requirement and either prescribe
mixtures or prescribe on the basis of a single organ's malady -- or, as in
your case, to do both -- and does so in a spirit of careful, ethical
experimental research, it's obviously a potential advance in medicine. It's
most unfortunate, though, to encourage confusion of these methods -- which
as you know violate homeopathy's single principle of prescribing upon the
basis of known pathogenetic similarity to the patient -- with homoeopathy.
It's unfortunate in suggesting that the experimenter lacks confidence,
either in the ethicality of the experiment or in the soundness of its
theoretical underpinnings or in the business wisdom of declaring with
integrity the separation between homoeopathy and the practice being tried.
It's unfortunate too in sustaining the very confusion that somebody such as
you, somebody who loves homoeopathy, would ideally like not to contribute
to: confusion between the meaning of homoeopathy and the almost
indescribable anarchy of practices that utilise some kind of "similarity" or
some kind of potentisation or some marriage of the two concepts, even
literally mixing "similar" medicines in complete ignorance of the resultant
medicine's pathogenesis and prescribing nevertheless with an imaginary
certainty (a baseless certainty I'm sure you don't indulge in but that is
nevertheless amazingly common).
I have to repeat that most important aspect of all: the need to know what
you are doing and the limitations of it. I have been able to revert liver
failure and kidney failure to the amazement of GPs and specialists, using
this system as part of the method, but that only means that I have been able
to repair/cure ONE organ/function; this has allowed patients to stay alive,
avoid heavy drugs or transplants, then giving me the opportunity to go
deeper.
I'm gratified. But I wonder whether, despite your lack of confidence, you
might be able to reproduce the same results using homoeopathy. I rather
suspect, given the depth of your knowledge, that you could.
Both approaches are not mutually exclusive, both are in the interest of the
patient, both are based on the law of similarity (and other laws too) and
both should be properly taught and used by professional homeopaths.
I agree that two approaches (systems, principles) of medicine, even
conflicting ones such as these, need not be mutually exclusive, and that use
of both (though, obviously, not together) may be in the interest of the
patient. But it cannot be rationally argued that both are based on the same
principle or that both are homoeopathy. (Or, if it can, I have yet to see
such an argument.) There therefore seems to be no stronger basis for a claim
that homoeopaths should know this system than for a claim that they should
know how to prescribe medicines on the basis of the materia medica
constructed entirely by guesswork or that they should know how to diagnose a
patient in terms of psychobabblian interpretation.
Magnificently sunny, going to work in the garden but a lot of sadness as I
do not know what is happening with some friends in Christchurch, I know
nobody died in the quakes, but no idea if they have where to live.
We never know when it's going to be our turn, do we.
Kind regards,
John
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, Democracy: Crisis and Renewal, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen