> John & Irene, I'll repeat ...
Why?
You are again attempting to derail the conversation - which is about Hahnemann's system of homeopathy (which HE defined very well thank you, it needs no help from us) and not about anyone's personal beliefs.
>
> You've both fallen into the paradox. The things you perceive that create a crystal clear boundary around 'homeopathy' FOR YOU aren't necessarily seen that way by others.
If that is so, then the "others" need to read Hahnemann's work more carefully. He was definitely educated, thorough and literate and he explained his definition of homeopathy very clearly:-)
You might also go back to the days of Hippocrates who also explained the Law of Similars clearly, that being the basis for the development of Homeopathy by Hahnemann.
I recommend that you ensure you understand it better before arguing about it as one of the "others".
You credit me with too much in suggesting the Law or Similars or definition of homeopathy is mine :-)
Law of Similars occurs in nature - you or I can not change it.
The definition of Homeopathy is Hahnemann's - he personally coined the word and defined it - so that also is not mine or yours to argue.
> Take the Law of Similars as an example. You say it's unique to homeopathy
You twist my words:
There's no other system defined as being based on it.
And there is no homeopathy without it.
Hence mixtures are NOT homeopathy.
It happens here and there in other systems by accident and without the intention or knowledge of those who invented the system.
For example it happens in India when people vaccinated for Tuberculosis are immune to leprosy but not to TB. (Allopaths recognize that fact but do not understand it is due to the Law of Similars),
Likewise kids helped by ritalin are the ones not riled up by ritalin. (Another Law of Similars issue not recognized as such by the allopaths using ritalin).
It may be valid that no other principle will actually cure - but the Law of Similars - whether applied intentionally with foreknowledge of effect as in homeopathy, or unintentionally as in other systems.
> but it's not because the Law of Similars is only a partial and contingent expression of a much more fundamental and universal 'law' which has to do with mirroring.
I do not buy into your mirror theory. (There is no mirror law.)
That also is a separate subject - no related to the debate about mixopathy "borrowing" the name of another system.
> Many therapies use the principle of mirroring the complaint.
Lots of therapies have their own principles.
Allopathy has the contraries principle (If it's hot, cool it; if it's wet, dry it, and so on.)
Herbology has the principle of using plant components to assist healing.
and so on.
Mixology....has no principle?
Other systems are not relevant to this discussion.
> In my experience, you can sometimes dispense with the process of selecting and prescribing a remedy altogether purely by reading the language of a patient's symptoms and reflecting it back to them: cystitis - "what are you pissed off about?", crippling cervicalgia of several months's standing - "who's the pain in the neck then?", rash with maddening itching - "what's irritating you?" ...
Your system.
Your theory.
Not relevant to the discussion.
> The trouble with any 'system' of healing is that it becomes a well-beaten track and we all have varying degrees of a sheep-like tendency to play follow-my-leader without much further thought.
I presume you speak for yourself.
It's also the style of mixologists.
It's not my style. I look for the logic in a system.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen