I understand what you are saying and would be in full agreement (almost)
if the discussion was about the application of philososphy, principles,
and individual approaches as these are all constructed by us and can be
altered by any of us at any time to suit individual preferences.
The discussion on what is and isn't homeopathy, though, eventually comes
down to a natural law concerning similars. This law, like all natural
laws, exists independent of us and within natural parameters, cannot be
changed or done away with by us.
I think this is why there is so much tension in the discussion. Some are
debating from a perspective of individual philosphy or preference while
others are insisting that a law is a law, is a law regardless of
personal preferences.
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield.
On 22/12/2011 6:45 AM, Wendy Howard wrote:
> Since this discussion epitomises exactly why I stopped participating in the homeopathy lists the best part of a decade ago, I'll have my say (somewhat lengthy - apologies - but hey! you won't have to read any more than this from me) then disappear back into oblivion again ...
>
> To paraphrase Anne Lamott quoting a priest, "You can safely assume that you've created Homeopathy in your own image when it turns out Homeopathy excludes all the same people you do."
>
> How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."?
>
> Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same universal principles used in many systems of healing. It's one among many, there are all manner of shades of grey in between and we don't know the half of it yet. If we don't even know the mechanism by which the practice of homeopathy actually achieves a curative reaction, then the theory remains just that: theory, guesswork and post hoc rationalisation based on circular logic. To believe otherwise is to mistake the map for the territory.
>
> To look out in superficial judgement from the standpoint of our own perspective at what someone else is doing, without being open minded enough to take the time to completely immerse ourselves in THEIR outlook, logic and rationale, to follow them for some period of time to evaluate their success or otherwise, is to treat them in exactly the same way that sceptics treat homeopaths. Our judgements, just like those of the sceptics, are based on our own circular logic. But a different logic creates a different experience of reality. How can we judge if it's any more valid than our own? We can't. Because we're using exactly the same mechanisms in the creation of our own reality.
>
> How do we know that combos don't work as well as single remedies? Especially when we've never given them the benefit of the doubt, or attempted to see them in any other terms but from the perspective of a single remedy prescriber? We can theorise all we like, but theorising is a million miles from real experience.
>
> So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?
>
> The answer is we can't, because the boundary is not a line. It's a wide region of fuzziness. No matter how close you pull the boundaries in towards Hahnemannian homeopathy, they remain, and will always remain, fuzzy. Paradoxical maybe, because to each of us individually the boundaries no doubt appear pretty clear, but they're fuzzy because very few of those individual clear boundaries exactly coincide.
>
> Is that 'wrong'? Of course not! One person's experience of a universal principle can never be more than one person's experience of it, no matter who that person is. The Organon and Chronic Diseases represent Hahnemann's experiences and discoveries in respect of it, his mapping and modelling of it in one particular way, and his development of a system to utilise it with (reasonably) predictable and replicable results. But unless you ARE Hahnemann, you cannot see it in the same way as Hahnemann or practice it in the same way as Hahnemann. Divergence is utterly inevitable because every practitioner brings qualities of their own uniqueness to their practice. This is how it is with any system. And it's exactly as it should be. What's more, it's the signature of a HEALTHY system. Diversity creates a robust and flexible system - just examine nature for proof of that principle: biodiversity is key. In contrast, a system continually restrained and constrained to a single expression b
> ecomes dogmatic, inflexible and unhealthy. It's analogous to monocultures and the massive energetic input they require to maintain them in anything approaching a productive state!
>
> Given this fact, we then have to decide democratically what degree of diversity is acceptable to still remain within a reasonable consensus definition of 'homeopathy'. This isn't as easy as it appears. How would you react, for instance, if I was to suggest that someone who grafts a whole extra chunk of speculative theory (bearing in mind Hahnemann's admonitions against theorising) onto Hahnemann's work, changes the whole focus of casetaking, introduces false distinctions between symptoms, trumpets from the rooftops that their version of homeopathy is in fact Hahnemann's 'One True Way' (despite it being clear that it's not) and spends a fair bit of time dissing the methods of other practitioners, should be accepted unreservedly as a 'Classical' homeopath? Would you hesitate? If you would, then you've just blown Kent out the window.
>
> The thing is, it's perfectly possible to read Kent's perspective INTO the Organon and see no dissonance. And to accept Kent's significant deviation from Hahnemann's method without seeing any inconsistency. Particularly when Kent comes with the authority of antiquity and a seal of approval from the profession ...
>
> It's not just Kent. This is something we all do. We project and superimpose our own unique perspective onto Hahnemann's until the two become indistinguishable to us. Some of us even go so far as to imagine we alone have THE key to the Organon's correct interpretation! Kent did it, and every practitioner who has laid claim to representing the 'One True Way' of Hahnemann ever since has done the same. It's the beauty of universal principles that they're amenable to such diverse but utterly fitting interpretation. It is, after all, what makes them universal! And it's also the seed of unending dissent when one 'One True Way' meets another ...
>
> Actually, the term 'Homeopathy' isn't so very different from allopathic disease labels. We have no trouble accepting that these have no 'reality', value or purpose when it comes to healing the patient. Why is it then we can't see this in respect of 'Homeopathy'?
>
> It seems to me it's mainly because people hitch their own identities to the term, then react emotionally to the idea of being identified with practices they don't personally resonate with. But homeopathy isn't an identity. It's something we do. It's a label encapsulating a set of criteria much as a disease label encapsulates a set of symptoms. It's a communication tool and, like all language, can only ever convey an approximation of what we mean because the personal individual nuances we all carry in association with words guarantees that no two understandings are ever identical. Not to mention that you don't have to have ALL the symptoms of the disease to acquire the diagnosis ...
>
> Systems and methods are just tools. They don't get people better. They're of no account whatsoever until they're picked up and used in a particular way by a particular practitioner on a particular patient and even then it's not the systems and methods themselves that are causing the shift towards health. The object of using them is to help sick people get better. THAT'S what's important here. Yes, it helps if we can devise systems that can be replicated reasonably consistently, because the hope is that by so doing we get to help more of the people more of the time, but that supposition itself is based on a mechanistic interpretation of reality which is highly questionable. It's also irrelevant to the patient. They just want to get better.
>
> Why can't we simply celebrate our diversity and the perfection *for each of us* of all our own individual paths instead of fussing and fighting about whether a particular practice does or doesn't warrant a particular label?! There is SO much more yet to explore and discover and so much more potential to realise!
>
> Wendy
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2011, at 04:02, John Harvey wrote:
>
>> Hi, Shannon --
>>
>> It's a noble thing to be able to do, to understand and tolerate anything
>> posing as anything else and to be ready to explain and promote it
>> regardless of the consequences. I don't have your stomach for it, but I
>> appreciate that your intent in doing so has nothing in common with the
>> effect it has in confusing newcomers to homoeopathy about what planet
>> "homoeopaths" are on who will do this; that you have no idea of the
>> destructiveness of calling every stupid idea, unsupported conjecture, and
>> mindless idiocy a "type" of homoeopathy and may never be capable of taking
>> responsibility for clarifying the confusion yourself.
>>
>> John
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
> homeopathy@homeolist.com
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen