exactly what objections John will raise...)
But--what website blogs, where? If it's not confidential...
Shannon
On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:41 PM, leilanae wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> Great post!
>
> Leilanae (longtime reader of both of your website blogs.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:45 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 becomes
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
> homeopathy@homeolist.com
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen