Re: [H] single sxs [was: Combos vs. Singles

Hi, Shannon --

No, I wouldn't disagree with you here: it probably is much of a muchness to
all homoeopaths whether a mixture is prescribed on the basis that a single
similarity will call it to action (and prevent the others from acting or
altering it) or some more complex hypothesis, whether involving stages of
symptoms in a fixed ideal disease (such as Rosemary referred to) or some
other hypothetical partial homoeopathicity to the entire case by various
medicines that will all behave nicely, ideally, and independently.

John

On 21 December 2011 12:50, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On Dec 20, 2011, at 6:40 PM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Catherine; you put it better than I could have. Translating
> > it
> > into homoeopathic terms lets a subset of a medicine's symptoms be
> > "similar"
> > to an illness, which is essentially what is required, without
> > necessitating
> > that the illness be equally "similar" to the entire pathogenesis of
> > the
> > medicine. (That's why, for instance, *Sulphur*, with its several
> > quite
> > different pictures, may still cure an individual with just one of
> > those
> > pictures.)
> >
> > Shannon's confusion,
>
> Actually I don't think I am confused; I think it's just that we
> disagree on some things, and you keep talking past me. (Maybe I'm
> guilty of same; I do start to drown in all the words, lines, points,
> diversions, and sub-points... Comp)
>
>
> > though, arose, as far as I can see, from not quite
> > getting what Irene intended in saying "Law of Similars says the
> > symptoms of
> > the PATIENT must be similar to the symptoms of the remedy". I think
> > that
> > Shannon understood Irene to be, in that sentence, distinguishing the
> > similarity of the patient to the medicine from the similarity of the
> > medicine to the patient. As I understood it, Irene was in fact
> > distinguishing similarity of the patient to the medicine from
> > similarity of
> > a *single symptom* to the medicine.
>
> If that is in fact what Irene meant, she wasn't at all addressing
> combos as they have been traditionally used--either prescribed or
> chosen, at least not to my understanding. I would be interested in
> hearing Irene's clarification.
>
> What I mean is that, in my limited experience and to the limits of my
> casual observation, the guidelines are *not* simply "for snotty nose"
> etc.; more detail is specified. I think that's a minor point, tho,
> since I am certain that those who call combo remedies "not homeopathy"
> will call a full stop at the point that more than one remedy (or
> potency?) is included, regardless of the method of its choosing or
> using. So I'm not sure there's any real value in arguing over this
> point.
>
> Also, I would think that any remedy, whether combo or other, that used
> *only* a single, broad symptom as guideline, would be doomed to fail
> in a majority of cases. I just don't think that would be a marketable
> plan, whether one calls it homeopathy or not. Anyone disagree?
>
>
--

"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