>
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 12:55 AM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> > Hi, Hennie --
> >
> > I've never used that particular phrasing, I'm sure. And I confess that
> > I've usually led up to its definition by quickly checking what my
> listener
> > already knows.
>
>
> So that you can try to skirt around it! :-)
>
I'm puzzled as to how you draw that conclusion; perhaps I should have been
more explicit. In explaining homoeopathy, I tend to check what my listener
already knows so that I know what concepts are usable and appropriate in
discussing homoeopathy with that person. It's something communicators call
"knowing one's audience". And my confession was intended to refer also to
the fact that I'll generally offer an illustration or two of its use in
practice and then even go on to paint the more general picture within which
it fits, which may include mention of the traditional conceptual obstacle
of infinitesimal dilutions' equivalence to water. I hope that that makes
clearer what I meant.
Thanks for explaining why anything provided you in discussion - from
> Hahnemann Organon quotes on COMPLEX diseases to evidentiary examples of
> actual cases - is ignored.
> :-)
>
:-) I think that that's a non sequitur, but perhaps I'm too braindead to
take your meaning. I trust that you'll see in my previous message very
specific reference to your quotations from the *Organon*.
(Explains your own lack of cases too - it figures you ignore my case
> examples if you have none to compare with).
Does everybody who eschews your pissing contest confirm your prowess, or is
it just me?
Enough theorizing!
>
:-) Yes, it might be a good idea to stop while you're ahead and check in
with reality.
John
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen