Re: [H] Combos and complexes

Okay fair enough. My question was more teasing than anything.
Actually I find it refreshing to hear you questioning Hahnemann's
conclusions. :-)

As far as definition of homeopathy, then, of course, we go back to
"homeopathy as a method" (which you define as H's approved method and
none other) versus homeopathy (like-cures-like) as a natural
principle. And that confusion goes round and round...

Shannon

On Jan 2, 2012, at 8:56 PM, John Harvey wrote:

>
> Hi, Shannon --
>
> As long as we persist in confusing Hahnemann's definition of
> homoeopathy with his directions for practising it or with the
> beliefs or deductions that may have influenced such directions, we
> will continue to have no anchor for understanding what homoeopathy is.
>
> It's not something whose identification requires a textbook or even
> a description. In fact, plastering riders about better and worse
> ways to practise it merely obfuscate its clear delineation to a
> point at which some on this list can imagine that it doesn't differ
> substantially from any other "natural" therapy; that they are all
> one method, all equally validly known as homoeopathy.
>
> Once you're clear on the nature of a definition, which is that it
> draws a boundary, then the simplest definition that does that job
> accurately is the best, simply because it will leave aside
> irrelevancies. You've seen a hundred such simple expressions of
> homoeopathy's definition on this list, and I think you'll agree that
> none of them depends on anything that anybody believes, deduces,
> wishes, tries, or practises.
>
> In particular, Hahnemann's belief that two disease processes may
> have infected the organism and yet reside only in discrete parts of
> it has no part to play in the definition of homoeopathy.
>
> Reasoned though I'm sure that deduction was from evidence, it
> strikes me as wildly inconsistent both with miasms' general
> infection of the organism and with Hahnemann's own statement about
> the whole effect on the organism of any medicine. But whether
> Hahnemann is right or wrong about that makes no slightest difference
> to the nature of homoeopathy, as I suspect you know!
>
> Cheers --
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 3 January 2012 12:03, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2012, at 8:14 PM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> > ....
> > Whether Hahnemann was even correct in his deduction that the two
> > coexisting
> > dynamic disease processes could occur in discrete parts of the
> > organism is
> > open to question.
>
> :-) Ah, but is it *homeopathy* if one does so?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
> homeopathy@homeolist.com
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>
>
>
> --
>
> "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