relying instead only upon a "major basis" as a reference point for what you
mean by it; using, as that "major basis", something whose meaning and
application are vague; and thereby understanding that anything that sounds
like that vague thing could be considered part of homoeopathy.
If we did that with the words "art" and "science", we'd treat, say, *
creativity* as the major basis for art and thereby lose all ability to
discern "art" from science, invention, and thought; and *curiosity* as the
major basis for science and thereby fail to distinguish "science" from
busybodyness and voyeurism.
When we refer (as some of us do) to a dictionary for the meaning of a word,
we would be cheated if, instead of telling us what the word means (i.e.
telling us what it is that it denotes), the dictionary told us what its
major basis is. We would not know that thing for which we had consulted
the dictionary: how to distinguish the kinds of thing (action, aspect) that
may be known by that word from the kinds of thing (action, aspect) that may
not.
The discussion here has not been about homoeopathy's "major basis" but
about the fundamental question of what it is. As with every other word,
once you grasp the word's meaning, you know, even without knowing its
"major basis" or anything else about it, the first thing that you *need* to
know: *what its meaning is*.
Only once you can use a word to mean what it actually means -- what it
denotes -- can you sensibly begin discussing anything that rests upon that
meaning, such as the denoted thing's basis, principles, validity, truth,
soundness, breadth, options, and all those other things that in this
discussion keep serving as surrogates for homoeopathy's *meaning*.
Does that clarify at all what's been going on here?
Kind regards,
John
On 10 January 2012 01:28, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:
> I haven't been using the phrase "essential nature of homeopathy" and
> am not sure what you mean by it. What *I* would consider to be the
> major basis of homeopathy, is like-cures-like. Hahnemann also uses
> the term that way--to describe that *principle*, as opposed to his
> body of recommended *practices*.
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:04 AM, John Harvey wrote:
>
> > True. But the question of whether the essential nature of
> > homoeopathy has
> > changed is not the same question as whether the same thing you've
> > always
> > done is the best you can do, is it. You can see, I hope, that the
> > answers
> > to them don't depend at all on each other. So why do you and
> > Shannon and
> > the other polypharmacists keep attempting to answer the former
> > question by
> > answering the latter? Are you really incapable of drawing any
> > distinction
> > between the two?
> >
> > John
>
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in
pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the
pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways
simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop
vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other
people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination
rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis
bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The
presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way
affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a
letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011", <
http://drpalevsky.com/dr_palevsky_letter_pertussis.asp>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen