-- it is neither a religion or a cult, and there is always more to be
explored and discovered. This would lead naturally to the development of
different viewpoints and groups -- and it has. No human enterprise in
history has remained forever in the state it was when first named and
written down. There are also always arguments, indeed wars, among differing
factions, unfortunately. It's just the way humans operate. Why should
homeopathy be any different from other arts, sciences, and -- indeed --
religions?
As to your basics, the fourth one I'd add is the principles of the second
prescription.
Thanks! Rosemary
"We will open the book. Its pages are blank. We are going to put words on
them ourselves. The book is called Opportunity and its first chapter is New
Year's Day."
~Edith Lovejoy Pierce
-----Original Message-----
From: homeopathy-bounces@homeolist.com
[mailto:homeopathy-bounces@homeolist.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Nelson
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 5:47 PM
To: Homeopathy@Homeolist.Com
Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
Okay, I am not trying to be combative with this question, but having
gotten it stuck in my head, I am really interested to hear others'
thoughts about it...
I've been thinking about how, on the one hand, being solid in the
*basics* is essential to best practice of any art and any science.
E.g. in homeopathy, to get the deepest and most useful and most
reliable effects, one needs to know (a) what needs to be treated
(understanding the nature of health and disease), and (b) how to find
the needed remedy for it (like-cures-like), and (c) what to expect (at
least in a general way) if the remedy is indeed correct. (What am I
leaving out... I"m writing this quickly; may need adding to or
refining!)
On the other hand, is there *any* art, or *any* science, in which the
whole of its future development is determined by anybody's
groundwork---whatever the level of genius? The art of Rembrandt does
not define "art"; and the physics of Newton does not define physics.
We refer to homeopathy as an art, and we refer to it as a science.
Nowhere do we (homeopaths) refer to it as a "religion". (Tho some
others have done so.) But isn't that part of what defines a religion,
as distinct from either art or science? That you accept what is
given; you take things on faith, with the definitions as given...
So why is it that our community has these endless arguments about
whether or not the writing and work of "our founder" constitutes the
full and only proper definition of homeopathy?
As opposed to either any art I can think of, or any science I can
think of--where discoveries, inspirations and strokes of genius etc.
are viewed not as *defining* and delimiting the study, but instead as
bases for going yet further and achieving yet more?
Thoughts, anyone?
Shannon
On Jan 8, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Jamie Taylor wrote:
> Would there ever be a place for a classical register according to a
> set definition of Hahnemannian homeopathy, just so that they
> communicate with each other knowing that they are like-minded? A lot
> of classical homeopaths came out of the woodwork when Julian Winston
> caused a stir those years ago and many wonderful articles were
> written to be seen on
>
>
http://www.grundlagen-praxis.de/index.html?vw=info&ec=detail&mnid=1&mnpt=1&i
d=13
>
<http://www.grundlagen-praxis.de/index.html?vw=info&ec=detail&mnid=1&mnpt=1&
id=13
> >
>
> Best wishes from
>
> Jamie
>
> PS Old Chinese Proverb: Never argue with someone who doesn't wish to
> listen
>
>
>
> On 08/01/2012 05:13, healthyinfo6@aol.com wrote:
>> ,
>> Bravo John for keeping Hahnemann's genius alive!
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that many homeopaths are either too
>> lazy, too complacent, or maybe too greedy to follow Hahnemann to
>> the letter.
>> Just lke big pharma doesn't want to find a cure because it impacts
>> the $$$ bottom line, many homeopaths make their income having
>> followed their own interpretation of genius. Why change now?
>>
>> Many musical greats have had "covers" done. i.e.; there's The
>> Beatles and then there's The Rain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6bKPZDvSFA&feature=related
>> Like going to a bar lounge and listening to a has been or never
>> to be imitating a great one. Or visiting Madame Tussauds Was
>> Museum, almost, but not quite.
>>
>> Maybe we need a homeopathic judge review board, ala American or
>> British Idol TV show, that yeas or nays the ideas and practices of
>> those who want to claim they are Classical or Hahnemannian
>> homeopaths. Sorry, try again next year!
>>
>> Then, like Susan Boyle, a middle-aged British unemployed& unknown
>> whose God given voice is now heard by millions, a John Harvey
>> emerges!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSrAJsWvEIc&feature=related
>>
>> One true voice needs to rise above and lead the rest!
>>
>> Susan
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Harvey<john.p.harvey@gmail.com>
>> To: Irene de Villiers<furryboots@icehouse.net>
>> Cc: Homeopathy@Homeolist.Com<homeopathy@homeolist.com>
>> Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2012 5:02 pm
>> Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
>>
>>
>> Dear Irene,
>>
>> ince your ideas here clearly arise from a most unfortunate
>> misreading of
>> very *Organon* aphorism that you referred to earlier -- §§ 40, 41,
>> 52, 75,
>> 49, 244, and 276 -- let's make an effort to comprehend them,
>> beginning
>> ith those you quoted or paraphrased.
>>
>>
>> § 40)
>>
>> ou paraphrased *§ 40*, which does indeed refer to treatment of
>> complex
>> iseases. It does not, as you claim ("Hahnemann however GAVE UP on
>> complex
>> iseases"), surrender to such complex disease. It states Hahnemann's
>> onviction (a conviction whose accuracy, as I indicated earlier, I
>> think is
>> uestionable) that two disease processes coexisting in the one
>> organism --
>> hat is, neither being suspended or annihilated, but both continuing
>> to act
>> - exist in "parts that are adapted for it", with their cure being
>> "completely
>> ffected by a judicious alternation of the best mercurial
>> preparation, with
>> he remedies specific for the psora, each given in the most suitable
>> dose
>> nd form".
>>
>> o these sound like the words of somebody who has given up on complex
>> iseases?
>>
>>
>> § 75)
>>
>> ou quoted *§ 75*:
>>
>> These inroads on human health effected by the allopathic non-
>> healing art
>> more particularly in recent times) are of all chronic diseases the
>> most
>> eplorable, the most incurable; and I regret to add that it is
>> apparently
>> mpossible to discover or to hit upon any remedies for their cure
>> when they
>> ave reached any considerable height."
>>
>> t is certainly easier to see how you could mistake the meaning of
>> this
>> hort passage in isolation than the meaning of § 41, as supporting
>> your
>> iew that he had given up on complex diseases. All you need do are
>> (a)
>> retend that complex disease was the topic of discussion and (b)
>> overlook
>> hat the word "apparently".
>>
>> n fact, of course, the topic under discussion is revealed in the
>> passage
>> receding this one, which refers not to complex diseases but, again,
>> to a
>> tate
>>
>> whereby the vital energy is sometimes weakened to an unmerciful
>> extent;
>> ometimes, if it do not succumb, gradually abnormally deranged… in
>> such a
>> ay that… it must produce a revolution in the organism… and develop
>> faulty
>> rganic alterations here and there in the interior or the exterior
>> (cripple
>> he body internally or externally)",
>>
>> state
>>
>> artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the prolonged use of
>> iolent heroic medicines in large and increasing doses; by the abuse
>> of
>> alomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial ointment, nitrate of silver,
>> iodine
>> nd its ointments, opium, valerian, cinchona bark and quinine,
>> foxglove,
>> russic acid, sulphur and sulphuric acid, perennial purgatives,
>> enesections [along with food deprivation], shedding streams of blood,
>> eeches, issues, setons, etc."
>>
>> n these two passages, then, Hahnemann was not giving up on treating
>> omplex diseases, or giving up on anything. He was not even
>> discussing
>> omplex disease. He was referring to the enervation that he
>> frequently saw
>> n patients deprived of their life blood; purged; and violently
>> poisoned
>> ill they were near death -- a state we do not see produced by violent
>> xertions in modern allopathy -- and the difficulty of saving them
>> from
>> hat moribund state.
>>
>>
>> § 149)
>>
>> inally, you quoted *§ 149* as follows:
>>
>> ...More especially do the chronic medicinal dyscrasia so often
>> produced by
>> llopathic bungling, along with the natural disease left uncured by
>> it,
>> equire a much longer time for their recovery; often, indeed, are they
>> ncurable."
>>
>> nd you choose to interpret this as representing Hahnemann's
>> frustration at
>> is inability to treat complex diseases.
>>
>> f, however, you simply read in its entirety the passage from which
>> you
>> xcerpted that quote, you will find that you have again wholly
>> isunderstood his meaning:
>>
>> Diseases of long standing (and especially such as are of a
>> complicated
>> haracter) require for their cure a proportionately longer time.
>> [Not the
>> ords of a man who has given up, you see; and not speaking in
>> particular of
>> omplex disease, or referring to it specifically at all.] More
>> especially
>> o the chronic medicinal dyscrasia so often produced by allopathic
>> bungling
>> long with the natural disease left uncured by it, require a much
>> longer
>> ime for their recovery; often, indeed, are they incurable, in
>> consequence
>> f the shameful robbery of the patient's strength and juices
>> (venesections,
>> urgatives, etc.) [there it is again] on account of long-continued
>> use of
>> arge doses of violently acting remedies given on the basis of
>> empty, false
>> heories for alleged usefulness in cases of disease appearing
>> similar, also
>> n prescribing unsuitable mineral baths, etc., the principal feat
>> performed
>> y allopathy in its so-called methods of treatment."
>>
>> hat does this say, then, in a nutshell? It says that enervation of
>> the
>> atient by heroic doses of truly violent drugs such as mercuric
>> oxides; by
>> enesection; and by purging will necessitate a longer period for the
>> atient's cure, and may even be incurable. That is, the patient may
>> die
>> efore a cure is possible. That's hardly surprising, is it,
>> considering
>> ow weakened they had become and the commonness, at the time, of
>> simple
>> utritional deficiency!
>>
>>
>> §§ 41, 52, 244, 276)
>>
>> ou made passing mention of a further four aphorisms as evidence for
>> the
>> ossibility of polypharmacy within homoeopathy: §§ 41, 52, 244, and
>> 276.
>>
>>
>> § 41* states that the mercurial damage compounding the effects of
>> masked
>> yphilis, especially if additionally complicated with psora or
>> simultaneous
>> ondylomata and gonorrhoea, is curable only with the greatest
>> difficulty,
>> hen it is not quite incurable.
>>
>> gain, Hahnemann is discussing the most violent assaults upon the
>> patient
>> f a most specific kind: not complex disease per se, but a specific
>> kind of
>> ouble disease of a dire kind, a kind you do not see in daily
>> practice with
>> our kittens. And he is hardly giving up.
>>
>>
>> § 52* distinguishes the two principal approaches to cure -- the
>> eteropathic or allopathic, and the homoeopathic -- and *§ 244*
>> refers to
>> he need for antipsoric treatment of malaria even if prompt removal
>> from
>> he malarial district leads to prompt recovery. How does either in
>> any way
>> elate to your conclusions?
>>
>>
>> The last, *§ 276*, is most instructive of all of these, being most
>> relevant
>> o your own incautiousness. In it, Hahnemann cautions against using a
>> omoeopathic medicine either in too large a dose or in frequent
>> repetition,
>> ecause, he says, they easily lead to a more violent medicinal
>> illness than
>> he original natural one -- a medicinal disease most difficult to
>> destroy.
>> n order to forestall the otherwise inevitable flat denial of that,
>> here
>> re Hahnemann's exact translated words:
>>
>> For this reason, a medicine, even though it may be homoeopathically
>> suited
>> o the case of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large,
>> and in
>> trong doses it does more harm the greater its homoeopathicity and the
>> igher the potency selected, and it does much more injury than any
>> equally
>> arge dose of a medicine that is unhomoeopathic and in no respect
>> adapted
>> o the morbid state (allopathic). [If you the significance of that
>> doesn't
>> trike you, then try reading it again, aloud. It's a passage easy to
>> ismiss if your mind has wandered.] Too large doses of an accurately
>> hosen homoeopathic medicine, and especially when frequently repeated,
>> ring about much trouble as a rule. [This too is easy to dismiss,
>> as is
>> requently evident in the unnecessarily confused cases that
>> homoeopaths
>> ring to the attention of their colleagues.] They put the patient not
>> eldom in danger of life or make his disease almost incurable.
>> [That is,
>> ahnemann's reference to incurability here is not a reference to
>> complex
>> isease at all; it is a reference to the intractability of purely
>> medicinal
>> iseases occurring through patently unintelligent or uninformed
>> overuse of
>> ore-or-less homoeopathic medicines!] They do indeed extinguish the
>> atural disease so far as the sensation of the life principle is
>> concerned,
>> nd the patient no longer suffers from the original disease from the
>> moment
>> he too strong dose of the homoeopathic medicine acted upon him; but
>> he is
>> n consequence more ill with the similar but more violent *medicinal
>> disease
>> , which is most difficult to destroy."
>>
>> his passage, then, relates to *homoeopathy* in which subsequent
>> doses are
>> dministered without regard to the patient's state, and warns, as
>> Hahnemann
>> arns in many other places in the *Organon*, against injudicious
>> epetition: repetition without first checking that the medicine
>> remains
>> uitable, is needed, and is not in a dose too large.
>>
>> ere, Hahnemann is highlighting stupidity of a simple kind: a single
>> nattentiveness that he points out unnecessarily troubles the
>> patient and
>> otentially prevents her cure. It's true that he is not, here,
>> bothering
>> o go further and address the stupidity of complicating such
>> unintelligent
>> ractice by *doubling* it -- risking establishment of a *complex*
>> medicinal
>> isease. His caution here is for the practice merely of injudicious
>> epetition of doses potentially too large of the single medicine
>> prescribe
>> n the homoeopathic principle.
>>
>> et you confidently -- not to say smugly -- assume that Hahnemann
>> was too
>> itless or too clueless to understand the wisdom of the kind of
>> olypharmacy (whatever name you choose to give it today) that you,
>> in your
>> ngenious originality -- in a long tradition of identical ingenious
>> riginality -- personally developed and that, in your honour, your
>> earlier
>> dmirers named Irenopathy.
>>
>> ould your total incomprehension of what you've read be due to
>> something as
>> traightforward as careless inattentiveness? Or is it due to
>> something
>> ore complicated?
>>
>> ind regards,
>>
>> ohn
>>
>>
>> n 5 January 2012 20:24, Irene de Villiers<furryboots@icehouse.net>
>> wrote:
>>> John wrote non-indented quoted items below
>> (assuming the indents are not lost in the bit bucket):
>>
>> > Hello, Irene --
>> >
>> > Hahnemann however GAVE UP on complex diseases
>> >
>> > Really, do you think so? What basis have you for making such a
>> claim?
>>
>> It's not that *I* think so - *he* did, as I already quoted from the
>> Organon - MUST you go in circles?
>> :-)
>>
>> I'm afraid if you do not agree with what he wrote, you'll need to
>> dig up
>> his ghost to argue it with him directly. I'm not responsible for his
>> published views.
>>
>> >
>> > It's a matter of how you subdivide the system and its tissues
>> and how
>> you subdivide diseases and their separate effects.....
>> >
>> > Ah. Let's see the evidence for that hypothesis
>>
>> It's no hypothesis, it's simple anatomy. Did you forget to study it?
>>
>> > And, while you're about, it, if you have any evidence to offer
>> that
>> supports your contention that the dynamic derangements we know as
>> illness
>> may occupy entirely discrete tissues, then it would be very
>> interesting to
>> see it.
>>
>> Did you forget to read the detailed example (of an actual case)
>> which I
>> presented in order for you to see just that? (The one contrasting
>> FIP and
>> HLH). Or was your knowledge of anatomical terminology insufficient
>> to
>> follow the example? Did you even realize it was an example?
>> I'll presume not, or you would not ask for evidence that was already
>> supplied in sufficient detail to readily demonstrate the
>> principle:-)
>>
>> > Also highly helpful would be any shred of evidence to suggest
>> that the
>> unpredictability of synergistic and antergistic (okay,
>> antagonistic, if we
>> must) interactions has been overcome in a systematic, replicable
>> manner:
>>
>> That one's easy: Just read my paper describing over 500 cases with
>> carefully matched remedies based of Law of Similars, in Nov 2009
>> issue of
>> Hpathy:-)
>> Now before adding more hot air, DO supply YOUR studies and cases
>> to show
>> the contrary that YOU claim?
>>
>> > Your usual response to the irrefutable being audacious point-
>> blank
>> denial,
>>
>> The only irrefutable point I see is that you spout your version of
>> theory
>> with not a single case as evidence.
>> State your studies and cases to prove that YOUR interpretation of
>> Hahnemann in the matter of the effective treatment of complex
>> diseases,
>> (not single diseases as you keep sending quotes about as if they
>> were
>> complex) is anything but hot air?
>>
>> > I'll include those quotes for you again below. If one of them
>> accidentally catches your eye
>>
>> I do not work by "accident". I know what I am doing and why,
>> before I do
>> it.
>> It's why I am approached to work on the very complex cases for
>> which I am
>> known. I get asked to take all the ones that vets and others find
>> impossible to help.
>>
>> Show us your cases. When you've done that, we can continue the
>> discussion
>> as it takes understanding of real cases - complex ones at the very
>> detail
>> level - understanding the body and how it works, as well as the
>> pathologies
>> and how they work - plus the diseases as defined by homeopathic
>> principles
>> so as to know properly how to recognize which makes what symptom -
>> to fully
>> know how to USE homeopathy correctly for the diseases presenting.
>> I speak
>> of the cases Hahnemann claimed could not be cured (and any of the
>> many more
>> complex ones that have occurred subsequent to his time.)
>>
>> I challenge you to provide even one case of YOURS - so we can see
>> that
>> you understand the interplay between anatomy, pathology, cause and
>> effect
>> and homeopathically relevant symptom discernment towards a
>> simillimum for
>> each of at least two diseases presenting as simultaneously active
>> diseases
>> in a complex.
>>
>> Namaste,
>> Irene
>> ______________________________________________
>> omeopathy Mailing List
>> omeopathy@homeolist.com
>> ttp://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
_______________________________________________
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