Re: [H] Combos and complexes

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
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2012 21:57, Irene de Villiers <furryboots@icehouse.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2012, at 2:47 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Makes perfect sense.
>>
>> If you always do what you always did, then you will always get what
>> you
>> always got
>> - namely no progress.
>>
>> Namaste,
>> Irene
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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