Re: [H] [Minutus] Ducking now [was: Re: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2

On Jan 9, 2012, at 5:09 PM, John Harvey wrote:

>
> Hello, Shannon --
>
>
>
> > Shannon, YOU raised the analogy with art as defined by Rembrandt's
> > brushstrokes --
>
> Ah, so that's the misreading you followed... No I didn't.
> What I wrote was: " The art of Rembrandt does not define "art"; and
> the physics of Newton does not define physics."
>
> That's right. That's what you wrote. And your point (though
> implicit) evidently being that the very meaning of art and of
> science changes with developments in its practice,

? I had not had that thought; rather the opposite, actually. It does
NOT change, although the knowledge and etc. that it encompasses does
change. Or maybe I am not understanding what you mean by meaning.
The meaning of art is not about brushstrokes... ??

> I painted for you pertinent illustrations to demonstrate that the
> claim was erroneous.

Analogies can be tricky. To me they seemed not the least bit
pertinent, so maybe we had better go back to specifics, and leave the
analogies for now?

> Art and science may change with every new invention within them,

? Their content changes as their content changes... I don't know
what you mean.
Whether their meaning changes, well, that depends (sigh) on what we
mean by "meaning"...
The definitions may have to change: "physics" no longer refers only
to the "motions of bodies in space", etc. (So to clarify, we have
come to use some of those dreaded modifiers, which you find so
offensive with regard to *our* science...) But it does still refer to
the science of matter, the behavior of... never mind, let's leave the
analogies for now, go back to specifics.

> but what they are -- their meaning -- does not; otherwise we'd be
> unable to use the words to communicate, wouldn't we. (And that's
> exactly what's going on here!)
>
>
>
> > [snip a bunch of insults] ... that if homoeopathy means what
> > Hahnemann said it means, then it must also mean following his every
> > direction as to how best to practise it.
> >
> > You can see, can't you, that the second does NOT follow from the
> > first?
>
> Well, I *had* thought that was the basis of your (et al) arguments
> about not-homeopathy.
> If not that, then what?
>
> Please don't interpret this as yet another insult, but you do
> persist, year in and year out, again and again, without deviation,
> in interpreting all rejection of your misinterpretation of what
> homoeopathy is as rejection of all new means of practising it.

Oh my head...
So you have not been following the arguments about how combining
remedies cannot work; etc., with the "proof" offered being Hahnemann's
statements... With total lack of interest in or receptivity to any
consideration of the *clinical findings* in the regard...

Please note that--neither now nor "year in and year out", this has
*not* been me on one side of "the fence" with every other rational or
thinking person or homeopath on the other... Just wanting to point
that out, thanks.

> ...
>
> What is difficult for us to understand is how the polypaths here --
> particularly you,

Okay, snipping my hairpulling and cranky cusswords, but--

John, can you not carry on this discussion without endless repetition
of what you have to by now KNOW to be flat-out lies? You keep saying
that; I keep saying it is not true. Can you just get off it,
please? Especially since it matters NOT ONE BIT to the topic or the
discussion, so you can have NO other reason for repeating it, other
than to (by your definition) insult me. Let's move along now, shall we?

Snipping the rest for now.

_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy