Rightly pointed out...yes it was a slip due to the language barrier with
me. And actually when I read this, I myself got confused as to what
actually I was trying to say.
In fact, this was in response to Mr. Jeff's mail quoting "lowest possible
dose means low potency", and I wanted to say that it means high
potency...meaning low amount of active/medicinal substance.
I undersatnd pointing out something is not an offence
:)!! Take care.Sincerely,
Zaidee
Message: 14
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:31:23 -0500
From: "Peter Quenter"
Subject: Re: RE: Low potencies
.... repeat/see post from 13 Dec ......
what is meant with
' ... dose is 'low'...?!?
- low *potency* ? or
- *small* dose as in not much quantity of pellets/drops....
or
- *high* potency as in 'low'/small/less number of
molecules ...... ?!?!?
and with
'... dose is 'big'... ?!?!?
- *large* dose as in lots of *quantity* drops/pellets/ in
whichever potency ?? or
- low *potency* as in lots of molecules to make a 'big' dose
..... ?!?!
and
' ... potency is 'small' ...?!?!?
- *low* potency as in 'small' numerical as in number 3 is
'smaller' than number 200.... ???
- *high* potency as in a 'high' number results in a less
material/'smaller' potency....?!?!?!
if we present a statement such as
we may assume to know what is meant , but it is far from
being clear and precise homoeopathic terminology ....
This is a not-so-major example, yes -
still, if we are sloppy with the basics we oughtn't be
surprised at the sloppiness that abounds these days in other
more fundamentally important aspects of homoeopathic theory
and principles .....
please, no offence intended!
just my personal little rant.....
especially as I just posted this same thing two days
ago.....
take care
peter