Piet said:
'bronchitis' is not the whole disease, but just the >peripherical part, for
the choice of the remedy not that >important.
I agree with the theme of your post by and large, except to characterize me
as being to the extreme pathological side is totally inaccurate. whereas it
was you who seemed to diminish completely the role that local or
pathological symptoms may play [as in above comment]. more importantly you
seem to have not even adressed the issue of two separate disease influences,
the symptoms of which should be analysed separately.
but they may need all a different remedy for it.
quite correct, but also misleading in two respects: we know from the records
of experienced homeopaths that a similar bunch of remedies crops up time and
again for given disease states. the VF does not always throw off a SRP
[strange, rare, peculiar] symptom set more redolent of the hotel itself than
its guests. Hence the MMs of practitioners like Lippe, Farrington and
Cowperthwaite. They also did not have access to the constitutional
personality dimension of the theory but this period in America was probably
homeopathy's most successful era. The balance has become skewed so far to
the esoteric aspects of archetypal-constitutional picture that homeopathy
has been re-invented into near oblivion.
depends also on the host, the hotel.
constitution and predispositions.
yes correct.
yes this is a guest in a room.
not at all, i never said i use only the pathological.
of the organism the Central part.
SRP symptoms certainly have a higher rating that ordinary pathological ones.
but often cases do not have SRP symptoms.
(Psych->Neuro-Endocrine-Immunological). This is the overlapping part >of
disease which is not bound to your roomtheory.
yes, each analogy has its limitations.
the higher level of disease.
but why have you suddenly included the words 'at a time' in this? you have
just pulled this from thin air. let me try another analogy here...the
Windows operating system can have 4-5 etc windows operating at the same
time. So with the VF.
demands the attention of the organisme more >now
yes this happens. i merely dispute it happens all the time, or even more
often that not.
is different now, asking for another remedy.
I agree one disease state will dominant more than any other. but this is a
trivial comment, like saying if you line 5 people up one will have to be
taller than the others.
vanished yet, it is the more material, >damage part that stays, but the
peculiar characteristic features >are more or less gone.
surely this happens, but surely not always. I wonder if because of your
prejudgment you have no other choice but to see cases like this. i question
that its so black and white.
agree, but it is only a part of the whole truth. It is one >extreme point.
In fact it came from reading Geukens' casebooks. I became uncomfortable with
how he seemed to wander from a deep constitutional picture to a much more
'limited' analysis until i realized he was responding to what each case
demanded.
on the 'nucleus' (Masi) or never changing state >of the spirit. On the right
extreme there is only the local >pathology where not the influency of the
resisting organism, >but the disease (like Cancer) runs the show.
well these extremes and all shades in between.
ratio 100/0 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 etc.
disease influence/tendency decide the resulting >disease pattern.
yes.
we agree on most points although i believe you have an unwarranted bias
towards finding a constitutional remnant as if one should be there all the
time.
for this reason you cannot admit that two independently viable [ie with
separate diffentiating symptoms] disease states can occur simultaneously.
since we have only one constitutional type. but the 'medium' in which the
diseases derive their energy is the VF not the constitution. and the VF is
capable of lots of things and for being used by disease energies for
multi-faceted manifestations. only one computer and one software system,
but several windows open...
andrew
Single remedy
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
Andrew wrote:
as being to the extreme pathological side is totally inaccurate. whereas it
was you who seemed to diminish completely the role that local or
pathological symptoms may play [as in above comment].
Hello Andrew,
Sorry, I did characterize you incorrect but that was my impression.
I said that having 'Bronchitis' as common symptom is not that important for the selection.
of the organism the Central part.
SRP symptoms certainly have a higher rating that ordinary pathological ones.
but often cases do not have SRP symptoms.
Most of the time there are, if you look better!
You must not say to quick there are no 153 symptoms, only in advanced pathological cases they are hard to find. But remember the state of disposition is also a 153 symptom.
the higher level of disease.
but why have you suddenly included the words 'at a time' in this? you have
just pulled this from thin air. let me try another analogy here...the
Windows operating system can have 4-5 etc windows operating at the same
time. So with the VF.
Yes, It can be like this, but also mixed, that why a said 'at a time', I don't want to repeat aspects of our earlier discussion, read those again, I expained those things already there.
kind regards, Piet
demands the attention of the organisme more >now
yes this happens. i merely dispute it happens all the time, or even more
often that not.
is different now, asking for another remedy.
I agree one disease state will dominant more than any other. but this is a
trivial comment, like saying if you line 5 people up one will have to be
taller than the others.
vanished yet, it is the more material, >damage part that stays, but the
peculiar characteristic features >are more or less gone.
surely this happens, but surely not always. I wonder if because of your
prejudgment you have no other choice but to see cases like this. i question
that its so black and white.
agree, but it is only a part of the whole truth. It is one >extreme point.
In fact it came from reading Geukens' casebooks. I became uncomfortable with
how he seemed to wander from a deep constitutional picture to a much more
'limited' analysis until i realized he was responding to what each case
demanded.
on the 'nucleus' (Masi) or never changing state >of the spirit. On the right
extreme there is only the local >pathology where not the influency of the
resisting organism, >but the disease (like Cancer) runs the show.
well these extremes and all shades in between.
ratio 100/0 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 etc.
disease influence/tendency decide the resulting >disease pattern.
yes.
we agree on most points although i believe you have an unwarranted bias
towards finding a constitutional remnant as if one should be there all the
time.
for this reason you cannot admit that two independently viable [ie with
separate diffentiating symptoms] disease states can occur simultaneously.
since we have only one constitutional type. but the 'medium' in which the
diseases derive their energy is the VF not the constitution. and the VF is
capable of lots of things and for being used by disease energies for
multi-faceted manifestations. only one computer and one software system,
but several windows open...
andrew
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
as being to the extreme pathological side is totally inaccurate. whereas it
was you who seemed to diminish completely the role that local or
pathological symptoms may play [as in above comment].
Hello Andrew,
Sorry, I did characterize you incorrect but that was my impression.
I said that having 'Bronchitis' as common symptom is not that important for the selection.
of the organism the Central part.
SRP symptoms certainly have a higher rating that ordinary pathological ones.
but often cases do not have SRP symptoms.
Most of the time there are, if you look better!
You must not say to quick there are no 153 symptoms, only in advanced pathological cases they are hard to find. But remember the state of disposition is also a 153 symptom.
the higher level of disease.
but why have you suddenly included the words 'at a time' in this? you have
just pulled this from thin air. let me try another analogy here...the
Windows operating system can have 4-5 etc windows operating at the same
time. So with the VF.
Yes, It can be like this, but also mixed, that why a said 'at a time', I don't want to repeat aspects of our earlier discussion, read those again, I expained those things already there.
kind regards, Piet
demands the attention of the organisme more >now
yes this happens. i merely dispute it happens all the time, or even more
often that not.
is different now, asking for another remedy.
I agree one disease state will dominant more than any other. but this is a
trivial comment, like saying if you line 5 people up one will have to be
taller than the others.
vanished yet, it is the more material, >damage part that stays, but the
peculiar characteristic features >are more or less gone.
surely this happens, but surely not always. I wonder if because of your
prejudgment you have no other choice but to see cases like this. i question
that its so black and white.
agree, but it is only a part of the whole truth. It is one >extreme point.
In fact it came from reading Geukens' casebooks. I became uncomfortable with
how he seemed to wander from a deep constitutional picture to a much more
'limited' analysis until i realized he was responding to what each case
demanded.
on the 'nucleus' (Masi) or never changing state >of the spirit. On the right
extreme there is only the local >pathology where not the influency of the
resisting organism, >but the disease (like Cancer) runs the show.
well these extremes and all shades in between.
ratio 100/0 90/10, 80/20, 70/30 etc.
disease influence/tendency decide the resulting >disease pattern.
yes.
we agree on most points although i believe you have an unwarranted bias
towards finding a constitutional remnant as if one should be there all the
time.
for this reason you cannot admit that two independently viable [ie with
separate diffentiating symptoms] disease states can occur simultaneously.
since we have only one constitutional type. but the 'medium' in which the
diseases derive their energy is the VF not the constitution. and the VF is
capable of lots of things and for being used by disease energies for
multi-faceted manifestations. only one computer and one software system,
but several windows open...
andrew
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
I wrote:
Andrew replied
quite correct, but also misleading in two respects: we know from the records
of experienced homeopaths that a similar bunch of remedies crops up time and
again for given disease states. the VF does not always throw off a SRP
[strange, rare, peculiar] symptom set more redolent of the hotel itself than its guests.
Hello Andrew,
Disease is a reaction, when the disease influence is very strong it dictates almost alone how every organism reacts, but when the organism reacts this gives the peculiarities of this kind of FLU. when the genus epedemicus is one remedy this has to fit this particular FLU not just FLU in general.
But sometimes more remedies cover de Genus epidemicus, which one is indicitated is individual.
Andrew again:
Hence the MMs of practitioners like Lippe, Farrington and
Cowperthwaite. They also did not have access to the constitutional
personality dimension of the theory but this period in America was probably
homeopathy's most successful era. The balance has become skewed so far to
the esoteric aspects of archetypal-constitutional picture that homeopathy
has been re-invented into near oblivion.
It is just an limited individual influence on the present disease of the constitution on a certain level, this has nothing to do what you prescribe above.
I wrote:
is different now, asking for another remedy.
Andrew replied
I agree one disease state will dominant more than any other. but this is a trivial comment, like saying if you line 5 people up one will have to be
taller than the others.
It is not trival, dominant will ask for your attention first, equal dominant mixes because they share one channel (PNEI-system).
Andrew:
for this reason you cannot admit that two independently viable [ie with
separate diffentiating symptoms] disease states can occur simultaneously.
since we have only one constitutional type. but the 'medium' in which the
diseases derive their energy is the VF not the constitution. and the VF is
capable of lots of things and for being used by disease energies for
multi-faceted manifestations. only one computer and one software system,
but several windows open...
This has nothing to do with the consitutional type.
VF expresses through is therefore a unit with the constitution. Constitution is the individual way of reacting.
And you actively work in each window at the very same type?
Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew replied
quite correct, but also misleading in two respects: we know from the records
of experienced homeopaths that a similar bunch of remedies crops up time and
again for given disease states. the VF does not always throw off a SRP
[strange, rare, peculiar] symptom set more redolent of the hotel itself than its guests.
Hello Andrew,
Disease is a reaction, when the disease influence is very strong it dictates almost alone how every organism reacts, but when the organism reacts this gives the peculiarities of this kind of FLU. when the genus epedemicus is one remedy this has to fit this particular FLU not just FLU in general.
But sometimes more remedies cover de Genus epidemicus, which one is indicitated is individual.
Andrew again:
Hence the MMs of practitioners like Lippe, Farrington and
Cowperthwaite. They also did not have access to the constitutional
personality dimension of the theory but this period in America was probably
homeopathy's most successful era. The balance has become skewed so far to
the esoteric aspects of archetypal-constitutional picture that homeopathy
has been re-invented into near oblivion.
It is just an limited individual influence on the present disease of the constitution on a certain level, this has nothing to do what you prescribe above.
I wrote:
is different now, asking for another remedy.
Andrew replied
I agree one disease state will dominant more than any other. but this is a trivial comment, like saying if you line 5 people up one will have to be
taller than the others.
It is not trival, dominant will ask for your attention first, equal dominant mixes because they share one channel (PNEI-system).
Andrew:
for this reason you cannot admit that two independently viable [ie with
separate diffentiating symptoms] disease states can occur simultaneously.
since we have only one constitutional type. but the 'medium' in which the
diseases derive their energy is the VF not the constitution. and the VF is
capable of lots of things and for being used by disease energies for
multi-faceted manifestations. only one computer and one software system,
but several windows open...
This has nothing to do with the consitutional type.
VF expresses through is therefore a unit with the constitution. Constitution is the individual way of reacting.
And you actively work in each window at the very same type?
Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
Hi Andrew and Piet,
If I could interject a question:
on 12/28/02 7:27 AM, Piet Guijt at piet@guijt.myweb.nl wrote:
Maybe "dominant" is not the most pressing question.
As I'm seeing the matter, you can, on the one hand, have separate "diseases"
which co-exist "within" the constitutional state, and it would be quite
valid to treat these separately; e.g. a cold, an injury, a sluggish or weak
organ, and some others. Some of these will be more noticeable than others,
or more troublesome, or easier to identify or find a remedy picture for, but
they may be all more or less on the same "level", or, to use Andrew's
analogy, all simply different "rooms in the hotel".
But as I understand it, the goal of "constitutional" prescribing is to treat
at a "higher", or "more inclusive", or (back to the hotel) more "managerial"
level (from the "back office", not just from another rented room). In many
(most?) cases if this is done successfully, there will be no need to treat
the isolated problems. Or in the analogy, if management is good enough to
keep all the staff hopping and happy, they will (in general) quite naturally
keep all of the guests cheerful an "on track" with their appointed business,
and there will be no need of separate "meetings" (remedies) to discuss clean
towels for room 214, time of checkout for 127, noisy neighbors in 2376, etc.
Sure there are "separate diseases" of the individual "guests" (Mr. Liver, Sr
Broken Bone), and sometimes it's quite appropriate (and possibly necessary)
to deal with them individually. Other times you can deal straight with
"management" and obviate the individual concerns (give the indicated
"constitutional", and let it deal with the sub-issues). (And if management
is divided against itself, maybe that's when you need to use alternation and
etc.)
Or to the computer analogy, sometimes we close "one window at a time", and
other times we can just "close all", etc. Am I understanding the issues
correctly?
Shannon
If I could interject a question:
on 12/28/02 7:27 AM, Piet Guijt at piet@guijt.myweb.nl wrote:
Maybe "dominant" is not the most pressing question.
As I'm seeing the matter, you can, on the one hand, have separate "diseases"
which co-exist "within" the constitutional state, and it would be quite
valid to treat these separately; e.g. a cold, an injury, a sluggish or weak
organ, and some others. Some of these will be more noticeable than others,
or more troublesome, or easier to identify or find a remedy picture for, but
they may be all more or less on the same "level", or, to use Andrew's
analogy, all simply different "rooms in the hotel".
But as I understand it, the goal of "constitutional" prescribing is to treat
at a "higher", or "more inclusive", or (back to the hotel) more "managerial"
level (from the "back office", not just from another rented room). In many
(most?) cases if this is done successfully, there will be no need to treat
the isolated problems. Or in the analogy, if management is good enough to
keep all the staff hopping and happy, they will (in general) quite naturally
keep all of the guests cheerful an "on track" with their appointed business,
and there will be no need of separate "meetings" (remedies) to discuss clean
towels for room 214, time of checkout for 127, noisy neighbors in 2376, etc.
Sure there are "separate diseases" of the individual "guests" (Mr. Liver, Sr
Broken Bone), and sometimes it's quite appropriate (and possibly necessary)
to deal with them individually. Other times you can deal straight with
"management" and obviate the individual concerns (give the indicated
"constitutional", and let it deal with the sub-issues). (And if management
is divided against itself, maybe that's when you need to use alternation and
etc.)
Or to the computer analogy, sometimes we close "one window at a time", and
other times we can just "close all", etc. Am I understanding the issues
correctly?
Shannon
Re: Single remedy
Shannon said:
treat at a "higher", or "more inclusive", or (back to the hotel) >more
"managerial" level
yes i think these are useful analogies. but i disagree on one issue: that we
should assume 'management' or constitution is involved. Constitutional
homeopathy as a concept comes into being with Tyler. The previous
generation practiced successfully without it, and its wrong to identify
constitution with the VF. Its an addendum that has its place, but is not
Hahnemannian and has been grossly distorted by people like Coulter and her
spawn of dolphin-milk dream provers.
Andrew
treat at a "higher", or "more inclusive", or (back to the hotel) >more
"managerial" level
yes i think these are useful analogies. but i disagree on one issue: that we
should assume 'management' or constitution is involved. Constitutional
homeopathy as a concept comes into being with Tyler. The previous
generation practiced successfully without it, and its wrong to identify
constitution with the VF. Its an addendum that has its place, but is not
Hahnemannian and has been grossly distorted by people like Coulter and her
spawn of dolphin-milk dream provers.
Andrew
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
Hi Andrew,
(This got long, sorry. But it is a topic that interests me!)
I think that the extent to which "management"/constitution is involved must
depend upon what disease, causation, patient... Not much "constitution"
involved if someone gets bruised from being hit by a really heavy object.
But how could you have chronic disease (in absence of any apparent toxicity
or etc.) unconnected with constitution? And, if not constitution (and I
include M/E makeup as part of that), what explains the wide range of
possible reactions to an identical stressor -- e.g. to a betrayal, to a
loss, to an insult, etc.? And e.g. the fact that one person hears a remark
as a "joke, and very funny!", whereas another hears exactly the same remark
as "gross insult -- he must not get away with that!" Etc., etc.
In my understanding, "constitution" is basically a shorthand term for
"whatever it is that makes one person's responses different from another's."
If we were all the same, and all responded identically, there would be
nothing there in need of a name -- we'd be "humans" (or "horses", or
"geraniums"...), and only that term would be needed to inform an observer of
exactly what to expect of the pt, in response to any challenge or
circumstance.
One reason that I wish (!!!) there were freer dialog between the two
(multiple) camps, is that I think it would be fascinating and instructive to
compare the long-term results of the various methods, applying uniform
standards. E.g., sure the early guys did fine without considering
"constitution" -- they removed the disease symptoms, and that's all anyone
was looking for. But I wonder whether they also improved peripheral aspects
of their patients' wellbeing to the same degree that "deeper" treatment
does? One of the things that fascinated me so about homeopathy was the way
that (in my very emphatic personal experience) the "cure" exacted by the
remedy went *soooo* much farther than simple removal of target symptoms.
(E.g. as a then-very-Phosphorus patient, I had monster "boundary issues",
which however had *nothing* to do with my presenting complaint (an unhealed
injury). I had never understood that to be "fixable", certainly never asked
to have it fixed -- but what a godsend (not overnight, to be sure!).
Certainly you will *sometimes* come to a "deep"/constitutional remedy thru
the chief complaint, named disease, whatever; but not necessarily!!!
My prescribing experience is not so great, but even so I've seen clearly the
difference between a "good remedy" (did the main things being asked of it)
and a "*really* good remedy!!!", the "downonmyknees, *Thank*youLord!"
variety, which is what I think of as a really good "constitutional" fit.
Where you've hit the "center" of the case, and all the other stuff just
falls into line. To me it seems a shame not to shoot for that, even tho we
realize that we won't always find it. (And, recognizing that we won't
always get that, we also need to know how to treat "diseases", IMO...)
(PS I guess I don't identify constitution with the VF, but more see it as
the vessel that VF flows thru and expresses thru; a separate factor?)
Shannon
on 1/2/03 2:31 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:
(This got long, sorry. But it is a topic that interests me!)
I think that the extent to which "management"/constitution is involved must
depend upon what disease, causation, patient... Not much "constitution"
involved if someone gets bruised from being hit by a really heavy object.
But how could you have chronic disease (in absence of any apparent toxicity
or etc.) unconnected with constitution? And, if not constitution (and I
include M/E makeup as part of that), what explains the wide range of
possible reactions to an identical stressor -- e.g. to a betrayal, to a
loss, to an insult, etc.? And e.g. the fact that one person hears a remark
as a "joke, and very funny!", whereas another hears exactly the same remark
as "gross insult -- he must not get away with that!" Etc., etc.
In my understanding, "constitution" is basically a shorthand term for
"whatever it is that makes one person's responses different from another's."
If we were all the same, and all responded identically, there would be
nothing there in need of a name -- we'd be "humans" (or "horses", or
"geraniums"...), and only that term would be needed to inform an observer of
exactly what to expect of the pt, in response to any challenge or
circumstance.
One reason that I wish (!!!) there were freer dialog between the two
(multiple) camps, is that I think it would be fascinating and instructive to
compare the long-term results of the various methods, applying uniform
standards. E.g., sure the early guys did fine without considering
"constitution" -- they removed the disease symptoms, and that's all anyone
was looking for. But I wonder whether they also improved peripheral aspects
of their patients' wellbeing to the same degree that "deeper" treatment
does? One of the things that fascinated me so about homeopathy was the way
that (in my very emphatic personal experience) the "cure" exacted by the
remedy went *soooo* much farther than simple removal of target symptoms.
(E.g. as a then-very-Phosphorus patient, I had monster "boundary issues",
which however had *nothing* to do with my presenting complaint (an unhealed
injury). I had never understood that to be "fixable", certainly never asked
to have it fixed -- but what a godsend (not overnight, to be sure!).
Certainly you will *sometimes* come to a "deep"/constitutional remedy thru
the chief complaint, named disease, whatever; but not necessarily!!!
My prescribing experience is not so great, but even so I've seen clearly the
difference between a "good remedy" (did the main things being asked of it)
and a "*really* good remedy!!!", the "downonmyknees, *Thank*youLord!"
variety, which is what I think of as a really good "constitutional" fit.
Where you've hit the "center" of the case, and all the other stuff just
falls into line. To me it seems a shame not to shoot for that, even tho we
realize that we won't always find it. (And, recognizing that we won't
always get that, we also need to know how to treat "diseases", IMO...)
(PS I guess I don't identify constitution with the VF, but more see it as
the vessel that VF flows thru and expresses thru; a separate factor?)
Shannon
on 1/2/03 2:31 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:
Re: Single remedy
toxicity or etc.) unconnected with constitution?
a chronic, ie miasmatic illness arises from the miasmatic energy, not from a
healthy constitution.
stressor -- e.g. to a betrayal, to a loss, to an insult,
yes definitely. or my example of exposure to cold wind producing a chill, a
fever, a cystitis. the particular expression is modified by the innate or
constitutional aspects of the person. but the expression, the disease, is
still an Aconite one. the longer the ilness goes on the more likely the
constitutional remedy would come into play.
(multiple) camps, is that I think it would be fascinating >and instructive
to compare the long-term results of the various >methods,
the issue is to treat the case that is in front of you, not as you would
imagine it to be. A constitutional remedy is not a 'deep' cure if it is not
the most appropriate method in the case. since co-called classical
homeopaths always look for a magic single remedy to treat the whole
individual we have the oft-repeated phenomena of patients getting a dozen
different remedies over a couple of years and then giving up.
andrew
a chronic, ie miasmatic illness arises from the miasmatic energy, not from a
healthy constitution.
stressor -- e.g. to a betrayal, to a loss, to an insult,
yes definitely. or my example of exposure to cold wind producing a chill, a
fever, a cystitis. the particular expression is modified by the innate or
constitutional aspects of the person. but the expression, the disease, is
still an Aconite one. the longer the ilness goes on the more likely the
constitutional remedy would come into play.
(multiple) camps, is that I think it would be fascinating >and instructive
to compare the long-term results of the various >methods,
the issue is to treat the case that is in front of you, not as you would
imagine it to be. A constitutional remedy is not a 'deep' cure if it is not
the most appropriate method in the case. since co-called classical
homeopaths always look for a magic single remedy to treat the whole
individual we have the oft-repeated phenomena of patients getting a dozen
different remedies over a couple of years and then giving up.
andrew
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
Dear Andrew,
You have contributed many good comments on this list. However, your disparagement of
"Coulter and her spawn of dophin-milk dream provers," represents what I call professional
name calling. It is exactly the kind of commentary that creates dissension, weakens and
demeans a meaningful dialogue, and ultimately contributes to a kind of in-fighting and
competitiveness in our profession which was part and parcel of the demise of homeopathy
in the 20c. You are entitled to your position, but I think you are quite capable of expressing
it in a more congenial, cooperative and professional manner. Please consider that ones attitude
is sometimes more the message than the words (which is why you ultimately chose the ones you did).
regards
tanya
on 1/2/03 2:31 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You have contributed many good comments on this list. However, your disparagement of
"Coulter and her spawn of dophin-milk dream provers," represents what I call professional
name calling. It is exactly the kind of commentary that creates dissension, weakens and
demeans a meaningful dialogue, and ultimately contributes to a kind of in-fighting and
competitiveness in our profession which was part and parcel of the demise of homeopathy
in the 20c. You are entitled to your position, but I think you are quite capable of expressing
it in a more congenial, cooperative and professional manner. Please consider that ones attitude
is sometimes more the message than the words (which is why you ultimately chose the ones you did).
regards
tanya
on 1/2/03 2:31 PM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Dave Hartley
- Posts: 992
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:47 pm
Re: Single remedy
Anyone who's paid any attention to historical fact will recognize that the idea
presented below is complete misinformation.
The decline of homeopathy in the U.S. was planned and executed by
pharmaceutical (Rockefeller) interests, and included the formation of the AMA.
Nothing to do with infighting in the homeopathic community.
We should be clear on this!
We should also make every attempt imho, to learn how to accept written
communication on an intellectual level, striving mightily to avoid attaching
*our own* emotional interpretetations.
Another decline is imho represented by loose acceptance of such as 'dream
proving.'
Same for the decline represented by the widespread tendency to think in terms
of isopathy and 'doctrine of signatures' when seeking to solve cases.
Doctrine of signatures is not related to homeopathy, except where it MAY be
useful as a mnemonic device for learning materia medica. To use it as a filter
for attempting to locate a remedy is a perverse inversion of it's potentially
useful application.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
http://www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Santa Cruz, CA
831.464.8127
presented below is complete misinformation.
The decline of homeopathy in the U.S. was planned and executed by
pharmaceutical (Rockefeller) interests, and included the formation of the AMA.
Nothing to do with infighting in the homeopathic community.
We should be clear on this!
We should also make every attempt imho, to learn how to accept written
communication on an intellectual level, striving mightily to avoid attaching
*our own* emotional interpretetations.
Another decline is imho represented by loose acceptance of such as 'dream
proving.'
Same for the decline represented by the widespread tendency to think in terms
of isopathy and 'doctrine of signatures' when seeking to solve cases.
Doctrine of signatures is not related to homeopathy, except where it MAY be
useful as a mnemonic device for learning materia medica. To use it as a filter
for attempting to locate a remedy is a perverse inversion of it's potentially
useful application.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
http://www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Santa Cruz, CA
831.464.8127
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Single remedy
altho, the AMA worked mightily to diminish homeopathy, it was the infighting and individualism amongst homeopaths
that prevented them from mounting a meaninful political campaign to sustain the profession. there is nothing new
about this. it is an old problem in any issue. if people are too busy bickering and pushing their own egos, they lose
sight of the big prize and can be overcome--and that is just as true for homeopathy as any other issue. it is also interesting
that the Rockefeller concerns fought homeopathy since they subscribed on a personal level.
tanya
that prevented them from mounting a meaninful political campaign to sustain the profession. there is nothing new
about this. it is an old problem in any issue. if people are too busy bickering and pushing their own egos, they lose
sight of the big prize and can be overcome--and that is just as true for homeopathy as any other issue. it is also interesting
that the Rockefeller concerns fought homeopathy since they subscribed on a personal level.
tanya