Hello everyone,
I am quoting an off topic item but its implication to
homeopathy
is great.
I recently read khalil Gibran's 'The Prophet'.This is
a wonderful small
book. There was particularly one chapter (xix). The
lines are here
And then a scholar said, Speak of Talking.
And he answered, saying:
You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts .
And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of
your heart you live
in your lips, and sound is a diversion and a pastime.
And in much of your talking, thinking is half
murdered.
For thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of
words may indeed
unfold its wings but cannot fly.
There are those among you who seek the talkative
through fear of being alone.
The silence of aloneness reveals to their eyes their
naked selves and
they would escape.
And there are those who talk, and without knowledge or
forethought
reveal a truth which they themselves do not
understand.
And there are those who have the truth within them,
but they tell it
not in words.
In the bosom of such as these the spirit dwell in
rhythmic silence.
When you meet your friend on the roadside or in the
market-place,
let the spirit in you move your lips and direct your
tongue.
Let the voic within your voice speak to the ear of his
ear.
Fot his soul will keep the truth of your heart as the
taste of the
wine is remembered.
When the colour is forgotten and the vessel is no
more.
End.
What is the inference for us homeopaths? Loquacity is
essentially a mentally morbid sign.The rubric
Loquacity
is huge.Dr Sehgal used to write that the urge to speak
out is
a equal to bare open oneself and used the rubric
Naked,
wants to be.In this rubric remedies are -
2bell,bufo,camph,cham,3hyos,merc,merc-c,2phos,phyt,2
sec,
2 stram, tarent,verat.
Out of these allexcept merc and phyt are loquacious.
Another related rubric 'Shameless' remedies are
alco,anac,androc,bell,2bufo,calc,camph,canth,cub,cupr,
hell,hyos,lyc,merc,mosch,2murx,natm,nuxm,2nux v,2 op,
3phos,phyt,2 plat,sabin,sec,staph,3 stram,2 tarent,
2tub,
3 verat
of these all except androc,hell,merc,phyt are
loquacious.
Another glance shows that most remedies of 'fear alone
of
being'are loquacious.
The urge that makes them speak is their fear,
inferiority,
loss of self confidence( most remedies in confidence,
loss
of are loquacious).Loquacity is, I believe, a
compensating act
for these inadequacies.
Best,
Venkat
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com
Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
-
V.T. Yekkirala
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:39 +0100 (BST)
When you find both these symptoms present in
a pt, there is justification to take both these rubrics.
Otherwise, not. Wants to be naked can be taken
when for ex;- a pt reveals all kinds of illicit relationships
she is maintaining outside her marriage etc., and comes
out openly to lay bare her thoughts as they are occuring
without filtering or distortion which we all do to a
greater or lesser extent all the time. Just because
a majority of rubrics repeat in both the rubrics,
it is not correct, imho to consider one as
synonymos of the other. Such over simplification of
rubrics in our rep betrays poverty of understanding
and perversion of the thought process of whoever
indluges in such.The remedies figuring in a rubric
are there for different reasons altogether and we
need to burn out mid-night oil to find out why they
are there and this each one has to do it himself/herself
and digest it before he can grasp their significance.
As for the qoutation of khalil Gibran's 'The Prophet'
I enjoyed reading it and thanks for the same.
with best wishes,
V.T.Yekkirala.
_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/ca ... p?cid=3963
When you find both these symptoms present in
a pt, there is justification to take both these rubrics.
Otherwise, not. Wants to be naked can be taken
when for ex;- a pt reveals all kinds of illicit relationships
she is maintaining outside her marriage etc., and comes
out openly to lay bare her thoughts as they are occuring
without filtering or distortion which we all do to a
greater or lesser extent all the time. Just because
a majority of rubrics repeat in both the rubrics,
it is not correct, imho to consider one as
synonymos of the other. Such over simplification of
rubrics in our rep betrays poverty of understanding
and perversion of the thought process of whoever
indluges in such.The remedies figuring in a rubric
are there for different reasons altogether and we
need to burn out mid-night oil to find out why they
are there and this each one has to do it himself/herself
and digest it before he can grasp their significance.
As for the qoutation of khalil Gibran's 'The Prophet'
I enjoyed reading it and thanks for the same.
with best wishes,
V.T.Yekkirala.
_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/ca ... p?cid=3963
-
Feras Hakkak
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
Please note that we cannot use the rubric interpretations mechanically. We have to feel the patient and understand what he is conveying through his speech, gestures, and actions. So, reading Dr Sehgal's books do not make us ROH homeopaths. We have to gather a very deep understanding of our remedies and the patients. We have to be unprejudiced observers to prescribe, and to achieve this state we have to put aside our ego and superego and just watch.
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
"V.T. Yekkirala" wrote:
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:39 +0100 (BST)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
"V.T. Yekkirala" wrote:
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003 15:54:39 +0100 (BST)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
Gotta cool and groovy question for this GV HPH:
How can you be unprejudiced and unbiased in your views and
interpretations of observations when you simultaneously demonstrate
100% self-enslavement to the idiocy, presumption/prejudice and
sophistries (specifically admonished against in the footnote to
Article 1 of the ORGANON) of allopathic psychobabble by invoking the
nonsense and erroneous assumptions of so-called remedy essences --
i.e., "a very deep understanding of our remedies and the patients"
that he/she is "conveying through his speech, gestures, and actions" -
- which presumptions are now world famous from the Kentians and GVs?
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Feras Hakkak wrote:
"Please note that we cannot use the rubric interpretations
mechanically. We have to feel the patient and understand what he is
conveying through his speech, gestures, and actions....We have to
gather a very deep understanding of our remedies and the patients. We
have to be unprejudiced observers to prescribe, and to achieve this
state we have to put aside our ego and superego and just watch."
How can you be unprejudiced and unbiased in your views and
interpretations of observations when you simultaneously demonstrate
100% self-enslavement to the idiocy, presumption/prejudice and
sophistries (specifically admonished against in the footnote to
Article 1 of the ORGANON) of allopathic psychobabble by invoking the
nonsense and erroneous assumptions of so-called remedy essences --
i.e., "a very deep understanding of our remedies and the patients"
that he/she is "conveying through his speech, gestures, and actions" -
- which presumptions are now world famous from the Kentians and GVs?
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Feras Hakkak wrote:
"Please note that we cannot use the rubric interpretations
mechanically. We have to feel the patient and understand what he is
conveying through his speech, gestures, and actions....We have to
gather a very deep understanding of our remedies and the patients. We
have to be unprejudiced observers to prescribe, and to achieve this
state we have to put aside our ego and superego and just watch."
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
V.T. Yekkirala ... J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003
15:54:39: "When you find both these symptoms [loquacity and wants to
be naked] present in a pt, there is justification to take both these
rubrics"
There is?
How can you consider other than uncommon/characteristic symptoms if
you want to find the simillimum, which is kinda sorta the idea?
The fact that loquacity is a large rubric indicates it is just a
common symptom.
As for wanting to be naked, which may rank if it's an actual symptom
and not more of the psychobabble proferred by you and your kind, what
makes that a symptom?
------
He also wrote: "Dr Sehgal used to write that the urge to speak out
is equal to [desire to] bare open oneself and used the rubric Naked,
wants to be."
El psychobabble and presumption to the Nth degree, guys.
------
And he wrote: "Wants to be naked can be taken when, for example, a
patient reveals all kinds of illicit relationships she is maintaining
outside her marriage, etc., and comes out openly to lay bare her
thoughts as they are occuring without filtering or distortion, which
we all do to a greater or lesser extent all the time."
It can?
Where is the morbid desire to be naked in that?
Did you go to school to perfect this presumption and psychobabble, or
is it innate in you too?
Trying to destroy homeopathy, aren't you?
I kinda sorta wanna protect it from your kind; know what I mean, Gene?
--------
Then we read: "Such over simplification [sic] of rubrics in our
repertory betrays poverty of understanding and perversion of the
thought process of whoever indulges in such."
Yeah, you'd certainly be expert at that, sir.
--------
Then he wrote: "The remedies figuring in a rubric are there for
different reasons altogether, and we need to burn our midnight oil to
find out why they are there, and this each one has to do
himself/herself and digest it before he can grasp their significance."
I think that's why we are supposed to verify the similarity by
reading the actual symptoms in the materia medica (MM) after we do
proper repertorizations, isn't it?
Or are you saying that you kinda sorta know why it is listed without
referencing the MM?
-------
Funny that there is so much contradiction from you GVs.
Haven't any of you ever read Hahnemann and the Hahnemannians?
15:54:39: "When you find both these symptoms [loquacity and wants to
be naked] present in a pt, there is justification to take both these
rubrics"
There is?
How can you consider other than uncommon/characteristic symptoms if
you want to find the simillimum, which is kinda sorta the idea?
The fact that loquacity is a large rubric indicates it is just a
common symptom.
As for wanting to be naked, which may rank if it's an actual symptom
and not more of the psychobabble proferred by you and your kind, what
makes that a symptom?
------
He also wrote: "Dr Sehgal used to write that the urge to speak out
is equal to [desire to] bare open oneself and used the rubric Naked,
wants to be."
El psychobabble and presumption to the Nth degree, guys.
------
And he wrote: "Wants to be naked can be taken when, for example, a
patient reveals all kinds of illicit relationships she is maintaining
outside her marriage, etc., and comes out openly to lay bare her
thoughts as they are occuring without filtering or distortion, which
we all do to a greater or lesser extent all the time."
It can?
Where is the morbid desire to be naked in that?
Did you go to school to perfect this presumption and psychobabble, or
is it innate in you too?
Trying to destroy homeopathy, aren't you?
I kinda sorta wanna protect it from your kind; know what I mean, Gene?
--------
Then we read: "Such over simplification [sic] of rubrics in our
repertory betrays poverty of understanding and perversion of the
thought process of whoever indulges in such."
Yeah, you'd certainly be expert at that, sir.
--------
Then he wrote: "The remedies figuring in a rubric are there for
different reasons altogether, and we need to burn our midnight oil to
find out why they are there, and this each one has to do
himself/herself and digest it before he can grasp their significance."
I think that's why we are supposed to verify the similarity by
reading the actual symptoms in the materia medica (MM) after we do
proper repertorizations, isn't it?
Or are you saying that you kinda sorta know why it is listed without
referencing the MM?
-------
Funny that there is so much contradiction from you GVs.
Haven't any of you ever read Hahnemann and the Hahnemannians?
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote quoting Gibran's THE PROPHET: "chapter
(xix)....'You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts.'"
Does that make sense to anyone here?
-----
"And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart[,]
you live in your lips..."
Same question.
-----
"...thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may indeed
unfold its wings but cannot fly."
Very right brain and ridiculously Eastern.
Hardly the balanced neurological functioning required to properly do
homeopathy.
-----
"And there are those who talk, [sic the comma] and WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
OR FORETHOUGHT [emphasis mine] reveal a truth which [sic] they
themselves do not understand."
Methinks somebody wert lookin' in da mirra.
(xix)....'You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts.'"
Does that make sense to anyone here?
-----
"And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart[,]
you live in your lips..."
Same question.
-----
"...thought is a bird of space, that in a cage of words may indeed
unfold its wings but cannot fly."
Very right brain and ridiculously Eastern.
Hardly the balanced neurological functioning required to properly do
homeopathy.
-----
"And there are those who talk, [sic the comma] and WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
OR FORETHOUGHT [emphasis mine] reveal a truth which [sic] they
themselves do not understand."
Methinks somebody wert lookin' in da mirra.
-
Allen Coniglio
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
I have been trying to keep off of this list for a year or so but sometimes,
one just has no choice. I would like to mention to Albert - whoever he is -
that one need not be a bully boy to get one's point across. I'm sure that he
has heard that old thing about flies, honey and vinegar. It is obvious to me
that with the level of invective exhibited by Albert that he is new to
humanity and, perhaps, even to homeopathy, having read a book or two or
having just completed some part of a homeopathic study program - by mail,
perhaps? He does protest loudly, doesn't he? Really, Albert, you are a bore
and contribute nothing but bitterness and rancor to this list and, I am
certain, to the world. If you can't behave, why not go somewhere else to
troll? After all, who appointed you to be our idiot savant? Grow up, Albert.
You are a mean, little person. Look it up. It is in the repertory.
For those who might wish to read further on the type that is being so
worthily presented to our list by Albert, please look up Androctonos. Nux
Vomica and Lachesis also come to mind but, I would go with the Scorpion. By
the way, Albert, I would cut it out with all the "(sic)'s" you are using
when you quote someone. Did you ever hear about people who live in glass
houses or about casting the first stone? Your ramblings are full of
misspelled words and other errors, so you would do well not to point out the
sliver in another's eye. Remove the beam from your own and you might see
better what you are. If you promise to go away, I will be happy to list a
dozen or so of your errors for you.
You wrote the following:
(xix)....'You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts.'"
Does that make sense to anyone here?
-----
"And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart[,]
you live in your lips..."
Same question.<<<<<<
Just to let you know, Albert, both Gibran quotes make perfect sense to me. I
read them before I had ever heard of or from you but, it seems that they
were written with you in mind. Fancy that.
Allen
one just has no choice. I would like to mention to Albert - whoever he is -
that one need not be a bully boy to get one's point across. I'm sure that he
has heard that old thing about flies, honey and vinegar. It is obvious to me
that with the level of invective exhibited by Albert that he is new to
humanity and, perhaps, even to homeopathy, having read a book or two or
having just completed some part of a homeopathic study program - by mail,
perhaps? He does protest loudly, doesn't he? Really, Albert, you are a bore
and contribute nothing but bitterness and rancor to this list and, I am
certain, to the world. If you can't behave, why not go somewhere else to
troll? After all, who appointed you to be our idiot savant? Grow up, Albert.
You are a mean, little person. Look it up. It is in the repertory.
For those who might wish to read further on the type that is being so
worthily presented to our list by Albert, please look up Androctonos. Nux
Vomica and Lachesis also come to mind but, I would go with the Scorpion. By
the way, Albert, I would cut it out with all the "(sic)'s" you are using
when you quote someone. Did you ever hear about people who live in glass
houses or about casting the first stone? Your ramblings are full of
misspelled words and other errors, so you would do well not to point out the
sliver in another's eye. Remove the beam from your own and you might see
better what you are. If you promise to go away, I will be happy to list a
dozen or so of your errors for you.
You wrote the following:
(xix)....'You talk when you cease to be at peace with your
thoughts.'"
Does that make sense to anyone here?
-----
"And when you can no longer dwell in the solitude of your heart[,]
you live in your lips..."
Same question.<<<<<<
Just to let you know, Albert, both Gibran quotes make perfect sense to me. I
read them before I had ever heard of or from you but, it seems that they
were written with you in mind. Fancy that.
Allen
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
allen coniglio wrote: "It is obvious to me that with the level of
invective exhibited by Albert that he is new to humanity and,
perhaps, even to homeopathy, having read a book or two or having
just completed some part of a homeopathic study program - by mail,
perhaps?"
Well, fancy boy, I'm 25 years in homeopathy and was not but
partially led astray by the Vithoulkas school of thought, unlike the
vast majority of you.
Also, I'm not stupid or gullible enough to take any courses being
offered, buddy boy, because I can recognize both high- and low-
potency pseudo-homeopathy when I see it.
Why can't you, pal?
-----
"Really, Albert, you are a bore and contribute nothing but
bitterness and rancor to this list..."
Okay, then you're a dumbass, fool!
Happy now?
What I contribute, which has apparently been sorrly needed here for
me to be witness to so much foolishness passing for homeopathy, is
defense of legitimate homeopathy, pal, so shut up if you have
nothing productive to offer for the furtherance of
Hahnemannian/classical homeopathy, okay dokie?
-----
"If you can't behave [1.], why not go somewhere else to troll [2.]?
After all, who appointed you to be our idiot savant [3.]? Grow up,
Albert [4.]. You are a mean, little person [5.]. Look it up. It is
in the repertory [6.].
1. I think I behave quite well considering the importance of
protecting homeopathy from your kind.
2. Glad it's annoying you, for it seems you've been quite ignorant
of legitimate homeopathy far too long and are too gullible of the
things you've read from the outskirts of homeopathy, buddy boy.
Better think twice before crossing swords with me, pal.
3. Who gave you permission to be a total asshole?
4. I'm 48, you presumptuous fool.
Try getting an undamaged brain next time; I'm sure they work better.
Like that?
Happy yet?
5. Am I now?
You do not know me, my very presumptuous and psychobabblic
antagonist, so I'd shut up if I were you since I will give no truck
to false homeopathy and would easily and readily quote Hahnemann,
Lippe and other Hahnemannians who have always denounced you
adulterators of this most important of all professions.
And you're still an ignorant fool, dumbass!
Sound fancy to you?
6. So are stupid and foolish, my very ignorant antagonist.
Look 'em up!
-----
"For those who might wish to read further on the type that is being
so worthily presented to our list by Albert, please look up
Androctonos. Nux Vomica and Lachesis also come to mind but, I would
go with the Scorpion."
Oh goodie!
Speak, oh high priest of the Vithoulkas Priesthood.
Show us how to do homeopathy, thou wise one.
I just love it when you guys do that.
It's a good show.
Show us some of that now-famous total psychobabble and presumption
from allopathy you guys like to bandy about.
And be sure to quote the ORGANON in defense of your adulterations of
homeopathy; that's the best part of it.
Prove to us how far from Hahnemann's method you are, you very stupid
man.
Open that big mouth of yours and let that ignorance be demonstrated,
oh wise one amongst us.
-----
"By the way, Albert, I would cut it out with all the '(sic)'s' you
are using when you quote someone [1.]. Did you ever hear about
people who live in glass houses or about casting the first stone
[2.]? Your ramblings are full of misspelled words and other errors
[3.], so you would do well not to point out the sliver in another's
eye. Remove the beam from your own and you might see better what
you are [4.].
1. Why?
2. Yeah, but I can defend homeopathy; you ought to try it when you
figure it out, pal.
3. Did I say I reject corrections, mister presumption?
4. Oh, really?
Well, if you'd get a new brain, you'd be free from the foolishness
you've accepted, wouldn't you?
Can't defend homeopathy, can you?
You take it personally, don't you?
Don't any of you have the motive to protect this most important of
works from those who usurp it with allopathic inroads from the
supposed inside of homeopathy?
-----
"If you promise to go away, I will be happy to list a dozen or so of
your errors for you."
If I give you a penny, will you promise to shut up till you die so
that you do not exit this life with a gigantic karmic debt from
misleading thousands of others out of misguided sincerity, like all
of you GVs?
Show me my errors, buddy boy.
That should prove interesting.
Then tell me why none of you seems to think it is important for the
historical record that we be scholarly.
-----
"...both Gibran quotes make perfect sense to me [1.]. I read them
before I had ever heard of or from you but [2.], it seems that they
were written with you in mind [3.]. Fancy that [4.]."
1. Figures.
2. I read it when it was published, mister presumption.
3. Is that right?
Well, too bad then, for I do not listen to abject ignorance, unlike
some of us hereabouts.
4. Fancy that.
-----
I note with extreme interest that you also failed to answer my
questions or deal with my concerns.
Is there some reason why you all seem to feel it is okay to hold
indefensible views that do not reflect homeopathy and yet call it
that anyway?
I'm pretty sure you'll find that Hahnemann and subsequent
Hahnemannians told you to SHUT UP, so why not listen to them for
once, buddy boy?
invective exhibited by Albert that he is new to humanity and,
perhaps, even to homeopathy, having read a book or two or having
just completed some part of a homeopathic study program - by mail,
perhaps?"
Well, fancy boy, I'm 25 years in homeopathy and was not but
partially led astray by the Vithoulkas school of thought, unlike the
vast majority of you.
Also, I'm not stupid or gullible enough to take any courses being
offered, buddy boy, because I can recognize both high- and low-
potency pseudo-homeopathy when I see it.
Why can't you, pal?
-----
"Really, Albert, you are a bore and contribute nothing but
bitterness and rancor to this list..."
Okay, then you're a dumbass, fool!
Happy now?
What I contribute, which has apparently been sorrly needed here for
me to be witness to so much foolishness passing for homeopathy, is
defense of legitimate homeopathy, pal, so shut up if you have
nothing productive to offer for the furtherance of
Hahnemannian/classical homeopathy, okay dokie?
-----
"If you can't behave [1.], why not go somewhere else to troll [2.]?
After all, who appointed you to be our idiot savant [3.]? Grow up,
Albert [4.]. You are a mean, little person [5.]. Look it up. It is
in the repertory [6.].
1. I think I behave quite well considering the importance of
protecting homeopathy from your kind.
2. Glad it's annoying you, for it seems you've been quite ignorant
of legitimate homeopathy far too long and are too gullible of the
things you've read from the outskirts of homeopathy, buddy boy.
Better think twice before crossing swords with me, pal.
3. Who gave you permission to be a total asshole?
4. I'm 48, you presumptuous fool.
Try getting an undamaged brain next time; I'm sure they work better.
Like that?
Happy yet?
5. Am I now?
You do not know me, my very presumptuous and psychobabblic
antagonist, so I'd shut up if I were you since I will give no truck
to false homeopathy and would easily and readily quote Hahnemann,
Lippe and other Hahnemannians who have always denounced you
adulterators of this most important of all professions.
And you're still an ignorant fool, dumbass!
Sound fancy to you?
6. So are stupid and foolish, my very ignorant antagonist.
Look 'em up!
-----
"For those who might wish to read further on the type that is being
so worthily presented to our list by Albert, please look up
Androctonos. Nux Vomica and Lachesis also come to mind but, I would
go with the Scorpion."
Oh goodie!
Speak, oh high priest of the Vithoulkas Priesthood.
Show us how to do homeopathy, thou wise one.
I just love it when you guys do that.
It's a good show.
Show us some of that now-famous total psychobabble and presumption
from allopathy you guys like to bandy about.
And be sure to quote the ORGANON in defense of your adulterations of
homeopathy; that's the best part of it.
Prove to us how far from Hahnemann's method you are, you very stupid
man.
Open that big mouth of yours and let that ignorance be demonstrated,
oh wise one amongst us.
-----
"By the way, Albert, I would cut it out with all the '(sic)'s' you
are using when you quote someone [1.]. Did you ever hear about
people who live in glass houses or about casting the first stone
[2.]? Your ramblings are full of misspelled words and other errors
[3.], so you would do well not to point out the sliver in another's
eye. Remove the beam from your own and you might see better what
you are [4.].
1. Why?
2. Yeah, but I can defend homeopathy; you ought to try it when you
figure it out, pal.
3. Did I say I reject corrections, mister presumption?
4. Oh, really?
Well, if you'd get a new brain, you'd be free from the foolishness
you've accepted, wouldn't you?
Can't defend homeopathy, can you?
You take it personally, don't you?
Don't any of you have the motive to protect this most important of
works from those who usurp it with allopathic inroads from the
supposed inside of homeopathy?
-----
"If you promise to go away, I will be happy to list a dozen or so of
your errors for you."
If I give you a penny, will you promise to shut up till you die so
that you do not exit this life with a gigantic karmic debt from
misleading thousands of others out of misguided sincerity, like all
of you GVs?
Show me my errors, buddy boy.
That should prove interesting.
Then tell me why none of you seems to think it is important for the
historical record that we be scholarly.
-----
"...both Gibran quotes make perfect sense to me [1.]. I read them
before I had ever heard of or from you but [2.], it seems that they
were written with you in mind [3.]. Fancy that [4.]."
1. Figures.
2. I read it when it was published, mister presumption.
3. Is that right?
Well, too bad then, for I do not listen to abject ignorance, unlike
some of us hereabouts.
4. Fancy that.
-----
I note with extreme interest that you also failed to answer my
questions or deal with my concerns.
Is there some reason why you all seem to feel it is okay to hold
indefensible views that do not reflect homeopathy and yet call it
that anyway?
I'm pretty sure you'll find that Hahnemann and subsequent
Hahnemannians told you to SHUT UP, so why not listen to them for
once, buddy boy?
-
APEX PRECITECH
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
Dear V.T,
My posting was based on the premise that talking as an
act is a grand
symptom when presented to a physician.(esp in
disease). The doc gains
a great deal thru this act.
The study of mine was (mis)represented as conclusions.
You wrote
'Such over simplification of
rubrics in our rep betrays poverty of
understanding
and perversion of the thought process of whoever
indluges in such.The remedies figuring in a
rubric
are there for different reasons altogether and
we
need to burn out mid-night oil to find out why
they
are there and this each one has to do it
himself/herself
and digest it before he can grasp their
significance.
My contribution was just the relationship of rubrics!
It is a further
guide for the doc. If we encounter a talkative
patient, it will be
helpful if we further probe the associated rubrics or
wait for them to
unfold. We have a philosophical reality before us(of
Gibran's), which
provided the analogy of connecting these seemingly
unconnected
rubrics. It is for any one to accept it or not
according the
direction of thought and level of maturity and
understanding.
As an enthusiast of Homeopathy, I dwell on various
aspects of
theory and therapy which took me even to study Sehgal
with an
open mind.
Your words "betrays poverty of understanding and
perversion of
the thought process of whoever indluges in such" are
unsuited to
the topic and decorum of the group and would be looked
down upon.
Else one descend to the level of that imposter Albert
spewing venom.
Regards & the very best
J.Venkatasubramanian
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com
My posting was based on the premise that talking as an
act is a grand
symptom when presented to a physician.(esp in
disease). The doc gains
a great deal thru this act.
The study of mine was (mis)represented as conclusions.
You wrote
'Such over simplification of
rubrics in our rep betrays poverty of
understanding
and perversion of the thought process of whoever
indluges in such.The remedies figuring in a
rubric
are there for different reasons altogether and
we
need to burn out mid-night oil to find out why
they
are there and this each one has to do it
himself/herself
and digest it before he can grasp their
significance.
My contribution was just the relationship of rubrics!
It is a further
guide for the doc. If we encounter a talkative
patient, it will be
helpful if we further probe the associated rubrics or
wait for them to
unfold. We have a philosophical reality before us(of
Gibran's), which
provided the analogy of connecting these seemingly
unconnected
rubrics. It is for any one to accept it or not
according the
direction of thought and level of maturity and
understanding.
As an enthusiast of Homeopathy, I dwell on various
aspects of
theory and therapy which took me even to study Sehgal
with an
open mind.
Your words "betrays poverty of understanding and
perversion of
the thought process of whoever indluges in such" are
unsuited to
the topic and decorum of the group and would be looked
down upon.
Else one descend to the level of that imposter Albert
spewing venom.
Regards & the very best
J.Venkatasubramanian
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com
-
APEX PRECITECH
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Khalil Gibron on Loquacity
Dear Ferras Hekkak,
Is it directed against me ? From the tenor of your
posting,I infer so.
Did I interpret ? Read again. I showed the thread
running thru these rubrics.
The aspect of analysis is never mechanical and can
never be. In your previous posting you wrote about the
state. To identify the state we need a study of PPP.
Sehgal would never use a rubric like Loquacity. He
would go to the sub rubrics or to those that point to
the present tense- the doing rubrics. This study of
mine is a pointer to a direction and not the direction
as such.
You wrote
1.'So, reading Dr Sehgal's books do not make us ROH
homeopaths'-
Did I say so ? Or was it your assumption ?
2.You also wrote "We have to gather a very deep
understanding of our remedies and the patients"
Excellent.The first part is a lifetime work and we all
are trodding the path and at various levels. As for
the latter ,Sehgal decided to ignore the innates and
preferred to study his present state. When I go by his
method I do this.
3. You then wrote:"We have to be unprejudiced
observers to prescribe, and to achieve this state we
have to put aside our ego and superego and just
watch."
Prejudice is the premise of the uncertain. On the
other hand, do all these show a prejudice on your part
to see a seemingly plain observation- which was a
relationship of Rubrics.
The ego and superego you mentioned are off topic and
only those who possess these 'virtues' have to answer
your comment.
regards and the very best
J.venkatasubramanian
--- Feras Hakkak wrote:
---------------------------------
Please note that we cannot use the rubric
interpretations mechanically. We have to feel the
patient and understand what he is conveying through
his speech, gestures, and actions. So, reading Dr
Sehgal's books do not make us ROH homeopaths. We have
to gather a very deep understanding of our remedies
and the patients. We have to be unprejudiced observers
to prescribe, and to achieve this state we have to put
aside our ego and superego and just watch.
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
"V.T. Yekkirala" wrote:
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003
15:54:39 +0100 (BST)
urge to speak
rubric
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the
promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of
its members. It makes no representations regarding the
individual suitability of the information contained in
any document read or advice or recommendation offered
which appears on this website and/or email postings
for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their
use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the
minutus site or its individual members be liable for
any direct, consequential, incidental, special,
punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send
a message with the subject of 'Digest' to
ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com
Is it directed against me ? From the tenor of your
posting,I infer so.
Did I interpret ? Read again. I showed the thread
running thru these rubrics.
The aspect of analysis is never mechanical and can
never be. In your previous posting you wrote about the
state. To identify the state we need a study of PPP.
Sehgal would never use a rubric like Loquacity. He
would go to the sub rubrics or to those that point to
the present tense- the doing rubrics. This study of
mine is a pointer to a direction and not the direction
as such.
You wrote
1.'So, reading Dr Sehgal's books do not make us ROH
homeopaths'-
Did I say so ? Or was it your assumption ?
2.You also wrote "We have to gather a very deep
understanding of our remedies and the patients"
Excellent.The first part is a lifetime work and we all
are trodding the path and at various levels. As for
the latter ,Sehgal decided to ignore the innates and
preferred to study his present state. When I go by his
method I do this.
3. You then wrote:"We have to be unprejudiced
observers to prescribe, and to achieve this state we
have to put aside our ego and superego and just
watch."
Prejudice is the premise of the uncertain. On the
other hand, do all these show a prejudice on your part
to see a seemingly plain observation- which was a
relationship of Rubrics.
The ego and superego you mentioned are off topic and
only those who possess these 'virtues' have to answer
your comment.
regards and the very best
J.venkatasubramanian
--- Feras Hakkak wrote:
---------------------------------
Please note that we cannot use the rubric
interpretations mechanically. We have to feel the
patient and understand what he is conveying through
his speech, gestures, and actions. So, reading Dr
Sehgal's books do not make us ROH homeopaths. We have
to gather a very deep understanding of our remedies
and the patients. We have to be unprejudiced observers
to prescribe, and to achieve this state we have to put
aside our ego and superego and just watch.
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
"V.T. Yekkirala" wrote:
J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote on Sat, 27 Sep 2003
15:54:39 +0100 (BST)
urge to speak
rubric
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the
promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of
its members. It makes no representations regarding the
individual suitability of the information contained in
any document read or advice or recommendation offered
which appears on this website and/or email postings
for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their
use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the
minutus site or its individual members be liable for
any direct, consequential, incidental, special,
punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send
a message with the subject of 'Digest' to
ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online.
Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com