At 9:45 PM -0500 7/14/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:
I fully disagree.
There are remedies that are made of REAL stuff-- plants, animals,
minerals, compounds, diseased stuff, healthy tissue., etc.
Even though these can (through potentization) reach a point of being
ultra-molecular, they still START with stuff that can be tinctured or
triturated.
The imponderables start with stuff that can't be tinctured or
triturated. In ALL of them, the alcohol or milk sugar is *acted upon*
in some way by another force, and then the substance is triturated or
worked into a liquid potency.
These substances include, but are not limited to:
x-ray
electricitas
magnet (ambo polo, australis, and combined)
sol (sunlight)
luna (moonlight)
blue ray (and all other light remedies)
If the remedies are classified by the Pharmacopoeia as plant,
mineral, animal, nosode, isode, etc. where do you put this above
grouping?
It is interesting to note that of them all only x-ray is recognized
because the instruction for its manufacture were adequately explained.
Even the magnets, which were done by Hahnemann, were not adequately
explained, i.e., "expose an amount of milk-sugar (HOW MUCH?) to the
south pole of a strong magnet (HOW MANY GAUSS?) for a period of time
(HOW LONG?).
Unless there are adequate instructions to duplicate the manufacture,
it cannot become an official preparation in the HPUS.
JW
The Rx Time and a Proposed Re-Classification of Imponderables
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: The Rx Time and a Proposed Re-Classification of Imponderables
Julian Winston wrote:
**** The webster's says IMPONDERABLE: "not ponderable:incapable of being weighed or evaluated with exactness"
Julian Winston wrote:
*** Hi, Julian. I suppose then, the disagreement is in part based on a perspective of what is real? I assume you will agree that light, centrifugal force, time, and x-rays are all as real as any molecular structure, would you not? Most particle physicists certainly would.
Julian Winston wrote:
***and as well, your argument appears to be that OF what is real; WHAT can be captured on a carrier and give a consistent proving?--- I know you will agree that it has been fully demonstrated that emanations and forces can be potentized and give consistent proving results and results in the clinic. Since not only "stuff" can do that; referring to "stuff" as the only valid starting point could be seen as prejudiced against forces in nature that impact humans markedly, and thus will produce a marked proving in potency. And, I might add, very hypocritical if we consider that
after 12C or 24x, the medicine has no "stuff" anyway, so the end product is on a level playing field, as it were, and one of force and structure/pattern, NOT material.
*** Agreed, "capturing" a force or emanation is different than "harvesting" or mining a material. Does this invalidate it in any way as a potential medicine? If an opinion is given that it does, then this becomes apologetic to a materialist perspective, which was one of my points in that post. A remedy made from a force can be shown to have an effect on a test population consistently. If it does have precise instructions for manufacture, then there should be no problem EXCEPT the problem of the (unscientific) "religion" or paradigm of materialism. Particle physicists
don't have a problem with the "reality level" of fields and forces (invisible "stuff"), and could likely understand how they could modify a carrier matrix. Benveniste and many others (discredited by the unscientific religion of the culture) have published proof that succussion imparts an intensification of coherence in water structures. Are homeopaths themselves going to say that one cannot expose a carrier to light emanations and use it to do a proving that gets "ponderable" (eg. consistently assessable) results? The exactness of weights and measures of a material is not
relevant when testing a 30C or a 200C on a test population. Sure, the method of preparing the original material must be consistent--but the method can be consistent when making an rx from a force, too---for example how Nuala Eising makes a remedy from a centrifuge with certain parameters defined (size of centrifuge, motor shielding, speed, duration, etc--all (presumably in the case of her remedy)--exact parameters).
There are realities which maintain living beings here on the planet which are forces---and can become remedies just as can molecular aggregates. The distinction, that one (maybe a plant, a mineral) starts with material which has an inherent structure, the other (for example sunlight) with material that has had structure imparted ON IT by a force or emanation---is not in my opinion a strong point given that the final product (the potentized remedy) is pure STRUCTURE in either case.
Julian Winston wrote:
****That was discussed in the post in question here excerpted:
---------------------
Existing Terms:
*Biological
--Animals
--Plants
--Fungi
--Nosodes, Pathogens, and Microorganisms (Bacteria, Protozoans, Viruses, Prions, etc)
--Sarcodes and biochemicals
*Elemental
--Elements and Compounds
--Mineral Complexes (rocks and waters)
*"Imponderables"
--------------------
Proposed Change:
Substitute for "Imponderables" by creating a category "Forces" and breaking it into two categories:
--Physical Forces
--Metaphysical Forces
*Forces
=============
Physical Forces:
--Electromagnetic Spectrum (ex. Fire; x-Ray; Venus (planet reflected light through telescope-this has a proving BTW (quality of it unknown) at
http://www.btinternet.com/~wellmother/venusbase.htm
--Newtonian Force (ex. Centripetal Force)
--Other Force categories as applicable (e.g. other atomic forces not covered by the above; subatomic "particles" (quarks, positrons, etc)) if not covered by the
above Cosmic forces like muons, etc)
=============
================
Metaphysical (eg Non-Hertzian) Forces:
--Thought form (e.g. projected thought images or feeling tone intensities (e.g. anger, love etc); focused by a mind or minds-- or otherwise captured on a vial of
alcohol or other carrier maybe Berlin Wall is partly in this category)
--Geomantic (e.g. physical landscape components with alleged or actual inherent energetic significance that may override their actual chemistry-- ex.--Berlin
Wall or Stonehenge)
--Other Force categories as applicable (such as "paranormal" phenomena, etc)
================
The "politically" difficult part for, say, the HPUS, is not the physical forces category--I hope no one would say there is ANY problem with capturing a physical force after we have used x-ray as an rx for about 100 years with great successes. That is why I say the term imponderable thus applied, in this case to x-ray, is so anachronistic. We can measure anything on the Electromagnetic spectrum--including several forms of ionizing radiation; or in the realm of newtonian forces, and other types of forces as well (gravitation etc). In order to be able to define "anti-matter"
(which has an extensive proving as the rx Positron); one must have first been able to be certain of identification of what is acting on the carrier to impart structure to it. This is a relatively exact science, arguably as exact as weights and measures in making a decoction, for example.
It is the metaphysical category which, if any, might unfortunately find itself still relegated to the "Imponderable" category as an apology to those who have not investigated the ether; who find a human being has no spirit or animating force, but is only flesh and blood; and consider that consciousness expires when the body does. So if one must be apologetic at THIS point (2004) because this is too politically difficult, then the Metaphysical force category can be made the "Imponderables"--even though they are quite ponderable, just not by the mainstream common denominator.
And many of these remedies would not be able to be remade from scratch (in say, the case of the energy of a really demonstrable "haunted house") even if the energy could be measured.
But--NO ONE can say that time, light, centrifugal force, ionizing radiation, or subatomic particles are "imponderable". If they do, they are just living in the past. Government science foundations of the world pour billions of dollars in research money annually into the study of subatomic particles, electromagnetic physics, and a panoply of other forces in nature--- that's an awful lot of serious "pondering". And that kind of pondering has been going on progressively since Newton and before---so we are talking centuries--well before Hahnemann, who as you point out, was hip
enough to the subject of that post to do a proving of magnetic fields of various types. The fact that he could not give the gaussian intensity for pharmacy manufacturing today does not make those remedies any less valuable, or less "ponderable", now that we can measure the field accurately for repeatability---does it?
It is hoped that the problem of imponderables is completely in their poor description of making; and not in pacifying mainstream thinkers who "run things"; because of the difficulty of EXPLANATION OF THE MECHANISM of capturing a force on a medium such as water, alcohol, glycerine, lactose, etc. Those working in energetic medicine need not be apologetic by calling an rx "imponderable" because of the mechanism of its capture. Otherwise the word connotes hypocrisy, given that we give medicines that are carried on those same substances, with the material which is the source of the
medicine absent, and the only variable of input having been the FORCE of percussion by a machine or a person! The HPUS recognizes succussion as an operation which must happen in order to produce any potency. So they have long since conceded that a force can be captured on these media, have they not?
I doubt people in the HPUS think MUCH about this topic, nor need they necessarily dwell on it; but in the interest of consistency and lack of utter hypocrisy; and to promote the acceptance of new and old remedies made from emanations and forces, the term "imponderables" should IMO be eliminated when referring to remedies made from emanations and forces; particularly physical forces; if not all forces. The HPUS should not be embarassed about changing a category into "Forces and Emanations", for example, instead of (if they do use this term officially) the term
"Imponderables", connoting "not measurable". Forces and emanations used to make remedies can be measured and described with relative exactitude on a par with consistency in herbs or elemental purity. It is good that the HPUS is there to provide a standard. And provers should try to live up to that standard so medicines make it into the pharmocopeia.
Hopefully we will be able to keep using ANY remedy without the blessing of a watchdog group. Magnetis polus australis, the principle rx for ingrown toenails, was, I understand, removed from the US pharmocopeia by HPUS some time ago (please correct me if wrong). If this is accurate, then the HPUS (or some private group that watchdogs the HPUS) should commission a reproving with consistent and up-to-date manufacturing method in such cases; so such important remedies are not lost from the official register.
"I have cured so many cases of ingrowing toenails with M-aust. 2M, that I invariably give it in the first place when there are no symptoms plainly indicating another remedy." [Clarke]
Julian Winston wrote:
*** The fact that instructions were not complete such that you dedicated folks at HPUS won't pass it into pharmocopeia is, it seems, indeed a criterion for using the word "imponderable", if the measuring methods of the day were not adequate (e.g not yet an affordable precision magnetic field meter for Hahnemann to purchase cheap on the internet
); or the method of making the rx was simply poorly described. But for forces and emanations that are NOW easily measureable in various ways, poor description is only a discrepancy which disqualifies it on grounds that it cannot be
consistently manufactured. Inadequate instructions are not to be tolerated in any medicine that must be repetitively remanufactured from scratch (and many of our remedies are not---we use the same rx source as did the proving).
But the CONNOTATION that a force is not measureable (ponderable") and thus forces are less fit to become a remedy is prejudiced IMO. These forces are in many cases measureable, and with affordable or borrowable instruments. Remedies from forces and emanations can be remade and reproven with perfectly clear defining parameters and instructions if necessary. There is no longer any excuse to exclude forces and emanations from use on the grounds that they cannot be characterized as well as one can characterize by means of chemical assay of an herb, for example. If they are
not measured by the prover, then that is a disservice to the profession.
Julian Winston wrote:
**** That is reasonable, but does not mean the medicine or it's source force or emanation is inherently "imponderable". Only that it needs a consistent definition and measurement during its minting. If inexactitude is the basis for the "imponderables" measure, I think that is because remedies were made before instrumentation of certain type was available, or not enough instrumentation is used even at present day (possibly often because the people doing the proving are not funded, but usually doing the effort "out of pocket". Maybe we need an informal "scientific advisory
panel"; affiliated with NCH, for example, whom will lend scientific expertise and instrumentation to proving supervisors in order to insure that the manufacture of remedies like sunlight or moonlight, for example is consistently repeatable to the point that the rx's make it into the official compendium of medicines.
Thanks to all for consideration of this topic. Nuala Eising's remedy made from a force brings it to mind because of the potential of remedies made from forces and emanations that has not been yet fully tapped, though Nuala is one that seems to be hot on the trail.
Best to all,
Andy
**** The webster's says IMPONDERABLE: "not ponderable:incapable of being weighed or evaluated with exactness"
Julian Winston wrote:
*** Hi, Julian. I suppose then, the disagreement is in part based on a perspective of what is real? I assume you will agree that light, centrifugal force, time, and x-rays are all as real as any molecular structure, would you not? Most particle physicists certainly would.
Julian Winston wrote:
***and as well, your argument appears to be that OF what is real; WHAT can be captured on a carrier and give a consistent proving?--- I know you will agree that it has been fully demonstrated that emanations and forces can be potentized and give consistent proving results and results in the clinic. Since not only "stuff" can do that; referring to "stuff" as the only valid starting point could be seen as prejudiced against forces in nature that impact humans markedly, and thus will produce a marked proving in potency. And, I might add, very hypocritical if we consider that
after 12C or 24x, the medicine has no "stuff" anyway, so the end product is on a level playing field, as it were, and one of force and structure/pattern, NOT material.
*** Agreed, "capturing" a force or emanation is different than "harvesting" or mining a material. Does this invalidate it in any way as a potential medicine? If an opinion is given that it does, then this becomes apologetic to a materialist perspective, which was one of my points in that post. A remedy made from a force can be shown to have an effect on a test population consistently. If it does have precise instructions for manufacture, then there should be no problem EXCEPT the problem of the (unscientific) "religion" or paradigm of materialism. Particle physicists
don't have a problem with the "reality level" of fields and forces (invisible "stuff"), and could likely understand how they could modify a carrier matrix. Benveniste and many others (discredited by the unscientific religion of the culture) have published proof that succussion imparts an intensification of coherence in water structures. Are homeopaths themselves going to say that one cannot expose a carrier to light emanations and use it to do a proving that gets "ponderable" (eg. consistently assessable) results? The exactness of weights and measures of a material is not
relevant when testing a 30C or a 200C on a test population. Sure, the method of preparing the original material must be consistent--but the method can be consistent when making an rx from a force, too---for example how Nuala Eising makes a remedy from a centrifuge with certain parameters defined (size of centrifuge, motor shielding, speed, duration, etc--all (presumably in the case of her remedy)--exact parameters).
There are realities which maintain living beings here on the planet which are forces---and can become remedies just as can molecular aggregates. The distinction, that one (maybe a plant, a mineral) starts with material which has an inherent structure, the other (for example sunlight) with material that has had structure imparted ON IT by a force or emanation---is not in my opinion a strong point given that the final product (the potentized remedy) is pure STRUCTURE in either case.
Julian Winston wrote:
****That was discussed in the post in question here excerpted:
---------------------
Existing Terms:
*Biological
--Animals
--Plants
--Fungi
--Nosodes, Pathogens, and Microorganisms (Bacteria, Protozoans, Viruses, Prions, etc)
--Sarcodes and biochemicals
*Elemental
--Elements and Compounds
--Mineral Complexes (rocks and waters)
*"Imponderables"
--------------------
Proposed Change:
Substitute for "Imponderables" by creating a category "Forces" and breaking it into two categories:
--Physical Forces
--Metaphysical Forces
*Forces
=============
Physical Forces:
--Electromagnetic Spectrum (ex. Fire; x-Ray; Venus (planet reflected light through telescope-this has a proving BTW (quality of it unknown) at
http://www.btinternet.com/~wellmother/venusbase.htm
--Newtonian Force (ex. Centripetal Force)
--Other Force categories as applicable (e.g. other atomic forces not covered by the above; subatomic "particles" (quarks, positrons, etc)) if not covered by the
above Cosmic forces like muons, etc)
=============
================
Metaphysical (eg Non-Hertzian) Forces:
--Thought form (e.g. projected thought images or feeling tone intensities (e.g. anger, love etc); focused by a mind or minds-- or otherwise captured on a vial of
alcohol or other carrier maybe Berlin Wall is partly in this category)
--Geomantic (e.g. physical landscape components with alleged or actual inherent energetic significance that may override their actual chemistry-- ex.--Berlin
Wall or Stonehenge)
--Other Force categories as applicable (such as "paranormal" phenomena, etc)
================
The "politically" difficult part for, say, the HPUS, is not the physical forces category--I hope no one would say there is ANY problem with capturing a physical force after we have used x-ray as an rx for about 100 years with great successes. That is why I say the term imponderable thus applied, in this case to x-ray, is so anachronistic. We can measure anything on the Electromagnetic spectrum--including several forms of ionizing radiation; or in the realm of newtonian forces, and other types of forces as well (gravitation etc). In order to be able to define "anti-matter"
(which has an extensive proving as the rx Positron); one must have first been able to be certain of identification of what is acting on the carrier to impart structure to it. This is a relatively exact science, arguably as exact as weights and measures in making a decoction, for example.
It is the metaphysical category which, if any, might unfortunately find itself still relegated to the "Imponderable" category as an apology to those who have not investigated the ether; who find a human being has no spirit or animating force, but is only flesh and blood; and consider that consciousness expires when the body does. So if one must be apologetic at THIS point (2004) because this is too politically difficult, then the Metaphysical force category can be made the "Imponderables"--even though they are quite ponderable, just not by the mainstream common denominator.
And many of these remedies would not be able to be remade from scratch (in say, the case of the energy of a really demonstrable "haunted house") even if the energy could be measured.
But--NO ONE can say that time, light, centrifugal force, ionizing radiation, or subatomic particles are "imponderable". If they do, they are just living in the past. Government science foundations of the world pour billions of dollars in research money annually into the study of subatomic particles, electromagnetic physics, and a panoply of other forces in nature--- that's an awful lot of serious "pondering". And that kind of pondering has been going on progressively since Newton and before---so we are talking centuries--well before Hahnemann, who as you point out, was hip
enough to the subject of that post to do a proving of magnetic fields of various types. The fact that he could not give the gaussian intensity for pharmacy manufacturing today does not make those remedies any less valuable, or less "ponderable", now that we can measure the field accurately for repeatability---does it?
It is hoped that the problem of imponderables is completely in their poor description of making; and not in pacifying mainstream thinkers who "run things"; because of the difficulty of EXPLANATION OF THE MECHANISM of capturing a force on a medium such as water, alcohol, glycerine, lactose, etc. Those working in energetic medicine need not be apologetic by calling an rx "imponderable" because of the mechanism of its capture. Otherwise the word connotes hypocrisy, given that we give medicines that are carried on those same substances, with the material which is the source of the
medicine absent, and the only variable of input having been the FORCE of percussion by a machine or a person! The HPUS recognizes succussion as an operation which must happen in order to produce any potency. So they have long since conceded that a force can be captured on these media, have they not?
I doubt people in the HPUS think MUCH about this topic, nor need they necessarily dwell on it; but in the interest of consistency and lack of utter hypocrisy; and to promote the acceptance of new and old remedies made from emanations and forces, the term "imponderables" should IMO be eliminated when referring to remedies made from emanations and forces; particularly physical forces; if not all forces. The HPUS should not be embarassed about changing a category into "Forces and Emanations", for example, instead of (if they do use this term officially) the term
"Imponderables", connoting "not measurable". Forces and emanations used to make remedies can be measured and described with relative exactitude on a par with consistency in herbs or elemental purity. It is good that the HPUS is there to provide a standard. And provers should try to live up to that standard so medicines make it into the pharmocopeia.
Hopefully we will be able to keep using ANY remedy without the blessing of a watchdog group. Magnetis polus australis, the principle rx for ingrown toenails, was, I understand, removed from the US pharmocopeia by HPUS some time ago (please correct me if wrong). If this is accurate, then the HPUS (or some private group that watchdogs the HPUS) should commission a reproving with consistent and up-to-date manufacturing method in such cases; so such important remedies are not lost from the official register.
"I have cured so many cases of ingrowing toenails with M-aust. 2M, that I invariably give it in the first place when there are no symptoms plainly indicating another remedy." [Clarke]
Julian Winston wrote:
*** The fact that instructions were not complete such that you dedicated folks at HPUS won't pass it into pharmocopeia is, it seems, indeed a criterion for using the word "imponderable", if the measuring methods of the day were not adequate (e.g not yet an affordable precision magnetic field meter for Hahnemann to purchase cheap on the internet
); or the method of making the rx was simply poorly described. But for forces and emanations that are NOW easily measureable in various ways, poor description is only a discrepancy which disqualifies it on grounds that it cannot beconsistently manufactured. Inadequate instructions are not to be tolerated in any medicine that must be repetitively remanufactured from scratch (and many of our remedies are not---we use the same rx source as did the proving).
But the CONNOTATION that a force is not measureable (ponderable") and thus forces are less fit to become a remedy is prejudiced IMO. These forces are in many cases measureable, and with affordable or borrowable instruments. Remedies from forces and emanations can be remade and reproven with perfectly clear defining parameters and instructions if necessary. There is no longer any excuse to exclude forces and emanations from use on the grounds that they cannot be characterized as well as one can characterize by means of chemical assay of an herb, for example. If they are
not measured by the prover, then that is a disservice to the profession.
Julian Winston wrote:
**** That is reasonable, but does not mean the medicine or it's source force or emanation is inherently "imponderable". Only that it needs a consistent definition and measurement during its minting. If inexactitude is the basis for the "imponderables" measure, I think that is because remedies were made before instrumentation of certain type was available, or not enough instrumentation is used even at present day (possibly often because the people doing the proving are not funded, but usually doing the effort "out of pocket". Maybe we need an informal "scientific advisory
panel"; affiliated with NCH, for example, whom will lend scientific expertise and instrumentation to proving supervisors in order to insure that the manufacture of remedies like sunlight or moonlight, for example is consistently repeatable to the point that the rx's make it into the official compendium of medicines.
Thanks to all for consideration of this topic. Nuala Eising's remedy made from a force brings it to mind because of the potential of remedies made from forces and emanations that has not been yet fully tapped, though Nuala is one that seems to be hot on the trail.
Best to all,
Andy
Re: The Rx Time and a Proposed Re-Classification of Imponderables
No it's not as I used to do it in the classroom with school kids all the time!! Weigh a balloon, fill it with gas, weight again!!!
All the best
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk
All the best
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk