: potency

[andyh]

BRIAN wrote:
((( I agree there is invariably be a relation between potency and the "level" in the case (that
is a long and another discussion, involving metaphysical anatomy; relation of depth and
profundity of the disease-- and what the potency scale really represents related to the
organism---there is much to be said, and much already known empirically). But to address the
above-- Different syndromes may TEND to erupt and exist more commonly on different levels of
the organism, as per Dr. Banerji's pioneering work. And it is heartily agreed that provings, to
be complete, must be done separately and differentiated according to potency--though the whole
enchilada should be presented in the same report, only differentiated two overalapping ways: by
anatomy; and by potency.

However, the pattern the substance makes on the substrate medium which IS the remedy is the
pattern of that substance ONLY. So, there are not really 20 different sulphur remedies. The
"harmonics" have to do with where diseases tend to show up, and the utility for use in advancing
homeopathy into lesional prescribing is vast as Dr. Banerji shows. But sulphur is sulphur, and
a client is a client ---and on a chronic level, will respond only to that which is resonant to
their chronic level. While I wholeheartedly agree, Brian, with the idea you champion about need
to look at "harmonics", it is not useful IMO to think that such differentiations creates so many
more options as to make our materia medica appear already bloated.

My view:All beings arise from a universal matrix which can be represented by the pattern in toto
of the holographic reality of the planet. Models of this would need to be a meld of atomic and
molecular stability (eg periodic chart and physical and organic chemistry); phylogenetic
patterns of extant lifeforms (living templates); astrological forcing functions (the template
by which the forms, morphologies, organs, attributes and nature of life become extant and have
"curriculum"); and other considerations including an understanding of the quantum ether and
interdimensional physics. We try to create permanent "cure" by resonance. If we do not yet
have the materia medica indications and the remedies in the pharmacy of all the possible
resonant patterns, then we will fail to be able to either FIND or PROVIDE permanent cure to
those individuals which represent those patterns. Is that not obvious? One cannot resonate
with a person with a holmium sulphate pattern using sulphur by itself. The resonance must be
complete, or only something partial or inconsequential occurs, or no result at all.

So the idea that there are "too many remedies" is limiting and assumes that one can make a
well-known do ANYTHING--even resonate with a client that is dissimilar to it. This is not
possible. Hahnemann did a lot of work with 200 rx and limited potency range. But homeopathy
was not nearly as widespread as it is today, and did not treat as wide a spectrum of human
variation. Hahnemann was a master, and indeed a few hundred rx remain mainstays--but for
what--permanent cure of everyone? We pat ourselves excessively on the back merely because we
have no competition from a deranged system of iatrogenesis that is patent pharmaceutical
medicine. To obtain bullseyes in each case and EARLY in the case instead of after YEARS of
trying, we need great advancements in both methodologies beyond semiological basis for remedy
confirmation; in understanding of our existing materia medica; and in development of new
materia medica. To say that we should limit the materia medica is limiting our ability to cure
the next person who comes along who doesnt fit in any pattern that we can find, and thus becomes
incurable because of the limit of our palette
((( Jan Scholten sought out to find out if the parts of the periodic chart we did not use
(elements, compounds) were present as people walking around in humanity. The answer was a
resounding yes. The same is undoubtedly true of the animal, plant, complex mineral, force and
emanation, fungi, and microbe kingdoms. Thus, taking the approach of limiting the MM limits the
scope of homeopathy. The issue is cure of suffering people, and we do not have all the patterns
in our cupboard yet, and it will take quite a long time before we do.
((( I disagree. Scholten, for one, has shown overwhelmingly that it is.
((( I agree that this also must be done, as the center of the bell curve is remedies that have
already been introduced, albeit a large number of them we have little information about or do
not understand enough to recognize and utilize. Sankaran and Scholten's innovations have
accelerated the information gathering on these by embellishing on the classification of remedies
and thematic relations. These methods provide a background sketch useful for chronic cases, and
allow prescribing partly on INFERENCE based on miasmatic and taxonomic classification as
additional "legs of the stool" and subsequent data collection from clients who take the rx and
are cured. These are just advancements of methods started by Hahnemann, Farrington, the masters.

These methods leapfrog over the other and original type of proving, which gives a remedy/potency
to a population whose relation to the remedy is unknown, to gather symptoms forced on them by
the remedy. A remedy as we know is an artificial morbific entity by which it can create symptom
complexes in the healthy; and overpower symptom complexes in the sick via close similarity of
pattern and greater vehemence of nonphysical "power". Thus both methods are useful in gathering
information about remedies both extant and new. The leapfrog method is absolutely needed, as
we have not the time nor the infrastructure to bring out these new remedies nor investigate the
inherited ones en masse via the slower method which then requires clinical verification and
rounding out anyway. That a huge part of our inherited materia medica has only limited proving
or no proving at all attests to the fact that provings are time consuming, laborious, and then
require placement in the repertory and clinical verifications to be useful. We have a lot of
catching up to do, indeed.

However, the leapfrog of the "clinical proving by cure" does not replace the original proving,
which should be undertaken when possible as attributes and peculiars (in particular physical,
but of all kinds) will likely derive from systematic forcing of dissimilar symptoms on a test
population that may take some time to show themselves in the clinical setting--or may never show
itself. The two methods complement each other. The inference and clinical data collection is
far more rapid and requires far less infrastructure. The dissimilar forcing type of traditional
proving creates far slower advance in materia medica knowledge but will bring out nuances that
may be essential pieces. Every experiment is incomplete because of the limited test population
used. The more tests, the more data. Clients and cured cases are our most efficient (and
already funded) data collection method, but hampered by problems with confirmation of cure and
length of time for that. Dissimilar Provings are usually not funded at all, are very time
consuming and slow, and are usually subject to needing clinical verification. But both methods
are needed as we can provide them according to what the ever increasing population of world
practitioners come up with in their travels and investigations.
((( This is not logical to me. A pattern of an unknown rx is a new pattern. It does not
depend on the old, although can be referred to it (perhaps what you meant to say). There is no
replacement for a new remedy, and its absence means a person continuing in chronic suffering.
We need to continue with both types of advances in materia medica as mentioned above, IMO, and
not limit ourselves for whatever reason.
Another contributor considered computers to be a problem rather than a boon.

Computers may be seen by some as a problem of dependence or expense; but they also provide a
way to get AT a body of information too vast for anyone to keep track of unless they have done
so only at the end of a long career. We need to be able to utilize the data every client and
early in career. Computers also TEACH materia medica rapidly by making the info available at
ones' fingertips--and by providing the synopses of others in both repertory and materia medica
formats together. A large physical library of books can do it for some, and photographic
memory; and advancement of the repertories makes the computer less a requirement; but my
experience is that many cases will still be missed without the efficient use of search engines
and all the literature that can be put into a software program.

My opinions.
Andy