Leilanae,
Apparently you missed the other part of my post. I've had many years of learning some here, some there, about homeopathy, and used it for many years as well. The problem has been that I was entirely unaware of the 6th edition of the Organon, LM prescribing, etc. Hahnemann made major advances in his last decade plus, and that's what I was referring to when I said "my focus is on first learning fundamentals, then seeking to understand why they're so, and THEN branching out into later advances in homeopathy."
The link you supplied presents many of the basics, but also muddies the waters by going through things that Hahnemann had moved well past in his later years. So I'm in an un-learning process, and the "basics" I referred to are the basics of what Hahnemann discovered post-4th edition (primarily 6th edition). Once reasonably well understood, I'll move on to considering later advancements that came into being well after 1921/22.
Thanks,
Richard
Teaching the Organon
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
Read Dr. Luc and David Little for the interpretation of 5th and 6th edition dosing. Few practice properly with those editions - they use 4th edition dry or some obscure way of using remedies in water.
why dry for most homeopaths?
Of course dry potencies work sometimes - depends on choosing the exact right potency and the person not being over sensitive. Hahnemann used remedies dry at first. But later he changed his mind after working with them.
Hahnemann then recommended not repeating the same potency twice and only way to do that with dry is start with 30c, go to 200c, go to 1M and go to 10M and then what do you do and that potency may be way too high for some. By using remedies in water you can fine tune more and also aggravations will be way less or of shorter duration.
Classical has nothing to do with how remedies are given. It was a term made up by George Vithoulkas and indicated following principles of like cures like, one remedy at a time and lowest potency (but I guess people wouldn't meet that criteria when they don't use water potencies)
So many homeopaths were only taught dry dosing and this has to do with many factors.
1. The 6th edition of Organon didn't get into hands of homeopaths after Hahnemann died in 1800s
2. All the homeopaths at that time were following primarily the 4th edition in late 1800s
3. All the teachers of the early 20th century were taught by those homeopaths
4. Homeopathy pretty much died out in the US and when revived still taught by homeopaths who only learned 4th edition.
5. Homeopaths kind of set in their ways as most people are think dry is fine (but they aren't acknowledging the aggravations people have; or no results and they don't come back because remedy was right but potency was wrong). It isn't best for the patient as too much time has to go by before remedy is changed if not right. Too many aggravations. Too many non-results. Dr. Luc de Schepper and David Little (also Robin Murphy taught this) are the main homeopaths teaching this method (and of course their students such as myself). They are trying desperately to get homeopaths to listen. Some homeopaths have started using LM potencies which are in water, which helps, but most aren't using them according to Hahnemann's instructions in his 6th edition of Organon. And very few homeopaths ever use C or X potencies in water which Hahnemann did toward the end of his life.
We went a gentle cure and a faster cure and water potencies can do that. If an aggravation with water potencies it only lasts a few days. With dry potencies can last a long time or forever.
I saw problems with all the above and I kept studying and found water potencies and rarely use dry potencies at all (unless nothing else is possible).
Of course people have been cured with dry potencies but is it a gentle cure? Is it as fast as it can be? How many have not been helped - have given up because of how long it takes or severe aggravations?
Also homeopaths don't pay attention to the dose (the look at potency but not dose). Many think, because Kent said it, that 1 pillule = 10 pillules = 100 pillules and this is not true. 1 pillule or tablet in an amount of water is a dose.
To adjust for person's individual sensitivity with water potencies can adjust by:
1. selection of potency
2. number of tablets
3. amount of water diluted in a dilution bottle
4. amount of water dose from that bottle is further diluted in
5. number of succussions given to that dilution bottle before #4
With a dry pill you can only give the pill and hope and most homeopaths say it takes 3-6 weeks to know if it is working. That is not acceptable to me for my patients.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/org ... ricke.html
click on tab that says Details to view
Samuel Hahnemann finished the 6th edition of the Organon in 1842. He died in 1843 before it could be printed. His wife Melanie kept the manuscript and attempted to have it published but European wars and lack of funds thwarted these efforts.
By the turn of the century the manuscript had passed on to the Boenninghausen family. Dr. Richard Haehl arranged the purchase and Dr. William Boericke and James William Ward paid $1,000 for it at the end of World War 1.
Boericke & Tafel published the first English translation of the 6th ed. Organon in 1922. Working from Dudgeon's 1893 revision of the 5th edition, William Boericke added in all of Hahnemann's newest information. This was not a 'from scratch' translation but it spotlighted the last iteration of Hahnemann's grand work.
Most importantly, the 6th edition introduced the preparation and management of the 50 millesimal potency, Hahnemann's 'perfected method'. Many of our greatest homeopaths such as Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, etc., had no knowledge of the 6th edition.
This legacy of ignorance still permeates the homeopathic world today but is slowly being eroded through the efforts of David Little, Dr. Luc de Schepper, and others. The 6th edition of the Organon should not be relegated to some bibliographical footnote. Instead, its dissemination to student and practitioner alike would mean a quantum leap forward in homeopathic practice.
and under
Heritage
The 6th edition. Not a full re-translation.
William Boericke began with the 5th edition (the Dudgeon 1893 revision), and simply corrected it where Hahnemann had made changes.
The philosophical questions raised by the differences found between the fifth and sixth edition are too complex to be detailed here.
Nevertheless, Hahnemann made a number of changes and proposed a new method of remedy preparation and administration (the fifty millesimal potencies).
The method was unknown to the great practitioners (Hering, Kent, etc.) who followed in his steps. The book was re-published in 1935.
From:
The Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature
copyright 2001 by Julian Winston
Reprinted with the permission of the author
Hope that helps
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
why dry for most homeopaths?
Of course dry potencies work sometimes - depends on choosing the exact right potency and the person not being over sensitive. Hahnemann used remedies dry at first. But later he changed his mind after working with them.
Hahnemann then recommended not repeating the same potency twice and only way to do that with dry is start with 30c, go to 200c, go to 1M and go to 10M and then what do you do and that potency may be way too high for some. By using remedies in water you can fine tune more and also aggravations will be way less or of shorter duration.
Classical has nothing to do with how remedies are given. It was a term made up by George Vithoulkas and indicated following principles of like cures like, one remedy at a time and lowest potency (but I guess people wouldn't meet that criteria when they don't use water potencies)
So many homeopaths were only taught dry dosing and this has to do with many factors.
1. The 6th edition of Organon didn't get into hands of homeopaths after Hahnemann died in 1800s
2. All the homeopaths at that time were following primarily the 4th edition in late 1800s
3. All the teachers of the early 20th century were taught by those homeopaths
4. Homeopathy pretty much died out in the US and when revived still taught by homeopaths who only learned 4th edition.
5. Homeopaths kind of set in their ways as most people are think dry is fine (but they aren't acknowledging the aggravations people have; or no results and they don't come back because remedy was right but potency was wrong). It isn't best for the patient as too much time has to go by before remedy is changed if not right. Too many aggravations. Too many non-results. Dr. Luc de Schepper and David Little (also Robin Murphy taught this) are the main homeopaths teaching this method (and of course their students such as myself). They are trying desperately to get homeopaths to listen. Some homeopaths have started using LM potencies which are in water, which helps, but most aren't using them according to Hahnemann's instructions in his 6th edition of Organon. And very few homeopaths ever use C or X potencies in water which Hahnemann did toward the end of his life.
We went a gentle cure and a faster cure and water potencies can do that. If an aggravation with water potencies it only lasts a few days. With dry potencies can last a long time or forever.
I saw problems with all the above and I kept studying and found water potencies and rarely use dry potencies at all (unless nothing else is possible).
Of course people have been cured with dry potencies but is it a gentle cure? Is it as fast as it can be? How many have not been helped - have given up because of how long it takes or severe aggravations?
Also homeopaths don't pay attention to the dose (the look at potency but not dose). Many think, because Kent said it, that 1 pillule = 10 pillules = 100 pillules and this is not true. 1 pillule or tablet in an amount of water is a dose.
To adjust for person's individual sensitivity with water potencies can adjust by:
1. selection of potency
2. number of tablets
3. amount of water diluted in a dilution bottle
4. amount of water dose from that bottle is further diluted in
5. number of succussions given to that dilution bottle before #4
With a dry pill you can only give the pill and hope and most homeopaths say it takes 3-6 weeks to know if it is working. That is not acceptable to me for my patients.
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/org ... ricke.html
click on tab that says Details to view
Samuel Hahnemann finished the 6th edition of the Organon in 1842. He died in 1843 before it could be printed. His wife Melanie kept the manuscript and attempted to have it published but European wars and lack of funds thwarted these efforts.
By the turn of the century the manuscript had passed on to the Boenninghausen family. Dr. Richard Haehl arranged the purchase and Dr. William Boericke and James William Ward paid $1,000 for it at the end of World War 1.
Boericke & Tafel published the first English translation of the 6th ed. Organon in 1922. Working from Dudgeon's 1893 revision of the 5th edition, William Boericke added in all of Hahnemann's newest information. This was not a 'from scratch' translation but it spotlighted the last iteration of Hahnemann's grand work.
Most importantly, the 6th edition introduced the preparation and management of the 50 millesimal potency, Hahnemann's 'perfected method'. Many of our greatest homeopaths such as Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, etc., had no knowledge of the 6th edition.
This legacy of ignorance still permeates the homeopathic world today but is slowly being eroded through the efforts of David Little, Dr. Luc de Schepper, and others. The 6th edition of the Organon should not be relegated to some bibliographical footnote. Instead, its dissemination to student and practitioner alike would mean a quantum leap forward in homeopathic practice.
and under
Heritage
The 6th edition. Not a full re-translation.
William Boericke began with the 5th edition (the Dudgeon 1893 revision), and simply corrected it where Hahnemann had made changes.
The philosophical questions raised by the differences found between the fifth and sixth edition are too complex to be detailed here.
Nevertheless, Hahnemann made a number of changes and proposed a new method of remedy preparation and administration (the fifty millesimal potencies).
The method was unknown to the great practitioners (Hering, Kent, etc.) who followed in his steps. The book was re-published in 1935.
From:
The Heritage of Homoeopathic Literature
copyright 2001 by Julian Winston
Reprinted with the permission of the author
Hope that helps
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
This was the end of your first post........." The following are remedies provided by the homeopath over the final several months of our treatment, ending only a month ago (by mutual agreeme
NOTHING more.
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
NOTHING more.
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Re: Teaching the Organon
I agree with Irene..........you need to know WHY you’re doing WHAT you’re doing.
Each edition of the Organon builds on the previous one.
---------------------
Another interesting essay by Peter Morrell:
“Hahnemann’s Use of Potency Over Time”
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_pote1.htm
Atb,
Leilanae
Each edition of the Organon builds on the previous one.
---------------------
Another interesting essay by Peter Morrell:
“Hahnemann’s Use of Potency Over Time”
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_pote1.htm
Atb,
Leilanae
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
This was the end of your first post........." The following are remedies provided by the homeopath over the final several months of our treatment, ending only a month ago (by mutual agreeme......
NOTHING more.
I am traveling and haven't been able to follow this thread closely........I am one of the few 5th and 6th edition water potency prescriber homeopaths that there is - trained by Hahemann, David Little & Dr.Luc de Schepper
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
NOTHING more.
I am traveling and haven't been able to follow this thread closely........I am one of the few 5th and 6th edition water potency prescriber homeopaths that there is - trained by Hahemann, David Little & Dr.Luc de Schepper
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
-
Sheri Nakken
- Posts: 3999
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
that is not exactly what Hahnemann siad.........
Irene wrote..............."Hence the first aphorism Hahnemann wrote was not an example but a principle - he advocates the homeopath should do what it takes to cure the patient (my wording not his.) ALL else he did must be seen in THAT context."
He didn't ever say do what it takes to cure................he said our mission is" to restore the sick to health cure.........BUT "The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles." Is not the same as do what it takes to cure.................................
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.
Sheri
"
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Irene wrote..............."Hence the first aphorism Hahnemann wrote was not an example but a principle - he advocates the homeopath should do what it takes to cure the patient (my wording not his.) ALL else he did must be seen in THAT context."
He didn't ever say do what it takes to cure................he said our mission is" to restore the sick to health cure.........BUT "The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles." Is not the same as do what it takes to cure.................................
"The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.
Sheri
"
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
-
bienemancrichard
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
Sheri,
You wrote:
This was the end of your first post........." The following are remedies provided by the homeopath over the final several months of our treatment, ending only a month ago (by mutual agreeme......
NOTHING more.
If I'm understanding that properly, you're having a problem seeing my full original post. That's odd. For whatever reason, I can see the entire post on the group without a problem. But if there is a problem that is still preventing you from seeing it, here's what followed as far as the actual treatment over a many-month period (there was more in the post, but I won't take up the time or space to re-hash things that have been perhaps over-analyzed and discussed since then).
... ending only a month ago (by mutual agreement). The two significant things that stand out to me - which SEEM (given my limited knowledge level at this point) to contradict Hahnemann - are the use of doses ALWAYS measured in drops, not teaspoons (for example), and one or more doses daily without interruption (no placebo - but actual dosing from the same bottle, non-stop, for over six months, with only a change in remedy or number of succussions per dose, drops per dose, or number of doses per day). Here is what happened over a several month period, and my question is: am I missing something in the 6th edition that makes this consistent with Hahnemann's teachings? Or is this well outside of what Hahnemann taught (which is what it appears to me, given not only the size of doses, but particularly the non-stop daily treatment for all this time? It appears to be quite contrary to what Hahnemann was writing at the end of his life, unless I'm missing something important. (The following is chronological, with changes as noted. There was no break at all between changes noted below.)
XYZ remedy LM1, 2 succussions, 4 drops, am & pm (lasted daily for about 2 weeks)
XYZ remedy LM1, 4 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 10 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 6 drops, am only (lasted 11 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 6 succussions, 7 drops, am only (lasted 1 week)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 8 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 3 succussions, 2 drops, am only (lasted 5 days)
CHANGE:
ABC remedy LM2, 2 succussions, 6 drops, am & pm (lasted 2 weeks)
(this LM2 remedy continued with various combinations of succussions and drops and doses/day similar to the first "XYZ" remedy above for approximately 2 months)
CHANGE:
ABC remedy changed to LM3, with similar combinations as above of succussions, drops, and number per day for two months before treatment was discontinued.
Again, there were doses every single day for the entire roughly 6-month period, generally with 1-week check-ins by phone with the homeopath, and at no time were doses even close to teaspoon-sized doses or larger. Number of drops ranged from 2-7 per dose, succussions between 2-6 per dose, with 1-3 doses per day, every day during a 6-month period.
My spouse was on different remedies, but the protocol was identical with respect to drops not teaspoons, daily doses without any break (no placebo - we had the remedy bottles, so we KNEW what we were taking daily).
As I began to study Hahnemann's later writings in more detail, I began to question where this method of treatment was coming from, because I could not find anything to support it in my admittedly early study of the 6th edition, plus a little bit of study of his case books.
Since I originally posted that, I wish I hadn't even mentioned the drops vs. teaspoons issue, but hindsight is always 20/20. I was just puzzled at what I was initially finding from Hahnemann's final work (particularly after receiving David Little's Homoeopathic Compendium), and have since located Little's statement that he never found uninterrupted daily dosing for months at a time in any of Hahnemann's final work. With that being our recent previous homeopath's method not only with my spouse and me, but also with at least two other people we referred to him, the distinct appearance was that it was his own standard "protocol" for treatment. He would not answer questions I had about it at the time, unfortunately, but that's not something I will pursue here as it's part of a completely separate issue.
I appreciate your recommendation to study David Little particularly, and also Luc DeShepper. I recently ordered and received David's marvelous contribution, Homoeopathic Compendium, and also obtained access to his archived course material. Given the massive size of all that, it will be my focus for the significant future.
I had also previously purchased two of DeSchepper's books on the recommendation of our recent homeopath, along with an old (1990s) "workbook" from Robin Murphy. But I've chosen to focus on Little's comprehensive work for the time being, and perhaps come back to DeSchepper after that. (Our homeopath was surprisingly unfamiliar with Little's work, and told me not to bother with him because he was stuck at Kent!! Ooops.)
Again, thank you for your thoughtful response(s). It's been nice to find this forum (which was recommended to me by David Jr., by the way).
Richard
You wrote:
This was the end of your first post........." The following are remedies provided by the homeopath over the final several months of our treatment, ending only a month ago (by mutual agreeme......
NOTHING more.
If I'm understanding that properly, you're having a problem seeing my full original post. That's odd. For whatever reason, I can see the entire post on the group without a problem. But if there is a problem that is still preventing you from seeing it, here's what followed as far as the actual treatment over a many-month period (there was more in the post, but I won't take up the time or space to re-hash things that have been perhaps over-analyzed and discussed since then).
... ending only a month ago (by mutual agreement). The two significant things that stand out to me - which SEEM (given my limited knowledge level at this point) to contradict Hahnemann - are the use of doses ALWAYS measured in drops, not teaspoons (for example), and one or more doses daily without interruption (no placebo - but actual dosing from the same bottle, non-stop, for over six months, with only a change in remedy or number of succussions per dose, drops per dose, or number of doses per day). Here is what happened over a several month period, and my question is: am I missing something in the 6th edition that makes this consistent with Hahnemann's teachings? Or is this well outside of what Hahnemann taught (which is what it appears to me, given not only the size of doses, but particularly the non-stop daily treatment for all this time? It appears to be quite contrary to what Hahnemann was writing at the end of his life, unless I'm missing something important. (The following is chronological, with changes as noted. There was no break at all between changes noted below.)
XYZ remedy LM1, 2 succussions, 4 drops, am & pm (lasted daily for about 2 weeks)
XYZ remedy LM1, 4 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 10 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 6 drops, am only (lasted 11 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 6 succussions, 7 drops, am only (lasted 1 week)
XYZ remedy LM1, 5 succussions, 5 drops, am only (lasted 8 days)
XYZ remedy LM1, 3 succussions, 2 drops, am only (lasted 5 days)
CHANGE:
ABC remedy LM2, 2 succussions, 6 drops, am & pm (lasted 2 weeks)
(this LM2 remedy continued with various combinations of succussions and drops and doses/day similar to the first "XYZ" remedy above for approximately 2 months)
CHANGE:
ABC remedy changed to LM3, with similar combinations as above of succussions, drops, and number per day for two months before treatment was discontinued.
Again, there were doses every single day for the entire roughly 6-month period, generally with 1-week check-ins by phone with the homeopath, and at no time were doses even close to teaspoon-sized doses or larger. Number of drops ranged from 2-7 per dose, succussions between 2-6 per dose, with 1-3 doses per day, every day during a 6-month period.
My spouse was on different remedies, but the protocol was identical with respect to drops not teaspoons, daily doses without any break (no placebo - we had the remedy bottles, so we KNEW what we were taking daily).
As I began to study Hahnemann's later writings in more detail, I began to question where this method of treatment was coming from, because I could not find anything to support it in my admittedly early study of the 6th edition, plus a little bit of study of his case books.
Since I originally posted that, I wish I hadn't even mentioned the drops vs. teaspoons issue, but hindsight is always 20/20. I was just puzzled at what I was initially finding from Hahnemann's final work (particularly after receiving David Little's Homoeopathic Compendium), and have since located Little's statement that he never found uninterrupted daily dosing for months at a time in any of Hahnemann's final work. With that being our recent previous homeopath's method not only with my spouse and me, but also with at least two other people we referred to him, the distinct appearance was that it was his own standard "protocol" for treatment. He would not answer questions I had about it at the time, unfortunately, but that's not something I will pursue here as it's part of a completely separate issue.
I appreciate your recommendation to study David Little particularly, and also Luc DeShepper. I recently ordered and received David's marvelous contribution, Homoeopathic Compendium, and also obtained access to his archived course material. Given the massive size of all that, it will be my focus for the significant future.
I had also previously purchased two of DeSchepper's books on the recommendation of our recent homeopath, along with an old (1990s) "workbook" from Robin Murphy. But I've chosen to focus on Little's comprehensive work for the time being, and perhaps come back to DeSchepper after that. (Our homeopath was surprisingly unfamiliar with Little's work, and told me not to bother with him because he was stuck at Kent!! Ooops.)
Again, thank you for your thoughtful response(s). It's been nice to find this forum (which was recommended to me by David Jr., by the way).
Richard
-
bienemancrichard
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
Leilanae,
You wrote:
I agree with Irene..........you need to know WHY you’re doing WHAT you’re doing.
Each edition of the Organon builds on the previous one.
I have no disagreement with that at all. Unfortunately I think much of this thread has gotten off track into semantic argument over use of a few words. Fortunately, the direction I've chosen to go (study of David Little's recent 4500 page Homoeopathic Compendium, along with his on line course material) should take care of all of that quite nicely, I anticipate. I'll be either overwhelmed or well educated (probably both, in that order).
Richard
You wrote:
I agree with Irene..........you need to know WHY you’re doing WHAT you’re doing.
Each edition of the Organon builds on the previous one.
I have no disagreement with that at all. Unfortunately I think much of this thread has gotten off track into semantic argument over use of a few words. Fortunately, the direction I've chosen to go (study of David Little's recent 4500 page Homoeopathic Compendium, along with his on line course material) should take care of all of that quite nicely, I anticipate. I'll be either overwhelmed or well educated (probably both, in that order).
Richard
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
Just by the way...
David Little is not Hahnemann. (I also bought his course)
I suggest that before you study opinions of other than Hahnemann, read Hahnemann ....from start to end.
......Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
David Little is not Hahnemann. (I also bought his course)
I suggest that before you study opinions of other than Hahnemann, read Hahnemann ....from start to end.
......Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Teaching the Organon
I'd like to second Leilanae's thought that "drops" was probably not an accessible measure for Hahnemann's patients, whereas "spoons" would have been. The daily repetition for months on end with no pause, that would give me pause…
But as far as the size of dose, it's certainly very flexible. You may have read where one of Hahnemann's methods of dosing was olfaction -- a far smaller dose than drops! And yet effective.
I think there's a lot about size-of-dose that's uncertain; what I know from repeated experience, is that usually there is a very wide range of acceptable size-of-dose; some *people* are more sensitive than others (some require tiny doses such as olfaction, or multiple dilution cups; some require larger doses; most -- so far as I have seen -- can do fine with large *or* small doses; at least with C and X; I am not sure about LMs).
Just for fun I'll note that my only experience with a dose given by olfaction was -- with my cow. She'd been needing her (yearly or so?) re-dose of her chronic remedy, hadn't been feeling great, and was annoyed with me for some reason. When I offered her remedy in my usual cow-dosing way -- dissolved in water and splashed on what I thought would be a treat -- she just stuck her nose into the pail, gave a derisive sniff and stalked away. And was a changed girl by the next day.
(My cow-dosing method is not Hahnemannian, but it's worked great for me.)
It has appeared to me that LMs are more dose-sensitive than are Cs, but I'm not certain.
Shannon
But as far as the size of dose, it's certainly very flexible. You may have read where one of Hahnemann's methods of dosing was olfaction -- a far smaller dose than drops! And yet effective.
I think there's a lot about size-of-dose that's uncertain; what I know from repeated experience, is that usually there is a very wide range of acceptable size-of-dose; some *people* are more sensitive than others (some require tiny doses such as olfaction, or multiple dilution cups; some require larger doses; most -- so far as I have seen -- can do fine with large *or* small doses; at least with C and X; I am not sure about LMs).
Just for fun I'll note that my only experience with a dose given by olfaction was -- with my cow. She'd been needing her (yearly or so?) re-dose of her chronic remedy, hadn't been feeling great, and was annoyed with me for some reason. When I offered her remedy in my usual cow-dosing way -- dissolved in water and splashed on what I thought would be a treat -- she just stuck her nose into the pail, gave a derisive sniff and stalked away. And was a changed girl by the next day.
(My cow-dosing method is not Hahnemannian, but it's worked great for me.) It has appeared to me that LMs are more dose-sensitive than are Cs, but I'm not certain.
Shannon