Homeopathy!!

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Nader,

I am not ignoring the important role of miasmatic
influence on the increased susceptibility of the
organism and also in the formation of chronic states
by stimulation of their latent and secondary forms. I
am just saying that the range of adaptibility in
limited even in the absence of chronic miasms.

We should not forget that we have consciously and
subconsciously chosen a regulated specific environment
to survive. Can we live in Mars, Nepton or Plute when
we are not infected by chroniuc miasms??? It is
simpler not to believe so!

When the range of adaptibility is limited, after
affection by an stress we may adapt, use compensatory
and defence mechanisms or die.

Regards,

Ardavan

--- Nader Moradi wrote:
=== message truncated ===

"Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way."

Dr Ardavan Shahrdar, MD, DIHom
President of Iranian Homeopathic Association
Website: http://www.minutus.org
Email: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Mailing list: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Piet,

So you're confirming that health in an organism is
conditional. Using the term 'natural habitat' means
that human being has consciously and unconsciously
selected an environment within its range of
adaptibility. So....... human being is susceptible
even without chronic miasms and so...... you cannot
say 'No miasm, no susceptibility'!

Regards,

Ardavan
--- Piet Guijt wrote:

"Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way."

Dr Ardavan Shahrdar, MD, DIHom
President of Iranian Homeopathic Association
Website: http://www.minutus.org
Email: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Mailing list: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[J Lucas]

Again, my answers ***

From: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Homeopathy!!
Date: 12 March 2005 21:04:24 GMT
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Dear Joy,

If I summarize what you're saying, you believe that
without miasmatic influence, the range of adaptibility
of the human being is unlimited.

***No, the range of adaptibility is limited to our susceptibility because
there is always miasmatic influence.

I cannot agree with you. 'Miasmatic influence' means
being infected by an infectious agent. So you believe
that without being infected by an infectious disease
(You may consider Psora as the basic infection), the
organism is not susceptible to any infection! This
cannot be logically comprehended. You may say that the
healthy (!) organism is only susceptible to Psora and
after this infection, the susceptibility increases.
But why??? Why there is only susceptibility to Psora
in a healthy person (without miasmatic influence)??
What forces us to build such theory with its
conditions?? Is this because of just one basic error
in the healthy organism?? If there is one error, why
not 2, 3, 4,... errors???? So what is the definition
of healthy??
*** Nope, never said anything of the sort. Everyone is susceptible according
to their own individual miasmatic influence. The definition of healthy is
where one is able to adapt well to any given situation. Can't really answer
the rest of your post because it contraindicates what I actually said. And I
really don't have time to keep saying the same thing over and over.

Joy
The term 'healthy' and 'UNLIMITED range of
adaptibility' and 'No miasm, no susceptibility' cannot
be combined logically.

Why should we 'believe' that the human being from the
very first begining had an unlimited range of
adaptibility??? The simplest living creatures which
cannot be infected with anything else, and errors in
diet and lifestyle has no meaning in their context,
all have limited ranges of adaptibility. This
unlimited range, does not mean being imperfect and is
no insult to creation. It just means being ruled by a
specific fragile framework of creation which is
different in different living organisms. This
increased fragility is a feature of life. When
sensitivity increases, fragility is also somehow
increased.

A symptom free individual is still fragile and needs
'CARE'. 'CURE' is not enough!

Regards,

Ardavan

[d_barbara_hamilton]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:

healthy is
really answer
said. And I

Hi Joy,

I would agree with you on the "definition of healthy", but I would
just take out the
context of miasmatic influence. Susceptibility would exist before
miasms surely?

Maybe it's all just a question of 'opinion' anyway, but always open to hearing some
more.

Best wishes, Barbara

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

--- J Lucas wrote:
Dear Joy,

This is an idealistic definition of health which is
really amazing but if by 'well' you mean 'perfectly',
I do not think that we can reach that level of health
with what we know as our current definition of human
being. I really do not understand how you can simply
say 'any given situation'. IMO we should lose our
'form' as human beings to have such unlimited
idealistic adaptibility! And this, if possible, is
beyond our tools of treatment; maybe magic,..... can
help!!! )

Write back if you have enough time.

Regards,

Ardavan
"Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way."

Dr Ardavan Shahrdar, MD, DIHom
President of Iranian Homeopathic Association
Website: http://www.minutus.org
Email: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Mailing list: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

[J Lucas]

If susceptibility existed before miasmatic influence - what was there to be
susceptible to?? What was there before chronic and acute miasms.

But no-one can prove anything yet about what came first, the chicken or the
egg. Perhaps, because the two are so intimately linked (susceptibility and
miamsatic influence), so dependable are they to each other, that they
evolved together.

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
From: d_barbara_hamilton@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Homeopathy!!
Date: 12 March 2005 21:59:06 GMT

Hi Joy,

I would agree with you on the "definition of healthy", but I would
just take out the
context of miasmatic influence. Susceptibility would exist before
miasms surely?

Maybe it's all just a question of 'opinion' anyway, but always open to
hearing some
more.

Best wishes, Barbara

[J Lucas]

Health is relative to each individual and I have never suggested the concept
of "perfect" at all - not a notion I lean towards in life.

Adaptability can hardly be considered idealistic when survival of the
species (as well as the individual) is at stake. We adapt according to our
miasmatic influence and we succumb to the same. So I never said "unlimited
adaptability" - our adaptability is limited to our miasmatic influence.

I gave the "any given situation" as an economy as there are far to many
examples to show.

So, again, apart from running the risk of repeating what I have already said
I don't know how to keep saying this. I do have a few magic spells I could
draw on though

Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
From: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Homeopathy!!
Date: 12 March 2005 22:19:23 GMT

Dear Joy,

This is an idealistic definition of health which is
really amazing but if by 'well' you mean 'perfectly',
I do not think that we can reach that level of health
with what we know as our current definition of human
being. I really do not understand how you can simply
say 'any given situation'. IMO we should lose our
'form' as human beings to have such unlimited
idealistic adaptibility! And this, if possible, is
beyond our tools of treatment; maybe magic,..... can
help!!! )

Write back if you have enough time.

Regards,

Ardavan

[d_barbara_hamilton]

Hi Joy,

I think Ardavan answered that more succiently and fully than I
can...but I agree that no-one can prove anything, it is just an
interesting discussion.

regards, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
there to be
chicken or the
(susceptibility and
they
open to

[Piet Guijt]

Dear Ardavan, all,

When we would live in perfect harmony with our surrounding, we would be one
with everything, so there is no need to defend.
But when to start deviate from this, things are different. The oneness will
become smaller and smaller, until it reaches the borders of our body; the
skin.
Now we say this is the psoric miasm, but the process already started much
earlier.
Before the skin eruption appeared the person was already 'itchy' toward his
surrounding and it is a matter of time that an infection on the skin will
appear. Yes, the first thing is susceptibly to the infection, but what I' am
saying is that the miasm didn't become manifest because of the infection,
but is a pattern that is preexisting in every mortal being living in this
material world and which became manifest as soon as we decided to be
separated individuals.

Kind regard, Piet

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Has anyone proven the theory that *thought/emotion* creates contagious
disease, i.e. microscopically observed a pathogen/microbe appear/be
created, where none previously existed.

The reason I ask is that this has ramifications re: the current
discussion on miasm and susceptibility

Simon