provings

[Shannon Nelson]

On Jul 1, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Harvey wrote:
What? When did I say that?
Um, John, I do get to decide when I take part, and what I talk about.
I am choosing to withdraw from most of these topics. Thanks for
understanding.
But yes, since obviously a "return to peace" necessitates talking about
nothing that you or Joy find controversial, together with the fact that
Soroush has reiterated the focus of the list as "Hahnemannian", I see
nothing to be gained by pursuing those other topics. We've got other
places for that. I do regret the loss of the freedoms we've had on
this list; it's a terrific group of people, and I have always
appreciated the knowledge base of *both* the more strict and the less
strict on the list. But, so it goes.

Nope, not the slightest interest, at least not here and now.
No thanks. Maybe another time.

Shannon

[John Harvey]

Okay. Thanks, Shannon.

John
2009/7/2 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[John Harvey]

Dear Shannon,

Why, if you have understood what appeared under "The argument from particulars", you would even suggest that you might yet call again, here or anywhere, for practices not based firmly on pathogenetic similarity to patient to be called homoeopathy, I'm completely at a loss to understand; but I respect and appreciate your withdrawal of the motion at this stage.

When you have some quiet time, please think deeply over what appears in "The argument from particulars" and ask yourself what good could come of circumventing the sole basis of prescription, Similia similibus curentur (let likes be cured by likes) that emerges from Hahnemann's unique discovery of the ubiquitous curative relationship, Similia similibus curantur (likes by likes are cured).

Thanks --

John
2009/7/2 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[Irene de Villiers]

I agree with everything Vera says here, without exception.

Again I refer to my suggested definition (Jun 23) as it is indeed in
line with Vera's idea of using the principles as opposed to the
methodology in a definition:

I propose this definition:

The Practice of Homeopathy is the "art of healing" and of developing
resistance to further illness, by the use of the PRINCIPLES developed
and practiced by Samuel Hahnemann, and documented in his Organon of
Medicine and other writings.

End definition.
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John Harvey]

Irene, I'd be interested in your response to my post under "The argument from particulars", which may leave you thinking differently about what you're calling methodology (which I've called the homoeopathic principle, the homoeopathic method, and the homoeopathic practice) and what you're calling the principles (which I've called rubbish, fiction, and fantasy) and whether the former actually has any connection with the latter.

It seems to me that a great deal of misunderstanding has arisen through the assumption that the homoeopathic principle (what you call the method), that the practitioner seek the best match between pathogenesis and patient, arose from some philosophical recognition of a universal law of relationships of similarity.

It's my contention that the homoeopathic principle, Similia similibus curentur, clearly and expressly arose through an inductive process of reasoning based upon many, many particular observations, and that it is therefore not merely one way of implementing a more universal principle (which Hahnemann did not invoke, despite his observations beyond the field of medicine) but the only way to take advantage of the sum, Similia similibus curantur, of the many relationships he identified between cured patient and medicinal agent: that of the great similarity between the agent's pathogenesis and the patient's symptoms.

The details are in that post.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >

[Irene de Villiers]

Absolutely.
Please Soroush?

Make this rule to NOT name names of others but to QUOTE what they
said instead?
The misquoting/misrepresentation is causing great problems here.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Irene de Villiers]

Soroush this is a typical example - John in particular continues to
misrepresent anyone he chooses.
He needs to QUOTE and comment instead., Please.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Irene de Villiers]

Where did I call something "methodology"??????
What was it that I called methodology"????
Where is a quote of what I said to get context??????
The rest of your email is snipped, but it is full of other incorrect
assertions about my views.

John, The problem on this list, causing all the contention lately, is
that you would not know what I call methodology if your life
depended on it. Taking things out of context, adding assumptions and
incorrect conclusions, is no way to know my vioews.

You have been inventing and misrepresenting my views (and throwing
around insults for my supposedly having your inventions of views) -
for a week at least. And driving me nuts in the process, to the point
that I am not playing your game any more.

Quote me - in context - not some isolated phrase - or ASK a question
to elicit my real views - if you'd like a response.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John Harvey]

Here you are, then:

"Again I refer to my suggested definition (Jun 23) as it is indeed in
line with Vera's idea of using the principles as opposed to the
methodology in a definition:"

Happy now? Or do you have other conditions and obstacles for me to meet before you'll respond to anything?

Cheers!

John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >

[Joy Lucas]

Oh stop crying for 'daddy' - when quotes have been used people have criticised the post being clipped and edited, too short and 'when did I say that' etc. It was also suggested by someone to keep to 2 paragraphs, so what to do - do you want really long posts, edited versions or word for exact word - you ahve to practice your choice as well. Let people answer the way they want to and either answer back or not.

Soroush is on holiday!

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/