Soroush--opinion? [was: POLL Hahnemann, Homeopathy and Organon

[Shannon Nelson]

Soroush--
As moderator, would you please weigh in?
I think this list needs to know whether or not it is intended to be
"pure Hahnemann".
(I realize that Joy's remark below is not just about what should/could
be discussed on this list, but is more general than that.)
Thanks!
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

ground hog day again

last time this happened Ardavan altered slightly the home page
requirements of this list and maybe you would like to check that out

but we can also wait to hear from Soroush when he is available whether
or not we can relish that which is blatantly non-hahnemannian. Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Joy,
Whoever is able to "relish" whatever, is an entirely individual thing,
and has nothing to do with what I am asking. You may "relish" or not,
at your discretion.

However--all I see on the homepage (if I'm looking at the right place)
is:
"The aim of MINUTUS discussion group is to share useful information on
classical and Hahnemannian homeopathy." To my mind it does not answer
questions re whether it's "permitted" to explore boundaries,
controversies, things which may be "compatible with", etc. Not as a
*focus*, but as part of the mix. That is what I would like Soroush (or
Ardavan) to clarify, to end these endless silly spats.

If we are to be strictly constrained to "Hahnemann, the whole Hahnemann
(tho some posts seem to want to not even go that far) and nothing but
the Hahnemann"--that is a decidedly different purpose than what many of
us have *thought* we were here for. And in that case I quite
agree--there should be one list for folks who are afraid of "getting
contaminated", and another for folks who would like a broader
perspective. It would be a shame if "fear of contamination" were to
remove our ability to share, teach and consider with each other, but
for some of us, "life is too short" to spend much of it in endless,
pointless disagreements, when there is so much better and more useful
work that needs to be done instead.

I would like to know WHICH sort this list is intended to be--strictly
delineated (in which case certain threads should indeed be curtailed,
and that activity moved to another list), or one of a broader context
(in which case certain hand-slappers should cease and desist, take up
another "hobby").
Regards,
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

But Shannon, these discussions are not "silly spats" - you are discrediting us all by making that remark and yet continuing to spit at the same time. Some of us care emphatically about how homeopathy is being practiced and 'developed' unnecessarily in non-hahnemannian ways. So if the return from the moderators is along the lines that all that you mention is acceptable then the 'silly spats' will continue.

And what does "fear of being contaminated mean", or are we to read that as a silly spat as well, I think it is insulting.

I have yet to read from anyone WHY they feel there is a need to develop homeopathy in non-hahnemannian ways, why some people are dissatisfied with what Hahnemann offered us - it works so beautifully - where do you get the need to be contaminated from.

If supporting one of the best healing methods there has ever been is a pointless and endless pain to you (and described as being zealous from others) then that is highly significant. Homeopathy is probably a hobby to you and many others but I guess the return will be 'carry on regardless'.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Shannon Nelson]

See my reply to Joy.

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Joy,
I'm sorry, you're quite right, they are not silly. I guess what *does*
begin to seem silly to me, is when discussion is not permitted to
actually take place, without certain people shouting "You can't say
that!" (tho sometimes far more eloquently, and nearly always at much
great length) to every comment that goes against their personal
beliefs.

I am ALL for discussion of pros and cons, but not for the tone and
spirit in which too much of it has been going on. For instance,
repeating your objections without answering the relevant questions...

Below:
Again--for the sake of patients who have not been and are not being
cured by "business as usual"--in some cases even by "the best"
homeopaths.
For the sake of homeopaths who want to be better able to help those
they have not been able to via "business as usual".
Which I have asked you several times to define--leaving out combos and
meditative provings, since it is clear that those go against H's
instructions (tho h'ths may still reserve the right to use them if they
choose), and exploring further the issues re "unproven" remedies. I've
made several queries and replies to you about those three issues, which
you have not even acknowledged, let alone replied to. Which is a big
chunk of what is making this feel "silly" to me at present; it becomes
a series of harangues, not a discussion.
You have cured everyone who has come to you for help?
Neither have I.
I don't consider it "contamination", I consider it "exploring others'
experiences, to see if I can learn from them."
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

All I can say to the points below is

1) hahnemannian homeopathy doesn't fail - it is the practitioner who fails, when a case fails - homeopathy is only as good as the practitioner

2) if we keep failing we need to to have help via supervision, or refer the case elsewhere NOT by re-inventing homeopathy

3) it is true I don't read many messages but I thought I had answered you in what I believe to be non-hahnemannian - aren't the methods you mention below enough! On top of this there are many times when people on this list suggest rx for cases put forward without any explanations, many of these prescriptions offer multiple rx of high potencies - very often they are offered by people who don't often contribute to this list and it is too time consuming to chase - inappropriate repetitive dosing methods - poor case taking that doesn't adhere to looking at the totality of the case vis what needs to be cured - isn't that enough - what I did answer you was that I did not want to mention names and suggested that you 'throw' in some examples that we could discuss to avoid that, so don't try and twist people to the untruth of me not replying

4) whether we follow H or not we will always fail, often sometimes, repeatedly, but what is important is what we do about it - you've chosen this route before, i.e. suggesting that I don't fail at cases, I have never said that, we all fail and need to do better but it isn't hahnemannian homeopathy that is at fault

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Luise Kunkle]

Joy,
So for what reason did Hahnemann himself fail where he failed?

For what reason did v. Boenninghausen?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Joy Lucas]

same reasons (but you might have to include incurable cases as a reason)

joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Irene de Villiers]

Joy Lucas wrote:

Joy that is YOUR view of how to overcome being human.
Others find other approaches more efficatious and care about cure more
than about sticking to the wonderful but limited approach developed by
one brilliant man in a few decades.
You have not PROVED that Hahnemann's method will work every time.
If you were getting 100% success with it, you'd have a case for it.
But nobody gets that - and this in itself argues for "improvements" so
as to meet a Hahnemann PRINCIPLE as in Aph 1 & 2.

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."