Hahnemannandpotencies - was: Homeopathy 4 Everyone - July 2008 fibonacci

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene,
cutall

What is your source for this statement?

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 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Luise,

I do think I remember someone saying that his casebooks continued to
show various potencies being used. I don't know how to use the
archives and better not take the time to try it now but that
what I thought i remembered. (David Little, maybe?)
Shannon

[Irene de Villiers]

Yes - from David's studies of the case books.

......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."

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene, Shannon,
Hmm - yes, that's what I thought:-)

Thank you.

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 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, was that different from the casebooks you've looked at? (I
remember the discussion, but not the details...)

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
To an extent, yes.

It is quite correct that H. kept using the C's in Paris. As a
matter of fact, up to the time he wrote his Organon in Feb. 1842 he
had used the C's in the very great majority of cases.

How often he used the LM's up tro that date is stillamatter of
debate between 4 people who did research on the matter - one of those
4 being myself.

Another one is David. So, statistically speaking:-) the likelihood
that his findings are correct is 25% or less. (Less because other
people may do research and still get different results;-) ) In his
publications he presents his own opinion as fact.

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 <==========

[Laura Coramai]

Hello Luise:

Just wondering who the others are that you are referring to as
scholars of Casebooks.

I have read, albeit quickly, the David Little work that was online
and it seems to jive with other sources for me to date: Dr. Luc for
one & one G. v. Keller (in couple articles like "On Q-Potencies"
and "On High Potencies" - these being from around 1988....I got a
hold of these in print form from a classmate when I was student at
Homeopathic College.

This is something that I thk I will read as may answer questions on
H's evolution/process whereby he got into LMing:
http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/org ... dgeon.html

Last point: if date of 1842 likely when 6th ed going off to printers
(see footnote at end of Hahnemann's Preface to 6th ed. on this in
Brewster O'Reilly edited/annotated Organon)...and it took 18 months
of revision writing as stated by H. himself than he began writing up
about LM's after approx 1 yr of experimenting with them.

Now, considering that he didn't try to share with public on his
experiments for 10 yrs* after making changes/having shifts in his
thinking ( he's the man: invented longitudinal research studies and
not just placebo!)...illustrates to me that as he was aging he
realized that although he was in process of still perfecting
methodology he was of the mind that it was 'now or never' if he
wished to convey his latest. I believe he wouldn't have shared
publically a "new method" unless he truly believed and thought
worthwhile to get info out there...as he was a perfectionist and so,
therefore, felt had to wind it up and info share.

I should also mention that sources for his LM work can be found in
his correspondence to other Homeopaths and not just his case
notebooks. As early as 1832, significantly just before the 5th ed got
published, he, for example, was already beginning to try changing the
ratio of substance to water from 1:100 to 1:50,000. This is outlined
in a letter he wrote to Kothen May 30th, 1832. This is significant as
shows to me that he developed the LM method thru trial and error -
most likely the dosing/repetition with Chronic cases/pa's as had the
lab end of thgs worked out early upon Korsakoff's suggestions...so,
really when we read the 6th ed we can be sure it is based on what he
wanted to convey as being the ideal way to practice. He continued,
perhaps, with C scale dosing, in water and succussing more and more
as time goes by/olfaction more and more as he tried to lessen agg
with even the water C scale rxs he used....as he knew what to expect
and could get results with patients...just as many current Homeopaths
use 4th ed despite knowing of 5th ed and continue as comfortable to
do so and scared to try somethg new on patients.

It seems from the above mentioned letter he already, despite still
using C scale rxs, was amazed at how the dynamization really
activates the rx and makes it a true energy healing; his words more
along lines of "it seems that this marvellous communication takes
place by means of proximity and contact, and it is a sort of
infection, bearing a strong resemblance to the infection of healthy
persons by a contagion brought near of in contact with them - a
perfectly novel, ingenious and probable idea".
And lastly, his calling LM's his "most perfect method [yet]" is
significant in my mind as well.

* - span of time between previous editions were on average 6 yrs with
the turn around time between the 4th and 5th editions being much
quicker- with big leap from dry wait and watch dosing to the watery
repetition of doses.

Anyways, something to consider.

But, do tell on who you know that studied Casebooks and have
different views on them? What are the arguments for and against or,
in other words, the issues? If related to exclusive use or not of
LMs - tell me how this issue makes it matter if one thks along lines
of evolving and changing his practice as he develops and grows based
on clinical experience and experiments in terms of chemistry/lab work
(rx making). This is somethg I don't get as I see as positive that he
was willing to change up to end, shows how flexible and open our
Master was as human being.

Thanx,
Laura
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
remember the
those
continued
use the
that

[Laura Coramai]

oops again - firing off these long messages without a good proofing
and, therefore, a goofing: definitely not 10 yrs between 5th and 6th
ed, as you well know...in fact hardly any time and way less than his
average of 6 yrs between other editions. But really what is of
interest is the fact that he was experiementing with LMs even while
5th ed was just going to publishers, so although his case notes (the
Paris Casebooks) that are in existence/available to scholars only
documenting in 1840 use of LMs he was playing around outside of the
centesimals as early as 1832...so, really, the 6th ed really is based
on more evidence/experiment than many would have us believe.
Signing off for now except to say "Thanx Shannon" on site
involving/by Joy Lucus...will definitely read with alot of interest &
excitment. I really would love to meet some of you over there on the
other side of the Atlantic one of these days!
Laura

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Laura Coramai" wrote:
printers
up
so,
got
the
outlined
as
the
he
expect
Homeopaths
with
lines
based
work
he
he
likelihood
other
his
but

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Laura,

Since you said that you are signing off I am sending this to your
private mail address also.
This is indeed interesting, since I have never heard about it and have
seen no evidence in any of his German casebooks of his doing so. (Of
course they have not all be studied yet thoroughly, so there may be).
I'll follow this up below.
so although his case notes (the

No, this is not so. Two of them have been published, and anyone who is
able to read either German or French can get them for study.
Is that what v. Keller said in his articles? I do not know them, he
probably was the first of the scholars you are asking about below. The
others think they have found them documented before that, around
1838/39 or so at the latest - which would be in line what Hahnemann himself
says in his Organon: i. e. that for the last 3 or 4 years he had been
working on them or with them. Matter of fact, my reason for starting
my own research was that I did not believe that he had told the
untruth about it in his Organon.

he was playing around outside of the
really, the 6th ed really is based

Who would those be? The Paris Casebooks cover roughly 7 years
pre-Organon. And of course, his further research on the *C* potencies
was started not only in 1832 but sometime after 1821, leading up to
his recommendation of prescribing them in single dissolved dose in his
CD and later on his recommendation of repeating them in the 5th
Organon. So it had been a continuous process, culminating in his
recommendation of the LM's.

Well there is one Swiss guy I did not know the name of and whose
articles I did not read - I just know that he exists. I suppose it is
v. Keller, the homeopath you mention below.

Then U. Adler from Argentinia published an article in the Journal of
the "Institute for the History of Medicine", short IGM-Bosch in
Stuttgart. Some years later I published an article in that journal,
based on Adler's and extending the research. This is availabe in
English on my site. Later Adler did more research and published an
article, whichh it seems was not published in the journal, but is
available on his site. I privately wrote to him refuting at least part
of his conclusions - I may yet publish this on my site some day.

So there are at least 3 different findings, published in a scholarly
manner so as to enable others to verify or falsify the details and by
looking up the references given, which gives them the opportunity to
challenge the interpretation of the author.

It seems that David and Dr. de Schepper did not give such details and
references - so no-one can find out whether there is any substance to
their findings. I am still looking forward to David's Magnum Opus and
hoping that in there he will provide details and references.

They are online, parallel chapter by chapter, at

http://homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/index.htm
Yes, February 1842 is generally accepted, since that is the date of
the covering letter under which he sent it to his Publisher in
Duesseldorf.

and it took 18 months
No, this conclusion is not valid.

For one thing, as I wrote above: It is only v. Keller who dates the
first documentation of the LM's in the casebooks at 1840.

For another: Only a small part of the revision has to do with the LM
potencies. He may very well have waited till the last month to add
that - and he probably did.
Yes, I agree. And it is backed up by what he wrote to his publisher,
i. e. that this would be his last Organon.
Would you tell me more about that? Which letter is this resp. are
those? To whom. Where is it/are they published? As I said, I have
never heard about that before and would definitely want to read them
myself before I accept this. After all - this would be quite a
sensation!
This is significant

There is IMO no question of that - and I have never heard it
questioned. After all, he says so in his 6th Organon in no uncertain
terms.

The bone of contention - where it exists - is whether the individual
homeopaths agree that Hahnemann was right.

He continued,
Well, I myself would not infer from "infection" that he considered
it "energy healing" - but that just btw:-)
Well, if you want to know this you'll have to read Adler's and my
articles.

The point is that H. never seems to have said anywhere what
notations/symbols he used for the LM's in his casebooks. So ko-one
really knows for sure when he used them. One thinks this notation
means LM, others see other notations as doing so.

If related to exclusive use or not of

I do not think that it has any bearing on that - I do not think it has
been of any practical significance yet. Thaat may change if one day
homeopaths get interested in the question, which mode of dosing had
better results in Hahnemann's practice and start doing research to
find out.

tell me how this issue makes it matter if one thks along
I do not think that it matters at all - afair I never said anything
about this. Maybe Irene's mail was answering something you had written
before. That was while I was offline, and I have not yet read most of
the mails that had accumulated during that time.

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 <==========

[Laura Coramai]

Oh dear, made some mistakes I see in my fast and furious (too much pasion not enough facts) response/entry. Also, sorry to have signed off with unfinished business.
So, to address your questions/concerns:
1) just in, this great document: http://www.imf.edu/publikationen/cont_pub_homeo7.htm
2) I have done a search to see if the hardcopy of the v. Keller doc is online and it is not anywhere to be found. But I will cite it fully so can be looked up by anyone interested: article that seems to be a chapter in a book form 1991, Chapter 4 with an editor named Gypser...the article called On Q-Potencies is by Georg v. Keller and was orginally a paper presented at the contuing education meeting organized by the state association Baden-Wurttemberg on 25 June 1988 in Bad Imnau. It says that he is a M.D. and at time lived in Muhistr, 3 D-7400 Tubingen (European and means nothing to me as North American with zip codes and postal codes here in Canada)....Also, he has other chapters in this work entitled "On High Potencies" and "Localized and General Sensations", etc....The articles are translated from German by a Hela Michot-Dietrich, Ph.D., State University of New York at Binghamtom, USA.
Note- if really of interest to people, I could scan my copies to get out to you as attachements to email.
The later (#2) is the one that has that gem of a letter (I got quote from) dated 1832 that is evidence of Hahnemann experiementing with LM's way back....way before working on 6th ed of Organon. To whom the letter is addressed is not mentioned in v. Keller article/paper, but is from a correspondence he wrote while in Kothen, rather than to Kothen (yikes, need to learn my geography, sorry about that confusion folks!).
The article just sent link to (#1 above) beautifully illustrates through Bonninghausen correspondence and the article in general that Hahnemann's work on LM's really 20 yrs in the making...to think of them as the cumulation of all his previous work both theoretically and clinically.
So, hope this general response is okay - the letter that you are interested in is the said above one in the v. Keller article/paper...wish I could help you more, but I really only have that and Luc De Schepper work and now this new online article as my sources of info...
I guess I'm just really a practicing LMer Homeopath and not a scholar...if I do come across anything (outside of your work which I will try to find/read) than I will let you all know.
Peace,
Laura
A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty.
Mark Twain
--- On Mon, 11/10/08, Luise Kunkle wrote: