Minutus is for Classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

Once again we are going through another set of exchanges based on differing points of view.

So that there are no doubts in any one's mind, MINUTUS is here to serve the teaching and greater understanding Hahnemannian Homeopathy.

Other matters relating to Homeopathy and or general health matters may be presented as a point of information and discussed - but so far as we are concerned on this site Hahnemannian Homeopathy is ascendant.

If any one wishes to promote any other ways of practise, may I respectfully advise that MINUTUS is not the place for it.

So that there is not doubt, according to my teacher Sheilagh Creasy, classical Hahnemannian homeopathy is based on the following concepts (Mainly from Hahnemann's writings):

- Vital Force
- Susceptibility
- Miasms (See Ardavan's writings on Minutus and Repertorium Virosum sites for a better and greater understanding)
- Provings
- SYMPTOM SIMILARITY
- Dilution and Potentisation
- SINGLE remedy
- Direction of Cure

Additionally, a remedy is only proved to have been homeopathic if and when it has been taken by the patient and has brought about the expected results of cure.

The fact that the remedy is sold by a 'homeopathic' pharmacy, does not make it homeopathic!
Sometimes even our best efforts at the selection of the Similimum does not hit on a 'homeopathic' remedy.

LASTLY, may I ask all our correspondents to observe a few points:
- Written word is poor at conveying emotions sometimes and for that reason can be regarded as rude or insulting.
Please therefore take care and imagine the main person you are addressing is sitting in front of you.
- Consider how you should write to win hearts and minds. It is so easy to put someone down - but to be encouraging is hard.

- If there is a point of view, please refer and show an aphorism from the Organon or other references to Hahnemann's writings or other classical masters.

Please do not forget that MINUTUS was formed to promote the teaching and greater understanding of homeopathy. Therefore after you have written a text, please wait and ponder if you have contributed to the greater understanding of Hahnemannian homeopathy or are you just expressing your own point of view. Then when you are satisfied, hit the SEND key.

Humbly yours

Soroush (Moderator)
PS - Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

[Irene de Villiers]

On Jun 28, 2009, at 8:02 AM,
wrote:



Thank you for this point in particular.
I have stayed out of the fray form some time as I tire of having my
views so badly misrep[resented.

Your guidelines do not cover that aspect on this list:-)

I thought I had presented a reasonable and simple suggested
definition of what constitutes homeopathy.
Here it is again. This is the full suggestion, no more no less, in
the same (well pondered) words:

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.

Namastde,
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."

[Tanya Marquette]

there is a cleaness to your definition which i like.
however, how does it accommodate remedies that used
based on clinical experience?
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

A strict Hahnemannian approach *doesn't* accommodate those.

[Tanya Marquette]

yes, but hahneman did use remedies like that and irene
is using them. i think it reasonable to ask this question.

tanya

[John Harvey]

Dear Tanya,
If we were to leave uncriticised every argument that lacks true premises and logic, misuses words, fails to respond to the argument it purports to answer, and generally exhibits overt thoughtlessness, then the "everything is homoeopathy" proponents would take the field uncontested.
I have named the presumption "that of the compounded potentised substances (none of which, you presume, shall interfere with each other in any way), only one has the ability to affect the patient's health" as a phenomenally stupid presumption, and I stand by that.
I also stand by my assertion that Shannon, who has once again exhumed the argument based on it, knows better.
If you'd call harsh criticism of an argument name-calling, then what do you make of behaviour that:
• states that a protagonist's call for the plain use of words to mean what they mean is a "fundamentalist position" (your words);
• states that that protagonist "is holding fast the fundamentalist line" (your words);
• states that that protagonist is arguing from "egotistic individualism" (your words)?
Yes, I have expressed strong opinions on the quality of arguments. Is that somehow less productive than stating that a protagonist is holding fast to the fundamentalist line through egotistic individualism?
But thanks for the thoughts on good manners; I appreciate the advice.
Since you too seem interested to place homoeopathy in its proper context amongst those practices that clearly are not homoeopathy but would like to cosy up to it, let me invite you to read my counterproposal, posted at 5:22 a.m. on the 28th, under the subject line "The campaign against spring fever, and an alternative", and to respond to it, but not necessarily by impugning my motivations and character in having proposed it. This proposal would make allowance, without judgement, for practices such as Irene's that advocate and use "remedies" regardless of their having no known pathogenesis or even being a single substance (see her words below).
If you regard such pluralism as fundamentalist and a call to relegate homoeopathy to the backwaters of old-fashioned narrow-mindedness, then we clearly have different ideas of what fundamentalism means.
Cheers --
John
2009/6/29 tamarque@earthlink.net >
* Irene's own words follow yet again. The parts in bold illustrate her use of unproven remedies.
*****************************

Prophylactics are effective in causing more robust health, no matter

what they contain - mixture or otherwise.

This *principle* (principle= unchangeable fact) is in the Organon

under the section on provings. Any remedy given to a healthy

individual - even if that is done to such an extent that proving

symptoms occur -leaves the individual healthier and more robust than

before.

Millions (not an exaggeration) of uses of this principle have

kept cats and dogs healthy and free from acute illness, simply by

using a remedy from a vaccine made up to 30C potency - whether it is

a single vaccine or a multi-valent one. In fact the multi-valent ones

are MORE effective - provided that the mixture covers illnesses with

SIMILAR symptoms.
For example a multivalent vaccine against the four kinds of cat flu's

is very effective in 30C to prevent all of these illnesses AND any

similar ones.

Likewise a 30C remedy from a mix of the three main immune compromise

illnesses in cats, is effective at preventing those.

In cases of cat flu illness, if one uses this single 30C remedy made

from a combination of the cat flus (NOT a mix of 30C remedies!) early

in an actual case of cat flu, the remedy will resolve the illness.

(Late stage cat flu OR symptoms similar to cat flu but from a

different cause, do not respond and need an individualized simillimum.)
*****************************
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

[tg.partington]

Dear Soroush,
Even this list of definitions poses some perfectly valid debating points (some of which have been raised). But here is my take.
I think we can all live with this one (so to speak)!
And this one.....
Hmm. Hahnemann had 3 miasms. Most homeopaths will use at least Carcinosin and Tuberculinum in addition. Sheilagh herself has written exensively on the Tubercular. However to say that Hahnemann would have approved these, let alone Leprosy and all the rest is pure speculation. We can't know. It is not strictly Hahnemannian, though.
Alot of the materia medica (or materiae medicae, for the particular)in Clarke and Boericke is unproved or barely proved (i.e. a couple of provers, sometimes related to the organiser)Much was derived more or less directly from herbal indications. So, we can't really stipulate the use of only proven remedies as a pre-requisite for a List on Homeopathy without it being a very select list indeed. I do believe we should set about proving commonly used remedies, though, if we have the nerve.
Indeed. But similarity to what?
Number 1 from the man himself. 'It is not to weave so called systems from fancy hypotheses and the origin of diseases in the invisible iterior of the organism (on which so many fame seeking physicians have wasted their powers and time) Nor does it consist of trying endlessly to explain disease phenomena and their proximate cause, which will always elude him. etc etc.'
Now, I am with the man here but it does preclude much of the neo-classical movement (Vithoulkas and....)let alone Sankaran and Scholten et al. They have made valid contibutions though and I would not like to see them exluded. Kent, writing at the time of the birth of psychiatry and psychoanalysis, took Hahnemannian homeopathy forward in directions that Hahanemann may not have recognised. Whether he would have approved is anyone's guess. However, if you accept this then you have to accept that others may have moved in different directions eg Burnett.and we don't know what Hahnemann would have thought of them either.
Dilution, yes, but not above 30 or LM whatever if we are going to be truly Hahnemannian and much of his early work was done with tinctures. I am sure Luise can tell us if he rejected tinctures later on. His early acolytes didn't.
As far as I am aware Hahnemann did this although he may have alternated and repeated at times in a non-classical way - again this is second hand as I haven't read the case books myself.
Now this is what moved me to post....this is ok so long as we aren't talking about Hering's Law. I had always had a problem with this in certian cases and was delighted to read an article available online from Andre Saine (no academic slouch)pointing out the problems and how they arose. Hering never said it was a 'law' he was repeating H's observations in Chronic Diseases about the commonly-observed direction of cure in Psoric cases. They are characterised by suppression and internalisation of disease of external origin. That is why the rule is harder to apply to disease of psychic/traumatic origin and there is no reason it should apply in its entirety to syphilitic or sycotic disease either. Not a law but guidelines (in the immortal words of Jack Sparrow).
The reason for selection should be homeopathic,agreed, but are we saying that any cure effected by psychotherapy, removal of maintaining causes etc is homeopathic? No. I know that is not necessarily where your logic leads but it is relevant to the discussion.
True.

Hear, hear! Well said (and I think you are doing a great job)

[Joy Lucas]

Not quite right Soroush - where is your qualification for this. Provings offer a sx picture from which we can choose that rx when sx match (cure isn't an absolute even when a simillimum is given). Without the proving we have no sx picture to match.

People who opt for tautopathy are not using homeopathy but they use the term homeopathy to cover their tracks.

From the moment you adopt the Hahnemannian protocol for a proving you are being homeopathic, you have embarked on the correct journey.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Tanya Marquette]

Teresa,
do like the way you have framed this.
the point about Hering's Law is a good example
of what we are really debating. Laws's are
guidelines and they need to be carefully applied.
We have only to look at how the legal system works
to understand this clearly. Prejudice can creep in
easily and we need to be vigilant in being honest
with ourselves as we move forward.
As previously noted, there are fundamentalist views
and general views. The fundamentalist view states that
if H did not say something specifically enough, it is
not classical. The general view is that H worked on
his system of healing throughout his life, being the
most careful observer, and making changes as his
understandings grew. This dynamic is very hahnemanian
and that is why developments such as Scholten's or
Sankaran's are valid options to explore. I think H would
apply a very careful and critical observation period
to new techniques before approving or disapproving, but
I do believe he would be open to discussion and analysis.

At some point everything H did was based on some observation
and thought process. Whether it was choosing a new substance
to try homeopathically or a new way to make a potency, there
was always a bit of conjecture and experimentation, followed
by close observation and a recording of the results.
I think our conversations lack this inquisitiveness and so
begin to get cantankerous with lines being drawn in the sand
as each side argues why they are more classical than the other.
One side argues for more flexibility while the other argues for
more rigidity. What gets lost in the process is respect for
the dialectic that must occur and the sense of community that
we desperately need to stay viable as a profession and healing
modality.
Tanya

[John Harvey]

Dear Tanya,
Though it's a favoured term of abuse of real homoeopaths on this list at present, fundamentalist actually also has a meaning, and its meaning concerns dogma strictly regulating others' adherence to beliefs or methods.
An apt antonym to it might be liberal -- relatively unconcerned with another's beliefs or methods -- or pluralist -- willing to allow others to practise their various beliefs or methods.
Fundamentalist, liberal, and pluralist are categories of one kind: let's say, of tolerance.
You seem to be suggesting that those who equate homoeopathy with mongrelism and urge the rest of us to concur in promoting that falsehood are, in my terms, liberal or pluralist (in your terms, general) -- in a nutshell, tolerant -- and that those who equate homoeopathy with the law of similars and urge the rest of us to see that we all actually agree on that much are fundamentalist -- in a nutshell, intolerant.
The reality of the difference between the proponents and opponents of Shannon's contention that it is possible, desirable, and necessary to redefine homoeopathy is something else, though. Those favouring the contention and those opposing it are not necessarily either fundamentalist or liberal/pluralist at all.
It can easily be argued that those pushing Shannon's proposal are less tolerant of those who continue to point out that our point of universal agreement is that homoeopathy requires the law of similars than the latter are of the former. And it can easily be argued that the latter (i.e. those rallying to the law of similars) are prepared to allow the former (the Shannonites) to practise whatever other modalities they like, but that the former insist upon changing the very nature of the modality called homoeopathy by promoting homoeopathy as something else (to put it broadly and roughly: prescription of potencies).
No: the difference between the two sides is clearly not the difference between fundamentalist and either liberal/pluralist or "general".
But the word general that you've used, if correctly opposed to its opposite, specific, could be more useful.
If specific homoeopathy could be summed up as homoeopathy relying specifically upon the law of similars, then general homoeopathy could be expressed as that "homoeopathy" that relies upon any of a number of laws.
This does seem to accord with both Shannon's and Irene's approaches: Shannon's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon some sort of similarity; Irene's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon whichever techniques (which she calls principles) in the Organon suit, ditching entirely the law of similars as something "better" comes along.
From that point of view, Irene's approach may be said to be far more fundamentalist than any real homoeopath's. Real homoeopaths do not confine their techniques to those described in the Organon but only confine their approach to the method that defines homoeopathy: the law of similars, "Let likes be cured by likes".
But leaving that possibility aside, if we're to usefully apply the term fundamentalist, let's use it correctly to describe behaviour that is designed to remove the options of others, and oppose it to a term, such as liberal or pluralist, that describes behaviour designed to retain the options of others.
And if we're going to use the more relevant term general, then let's oppose it to specific and see where that gets us. Because the inaccurate depiction as "fundamentalist" of those who would like to be able to continue using a word to mean what it means without having to contend for weeks at a time with Shannon's proposals to implement the impossible is not only insulting to real homoeopaths but also misleading to others. Most, if not all, of the true homoeopaths on this list (i.e. those who respect and abide by the law of similars as the basis of their homoeopathic practice) are perfectly content to let those who wish to practise Sankaranopathy, Scholtenopathy, and even extreme Irenopathy do so in peace and harmony. When contention concerning use of the word homoeopathy has arisen, it has done so not because some real homoeopath has suggested that Irenopathy is bad, but because an Irenopath such as Shannon suggests that homoeopaths should surrender their identity, to be subsumed within Irenopathy, which should be permitted to appropriate the term homoeopathy!
So that's quite a spin to put on it, to say that the homoeopaths are intolerant or fundamentalist.
That opposition of approach to pluralism, my friend, suggests that it is the Irenopaths, rather than the homoeopaths, who are, by and large, behaving as fundamentalists do: that it is they who are attempting to remove the very choice that the homoeopaths freely allow them.
You have also, I think, repeated another category mismatch in confusing method, or (as it's often called in homoeopathy) principle, with technique.
The method or principle that is homoeopathy is simple and open: it is the effort to prescribe the simillimum on the basis of known pathogenesis and sufficient case-taking. The techniques by which to do so are many, and have long been added to and improved upon by real homoeopaths without criticism by each other.
The criticism that is made of them is due to something quite different, and by others entirely: it is due to their refusal to surrender their method, or principle, and it comes only from those who have surrendered it.
Irene, Shannon, Luise, and several others on this list may be brilliant, forward-thinking pioneers in healing through clever use of alternatives to the law of similars. Irene has even admitted as much on many occasions. That is all well and good, and we homoeopaths wish them well. The Irenopaths' problem is that they have lacked the imagination to name their new methods appropriately.
Shannon argued that the appearance of the word "homoeopathic" on a box of allopathic medicine has educated the general public to understand that homoeopathy is something other than the law of similars. That argument was contrived on the basis that somebody walks into a shop, sees a medicine label, and walks out believing thereafter that the "x" on the label represents homoeopathy. This scenario is so unrealistic that it's laughable. So let's laugh and move on, and let's help those who need names for their new Irenopathies to invent them. The broader term I proposed seems to have been agreed to by Shannon (see her post under "The campaign against spring fever"), but various classes of Irenopaths may need help with the individual variations.
And let us no longer confuse those who understand what homoeopathy is with those, such as Irene, who -- at least ostensibly -- confine their "principles" merely to the techniques outlined in the Organon but abandon homoeopathy's one actual principle. The former are educated, liberal, pluralist, and accurate in their depiction of homoeopathy; the latter range from those innocently unaware to those, such as Irene and a couple of her camp followers, willing to destroy homoeopathic practice for the sake of their own egos.
I'll append here what I wrote to you, Tanya, in August 2007, as you've evidently forgotten it: if there's a single homoeopath today who doesn't sometimes practise something that falls outside the definition of homoeopathy, I'd be fascinated to know how he or she manages, for instance, obstacles to homoeopathic cure. We're all capable of respecting practices that are not homoeopathy. But we must all be capable equally of respecting the name of homoeopathy if common perception of the word's meaning is not to be obscured by the very people supposedly practising it.
Cheers --
John
2009/6/29 tamarque@earthlink.net >