My pleasure, Joy. Not a lot of detail, but if it gives you the sense of how to apply it, I hope it's useful. I'll answer the second part of your question (examples of remedies consisting of more than one) when I get a chance.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/16 Joy Lucas >
Of substance
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Joy, to answer the second part of your question: examples of what Hahnemann meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance".
Everything and nothing
It's been argued (by one and the same person, on occasion) that Hahnemann meant to include everything in this category and that he meant to exclude everything from it.
Everything a mixture
The argument that everything consists of more than one (medicinal) substance because nothing is pure has been dealt with in previous posts, specifically in my "Simple Substance" posts of 7 and 8 July. In a nutshell: a remedy doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow. Hahnemann knew that, and we know it. It's no excuse for mixtures.
Nothing a mixture
The argument that once it's been potentised, nothing consists of more than one substance, that it instead becomes "a single remedy" rather than a number of substances, overlooks the fact that in order to become this hypothetical "single remedy", it first has to be mixed from more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- a starting point at which it obviously cannot also be just one medicinal substance.
And, plainly, Hahnemann would not have gone to the trouble to try to guide us in what he meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" -- and gone to the further trouble to exemplify "single, simple" in a footnote -- if there had been nothing to exclude as suitable for use in homoeopathy!
More than one
So: what did Hahnemann mean us to comprehend by more than one of these things?
There are, broadly, two ways of prescribing "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" to the one patient (no doubt some of us would argue that a patient with multiple personalities comprises more than one patient and therefore deserves more than one simillimum, as well as "supportive" remedies and so on. But for the sake of sanity, let's stick to reality):
Two apart
The first way is to prescribe more than one of the medicines that fit into the definition of substance; Nat. mur. 30 and Puls. 30, for instance (the particular type of compound remedy that the experts in these matters call a combination).
Two together
The second way is to mix, with a first medicine, an equal or lesser proportion of a second, sufficient to perceptibly alter its medicinal effects.
Combination remedies are one way of doing this, and compound remedies in general are all intended to do exactly this. But what other medicines fall into this class? Essentially, anything that doesn't meet what Hahnemann intended by "[only] one single, simple medicinal substance".
Examples of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time"
Examples include: air; the mineral waters (Skookum chuck, Sanicula, etc.); many kinds of rock (shale, for example, which can be made of various clays, muds, and fossils, and concretions; and Samarskite); Berlin wall; Mel cum Sale; Gunpowder; vaccines, both single and multivalent; at least one of the Carcinosins (comprising parts of a number of tumours); Lac maternum; ; Coca Cola; and pudding.
Sanicula is an interesting example from several points of view: its provings were done on the crude salts (by drinking the water), but it has been prescribed at least three times with success (on the basis of symptom similarity) in high potencies prepared from the triturated salts. So the possibility exists that such mixtures can indeed produce a pathogenesis that remains stable from crude to 50M or higher, and the further possibility exists that such a mixture will cure the symptoms it is capable of producing. There exists the further possibility that all potency preparations of such a mixture could be done from the one source stock. None of these admittedly speculative and hypothetical possibilities, though, will alter whether a mixture is a single substance!
Examples that may appear to be mixtures of this kind but are not include Penicillinum and B.C.G.
Once no reader here seems to have difficulty relating this to what Hahnemann said, I'll happily go into a complexity that does affect all this, using the example of one of our polychrest plant remedies, but I don't wish to throw off anyone whose grasp of these matters is not yet strong.
The third class of numbers
Finally, there is, of course, one more class of medicines that isn't either "one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" or "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". But I've already discussed that class adequately several hours ago in writing to Liz, under "definition".
Cheers!
John
2009/7/16 John Harvey >
Everything and nothing
It's been argued (by one and the same person, on occasion) that Hahnemann meant to include everything in this category and that he meant to exclude everything from it.
Everything a mixture
The argument that everything consists of more than one (medicinal) substance because nothing is pure has been dealt with in previous posts, specifically in my "Simple Substance" posts of 7 and 8 July. In a nutshell: a remedy doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow. Hahnemann knew that, and we know it. It's no excuse for mixtures.
Nothing a mixture
The argument that once it's been potentised, nothing consists of more than one substance, that it instead becomes "a single remedy" rather than a number of substances, overlooks the fact that in order to become this hypothetical "single remedy", it first has to be mixed from more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- a starting point at which it obviously cannot also be just one medicinal substance.
And, plainly, Hahnemann would not have gone to the trouble to try to guide us in what he meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" -- and gone to the further trouble to exemplify "single, simple" in a footnote -- if there had been nothing to exclude as suitable for use in homoeopathy!
More than one
So: what did Hahnemann mean us to comprehend by more than one of these things?
There are, broadly, two ways of prescribing "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" to the one patient (no doubt some of us would argue that a patient with multiple personalities comprises more than one patient and therefore deserves more than one simillimum, as well as "supportive" remedies and so on. But for the sake of sanity, let's stick to reality):
Two apart
The first way is to prescribe more than one of the medicines that fit into the definition of substance; Nat. mur. 30 and Puls. 30, for instance (the particular type of compound remedy that the experts in these matters call a combination).
Two together
The second way is to mix, with a first medicine, an equal or lesser proportion of a second, sufficient to perceptibly alter its medicinal effects.
Combination remedies are one way of doing this, and compound remedies in general are all intended to do exactly this. But what other medicines fall into this class? Essentially, anything that doesn't meet what Hahnemann intended by "[only] one single, simple medicinal substance".
Examples of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time"
Examples include: air; the mineral waters (Skookum chuck, Sanicula, etc.); many kinds of rock (shale, for example, which can be made of various clays, muds, and fossils, and concretions; and Samarskite); Berlin wall; Mel cum Sale; Gunpowder; vaccines, both single and multivalent; at least one of the Carcinosins (comprising parts of a number of tumours); Lac maternum; ; Coca Cola; and pudding.
Sanicula is an interesting example from several points of view: its provings were done on the crude salts (by drinking the water), but it has been prescribed at least three times with success (on the basis of symptom similarity) in high potencies prepared from the triturated salts. So the possibility exists that such mixtures can indeed produce a pathogenesis that remains stable from crude to 50M or higher, and the further possibility exists that such a mixture will cure the symptoms it is capable of producing. There exists the further possibility that all potency preparations of such a mixture could be done from the one source stock. None of these admittedly speculative and hypothetical possibilities, though, will alter whether a mixture is a single substance!
Examples that may appear to be mixtures of this kind but are not include Penicillinum and B.C.G.
Once no reader here seems to have difficulty relating this to what Hahnemann said, I'll happily go into a complexity that does affect all this, using the example of one of our polychrest plant remedies, but I don't wish to throw off anyone whose grasp of these matters is not yet strong.
The third class of numbers
Finally, there is, of course, one more class of medicines that isn't either "one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" or "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". But I've already discussed that class adequately several hours ago in writing to Liz, under "definition".
Cheers!
John
2009/7/16 John Harvey >
Re: Of substance
Thanks John, clear as Skookum chuck water 
As an aside I thought Sanicula had been proved in potency.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
As an aside I thought Sanicula had been proved in potency.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Great; thanks, Joy. Well, it may well have been proven in potency. Clarke's symptoms are all, I think, based on provings through drinking the mineral waters for six or twelve months. But the more of these compound remedies that are proven in different potencies, the closer we'll be to some kind of generalisation about what happens to their pathogenesis as they increase from null to high potency.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/17 Joy Lucas >
Cheers!
John
2009/7/17 Joy Lucas >
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Dear John
I think one of the issues that you need to resolve is the Definition of Medicinal Substance.
I think you tend to imply that the substance must have some kind of medicinal property before it can be made into a remedy.
This is of course countered by the presence of remedies such as Sil and Lyc which in their unpotentised state have NO medicinal properties.
You have stated that
"The idea of making up one "substance" by mixing (as opposed to chemically combining) two substances was anathema to his approach of pure learning"
Could please give me any evidence from his writings.
The fact that we have lake / spring waters which are a mixture of things, is again my evidence against your statement.
Also I notice that you had use Fl to represent Fluorine. Of course the symbol should be just F.
Scholton speaks of F as a remedy. However, fluorine is such a reactive element that as soon as you pass it into water it become hydrofluoric acid so one cannot potentise Fluorine.
Your shortest reply would be greatly appreciated.
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 16 July 2009 12:36
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Joy, to answer the second part of your question: examples of what Hahnemann meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance".
Everything and nothing
It's been argued (by one and the same person, on occasion) that Hahnemann meant to include everything in this category and that he meant to exclude everything from it.
Everything a mixture
The argument that everything consists of more than one (medicinal) substance because nothing is pure has been dealt with in previous posts, specifically in my "Simple Substance" posts of 7 and 8 July. In a nutshell: a remedy doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow. Hahnemann knew that, and we know it. It's no excuse for mixtures.
Nothing a mixture
The argument that once it's been potentised, nothing consists of more than one substance, that it instead becomes "a single remedy" rather than a number of substances, overlooks the fact that in order to become this hypothetical "single remedy", it first has to be mixed from more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- a starting point at which it obviously cannot also be just one medicinal substance.
And, plainly, Hahnemann would not have gone to the trouble to try to guide us in what he meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" -- and gone to the further trouble to exemplify "single, simple" in a footnote -- if there had been nothing to exclude as suitable for use in homoeopathy!
More than one
So: what did Hahnemann mean us to comprehend by more than one of these things?
There are, broadly, two ways of prescribing "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" to the one patient (no doubt some of us would argue that a patient with multiple personalities comprises more than one patient and therefore deserves more than one simillimum, as well as "supportive" remedies and so on. But for the sake of sanity, let's stick to reality):
Two apart
The first way is to prescribe more than one of the medicines that fit into the definition of substance; Nat. mur. 30 and Puls. 30, for instance (the particular type of compound remedy that the experts in these matters call a combination).
Two together
The second way is to mix, with a first medicine, an equal or lesser proportion of a second, sufficient to perceptibly alter its medicinal effects.
Combination remedies are one way of doing this, and compound remedies in general are all intended to do exactly this. But what other medicines fall into this class? Essentially, anything that doesn't meet what Hahnemann intended by "[only] one single, simple medicinal substance".
Examples of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time"
Examples include: air; the mineral waters (Skookum chuck, Sanicula, etc.); many kinds of rock (shale, for example, which can be made of various clays, muds, and fossils, and concretions; and Samarskite); Berlin wall; Mel cum Sale; Gunpowder; vaccines, both single and multivalent; at least one of the Carcinosins (comprising parts of a number of tumours); Lac maternum; ; Coca Cola; and pudding.
Sanicula is an interesting example from several points of view: its provings were done on the crude salts (by drinking the water), but it has been prescribed at least three times with success (on the basis of symptom similarity) in high potencies prepared from the triturated salts. So the possibility exists that such mixtures can indeed produce a pathogenesis that remains stable from crude to 50M or higher, and the further possibility exists that such a mixture will cure the symptoms it is capable of producing. There exists the further possibility that all potency preparations of such a mixture could be done from the one source stock. None of these admittedly speculative and hypothetical possibilities, though, will alter whether a mixture is a single substance!
Examples that may appear to be mixtures of this kind but are not include Penicillinum and B.C.G.
Once no reader here seems to have difficulty relating this to what Hahnemann said, I'll happily go into a complexity that does affect all this, using the example of one of our polychrest plant remedies, but I don't wish to throw off anyone whose grasp of these matters is not yet strong.
The third class of numbers
Finally, there is, of course, one more class of medicines that isn't either "one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" or "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". But I've already discussed that class adequately several hours ago in writing to Liz, under "definition".
Cheers!
John
2009/7/16 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
I think one of the issues that you need to resolve is the Definition of Medicinal Substance.
I think you tend to imply that the substance must have some kind of medicinal property before it can be made into a remedy.
This is of course countered by the presence of remedies such as Sil and Lyc which in their unpotentised state have NO medicinal properties.
You have stated that
"The idea of making up one "substance" by mixing (as opposed to chemically combining) two substances was anathema to his approach of pure learning"
Could please give me any evidence from his writings.
The fact that we have lake / spring waters which are a mixture of things, is again my evidence against your statement.
Also I notice that you had use Fl to represent Fluorine. Of course the symbol should be just F.
Scholton speaks of F as a remedy. However, fluorine is such a reactive element that as soon as you pass it into water it become hydrofluoric acid so one cannot potentise Fluorine.
Your shortest reply would be greatly appreciated.
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 16 July 2009 12:36
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Joy, to answer the second part of your question: examples of what Hahnemann meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance".
Everything and nothing
It's been argued (by one and the same person, on occasion) that Hahnemann meant to include everything in this category and that he meant to exclude everything from it.
Everything a mixture
The argument that everything consists of more than one (medicinal) substance because nothing is pure has been dealt with in previous posts, specifically in my "Simple Substance" posts of 7 and 8 July. In a nutshell: a remedy doesn't have to be as pure as the driven snow. Hahnemann knew that, and we know it. It's no excuse for mixtures.
Nothing a mixture
The argument that once it's been potentised, nothing consists of more than one substance, that it instead becomes "a single remedy" rather than a number of substances, overlooks the fact that in order to become this hypothetical "single remedy", it first has to be mixed from more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- a starting point at which it obviously cannot also be just one medicinal substance.
And, plainly, Hahnemann would not have gone to the trouble to try to guide us in what he meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" -- and gone to the further trouble to exemplify "single, simple" in a footnote -- if there had been nothing to exclude as suitable for use in homoeopathy!
More than one
So: what did Hahnemann mean us to comprehend by more than one of these things?
There are, broadly, two ways of prescribing "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" to the one patient (no doubt some of us would argue that a patient with multiple personalities comprises more than one patient and therefore deserves more than one simillimum, as well as "supportive" remedies and so on. But for the sake of sanity, let's stick to reality):
Two apart
The first way is to prescribe more than one of the medicines that fit into the definition of substance; Nat. mur. 30 and Puls. 30, for instance (the particular type of compound remedy that the experts in these matters call a combination).
Two together
The second way is to mix, with a first medicine, an equal or lesser proportion of a second, sufficient to perceptibly alter its medicinal effects.
Combination remedies are one way of doing this, and compound remedies in general are all intended to do exactly this. But what other medicines fall into this class? Essentially, anything that doesn't meet what Hahnemann intended by "[only] one single, simple medicinal substance".
Examples of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time"
Examples include: air; the mineral waters (Skookum chuck, Sanicula, etc.); many kinds of rock (shale, for example, which can be made of various clays, muds, and fossils, and concretions; and Samarskite); Berlin wall; Mel cum Sale; Gunpowder; vaccines, both single and multivalent; at least one of the Carcinosins (comprising parts of a number of tumours); Lac maternum; ; Coca Cola; and pudding.
Sanicula is an interesting example from several points of view: its provings were done on the crude salts (by drinking the water), but it has been prescribed at least three times with success (on the basis of symptom similarity) in high potencies prepared from the triturated salts. So the possibility exists that such mixtures can indeed produce a pathogenesis that remains stable from crude to 50M or higher, and the further possibility exists that such a mixture will cure the symptoms it is capable of producing. There exists the further possibility that all potency preparations of such a mixture could be done from the one source stock. None of these admittedly speculative and hypothetical possibilities, though, will alter whether a mixture is a single substance!
Examples that may appear to be mixtures of this kind but are not include Penicillinum and B.C.G.
Once no reader here seems to have difficulty relating this to what Hahnemann said, I'll happily go into a complexity that does affect all this, using the example of one of our polychrest plant remedies, but I don't wish to throw off anyone whose grasp of these matters is not yet strong.
The third class of numbers
Finally, there is, of course, one more class of medicines that isn't either "one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" or "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". But I've already discussed that class adequately several hours ago in writing to Liz, under "definition".
Cheers!
John
2009/7/16 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
2009/7/20 >
Could I ask you just to clarify what it is that I've written that suggests this? Then I'll be able to answer more responsively.
Thanks!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
2009/7/20 >
Could I ask you just to clarify what it is that I've written that suggests this? Then I'll be able to answer more responsively.
Thanks!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Dear John
It would take me too long to go through your posts - but that is the impression I have formed.
However, if that is not the case, then would you agree that any material can be made in to a remedy through potentisation and proving processes?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 20 July 2009 08:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
2009/7/20 >
Could I ask you just to clarify what it is that I've written that suggests this? Then I'll be able to answer more responsively.
Thanks!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
It would take me too long to go through your posts - but that is the impression I have formed.
However, if that is not the case, then would you agree that any material can be made in to a remedy through potentisation and proving processes?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 20 July 2009 08:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
2009/7/20 >
Could I ask you just to clarify what it is that I've written that suggests this? Then I'll be able to answer more responsively.
Thanks!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
Ah, now I see what you're getting at: you thought I was suggesting that if a substance's medicinal properties were latent in its crude state then it was not a medicinal substance. In fact, that's not quite what I was getting at, which was rather that unless the pathogenesis of its crude state formed a continuum with the pathogenesis from its potentised state, as is the case with single substances (yes, even silica), i.e. unless its pathogenesis is stable, then it won't be useable on the basis of symptom similarity.
But the interpretation that silica is not a "medicinal substance" as Hahnemann intended it is an obvious objection for anyone proposing the interpretation of § 273 that you have proposed, so I'll dispose of that objection in responding to your earlier post.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
Ah, now I see what you're getting at: you thought I was suggesting that if a substance's medicinal properties were latent in its crude state then it was not a medicinal substance. In fact, that's not quite what I was getting at, which was rather that unless the pathogenesis of its crude state formed a continuum with the pathogenesis from its potentised state, as is the case with single substances (yes, even silica), i.e. unless its pathogenesis is stable, then it won't be useable on the basis of symptom similarity.
But the interpretation that silica is not a "medicinal substance" as Hahnemann intended it is an obvious objection for anyone proposing the interpretation of § 273 that you have proposed, so I'll dispose of that objection in responding to your earlier post.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Dear John
You have lost me! What are you saying?
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 20 July 2009 13:08
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
Ah, now I see what you're getting at: you thought I was suggesting that if a substance's medicinal properties were latent in its crude state then it was not a medicinal substance. In fact, that's not quite what I was getting at, which was rather that unless the pathogenesis of its crude state formed a continuum with the pathogenesis from its potentised state, as is the case with single substances (yes, even silica), i.e. unless its pathogenesis is stable, then it won't be useable on the basis of symptom similarity.
But the interpretation that silica is not a "medicinal substance" as Hahnemann intended it is an obvious objection for anyone proposing the interpretation of § 273 that you have proposed, so I'll dispose of that objection in responding to your earlier post.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
You have lost me! What are you saying?
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 20 July 2009 13:08
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
Ah, now I see what you're getting at: you thought I was suggesting that if a substance's medicinal properties were latent in its crude state then it was not a medicinal substance. In fact, that's not quite what I was getting at, which was rather that unless the pathogenesis of its crude state formed a continuum with the pathogenesis from its potentised state, as is the case with single substances (yes, even silica), i.e. unless its pathogenesis is stable, then it won't be useable on the basis of symptom similarity.
But the interpretation that silica is not a "medicinal substance" as Hahnemann intended it is an obvious objection for anyone proposing the interpretation of § 273 that you have proposed, so I'll dispose of that objection in responding to your earlier post.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Of substance
Hi, Soroush --
I think that you thought that when I referred to the stable pathogenesis of a substance, I was suggesting that if its pathogenesis in the crude state was nil but in a potentise form was not, then it could not be regarded as a medicinal substance. Is that so?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
________________________________
I think that you thought that when I referred to the stable pathogenesis of a substance, I was suggesting that if its pathogenesis in the crude state was nil but in a potentise form was not, then it could not be regarded as a medicinal substance. Is that so?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/20 >
________________________________
________________________________