Dear Soroush,
Would you please show us the part of the Organon or any other writing of Hahnemann's (not of Sheilagh's!) that would lead us without unduly convoluted reversals of ordinary meaning to your conclusion that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances?
Thank you --
John
2009/7/28 >
Perhaps simple just means simple.
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear John
If you do not see the meaning of Single Simple Substance (which I have explained before) the way I do, the you fall in to the trap you are in.
I have NEVER mentioned mixture of potentised substances!
I have discussed that mixed substances WHEN POTENTISED.
There is a huge difference between these and I hope you can see it.
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 28 July 2009 18:15
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ardavan Shahrdar
Subject: [Minutus] Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
Would you please show us the part of the Organon or any other writing of Hahnemann's (not of Sheilagh's!) that would lead us without unduly convoluted reversals of ordinary meaning to your conclusion that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances?
Thank you --
John
2009/7/28 >
If you do not see the meaning of Single Simple Substance (which I have explained before) the way I do, the you fall in to the trap you are in.
I have NEVER mentioned mixture of potentised substances!
I have discussed that mixed substances WHEN POTENTISED.
There is a huge difference between these and I hope you can see it.
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 28 July 2009 18:15
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ardavan Shahrdar
Subject: [Minutus] Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
Would you please show us the part of the Organon or any other writing of Hahnemann's (not of Sheilagh's!) that would lead us without unduly convoluted reversals of ordinary meaning to your conclusion that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances?
Thank you --
John
2009/7/28 >
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
Do you believe your reply below to be at all relevant to the question I asked? I asked you to quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. Where is your reasoning? Where are the quotes upon which you base it?
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
Do you believe your reply below to be at all relevant to the question I asked? I asked you to quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. Where is your reasoning? Where are the quotes upon which you base it?
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear John
Where have I ever recommended the use of a mixture of potentised medicinal substances that you are asking me such a qn?
Or where have I said or implied that Hn has said such a thing.
I have REPEATEDLY stated that one is NOT PERMITTED to mix potentised substances.
For the removal of any doubt, you may not mix ACON and ARN, or worst still as Rochelle was mentioning for the treatment of flu 4 different remedies.
I am actually disgusted that John Morgan of Helios had decided to make money out of such combos.
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 July 2009 06:02
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
Do you believe your reply below to be at all relevant to the question I asked? I asked you to quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. Where is your reasoning? Where are the quotes upon which you base it?
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Where have I ever recommended the use of a mixture of potentised medicinal substances that you are asking me such a qn?
Or where have I said or implied that Hn has said such a thing.
I have REPEATEDLY stated that one is NOT PERMITTED to mix potentised substances.
For the removal of any doubt, you may not mix ACON and ARN, or worst still as Rochelle was mentioning for the treatment of flu 4 different remedies.
I am actually disgusted that John Morgan of Helios had decided to make money out of such combos.
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 July 2009 06:02
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
Do you believe your reply below to be at all relevant to the question I asked? I asked you to quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. Where is your reasoning? Where are the quotes upon which you base it?
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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: Perhaps simple just means simple.
Dear Soroush,
If you're at all honest with yourself, you'll realise that you have persisted throughout this discussion in recommending mixtures of unpotentised medicinal substances.
You will also, if you're at all honest with yourself, acknowledge that your repeated diversions from the exclusion of such polypharmacy from Hahnemann's definitions of usable medicines in homoeopathy have no basis in the question I asked you to answer. If it really is your English comprehension that is the limitation here, then tell me, and I'll rephrase the question -- but otherwise, please respond to the request actually put, which is that you quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. You have repeatedly asserted that Hahnemann meant by this term to exclude only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances and not potencies of medicinal mixtures. I once again invite you to demonstrate the truth of that contention.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
If you're at all honest with yourself, you'll realise that you have persisted throughout this discussion in recommending mixtures of unpotentised medicinal substances.
You will also, if you're at all honest with yourself, acknowledge that your repeated diversions from the exclusion of such polypharmacy from Hahnemann's definitions of usable medicines in homoeopathy have no basis in the question I asked you to answer. If it really is your English comprehension that is the limitation here, then tell me, and I'll rephrase the question -- but otherwise, please respond to the request actually put, which is that you quote evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances. You have repeatedly asserted that Hahnemann meant by this term to exclude only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances and not potencies of medicinal mixtures. I once again invite you to demonstrate the truth of that contention.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Perhaps simple just means simple.
Hi John,
I'm not going to wade back into the debate, but could you clarify a couple of things?
(1) When you write, "you have persisted throughout this discussion in recommending mixtures of unpotentised medicinal substances" are you referring to Soroush's assertion that when a mixture (e.g. a plant or animal; e.g. a sample of spring water) is potentized, it then becomes acceptable as a remedy, having become a "single, simple substance"? (If that's not what you're referring to, could you clarify?)
(2) when you refer to: "-[please quote] evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances" are you referring to your counter-assertion that to be "Hahnemannian" a remedy must *begin* with a "simple substance"? Which you assert that plant and animal remedies are, due I gather to the magic of the vital force
but you assert that a spring water remedy is not (nor, if there were any, a remedy made from pond water, tho that is maybe a somewhat different situation, as more variable), despite stable source, potentization, proving and clinical usefulness?
Just checking whether those are what you mean.
Thanks,
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
I'm not going to wade back into the debate, but could you clarify a couple of things?
(1) When you write, "you have persisted throughout this discussion in recommending mixtures of unpotentised medicinal substances" are you referring to Soroush's assertion that when a mixture (e.g. a plant or animal; e.g. a sample of spring water) is potentized, it then becomes acceptable as a remedy, having become a "single, simple substance"? (If that's not what you're referring to, could you clarify?)
(2) when you refer to: "-[please quote] evidence from the Organon that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that when Hahnemann said "more than one single, simple substance" he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances" are you referring to your counter-assertion that to be "Hahnemannian" a remedy must *begin* with a "simple substance"? Which you assert that plant and animal remedies are, due I gather to the magic of the vital force
but you assert that a spring water remedy is not (nor, if there were any, a remedy made from pond water, tho that is maybe a somewhat different situation, as more variable), despite stable source, potentization, proving and clinical usefulness? Just checking whether those are what you mean.
Thanks,
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________