I trust this aphorism settles the discussion that was going on Hn's role in discovery of homeopathy. I think the key word is "FULLY".
Also a note for John - Hn says that every REAL cure is due to Homeopathy!
§ 26
This depends on the following homœopathic law of nature which was sometimes, indeed, vaguely surmised but not hitherto fully recognized, and to which is due every real cure that has ever taken place:
A weaker dynamic affection is permanently extinguished in the living organism by a stronger one, if the latter (whilst differing in kind) is very similar to the former in its manifestations.1
1 Thus are cured both physical affections and moral maladies. How is it that in the early dawn the brilliant Jupiter vanishes from the gaze of the beholder? By a stronger very similar power acting on his optic nerve, the brightness of approaching day! - In situations replete with foetid odors, wherewith is it usual to soothe effectually the offended olfactory nerves? With snuff, that affects the sense of smell in a similar but stronger manner! No music, no sugared cake, which act on the nerves of other senses, can cure this olfactory disgust. How does the soldier cunningly stifle the piteous cries of him who runs the gauntlet from the ears of the compassionate bystanders? By the shrill notes of the fife commingled with the roll of the noisy drum! And the distant roar of the enemy’s cannon that inspires his army with fear? By the loud boom of the big drum! For neither the one nor the other would the distribution of a brilliant piece of uniform nor a reprimand to the regiment suffice. In like manner, mourning and sorrow will be effaced from the mind by the account of another and still greater cause for sorrow happening to another, even though it be a mere fiction. The injurious consequences of too great joy will be removed by drinking coffee, which produces an excessive joyous state of mind. Nations like the Germans, who have for centuries been gradually sinking deeper and deeper in soulless apathy and degrading serfdom, must first be trodden still deeper in the dust by the Western Conqueror, until their situation became intolerable; their mean opinion of themselves was thereby over-strained and removed; they again became alive to their dignity as men, and then, for the first time, they raised their heads as Germans.
Regards
Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Aph 26 - Organon 6
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Your understanding of Hahnemann's role in discovering homoeopathy is indeed supported by this aphorism, and is supported more explicitly and fully by the last couple of pages of the 6th edition's Introduction.
I think that you may be misinterpreting Hahnemann when he says "to [the following homoeopathic law of nature] is due every real cure that has ever taken place", as you seem to be suggesting that this statement of Hahnemann's defines the homoeopathic relationship.
The statement is not a definition. It does not define the relationship between drug(s) and patient symptomatology to be, if the drug(s) cure, homoeopathic. To interpret it that way would be to do homoeopathy and Hahnemann's entire purpose in setting out the Organon a grave disservice. (Did not every eighteenth century allopathic ignoramus think he was curing his patient?) The statement a statement not of definition (nor, by the way, one of doctrine), but of factual assertion, an indicative statement: summing up Hahnemann's experience to date and his expectation for the future concerning the relationship that Hahnemann had found in all particular cases in his research in which a single drug could be identified as curative in a patient. As such, it is falsifiable -- i.e., subject to being proven incorrect -- and it and the definition of homoeopathy, which is not falsifiable, remain mutually independent and can have no effect on one another.
To look at this in more general terms: homoeopathy's nature does not change simply because of a new discovery that a dissimilar drug or a complex of drugs or a mixture of medicinal substances is found on some occasion to have -- by whatever means, but obviously not homoeopathically -- effected a cure.
As it happens, the only potential medicinal exceptions that I'm aware of to Hahnemann's generalisation here are the herbal prescriptions used in traditional Chinese medicine. Such prescriptions that do not have a homoeopathic basis but arise from five-element or other systems of diagnosis, and whose relationship to the patient's symptomatology is simply unknown. But it may be that, in the result, several different, strange relationships may exist between drug and illness that will lead to a cure, as, for instance, Peter Chappell alleges -- relationships that will generally fall into the "allopathic" category (as they are neither homoeopathic nor antipathic) but may also be parahomoeopathic (similar in a specific instance though lacking a homoeopathic basis in its entirety).
Cheers!
John
to be doing something other than he was
overcomplicated by
2009/8/8 >
Your understanding of Hahnemann's role in discovering homoeopathy is indeed supported by this aphorism, and is supported more explicitly and fully by the last couple of pages of the 6th edition's Introduction.
I think that you may be misinterpreting Hahnemann when he says "to [the following homoeopathic law of nature] is due every real cure that has ever taken place", as you seem to be suggesting that this statement of Hahnemann's defines the homoeopathic relationship.
The statement is not a definition. It does not define the relationship between drug(s) and patient symptomatology to be, if the drug(s) cure, homoeopathic. To interpret it that way would be to do homoeopathy and Hahnemann's entire purpose in setting out the Organon a grave disservice. (Did not every eighteenth century allopathic ignoramus think he was curing his patient?) The statement a statement not of definition (nor, by the way, one of doctrine), but of factual assertion, an indicative statement: summing up Hahnemann's experience to date and his expectation for the future concerning the relationship that Hahnemann had found in all particular cases in his research in which a single drug could be identified as curative in a patient. As such, it is falsifiable -- i.e., subject to being proven incorrect -- and it and the definition of homoeopathy, which is not falsifiable, remain mutually independent and can have no effect on one another.
To look at this in more general terms: homoeopathy's nature does not change simply because of a new discovery that a dissimilar drug or a complex of drugs or a mixture of medicinal substances is found on some occasion to have -- by whatever means, but obviously not homoeopathically -- effected a cure.
As it happens, the only potential medicinal exceptions that I'm aware of to Hahnemann's generalisation here are the herbal prescriptions used in traditional Chinese medicine. Such prescriptions that do not have a homoeopathic basis but arise from five-element or other systems of diagnosis, and whose relationship to the patient's symptomatology is simply unknown. But it may be that, in the result, several different, strange relationships may exist between drug and illness that will lead to a cure, as, for instance, Peter Chappell alleges -- relationships that will generally fall into the "allopathic" category (as they are neither homoeopathic nor antipathic) but may also be parahomoeopathic (similar in a specific instance though lacking a homoeopathic basis in its entirety).
Cheers!
John
to be doing something other than he was
overcomplicated by
2009/8/8 >
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear John
You must have an incredible power to write at length!
I take a simple view of things.
Hn has defined CURE very early on - the removal of SYMPTOMS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
I am not sure if TCM does this - it removes sx, but with my very limited knowledge of it, often when the mixture is stopped, the sx return. That is not cure! More like suppression.
Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter - but I like the idea!
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 09 August 2009 14:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Your understanding of Hahnemann's role in discovering homoeopathy is indeed supported by this aphorism, and is supported more explicitly and fully by the last couple of pages of the 6th edition's Introduction.
I think that you may be misinterpreting Hahnemann when he says "to [the following homoeopathic law of nature] is due every real cure that has ever taken place", as you seem to be suggesting that this statement of Hahnemann's defines the homoeopathic relationship.
The statement is not a definition. It does not define the relationship between drug(s) and patient symptomatology to be, if the drug(s) cure, homoeopathic. To interpret it that way would be to do homoeopathy and Hahnemann's entire purpose in setting out the Organon a grave disservice. (Did not every eighteenth century allopathic ignoramus think he was curing his patient?) The statement a statement not of definition (nor, by the way, one of doctrine), but of factual assertion, an indicative statement: summing up Hahnemann's experience to date and his expectation for the future concerning the relationship that Hahnemann had found in all particular cases in his research in which a single drug could be identified as curative in a patient. As such, it is falsifiable -- i.e., subject to being proven incorrect -- and it and the definition of homoeopathy, which is not falsifiable, remain mutually independent and can have no effect on one another.
To look at this in more general terms: homoeopathy's nature does not change simply because of a new discovery that a dissimilar drug or a complex of drugs or a mixture of medicinal substances is found on some occasion to have -- by whatever means, but obviously not homoeopathically -- effected a cure.
As it happens, the only potential medicinal exceptions that I'm aware of to Hahnemann's generalisation here are the herbal prescriptions used in traditional Chinese medicine. Such prescriptions that do not have a homoeopathic basis but arise from five-element or other systems of diagnosis, and whose relationship to the patient's symptomatology is simply unknown. But it may be that, in the result, several different, strange relationships may exist between drug and illness that will lead to a cure, as, for instance, Peter Chappell alleges -- relationships that will generally fall into the "allopathic" category (as they are neither homoeopathic nor antipathic) but may also be parahomoeopathic (similar in a specific instance though lacking a homoeopathic basis in its entirety).
Cheers!
John
to be doing something other than he was
overcomplicated by
2009/8/8 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
You must have an incredible power to write at length!
I take a simple view of things.
Hn has defined CURE very early on - the removal of SYMPTOMS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.
With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
I am not sure if TCM does this - it removes sx, but with my very limited knowledge of it, often when the mixture is stopped, the sx return. That is not cure! More like suppression.
Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter - but I like the idea!
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 09 August 2009 14:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Your understanding of Hahnemann's role in discovering homoeopathy is indeed supported by this aphorism, and is supported more explicitly and fully by the last couple of pages of the 6th edition's Introduction.
I think that you may be misinterpreting Hahnemann when he says "to [the following homoeopathic law of nature] is due every real cure that has ever taken place", as you seem to be suggesting that this statement of Hahnemann's defines the homoeopathic relationship.
The statement is not a definition. It does not define the relationship between drug(s) and patient symptomatology to be, if the drug(s) cure, homoeopathic. To interpret it that way would be to do homoeopathy and Hahnemann's entire purpose in setting out the Organon a grave disservice. (Did not every eighteenth century allopathic ignoramus think he was curing his patient?) The statement a statement not of definition (nor, by the way, one of doctrine), but of factual assertion, an indicative statement: summing up Hahnemann's experience to date and his expectation for the future concerning the relationship that Hahnemann had found in all particular cases in his research in which a single drug could be identified as curative in a patient. As such, it is falsifiable -- i.e., subject to being proven incorrect -- and it and the definition of homoeopathy, which is not falsifiable, remain mutually independent and can have no effect on one another.
To look at this in more general terms: homoeopathy's nature does not change simply because of a new discovery that a dissimilar drug or a complex of drugs or a mixture of medicinal substances is found on some occasion to have -- by whatever means, but obviously not homoeopathically -- effected a cure.
As it happens, the only potential medicinal exceptions that I'm aware of to Hahnemann's generalisation here are the herbal prescriptions used in traditional Chinese medicine. Such prescriptions that do not have a homoeopathic basis but arise from five-element or other systems of diagnosis, and whose relationship to the patient's symptomatology is simply unknown. But it may be that, in the result, several different, strange relationships may exist between drug and illness that will lead to a cure, as, for instance, Peter Chappell alleges -- relationships that will generally fall into the "allopathic" category (as they are neither homoeopathic nor antipathic) but may also be parahomoeopathic (similar in a specific instance though lacking a homoeopathic basis in its entirety).
Cheers!
John
to be doing something other than he was
overcomplicated by
2009/8/8 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
The incredibly convoluted or confused reasoning that sometimes underlies fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a statement of alleged fact, and vice versa, sometimes necessitates a little teasing apart and synthesis of the writer's actual intent.
It's a pity that not all readers have the energy either to read attentively the original piece being discussed (though Hahnemann's writing is admittedly dense) or at least to read attentively its somewhat plainer discussion. But there it is.
It is just such inattention and confusion as result in fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a claim of fact and vice versa that underlies many of the least productive conversations in this list, in which a watertight case may be denied upon the basis of simple repetition of simplistic and unfortunately groundless and even meaningless assertions.
Kind regards --
John
2009/8/10 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
The incredibly convoluted or confused reasoning that sometimes underlies fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a statement of alleged fact, and vice versa, sometimes necessitates a little teasing apart and synthesis of the writer's actual intent.
It's a pity that not all readers have the energy either to read attentively the original piece being discussed (though Hahnemann's writing is admittedly dense) or at least to read attentively its somewhat plainer discussion. But there it is.
It is just such inattention and confusion as result in fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a claim of fact and vice versa that underlies many of the least productive conversations in this list, in which a watertight case may be denied upon the basis of simple repetition of simplistic and unfortunately groundless and even meaningless assertions.
Kind regards --
John
2009/8/10 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
OK John
I too would wish for more of the colleagues to share their understanding of Hn's writings.
Getting back to the topic under discussion:-
Was the practise of the native Peruvians to use of the bark as a cure for symptoms of Malaria homeopatic in nature?
(ie even when Hn had not even thought of the word Homeopathy.)
If your answer is yes, then there must be other substances that have cured which inadvertently turn out to be homeopathic to the case.
If your answer is no, the Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind!
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 10 August 2009 02:57
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
The incredibly convoluted or confused reasoning that sometimes underlies fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a statement of alleged fact, and vice versa, sometimes necessitates a little teasing apart and synthesis of the writer's actual intent.
It's a pity that not all readers have the energy either to read attentively the original piece being discussed (though Hahnemann's writing is admittedly dense) or at least to read attentively its somewhat plainer discussion. But there it is.
It is just such inattention and confusion as result in fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a claim of fact and vice versa that underlies many of the least productive conversations in this list, in which a watertight case may be denied upon the basis of simple repetition of simplistic and unfortunately groundless and even meaningless assertions.
Kind regards --
John
2009/8/10 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
I too would wish for more of the colleagues to share their understanding of Hn's writings.
Getting back to the topic under discussion:-
Was the practise of the native Peruvians to use of the bark as a cure for symptoms of Malaria homeopatic in nature?
(ie even when Hn had not even thought of the word Homeopathy.)
If your answer is yes, then there must be other substances that have cured which inadvertently turn out to be homeopathic to the case.
If your answer is no, the Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind!
Best wishes
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 10 August 2009 02:57
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
The incredibly convoluted or confused reasoning that sometimes underlies fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a statement of alleged fact, and vice versa, sometimes necessitates a little teasing apart and synthesis of the writer's actual intent.
It's a pity that not all readers have the energy either to read attentively the original piece being discussed (though Hahnemann's writing is admittedly dense) or at least to read attentively its somewhat plainer discussion. But there it is.
It is just such inattention and confusion as result in fundamental misconstruction of a definition as a claim of fact and vice versa that underlies many of the least productive conversations in this list, in which a watertight case may be denied upon the basis of simple repetition of simplistic and unfortunately groundless and even meaningless assertions.
Kind regards --
John
2009/8/10 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Actually, writerly attentiveness was what I meant to convey is lacking, rather than writerly numbers.
I'm not clear on the intent of your question, so let me break it down as I understand it.
(1) I take it that you're asking me to respond not to the notion that native Peruvians practise homoeopathically (i.e. by seeking the greatest possible symptom similarity), but to the notion that if native Peruvians have indeed used Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria, then it shows that native Peruvians happen to have stumbled upon a medicine curative of malaria. Is that correct?
(2) If it is, then I take it that you're further asking me to respond to the notion that the use by native Peruvians of Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria shows its homoeopathicity to the illness. Is that correct also?
(3) If it is, then I take it that you're asking me to respond to the notion that if the success of the native use of Peruvian bark in malaria turns out to have a homoeopathic basis, then it cannot be the only substance that has such a specific homoeopathic relationship to a named illness. Are you?
(4) If you are, then your argument appears to be that if there is more than one substance with an accidentally discovered homoeopathic relationship to a named illness, then all substances used with success in named illnesses must be homoeopathic to them. Is it?
(5) If it is, then you appear to be further arguing that if there is a specific curative relationship between all named illnesses and a substance and that relationship is a homoeopathic one, then discovery of any such curative relationship is sufficient basis for determining the pathogenesis of the substance. Are you?
(6) You appear to be arguing that if it is possible to infer the pathogenesis of a substance from its success in named illnesses, then it is possible to infer from a curative relationship a homoeopathic one. Is that your argument?
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?
(8) Your further argument appears to be that if the homoeopathic prescription of each medicine is not based in assessing its curative effects, it is not possible for such prescription to have any verifiable basis; that, in your words, without such assessment of each medicine's curative effects, "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind".
Does that fairly tease out your last message?
Thanks --
John
Actually, writerly attentiveness was what I meant to convey is lacking, rather than writerly numbers.
I'm not clear on the intent of your question, so let me break it down as I understand it.
(1) I take it that you're asking me to respond not to the notion that native Peruvians practise homoeopathically (i.e. by seeking the greatest possible symptom similarity), but to the notion that if native Peruvians have indeed used Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria, then it shows that native Peruvians happen to have stumbled upon a medicine curative of malaria. Is that correct?
(2) If it is, then I take it that you're further asking me to respond to the notion that the use by native Peruvians of Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria shows its homoeopathicity to the illness. Is that correct also?
(3) If it is, then I take it that you're asking me to respond to the notion that if the success of the native use of Peruvian bark in malaria turns out to have a homoeopathic basis, then it cannot be the only substance that has such a specific homoeopathic relationship to a named illness. Are you?
(4) If you are, then your argument appears to be that if there is more than one substance with an accidentally discovered homoeopathic relationship to a named illness, then all substances used with success in named illnesses must be homoeopathic to them. Is it?
(5) If it is, then you appear to be further arguing that if there is a specific curative relationship between all named illnesses and a substance and that relationship is a homoeopathic one, then discovery of any such curative relationship is sufficient basis for determining the pathogenesis of the substance. Are you?
(6) You appear to be arguing that if it is possible to infer the pathogenesis of a substance from its success in named illnesses, then it is possible to infer from a curative relationship a homoeopathic one. Is that your argument?
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?
(8) Your further argument appears to be that if the homoeopathic prescription of each medicine is not based in assessing its curative effects, it is not possible for such prescription to have any verifiable basis; that, in your words, without such assessment of each medicine's curative effects, "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind".
Does that fairly tease out your last message?
Thanks --
John
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear John
You have not answered my question - perhaps it is because you cannot answer anything simply - so everything must have a long response.
You forget the idea of Minimum dose!)
Any how for simplicity I will pen my answers in Italics after your paras below.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 11 August 2009 00:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Actually, writerly attentiveness was what I meant to convey is lacking, rather than writerly numbers.
I'm not clear on the intent of your question, so let me break it down as I understand it.
(1) I take it that you're asking me to respond not to the notion that native Peruvians practise homoeopathically (i.e. by seeking the greatest possible symptom similarity), but to the notion that if native Peruvians have indeed used Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria, then it shows that native Peruvians happen to have stumbled upon a medicine curative of malaria. Is that correct?
It is a historical fact! As reported by the Master himself.
(2) If it is, then I take it that you're further asking me to respond to the notion that the use by native Peruvians of Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria shows its homoeopathicity to the illness. Is that correct also?
Correct - Give that man a prize!
(3) If it is, then I take it that you're asking me to respond to the notion that if the success of the native use of Peruvian bark in malaria turns out to have a homoeopathic basis, then it cannot be the only substance that has such a specific homoeopathic relationship to a named illness. Are you?
Yes.
(4) If you are, then your argument appears to be that if there is more than one substance with an accidentally discovered homoeopathic relationship to a named illness, then all substances used with success in named illnesses must be homoeopathic to them. Is it?
Isn't that what Hn wrote:
"This depends on the following homœopathic law of nature which was sometimes, indeed, vaguely surmised but not hitherto fully recognized, and to which is due every real cure that has ever taken place."
(5) If it is, then you appear to be further arguing that if there is a specific curative relationship between all named illnesses and a substance and that relationship is a homoeopathic one, then discovery of any such curative relationship is sufficient basis for determining the pathogenesis of the substance. Are you?
I am not arguing anything - I am saying that seem to be what Hn is saying!
(6) You appear to be arguing that if it is possible to infer the pathogenesis of a substance from its success in named illnesses, then it is possible to infer from a curative relationship a homoeopathic one. Is that your argument?
W hat I am saying is that if anything cures - ala Hn's definition of cure - then the action according to this aphorism, was homeopathic.
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?
Is it not?
(8) Your further argument appears to be that if the homoeopathic prescription of each medicine is not based in assessing its curative effects, it is not possible for such prescription to have any verifiable basis; that, in your words, without such assessment of each medicine's curative effects, "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind".
Now you have twisted the intension as you normally do.
Warp factor 9 (and beam me up!)
Does that fairly tease out your last message?
Thanks --
John
.
You have not answered my question - perhaps it is because you cannot answer anything simply - so everything must have a long response.
You forget the idea of Minimum dose!
)Any how for simplicity I will pen my answers in Italics after your paras below.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 11 August 2009 00:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Actually, writerly attentiveness was what I meant to convey is lacking, rather than writerly numbers.
I'm not clear on the intent of your question, so let me break it down as I understand it.
(1) I take it that you're asking me to respond not to the notion that native Peruvians practise homoeopathically (i.e. by seeking the greatest possible symptom similarity), but to the notion that if native Peruvians have indeed used Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria, then it shows that native Peruvians happen to have stumbled upon a medicine curative of malaria. Is that correct?
It is a historical fact! As reported by the Master himself.
(2) If it is, then I take it that you're further asking me to respond to the notion that the use by native Peruvians of Peruvian bark as a cure for symptoms of malaria shows its homoeopathicity to the illness. Is that correct also?
Correct - Give that man a prize!
(3) If it is, then I take it that you're asking me to respond to the notion that if the success of the native use of Peruvian bark in malaria turns out to have a homoeopathic basis, then it cannot be the only substance that has such a specific homoeopathic relationship to a named illness. Are you?
Yes.
(4) If you are, then your argument appears to be that if there is more than one substance with an accidentally discovered homoeopathic relationship to a named illness, then all substances used with success in named illnesses must be homoeopathic to them. Is it?
Isn't that what Hn wrote:
"This depends on the following homœopathic law of nature which was sometimes, indeed, vaguely surmised but not hitherto fully recognized, and to which is due every real cure that has ever taken place."
(5) If it is, then you appear to be further arguing that if there is a specific curative relationship between all named illnesses and a substance and that relationship is a homoeopathic one, then discovery of any such curative relationship is sufficient basis for determining the pathogenesis of the substance. Are you?
I am not arguing anything - I am saying that seem to be what Hn is saying!
(6) You appear to be arguing that if it is possible to infer the pathogenesis of a substance from its success in named illnesses, then it is possible to infer from a curative relationship a homoeopathic one. Is that your argument?
W hat I am saying is that if anything cures - ala Hn's definition of cure - then the action according to this aphorism, was homeopathic.
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?
Is it not?
(8) Your further argument appears to be that if the homoeopathic prescription of each medicine is not based in assessing its curative effects, it is not possible for such prescription to have any verifiable basis; that, in your words, without such assessment of each medicine's curative effects, "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind".
Now you have twisted the intension as you normally do.
Warp factor 9 (and beam me up!)
Does that fairly tease out your last message?
Thanks --
John
.
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Thanks for the clarification of your question. Apparently, (1) to (4) correctly sum up some of what you're suggesting. As for (5)...
... my question concerns the import of your statement "With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way", which refers to a statement by Hahnemann that (as I've pointed out before) is indicative, a statement of putative fact, rather than the speech act of defining homoeopathicity -- and is therefore either true or false.
In recognising the statement as such, you seem to be appropriately attempting to offer it factual support -- or else your example of native use of Peruvian bark would surely have no purpose. Have I misunderstood, or are you in fact drawing from that example, as per (1) to (4), the conclusion, via (5), that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
Hmm. You earlier stated that "Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter" -- i.e. that this is a contention that may be true or false.
Could you clarify, perhaps, what it is that you're doing here with these statements? Are you simply acting as a mouthpiece for Hahnemann's contention, or are you attempting to offer some kind of support for it? If the latter, does the support take the form of the proposition that it is possible to infer a substance's pathogenesis from its success in named illnesses? Or are you using Hahnemann's contention to support this curative inference of pathogenesis, and then using that to support the truth of Hahnemann's contention?
Is what not? What's obvious to me is not at all obvious to you, and vice versa. How about just clarifying for me whether the second premise (that Hahnemann intended in § 26 to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) appears to you to follow from the first (that it is possible to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) -- or whether the first appears to follow from the second?
What, in other words, are you treating as a basis for believing the truth of what else?
Well, you might answer the question more helpfully by telling me what your argument was rather than by reading my mind. Without what do you say homoeopathy would have no basis?
I hope you can see that without knowing even what case you're attempting to make, it's very difficult to reason it out together. We've got as far as clarifying the first part, (1) to (4); all we need do is clarify whether, and if so how, you've drawn the conclusions I've summed up in (5) to (8). Then you'll have stated a case clearly enough for it either to stand or to be rebutted.
Cheers --
John
Thanks for the clarification of your question. Apparently, (1) to (4) correctly sum up some of what you're suggesting. As for (5)...
... my question concerns the import of your statement "With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way", which refers to a statement by Hahnemann that (as I've pointed out before) is indicative, a statement of putative fact, rather than the speech act of defining homoeopathicity -- and is therefore either true or false.
In recognising the statement as such, you seem to be appropriately attempting to offer it factual support -- or else your example of native use of Peruvian bark would surely have no purpose. Have I misunderstood, or are you in fact drawing from that example, as per (1) to (4), the conclusion, via (5), that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
Hmm. You earlier stated that "Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter" -- i.e. that this is a contention that may be true or false.
Could you clarify, perhaps, what it is that you're doing here with these statements? Are you simply acting as a mouthpiece for Hahnemann's contention, or are you attempting to offer some kind of support for it? If the latter, does the support take the form of the proposition that it is possible to infer a substance's pathogenesis from its success in named illnesses? Or are you using Hahnemann's contention to support this curative inference of pathogenesis, and then using that to support the truth of Hahnemann's contention?
Is what not? What's obvious to me is not at all obvious to you, and vice versa. How about just clarifying for me whether the second premise (that Hahnemann intended in § 26 to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) appears to you to follow from the first (that it is possible to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) -- or whether the first appears to follow from the second?
What, in other words, are you treating as a basis for believing the truth of what else?
Well, you might answer the question more helpfully by telling me what your argument was rather than by reading my mind. Without what do you say homoeopathy would have no basis?
I hope you can see that without knowing even what case you're attempting to make, it's very difficult to reason it out together. We've got as far as clarifying the first part, (1) to (4); all we need do is clarify whether, and if so how, you've drawn the conclusions I've summed up in (5) to (8). Then you'll have stated a case clearly enough for it either to stand or to be rebutted.
Cheers --
John
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
I have used BOLD italics to reply!
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 11 August 2009 12:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: -----SPAM----- Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Thanks for the clarification of your question. Apparently, (1) to (4) correctly sum up some of what you're suggesting. As for (5)...
... my question concerns the import of your statement "With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way", which refers to a statement by Hahnemann that (as I've pointed out before) is indicative, a statement of putative fact, rather than the speech act of defining homoeopathicity -- and is therefore either true or false.
In recognising the statement as such, you seem to be appropriately attempting to offer it factual support -- or else your example of native use of Peruvian bark would surely have no purpose. Have I misunderstood, or are you in fact drawing from that example, as per (1) to (4), the conclusion, via (5), that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
Are you saying that the Peruvian bark was NOT homeopathic to Malaria?
If you agree that it was, then we have at least one example of what I am saying.
Hmm. You earlier stated that "Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter" -- i.e. that this is a contention that may be true or false.
Could you clarify, perhaps, what it is that you're doing here with these statements? Are you simply acting as a mouthpiece for Hahnemann's contention, or are you attempting to offer some kind of support for it? If the latter, does the support take the form of the proposition that it is possible to infer a substance's pathogenesis from its success in named illnesses? Or are you using Hahnemann's contention to support this curative inference of pathogenesis, and then using that to support the truth of Hahnemann's contention?
I am simply saying that what I understand from what Hn has written here is that if something can cure, then it must have been homeopathic. Note once more please that I am using CURE as per Hn's definition.
Is what not? What's obvious to me is not at all obvious to you, and vice versa. How about just clarifying for me whether the second premise (that Hahnemann intended in § 26 to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) appears to you to follow from the first (that it is possible to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) -- or whether the first appears to follow from the second?
What, in other words, are you treating as a basis for believing the truth of what else?
Is it not the inference that Hn is making?
Well, you might answer the question more helpfully by telling me what your argument was rather than by reading my mind. Without what do you say homoeopathy would have no basis?
I hope you can see that without knowing even what case you're attempting to make, it's very difficult to reason it out together. We've got as far as clarifying the first part, (1) to (4); all we need do is clarify whether, and if so how, you've drawn the conclusions I've summed up in (5) to (8). Then you'll have stated a case clearly enough for it either to stand or to be rebutted.
There point has been made clearly above, but the way I am reading your last para, you are twisting the meaning.
All I am saying in simple words (perhaps too difficult for you?) is that what I infer from Hn in this aphorism is that if something cures, it must be homeopathic.
In fact that is the definition of something is homeopathic.
You can use your best ability and select the best remedy you can think of, but if it does not cure, it was not homeopathic to case. Simple!
Cheers --
John
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 11 August 2009 12:58
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: -----SPAM----- Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Thanks for the clarification of your question. Apparently, (1) to (4) correctly sum up some of what you're suggesting. As for (5)...
... my question concerns the import of your statement "With that in mind, he then states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way", which refers to a statement by Hahnemann that (as I've pointed out before) is indicative, a statement of putative fact, rather than the speech act of defining homoeopathicity -- and is therefore either true or false.
In recognising the statement as such, you seem to be appropriately attempting to offer it factual support -- or else your example of native use of Peruvian bark would surely have no purpose. Have I misunderstood, or are you in fact drawing from that example, as per (1) to (4), the conclusion, via (5), that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
Are you saying that the Peruvian bark was NOT homeopathic to Malaria?
If you agree that it was, then we have at least one example of what I am saying.
Hmm. You earlier stated that "Whether one can use the statement retrospectively - for example reach the conclusion that if a substance (of whatever origin) has managed to cure - ala Hahnemann's definition - then it must have been homeopathic to the case, is another matter" -- i.e. that this is a contention that may be true or false.
Could you clarify, perhaps, what it is that you're doing here with these statements? Are you simply acting as a mouthpiece for Hahnemann's contention, or are you attempting to offer some kind of support for it? If the latter, does the support take the form of the proposition that it is possible to infer a substance's pathogenesis from its success in named illnesses? Or are you using Hahnemann's contention to support this curative inference of pathogenesis, and then using that to support the truth of Hahnemann's contention?
I am simply saying that what I understand from what Hn has written here is that if something can cure, then it must have been homeopathic. Note once more please that I am using CURE as per Hn's definition.
Is what not? What's obvious to me is not at all obvious to you, and vice versa. How about just clarifying for me whether the second premise (that Hahnemann intended in § 26 to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) appears to you to follow from the first (that it is possible to infer a homoeopathic relationship from a cure) -- or whether the first appears to follow from the second?
What, in other words, are you treating as a basis for believing the truth of what else?
Is it not the inference that Hn is making?
Well, you might answer the question more helpfully by telling me what your argument was rather than by reading my mind. Without what do you say homoeopathy would have no basis?
I hope you can see that without knowing even what case you're attempting to make, it's very difficult to reason it out together. We've got as far as clarifying the first part, (1) to (4); all we need do is clarify whether, and if so how, you've drawn the conclusions I've summed up in (5) to (8). Then you'll have stated a case clearly enough for it either to stand or to be rebutted.
There point has been made clearly above, but the way I am reading your last para, you are twisting the meaning.
All I am saying in simple words (perhaps too difficult for you?) is that what I infer from Hn in this aphorism is that if something cures, it must be homeopathic.
In fact that is the definition of something is homeopathic.
You can use your best ability and select the best remedy you can think of, but if it does not cure, it was not homeopathic to case. Simple!
Cheers --
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Thanks for making this easy.
No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis.
Okay, so you are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
Apparently you believe that this is the inference Hahnemann is drawing. My question concerns your reason for believing it: whether that reason is as stated. If it is not, could you state concisely what gives you reason to believe that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is not simply to state that all medicinal cures he has investigated have been homoeopathic, but to go further and contend that all medicinal cures must, incontrovertibly, be homoeopathic in nature. Just what is it that leads you to believe -- if you do believe it -- that in § 26 Hahnemann is making this very different contention of fact?
This appears to be consistent with the last point discussed, which is encouraging...
... but this is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false. If you're unable to make up your mind what argument you're trying to support, it's hardly surprising if I am unable to sum it up correctly.
Could you please make up your mind whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
Thanks for making this easy.
No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis.
Okay, so you are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
Apparently you believe that this is the inference Hahnemann is drawing. My question concerns your reason for believing it: whether that reason is as stated. If it is not, could you state concisely what gives you reason to believe that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is not simply to state that all medicinal cures he has investigated have been homoeopathic, but to go further and contend that all medicinal cures must, incontrovertibly, be homoeopathic in nature. Just what is it that leads you to believe -- if you do believe it -- that in § 26 Hahnemann is making this very different contention of fact?
This appears to be consistent with the last point discussed, which is encouraging...
... but this is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false. If you're unable to make up your mind what argument you're trying to support, it's hardly surprising if I am unable to sum it up correctly.
Could you please make up your mind whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch