Also Soroush, I am missing Ardhavan's quizzes. FTRN- Find the remedy Name. That was a mighty good way to keep connected to the essences of a remedy. Maybe Ardhavan believes that this list has outgrown its need for such an excercise. I do not think so.
When that was going on the membership was close to 800 only. Now with more than triple the membership, will anyone take up such a fine work as Ardhavan's ?
I will welcome even a repost of that series.
Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Aph 26 - Organon 6
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Whatever foolish claims you say I have made concerning Peruvian bark, I am willing to either make a case for or to withdraw (see "The role of Peruvian bark" for that discussion), once I know what they are. But you cannot build from what I say a case for either of your claims concerning Hahnemann's meaning and his correctness. Either you have a reason that you can give your readers to believe one of your claims -- or you do not. There is no third choice.
Your confidently stated claims concerning Hahnemann's statement in § 26 appear to be*:
(1) that Hahnemann contends that all medicinal cures ever made have been homoeopathic, and that he is correct in so contending; and
(2) that Hahnemann defines homoeopathicity not in terms of symptom similarity but in terms of successful outcome.
These claims are, of course, mutually contradictory: they cannot both be true. But neither enjoys, so far, any support at all. And no statement that you may understand me to make can possibly help you here. The case for your claim must be your case: reasons you can give your readers to believe your claim.
If you are unable or unwilling to make a case for either of your claims, then you effectively admit that both constitute nothing more than hot air, rashly expelled.
That being so, would you care to continue this discussion as you abandoned it a couple of days ago, or would you prefer to (tacitly, if necessary) withdraw your claims?
If you would care to continue, I think we made great headway with one of them, with (1) to (4) being clarified. It remains only to clarify the remainder of your argument: whether it is correctly summed up in (5a), (6a), (7), & (8).
Cheers!
John
* These being, in your own words, your (mutually contradictory) contentions concerning Hahnemann's intent in § 26:
(1) Hn says that every REAL cure is due to Homeopathy!
(2) Hn... states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
Whatever foolish claims you say I have made concerning Peruvian bark, I am willing to either make a case for or to withdraw (see "The role of Peruvian bark" for that discussion), once I know what they are. But you cannot build from what I say a case for either of your claims concerning Hahnemann's meaning and his correctness. Either you have a reason that you can give your readers to believe one of your claims -- or you do not. There is no third choice.
Your confidently stated claims concerning Hahnemann's statement in § 26 appear to be*:
(1) that Hahnemann contends that all medicinal cures ever made have been homoeopathic, and that he is correct in so contending; and
(2) that Hahnemann defines homoeopathicity not in terms of symptom similarity but in terms of successful outcome.
These claims are, of course, mutually contradictory: they cannot both be true. But neither enjoys, so far, any support at all. And no statement that you may understand me to make can possibly help you here. The case for your claim must be your case: reasons you can give your readers to believe your claim.
If you are unable or unwilling to make a case for either of your claims, then you effectively admit that both constitute nothing more than hot air, rashly expelled.
That being so, would you care to continue this discussion as you abandoned it a couple of days ago, or would you prefer to (tacitly, if necessary) withdraw your claims?
If you would care to continue, I think we made great headway with one of them, with (1) to (4) being clarified. It remains only to clarify the remainder of your argument: whether it is correctly summed up in (5a), (6a), (7), & (8).
Cheers!
John
* These being, in your own words, your (mutually contradictory) contentions concerning Hahnemann's intent in § 26:
(1) Hn says that every REAL cure is due to Homeopathy!
(2) Hn... states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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,
By now you'll have had time to read my answers to the questions you demanded I answer before you resume clarifying your contentions over § 26. Did you see my answers to your questions ("Role of Peruvian bark")? Now that I've met your preconditions, may we resume clarifying your position on § 26, and any reasoning behind it? Or have you withdrawn both of your contentions (quoted below)?
Thanks --
John
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Harvey >
Date: 2009/8/20
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Dear Soroush,
Whatever foolish claims you say I have made concerning Peruvian bark, I am willing to either make a case for or to withdraw (see "The role of Peruvian bark" for that discussion), once I know what they are. But you cannot build from what I say a case for either of your claims concerning Hahnemann's meaning and his correctness. Either you have a reason that you can give your readers to believe one of your claims -- or you do not. There is no third choice.
Your confidently stated claims concerning Hahnemann's statement in § 26 appear to be*:
(1) that Hahnemann contends that all medicinal cures ever made have been homoeopathic, and that he is correct in so contending; and
(2) that Hahnemann defines homoeopathicity not in terms of symptom similarity but in terms of successful outcome.
These claims are, of course, mutually contradictory: they cannot both be true. But neither enjoys, so far, any support at all. And no statement that you may understand me to make can possibly help you here. The case for your claim must be your case: reasons you can give your readers to believe your claim.
If you are unable or unwilling to make a case for either of your claims, then you effectively admit that both constitute nothing more than hot air, rashly expelled.
That being so, would you care to continue this discussion as you abandoned it a couple of days ago, or would you prefer to (tacitly, if necessary) withdraw your claims?
If you would care to continue, I think we made great headway with one of them, with (1) to (4) being clarified. It remains only to clarify the remainder of your argument: whether it is correctly summed up in (5a), (6a), (7), & (8).
Cheers!
John
* These being, in your own words, your (mutually contradictory) contentions concerning Hahnemann's intent in § 26:
(1) Hn says that every REAL cure is due to Homeopathy!
(2) Hn... states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
By now you'll have had time to read my answers to the questions you demanded I answer before you resume clarifying your contentions over § 26. Did you see my answers to your questions ("Role of Peruvian bark")? Now that I've met your preconditions, may we resume clarifying your position on § 26, and any reasoning behind it? Or have you withdrawn both of your contentions (quoted below)?
Thanks --
John
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Harvey >
Date: 2009/8/20
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Dear Soroush,
Whatever foolish claims you say I have made concerning Peruvian bark, I am willing to either make a case for or to withdraw (see "The role of Peruvian bark" for that discussion), once I know what they are. But you cannot build from what I say a case for either of your claims concerning Hahnemann's meaning and his correctness. Either you have a reason that you can give your readers to believe one of your claims -- or you do not. There is no third choice.
Your confidently stated claims concerning Hahnemann's statement in § 26 appear to be*:
(1) that Hahnemann contends that all medicinal cures ever made have been homoeopathic, and that he is correct in so contending; and
(2) that Hahnemann defines homoeopathicity not in terms of symptom similarity but in terms of successful outcome.
These claims are, of course, mutually contradictory: they cannot both be true. But neither enjoys, so far, any support at all. And no statement that you may understand me to make can possibly help you here. The case for your claim must be your case: reasons you can give your readers to believe your claim.
If you are unable or unwilling to make a case for either of your claims, then you effectively admit that both constitute nothing more than hot air, rashly expelled.
That being so, would you care to continue this discussion as you abandoned it a couple of days ago, or would you prefer to (tacitly, if necessary) withdraw your claims?
If you would care to continue, I think we made great headway with one of them, with (1) to (4) being clarified. It remains only to clarify the remainder of your argument: whether it is correctly summed up in (5a), (6a), (7), & (8).
Cheers!
John
* These being, in your own words, your (mutually contradictory) contentions concerning Hahnemann's intent in § 26:
(1) Hn says that every REAL cure is due to Homeopathy!
(2) Hn... states here that if any can manage to cure, it must have acted in a homeopathic way.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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,
In response to a request that you clarify and support the § 26 claims you've made, you required that I answer some questions first. I have done so. A further twelve days and follow-up requests have resulted in no further response. What's happened to our discussion of Hahnemann's meaning in § 26?
Cheers --
John
2009/8/26 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch
In response to a request that you clarify and support the § 26 claims you've made, you required that I answer some questions first. I have done so. A further twelve days and follow-up requests have resulted in no further response. What's happened to our discussion of Hahnemann's meaning in § 26?
Cheers --
John
2009/8/26 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."
— Plutarch