Here you will find all the discussions from the time this group was hosted on YahooGroups and groups.io
You can browse through these topics and reply to them as needed.
It is not possible to start new topics in this forum. Please use the respective other forums most related to your topic.
Hi John,
The aph you have mentioned largely talk about aggravation and dose in general, but especially where the 5thed and 6th ed show differences, it is because of the diffrence in dosage referred to. So aggravation can happen at any dose if the patient is sensitive enough, or if the dose is too large for what they need to overcome the medicinal disease (same thing). Even one dose of an LM might be too much, and then you get the aggravation in the beginning, after that dose, as you would with dry dose C and even possibly with dilution C potencies, although they tend to be better tolreated (because of dilution, fine tuning the dose etc.).
if you read from aph 279 onward, the next few aph, firstly you see some differences in the two editions. So in aph 280 he says:
§ 280 Sixth Edition
The dose of the medicine that continues serviceable without producing new troublesome symptoms is to be continued while gradually ascending, so long as the patient with general improvement, begins to feel in a mild degree the return of one or several old original complaints. This indicates an approaching cure through a gradual ascending of the moderate doses modified each time by succussion (§ 247). It indicates that the vital principal no longer needs to be affected by the similar medicinal disease in order to lose the sensation of the natural disease (§ 148). It indicates that the life principle now free from the natural disease begins to suffer only something of the medicinal disease hitherto known as homoeopathic aggravation.
The idea is that the patient feels general improvement, and as the dosing continues gradually feels a return of old symptoms, whereupon he calls this "approaching cure". So it's a gradual process to the point of aggravation, which is different to the pace of initial aggravation and then amel. So when the cure approaches, it is a sign to stop the remedy, as the patient may be cured. Then you wait and see (aph 281 etc)
Why I call the 5th ed the Centessimal manual and the 6th ed the LM manual is because if you look at the instructions to manufacture the "homeopathic small dose" which is aph 270, then in the 5th ed you read how to make centessimal. In the 6th ed you read how to make an LM. there is no mention of making the 30C. the only allusion to centessimal is the 3 trituration stages used to start the LM preaparation, and they are not referred to as centessimal. The 6th ed was about his experience with LM, the new method. Obviously anything which was identical with centessimals, such as agg with too strong a dose etc, remained true, but his experience now was different with regards the point of agg.
So if two people on opposite ends of a large desert island came upon an ancient text called the Organon, and started to learn how to practice homeopathy and make homeopathic remedies, if for one of them the Organon was a 5th ed they would only ever prescribe centessimals and in dilution, repeated as per instructions. (If it was a 4th ed, they would only ever give 30C dry dose and wait). If the other then found the 6th edition, they would only know about LM's and prescribe according to those instructions. Their experience mostly would be the patient improves somewhat and if old symptoms start to appear, (see: "It indicates that the life principle now free from the natural disease begins to suffer only something of the medicinal disease hitherto known as homoeopathic aggravation") then they would stop dosing and wait. If they were with the 5th ed. mostly they would see some some agg more towards the beginning and then fine tune dose until the patient is "better."
Then one day the two homeopaths meet up and discuss this new science and marvel at their slightly different experiences, until they suddenly realize that the potencies they use are made differently.
Regards,
Paul
(The grammar/language, I am not going to argue. I only got through high school english because I got A's for essay's - usually science fiction- wild imagination, or else for grammar etc. I would have flunked
Kunzli translation of aphorism 161 in the sixth edition:
When I say that the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the
primary action of the homoeopathic medicine, which appears to increase
somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, takes place in the first
hour or the first few hours, this is certainly true in more acute
troubles of recent onset; but when long-acting medicines are to overcome
an old or very old chronic disease, none of these apparent exacerbations
of the original disease should be allowed to take place during the
treatment. They do not appear if the accurately chosen medicine
administered in appropriately small doses, which are only gradually
increased, is each time somewhat modified by further dynamization (par.
247) When this is done, these exacerbations of the original symptoms
of the chronic disease can appear only at the end of the treatment, when
the cure is complete or nearly complete.
Thanks, Kerry; yes, this confirms the sense of the other. Inserting "then" before "none of these apparent exacerbations" here would leave its meaning unchanged, though in this rendering of it there is a suggestion that "ought" has become an admonition rather than an expectation.
Cheers --
John
2009/12/2 Kerry
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a case to be made for using some of the cretins who think animal research is still necessary as experimental subjects."
Yes, I see what you mean: Hahnemann described how to make LMs (Q potencies) in the sixth, so if you hadn't ever heard of centesimal potencies, you might think that all his admonitions applied only to Q potencies.
I'm highly inclined to doubt, though, that Hahnemann for one moment thought that the thousands of homoeopathic practitioners already in practice would have interpreted the entirety of his forthcoming (posthumous, of course, in practice) edition as applying only to those who had never heard of centesimal potencies or who spontaneously chose to throw them all away; and there is no suggestion in the book that he intended it to apply only to the use of Q potencies. On the contrary, there are recommendations even for the use of medicines unpotentised altogether (e.g. diluted Sul. ac. in relation to certain dyspepsias). And, though it would have been eminently sensible for him -- and in character with his pedantic approach -- to have stated that his instructions and cautions throughout the sixth edition applied only to the new medicines, not once did he do so anywhere in the book or elsewhere.
So -- no, I don't think it's at plausible that what he says about homoeopathic medicines in general he actually means only in reference to Q potencies. The commonsense interpretation agrees with that habit of his of saying exactly what he means. It may be that in this one instance, he consistently forgot throughout the book to mention this point -- but, given the unlikelihood of such a thing, I think that it would require strong evidence to overturn anyone's more natural presumption.
Hi John,
What I am saying is, there is general stuff about agg./dosing etc which applies whenever you affect the vital force with whatever, but ther are certain changes in the 6th which apply to his observation about the LM's, and should not be interchanged to mean that the observations hold for centessimals, such as when you might observe aggravation. I think the 5th ed explanation for agg (initial and then amel.) still holds true for centessimals, even in dilution and especially for (4th ed) dry dose.
Then it makes sense why he changes an aphorism. Some critics are quick to say "you see hahnemann changes his mind like his underwear to suit himself". No, I beleive he changes it when new observations are made based on experience.
So the general stuff is not just for LM's, it is general and that usually is common in the two editions, but the specific stuff, the changes, I see as applying to the new method.
If you want to learn to make and use LM's, get the 6th. If you want to learn to make and use centessimals get the 5th. If you want learn homeopathy, get both.
regards,
Paul
This assumption -- that some of what he warns of or stipulates in the 6th edition may be disregarded as inapplicable to the centesimal potencies -- would, I believe, be a departure from Hahnemann's most evident intent and would require quite some evidence in order to overcome the simpler hypothesis that the plainest interpretation of his very careful expression reflects exactly what he intended.
Is my understanding correct that you believe that his remarks about early aggravations' not appearing if dosages are sufficiently small -- as you quoted from § 161 -- are the remarks that don't apply to the centesimal potencies, and that his similarly expressed cautions in footnote 136 to § 249, in §§ 275–276, and in § 282 (in relation to chronic treatment) were similarly intended for application only to Q potencies?
Whatever remarks you believe Hahnemann didn't intend to apply to the centesimals, can you give any evidence to overcome the natural interpretation (which everyone till now seems to have thought the only reasonable one, though I'm not arguing that your pioneering in this regard makes you wrong), the interpretation that he did intend them to apply without exception?
Hello John,
No,
I apologize for not communicating clearly. Let me try to be clearer.
1. Footnote to aph 249.
Firstly aph 249 is common to both editions. There is no change between them. It applies to both LM and centessimals when used in dilution (to achieve the "smallest possible dose"). I do not have aph 249 4th ed to see what he wrote about dry dose. More importantly aph 249 is about giving the wrong remedy and getting a medcinal disease state imposed on th VF. He is saying that if you are cautitious with the dose, you can also minimize harmful effects if the wrong remedy is given. Even if an LM is given and it is wrong, you may get iatrogenic effects. As to when one might see the effects appearing, this aph does not state. we need to look at other aph.
2. Aph 275
Once again it is common to 5th and 6th, so it applies to both dose forms. If the dose is too strong, you get agg. As to when the agg. appears depends on the strength of the dose relative to the strength of the disease state. It's about opposing forces. If the dose is just enough to overcome the disease state, the agg is not perceptible, but if it is much stronger than the disease state, you see the results of the new medcinal side effects as an agg. As to when this appears, you need to understand the strength of the dose. From his experience hahnemann writes in the Organon, that centessimals are generally stronger, conquer the disease state (if simillimum) and so produce the medcinal state (agg) relatively quickly. That is especially true of dry dose. If you dilute the dose (5th ed), It is better tolerated and so with less aggravation, you are in a position to repeat the dose sooner (i.e when the medcinal effects of the previous dose have worn off).
with LM's they are much milder. They are prepared with more dilution and so they can be prepared with more succusion (footnote to aph 270 includes:
"But if only one such globule be taken, of which 100 weigh one grain, and dynamize it with 100 drops of alcohol, the proportion of 1 to 50,000 and even greater will be had, for 500 such globules can hardly absorb one drop, for their saturation. With this disproportionate higher ratio between medicine and diluting medium many successive strokes of the vial filled two-thirds with alcohol can produce a much greater development of power. But with so small a diluting medium as 100 to 1 of the medicine, if many succussions by means of a powerful machine are forced into it, medicines are then developed which, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, act almost immediately, but with furious, even dangerous violence, especially in weakly patients, without having a lasting, mild reaction of the vital principle. "
So he says the 1 in 100 (centessimals) act almost immediately and so you have to lower the number of succusions to 2. It would be a safe assumption that the LM's are better tolreated and do not act with such force immediately, because it would not make sense for him to increase the succussions to 100 if the LM's still acted "immediately". They are "gentler" (but i will clarify this at the end). He was trying to find a method of opposing the diseased state without going too far and producing medicinal disease.
3. Aph 276. Once again says that any dose that is too strong will be injurious. the 6th ed footnote also talks about the harm of medcininal disease, that it is not easily treatable with homepathy. Why that is I could expand on but that would be a whole new topic. Still aph 276 is not so much about "when agg occurs", just that it can occur.
4. Aph 282 is more about the time of occurence of agg. 6th ed he says, if the dose is too large, you get initial agga with the first dose.
Actually aph 280 6th ed is better at explaining the pace of treatment. In the 6th ed he talks of a general improvement and gradual return of old Sx indicating approaching cure.
So, the idea of agg. occuring in the beginning is more with a dose that is stronger. His experience is that this will be less likely with LM's, BUT it's not exclusive.
If a patient has a dose of LM and the first dose is already much stronger than the disease state, you will get an initial agg. That is why when one understands dynamics of dosing, one can be aware of such effects, because then you need to adjust the dilution. This is standard procedure with using all dilution doses. The LM's are better tolerated because of their higher dilution each step. But as homeopath one should always be aware what is happening at VF level. I know from experience that sometimes an LM can agg a patient in the beginning and then I instruct the patient to increase the dilution.
If a patient has quite a strong disease state, they might not get an initial agg. on centessimal one dose, and may even need a second or third dose. Doing these in dilution will minimize going too far and agg. too strongly.
Probably for me the best reference I can find where Hahnemann mentions that his experience before and now has changed with the new dose is in the footnote to aph 246 6th ed:
"1 What I said in the fifth edition of the organon, in a long note to this paragraph in order to prevent these undesirable reactions of the vital energy, was all the experience I then had justified. But during the last four or five years, however, all these difficulties are wholly solved by my new altered but perfected method. The same carefully selected medicine may now be given daily and for months, if necessary in this way, namely, after the lower degree of potency has been used for one or two weeks in the treatment of chronic disease, advance is made in the same way to higher degrees, (beginning according to the new dynamization method, taught herewith with the use of the lowest degrees)."
The centessimals were too strong to repeat so often. Even in dilution, they were more tolerated but still presented problems in sensitive patients.
So when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't, they are more applicable to the LM scale.
Regards,
Paul
Hi, Paul --
Thank you for clearing that up; it seems that for the most part we're understanding Hahnemann's meaning in the same way. I think that you may have overinterpreted Hahnemann's (§ 270 footnote 155) statement (I'm referring throughout to the 6th edition) "But with so small a diluting medium as 100 to 1 of the medicine, if many succussions by means of a powerful machine are forced into it, medicines are then developed which, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, act almost immediately, but with furious, even dangerous, violence..." to mean that all centesimals, even with few dynamisations, act more immediately than Q (LM) potencies. This assumption on your part is evidently based on understanding Hahnemann to be raising the immediacy of centesimals as being problematic.
To me, it seems clear that, despite its slightly counterintuitive expression, Hahnemann's meaning here was that although they have the benefit of acting almost immediately, they do so violently: "medicines are then developed which... act almost immediately, but with furious, even dangerous, violence" (my emphasis). Note that he did not say immediately and with violence; he said immediately but with violence.
Hahnemann had no express problem with the immediacy of the centesimals' action or even (again, despite the phrasing) with the greater immediacy of action of the higher centesimals. If he had, he'd have left none of us in any doubt about it! His only express problem with the centesimals in comparison with the Q potencies was, as you allude to, the evidently ungentle effect of potencies succussed out of proportion to dilution ratios. Why he did not say in that very footnote that those using centesimals could reduce medicinal aggravations by reducing succussions, I can't say, but the inference is certainly there for anybody to draw without having to make any assumptions at all.
My deeper concern is that your last couple of points require even larger assumptions that I don't think can be justified -- though if they can be, I'd like to know about it. I'll return to these in a moment.
§ 282, I would say, is clearly not about the time of occurrence of aggravations but about what an immediate aggravation upon the first dose signifies in the treatment of chronic illness. Hahnemann wrote here "especially in chronic disease" only as a way of distinguishing the prognosis of this aggravation from the (§§ 158 to 161) quite different prognosis of such an early aggravation in acute disease.
It was, therefore, not a way of distinguishing between aggravations from different dosages or of distinguishing between aggravations from different potency series (C or Q); it was simply a clarification of the topic of chronic illness as opposed to acute illness.
But to the two points that I am most concerned about assuming too much about.
The first concerns this:
"If a patient has quite a strong disease state, they might not get an initial agg. on centessimal one dose, and may even need a second or third dose. Doing these in dilution will minimize going too far and agg. too strongly".
If you're suggesting that this is Hahnemann's meaning, then I'd have to say that you've made no case for it. (I'm assuming, incidentally, that you mean that "agg. too strongly" is something that diluting the centesimals would minimise rather than cause.) I'm particularly concerned at the suggestion therein that a patient without an aggravation might need a second or third dose. Perhaps you just haven't stated very clearly what you did mean.
The second relates to this:
"The centessimals were too strong to repeat so often. Even in dilution, they were more tolerated but still presented problems in sensitive patients".
This too, if you're claiming it as Hahnemann's meaning, needs some kind of evidence. Nowhere that I can recall does Hahnemann paint with so broad a brush as to say that centesimal potencies are too strong. I don't think it could be said that he suggests anything more strongly in that regard than that avoiding all medicinal aggravations is more straightforward in the use of Q potencies than in the use of C potencies.
And it is evidently all three of these assumptions -- all of which, in my opinion, are unwarranted and certainly, so far, here unjustified -- that lead you to the conclusion that
"when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't, they are more applicable to the LM scale"
-- a conclusion that I would have to say I see no evidence whatever to support.
So I think that in essence we may not have moved very far, except that you now know what assumptions need the support of evidence if they're to back up that conclusion.
Personally, I'm inclined to think that if you take a fresh look at the entirety of the Organon, keeping in mind that Hahnemann may have indeed intended the sixth edition to be read and applied by practitioners who use centesimal potencies (rather than silently expecting them to ignore instructions that clearly are applicable to such potencies by anyone willing to apply them), you'll perceive the distinct possibility that, where he didn't explicitly exclude the C potencies from instructions and cautions concerning dose etc., he intended those instructions and cautions to apply precisely as he said; that is, without limitation as to (known) potency series.
It may even occur to you, as it does to me, that his cautions arose from his experience with centesimal potencies rather than with Q potencies.
If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying. The case for abandoning such cautions should, I suggest, have to be a compelling one to be worth pursuing. And much bitter experience attested to on this list adds to the evidence that the centesimals are indeed highly capable of inducing needless medicinal aggravations. It would be a very bold stroke indeed to claim that those aggravations must be explicable in some other way and that Hahnemann's experience of the problems of excessive dosages, experience that he documents through several editions, relates not to centesimals but to the only lately developed Q potencies.
Cheers!
John
2009/12/7 Paul Booyse >
John,
Please, may I ask you to read my posts carefully. You are continuing a discussion based on arguments where you have either misinterpreted me or misquoted me, and where my statements for the most part have been quite clear. As example:
"compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying. The case for abandoning such cautions should, I suggest, have to be a compelling one to be worth pursuing. And much bitter experience attested to on this list adds to the evidence that the centesimals are indeed highly capable of inducing needless medicinal aggravations. It would be a very bold stroke indeed to claim that those aggravations must be explicable in some other way and that Hahnemann's experience of the problems of excessive dosages, experience that he documents through several editions, relates not to centesimals but to the only lately developed Q potencies."
1. The bold portion (centesimals are indeed highly capable of inducing needless medicinal aggravations.) Is exactly in line with what I have said. the centessimals can cause needless agg. And so can the LM's, but the effect is far milder and more manageable.
2. "intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying."
Nowhere have I said cautions should be ignored. Only that these cautions must be with relevance. I have said that the explanation about the pace of the remedy action, i.e. that LM's if prescribed correctly tend to produce general improvement and gradually a return of old symptoms (which is the agg. from the medicnal state finally overcoming the disease state and imposing its directive on the VF, whereupon you stop dosing and amel resumes), differs to the pace of agg with centessimals (which is more immediate and then the amel thereafter).
I have repeatedly stated this and don't know how much clearer I can be. I have never stated "that those aggravations must be explicable in some other way ".
"that Hahnemann's experience of the problems of excessive dosages, experience that he documents through several editions, relates not to centesimals but to the only lately developed Q potencies." is a statement I have never said. A misquote. Show me the parts I have
3. "that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies"
All cautions need to be heeded, where the aphorisms are the same. The cautions in the 6th, where the aphorisms differ (and only there) are usually because of the experience with the new dose. Or are you saying that hahnemann changed what he said in the 5th ed to 6th ed in those (differing aph.)? are you saying the 5th ed cautions for centessimals are superseded by the new aph in the 6th? That to me is dangerous as that would mean that between the 2 ed. he changed his view of how the centessimals behaved. And if that were the case, if the centessimals became more tolerable and gentle and less likely to agg., why would he have developed a new potency scale to achieve just that? The centessimals are stronger in effect as a far as being able to agg. That does not make them not useful. They are very useful, but need to be used with the appropriate cautions given in the appropriate edition, the 5th ed. And where you have a patient who is particularly low in vitality, that's where you would prefer the LM's.
4. "that he did not say immediately and with violence; he said immediately but with violence."
Semantics John, they still act immediately. (relatively speaking). The onset of LM action is less rapid, which allows more frequent dosing. You have a wider safety net with LM's. Hahnemann is clear on this. And let me be clear. I am not saying the LM's don't work quickly, as if they take time before they affect the VF. It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals. I am talking about the immediate agg of C versus the later agg with LM's. Once again, LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF. I had a patient 2 weeks ago with just such result. Longtime ME sufferer etec. Started him on Nux vom LM1. He had initial agg. after 2 doses, felt really terrible, waited 5 days before letting me know, during which he stopped the treatment. Still agg, I told him to change the dilution (more dilute), and take one dose, which eased the agg within 30 minutes of taking. He is a prime example of how delicate one should work. His previous experiences with homeopathy were always polypharmacy, dry dose repeated often and sometimes high potency. I feel that in his case a 30C in dilution would have caused more agg, and been more difficult to ameliorate.
Consider:
§ 161 Fifth Edition
When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where one dose, consequently, must continue to act for many days, we then occasionally see, during the first six, eight or ten days, the occurrence of some such primary actions, of the medicine, some such apparent increase of the symptoms of the original disease (lasting for one or several hours), while in the intervening hours amelioration of the whole malady is perceptible. After the lapse of these few days the amelioration resulting from such primary action of the medicine proceeds almost uninterruptedly for several days longer.
This is centessimal (right?)
§ 161 Sixth Edition
When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where no such apparent increase of the original disease ought to appear during treatment and it does not so appear if the accurately chosen medicine was given in proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization (§ 247). Such increase of the original symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished.
clearly explains this (LM's) "each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization (§ 247). Such increase of the original symptoms of a chronic disease can appear only at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or quite finished."
and then aph 247
§ 247 Fifth Edition
Under these conditions, the smallest doses of the best selected homoeopathic medicine may be repeated with the best, often with incredible results, at intervals of fourteen, twelve, ten, eight, seven days, and, where rapidity is requisite, in chronic diseases resembling cases of acute disease, at still shorter intervals, but in acute diseases at very much shorter periods - every twenty - four, twelve, eight, four hours, in the very acutest every hour, up to as often as every five minutes, - in ever case in proportion to the more or less rapid course of the diseases and of the action of the medicine employed, as is more distinctly explained in the last note.
§ 247 Sixth Edition
It is impractical to repeat the same unchanged dose of a remedy once, not to mention its frequent repetition (and at short intervals in order not to delay the cure). The vital principle does not accept such unchanged doses without resistance, that is, without other symptoms of the medicine to manifest themselves than those similar to the disease to be cured, because the former dose has already accomplished the expected change in the vital principle and a second dynamically wholly similar, unchanged dose of the same medicine no longer finds, therefore, the same conditions of the vital force. The patient may indeed be made sick in another way by receiving other such unchanged doses, even sicker than he was, for now only those symptoms of the given remedy remain active which were not homoeopathic to the original disease, hence no step towards cure can follow, only a true aggravation of the condition of the patient. But if the succeeding dose is changed slightly every time, namely potentized somewhat higher (§§ 269-270) then the vital principle may be altered without difficulty by the same medicine (the sensation of natural disease diminishing) and thus the cure brought nearer.1
1 We ought not even with the best chosen homoeopathic medicine, for instance one pellet of the same potency that was beneficial at first, to let the patient have a second or third dose, taken dry. In the same way, if the medicine was dissolved in water and the first dose proved beneficial, a second or third and even smaller dose from the bottle standing undisturbed, even in intervals of a few days, would prove no longer beneficial, even though the original preparation had been potentized with ten succussions or as I suggested later with but two succussions in order to obviate this disadvantage and this according to above reasons. But through modification of every dose in its dynamiztion degree, as I herewith teach, there exists no offence, even if the doses be repeated more frequently, even if the medicine be ever so highly potentized with ever so many succussions. It almost seems as if the best selected homoeopathic remedy could best extract the morbid disorder from the vital force and in chronic disease to extinguish the same only if applied in several different forms.
which refers to (§§ 269-270) which in the 6th ed is the manufacture of LM's.
there is common information between the two editions and generally this is seen where aphorisms are the same. It is the changed aph which are refering to the same topic, that show the new experience with the new dose.
6. "Hahnemann had no express problem with the immediacy of the centesimals' action or even (again, despite the phrasing) with the greater immediacy of action of the higher centesimals."
Then why did he refine the dosage form? I have also never said that he discontinued the use of centessimals in favour of Lm's. this is evedent in the case books. But it was his path from day 1 when he took China, to find a way of restoring health to the Vf in the least harmful way. His whole reason for continuing his reasearch with potency and dose was because he valued the VF, that it should not be overly stimulated, because when you do that you expend VF, you drain the patient and without the Vf there is no life. The classic case of cure the patient but the patient dies. Hence:
§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.
7. aph 282
" It would be a certain sign that the doses were altogether too large, if during treatment, especially in chronic disease, the first dose should bring forth a so-called homoeopathic aggravation, that is, a marked increase of the original morbid symptoms first discovered and in the same way every repeated dose (§ 247) however modified somewhat by shaking before its administration (i.e., more highly dynamized).1 "
he is cautioning about the dose being too large, which was his experience in the past. Read it in context with the rest of 6th ed applying to the new dose where this caution is addressed.
8. " when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't, they are more applicable to the LM scale"
(you say):
-- a conclusion that I would have to say I see no evidence whatever to support."
Well, firstly if you only have 6th ed, which someone on this list has just mentioned is the only Organon they were given to study from, then you only read about the new aphorisms. You do not have the info of the 5th, so if you use the centessimals, then you would expect to find them working as per the appropriate aph in the 6th, which they don't do. If you don't understand this then I must ask if you are not one of those students who see the 6th ed as perfectly applicable to study centessimals. This is why the French use 100 succussions to prepare C's. They get the dilution of 1 in 100 from 4th/5th ed, but feel that 100 succussions is ok because that's what Hahnemann used in his later years. So that must be OK. They don't read/understand the footnotes. Then they call 30C a high potency and no wonder.
9. you seem to be assuming I am infering that any cautions in the 6th don't apply to centessimals. I am only talking about the revised aph's. which have their original text's in the 5th ed. In fact you (without realizing it) seem to be implying then that the cautions about centessimals can be relaxed a bit in light of the relaxation of some cautions in the 6th ed.
10. " going too far and agg. too strongly". Is the problem with abbreviations. Read " going too far and aggravating too strongly"."
11. "Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying."
So which cautions do you feel apply to centessimals. the 6th ed or 5th ed. because generally the 5th ed is more cautitious.
12. refer then to aph 270 6th ed:
"I have found after many laborious experiments and counter-experiments, to be the most powerful and at the same time mildest in action, i.e., as the most perfected)"
the LM's are his perfection of dosing, his final goal achieved. powerful yet mild. do you take this as applying to C's? because he does not even make mention of how to manufacture the C's in the 6th ed. Why do you think that is?
Now obviously hanemann wasn't around at the time of publishing his 6th ed. he may have decided to add in a preface to explain more about the new dose vs centessimals. Who knows. But, for me at least it is clear that the 6th ed refers to homeopathy in general with teaching about the primary and secondary action of LM potencies.
And that for me is about it. We should only continue any further discussion when it clear to me that you have carefully read what I have stated, or else we will go in circles. I will correct any typo's or parts where I genuinely have not been clear asin point 10.
Regards,
Paul
Dear Paul,
I address six things in this message, A to F:
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
(B) Five contentions: do you continue to maintain them, or not?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
(E) Your final questions
First: Assuming that § 161 of the sixth edition applies only to Q potencies does not prove the truth of the assumption.
Second: Hahnemann refined the dosage form not to prevent remedies from acting immediately but in order to make more straightforward the avoidance of aggravations; the two are not the same.
Third: Hahnemann's 6th-edition description of the preparation of Q potencies in lieu of any description of the preparation of C potencies does not offer license to reinterpret everything else, or anything else, that he said in that edition as not applicable to C potencies.
Fourth: The impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, through reading the 6th-edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. To do so is a fundamental mistake.
(F) In summary
Arguments based on untrustworthy assumptions lead to untrustworthy conclusions.
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
I'm sorry to say that the argument "You've misquoted me" is a familiar one around here and doesn't much help anybody; so let's stop talking about talking about talking and just cut to the chase, shall we -- which is: what claims are you going to stick to, and where's the evidence for any of them?
(B) Five contentions
I believe that I've interpreted your contentions on this subject as charitably as I'm able to comprehend them. It's possible that your offence at my differences with you over them may have due to my misunderstanding your meaning despite reading your posts very carefully. In that case, we could perhaps short-circuit unnecessarily tedious discussion of what look like mutually contradictory claims by clarifying some of them.
Is it, or is it not -- a simple answer will suffice in each case -- the case that you continue to maintain:
(1) that "The 6th ed was about his experience with LM, the new method", and if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(2) that everything that appears in the 6th edition that does not appear in the 5th does not apply to centisimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(3) that "ther are certain changes in the 6th which apply to his observation about the LM's, and should not be interchanged to mean that the observations hold for centessimals, such as when you might observe aggravation" [my emphasis], and, if so, exactly which changes you imagine fall into that category, and on what basis you imagine it;
(4) that "when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't", and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(5) that it is not possible to use the 6th edition to learn to use centesimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
Let me briefly correct a couple of apparent miscommunications on my part.
First, regarding (your statements in red):
3. "that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies"
All cautions need to be heeded, where the aphorisms are the same. The cautions in the 6th, where the aphorisms differ (and only there) are usually because of the experience with the new dose. Or are you saying that hahnemann changed what he said in the 5th ed to 6th ed in those (differing aph.)? are you saying the 5th ed cautions for centessimals are superseded by the new aph in the 6th?
-- by removing the rest of the sentence, you have perhaps set yourself up for this misunderstanding. In its entirety,
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying"
cannot be read as suggesting not applying the cautions of the 5th edition, now, can it? So in effect you are arguing with yourself. Should I have suggested that you read the entire sentence rather than a single phrase from it before taking offence? If you've found the construction of the sentence more complex than you're used to reading, then I can only apologise and offer to break it up into smaller sentences; if you'd prefer that I did so, please just let me know.
Second, regarding:
4. "that he did not say immediately and with violence; he said immediately but with violence."
Semantics John, they still act immediately.
You have nicely restated my point for me exactly. Both C potencies and Q potencies act immediately, and Hahnemann had no problem with the immediate action of the remedy. His problem was with the relative ease with which C potencies act with violence. My intent was not to dispute this but to point out that the immediacy, which you earlier claimed was a problem -- "he says the 1 in 100 (centessimals) act almost immediately and so you have to lower the number of succusions to 2. It would be a safe assumption that the LM's are better tolreated and do not act with such force immediately, because it would not make sense for him to increase the succussions to 100 if the LM's still acted 'immediately'" -- was not a problem: something we now appear to agree upon.
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
This same paragraph of yours concerning semantics does raise some very serious concerns, however, regarding your interpretation of Hahnemann's meaning. Later in the paragraph, you say:
"The onset of LM action is less rapid, which allows more frequent dosing. You have a wider safety net with LM's. Hahnemann is clear on this. And let me be clear. I am not saying the LM's don't work quickly, as if they take time before they affect the VF. It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals. I am talking about the immediate agg of C versus the later agg with LM's. Once again, LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF."
This appears to me to be riddled with problematic assumptions and self-contradiction. First, it expresses deep confusion between primary action and aggravation and to be self-contradictory. Second, apparently regarding those two very different items as the same thing, you appear to have concluded, on the basis that they are more readily prescribed in a sufficient dose to aggravate, that C potencies aggravate sooner than Q potencies ["It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals"] -- which, even granted the confusion, appears to be pure presumption. Next, you contradict this, stating that Q potencies can aggravate immediately ["Once again, LM's can show agg immediately..."]. Fourth, you confuse overaction with an imbalance of forces, a minor matter of presumption as to the invisible mechanisms of medicinal action; this dovetails, though, into a deeper confusion. Here you state -- as you did at the passage's start confirming the remedy's action -- that the aggravation may occur immediately. But what follows -- "... LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF" -- expresses again a deep confusion, assuming as it does that if a remedy affects the patient's vital force -- i.e., if it acts to impose a medicinal state upon the patient -- then it necessarily entails aggravating the patient.
These two concepts -- of action, and of aggravation -- are distinct. One (action) concerns the remedy's ability to impose a dynamic medicinal state (or process) upon the patient -- which occurs most readily and most wholly, and occurs even in ultradilute form, if the remedy is homoeopathic to the patient's own dynamic state (or process).
The other concept differs from this utterly: it concerns the imposed state's representing an aggravation, a worsening, of the earlier state.
Paul, the case you then go on to describe, if you've described it accurately, appears to represent, amongst other things, the effects of two initial successive unchanged doses of Nux vom. LM1. Or did you omit to describe a change in potency between those two doses even though you described the solution to the problem as being to change the potency? Perhaps the case does illustrate the need to work with delicacy as you say.
(E) Your final questions
First:
"Consider:
§ 161 Fifth Edition
When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where one dose, consequently, must continue to act for many days, we then occasionally see, during the first six, eight or ten days, the occurrence of some such primary actions, of the medicine, some such apparent increase of the symptoms of the original disease (lasting for one or several hours), while in the intervening hours amelioration of the whole malady is perceptible. After the lapse of these few days the amelioration resulting from such primary action of the medicine proceeds almost uninterruptedly for several days longer.
This is centessimal (right?)"
etc.
-- you again simply assume, despite everything I've pointed out, that the sixth edition is not intended to apply to any but Q potencies. Paul, the assumption is unjustified and frankly ludicrous.
Yes, Hahnemann refers in passing in §161 to § 247 -- by way of referring the reader to detail of how to achieve "proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization".
Yes, § 247 describes that in greater detail.
Yes, § 247 then refers (in the Jain sixth edition) in passing to pages 269–270 of that edition, which happen to include most of §§ 269 and 270.
And yes, § 270 describes the preparation -- in order "to best obtain this development of power" -- of Q potencies.
But there is nothing there to support the presumption -- and without support it is only presumption -- on your part that what Hahnemann says in § 161, he would change one jot if § 270 described instead how to prepare centesimal potencies or how to walk on the ceiling.
The argument that assumes what you wish to conclude and uses that assumption to derive the conclusion is called a circular one, and can be used to "prove" anything at all, including any false statement you care to name. For that reason, it is not a valid form of argument.
Second:
"6. "Hahnemann had no express problem with the immediacy of the centesimals' action or even (again, despite the phrasing) with the greater immediacy of action of the higher centesimals."
Then why did he refine the dosage form?"
Clearly it was because of their greater readiness to cause aggravation. These are concepts worlds apart, Paul, and should never be confused. Action does not equal aggravation, and immediacy of action does not entail aggravation (and so does not entail immediacy of aggravation). This, I think, is the recurring confusion underlying what otherwise appear to be baseless presumptions: that Hahnemann was concerned to prevent immediacy of action (he wasn't), and that action = aggravation (it doesn't).
Again, though, I believe that we actually see eye to eye on almost all else in the Organon, including Hahnemann's emphasis on, and work to fulfill, § 2. (I think that you may have overinterpreted his concern as being the expenditure of VF by aggravations, but it's of little consequence.)
Third:
"... I must ask if you are not one of those students who see the 6th ed as perfectly applicable to study centessimals."
If you mean, do I believe that everything he says about how to prepare a Q potency should be read as applying to how to prepare a C potency, which is the implication of the context, then the question is beneath contempt: of course they're prepared differently.
If you mean, do I think that everything he says about potencies in general should be read as applying to potencies in general, then I think I've made plain my answer in previous messages: that Hahnemann wrote what he meant, and indulging in what lawyers like to call mindreading gets you only confusion.
I do agree with you about the importance of not imposing one part of Q-preparation instructions on the C-preparation instructions. It is an unnecessary confusion, as the two sets of instructions are entirely self-contained and distinct. It also has no bearing on your argument that everything new in the sixth edition must apply only to Q potencies.
Fourth:
"11. 'Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying.'
So which cautions do you feel apply to centessimals. the 6th ed or 5th ed. because generally the 5th ed is more cautitious."
Your heavy cropping of the quotation again confuses its intent. I did not state or intend that Hahnemann meant his sixth-edition cautions to be ignored in the use of C potencies! The full sentence read:
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying".
Changes it just a tad, doesn't it!
I know that you will wish to apologise for these reversals of my meaning, and, in advance, I accept.
Now, to answer your question. Your impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, because you read the sixth edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. Instead read them as they are written -- to apply to all potencies -- and you will find that he has removed the problem entirely.
Again, yes, Hahnemann describes how to manufacture Q potencies and not how to manufacture C potencies in the sixth. And he obviously found them superior. But to derive from that a conclusion that "the 6th ed refers to homeopathy in general with teaching about the primary and secondary action of LM potencies" and not C potencies is nothing more than a mistake based on the other mistakes I hope I've now managed to shed a little light on.
(F) In summary
Even valid arguments from assumptions do not lead to conclusions that are trustworthy unless the assumptions themselves are trustworthy. Such is the sole express basis to date of your notion that those parts of the sixth edition that refer to potencies in general actually refer only to Q potencies. If you have evidence for the notion, it would be interesting to see it; none has appeared so far.
Cheers --
John
2009/12/8 Paul Booyse >
