Mobile Phone? Please!

[Bernie Simon]

"Wendy Howard" writes:
This raises the metaphysical question, "what are the natural kinds?,
that is, which distinctions are real and which artificial. The question
needs to be asked because otherwise how to we know if two batches of
Sepia made from different sources are the same remedy or the symptoms
recorded in a proving should be added to an existing remedy or treated
as those of a new remedy. In the case of animal or plant remedies the
species would seem to define the natural kind. And in the case of
mineral remedies the chemical compound would seem to define the natural
kind. That only leaves mixtures, such as gunpowder, and imponderables
undecided. Perhaps this is one reason why these remedies have played a
relatively minor role in homeopathy. Should we consider Luna a different
remedy from Sol when moonlight is merely reflected sunlight? Such
questions are difficult to answer in all cases.

The guiding principle here should be that a remedy is defined by the
symptoms it produces in a healthy person, as Hahnemann says in the
Organon. If we consider remedies in this way we see how homeopathy is
connected to its kindred sciences of physiology and biochemistry. In
contrast, the sort of thinking that defines a remedy through how it
appears, how it functions, or some other intellectual schema is
unhomeopathic because these are not the effects the remedy produces on
the person, the sole basis for considering a remedy homeopathic.

Applying this principle to the issue at hand, the question to ask is do
microwaves emitted from cell phones have a different effect than those
emitted from another source. Physically the differences would have to be
in power level, modulation, or frequency. Which of these three would
make a difference in the symptoms the radiation produces? Obviously
power level is going to make a difference, but this is a difference of a
quantitative and not a qualitative kind. For example, a gram of arsenic
has different effects than a microgram, but it is still the same remedy.
Fourier's theorem says that a modulated wave is equivalent to a a spread
of frequencies, so the last two are equivalent. So the question is do
microwaves of 2.4 GHz have a different effect than those of 700 MHz.
This is difficult to answer because there's no conclusive proof that low
power microwaves cause harm, let alone what the physiological basis of
that harm might be. In the absence of such knowledge I think we should
stick to the divisions of the electromagnetic spectrum commonly
accepted: the radio, microwave, infrared, visible, untraviolet, x-ray,
and gamma ray, since these roughly correspond to the different ways
these radiations interact with matter.

--
Bernie Simon http://www.toad.net/~bsimon/

[Wendy Howard]

Bernie Simon wrote:

My point exactly. Since we do not have a proving of other forms of microwave
radiation to compare with Nuala Eising's Mobile Phone, I would consider it
far more prudent to stay with the name she chose for the proving until such
time as it appears that all forms of microwave radiation produce identical
symptoms.
Everything is connected - you can't simply pick and chose what you want to
be connected to according to personal preference and deny the rest. Any
human interaction with a substance speaks something of its properties, all
of which are relevant at some level, and put together lead to a more
comprehensive understanding of the substance in its entire "beingness". So
long as you are able to draw *all the threads together*, balance both left-
and right-brain input, and ground them in solid physical symptomatology, how
is it "unhomeopathic"?

Homeopathic methodology is simply a set of guidelines to help you match
pattern of patient to pattern of remedy in order to apply the law of
similars. If you support that methodology with other means of pattern
recognition - which we all do to some extent at least, this being the "art"
of homeopathy - it doesn't suddenly become "unhomeopathic".
Exactly. Your original post to which I responded seemed to be saying that
there was no reason that they should and that Mobile Phone would therefore
be better titled Microwave. I was merely questioning that assumption as I
think it entirely reasonable to expect some differences as well as
similarities between different forms of microwave radiation. We'll just have
to wait and see ...

Regards
Wendy

[Bernie Simon]

This is a holiday weekend in the US, so I've had more time than usual to
post. This post will probably have to bring our verbal joust to an end.

The question is: is the remedy microwave or mobile phone? There is an
infinite number of ways to categorize things. Someone could claim that
if belladonna tincture is made at night it is a different remedy than if
it is made in the morning. And I suppose that person might make a nice
argument using the doctrine of signatures to justify it. One could argue
that as good empricists, we should let the proving decide if the two
remedies are the same. But two provings are not likely to bring out
exactly the same symptoms, any more than two provers would. So the
question remains, how do we categorize the substances that we prove.

My argument is that we can only be guided by our knowledge of
physiology. Since belladonna tincture made at night is not going to
produce different morbid effects than tincture made in the morning, it
should be considered the same remedy, even if two provings brought out
somewhat different symptoms. Of course, this is just an example, the
question would typically only arise for imponderables.

My argument is the cell phone produces its morbid effects because it is
a microwave radiator, not becuase the purpose of its manufacture was to
be a cell phone. Naturally, if we are to make a proving of microwave we
would want to produce the microwaves the same way each time.

I feel rather foolish having written at this length, because I think the
issue between us is not what to name a remedy. Rather the issue is which
direction homeopathy should go. Should the homeopath dance in the fields
with the druids and the shamans or languish in the library covered in
the dust of nineteenth century tomes? I fear too many homeopaths today
are taking dancing lessons and not heeding what the founder of our art
taught.

What did Hahnemann say about the doctrine of signatures? Andre Saine has
the answer on his website at
http://homeopathy.ca/articles/line-in-sand.html. What is a miasm? David
Little cuts through the blather on this subject on his website at
http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibr ... asms2.html.

There are no new questions in homeopathy, only old answers that have
gone neglected. Here's my hope that this situation does not endure.

--
Bernie Simon http://www.toad.net/~bsimon/

[Wendy Howard]

Bernie said:

Well of course! But the discussion over the name of the remedy has been a
nice enough analogy on which to hang the bigger picture. It's shown clearly
enough that at the end of the day there are no hard and fast answers, and
that definitions are rather arbitrary and subjective.
Yes, that's a commonly-expressed fear. However, without joining those
homeopaths for a tango or two, how can you properly evaluate what the
dancing's all about?

Fact: human beings are gifted with both logical and intuitive faculties. To
suppress *either* one in favour of the other is unbalanced, and ultimately
unhealthy. All I have ever argued for, on this list and others, is that we
should not be afraid to employ **a healthy balance between the two** in our
work. There is enormous fear and suspicion of our intuitive faculties in our
culture. I have been simply been trying to highlight this for what it is -
blind prejudice, NOT a rational conclusion reached by thorough and
*open-minded* scientific enquiry about the subject.

Of course, our intuitive faculties are less reliable (oh
[deity-of-your-choice] forbid that anything in life should not be
deterministically predictable!), less amenable to deconstruction,
justification and control ... but to try and invalidate them as a
consequence is every bit as illogical as believing that they're totally
reliable. That's what we've got logical faculties for - to work with the
intuition, to ground it in material reality and understand it's relevance
and place in the scheme of things.

IMO presuming that "science" somehow has the answers to everything from a
materialistic perspective, or that homeopathy begins and ends with
Hahnemann, is every bit as pie-in-the-sky as thinking that the solution to
everything lies in the latest channelling from the Pleiades. We need to use
*all* our senses, *all* our skills, together, *in balance*, *without
prejudice* and to keep an open mind to the infinite possibilities for
learning that life strews generously across our paths every day of our
existence.

Happy holidays!

Regards
Wendy

[Marie Van Stokkum]

Dear Wendy,
Just wanted to let you know that I whole heartedly agree with what you just said. And you said it so well.

My perception is that some of us are so fearful that Homeopathy will be compromised/polluted by new information, that we dare not 'look' at anything else. I feel the need to build on the foundation we have received and incorporate that which works.

I believe we need to ask ourselves: What is more important, the client or the principle? What works? Do we dare to think that there are other modalities that do heal/cure?

Wendy puts it very nicely when she said there should be a balance. We are not asking anyone to make wild and illogical decisions, or incorporate those things which do not make sense and have no foundation. Just be open.

Perhaps it boils down to: Do we want to call ourselves Homeopaths and strictly stick to Homeopathic principles OR do we want to call our selves Facilitators in Healing and use that which works. Homeopathy works beautifully and sometimes miraculously; it is a noble art. (Thanks Sam). There are other 'ways' or modalities, which enhance and obtain a healing or a cure, independent of Homeopathy. I do honor and respect those who strictly want to stay in Homeopathy alone.

It is true that the owner of this list has the prerogative to limit the discussions of the members to one subject: Homeopathy, without implying any reflection of judgment on other modalities. I will honor that.
Yet, I still have the need to discuss 'anything' that would bring about a cure in the most elegant manner.
But I could satisfy that need on other lists.

Thanks for your post, Wendy.

Warmly,
Marie Van Stokkum.

'snip'
Yes, that's a commonly-expressed fear. However, without joining those
homeopaths for a tango or two, how can you properly evaluate what the
dancing's all about?

'snip'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dave Hartley]

Hello Marie,

Homeopathy as practised by the Founder also included good hygiene, dietary
considerations, and removal of obstacles to cure.

With this in mind, the practice of homeopathy today, by "a homeopath" - by
this I mean a person who has dedicated a number of years toward study of
homeopathy as *primary* healing art, and who is competent to practice..
constitutes one of the most far reaching and powerful healing modalities
available to humankind.

Partial dedication or partial commitment in study and beginning of practice
are likely to yield partial results.

I don't feel that it is right for you to piggyback your apparent "path" of
subordinating homeopathy (at least conceptually) in your practice to
"whatever works" onto Wendy's adjuration for us *as homeopaths* to balance
the objective, deductive, and intuitive facets of homeopathy.

Homeopathy in practice is rather difficult and complex, while homeopathy in
basic principle is reasonably simple.

If homeopathy as a discipline is to continue; to prosper; to grow in
service to humankind- it must remain true to its basic (and advanced)
principles. It must also be teachable and reproducible.

It is FAR, far easier for me to believe that in a given case with
unsatisfactory results, that the failure lies with the practitioner, rather
than with homeopathy.

Given this understanding, and the fact that discretion is the better part of
valor, it might be more appropriate to consult with another homeopath, or
refer the case -than to cast about for other modalities.

It is all too common to observe and to hear of "Facilitators in Healing" who
claim to "do homeopathy" -who are, in fact, pratically incompetent to do so.

If your path as a healer leads you toward other modalities rather than
deeper understanding of homeopathy, I suppose there is no wrong there- so
long as you are able to "OWN" the fact that it is not homeopathy which has
failed.. and especially- so long as you are not intent on re-making
homeopathy into the image of "whatever works" according to someone who has
better successes elsewhere.

I personally do appreciate your understanding of this list's topical focus..
Sincerely,

Dave Hartley
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Santa Cruz, CA (831)423-4284

[Bernie Simon]

"Wendy Howard" writes:
The word intuition means different things to different people. I don't
know what it means to you. But I don't care how practitioners arrive at
the remedy they prescribe. I care if they can justify their choice
afterwards. If they can't,the remedy was not chosen homeopathically.
Intuition and creativity first, but then justify your intuition in the
light of the Organon, OK?

--
Bernie Simon http://www.toad.net/~bsimon/