Hi Joe,
My point exactly. At a low dose it is digested or accommodated in the natural processes. At a higher dose it exerts it’s own action and changes from a food to a”medicine”, the use of which could still be palliative. For example it’s anti-inflammatory effect is just that – palliative. Of course with spices they can also have medicinal effects at low doses, if you think of how certain herbs such as gentian (the bitters) or ginger affect the digestive process by stimulating digestion. So they are not necessarily nutritive but encourage the digestive process which then helps to digest other foods. In that case they are actually allopathic in effect. (Refer Hahnemann’s definition of allopathy). The big difference is in a healthy individual they are not being used for a therapeutic effect. They are just used for improving taste and appetite.
We see that there are cautions to the overuse of spices and stimulants etc. in the diet, e.g. a Nux vom patient is craving these but it’s the result of his/hers Nux vom constitution that cannot digest correctly. Physiologically they often suffer digestive/liver problems. So it is important look holistically at the issue.
Regards,
Paul
We are all allopaths
-
Paul Booyse
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: We are all allopaths
Wrong – Firstly the remedy does not treat that which it has caused in crude form. that is Isopathy. Or Homopathy as Hahnemann called it. He has a whole rant about this – you should read it. Secondly the VF cannot cure the disturbance. The VF has come under control of the disturbance and only the simillimum can free it so that it operates in a healthy way. The VF is Hi-jacked, if you will.
Regards,
Paul
Oh yes it is. That is palliation (Contraria contrariis – treatment with opposites)
In Ayurveda the substance (food) is not diluted and potentized. In homeopathy, if someone is manifesting what sulfur would cause, we don't give them more sulfur. That would just make the problem worse. We give them a potentized and diluted form of sulfur, sort of a postcard into headquarters saying, "Hey, wake up and deal with the information I am telling you." But with food we cannot do this; you actually have to eat the food. Hot causes hot, dry causes dry in both systems. So instead of potentisation and dilution of homeopathy, Ayurveda just gives the opposite.
It is certainly not as elegant as homeopathy, but what are you going to do, stop eating? Since we have to eat anyway, we might as well try for balance.
For me, Ayurveda has been a God send, and it works very well for me. If I eat hot food, someone is going to pay. And I will be damned if I am going to ignore the importance and value of that. From my perspective, homeopathy and Ayurveda are 100% compatible, if you understand them. Curry is my favorite food and is dreadful on my temperament. I would not potentize and dilute a cucumber for my curry "illness". That would be telling my vital force, "hey, I'm too cold, get hotter." I would potentize and dilute actual curry and tell my innate, "hey, chill.".
Do you understand that? Your asking the question helped me get my thoughts together.
Sincerely,
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:46:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
How are you defining "allopathic"?
________________________________
Regards,
Paul
Oh yes it is. That is palliation (Contraria contrariis – treatment with opposites)
In Ayurveda the substance (food) is not diluted and potentized. In homeopathy, if someone is manifesting what sulfur would cause, we don't give them more sulfur. That would just make the problem worse. We give them a potentized and diluted form of sulfur, sort of a postcard into headquarters saying, "Hey, wake up and deal with the information I am telling you." But with food we cannot do this; you actually have to eat the food. Hot causes hot, dry causes dry in both systems. So instead of potentisation and dilution of homeopathy, Ayurveda just gives the opposite.
It is certainly not as elegant as homeopathy, but what are you going to do, stop eating? Since we have to eat anyway, we might as well try for balance.
For me, Ayurveda has been a God send, and it works very well for me. If I eat hot food, someone is going to pay. And I will be damned if I am going to ignore the importance and value of that. From my perspective, homeopathy and Ayurveda are 100% compatible, if you understand them. Curry is my favorite food and is dreadful on my temperament. I would not potentize and dilute a cucumber for my curry "illness". That would be telling my vital force, "hey, I'm too cold, get hotter." I would potentize and dilute actual curry and tell my innate, "hey, chill.".
Do you understand that? Your asking the question helped me get my thoughts together.
Sincerely,
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:46:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
How are you defining "allopathic"?
________________________________
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: We are all allopaths
I think Paul's given a pretty good set of explanations here, and Dr Joe has too, of distinctions between homeopathy and a few other approaches you're discussing, Roger.
There seem to me to be two utter certainties in your writing, Roger, that are unwarranted; and perhaps Dr Joe and Paul have, after all, something to teach you in relation to them. The first unfounded certainty is that a large dose of something exerting an effect that opposes a symptom is equivalent to a minute dose of something similar to the symptom. Actually, the former is neither homoeopathy nor allopathy but enantiopathy, treatment of a symptom by opposites, whereas the latter is treatment by a similar: not homoeopathy, since it addresses only a symptom, rather than an entire state, but, if you like, very partial homoeopathy. Both are liable to be suppressive, in their different ways, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
The second unfounded certainty, and Dr Joe and Paul have both addressed this more than adequately, is that food is equivalent to medicine. If I can add a small note that may help clarify what's already been said here, it is that the distinction between food as nutrition and food as medicine is not an arbitrary one. Whether ginger, or garlic, or onion is functioning nutritionally or medicinally depends merely on whether it is acting as part of the body's entire system requirements, maintaining homoeostasis, or whether it is acting to derange the organism's dynamic state.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar in entirety to the dynamic derangement already present, its primary action is to derange the vitality. Understanding this is essential to understanding homoeopathy. The homoeopathic medicine does not oppose; it does not correct; as with every medicine, it deranges. The after-effect of that homoeopathic derangement is correction toward a dynamically state, toward homoeostasis.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar only to a portion of the entirety of the pre-existing dynamic derangement, then the new pattern of derangement that it establishes is in large part unrelated; it is, for the most part, allopathic. The small part of such a pattern that happens to be similar to the pre-existing pattern may opportunistically be (temporarily) annihilated by the vitality, but its larger pattern, and the larger pattern of the pre-existing state, are not; and the symptom that disappears due to partial similarity will easily reassert itself until the ignorant repetition of the medicine in unchanged potency grafts the medicinal illness more firmly to the underlying one. The insight necessary to fully grasping this is that both the original symptom and the similar medicinal symptom are not static but dynamic derangements from normal function; it is due to their dynamic nature as merely a part of larger dynamic patterns that, albeit they disappear from view, they do not in reality cease dynamic operation.
When a substance's medicinal action partially opposes the pre-existing condition -- that is, when it opposes a symptom -- then of course, in this light, its action is easier to understand, and the vitality's rejection of that additional burden is equally easy to understand.
And there is not, to my knowledge, any example of a medicine that wholly opposes an entire state; and I don't believe it would be possible to find one.
With these clues, it's easy to see that a "hot" or "cold" or "wet" or "dry" food does not necessarily a medicine make; that only when its function exceeds requirements and begins to have the power to actively alter normal function -- to derange, either oppositely, similarly, or entirely differently from an existing function -- does it act medicinally.
Cheers --
John
________________________________
________________________________
There seem to me to be two utter certainties in your writing, Roger, that are unwarranted; and perhaps Dr Joe and Paul have, after all, something to teach you in relation to them. The first unfounded certainty is that a large dose of something exerting an effect that opposes a symptom is equivalent to a minute dose of something similar to the symptom. Actually, the former is neither homoeopathy nor allopathy but enantiopathy, treatment of a symptom by opposites, whereas the latter is treatment by a similar: not homoeopathy, since it addresses only a symptom, rather than an entire state, but, if you like, very partial homoeopathy. Both are liable to be suppressive, in their different ways, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
The second unfounded certainty, and Dr Joe and Paul have both addressed this more than adequately, is that food is equivalent to medicine. If I can add a small note that may help clarify what's already been said here, it is that the distinction between food as nutrition and food as medicine is not an arbitrary one. Whether ginger, or garlic, or onion is functioning nutritionally or medicinally depends merely on whether it is acting as part of the body's entire system requirements, maintaining homoeostasis, or whether it is acting to derange the organism's dynamic state.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar in entirety to the dynamic derangement already present, its primary action is to derange the vitality. Understanding this is essential to understanding homoeopathy. The homoeopathic medicine does not oppose; it does not correct; as with every medicine, it deranges. The after-effect of that homoeopathic derangement is correction toward a dynamically state, toward homoeostasis.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar only to a portion of the entirety of the pre-existing dynamic derangement, then the new pattern of derangement that it establishes is in large part unrelated; it is, for the most part, allopathic. The small part of such a pattern that happens to be similar to the pre-existing pattern may opportunistically be (temporarily) annihilated by the vitality, but its larger pattern, and the larger pattern of the pre-existing state, are not; and the symptom that disappears due to partial similarity will easily reassert itself until the ignorant repetition of the medicine in unchanged potency grafts the medicinal illness more firmly to the underlying one. The insight necessary to fully grasping this is that both the original symptom and the similar medicinal symptom are not static but dynamic derangements from normal function; it is due to their dynamic nature as merely a part of larger dynamic patterns that, albeit they disappear from view, they do not in reality cease dynamic operation.
When a substance's medicinal action partially opposes the pre-existing condition -- that is, when it opposes a symptom -- then of course, in this light, its action is easier to understand, and the vitality's rejection of that additional burden is equally easy to understand.
And there is not, to my knowledge, any example of a medicine that wholly opposes an entire state; and I don't believe it would be possible to find one.
With these clues, it's easy to see that a "hot" or "cold" or "wet" or "dry" food does not necessarily a medicine make; that only when its function exceeds requirements and begins to have the power to actively alter normal function -- to derange, either oppositely, similarly, or entirely differently from an existing function -- does it act medicinally.
Cheers --
John
________________________________
________________________________
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: We are all allopaths
It doesn't have to be diluted and potentized; can also simply be in much smaller amount, or in a form that has similarity in other ways.
Hahnemann gives various examples in Intro to Organon, and these have been used to good effect by others. E.g.: sad music is homeopathic to grief etc.; cold (judicious, not excessive!) to frostbite, and heat (same caveat) to burns -- I think you will find it interesting to read.
And at the time he wrote his First ed of the Organon, he had not yet discovered the process of potentization, and was simply using small doses. Today, parts of herbalism work that way, homeopathic application of crude doses of herb.
Just for interest.
Actually that would be more "allo" / different. (And as Joe pointed out, the effect is palliative rather than curative.)
Treating overheating with something *hot* would be homeopathic (tho also not apt to be curative) -- and that is sometimes done also, e.g. the way traditional Mexican or Indian diets (hot climate) are spicy; and people do drink hot tea in hot weather. Or a hot bath to make a hot day feel cooler.
But Roger, yes we do!
Or rather, we *might*. If we give it because of an assumed sulfur overdose, then we are technically using isopathy (same-suffering) rather than homeopathy (similar-suffering).
But if we give sulfur because they have *symptoms* that are similar to what sulfur overdose might cause, then that is indeed homeopathy!
Only if given again in overdose; not if given in appropriate tiny and/or potentized dose.
Another traditional discovery / application of like-cures-like, is the idea of the "hair of the dog that bit you" -- relieving hangover by taking a SMALL amount of the stuff that got you there.
With the emphasis on *small* -- not just re-creating the prior night's bender.
If someone's physiology is reacting in extreme to *foods* -- including spices, heat, etc. -- then their homeostatic processes are not working as well as they ought to be. That will make a useful homeopathic "prescribing symptom" -- and that will be one of the "susceptibilities" / sensitivities that we would like to see reduced by good treatment.
In a state of balance and health, you *should* be able to eat hot foods, and still keep balance.
That said, for some people, some stressors simply hit too deeply for them, and they should make a practice of simply avoiding those things. Perhaps hot food is in that category for you -- but I would think more likely not.
When a person continues e.g. eating something that disrupts them significantly, and when that stressor is strong enough to interfere with their ability to heal, it is referred to as a "maintaining cause". Poor lifestyle and dietary choices can easily fall into that category (for some people), and that is why Hahnemann does write at some length about dietary and lifestyle issues. Not all of which will be significant for all patients, but which are necessary for the prescriber to be aware of, so we can counsel about it as needed.
I agree with you that Ayurveda is wonderful! And it goes far beyond dietary advice…
Nope you should absolutely be aware of which foods help and hurt you, and eat accordingly! Hahnemann would definitely agree.
Again I completely agree -- they are compatible, and they are also different.
Well probably not curry *itself*, because that will have its own full, broad prescribing picture, including other generals, including menials, including idiosyncrasies -- and it is unlikely that your full picture matches curry's full picture…
But generally speaking yes, an overheated condition would be treated by potentized version of something that can cause heat.
So, to summarize my thoughts on this -- application of opposites and application of similars both have their place. When using opposites (e.g. cold food to counter an overheated state), the effect is more palliative -- does not cure the deeper state, but can restore balance in the moment.
When using application of similar (homeopathy - whether potentized or not), more care is needed, and a different type of thinking. E.g. appropriate dosage can be critical, so that it is *helping* the physiology to identify and overcome the problem, not simply adding to the insult. Hence the *tiny* doses of homeopathy (and the tininess is enhanced by potentization); and if using heat to cure a burn (as Hahnemann describes), it has to be carefully and appropriately limited, not to simply do more damage. Etc.
Both have their place -- treatment by opposites and treatment by similars; but the latter carries the potential for deeper and more efficient healing.
Interested in your thoughts, whether that makes sense to you?
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
Hahnemann gives various examples in Intro to Organon, and these have been used to good effect by others. E.g.: sad music is homeopathic to grief etc.; cold (judicious, not excessive!) to frostbite, and heat (same caveat) to burns -- I think you will find it interesting to read.
And at the time he wrote his First ed of the Organon, he had not yet discovered the process of potentization, and was simply using small doses. Today, parts of herbalism work that way, homeopathic application of crude doses of herb.
Just for interest.
Actually that would be more "allo" / different. (And as Joe pointed out, the effect is palliative rather than curative.)
Treating overheating with something *hot* would be homeopathic (tho also not apt to be curative) -- and that is sometimes done also, e.g. the way traditional Mexican or Indian diets (hot climate) are spicy; and people do drink hot tea in hot weather. Or a hot bath to make a hot day feel cooler.
But Roger, yes we do!
Or rather, we *might*. If we give it because of an assumed sulfur overdose, then we are technically using isopathy (same-suffering) rather than homeopathy (similar-suffering).
But if we give sulfur because they have *symptoms* that are similar to what sulfur overdose might cause, then that is indeed homeopathy!
Only if given again in overdose; not if given in appropriate tiny and/or potentized dose.
Another traditional discovery / application of like-cures-like, is the idea of the "hair of the dog that bit you" -- relieving hangover by taking a SMALL amount of the stuff that got you there.
With the emphasis on *small* -- not just re-creating the prior night's bender.
If someone's physiology is reacting in extreme to *foods* -- including spices, heat, etc. -- then their homeostatic processes are not working as well as they ought to be. That will make a useful homeopathic "prescribing symptom" -- and that will be one of the "susceptibilities" / sensitivities that we would like to see reduced by good treatment.
In a state of balance and health, you *should* be able to eat hot foods, and still keep balance.
That said, for some people, some stressors simply hit too deeply for them, and they should make a practice of simply avoiding those things. Perhaps hot food is in that category for you -- but I would think more likely not.
When a person continues e.g. eating something that disrupts them significantly, and when that stressor is strong enough to interfere with their ability to heal, it is referred to as a "maintaining cause". Poor lifestyle and dietary choices can easily fall into that category (for some people), and that is why Hahnemann does write at some length about dietary and lifestyle issues. Not all of which will be significant for all patients, but which are necessary for the prescriber to be aware of, so we can counsel about it as needed.
I agree with you that Ayurveda is wonderful! And it goes far beyond dietary advice…
Nope you should absolutely be aware of which foods help and hurt you, and eat accordingly! Hahnemann would definitely agree.
Again I completely agree -- they are compatible, and they are also different.
Well probably not curry *itself*, because that will have its own full, broad prescribing picture, including other generals, including menials, including idiosyncrasies -- and it is unlikely that your full picture matches curry's full picture…
But generally speaking yes, an overheated condition would be treated by potentized version of something that can cause heat.
So, to summarize my thoughts on this -- application of opposites and application of similars both have their place. When using opposites (e.g. cold food to counter an overheated state), the effect is more palliative -- does not cure the deeper state, but can restore balance in the moment.
When using application of similar (homeopathy - whether potentized or not), more care is needed, and a different type of thinking. E.g. appropriate dosage can be critical, so that it is *helping* the physiology to identify and overcome the problem, not simply adding to the insult. Hence the *tiny* doses of homeopathy (and the tininess is enhanced by potentization); and if using heat to cure a burn (as Hahnemann describes), it has to be carefully and appropriately limited, not to simply do more damage. Etc.
Both have their place -- treatment by opposites and treatment by similars; but the latter carries the potential for deeper and more efficient healing.
Interested in your thoughts, whether that makes sense to you?
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
Re: We are all allopaths
Dear Paul,
Your comment below may be what homeopathic theory says. Remember that Hahnemann, Hering, Kent would not have been aware of ayurvedic ideas, just as Hahnemann was not aware of the germ theory and could not have built his miasm theory to fit the very real experience of seeing germs in a microscope. I cannot say of my own experience that avoiding hot spicy foods and eating cucumber like cold foods would eventually put me into balance permanently. So, I am arguing from theory on this point, as are you. I can say that the effect is not just my disposition. It affects my entire tendency to become inflamed, my sleep, and probably other things that I don't remember. Any hot food will do to me what Ayurveda says it will, given my dosha.
So, my only two arguments are deductive, and Ayurvedic theory is one of them. Upon re-reading my text here, I have to confess that I do not remember Ayurveda saying that their balancing would be permanent. I am a jack of many trades, and not a master of Ayurveda. Perhaps being honest with myself is one of my masteries. So, now I am down to one deductive idea, which is . . . .
The other deductive argument is, if you will, imagine a statue made out of hot curry powder, jalapeños for the eyes, a big hot chili pepper for the nose, etc . Now, let God breath life into that statue. Don't you think that that living statue would be prone to flipping out with rage at the least provocation? This is what food is. Of course my picture is an extreme exaggeration, to make a point. We become what we eat to a very large extent. I don't eat so much curry that I will become a statue of curry powder; I eat very little hot food because of this my tendency toward rages and inflammation.
The good news is that homeopathy will correct this imbalance. So, the bad news is that I may never know of my own experience that Ayurvedic dosha balancing is permanent.
Thank you for you kind attention.
Sincerely,
Roger Bird
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:23:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
Hi Roger,
By staying away from a stressor, such as hot foods, you minimize the manifestations of the diseased state. But the inherent vulnerability, the constitution, or in Hahnemann terms the chronic miasm remains and will still be apparent in other areas of health until it results in the death of the individual (if a bus doesn’t hit them). This is the problem with segregating individual parts. you can’t just look at “worse form hot foods” and modify their lifestyle. Holistically, it is part of their overall imbalance and a lifestyle modification may make them feel better without changing their constitution.
regards,
Paul
Your comment below may be what homeopathic theory says. Remember that Hahnemann, Hering, Kent would not have been aware of ayurvedic ideas, just as Hahnemann was not aware of the germ theory and could not have built his miasm theory to fit the very real experience of seeing germs in a microscope. I cannot say of my own experience that avoiding hot spicy foods and eating cucumber like cold foods would eventually put me into balance permanently. So, I am arguing from theory on this point, as are you. I can say that the effect is not just my disposition. It affects my entire tendency to become inflamed, my sleep, and probably other things that I don't remember. Any hot food will do to me what Ayurveda says it will, given my dosha.
So, my only two arguments are deductive, and Ayurvedic theory is one of them. Upon re-reading my text here, I have to confess that I do not remember Ayurveda saying that their balancing would be permanent. I am a jack of many trades, and not a master of Ayurveda. Perhaps being honest with myself is one of my masteries. So, now I am down to one deductive idea, which is . . . .
The other deductive argument is, if you will, imagine a statue made out of hot curry powder, jalapeños for the eyes, a big hot chili pepper for the nose, etc . Now, let God breath life into that statue. Don't you think that that living statue would be prone to flipping out with rage at the least provocation? This is what food is. Of course my picture is an extreme exaggeration, to make a point. We become what we eat to a very large extent. I don't eat so much curry that I will become a statue of curry powder; I eat very little hot food because of this my tendency toward rages and inflammation.
The good news is that homeopathy will correct this imbalance. So, the bad news is that I may never know of my own experience that Ayurvedic dosha balancing is permanent.
Thank you for you kind attention.
Sincerely,
Roger Bird
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:23:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
Hi Roger,
By staying away from a stressor, such as hot foods, you minimize the manifestations of the diseased state. But the inherent vulnerability, the constitution, or in Hahnemann terms the chronic miasm remains and will still be apparent in other areas of health until it results in the death of the individual (if a bus doesn’t hit them). This is the problem with segregating individual parts. you can’t just look at “worse form hot foods” and modify their lifestyle. Holistically, it is part of their overall imbalance and a lifestyle modification may make them feel better without changing their constitution.
regards,
Paul
Re: We are all allopaths
Dear Paul,
Please tell me more about the hijacking of the VF. And more about how homeopathy undoes that hijacking. (:->)
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:48:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
Wrong – Firstly the remedy does not treat that which it has caused in crude form. that is Isopathy. Or Homopathy as Hahnemann called it. He has a whole rant about this – you should read it. Secondly the VF cannot cure the disturbance. The VF has come under control of the disturbance and only the simillimum can free it so that it operates in a healthy way. The VF is Hi-jacked, if you will.
Regards,
Paul
Please tell me more about the hijacking of the VF. And more about how homeopathy undoes that hijacking. (:->)
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: pb000014@mweb.co.za
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:48:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
Wrong – Firstly the remedy does not treat that which it has caused in crude form. that is Isopathy. Or Homopathy as Hahnemann called it. He has a whole rant about this – you should read it. Secondly the VF cannot cure the disturbance. The VF has come under control of the disturbance and only the simillimum can free it so that it operates in a healthy way. The VF is Hi-jacked, if you will.
Regards,
Paul
Re: We are all allopaths
John, I want you to know that I read your whole missive, twice, very carefully.
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:38:35 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
I think Paul's given a pretty good set of explanations here, and Dr Joe has too, of distinctions between homeopathy and a few other approaches you're discussing, Roger.
There seem to me to be two utter certainties in your writing, Roger, that are unwarranted; and perhaps Dr Joe and Paul have, after all, something to teach you in relation to them. The first unfounded certainty is that a large dose of something exerting an effect that opposes a symptom is equivalent to a minute dose of something similar to the symptom. Actually, the former is neither homoeopathy nor allopathy but enantiopathy, treatment of a symptom by opposites, whereas the latter is treatment by a similar: not homoeopathy, since it addresses only a symptom, rather than an entire state, but, if you like, very partial homoeopathy. Both are liable to be suppressive, in their different ways, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
The second unfounded certainty, and Dr Joe and Paul have both addressed this more than adequately, is that food is equivalent to medicine. If I can add a small note that may help clarify what's already been said here, it is that the distinction between food as nutrition and food as medicine is not an arbitrary one. Whether ginger, or garlic, or onion is functioning nutritionally or medicinally depends merely on whether it is acting as part of the body's entire system requirements, maintaining homoeostasis, or whether it is acting to derange the organism's dynamic state.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar in entirety to the dynamic derangement already present, its primary action is to derange the vitality. Understanding this is essential to understanding homoeopathy. The homoeopathic medicine does not oppose; it does not correct; as with every medicine, it deranges. The after-effect of that homoeopathic derangement is correction toward a dynamically state, toward homoeostasis.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar only to a portion of the entirety of the pre-existing dynamic derangement, then the new pattern of derangement that it establishes is in large part unrelated; it is, for the most part, allopathic. The small part of such a pattern that happens to be similar to the pre-existing pattern may opportunistically be (temporarily) annihilated by the vitality, but its larger pattern, and the larger pattern of the pre-existing state, are not; and the symptom that disappears due to partial similarity will easily reassert itself until the ignorant repetition of the medicine in unchanged potency grafts the medicinal illness more firmly to the underlying one. The insight necessary to fully grasping this is that both the original symptom and the similar medicinal symptom are not static but dynamic derangements from normal function; it is due to their dynamic nature as merely a part of larger dynamic patterns that, albeit they disappear from view, they do not in reality cease dynamic operation.
When a substance's medicinal action partially opposes the pre-existing condition -- that is, when it opposes a symptom -- then of course, in this light, its action is easier to understand, and the vitality's rejection of that additional burden is equally easy to understand.
And there is not, to my knowledge, any example of a medicine that wholly opposes an entire state; and I don't believe it would be possible to find one.
With these clues, it's easy to see that a "hot" or "cold" or "wet" or "dry" food does not necessarily a medicine make; that only when its function exceeds requirements and begins to have the power to actively alter normal function -- to derange, either oppositely, similarly, or entirely differently from an existing function -- does it act medicinally.
Cheers --
John
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:38:35 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
I think Paul's given a pretty good set of explanations here, and Dr Joe has too, of distinctions between homeopathy and a few other approaches you're discussing, Roger.
There seem to me to be two utter certainties in your writing, Roger, that are unwarranted; and perhaps Dr Joe and Paul have, after all, something to teach you in relation to them. The first unfounded certainty is that a large dose of something exerting an effect that opposes a symptom is equivalent to a minute dose of something similar to the symptom. Actually, the former is neither homoeopathy nor allopathy but enantiopathy, treatment of a symptom by opposites, whereas the latter is treatment by a similar: not homoeopathy, since it addresses only a symptom, rather than an entire state, but, if you like, very partial homoeopathy. Both are liable to be suppressive, in their different ways, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
The second unfounded certainty, and Dr Joe and Paul have both addressed this more than adequately, is that food is equivalent to medicine. If I can add a small note that may help clarify what's already been said here, it is that the distinction between food as nutrition and food as medicine is not an arbitrary one. Whether ginger, or garlic, or onion is functioning nutritionally or medicinally depends merely on whether it is acting as part of the body's entire system requirements, maintaining homoeostasis, or whether it is acting to derange the organism's dynamic state.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar in entirety to the dynamic derangement already present, its primary action is to derange the vitality. Understanding this is essential to understanding homoeopathy. The homoeopathic medicine does not oppose; it does not correct; as with every medicine, it deranges. The after-effect of that homoeopathic derangement is correction toward a dynamically state, toward homoeostasis.
When a substance's medicinal action is similar only to a portion of the entirety of the pre-existing dynamic derangement, then the new pattern of derangement that it establishes is in large part unrelated; it is, for the most part, allopathic. The small part of such a pattern that happens to be similar to the pre-existing pattern may opportunistically be (temporarily) annihilated by the vitality, but its larger pattern, and the larger pattern of the pre-existing state, are not; and the symptom that disappears due to partial similarity will easily reassert itself until the ignorant repetition of the medicine in unchanged potency grafts the medicinal illness more firmly to the underlying one. The insight necessary to fully grasping this is that both the original symptom and the similar medicinal symptom are not static but dynamic derangements from normal function; it is due to their dynamic nature as merely a part of larger dynamic patterns that, albeit they disappear from view, they do not in reality cease dynamic operation.
When a substance's medicinal action partially opposes the pre-existing condition -- that is, when it opposes a symptom -- then of course, in this light, its action is easier to understand, and the vitality's rejection of that additional burden is equally easy to understand.
And there is not, to my knowledge, any example of a medicine that wholly opposes an entire state; and I don't believe it would be possible to find one.
With these clues, it's easy to see that a "hot" or "cold" or "wet" or "dry" food does not necessarily a medicine make; that only when its function exceeds requirements and begins to have the power to actively alter normal function -- to derange, either oppositely, similarly, or entirely differently from an existing function -- does it act medicinally.
Cheers --
John
Re: We are all allopaths
Shannon, thank you so much for your explanation. As a reward for all of you who have been so helpful, I give to you the knowledge of the composer Marin Marais, May 31, 1656 to August 15, 1728. With this knowledge, you can enjoy his music, which for me, is an obsession. I have not been aware of him until after 57 years of being a classical music fan. You can start your soul remediation at: .
But getting to your post, I am very keen about your implying that my hot temperament is a derangement that can be benefited by homeopathy. If it was not a derangement, then I guess it could not be corrected.
A very strange thing about me that I have discovered just recently is that I fear nothing. In some cases this is bragging. But in other cases, it is clearly dysfunctional. I don't recall in reading homeopathy that someone being without fear was a symptom of derangement. I once had a cobra, the deadly animal with toxin delivering fangs, coming at me, within INCHES of my hand, and I did not move but merely looked at it. The keeper quickly snatched the animal away from me. I am still here. I once voluntarily confronted in a very tense situation a person whose job I was pretty certain was to kill people for the United State Army. He was no desk clerk, that was for sure. I can give other examples. I see this when my wife reminds me that it is safer to pull through when parking so that when leaving one can drive forward rather than having to pull out backwards (very unsafe). I once did a little survey to see how many people pull through vs. not pull through. I discovered that most people pull through when possible and that I was being dysfunctional: doing something unsafe and unnecessary because I was not in touch with my anxiety. Is this a real symptom of derangement and or a homeopathic symptom?
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:57:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
It doesn't have to be diluted and potentized; can also simply be in much smaller amount, or in a form that has similarity in other ways.
Hahnemann gives various examples in Intro to Organon, and these have been used to good effect by others. E.g.: sad music is homeopathic to grief etc.; cold (judicious, not excessive!) to frostbite, and heat (same caveat) to burns -- I think you will find it interesting to read.
And at the time he wrote his First ed of the Organon, he had not yet discovered the process of potentization, and was simply using small doses. Today, parts of herbalism work that way, homeopathic application of crude doses of herb.
Just for interest.
Actually that would be more "allo" / different. (And as Joe pointed out, the effect is palliative rather than curative.)
Treating overheating with something *hot* would be homeopathic (tho also not apt to be curative) -- and that is sometimes done also, e.g. the way traditional Mexican or Indian diets (hot climate) are spicy; and people do drink hot tea in hot weather. Or a hot bath to make a hot day feel cooler.
But Roger, yes we do!
Or rather, we *might*. If we give it because of an assumed sulfur overdose, then we are technically using isopathy (same-suffering) rather than homeopathy (similar-suffering).
But if we give sulfur because they have *symptoms* that are similar to what sulfur overdose might cause, then that is indeed homeopathy!
Only if given again in overdose; not if given in appropriate tiny and/or potentized dose.
Another traditional discovery / application of like-cures-like, is the idea of the "hair of the dog that bit you" -- relieving hangover by taking a SMALL amount of the stuff that got you there.
With the emphasis on *small* -- not just re-creating the prior night's bender.
If someone's physiology is reacting in extreme to *foods* -- including spices, heat, etc. -- then their homeostatic processes are not working as well as they ought to be. That will make a useful homeopathic "prescribing symptom" -- and that will be one of the "susceptibilities" / sensitivities that we would like to see reduced by good treatment.
In a state of balance and health, you *should* be able to eat hot foods, and still keep balance.
That said, for some people, some stressors simply hit too deeply for them, and they should make a practice of simply avoiding those things. Perhaps hot food is in that category for you -- but I would think more likely not.
When a person continues e.g. eating something that disrupts them significantly, and when that stressor is strong enough to interfere with their ability to heal, it is referred to as a "maintaining cause". Poor lifestyle and dietary choices can easily fall into that category (for some people), and that is why Hahnemann does write at some length about dietary and lifestyle issues. Not all of which will be significant for all patients, but which are necessary for the prescriber to be aware of, so we can counsel about it as needed.
I agree with you that Ayurveda is wonderful! And it goes far beyond dietary advice…
Nope you should absolutely be aware of which foods help and hurt you, and eat accordingly! Hahnemann would definitely agree.
Again I completely agree -- they are compatible, and they are also different.
Well probably not curry *itself*, because that will have its own full, broad prescribing picture, including other generals, including menials, including idiosyncrasies -- and it is unlikely that your full picture matches curry's full picture…
But generally speaking yes, an overheated condition would be treated by potentized version of something that can cause heat.
So, to summarize my thoughts on this -- application of opposites and application of similars both have their place. When using opposites (e.g. cold food to counter an overheated state), the effect is more palliative -- does not cure the deeper state, but can restore balance in the moment.
When using application of similar (homeopathy - whether potentized or not), more care is needed, and a different type of thinking. E.g. appropriate dosage can be critical, so that it is *helping* the physiology to identify and overcome the problem, not simply adding to the insult. Hence the *tiny* doses of homeopathy (and the tininess is enhanced by potentization); and if using heat to cure a burn (as Hahnemann describes), it has to be carefully and appropriately limited, not to simply do more damage. Etc.
Both have their place -- treatment by opposites and treatment by similars; but the latter carries the potential for deeper and more efficient healing.
Interested in your thoughts, whether that makes sense to you?
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
But getting to your post, I am very keen about your implying that my hot temperament is a derangement that can be benefited by homeopathy. If it was not a derangement, then I guess it could not be corrected.
A very strange thing about me that I have discovered just recently is that I fear nothing. In some cases this is bragging. But in other cases, it is clearly dysfunctional. I don't recall in reading homeopathy that someone being without fear was a symptom of derangement. I once had a cobra, the deadly animal with toxin delivering fangs, coming at me, within INCHES of my hand, and I did not move but merely looked at it. The keeper quickly snatched the animal away from me. I am still here. I once voluntarily confronted in a very tense situation a person whose job I was pretty certain was to kill people for the United State Army. He was no desk clerk, that was for sure. I can give other examples. I see this when my wife reminds me that it is safer to pull through when parking so that when leaving one can drive forward rather than having to pull out backwards (very unsafe). I once did a little survey to see how many people pull through vs. not pull through. I discovered that most people pull through when possible and that I was being dysfunctional: doing something unsafe and unnecessary because I was not in touch with my anxiety. Is this a real symptom of derangement and or a homeopathic symptom?
Roger
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 08:57:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] We are all allopaths
It doesn't have to be diluted and potentized; can also simply be in much smaller amount, or in a form that has similarity in other ways.
Hahnemann gives various examples in Intro to Organon, and these have been used to good effect by others. E.g.: sad music is homeopathic to grief etc.; cold (judicious, not excessive!) to frostbite, and heat (same caveat) to burns -- I think you will find it interesting to read.
And at the time he wrote his First ed of the Organon, he had not yet discovered the process of potentization, and was simply using small doses. Today, parts of herbalism work that way, homeopathic application of crude doses of herb.
Just for interest.
Actually that would be more "allo" / different. (And as Joe pointed out, the effect is palliative rather than curative.)
Treating overheating with something *hot* would be homeopathic (tho also not apt to be curative) -- and that is sometimes done also, e.g. the way traditional Mexican or Indian diets (hot climate) are spicy; and people do drink hot tea in hot weather. Or a hot bath to make a hot day feel cooler.
But Roger, yes we do!
Or rather, we *might*. If we give it because of an assumed sulfur overdose, then we are technically using isopathy (same-suffering) rather than homeopathy (similar-suffering).
But if we give sulfur because they have *symptoms* that are similar to what sulfur overdose might cause, then that is indeed homeopathy!
Only if given again in overdose; not if given in appropriate tiny and/or potentized dose.
Another traditional discovery / application of like-cures-like, is the idea of the "hair of the dog that bit you" -- relieving hangover by taking a SMALL amount of the stuff that got you there.
With the emphasis on *small* -- not just re-creating the prior night's bender.
If someone's physiology is reacting in extreme to *foods* -- including spices, heat, etc. -- then their homeostatic processes are not working as well as they ought to be. That will make a useful homeopathic "prescribing symptom" -- and that will be one of the "susceptibilities" / sensitivities that we would like to see reduced by good treatment.
In a state of balance and health, you *should* be able to eat hot foods, and still keep balance.
That said, for some people, some stressors simply hit too deeply for them, and they should make a practice of simply avoiding those things. Perhaps hot food is in that category for you -- but I would think more likely not.
When a person continues e.g. eating something that disrupts them significantly, and when that stressor is strong enough to interfere with their ability to heal, it is referred to as a "maintaining cause". Poor lifestyle and dietary choices can easily fall into that category (for some people), and that is why Hahnemann does write at some length about dietary and lifestyle issues. Not all of which will be significant for all patients, but which are necessary for the prescriber to be aware of, so we can counsel about it as needed.
I agree with you that Ayurveda is wonderful! And it goes far beyond dietary advice…
Nope you should absolutely be aware of which foods help and hurt you, and eat accordingly! Hahnemann would definitely agree.
Again I completely agree -- they are compatible, and they are also different.
Well probably not curry *itself*, because that will have its own full, broad prescribing picture, including other generals, including menials, including idiosyncrasies -- and it is unlikely that your full picture matches curry's full picture…
But generally speaking yes, an overheated condition would be treated by potentized version of something that can cause heat.
So, to summarize my thoughts on this -- application of opposites and application of similars both have their place. When using opposites (e.g. cold food to counter an overheated state), the effect is more palliative -- does not cure the deeper state, but can restore balance in the moment.
When using application of similar (homeopathy - whether potentized or not), more care is needed, and a different type of thinking. E.g. appropriate dosage can be critical, so that it is *helping* the physiology to identify and overcome the problem, not simply adding to the insult. Hence the *tiny* doses of homeopathy (and the tininess is enhanced by potentization); and if using heat to cure a burn (as Hahnemann describes), it has to be carefully and appropriately limited, not to simply do more damage. Etc.
Both have their place -- treatment by opposites and treatment by similars; but the latter carries the potential for deeper and more efficient healing.
Interested in your thoughts, whether that makes sense to you?
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: We are all allopaths
Thank you for the music! I look forward to hearing it this evening.
Exactly true.
I didn't call it a "derangement", but rather a "susceptibility" or sensitivity. I'm not sure that's really the same thing, tho maybe not Important for this issue…
The idea that you are "susceptible" to hot foods, is supported by your statements that if you eat them, "somebody better watch out", is that the way you put it? You have said that they throw you off form; that's pretty much a definition of a sensitivity / susceptibility, no?
Some susceptibilities are correctible, and others are not. E.g. was it Paul's example of Gamma rays? We are *all* susceptible to *some* things! And some of us are susceptible to things that others are not, or even that others *need*.
I don't follow your car example (what is unsafe about pulling through? I do it because backing up is marginally more of a nuisance, but no big deal either way…). But for the rest, there are actually a few remedies where "fearlessness" is one of the features. It would only be considered out-of-balance if it is *excessive* or out of the person's control, or causes problems. Your case might quality, or might not, I can't tell. Same with e.g. desire for sweets; *some* desire for sweets is completely consistent with good health, and not likely to change after the remedy. But in some people it is excessive, and leads to unhealthy choices, or illness, etc.
But in any case, a trait would be changed by homeopathy *only* to the extent that it had been excessive or out-of-balance; otherwise it would not change. Just as e.g. coloration may (in some cases) be used as a prescribing symptom BUT would not be expected to change after the remedy.
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Exactly true.
I didn't call it a "derangement", but rather a "susceptibility" or sensitivity. I'm not sure that's really the same thing, tho maybe not Important for this issue…
The idea that you are "susceptible" to hot foods, is supported by your statements that if you eat them, "somebody better watch out", is that the way you put it?
You have said that they throw you off form; that's pretty much a definition of a sensitivity / susceptibility, no? Some susceptibilities are correctible, and others are not. E.g. was it Paul's example of Gamma rays? We are *all* susceptible to *some* things! And some of us are susceptible to things that others are not, or even that others *need*.
I don't follow your car example (what is unsafe about pulling through? I do it because backing up is marginally more of a nuisance, but no big deal either way…). But for the rest, there are actually a few remedies where "fearlessness" is one of the features. It would only be considered out-of-balance if it is *excessive* or out of the person's control, or causes problems. Your case might quality, or might not, I can't tell. Same with e.g. desire for sweets; *some* desire for sweets is completely consistent with good health, and not likely to change after the remedy. But in some people it is excessive, and leads to unhealthy choices, or illness, etc.
But in any case, a trait would be changed by homeopathy *only* to the extent that it had been excessive or out-of-balance; otherwise it would not change. Just as e.g. coloration may (in some cases) be used as a prescribing symptom BUT would not be expected to change after the remedy.
Shannon
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: We are all allopaths
That was kind of you to let me know, Roger; thank you.
Cheers!
John
________________________________
Cheers!
John
________________________________