#3
'Similia Simillibus Curentur' cannot be specifically considered as the basic principle of homeopathic approach, as it conveys no clear definition of what 'similarity' implies. Its superlative form, simillimum, still carries the same deep ambiguity. Hahnemann narrowed his take of the similarity by explicitly and implicitly excluding some forms of similarity; some forms that still persist as a principle for many homeopathy practitioners. I will later explain what I mean by 'implicit exclusion' (this one is a very complicated issue). One of the explicit exclusions was 'Doctrine of signatures' which is still, in new modified forms, the basic treating principle of some contemporary homeopathy masters. The reason of exclusion of Doctrine of signatures by Hahnemann was the unempirical and merely speculative nature of it. I am not refuting these approaches but they are not based on the simillimum principle as defined in the experimental Homeopathy, the way it was born, and therefore not eligible to be named Homeopathy.
Kind regards,
Ardavan Shahrdar
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ardavan- ... 2103925737
Minutus website will be uploaded with a new URL soon
Post 3
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
I agree.
It is not a clearly defined principle but a relatively vague definition of a technique. Tehniques do not have fixed definitions.
My view is that the principle of the Law of Similars - a natural law nobody can change - is invoked by a true homeopathic event, and as such is a better basis for a definition.
This is an inviolable principle/law seen at least since (that we know of) Hippocrates mentioned it in about 400BC, and it has been independently observed and recorded by many others since then.
As that is a law of nature, unchangeable, and cannot be invoked, or would not be invoked, by any non-homeopathic similarity, perhaps that is a stronger basis for our definition/test of what is homeopathy - or at least for the homeopathic principle behind the term "Similia SIillibus Curentur".
Since Hahnmann himself coined the very word "homeopathy", should it not be his definition that holds sway over any arguable inclusions/exclusions, (such as Doctrine of signatures)? If Doctrine of Signatures fails to invoke the Law of Similars, how can it be called "homeopathy"? To me, the term "homeopathy" and the term "Law of Similars" are married without possibility of divorce:-)
It is a shaky idea (in principle) to equate experimental findings with a natural law such as Law of SImilars. The latter is much stronger. One can always inadvertently omit some valid option in any experimental development, but not so in a natural law. The natural law will always apply where it is supposed to apply; it cannot be mani[pulated by experiments or by man. Is it not better to base our sinece on the Natural Law more than the initial experiments, which while valid are not provably complete as a set of homeopathy options.
I think we have troubled waters, if we try to define the simillimum too closely rather than insisting upon the Law of Similars being shown to be invoked (Doctrine of signatures can not show this to my knowledge?) - so that in the future when we know more, or if some new opportunity or event is discovered that MAY be homeopathic, or is claimed homeopathic, we have the best test for it, namely: We could decide what does and what does not behave in a truly homeoapthic way according to whether the Law of Similars is invoked, and we can thus better define which things come under homeopathy (and simillimum by extension) and which not?
Meantime the *principle* that "it" must invoke the Law of Similars, is a fixed law.
The way homeopathy was born MIGHT not include all possible ways that the Law of Similars is invoked in the universe, and which may well also use remedies the way we know they are shown/predicted to work in provings. I am hesitant to define homeopathy in such a way that potential future discoveries that should be included, (for good reasons comptible with Hahnemann's principles), are excluded due to lack of foresight.
I feel the Law of Similars principle is a good test (better than simillimum) to include - or even perhaps use on its own - to determine whether a potential new member/activity may gain entry to classification as "homeopathy" or not.
Can any known NON-homeopathy activity invoke the Law of Similars consistently?
(My current thoughts on it).
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
It is not a clearly defined principle but a relatively vague definition of a technique. Tehniques do not have fixed definitions.
My view is that the principle of the Law of Similars - a natural law nobody can change - is invoked by a true homeopathic event, and as such is a better basis for a definition.
This is an inviolable principle/law seen at least since (that we know of) Hippocrates mentioned it in about 400BC, and it has been independently observed and recorded by many others since then.
As that is a law of nature, unchangeable, and cannot be invoked, or would not be invoked, by any non-homeopathic similarity, perhaps that is a stronger basis for our definition/test of what is homeopathy - or at least for the homeopathic principle behind the term "Similia SIillibus Curentur".
Since Hahnmann himself coined the very word "homeopathy", should it not be his definition that holds sway over any arguable inclusions/exclusions, (such as Doctrine of signatures)? If Doctrine of Signatures fails to invoke the Law of Similars, how can it be called "homeopathy"? To me, the term "homeopathy" and the term "Law of Similars" are married without possibility of divorce:-)
It is a shaky idea (in principle) to equate experimental findings with a natural law such as Law of SImilars. The latter is much stronger. One can always inadvertently omit some valid option in any experimental development, but not so in a natural law. The natural law will always apply where it is supposed to apply; it cannot be mani[pulated by experiments or by man. Is it not better to base our sinece on the Natural Law more than the initial experiments, which while valid are not provably complete as a set of homeopathy options.
I think we have troubled waters, if we try to define the simillimum too closely rather than insisting upon the Law of Similars being shown to be invoked (Doctrine of signatures can not show this to my knowledge?) - so that in the future when we know more, or if some new opportunity or event is discovered that MAY be homeopathic, or is claimed homeopathic, we have the best test for it, namely: We could decide what does and what does not behave in a truly homeoapthic way according to whether the Law of Similars is invoked, and we can thus better define which things come under homeopathy (and simillimum by extension) and which not?
Meantime the *principle* that "it" must invoke the Law of Similars, is a fixed law.
The way homeopathy was born MIGHT not include all possible ways that the Law of Similars is invoked in the universe, and which may well also use remedies the way we know they are shown/predicted to work in provings. I am hesitant to define homeopathy in such a way that potential future discoveries that should be included, (for good reasons comptible with Hahnemann's principles), are excluded due to lack of foresight.
I feel the Law of Similars principle is a good test (better than simillimum) to include - or even perhaps use on its own - to determine whether a potential new member/activity may gain entry to classification as "homeopathy" or not.
Can any known NON-homeopathy activity invoke the Law of Similars consistently?
(My current thoughts on it).
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Irene said:
Can any known NON-homeopathy activity invoke the Law of Similars consistently?
Polypharmacy uses the law of similars, but I don't think that polypharmacy is homeopathy.
To exclude polypharmacy, we need to say that proving methods must be followed. That is, one remedy at a time is tested, therefore remedies must be administered and followed up one at a time in the clinic. The law of similars do not automatically include provings.
Best,
Ellen Madono
Can any known NON-homeopathy activity invoke the Law of Similars consistently?
Polypharmacy uses the law of similars, but I don't think that polypharmacy is homeopathy.
To exclude polypharmacy, we need to say that proving methods must be followed. That is, one remedy at a time is tested, therefore remedies must be administered and followed up one at a time in the clinic. The law of similars do not automatically include provings.
Best,
Ellen Madono
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Ortho-Bionomy does.
It involves recreating the motion/position that was at the origin of the injury and the actual symptoms, but of course in a very limited, soft and gentle way. The general technique involves positioning the patient in the most comfortable situation, and that is frequently a position similar to that in which the trauma happened, and simply waiting for a "release" that can be felt by the practitioner...I could not believe it when I started it, but I am convinced.
BTW, OB is labeled as being Homeopathic Osteopathy.
And of course, no provings, but it follows the Law of Similars.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
It involves recreating the motion/position that was at the origin of the injury and the actual symptoms, but of course in a very limited, soft and gentle way. The general technique involves positioning the patient in the most comfortable situation, and that is frequently a position similar to that in which the trauma happened, and simply waiting for a "release" that can be felt by the practitioner...I could not believe it when I started it, but I am convinced.
BTW, OB is labeled as being Homeopathic Osteopathy.
And of course, no provings, but it follows the Law of Similars.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Hi Dr. Roz,
So IMO, orthbiotomy is not homeopathy. It applies the law of similars perhaps, but is not homeopathy.
Problematic abstract definition of the similum:
Similar causes for symptoms cause similar reactions in healing. In other words, this definition is very abstract so it will lead to misguided forms of homeopathy such as polypharmacy.
Better: In provings and clinical experience reactions to a stimulus cause symptoms. Similar symptoms in other natural setting (organisms, individuals, fields of corn) will induce similar reactions. These reactions can be healing if the similar stimulus is small enough to avoid secondary overreactions. That is, the state of the stimulus in the proving must approximately match the state of the stimulus (remedy ) in the treatment. (This eliminates historical data on poisons or herbs as provings, but does not eliminate poisoning or herbal medicine from our data concerning the gross possible symptoms of those substances in minimal doses.) The administration and follow up of such treatment must follow procedures similar to those of the proving.
If we agree that if mixes of remedies are to be homeopathic, they must be proved as mixes, then we exclude polypharmacy unless they do their own provings.
I think also homeopropolaxis is homeopathic because provings are done on existing not hypothetical individuals.
The Genius Epidemicus is homeopathic because the symptoms of the organisms are the final factor in selecting the remedy. Choice of miasmatic categories are not completely covered unless they are also based on proving symptoms. Perhaps this is a difficult to understand. The ambiguity here could lead to inclusion of homeopropolaxis.
Dr. Roz,
Once homeopathy is recognized as worth of scientific testing and funding, I can image provings of orthobiotomy too. From the little I have read and tried myself, the principles are clear and consistent. The problem is, I don't think you could test healthy subjects. They have to have a problem to apply orthbiotomy. Provings involve people without major problems therefore without the illness that will be eventually cured using homeopathy. I don't know how you would overcome this problem of "proving" orthbiotomy.
Best,
Ellen
So IMO, orthbiotomy is not homeopathy. It applies the law of similars perhaps, but is not homeopathy.
Problematic abstract definition of the similum:
Similar causes for symptoms cause similar reactions in healing. In other words, this definition is very abstract so it will lead to misguided forms of homeopathy such as polypharmacy.
Better: In provings and clinical experience reactions to a stimulus cause symptoms. Similar symptoms in other natural setting (organisms, individuals, fields of corn) will induce similar reactions. These reactions can be healing if the similar stimulus is small enough to avoid secondary overreactions. That is, the state of the stimulus in the proving must approximately match the state of the stimulus (remedy ) in the treatment. (This eliminates historical data on poisons or herbs as provings, but does not eliminate poisoning or herbal medicine from our data concerning the gross possible symptoms of those substances in minimal doses.) The administration and follow up of such treatment must follow procedures similar to those of the proving.
If we agree that if mixes of remedies are to be homeopathic, they must be proved as mixes, then we exclude polypharmacy unless they do their own provings.
I think also homeopropolaxis is homeopathic because provings are done on existing not hypothetical individuals.
The Genius Epidemicus is homeopathic because the symptoms of the organisms are the final factor in selecting the remedy. Choice of miasmatic categories are not completely covered unless they are also based on proving symptoms. Perhaps this is a difficult to understand. The ambiguity here could lead to inclusion of homeopropolaxis.
Dr. Roz,
Once homeopathy is recognized as worth of scientific testing and funding, I can image provings of orthobiotomy too. From the little I have read and tried myself, the principles are clear and consistent. The problem is, I don't think you could test healthy subjects. They have to have a problem to apply orthbiotomy. Provings involve people without major problems therefore without the illness that will be eventually cured using homeopathy. I don't know how you would overcome this problem of "proving" orthbiotomy.
Best,
Ellen
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
You could not do a proving of OB, that would imply inflicting traumas to healthy people.....
If I understand well what you are saying, the law of similars is a necessary tool for homeopathy, but homeopathy needs more than the law of similar.
Do you mean that in the definition of homeopathy, it should be clearly stated that a proved remedy must be used?
Isn't the etymology of homeopathy, same suffering, sufficient for a definition?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
If I understand well what you are saying, the law of similars is a necessary tool for homeopathy, but homeopathy needs more than the law of similar.
Do you mean that in the definition of homeopathy, it should be clearly stated that a proved remedy must be used?
Isn't the etymology of homeopathy, same suffering, sufficient for a definition?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Joe offers a great example here of something clearly operating via “the Law of Similars” at least as closely as the hot-water-to-a-burn approach may heal and yet not be homoeopathy.
Irene, without bothering to point out that you’ve again defined something in terms of its results*, I’ll point out that the trouble with the “natural law” / “inviolable principle” / “law of nature, unchangeable” that you’re offering here is that it is, first, pure surmise and, second, uselessly vague.
In fact, it unfortunately demonstrates that, in attempting to define homoeopathy in such terms as “the Law of Similars”, it’s critically important not to confuse the law of similars as Hahnemann meant it with all the various universal, natural, etc. “laws of similars” and dreamy correspondences that one may be tempted to apply. And you’ve ruled out none of those here; in this deluge of inviolability, I see nothing at all to restrict the meaning of the “law”.
Hahnemann restricted the meaning of what we’re pleased to call the law of similars in the most practical way, by tying it to that thing that you so disparage here: knowledge born of experiment and observation of the “pure” effects of a substance; of the effects it has on somebody in good health.
We can circle around that all we like, and fool ourselves for as long as we care to; but without such knowledge of a medicine’s “pure” effects, we cannot practise what Hahnemann said is homoeopathy: prescribing for the patient the substance whose known (not interpreted through clinical results or guessed by any other means) pure effects most closely resemble the patient’s symptoms of departure from health.
Yes, we may find other ways in which to prescribe substances: radiaesthesia, dowsing, prayer, or coin-tossing; accident, chance, even an intent to kill (remember the tetanic horse injected with strychnine!). And if such methods happen to prescribe the correct homoeopathic medicine, then the medicine is no less homoeopathic for that. But does that make the method homoeopathic? That is the confusion that you appear to have fallen into, as the answer clearly must be: no, it does not. A homoeopathic method -- any homoeopathic method -- must be one that leads inevitably from knowledge of patient state and knowledge of medicinal pathogenesis to a prescription designed to apply the most similar of the latter to the former.
Anything else, even if it results in a homoeopathic prescription, cannot be homoeopathy.
Hahnemann was as clear as day about the process of homoeopathy. The result -- success, failure, or some mix of the two -- is in the lap of the gods; but we have the power to decide whether we’ll use the gift of experimental and observational evidence of a substance’s pure effects or whether we’ll substitute primitive notions of laws of similars and correspondences.
Kind regards,
John
* As in when you or other arbiters “decide what does and what does not behave in a truly homeoapthic way according to whether the Law of Similars is invoked”.
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
Irene, without bothering to point out that you’ve again defined something in terms of its results*, I’ll point out that the trouble with the “natural law” / “inviolable principle” / “law of nature, unchangeable” that you’re offering here is that it is, first, pure surmise and, second, uselessly vague.
In fact, it unfortunately demonstrates that, in attempting to define homoeopathy in such terms as “the Law of Similars”, it’s critically important not to confuse the law of similars as Hahnemann meant it with all the various universal, natural, etc. “laws of similars” and dreamy correspondences that one may be tempted to apply. And you’ve ruled out none of those here; in this deluge of inviolability, I see nothing at all to restrict the meaning of the “law”.
Hahnemann restricted the meaning of what we’re pleased to call the law of similars in the most practical way, by tying it to that thing that you so disparage here: knowledge born of experiment and observation of the “pure” effects of a substance; of the effects it has on somebody in good health.
We can circle around that all we like, and fool ourselves for as long as we care to; but without such knowledge of a medicine’s “pure” effects, we cannot practise what Hahnemann said is homoeopathy: prescribing for the patient the substance whose known (not interpreted through clinical results or guessed by any other means) pure effects most closely resemble the patient’s symptoms of departure from health.
Yes, we may find other ways in which to prescribe substances: radiaesthesia, dowsing, prayer, or coin-tossing; accident, chance, even an intent to kill (remember the tetanic horse injected with strychnine!). And if such methods happen to prescribe the correct homoeopathic medicine, then the medicine is no less homoeopathic for that. But does that make the method homoeopathic? That is the confusion that you appear to have fallen into, as the answer clearly must be: no, it does not. A homoeopathic method -- any homoeopathic method -- must be one that leads inevitably from knowledge of patient state and knowledge of medicinal pathogenesis to a prescription designed to apply the most similar of the latter to the former.
Anything else, even if it results in a homoeopathic prescription, cannot be homoeopathy.
Hahnemann was as clear as day about the process of homoeopathy. The result -- success, failure, or some mix of the two -- is in the lap of the gods; but we have the power to decide whether we’ll use the gift of experimental and observational evidence of a substance’s pure effects or whether we’ll substitute primitive notions of laws of similars and correspondences.
Kind regards,
John
* As in when you or other arbiters “decide what does and what does not behave in a truly homeoapthic way according to whether the Law of Similars is invoked”.
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Can you clarify what you are saying, please.
You mean that in the definition of homeopathy, the use of a proved remedy must be included? anything else can be respecting the law of similars but should not be considered as homeopathy.
Have I understood you well????
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
You mean that in the definition of homeopathy, the use of a proved remedy must be included? anything else can be respecting the law of similars but should not be considered as homeopathy.
Have I understood you well????
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
Hello, Joe --
Sorry, is this news to you, or something? Of course homoeopathy depends upon the use of medicines that received provings (pathogenetic trials). Are you suggesting otherwise?
Did I misinterpret your reason for offering the example you did of a physical therapy utilising a "law of similars"? Surely you weren't suggesting that Hahnemann's definition of homoeopathy would have encompassed this -- were you?
Cheers!
John
Sorry, is this news to you, or something? Of course homoeopathy depends upon the use of medicines that received provings (pathogenetic trials). Are you suggesting otherwise?
Did I misinterpret your reason for offering the example you did of a physical therapy utilising a "law of similars"? Surely you weren't suggesting that Hahnemann's definition of homoeopathy would have encompassed this -- were you?
Cheers!
John
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Post 3
I see two different things:
The definition of Homeopathy as a therapeutic method as defined by Hahnemann, which needs the use of a proved remedy, and the use of the term homeopathy, probably as an adjective, to characterise other techniques that use the law of similars, e.g. OB = homeopathic osteopathy.
The whole thread of those emails is about definitions, semantics, and in doing that we need to be totally precise. Orthopedic surgeons and carpenters do use the same tools: hammers, chisels, drills, nails, screws, plates, etc,....yet nobody confuses both professions.
If the interest of people reading this thread is in a very precise, simple but excruciatingly correct definition of what Homeopathy is, then every single word, comma, period and colon should be clear and transparent...the same way language academies split hairs in writing the definitions of words for a dictionary.
If it is something else, then....
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com
The definition of Homeopathy as a therapeutic method as defined by Hahnemann, which needs the use of a proved remedy, and the use of the term homeopathy, probably as an adjective, to characterise other techniques that use the law of similars, e.g. OB = homeopathic osteopathy.
The whole thread of those emails is about definitions, semantics, and in doing that we need to be totally precise. Orthopedic surgeons and carpenters do use the same tools: hammers, chisels, drills, nails, screws, plates, etc,....yet nobody confuses both professions.
If the interest of people reading this thread is in a very precise, simple but excruciatingly correct definition of what Homeopathy is, then every single word, comma, period and colon should be clear and transparent...the same way language academies split hairs in writing the definitions of words for a dictionary.
If it is something else, then....
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com