Post 2

[ShakirMM]

Dear Ardavan,
I believe in "What is to be cured" is the most important part of case taking. If we see we have many concerns in asserting this. Taking into consideration whether it is a miasmatic case or non-miasmatic, Psychological or not, whether one-sided, acute, chronic or something else. Drug side effects (all never known), a main problem, to be prooned off and so on so fore.
For that, selecting a "similimum" is tedious work. I know there are no short cuts but difficulties are there, as converting patient language into repertory language is the most typical job to do. Sense of illness as patient regards it, is very much difficult. Proving in English or in some other language cannot replicate other languages. For example I tried a symptom of a patient to locate it in rep or MM saying, "I feel holes are there in my bones" or a symptom "I feel like blood is trickling down from my head down to face"
Perhaps a day will come when it will be easier than today. Then we may not be here.

Best Regards,
Shakir
Dear Shakir,

The errors specially appear in treatments of chronic patients and the reason is in misunderstanding what is behind Hahnemann's words of 'what is to be cured in diseases'. Understanding definition of 'simillimum' is the first and most important step.

Regards,

Ardavan
Sent from my iPad

[Irene de Villiers]

I propose:
"Homeopathy is the art of choosing and using a remedy, such that it's choice to match the patient's situation, invokes The Law of Similars to cause robustness of health."

Note:
The word "situation" is used, as it covers signs, symptoms and also constitutional features and personality, any or all of which may be relevant in different situations.
The phrase "robustness of health" is used, so that everyone can use the definition including those prevented by law from using the term "cure", and also to cover the use of remedies in provings or homeoprophylaxis per Aph 141, and becase homeopathy DOES cause robustness of health (aph 141) as opposed to just not seeing a disease any more.

So - I think this definition is loose enough to cover all true homeopathic activities, while being tight enough to exclude that which is not truly homeopathy. Invoking the Law of SImilars is of course essential.
No reference is made to potency as homeopathy and the Law of Similars, do not need 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."

[Irene de Villiers]

Actually we should change "patient's", to "individual". Homeopathy is not always used for a patient. It can be a friend, pet, or prover, a bee hitting the windshield, a field of turnips, a herd of cattle, or for oneself. The definition should not put more limitations in place than are essential to define homeopathy.
So my "take two" is:
"Homeopathy is the art of choosing and using a remedy, such that it's choice to match the individual situation, invokes The Law of Similars to cause robustness of health."
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]

Hi Irene,

I hear you and in the future rather than say client or patient, I am going to say individual. Nice reminder.

This is picky but, Is a field of corn an individual? How about the genus epidemicus? Symptom complex is too abstract, but it is closer to our reality. Isn't it interesting that the "pathogen" has a role in defining the "individual"? If they are stronger that the individual, then they define who or what shoulld be treated. There is an interesting contrast between our normal treatment of the individual versus pathogen defined treatment of the miasm that most strongly defines the symptoms of the individual.

Best,
Ellen

[Irene de Villiers]

An individual field of corn yes:-)
An individual genus epidemicus:-)

Individual cat, dog, person, bee, plant, flock, etc.

..Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
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."

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Shakir,

Yes, you are right but I believe that the most important part in finding the simillimum is the proper understanding of the dynamic structure of the patient. Translation into rubrics,... comes after this understanding. I think that one of the easiest steps is this translation; not because of the easy nature of this process but because of the complexity of the first step!

Regards,

Ardavan
Sent from my iPad

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Ellen,

I think that it is better to use 'the dynamic alteration caused by a pathogen' rather than 'pathogen'. The former is the foundation of Genus Epidemicus. Miasm is not equal to pathogen; it is the dynamic effect of a pathogen in the VF, PNEI system,... (whatever you call it). This dynamic effect may even persist when the pathogen is not present anymore.

Warm regards,

Ardavan
Sent from my iPad

[Ellen Madono]

I think you mean this in your acronyms.
PNEI = Psychology, Nervous system, Endocrine, Immune system = vital force = VF
Yes, I agree. Dynamic Reaction to the equally dynamic effects of pathogen.
About this word dynamic, Will Taylor was reading about how change takes places in ecosystems (C. S. Holling) and drawing a comparison to change in organisms. A healthy ecosystem: be it an organism, a forest or a corn field, can adapt to pressures for change in small increments. That ability to adapt by small increments is Irene's robustness. Vithoulkas calls it freedom. In a robust ecosystem, if the reaction is acute, then it does not require the PNEI (above) to change in a way that would radically alter the long term chances of survival for that ecosystem. If radical change of the PNEI is initiated, then we have a chronic disease and ultimately the organism will die from alterations to the PNEI. As long as the ecosystem is throwing off dynamic reactions, the homeopathic principle can be used to encourage adaption to change. But organisms are not always able to react dynamically.
Between the two above types of adaptive stages, both incremental (acute) and radical (chronic), we have two other stages. One is growth. Yonng organisms more easily grow out of demands for adaptation.
The other state is homeostasis. This is the condition for producing the secondary symptoms of disease. Here, the ecosystem has reached a compromise that requires neither progression toward death nor growth.
Often we are attempting to cure these secondary symptoms. This is palliation and may buy time and energy to focus on the more dynamic reactions of the system later. If there are too many unrelated pressures for change, homeostasis may be reached without hope of producing clear dynamic reactions. In this case, we either wait for further clarity of symptoms or we work at clearing secondary symptoms hoping that later dynamic reactions will be produced by the organism.
Best.

Ellen

[John Harvey]

Dear Ardavan,
Thank you very much for initiating this discussion of the fundamental meaning of homoeopathy. It’s clarity of a kind that we need very much to pursue, meet, and practise.
I’m sorry that you’ve evidently experienced serious complications with the web site as well as with offline matters!
Regarding the definition: Irene’s two attempts so far in this conversation, laudable though they be, would, by focusing on ends rather than on means, leave the field unfortunately open to abuse.
Homoeopathic practice -- though it obviously has ends (usually and ideally, cure) -- does not entail such an end; it entails merely a means. Irene’s definition seeks to use its ideal outcome (cure) to acclaim whatever means reached it as being homoeopathy. In essence, Irene seeks to define homoeopathic prescription by the "success" of its outcome.
Looked at in that light, this attempt at understanding homoeopathy is obviously proceeding backwards, i.e. putting the cart before the horse. Whether the result of homoeopathic treatment is everything we could wish for or it hastens its recipient toward death or it does nothing at all doesn't and cannot affect whether the treatment was homoeopathic; rather, whether the treatment was homoeopathic is likely to affect the nature of the outcome.
We may therefore choose (if we think it useful to) to define an outcome in terms of what led to it; but to choose to define a method in terms of its result can lead only to confusion and failure. Illustrations have already appeared on this list of the kind of nonsense that could result: if acupuncture leads to the cure of the patient, then the acupuncture needle must be a homoeopathic remedy of some kind; if antibiotics and anti-inflammatories made the patient feel better all over, then they must have been homoeopathic to the patient’s state.
In short, what homoeopathy (either the prescription or the means of arriving at it) is does not, cannot, depend at all upon what it results in; rather, the results depend (to some extent; contingently) on the method -- as well as on the details (dosage, potency, repetition, other deranging/curative influences, subsequent prescriptions, etc.). Homoeopathy remains what it is regardless of opinions as to its worth, regardless of its plausibility, regardless of its scientific merit, regardless of its popularity, and regardless of its outcomes.
It seems to me that rather than offer new definitions, we need only understand what Hahnemann couldn’t have made plainer: his definition that homoeopathy is the application of the single, simple medicinal substance that can most closely mimic the symptoms of the patient’s derangement from health. Whilst this straightforward understanding (expressed as it may be in any of dozens of different ways) does not offer detail of how best to practise it, it does seem to sum up our understanding of what Hahnemann said homoeopathy is -- and to exclude what it is not. And in this one thing, Hahnemann cannot have been mistaken: homoeopathy is what he said it is only by virtue of his act of defining it.
Summing up what homoeopathy actually is rather than what it may achieve offers several unequalled advantages.
First, it is a direct definition, such as the human mind is used to, rather than a wild-goose chase that begins with results and their interpretation and entails historical research or frank surmise (as the definition allows) as to what produced those results.
Second, it obviates all need to discern the many influences on a health outcome in order to determine which of them should garner the label “homoeopathic”.
Third, it offers clarity: what you do either does or does not accord with the definition of the practice, and you do not have to look down the track, and back up again, in order to work that out.
Fourth, it offers a direct path to action: if you want to practise homoeopathy, then this is what it entails (and good results may ensue). (Again, practising it well is a matter that falls outside the scope of a definition of what it is.)
Fifth, it offers accurate inclusion of methods that are homoeopathy even though the results of those methods (in a context of circumstances mostly beyond the practitioner’s control) may be other than those that are ideal or wished for or predicted.
Sixth, it offers accurate exclusion of methods that are not homoeoapthy -- whereas looking backward from, for instance, (apparent) cure or any other desirable outcome to its cause may lead us to conclude that homoeopathy encompasses any number of variations, even within medical practice, that Hahnemann clearly intended not to compass with the word -- methods that may range from prescribing a substance without a basis in its pathogenetic trial to prescribing more than a single, simple substance at a time for the one individual.
Hahnemann has already told us, plainly and explicitly, what homoeopathy is. It remains for us to arrive at the humility and wisdom to accept his definition as definitive and to decide whether, and under what conditions, we’ll accord with it. Isn’t that so?
Kindest regards,
John

[Irene de Villiers]

Not true as one cannot invoke the law of similars in any way other than by genuine homeopathy:-)
You are trying to make trouble - nothing new.
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."