Post 2

[John Harvey]

Irene, I think you've just deftly illustrated better than I ever could have just how easy it is to use exactly such logic to draw exactly that fallacious conclusion. Thank you.

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.

[Ellen Madono]

Hi John,
I don't want to get involved with this silly turning of a serious subject upside down. You obviously know what you are doing, and it does not look good.
Best,
Ellen

[ShakirMM]

Dear Ardavan,
And that dynamic nature of the patient is the main thing which brings forward the signals of being sick. To understand this, is a great art for them who know it.
Now question is that if one knows something about PNIE or continuous suppressing effects of VF to pathogenic effects but cannot get information from a sick individual due to patient's unawareness of the knowledge of expressing the malfunctions running in constitution or due to loss of memory, what there should be the key to solve the problem?
Best Regards,
Shakir
Irene, I think you've just deftly illustrated better than I ever could have just how easy it is to use exactly such logic to draw exactly that fallacious conclusion. Thank you.

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.

[healthinfo6]

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.

So nice to see you back, John, your clear explanations have been sorely missed!
I like the Think Tank approach, discussing all views, whether ultimately right or wrong, can make one see things they didn't think about.
I want to add that Hahnemann in Chronic Diseases wrote about having to use additional antipsoric remedies to arrive at the similimum or even those close to the similimum remedies are helpful to use.
Basically to get to the "end" (similimum) one needs the "means" or process to get there.
One method in miasmatic prescribing is alternating between an antipsoric and an antimiasmatic intercurrent, whidh I'm currently doing by alternating between Calc Carb LM23 and TubK LM 11. Here, I've done this roundtrip 10 times so far. I couldn't have possibly reached CC LM23 contiguously because during each LM level or after taking 2 LM potencies or as I advance up the LM scale, the remedy action begins to lessen and feel not right. Switching to the antimiasmatic remedy takes over and works for a time until I feel the need to go back to the antipsoric, which then continues to work even better. There are also issues of what the antipsoric which is also my constitutional is covering, what the antimiasmatic intercurrent is doing since it contains some of my "derangements" to health as rubrics besides being miasmatic.
This phenomenon has been noted by David Little, Luc De Schepper , Peter Morell and others.
Don't know if Hahnemann described or implied this method exactly.
Besides being miasmatic, my 2 chronic diseases are also genetic, directly inherited so the methods needed are different and the outcome is evolving than many cases we read about with fairly quick cures.
Best,
Susan

[ShakirMM]

Ellen please be cool, let everyone send the opinion they have. Read everyone and act as per your understanding.
Regards,
Shakir
Hi John,
I don't want to get involved with this silly turning of a serious subject upside down. You obviously know what you are doing, and it does not look good.
Best,
Ellen

[Irene de Villiers]

Shakir,

Ellen was correct, and cool, you have missed the problems caused by one member here who is not voicing opinion but attacking that of others in his usual backhanded way.
There's a difference.

Sad that some do not see through it.

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."

[ShakirMM]

Well Irene, I didn't read that person before.
Shakir
Shakir,

Ellen was correct, and cool, you have missed the problems caused by one member here who is not voicing opinion but attacking that of others in his usual backhanded way.
There's a difference.

Sad that some do not see through it.

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]

Dear Ardavan,

Coming back to the subject, the problem is not just the similum、but the similum of what? Is a question of deciding what must be cured. How to identify that? What are our options? The question is practically what can be cured at this moment. Not the product of external forces such as drugs or unhealthy lifestyle habits. It may not be everything that is presented in the case. Not secondary affects. They are not dynamic. How the organism has adapted to the disease does not get at the dynamic aspect of the alteration that the organism has made to disease. Unless we have decided that palliation is all that the organism can support given limited energy. The question becomes then, how to identify the dynamic symptoms in the case. And which symptoms relates in a coherent way.
Best,
Ellen

[healthinfo6]

Shakir,
Maybe you should read back to older posts, 2006-2009...
At least when John posts, we're back to discussions of CLASSICAL homeopathy theory
Same can be said of Benneth.
Those who appear most vocal, annoyed, and look to denigrate them are those who choose either to deviate from Hahnemann, haven't spent much time studying Hahnemann and/or want to promote alternative methods or ideas.
Nothing wrong with alternative methods especially compared to allopathic but when those become de facto discussion on a CLASSICAL homeopathy list, then someone has to bring the discussion back.
Really no different than what Hahnemann faced in his day and what quackbusters do today.
Susan

Loading message... Undo ?
Unproven remedies was RE: [Minutus] Re: definition [was: New media attacks on homeopathy...
suriya56 to minutusshow details
From suriya56 Dr.Suriya@holisticleaders.com
To minutus minutus@yahoogroups.com
Mon, Jul 6, 2009 10:54 pm
Dear Soroush

You have triggered a switch in me ! I am going to wax lyrical over Ardavan's teaching !
Clear concise precise and logical ! Ardavan is Hahnemann reincarnated in his understanding of the Organon and in extending the principles in the light of present day knowledge.
I have treated two cases of Autism based on his teachings since the beginning of the year and both cases responded to the first remedy so well that even I was amazed .

I also have written up two cases one of which was published in Similia , the Australian Journal of Homeopathy and its former editer is our dear John Harvey .

You can read the write ups online here

http://nursyifa.info/homeopathy/miasmat ... %2010.html
http://nursyifa.info/homeopathy/adryana.html

Ardavan should go to UK and Europe to teach !

regards

Suriya

[John Harvey]

Hi, Susan, and thank you very much. Yes, it's a good idea, I think, to air our understandings and perhaps misunderstandings and see where the discussion takes us. Whilst we express such understandings in an effort to say anew what we already know, sometimes, it seems to me, it's important too to realise that it's not our role to redefine homoeopathy; in offering understandings of what it is, our role is first to understand it (i.e. to understand its definition as it stands) and then to translate that understanding as best we may.

Ellen, it may minimise misunderstanding if we interpret straightforwardly the words appearing here rather than construe them as uncharitably as possible. What I wrote in my first message conveys clearly enough, I think, my intent. If I mean to offer an insult to Irene or anybody else, I'll do so far more plainly; but Irene herself usually, as in this case, saves me the trouble.

In the present case, in seeking an excuse to attack my intentions (in describing the logical fallacy of trying to define an action by its results), Irene unfortunately leaped before she looked, falling into the exact fallacy I'd just warned against. It was no less than my duty to confirm that she had done so, but I saw no need -- as Irene and you apparently do -- to look beneath the discussion for evil intent.

The supposedly evil intent, or fuddyduddiness, or narrowmindedness, of homoeopaths who regard Hahnemann's definition of homoeopathy as sufficient unto the day is a different discussion, I think: a destructive one we've borne repetitively on this list. Ardavan's topic was clearly something else: the possibility and value of our reaching a common understanding of what homoeopathy is and what it is not.

The misperception that Ardavan mentioned by way of example -- that the dynamisation of a medicine makes its use homoeopathic -- is one so commonly abused that it probably is worth teasing out a little as has been done a number of times before. But it's probably of great value to begin any such discussion with some clear notions such as:

(a) a notion of the function of a definition (which not all of us have always understood terribly clearly) and

(b) a notion of the futility of attempting to define an action by an outcome that may or may not be wholly dependent on the nature of that action.

Without any notion at all, we may easily enjoy the same futile talking at cross-purposes that we've enjoyed so often in the past -- one party seeking to explain that what homoeopathy is (whatever that may be) is not up for negotiation (since, by Hahnemann's unchangeable definition, it is what it is) but is available for interpretation and understanding; another party seeking to remake homoeopathy in the image of its preferences on the basis of declarations concerning the first party's state of mind, morals, etc.

That is not, I think, the kind of discussion that Ardavan was inviting us to repeat.

Ardavan has offered a fresh opportunity to treat with the seriousness it deserves a question of fact: what constitutes homoeopathy. It's up to each of us to choose whether to use that opportunity wisely and well or frivolously and foolishly.

In seeking a common understanding of a factual question, there's little value in falling into emotive accusations against any who disagree with us. Far more valuable it is to begin by recognising the limits of our knowledge, of our understanding, and of the clarity of our thinking, and by acknowledging these limits and seeking to overcome them with one another's help -- and to treat disagreement as an opportunity to learn the source of the conflicting viewpoint.

It seems to me that if we forgo proceeding from the true, the obvious, the factual, and the valid via reasoning, and instead -- as this discussion has almost invariably done before -- proceed from conjecture, fantasy, fallacy, and fiction via leaps of faith and criticism of disagreement (for its departure from "consensus"), then we can't be sure we'll end up in a very useful place. All sound logic proceeds from true premises, via valid argument, to the certainty of true conclusions. Logic that proceeds either from untrue premises (even via valid argument) or (even from true premises) via invalid argument may lead us anywhere else; but it will never lead us to useful certainties.

So what do we know that is true?

Kindest regards,

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.