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.
Post 2
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Post 2
Dear John and Irene,
Since prophylaxis has been used from Hahnemann onwards, surely it too must be acknowledged (or have room for acknowledgement) in the definition.
The root words of "homeopathy" do not preclude it - and it is evidenced by the results of its practice.
Just thinking about homeopathy only as a treatment ignores the other relationships or effects that exist between similars which are equally homeopathic.
So, how do we provide room for homeoprophylaxis within the definition? Any suggestions?
Since prophylaxis has been used from Hahnemann onwards, surely it too must be acknowledged (or have room for acknowledgement) in the definition.
The root words of "homeopathy" do not preclude it - and it is evidenced by the results of its practice.
Just thinking about homeopathy only as a treatment ignores the other relationships or effects that exist between similars which are equally homeopathic.
So, how do we provide room for homeoprophylaxis within the definition? Any suggestions?
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
Hi, Fran --
It may be the case -- and I think it is, as I'll show below -- that Hahnemann's prophylactic activity is excluded from the meaning of homoeopathy as he defined it. But that's not actually a problem, any more than it's a problem that many of his valuable adjunctive practices too (exercise, diet, massage, mental and emotional habits, etc.) fall outside the scope of homoeopathy. It's not only not a problem: it's also the solution to the problem we keep imagining we have on this list.
Defining homoeopathy as he did, in the simplest possible terms, Hahnemann left aside all detail as to how to get its practice right and not to get it wrong; how we might best practise it; how else we might (non-medicinally) strengthen the patient; and how we might prevent the (truly -- i.e. non-miasmatic) healthy patient from falling ill once again. All of these things are valuable, even indispensable; but to try to incorporate any of them into what homoeopathy is would have destroyed all hope of conveying that simplest understanding of what it is that a homoeopath does: prescribe that substance most closely symptomatically resembling the patient's departure from health.
That simplest, most basic activity that describes homoeopathy is challenging enough for the novice to assimilate, accept, and understand. It is even (by the continued failure of this very discussion) too challenging for many practitioners themselves to understand fully and communicate clearly. To attempt to complicate it with notions of prevention etc. would most likely be the end of all hope.
But, again, that's not a problem! We have homoeopathy; we have homoeoprophylaxis; we have nosopathy, or whatever else we might call the dispensing of nosodes according purely to their apparent miasmatic relationship with the patient; we have isopathy, tautopathy, etc., etc. And we have diet, exercise, and all the rest to help us help others. If we don't attempt to swallow the lot in the one pill we call homoeopathy, where does the problem lie? Leaving these things distinct is in fact the solution to the hopelessness of trying to encompass them all (or even trying to encompass any two of them!) under one head. Homoeopathy does not require any of these other things -- not even homoeoprophylaxis, which tends to occur in a different circumstance, before the appearance of symptoms -- and therefore its definition does not require them either.
To illustrate the value that Hahnemann himself understood in what he had invented in the concept of homoeopathy, let's recall that he emphasised that prescribing a nosode on the basis of miasms rather than symptoms was not homoeopathy. If we're clear about why he did so, it was not because he underestimated the value of nosodes! It was because he valued the clarity of that single thing that distinguishes the practice of medicine matching the medicine whose known pathogenesis most closely mimicked the patient's known symptoms from all other medical practices.
Let's notice too that, although Hahnemann clearly used the notion of a genus epidemicus relatively early in his homoeopathic career to prescribe medicines to the as yet asymptomatic in cholera epidemics, and though he published his methods and his prescriptions in those epidemics widely, he made no changes, indeed no concession to changes, in what he called homoeopathy. The understanding that homoeopathy relies upon knowledge of both pathogenetic and patient symptoms is the bedrock of its distinction from everything else.
Without that clarity, without that distinction, there is nothing at all that distinguishes homoeopathy from all other medical practices and that conveys the unique, not to say revolutionary, ideas that underpinned it: that a medicine's primary symptoms (not its putatively curative effects, which at best represent secondary action) must be known and relied upon in any rational prescription; and that in the rational approach of the homoeopath, that knowledge is used to obtain greatest similarity to the patient's dynamic state (just as in the rational approach of the enantiopathy, it is used to most strongly oppose it).
It is in fact far easier to define and understand both homoeopathy and homoeoprophylaxis as separate practices. The close relationship between the two is, naturally, obvious to anybody familiar with both, but their manners of proceeding -- what these practices are -- are quite distinct. If that's not clear already, let me point out that whilst one indubitably relies on extant symptoms, the other indubitably does not. That distinction places the two, though they share common ground, worlds apart in the definition stakes: they exclude each other!
It seems clear that we have trouble enough in conveying the simplest, most basic idea of what is and what is not ordinary, run-of-the-mill, universally accepted homoeopathy. To attempt to incorporate just one other practice -- even one we all accept as related and useful -- is to attempt interstellar communication before we have mastered a common alphabet.
So far, for instance, every time somebody on this list points out that Hahnemann had good reason to exclude polypharmacy from the definition of homoeopathic practice, somebody else disputes it. On this list, we have not even gotten as far as understanding that polypharmacy and homoeopathy are mutually exclusive. Not everybody here understands even that homoeopathy absolutely necessitates knowledge of pathogenesis; that such knowledge necessitates the ability to create that pathogenesis; and that such ability necessitates the single, simple medicines that Hahnemann most explicitly wrote are the only ones that homoeopathy can possibly use. Not all of us are yet in a position to comprehend this relatively straightforward train of necessities, and it may be that the broad majority will have to accept that the odd person, even the very odd "practitioner", will never truly understand what homoeopathy is.
Until that time comes, though, when there is a vast majority that is capable of standing up for homoeopathy as Hahnemann defined it -- a practice requiring knowledge of pathogenesis, knowledge of patient symptoms, and requiring a means of fitting one symptomatically to t'other -- the inability of a significant number of us to comprehend just what it was that Hahnemann was getting at in his simplest possible definition precludes all success in any attempt to incorporate anything more complex in a single concept.
But I don't wish to spoil anybody's fun. We might, for instance, hold parallel attempts: one, an attempt to simplify and successfully transmit Hahnemann's meaning in the word "homoeopathy"; the other, an ambitious attempt to encompass, say, both homoeopathy and homoeoprophylaxis in a definition of some term ("homoeopractice"? "pathogenetic medicine"? "dynamic pathogenesis"?) without confusing people about homoeopathy itself. I'd be up for that; it might be the ultimate definitional challenge. What we have to be careful about, I think, is departing from the actual meaning of homoeopathy -- i.e., destroying it -- in the attempt to explain it.
In a nutshell, then, my take on it is that there is no way in which we can stretch the meaning of homoeopathy to incorporate any practice of medicine that does not rely on knowledge of the patient's symptoms and the medicine's symptoms. It is utilising a particular known relationship between the two that constitutes the practice of homoeopathy; once we abandon that clarity, we abandon all hope of maintaining a clear understanding as to, and of conveying, what it's about.
Cheers!
John
It may be the case -- and I think it is, as I'll show below -- that Hahnemann's prophylactic activity is excluded from the meaning of homoeopathy as he defined it. But that's not actually a problem, any more than it's a problem that many of his valuable adjunctive practices too (exercise, diet, massage, mental and emotional habits, etc.) fall outside the scope of homoeopathy. It's not only not a problem: it's also the solution to the problem we keep imagining we have on this list.
Defining homoeopathy as he did, in the simplest possible terms, Hahnemann left aside all detail as to how to get its practice right and not to get it wrong; how we might best practise it; how else we might (non-medicinally) strengthen the patient; and how we might prevent the (truly -- i.e. non-miasmatic) healthy patient from falling ill once again. All of these things are valuable, even indispensable; but to try to incorporate any of them into what homoeopathy is would have destroyed all hope of conveying that simplest understanding of what it is that a homoeopath does: prescribe that substance most closely symptomatically resembling the patient's departure from health.
That simplest, most basic activity that describes homoeopathy is challenging enough for the novice to assimilate, accept, and understand. It is even (by the continued failure of this very discussion) too challenging for many practitioners themselves to understand fully and communicate clearly. To attempt to complicate it with notions of prevention etc. would most likely be the end of all hope.
But, again, that's not a problem! We have homoeopathy; we have homoeoprophylaxis; we have nosopathy, or whatever else we might call the dispensing of nosodes according purely to their apparent miasmatic relationship with the patient; we have isopathy, tautopathy, etc., etc. And we have diet, exercise, and all the rest to help us help others. If we don't attempt to swallow the lot in the one pill we call homoeopathy, where does the problem lie? Leaving these things distinct is in fact the solution to the hopelessness of trying to encompass them all (or even trying to encompass any two of them!) under one head. Homoeopathy does not require any of these other things -- not even homoeoprophylaxis, which tends to occur in a different circumstance, before the appearance of symptoms -- and therefore its definition does not require them either.
To illustrate the value that Hahnemann himself understood in what he had invented in the concept of homoeopathy, let's recall that he emphasised that prescribing a nosode on the basis of miasms rather than symptoms was not homoeopathy. If we're clear about why he did so, it was not because he underestimated the value of nosodes! It was because he valued the clarity of that single thing that distinguishes the practice of medicine matching the medicine whose known pathogenesis most closely mimicked the patient's known symptoms from all other medical practices.
Let's notice too that, although Hahnemann clearly used the notion of a genus epidemicus relatively early in his homoeopathic career to prescribe medicines to the as yet asymptomatic in cholera epidemics, and though he published his methods and his prescriptions in those epidemics widely, he made no changes, indeed no concession to changes, in what he called homoeopathy. The understanding that homoeopathy relies upon knowledge of both pathogenetic and patient symptoms is the bedrock of its distinction from everything else.
Without that clarity, without that distinction, there is nothing at all that distinguishes homoeopathy from all other medical practices and that conveys the unique, not to say revolutionary, ideas that underpinned it: that a medicine's primary symptoms (not its putatively curative effects, which at best represent secondary action) must be known and relied upon in any rational prescription; and that in the rational approach of the homoeopath, that knowledge is used to obtain greatest similarity to the patient's dynamic state (just as in the rational approach of the enantiopathy, it is used to most strongly oppose it).
It is in fact far easier to define and understand both homoeopathy and homoeoprophylaxis as separate practices. The close relationship between the two is, naturally, obvious to anybody familiar with both, but their manners of proceeding -- what these practices are -- are quite distinct. If that's not clear already, let me point out that whilst one indubitably relies on extant symptoms, the other indubitably does not. That distinction places the two, though they share common ground, worlds apart in the definition stakes: they exclude each other!
It seems clear that we have trouble enough in conveying the simplest, most basic idea of what is and what is not ordinary, run-of-the-mill, universally accepted homoeopathy. To attempt to incorporate just one other practice -- even one we all accept as related and useful -- is to attempt interstellar communication before we have mastered a common alphabet.
So far, for instance, every time somebody on this list points out that Hahnemann had good reason to exclude polypharmacy from the definition of homoeopathic practice, somebody else disputes it. On this list, we have not even gotten as far as understanding that polypharmacy and homoeopathy are mutually exclusive. Not everybody here understands even that homoeopathy absolutely necessitates knowledge of pathogenesis; that such knowledge necessitates the ability to create that pathogenesis; and that such ability necessitates the single, simple medicines that Hahnemann most explicitly wrote are the only ones that homoeopathy can possibly use. Not all of us are yet in a position to comprehend this relatively straightforward train of necessities, and it may be that the broad majority will have to accept that the odd person, even the very odd "practitioner", will never truly understand what homoeopathy is.
Until that time comes, though, when there is a vast majority that is capable of standing up for homoeopathy as Hahnemann defined it -- a practice requiring knowledge of pathogenesis, knowledge of patient symptoms, and requiring a means of fitting one symptomatically to t'other -- the inability of a significant number of us to comprehend just what it was that Hahnemann was getting at in his simplest possible definition precludes all success in any attempt to incorporate anything more complex in a single concept.
But I don't wish to spoil anybody's fun. We might, for instance, hold parallel attempts: one, an attempt to simplify and successfully transmit Hahnemann's meaning in the word "homoeopathy"; the other, an ambitious attempt to encompass, say, both homoeopathy and homoeoprophylaxis in a definition of some term ("homoeopractice"? "pathogenetic medicine"? "dynamic pathogenesis"?) without confusing people about homoeopathy itself. I'd be up for that; it might be the ultimate definitional challenge. What we have to be careful about, I think, is departing from the actual meaning of homoeopathy -- i.e., destroying it -- in the attempt to explain it.
In a nutshell, then, my take on it is that there is no way in which we can stretch the meaning of homoeopathy to incorporate any practice of medicine that does not rely on knowledge of the patient's symptoms and the medicine's symptoms. It is utilising a particular known relationship between the two that constitutes the practice of homoeopathy; once we abandon that clarity, we abandon all hope of maintaining a clear understanding as to, and of conveying, what it's about.
Cheers!
John
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Post 2
What about substances that symptomatically resemble the current epidemic disease?
Maybe the problem is that when I think of homeopathy, I do not think of a specific practice but all variations of practice in relation to disease management made possible by an underpinning natural law - a law that governs the relationships between similars.
Is the natural law (Law of Similars) the bedrock of homeopathy, and if so, is it then correct to only to refer to or define one particular application of that law? Or are treatments, prophylaxis, provings just a sub-sections (for want of a better word) of disease management under that law?
I prefer homeopathy as an umbrella term as then all things that have a therapeutic (or preventative) effect according to this law can be easily explained and understood – several counselling approaches, self-help groups, hot and cold applications, shiatsu and so on. Even those in martial arts or other contact sports, for example, will tell you they are less likely to bruise or ache when "toughened" by previous body blows - again, we have a type of prevention in place by similarity. If we don't put it down to the homeopathic effect, what should we call it when similia is obviously the reason?
I would say that homeoprophylaxis is not distinct and separate from homeopathy in the way nosotherapy is. It is just the different application of the same Law whereas nosode therapy is not.
Perhaps our difference lies in our understanding of homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis is not just the use of nosodes and the use of nosodes is not necessarily homeoprophylaxis. Again, without a full appreciation of effects underpinned by the Law of Similars it is easy to assume both are the same – something that is all too common amongst we homeopaths these days, and something clearer definitions would help set right.
It seems to me here that you are arguing for one sub-practice under the Law of Similars whereas I believe Homeopathy encompasses all the practices driven by that law. I think in terms of Homeopathy for treatment and homoeopathy for prevention. I can even see that both are sub-practices but not so that one is entitled to be called homeopathy and the other not.
Again, nosodes are just one among many remedies that can be used prophylactically. To be effectively the remedy has to be applied homeopathically.
We are not in disagreement here.
Agreed.
Prevention does undoubtedly rely on symptoms if it is to be used in an informed manner rather than a shot in the dark. I think we are thinking of two different approaches when we talk about prophylaxis. Prophylaxis and treatment are the two sides of the one coin - the homeopathy coin.
It is not another practice if we fail to acknowledge prophylaxis as the other side of the same coin, we just create further problems for ourselves further down the track.
Confused by the last sentence otherwise I agree.
Here we part company - most amicably.
You have not demonstated that Hahemann precluded prophylaxis from his definition so I must presume that your argument is coming from your own wishes and bias.
Yes, we have to progress carefully because there are many who believe nosotherapy to be homeoprophylaxis.
Agreed.
Maybe the problem is that when I think of homeopathy, I do not think of a specific practice but all variations of practice in relation to disease management made possible by an underpinning natural law - a law that governs the relationships between similars.
Is the natural law (Law of Similars) the bedrock of homeopathy, and if so, is it then correct to only to refer to or define one particular application of that law? Or are treatments, prophylaxis, provings just a sub-sections (for want of a better word) of disease management under that law?
I prefer homeopathy as an umbrella term as then all things that have a therapeutic (or preventative) effect according to this law can be easily explained and understood – several counselling approaches, self-help groups, hot and cold applications, shiatsu and so on. Even those in martial arts or other contact sports, for example, will tell you they are less likely to bruise or ache when "toughened" by previous body blows - again, we have a type of prevention in place by similarity. If we don't put it down to the homeopathic effect, what should we call it when similia is obviously the reason?
I would say that homeoprophylaxis is not distinct and separate from homeopathy in the way nosotherapy is. It is just the different application of the same Law whereas nosode therapy is not.
Perhaps our difference lies in our understanding of homeoprophylaxis. Homeoprophylaxis is not just the use of nosodes and the use of nosodes is not necessarily homeoprophylaxis. Again, without a full appreciation of effects underpinned by the Law of Similars it is easy to assume both are the same – something that is all too common amongst we homeopaths these days, and something clearer definitions would help set right.
It seems to me here that you are arguing for one sub-practice under the Law of Similars whereas I believe Homeopathy encompasses all the practices driven by that law. I think in terms of Homeopathy for treatment and homoeopathy for prevention. I can even see that both are sub-practices but not so that one is entitled to be called homeopathy and the other not.
Again, nosodes are just one among many remedies that can be used prophylactically. To be effectively the remedy has to be applied homeopathically.
We are not in disagreement here.
Agreed.
Prevention does undoubtedly rely on symptoms if it is to be used in an informed manner rather than a shot in the dark. I think we are thinking of two different approaches when we talk about prophylaxis. Prophylaxis and treatment are the two sides of the one coin - the homeopathy coin.
It is not another practice if we fail to acknowledge prophylaxis as the other side of the same coin, we just create further problems for ourselves further down the track.
Confused by the last sentence otherwise I agree.
Here we part company - most amicably.
You have not demonstated that Hahemann precluded prophylaxis from his definition so I must presume that your argument is coming from your own wishes and bias.Yes, we have to progress carefully because there are many who believe nosotherapy to be homeoprophylaxis.
Agreed.
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
I agree, Fran.
My suggested definition:
"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."
......does not (or is not intended to) exclude provings or homeoprophylaxis, because the Law of SImilars IS invoked with both of those, and the right individual situation is addressed...and the aph 141 words of robustness of health, are also included.
It could be worded more longwindedly to make that clearer, but I was looking for a very short definition, that could be followed by examples for more explanation.
Or we could look for better wording, do you have a suggestion?
I also do not want to restrict the definition by too much wordiness so that future developments that are real h omeopaty, are not inadvertently excluded.
For example I would not want to exclude FIbonacci potencies, a new option in homeopathy since 2009 which has proved its worth thoroughly, and I also would not like to exclude future options that address the diseases Hahnemann considered incurable, or new developments of any kind that use Hahnemann's principles and also invoke the Law of Similars.
Maybe my definition is actually too restrictive?
Maybe just this:
"Homeopathy is a health system involving the Law of Similars"
It can be used for example, to:
* build more robust health;
* build health in presence of ill-health;
* alleviate suffering;
* prevent illness.
Namaste,
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."
My suggested definition:
"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."
......does not (or is not intended to) exclude provings or homeoprophylaxis, because the Law of SImilars IS invoked with both of those, and the right individual situation is addressed...and the aph 141 words of robustness of health, are also included.
It could be worded more longwindedly to make that clearer, but I was looking for a very short definition, that could be followed by examples for more explanation.
Or we could look for better wording, do you have a suggestion?
I also do not want to restrict the definition by too much wordiness so that future developments that are real h omeopaty, are not inadvertently excluded.
For example I would not want to exclude FIbonacci potencies, a new option in homeopathy since 2009 which has proved its worth thoroughly, and I also would not like to exclude future options that address the diseases Hahnemann considered incurable, or new developments of any kind that use Hahnemann's principles and also invoke the Law of Similars.
Maybe my definition is actually too restrictive?
Maybe just this:
"Homeopathy is a health system involving the Law of Similars"
It can be used for example, to:
* build more robust health;
* build health in presence of ill-health;
* alleviate suffering;
* prevent illness.
Namaste,
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."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:25 PM, Fran Sheffield wrote an answer to John with which I agree for the most part, but not here where Fran agreed, but I consider the term "patrent's symptoms" inappropriate as it will exclude many aspects of homeopathy that should be included. We shoudl not have a definition that excludes relevant parts of homeopathy:
"Patient" needs to read "individual" (implying a single entity such as one individual field of trees, or one herd of cattle) as homeoprophlaxis for example has no patient, nor is a field of grain a patient when being treated for mold or whatever, nor is a person, animal or plant, a patient when self-treating.
More importantly, "symptoms" needs to read "features" or "characteristics". There need be no symptoms to match a remedy well with an individual. It can be matched on inherited constituional features alone, in absence of illnes ssymptoms and in that case will be a remedy to build robust health (follows the principle in aph 141) - another use of homeopathy's Law of SImilars which we should not exclude. It is indeed individually matched and is effective only becasuse The Law of Simialrs is invoked, so it IS homeopathy, but used without reference to pathology or symptoms. It uses individual features or characteristics - ones present in an ostensibly healthy individual.
Building robust health, is a use of homeopathy which is separate from prophlaxis but which needs to be included. Hahnemann only used it for provings, but it has much wider implications.
so - There is a known relationship between individual characteristics and remedy rubrics iin all of homeopathy, but the term "patient's symptoms" is too limiting to use instead, as it only refers to a subset of those known relationships that make it homeopathy.
Namaste,
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."
"Patient" needs to read "individual" (implying a single entity such as one individual field of trees, or one herd of cattle) as homeoprophlaxis for example has no patient, nor is a field of grain a patient when being treated for mold or whatever, nor is a person, animal or plant, a patient when self-treating.
More importantly, "symptoms" needs to read "features" or "characteristics". There need be no symptoms to match a remedy well with an individual. It can be matched on inherited constituional features alone, in absence of illnes ssymptoms and in that case will be a remedy to build robust health (follows the principle in aph 141) - another use of homeopathy's Law of SImilars which we should not exclude. It is indeed individually matched and is effective only becasuse The Law of Simialrs is invoked, so it IS homeopathy, but used without reference to pathology or symptoms. It uses individual features or characteristics - ones present in an ostensibly healthy individual.
Building robust health, is a use of homeopathy which is separate from prophlaxis but which needs to be included. Hahnemann only used it for provings, but it has much wider implications.
so - There is a known relationship between individual characteristics and remedy rubrics iin all of homeopathy, but the term "patient's symptoms" is too limiting to use instead, as it only refers to a subset of those known relationships that make it homeopathy.
Namaste,
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."
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
Hi John and Fran,
John said:
The understanding that homeopathy relies upon knowledge of both pathogenic and patient symptoms is the bedrock of its distinction from everything else.
And in another place John said:
In a nutshell, then, my take on it is that there is no way in which we can stretch the meaning of homeopathy to incorporate any practice of medicine that does not rely on knowledge of the patient's symptoms and the medicine's symptoms.
John contradicts himself. Pathogenic knowledge is about something outside the patient. As Ardavan said, we need to focus on the disturbance felt by the patient and not focus on the pathogen. This leads to problems when we look at miasmatic analysis.
Misasmatic theory becomes confused when the focus is on the pathogen as reflected in the various categories of pathogens (references to the names of various pathogens)
The second statement stays within the limits of the alteration in the patient's state and symptoms produced by medicines.
It is easy to exclude homeopropolaxis because remedies are selected before the disease hits a select population and results are somewhat unpredictable. For the same reason should we exclude miasmatic prescribing from our definition of homeopathy?
Miasms involve disease categories developed from patient symptoms, but not from the current symptom pictures. Miasms are like remedy pictures, we look for correspondence with the patient picture. Should we exclude miasmatic analysis from homeopathy because some very important data for miasmatic analysis is derived from the symptoms produced by pathogens and categorized according to allopathic categories which are also external to the patient? Or shall we include analsysi based on miasms (or nosodes for that matter) because remedies selection is ultimately based on symptoms produced by the current patient and not disease categories?
As others have suggested, a simple definition is best. But a definition that does not include our best practices is also useless.
Or perhaps, we should limit homeopathy to a very limited realm, and let other related practices stand alone based on their own independent efficacy and principles. If we do this, then simply saying that homeopathy is based on the similum will be insufficient. We also have to specify what cannot be present. Then the definition becomes complex.
I don't agree with Irene. A practice cannot be defined by outcomes. It must be defined by its practices and principles.
Best,
Ellen
John said:
The understanding that homeopathy relies upon knowledge of both pathogenic and patient symptoms is the bedrock of its distinction from everything else.
And in another place John said:
In a nutshell, then, my take on it is that there is no way in which we can stretch the meaning of homeopathy to incorporate any practice of medicine that does not rely on knowledge of the patient's symptoms and the medicine's symptoms.
John contradicts himself. Pathogenic knowledge is about something outside the patient. As Ardavan said, we need to focus on the disturbance felt by the patient and not focus on the pathogen. This leads to problems when we look at miasmatic analysis.
Misasmatic theory becomes confused when the focus is on the pathogen as reflected in the various categories of pathogens (references to the names of various pathogens)
The second statement stays within the limits of the alteration in the patient's state and symptoms produced by medicines.
It is easy to exclude homeopropolaxis because remedies are selected before the disease hits a select population and results are somewhat unpredictable. For the same reason should we exclude miasmatic prescribing from our definition of homeopathy?
Miasms involve disease categories developed from patient symptoms, but not from the current symptom pictures. Miasms are like remedy pictures, we look for correspondence with the patient picture. Should we exclude miasmatic analysis from homeopathy because some very important data for miasmatic analysis is derived from the symptoms produced by pathogens and categorized according to allopathic categories which are also external to the patient? Or shall we include analsysi based on miasms (or nosodes for that matter) because remedies selection is ultimately based on symptoms produced by the current patient and not disease categories?
As others have suggested, a simple definition is best. But a definition that does not include our best practices is also useless.
Or perhaps, we should limit homeopathy to a very limited realm, and let other related practices stand alone based on their own independent efficacy and principles. If we do this, then simply saying that homeopathy is based on the similum will be insufficient. We also have to specify what cannot be present. Then the definition becomes complex.
I don't agree with Irene. A practice cannot be defined by outcomes. It must be defined by its practices and principles.
Best,
Ellen
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
Huh??? Ellen?????
I cannot get why you accuse me of such an idiotic statment, it is not nice.
Please have the courtesy to quote where you invented this from - MY words never said any such nonsense.
Outcomes is not even a word I use.
It is your invention? But from where? You do not usually invent things? WHat happened?
Yes of course. I am forever talking about the principles being what matters.
Please quote me before you disagree with me in words of such anathema to me and to homeopathy. It trashes my reputation for knowing well what homeopathy is about, and the reputation of my school too, as obviously I TEACH MY VIEWS THERE.
Please QUOTE me rather than inventing when you give such greatly negative criticism.
I really object!
I deserve better.
Namaste,
Irene
Where did you find the crazy idea you attribute to me?
It makes me feel ill having such an anethma claiimed to be my view!
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."
I cannot get why you accuse me of such an idiotic statment, it is not nice.
Please have the courtesy to quote where you invented this from - MY words never said any such nonsense.
Outcomes is not even a word I use.
It is your invention? But from where? You do not usually invent things? WHat happened?
Yes of course. I am forever talking about the principles being what matters.
Please quote me before you disagree with me in words of such anathema to me and to homeopathy. It trashes my reputation for knowing well what homeopathy is about, and the reputation of my school too, as obviously I TEACH MY VIEWS THERE.
Please QUOTE me rather than inventing when you give such greatly negative criticism.
I really object!
I deserve better.
Namaste,
Irene
Where did you find the crazy idea you attribute to me?
It makes me feel ill having such an anethma claiimed to be my view!
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."
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
Hi Irene,
So you would include radionics, polypharmacy etc because they all work to some extent? As long as they used the law of similars we are all doing homeopathy.
So in rough terms you would say if it works and applies the law of similars, then it it homeopathy. If for example, you did not like radionic remedies and felt that they did not work very well, you would just exclude that part of homeopathy. Maybe you think that alternating remedies is fine, but two remedies at once gives unclear results, so you exclude that aspect of polypharmacy. It is up to you to have judgement as to what you are willing to use in your homeopathic practice If I slap a warm towel on a burn, I am doing homeopathy because I am applying the law of similars. Correct?
That's simple and understandable. But just the fact that you are excluding what does not work from your brand of homeopathy means that the definition of what works is has to be defensible. Would we all agree on issues of efficacy?
Are there other drawbacks to defining our practice based on efficacy?
For example, when polypharmacists produce further chronic illness in patients due to intense aggravations, do you want to be lumped together with them? That is what is happening in Japan. People are assuming I am a polypharmacist because that is where the money for organization is. I would like to say that polypharmacy is not homeopathy, but you are forcing me into the same category. :>(
Best,
Ellen
So you would include radionics, polypharmacy etc because they all work to some extent? As long as they used the law of similars we are all doing homeopathy.
So in rough terms you would say if it works and applies the law of similars, then it it homeopathy. If for example, you did not like radionic remedies and felt that they did not work very well, you would just exclude that part of homeopathy. Maybe you think that alternating remedies is fine, but two remedies at once gives unclear results, so you exclude that aspect of polypharmacy. It is up to you to have judgement as to what you are willing to use in your homeopathic practice If I slap a warm towel on a burn, I am doing homeopathy because I am applying the law of similars. Correct?
That's simple and understandable. But just the fact that you are excluding what does not work from your brand of homeopathy means that the definition of what works is has to be defensible. Would we all agree on issues of efficacy?
Are there other drawbacks to defining our practice based on efficacy?
For example, when polypharmacists produce further chronic illness in patients due to intense aggravations, do you want to be lumped together with them? That is what is happening in Japan. People are assuming I am a polypharmacist because that is where the money for organization is. I would like to say that polypharmacy is not homeopathy, but you are forcing me into the same category. :>(
Best,
Ellen
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Post 2
ELLEN, WHat the heck are you talking about?
And where did you invent it from?
Please leave my name out of your delusions here.
If you want to discuss my views then QUOTE THEM FIRST.
Take my name off this garbage you are writing;
Namaste,
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."
And where did you invent it from?
Please leave my name out of your delusions here.
If you want to discuss my views then QUOTE THEM FIRST.
Take my name off this garbage you are writing;
Namaste,
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."