I think we need a cohesive set of definitions for the critical terms.
Maybe something like this:
HOMEOPATHY=D=
A system of health care using energy, in which the characteristics of the individual (or group of individuals in epidemics, herds, crop fields etc) are matched to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def).
The remedy may or may not have material components in addition to the active energy. Matched, inexpensive, energy-only remedies have no side effects and are manufactured under strict safety standards to prevent contamination. (See also Allopathy Def.)
LAW OF SIMILARS=D=
A phenomenon seen in nature (observed by physicians since the time of Hipporates) in which healing occurs when an energy (or substance containing it) which is similar to the one causing suffering, is applied to the individual who is suffering, resulting in healing.
This works when the energies are similar but not when they are identical, significantly different, or opposite. It applies to all living things, whether plants, animals or humans.
HOMEOPATHIC=D=
Any health building match which invokes the Law of Similars.
(See def for Homeopathy, and for Law of SImilars)
ALLOPATHY=D=
A system of medicine, in which a diagnosis leads to selection of procedures and/or medicines approved for the diagnosis, to remove or suppress symptoms and/or a disease entity, and which are believed to do less harm from side effects than benefit from direct effects.
It is considered a cure if the original symptoms do not reappear for five years.
If new symptoms are caused by the method, they are considered a new problem.
The drugs used have no predetermined known action as with remedies (see def Homeopathy), nor any studied long-term effects. Their use is based on short term experiments mostly on animals, by their manufacturer, who stands to profit.
Drug effects are a major cause of death and injury.
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."
The Definitions
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: The Definitions
Look, sorry to be picky, but there are two problems with what appears here. First, definitions have a certain grammatical function: to stand in a sentence in place of the word defined. Under "HOMEOPATHY", your initial noun phrase, ending at the first full comma, does that, and so does the entire noun phrase ending at the first full stop. But the rest of that section does not. You'd have to conjoin the two into a single (noun) phrase for its entirety to serve as a definition. Similarly with the other sections.
The second problem with the first section is that the phrase that stands for the word it defines must actually mean what the word means -- this phrase does not. Most of the words in the first section are apposite (if a little too vague), but its first real inaccuracy occurs in claiming that homoeopathy is a system of health care "using energy". Actually, the method uses a medicine. That medicine may be crude, or it may have undergone what we call potentisation, but in either case we have no way of knowing -- nor is it relevant -- what "energy" inheres in it or what function such "energy" may have.
Removing the unnecessarily restrictive "using energy", and removing the initial comma so that what follows it becomes relevant to the "system of health care" (by restricting it in the way described), leaves us with this:
"a system of health care in which the characteristics of the individual (or group of individuals in epidemics, herds, crop fields etc) are matched to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def)".
Now, this is beginning to sound like every real definition of homoeopathy, the kind you may encounter in a good dictionary.
It remains, as mentioned, a tad vague, and I'll question those vaguenesses in bold here.
• The patient is "matched", but matched on what basis?
• The remedy must have "similar predetermined activity areas": does this mean that the remedy must cause symptoms similar to those of the patient, or does it mean any old thing that anybody wants it to mean?
• The match occurs "in order to invoke the Law of Similars": is that necessarily so? If the effort is made to prescribe a medicine homoeopathic to (i.e. causing symptoms similar to those of) a person's state of illness -- regardless of the intent in doing so -- isn't that sufficient to make that effort an act of homoeopathy?
As I've mentioned before, introducing unnecessary requirements not only makes the attempted definition overly complicated, as here; it also raises the distinct possibility of excluding from the definition activities that rightly in fact are homoeopathy. So if somebody knowingly prescribes a medicine on the basis that its known effects on the healthy symptomatically resemble the patient's state of illness, who is to say that -- no matter what that person's purpose in doing so is -- the prescription was not the activity we call homoeopathy? I'd suggest that requiring that person to have a certain purpose in doing so is requiring too much.
As well, a definition that raises as many questions as it answers -- as this one does in requiring the reader to know what the "Law of Similars" is -- may be less than helpful to the person for whom it's intended.
Anyway, some clarification of the matters questioned in bold above would be helpful in pinning this definition down to something specific (but not specific enough to wrongfully exclude some homoeopathic practice) and relevant to the term "homoeopathy".
The other definition you offer here that's relevant is that of "homeopathic":
"any health building match which invokes the Law of Similars".
Assuming that you intended "health building" to modify "match" and "invokes the Law of Similars" to be restrictive leaves us with something whose meaning is a little clearer:
"any health-building match that invokes the Law of Similars".
Obviously this is yet another attempt to define an action by its results, this time the results being successful invocation of a law. In essence, you're replacing the extremely straightforward concept of symptom similarity by a criterion that's both unfortunately obscure and unpredictable and that in any case can apply only to the results of a prescription rather than to the method.
It's important to realise that the result of a prescription is not relevant to whether the prescription was made homoeopathically. But there's another level of confusion here that, as Shannon rightly keeps pointing out, is easy to fall into: it's important to understand that not even the practitioner's success in finding a suitably homoeopathic medicine bears upon the question of whether his methods in doing so were homoeopathic. The accidentally homoeopathic prescription that results from an allopathic method is, in the sense of "homoeopathy" under discussion here, not homoeopathy.
Actually, the most straightforward way to approach this adjective, "homoeopathic", may be the approach that a dictionary would use: "of, or through, homoeopathy; symptomatically similar to" -- which covers both practice and medicinal relationship.
Anyway, we may be able to make progress with your definition, Irene, if we clear up the questions in bold above. Are you willing to do that?
Cheers --
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
The second problem with the first section is that the phrase that stands for the word it defines must actually mean what the word means -- this phrase does not. Most of the words in the first section are apposite (if a little too vague), but its first real inaccuracy occurs in claiming that homoeopathy is a system of health care "using energy". Actually, the method uses a medicine. That medicine may be crude, or it may have undergone what we call potentisation, but in either case we have no way of knowing -- nor is it relevant -- what "energy" inheres in it or what function such "energy" may have.
Removing the unnecessarily restrictive "using energy", and removing the initial comma so that what follows it becomes relevant to the "system of health care" (by restricting it in the way described), leaves us with this:
"a system of health care in which the characteristics of the individual (or group of individuals in epidemics, herds, crop fields etc) are matched to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def)".
Now, this is beginning to sound like every real definition of homoeopathy, the kind you may encounter in a good dictionary.
It remains, as mentioned, a tad vague, and I'll question those vaguenesses in bold here.
• The patient is "matched", but matched on what basis?
• The remedy must have "similar predetermined activity areas": does this mean that the remedy must cause symptoms similar to those of the patient, or does it mean any old thing that anybody wants it to mean?
• The match occurs "in order to invoke the Law of Similars": is that necessarily so? If the effort is made to prescribe a medicine homoeopathic to (i.e. causing symptoms similar to those of) a person's state of illness -- regardless of the intent in doing so -- isn't that sufficient to make that effort an act of homoeopathy?
As I've mentioned before, introducing unnecessary requirements not only makes the attempted definition overly complicated, as here; it also raises the distinct possibility of excluding from the definition activities that rightly in fact are homoeopathy. So if somebody knowingly prescribes a medicine on the basis that its known effects on the healthy symptomatically resemble the patient's state of illness, who is to say that -- no matter what that person's purpose in doing so is -- the prescription was not the activity we call homoeopathy? I'd suggest that requiring that person to have a certain purpose in doing so is requiring too much.
As well, a definition that raises as many questions as it answers -- as this one does in requiring the reader to know what the "Law of Similars" is -- may be less than helpful to the person for whom it's intended.
Anyway, some clarification of the matters questioned in bold above would be helpful in pinning this definition down to something specific (but not specific enough to wrongfully exclude some homoeopathic practice) and relevant to the term "homoeopathy".
The other definition you offer here that's relevant is that of "homeopathic":
"any health building match which invokes the Law of Similars".
Assuming that you intended "health building" to modify "match" and "invokes the Law of Similars" to be restrictive leaves us with something whose meaning is a little clearer:
"any health-building match that invokes the Law of Similars".
Obviously this is yet another attempt to define an action by its results, this time the results being successful invocation of a law. In essence, you're replacing the extremely straightforward concept of symptom similarity by a criterion that's both unfortunately obscure and unpredictable and that in any case can apply only to the results of a prescription rather than to the method.
It's important to realise that the result of a prescription is not relevant to whether the prescription was made homoeopathically. But there's another level of confusion here that, as Shannon rightly keeps pointing out, is easy to fall into: it's important to understand that not even the practitioner's success in finding a suitably homoeopathic medicine bears upon the question of whether his methods in doing so were homoeopathic. The accidentally homoeopathic prescription that results from an allopathic method is, in the sense of "homoeopathy" under discussion here, not homoeopathy.
Actually, the most straightforward way to approach this adjective, "homoeopathic", may be the approach that a dictionary would use: "of, or through, homoeopathy; symptomatically similar to" -- which covers both practice and medicinal relationship.
Anyway, we may be able to make progress with your definition, Irene, if we clear up the questions in bold above. Are you willing to do that?
Cheers --
John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: The Definitions
Hey - Let's skip the blowing of dust off the puck, and try to go make a goal okay?
My use of =D= is an old abbreviation for "by definition means"
Enough said on grammar.
The goal posts:
You have not shown any vagueness, but please feel free to explain - the defs are below the email for ref.
On the contrary, it IS energy and Hahnemann is at great pains to explain that as well. He compares with magnetic energy for example.
Material dose remedy also achieves its homeopathic effect or Law of Similars implementation, through energy. Additional nutritional material may come with the energy when material doses are used, but that does not change the fact that energy is involved in the homeopathic effect - in the vital force - in the Law of Simlars - and in the disease force.
Energy is a concept even a skeptic can follow. (Most of them pay their energy bills)
It is easy to prove this energy aspect as remedies work through a closed glass bottle with no need to remove the lid. No substance is involved; energy is involved.
It is not the only medicine that uses energy. Xrays are common usage energy medicine for allopaths.
It is just the opposite of restrictive.
We NEED to explain these energy remedies the way Hahnemann did and also to explain how they work through glass - not easy if you restrict remedies to material dose.
All material doses have energy. But all energy doses do not have material aspects.
Energy is the broader and more accurate and Hahnemannian definition.
Thank you,
That was well stated:
"to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def)".
Yes, with the first part of my definition as well:
The match occurs "to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas"
and yes that is done specifically with the intention of invoking the Law of Similars.
The Law of Similars is how homeopathy heals. If you are not planning to use that basic precept, then you are not practicing homeopathy...er ...by definition:-)
Well it excludes those so called "homeopathic" mixtures of remedies on the store shelves, but that is intentiional. I do not see those as homeopathy.
It includes provings on healthy individuals, which as Hahnemann says, increase the robustness of the person and their resistance to disease generally ( so that is done by Law of Similars).
But it excludes a remedy chosen with no attempt at matching the individual's illness characteristics to the remedy, as I do not see that as homeopathy, not as invoking the LOS.
It includes homeoprophylaxis, which like provings, invokes the Law of Similars to build robustness and better health.
It includes matching inherited traits towards an innate constitutioanl type and associated remedy, as that matches the individual to a remedy, and invokes the law of similars to increase robustness of health that way.
(Robustness is Hahneann's term for it, aph 141)
It includes the use of remedeis in acute situations as that heals by LOS.
It includes anything not yet in use which invokes the principles encompassed.
(That is not homeopathy, it is backwards. The patient/individual's symptoms need to be within the remedy not the other way round.)
The Law of SImilars is central to homeopathy.
If someone invokes it unintentionally, it is an "effect" it is not homeopathy - it is a "homeopathic" effect, but becasue it is accidental rather than intentional, it is not "homeopathy"
Not so. It is very much appropriate to cross reference related definitions within a subject area which uses unique terms not found commonly in the language, and also for terms that have subtle but important differences, which are part of the explanation to achieve clearer understanding.
I have not made the mistake of defining each term by reference to a secomd term referred back to the first one ie in a circle. THAT would be confusing.
which please see
good..... a start anyway.
None has been excluded in that the definitions do not encompass any rules, onyl essential core principles.
(Can you think of one that would be excluded that shoud not be?)
I have been extra careful about that as I am open to new approaches, and have developed one or two, as has Joe Roz.
But I also want the principles to exclude what is not homeopathy, and I do not consider that the practice of homeopathy can be an "unaware" one or one that fails to intend to use the LOS.
They are all relevant, they may need tweaking but they are all necessary as a set - they need to be a group of definitions in order not to leave out important core principles or include loopholes.
Yes....
Attempting to create a homeopathic effect and failing means the action was not homeopathic.
Accidentally creating a homeopathic effect is an homeopathic effect, albeit by accident.
Not so.
As you know, "Homeopathic" is not an action, and therefore cannot have results.
"Homeopathic" is a descriptive word (adverb or adjective) - it can describe what was done, or what is intended to be done or what is being seen etc. No more. The noun it describes, is the action.
eg homeopathic effect - the effect is the noun. It is not "homeopathy" as a noun.
Correct. It is not homeopathy by my set of definitions either - but the result is a homeopathic result.
This is why the definition of "homeoapthy" is needed as well as the defiition of "homeopathic".
The word "homeopahty" is about the profession.
The word "homeopahtic" merely implies LOS happened somewhere somehow.
So - A mixture of remedies cannot be called a "homeopahtic remedy" or "homeopathic" for example, as it has not invoked LOS or been matched to an individual anywhere, nor is there a proving to allow that to be possible. Their use can not be practice of homeopathy and they cannot be called homeopahtic either. (by my defs)
eg
Use of TB vaccine prevents leprosy - a similar disease - this use is homeoapthic but it is not homeopathy as the practice of homeopathy involves intention (and there was no intention to prevent leprosy) and the observation of a result is merely a description of what happened - there was a "homeoapthic" result - result is the noun here. There was no "homeopathy" (noun representing a profession).
Namaste,
Irene
I think we need a cohesive set of definitions for the critical terms.
Maybe something like this:
HOMEOPATHY=D=
A system of health care using energy, in which the characteristics of the individual (or group of individuals in epidemics, herds, crop fields etc) are matched to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def).
The remedy may or may not have material components in addition to the active energy. Matched, inexpensive, energy-only remedies have no side effects and are manufactured under strict safety standards to prevent contamination. (See also Allopathy Def.)
LAW OF SIMILARS=D=
A phenomenon seen in nature (observed by physicians since the time of Hipporates) in which healing occurs when an energy (or substance containing it) which is similar to the one causing suffering, is applied to the individual who is suffering, resulting in healing.
This works when the energies are similar but not when they are identical, significantly different, or opposite. It applies to all living things, whether plants, animals or humans.
HOMEOPATHIC=D=
Any health building match which invokes the Law of Similars.
(See def for Homeopathy, and for Law of SImilars)
ALLOPATHY=D=
A system of medicine, in which a diagnosis leads to selection of procedures and/or medicines approved for the diagnosis, to remove or suppress symptoms and/or a disease entity, and which are believed to do less harm from side effects than benefit from direct effects.
It is considered a cure if the original symptoms do not reappear for five years.
If new symptoms are caused by the method, they are considered a new problem.
The drugs used have no predetermined known action as with remedies (see def Homeopathy), nor any studied long-term effects. Their use is based on short term experiments mostly on animals, by their manufacturer, who stands to profit.
Drug effects are a major cause of death and injury.
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 use of =D= is an old abbreviation for "by definition means"
Enough said on grammar.
The goal posts:
You have not shown any vagueness, but please feel free to explain - the defs are below the email for ref.
On the contrary, it IS energy and Hahnemann is at great pains to explain that as well. He compares with magnetic energy for example.
Material dose remedy also achieves its homeopathic effect or Law of Similars implementation, through energy. Additional nutritional material may come with the energy when material doses are used, but that does not change the fact that energy is involved in the homeopathic effect - in the vital force - in the Law of Simlars - and in the disease force.
Energy is a concept even a skeptic can follow. (Most of them pay their energy bills)
It is easy to prove this energy aspect as remedies work through a closed glass bottle with no need to remove the lid. No substance is involved; energy is involved.
It is not the only medicine that uses energy. Xrays are common usage energy medicine for allopaths.
It is just the opposite of restrictive.
We NEED to explain these energy remedies the way Hahnemann did and also to explain how they work through glass - not easy if you restrict remedies to material dose.
All material doses have energy. But all energy doses do not have material aspects.
Energy is the broader and more accurate and Hahnemannian definition.
Thank you,
That was well stated:
"to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def)".
Yes, with the first part of my definition as well:
The match occurs "to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas"
and yes that is done specifically with the intention of invoking the Law of Similars.
The Law of Similars is how homeopathy heals. If you are not planning to use that basic precept, then you are not practicing homeopathy...er ...by definition:-)
Well it excludes those so called "homeopathic" mixtures of remedies on the store shelves, but that is intentiional. I do not see those as homeopathy.
It includes provings on healthy individuals, which as Hahnemann says, increase the robustness of the person and their resistance to disease generally ( so that is done by Law of Similars).
But it excludes a remedy chosen with no attempt at matching the individual's illness characteristics to the remedy, as I do not see that as homeopathy, not as invoking the LOS.
It includes homeoprophylaxis, which like provings, invokes the Law of Similars to build robustness and better health.
It includes matching inherited traits towards an innate constitutioanl type and associated remedy, as that matches the individual to a remedy, and invokes the law of similars to increase robustness of health that way.
(Robustness is Hahneann's term for it, aph 141)
It includes the use of remedeis in acute situations as that heals by LOS.
It includes anything not yet in use which invokes the principles encompassed.
(That is not homeopathy, it is backwards. The patient/individual's symptoms need to be within the remedy not the other way round.)
The Law of SImilars is central to homeopathy.
If someone invokes it unintentionally, it is an "effect" it is not homeopathy - it is a "homeopathic" effect, but becasue it is accidental rather than intentional, it is not "homeopathy"
Not so. It is very much appropriate to cross reference related definitions within a subject area which uses unique terms not found commonly in the language, and also for terms that have subtle but important differences, which are part of the explanation to achieve clearer understanding.
I have not made the mistake of defining each term by reference to a secomd term referred back to the first one ie in a circle. THAT would be confusing.
which please see
good..... a start anyway.
None has been excluded in that the definitions do not encompass any rules, onyl essential core principles.
(Can you think of one that would be excluded that shoud not be?)
I have been extra careful about that as I am open to new approaches, and have developed one or two, as has Joe Roz.
But I also want the principles to exclude what is not homeopathy, and I do not consider that the practice of homeopathy can be an "unaware" one or one that fails to intend to use the LOS.
They are all relevant, they may need tweaking but they are all necessary as a set - they need to be a group of definitions in order not to leave out important core principles or include loopholes.
Yes....
Attempting to create a homeopathic effect and failing means the action was not homeopathic.
Accidentally creating a homeopathic effect is an homeopathic effect, albeit by accident.
Not so.
As you know, "Homeopathic" is not an action, and therefore cannot have results.
"Homeopathic" is a descriptive word (adverb or adjective) - it can describe what was done, or what is intended to be done or what is being seen etc. No more. The noun it describes, is the action.
eg homeopathic effect - the effect is the noun. It is not "homeopathy" as a noun.
Correct. It is not homeopathy by my set of definitions either - but the result is a homeopathic result.
This is why the definition of "homeoapthy" is needed as well as the defiition of "homeopathic".
The word "homeopahty" is about the profession.
The word "homeopahtic" merely implies LOS happened somewhere somehow.
So - A mixture of remedies cannot be called a "homeopahtic remedy" or "homeopathic" for example, as it has not invoked LOS or been matched to an individual anywhere, nor is there a proving to allow that to be possible. Their use can not be practice of homeopathy and they cannot be called homeopahtic either. (by my defs)
eg
Use of TB vaccine prevents leprosy - a similar disease - this use is homeoapthic but it is not homeopathy as the practice of homeopathy involves intention (and there was no intention to prevent leprosy) and the observation of a result is merely a description of what happened - there was a "homeoapthic" result - result is the noun here. There was no "homeopathy" (noun representing a profession).
Namaste,
Irene
I think we need a cohesive set of definitions for the critical terms.
Maybe something like this:
HOMEOPATHY=D=
A system of health care using energy, in which the characteristics of the individual (or group of individuals in epidemics, herds, crop fields etc) are matched to a remedy with similar predetermined activity areas, in order to invoke the Law of Similars (see Def).
The remedy may or may not have material components in addition to the active energy. Matched, inexpensive, energy-only remedies have no side effects and are manufactured under strict safety standards to prevent contamination. (See also Allopathy Def.)
LAW OF SIMILARS=D=
A phenomenon seen in nature (observed by physicians since the time of Hipporates) in which healing occurs when an energy (or substance containing it) which is similar to the one causing suffering, is applied to the individual who is suffering, resulting in healing.
This works when the energies are similar but not when they are identical, significantly different, or opposite. It applies to all living things, whether plants, animals or humans.
HOMEOPATHIC=D=
Any health building match which invokes the Law of Similars.
(See def for Homeopathy, and for Law of SImilars)
ALLOPATHY=D=
A system of medicine, in which a diagnosis leads to selection of procedures and/or medicines approved for the diagnosis, to remove or suppress symptoms and/or a disease entity, and which are believed to do less harm from side effects than benefit from direct effects.
It is considered a cure if the original symptoms do not reappear for five years.
If new symptoms are caused by the method, they are considered a new problem.
The drugs used have no predetermined known action as with remedies (see def Homeopathy), nor any studied long-term effects. Their use is based on short term experiments mostly on animals, by their manufacturer, who stands to profit.
Drug effects are a major cause of death and injury.
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."