Minutus

Hi Shannon,
Well, he would prescribe e.g. as follows:

1. remedy X, 2. remedy Y, 3. remedy W.

Take every 5 days alternating.
Hahnemann would mark some symptoms that had come up since the last
appointment with NB. (There were quite a few of them in his case
journals). Then - presumably at some later date - he would cross them
out and transfer them to his MM. The crossed-out ones were not as
numerous but still quite a lot of them.

There is no information by him, which symptoms he would choose for NB
nor for his crossing them out and transferring them.

Some of the people who did the transcribing and editing for the
publications have ventured guesses - but it seems they do not agree --
and afaik these people were not homeopaths (though definitely
interested and perhaps even knowledgeable)

I do not think that homeopaths have done serious research, trying to
find out the reason Hahnemann chose them for inclusion in his MM's.

My guess is that he considered them proving sx.

Also, v. B. included in his MM sx that were not from provings - in a
letter Hahnemann reproves him for it, resp. for not distinguishing
them from the proving sx.

So, I guess to both of them sx from patients - i.e. by definition sick
people - were ok.

Also there are footnotes in Allen's encyclopedia about the non-health
of specific provers in the provings.

Of course also, the sx that derive from poisonings: often the
substances were given as remedies for some complaint.
Sure - but then we cannot claim that there "has to be similarity".

Similarity to what? To symptoms that would have come out in provings
if they had had a chance????:-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Sam,

Well, I have for years and years tried to point out things that the
other homeopaths are not aware of and/or do not want to be aware of.

Practically no-one has been interested. This discussion with you has
been the best - and even in it no-one got my point.

I am no longer personally concerned - so why should I keep wasting my
energy.

So I will no longer contradict or involve myself in these kinds of
threads.

I hope that things turn out the way you (Plural) wish for:-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Interesting. Can anyone explain the method for me, a bit? Or is it a
mystery??

Any information on the nature of the "next prescription"--were these in
people whom he continued on the same remedy afterwards, or was the
remedy then changed?

I suppose perfectly healthy volunteers could be a challenge to
come by even in those days! But then, as now, it seems to work out.
I would indeed call it similarity on grounds of the assumption that
only a symptom with "similarity" could be "cured". Admittedly that is
a bit of circular reasoning...

Exactly.

Cheers,
Shannon

John Harvey wrote:

I'm not sure why you think that.
In my view, what Hahnemann said is homeopathy - how we interpret it is
individual - which is the case in ANY science - and is not part of the
definition of the science.
The definition of classical homeopathy is "what Hahnemann advocated".

The definition of an individual's interpretation of it - is THEIR
interpretation - it's not part of the definition.
.... is that people are confusing the definition with their personal
interpretation.
As in ANY science - only the definition needs to be "defined". The
interpretation is individual.

So in my view, the discussions are about individual interpretation but
not about what is homeopathy.
Some things will be interpreted pretty universally - and the things that
are not so, come under the same type of category as in any science where
some interpret one way and others another. There's nothing new about
that - and it does not need to undermine the concepts or definition of
the science. Homeopathy is in a unique position in that we DO have an
original definition - we need not argue about that.

Interpretation - where it varies - is and always will be open to
individual interpretation - we should not try to make it rigid or
uniform as that stifles the science and the progress.
It's unclear in your post who wrote what - I suspect this was a prior
writer - and I agree with this part.
Whoever said this can't also have said the prior sentence. I disagree
with this statement - and someone needs top read the organon some more I
suspect. It explains very clearly how one disease is overcome by a
similar differnt one - the same thing that has been observed in nature
by many individuals since Hippocrates noted it. We still use cowpox
vaccine today against smallpox and of course it works because the
diseases are similar. As Hahnemann explained, if you put cowpox material
into a person with smallpox, the smallpox is cured. This is an example
of the law of similars - that like cures like, and it can be
demonstrated by anyone, even though nature provides rather few literal
examples as natural diseases compared to the expansion Hahnemann made to
offer more and more opportu7nitities to cure with similiar disease.
Anyone who says "Like cures like" shoudl KNOW that it is so and not need
to try to slime out of it and suddenly "not want to be held to it"
Why the cop-out?
We seem to be back on the same track:-)))

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."

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

Probably because they are different constitutional types with different
susceptibilities:-)

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."

Well said, wise homeopath.
Just like there are many religions but one human race (?).
Human tries to identify that there is one god since time immemorial - individuality !
I salute to the thinking that there is one law but differing practices. This fit into the orders of the Earth, at lease, to ordinary human beings.
Lau, Kuching.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "John Harvey" wrote:
haven't yet understood it. What's necessary in that case is to reach
past the words for the meaning, a meaning you could cut in stone;
something you could give directions about to a simple person who had no
experience in engaging in endless philosophical construction.<

I agree that you have to reach past the words to understand.
But still you do need those words to talk about this meaning with
others.
And I see no harm in philosophical constructions, but they must be open
for challenge.
So discussing the meaning of the word 'homeopathy' is very rewarding,
at least to me it is.

Annemieke

I agree here and this is also what *works* for me. I have tried various bugs and irritants in dealing with infections and allergies and they work for me. i have tried things like Ligament and Tendon etc and they don't work for me. Thyroidinum and folliculinum (well proved remedies) do. The people who have recommended sarcodes to me have always used them in combination with other remedies so i don't know how they know if they work or not.
The traditional combos do work for people who have studied them and they do well in trials. They are not totally random collections and are based on remedies that do have an action of similarity. I don't use them myself because i wouldn't know where to go after the first prescription in a chronic case and haven't really needed them in acutes. Some modern combos are based on sarcodes and substances with no proved action at all.
Incidentally I have used some of the lesser herbal remedies in Boericke - ones that have had minimal provings - and have been generally disappointed. (eg Mercurialis really *should* work for Sjogren's!), so I am suspicious of them, too!
Theresa
H2O2 wrote:
Let me simplify it - this is what I think when I select a Homeopathic
medicine for a patient - nothing more , nothing less -

CAN IT CAUSE THIS SYMPTOM?

Before you give any medicine - be it using the principle of tissue
affinity, law of signatures , biochemic salts- whatever it is - "WILL
IT PRODUCE / HAS IT PRODUCED THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS THIS PATIENT HAS"-

you may give Brain or Bone or Kidney in potencies as tonics, quoting
tissue affinity etc. etc. - but - for it to be homeopathic IT NEEDS
TO CAUSE WHAT IT CAN CURE- or at least you think it should based on
your experience etc. etc.

What are the points - can you just list them, so that they are at
least there - even if anyone does not get it?

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Lau" wrote:

Exactly - these different ideas in homeopathy have become like
religions based on faith and specious reasonings, instead of following
a simple science...
it is
the
grooves
but
things that
where
definition of
more I
nature
material
example
literal
made to
not need
simple.