Minutus

Hi Ellen,
Sorry, but are you not now doing that?

I never said it was all trash, even less that you should follow my
approach.

I Just said why *I* could not accept the basic idea and therefore *I*
never bothered about it further.

But thank you for the summary below - it may help me to better
understanding.
Writing

No, do read again. It says that the ectoderm deveops into skin AND
nervous system etc. Whichever way - the details are in other sections.

Since the ball is turned

I was not talking about that. My problem is that relatively! important
and unimportant adult tissue derive from each of the germinal layers,
as shown exemplarily by the ectoderm - where skin would be relatively
unimportant but sexual organs and nervaous system (brain) would be
relatively the most important.

So I cannot see where the "depth" of a disease could be related to the
germinal layer it derives from. So far the stages of the embryological
development play not role in my thinking at all.
I do not see so far the relationship of the tissue damage to the
layer. Minor tissue damage to the skin is less serious than small
tissue damage to the brain, IMO.

Also, it

Well, I have never believed in Hering's Rule.

I am
They told me nothing. They just said Hering did not coin it.

What they used to decide this is very divergent, depending on their
method, on which of the many miasm theories they follow resp. whether
they follow a miasm theory at all.
Only some of the miasm theories argue that way.
Again - the decision whether an abscess is syphilitic or not again
depends on the miasm theory the homeopath follows.

You are told it is

Exactly.

Regards

Luise
Similarly, if you look at any polycrest,

--
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 Robyn,
cut

Did I do that???

I wrote (quoting from my mail)

" I could not
follow the logic since **I considered the basics absurd**."

What is wrong in my or any person's considering something absurd?

The V's basic idea, on which everything else is built, seems to me to
determine the relative importance of a tissue to be determined by the
dermal layer it developed from. Since both skin develop from the same
layer, I consider this idea absurd.

Therefore I also cannot see how one can decide on the depth of a
disease by the germinal layer it involves.

And the entire theorretical system must be faulty if the very base it
is built on is faulty.

So back to what I said in my mail as cited above: "**I could not
follow the logic ** since I considered the basic absurd.

It is a mere personal statement explaining why *I* could not follow
the logic and could not understand the system from the very start.
Which is nothing but the plain truth.

If others do not find the basics faulty and can logically follow so
that they derive benefits from it - glad to hear it and more power to
them:-)

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 <==========

Dear Luise,

The tissue type or cell type has a lot to do with its history in the developmental process. The process is complex so if you are not interested, I understand. There are lots of unexpected happenings in nature. Cell development is relatively predictable. When such as complex process as the cell differentiation is controlled in the developmental process to the extent that we produce similar human bodies, you should not be very surprised if homeopaths are interested in what tissues are affected by what remedies etc. or which miasms affects which undifferentiated embryonic cell. If you can understand the big concepts, We have to look at the details to understand the big concepts. But we don't need to memorize those details. With the big biological concepts, the details fit together more easily. IMO.

To bad your German teachers had nothing positive to tell you about the subject of the direction of cure.

Best,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,
They did - but that was long ago:-)

In the 25 years since then I have thought it over.

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 <==========