Minutus

By the way, thank you, Luise. You and I too ended up with some points of agreement! And this matter of the umbrella under which we get together strikes me as being essential to the larger political picture as well as being the point that will enable many discussions presently derailed by use of one word (homoeopathy, proving, similars!) at cross-purposes.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/6 Luise Kunkle >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

I cannot comment on Rajan's case taking as I have no experience of it but certainly strong sx of a rx, characteristic sx can be the beginning for expert deduction when you have a case that fits, i.e. matches sx similarity very well, becomes the most indicated rx but still has a missing part so to speak. Then you take one of the characteristic sx (that are in the proving) such as internal heat > really cold water, or even stranger internal chill >> cold water - whatever sx you want to pick and then use that to cover a specific sx such as a joint that is hot internally and is > cold or a joint that feels cold internally and is better for cold even though THAT particular sx isn't in the proving, the more general sx is. This is how cured sx can come about. This is how MM can be worked on to fulfillment as many provings will not give every possibly sx. But if that characteristic sx isn't present then you could not go forward like this - there has to be that basis there initially. This would work with so called smaller remedies, of those rx that have only had a small or inadequate proving. But great care has to be taken as this can easily be distorted also.

But I don't know how that pertains to his case taking and analysis methods.
Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Hi John,
The reason that we can agree on that is that we are at oppposite ends,
basically.

I do not see any significance in the way we name something in order to
discuss it - as long as we define it before we discuss and stay with
this definition as long as we discuss it.

I once read a very apt swipe by a mathematician directed at the
sociaologists, something like: "Of course we can say grass is red - as
long as we consistently use red as being the colour of grass - if only
the sociologist would adhere to that, a lot of sociological problems
would have been solved long ago."

And also if we did not mix different aspects of the matter to make
"Irish Stew".

The practical aspects Shannon and I were talking about are such a
diffferent aspect.

We may discuss the matter using the term homeopathy the way you think
it should be used - this does not alter the fact that it is only a
very small percentage of the people worldwide who do use it that way
and will be using it that way. If we use that word your way talking
with people outside this minority they will ot kow what we are talking
about. The chances for changing that are practically nil.

Also,, you will not be able to get the people who consider themselves
homeopaths by a different defiition, to be together with us in some
boat defending the craft. You cannot expect them to fight for
something - e. g. licensing, accreditation - that does by definition
not include them.

And since the above-mentioed people make up the great majority of
those in the above-mentioned boat we are doing a disservice to the
people inside our definition by insisting on that.

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, Luise --
Perhaps it is the case in Germany that nearly no "homoeopath" practises homoeopathy. If it is, then let's try looking at it this way...
(a) Let's exaggerate it a little: suppose every "homoeopath" in Germany except a dozen practised mongrelopathy and nothing else: no real homoeopathy. Now, suppose each of those "homoeopaths" were given the choice: to support, or to refuse to support, legislation to protect her ability to prescribe upon the basis of the law of similars. What would that person gain by not supporting it? And what would she lose? Without the "law of similars", what basis is left for protection of her ability to prescribe mongrelopathically? The only one I can see is the mention of "x" on the package prescribed. So...
(b) Let's suppose she and her fellow mongrels support the prescription, on any basis whatever, of anything at all in potencies from, say, 3x to, say, 9x. Eventually, the allopathic profession steps up and points out (1) that even in these low doses many of these remedies are potentially hazardous, so the potency range should be restricted further; (2) that if they are prescribed in certain ways that are not homoeopathic (tautopathically, for instance), some can offer additional hazards even at 9x; and (3) that mongrelopathy encourages prescribing that, to put it kindly, is not predictable upon the basis of patient symptoms and pathogenesis and therefore raises the dangers just outlined. Furthermore...
(c) The mongrelopaths may just have the common sense to recognise that if they adopt a supercategory such as "potency medicine", they will make, at least potentially, allies rather than enemies of the dozen who can show that their practice accords with the definition laid down and protected by tradition in many countries the world over, as the homoeopaths will most likely be prepared to support legislative protection for the broad sale and prescription of potentised drugs as long as doing so does not unduly mislead the public.
So I see no reason to think that the predominance of mongrels in any one country should necessarily disadvantage the homoeopaths, as long as the homoeopaths make clear that they will oppose confusion of mongrelopathy with homoeopathy.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/6 Luise Kunkle >

Hi John,

perhaps you should re-read what I have said - taking into account that
I separated the issues/aspects.

I am not entering into another useless discussion.

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, Luise --

You very sensibly separated the practical from the semantic; I understood that. I was thinking aloud through the practical results of clarification of the distinction even in Germany, and it seemed to me not to be such bad news necessarily even there. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that, though.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/7 Luise Kunkle >

Hi John,
Why SHOULD he support it? I am not saying that (for that reason) he
should actively fight it - but support means a lot more. Effort,
energy, time, possibly spending money etc.

He'll just lean back and do nothing.
The shoe fits the other way:

In the literature of the purists there is ample evidence that THEY
THEMSELVES consider their remedies potentially dangerous.

There is no such evidence in the literature or any statements of the
mongrels considering their remedies.

There is plenty evidence in the literature of the purists that the
mongrel-remedies are potentially dangerous: but that can, in the eyes
of an impartial observer, be due to animosity (plenty of evidence for
that),, ignorance (the purists never really have made an effort to get
to know the principles or results - except as perceived in their own
practice from dissatisfied patients of the mongrels - and there are
plenty of dissatisfied patients of purist also, which then end up in
the practices of the mongrels).

Which of the statements do you think will be more convincing?
This would imply that the mongrels, who after alll consider themselves
homeopaths, will bow to the superior wisdom of the purists thtat they
are not.

They would argue that it is much more sensible that the purist call
themselves "purist homeopaths" under the umbrella of the word
"homeopathy" as a general term, including all who prescribe
potency-medicine (should they wish to call themselves homeopths). The
would further argue that, since the word homeopathy has been used in
the general way all through history and still is, that would avoid
confusion with the people who have not read your posts:-)
Which countries would that be? Do enlighten me:-)
as the homoeopaths will most
Will they? From what I have read of purist's I very much doubt that it
would be so.

What would be "undully mislead the public?"

I personall am all for taking off the "homeopathic" from the labels
etc. of potentized medicine. But I doubt that in Germany (and most
likely most if not all other countries) any group of "potency
therapists" (of which the purists would be just a part) would have the
necessary influence to e. g. change the name of the HAB (*Homeopathic*
Pharmakopaia) and all the references in it to homeopathy - just to
cite one example:-)
What you say above is exactly the reason why the mongrels could be
expected not only to lean back and do nothing but actively fight the
endeavours of the purists, pointing out that on the evidence they
themselves have given, purist homeopathy is too potentially dangerous
and should be prohibited or at least restricted to MD's. Non-MD
therapy should be restricted to the mongrels sind mongrelopathy has
been proven to be safe for 150 years!

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, Luise --

Phew -- the homoeopaths seem to have an uphill battle there, then. Perhaps the only possibility that's left for them is that of getting superior results into the public eye and then explaining those results by explaining what homoeopathy actually is; a painfully slow process politically.

As far as homoeopaths' motives for pronouncing the putative dangers of mongrelopathy are concerned, their readiness to regard improper "pure" practice with the same caution may mitigate against the appearance of undue bias, whether due to animosity or anything else.

I don't envy you; it's a difficult position.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/8 Luise Kunkle >

What do they complain about? (Surely not the definition?)

Hi John,
If you mean me, personally - I am not involved, just observing.

If you mean the classical homeopaths: while it will be diffcult to
establish the superiority of classical homeopathy and classical
homeopaths as compared to the common homeopaths, they meanwhile are
quite comfortably off, comparatively: They share what all the others
have: license, professional standing, support from the people's
supporting all homeopathy etc.

They can treat the matter as an attempt at icing the cake - the cake
is there:-)

And on their lists they can - and do - complain the same way, with
equal or similar arguments, as you do:-))

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 <==========