Re: Minutus is for Classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy
Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:38 pm
Dear Tanya,
Though it's a favoured term of abuse of real homoeopaths on this list at present, fundamentalist actually also has a meaning, and its meaning concerns dogma strictly regulating others' adherence to beliefs or methods.
An apt antonym to it might be liberal -- relatively unconcerned with another's beliefs or methods -- or pluralist -- willing to allow others to practise their various beliefs or methods.
Fundamentalist, liberal, and pluralist are categories of one kind: let's say, of tolerance.
You seem to be suggesting that those who equate homoeopathy with mongrelism and urge the rest of us to concur in promoting that falsehood are, in my terms, liberal or pluralist (in your terms, general) -- in a nutshell, tolerant -- and that those who equate homoeopathy with the law of similars and urge the rest of us to see that we all actually agree on that much are fundamentalist -- in a nutshell, intolerant.
The reality of the difference between the proponents and opponents of Shannon's contention that it is possible, desirable, and necessary to redefine homoeopathy is something else, though. Those favouring the contention and those opposing it are not necessarily either fundamentalist or liberal/pluralist at all.
It can easily be argued that those pushing Shannon's proposal are less tolerant of those who continue to point out that our point of universal agreement is that homoeopathy requires the law of similars than the latter are of the former. And it can easily be argued that the latter (i.e. those rallying to the law of similars) are prepared to allow the former (the Shannonites) to practise whatever other modalities they like, but that the former insist upon changing the very nature of the modality called homoeopathy by promoting homoeopathy as something else (to put it broadly and roughly: prescription of potencies).
No: the difference between the two sides is clearly not the difference between fundamentalist and either liberal/pluralist or "general".
But the word general that you've used, if correctly opposed to its opposite, specific, could be more useful.
If specific homoeopathy could be summed up as homoeopathy relying specifically upon the law of similars, then general homoeopathy could be expressed as that "homoeopathy" that relies upon any of a number of laws.
This does seem to accord with both Shannon's and Irene's approaches: Shannon's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon some sort of similarity; Irene's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon whichever techniques (which she calls principles) in the Organon suit, ditching entirely the law of similars as something "better" comes along.
From that point of view, Irene's approach may be said to be far more fundamentalist than any real homoeopath's. Real homoeopaths do not confine their techniques to those described in the Organon but only confine their approach to the method that defines homoeopathy: the law of similars, "Let likes be cured by likes".
But leaving that possibility aside, if we're to usefully apply the term fundamentalist, let's use it correctly to describe behaviour that is designed to remove the options of others, and oppose it to a term, such as liberal or pluralist, that describes behaviour designed to retain the options of others.
And if we're going to use the more relevant term general, then let's oppose it to specific and see where that gets us. Because the inaccurate depiction as "fundamentalist" of those who would like to be able to continue using a word to mean what it means without having to contend for weeks at a time with Shannon's proposals to implement the impossible is not only insulting to real homoeopaths but also misleading to others. Most, if not all, of the true homoeopaths on this list (i.e. those who respect and abide by the law of similars as the basis of their homoeopathic practice) are perfectly content to let those who wish to practise Sankaranopathy, Scholtenopathy, and even extreme Irenopathy do so in peace and harmony. When contention concerning use of the word homoeopathy has arisen, it has done so not because some real homoeopath has suggested that Irenopathy is bad, but because an Irenopath such as Shannon suggests that homoeopaths should surrender their identity, to be subsumed within Irenopathy, which should be permitted to appropriate the term homoeopathy!
So that's quite a spin to put on it, to say that the homoeopaths are intolerant or fundamentalist.
That opposition of approach to pluralism, my friend, suggests that it is the Irenopaths, rather than the homoeopaths, who are, by and large, behaving as fundamentalists do: that it is they who are attempting to remove the very choice that the homoeopaths freely allow them.
You have also, I think, repeated another category mismatch in confusing method, or (as it's often called in homoeopathy) principle, with technique.
The method or principle that is homoeopathy is simple and open: it is the effort to prescribe the simillimum on the basis of known pathogenesis and sufficient case-taking. The techniques by which to do so are many, and have long been added to and improved upon by real homoeopaths without criticism by each other.
The criticism that is made of them is due to something quite different, and by others entirely: it is due to their refusal to surrender their method, or principle, and it comes only from those who have surrendered it.
Irene, Shannon, Luise, and several others on this list may be brilliant, forward-thinking pioneers in healing through clever use of alternatives to the law of similars. Irene has even admitted as much on many occasions. That is all well and good, and we homoeopaths wish them well. The Irenopaths' problem is that they have lacked the imagination to name their new methods appropriately.
Shannon argued that the appearance of the word "homoeopathic" on a box of allopathic medicine has educated the general public to understand that homoeopathy is something other than the law of similars. That argument was contrived on the basis that somebody walks into a shop, sees a medicine label, and walks out believing thereafter that the "x" on the label represents homoeopathy. This scenario is so unrealistic that it's laughable. So let's laugh and move on, and let's help those who need names for their new Irenopathies to invent them. The broader term I proposed seems to have been agreed to by Shannon (see her post under "The campaign against spring fever"), but various classes of Irenopaths may need help with the individual variations.
And let us no longer confuse those who understand what homoeopathy is with those, such as Irene, who -- at least ostensibly -- confine their "principles" merely to the techniques outlined in the Organon but abandon homoeopathy's one actual principle. The former are educated, liberal, pluralist, and accurate in their depiction of homoeopathy; the latter range from those innocently unaware to those, such as Irene and a couple of her camp followers, willing to destroy homoeopathic practice for the sake of their own egos.
I'll append here what I wrote to you, Tanya, in August 2007, as you've evidently forgotten it: if there's a single homoeopath today who doesn't sometimes practise something that falls outside the definition of homoeopathy, I'd be fascinated to know how he or she manages, for instance, obstacles to homoeopathic cure. We're all capable of respecting practices that are not homoeopathy. But we must all be capable equally of respecting the name of homoeopathy if common perception of the word's meaning is not to be obscured by the very people supposedly practising it.
Cheers --
John
2009/6/29 tamarque@earthlink.net >
Though it's a favoured term of abuse of real homoeopaths on this list at present, fundamentalist actually also has a meaning, and its meaning concerns dogma strictly regulating others' adherence to beliefs or methods.
An apt antonym to it might be liberal -- relatively unconcerned with another's beliefs or methods -- or pluralist -- willing to allow others to practise their various beliefs or methods.
Fundamentalist, liberal, and pluralist are categories of one kind: let's say, of tolerance.
You seem to be suggesting that those who equate homoeopathy with mongrelism and urge the rest of us to concur in promoting that falsehood are, in my terms, liberal or pluralist (in your terms, general) -- in a nutshell, tolerant -- and that those who equate homoeopathy with the law of similars and urge the rest of us to see that we all actually agree on that much are fundamentalist -- in a nutshell, intolerant.
The reality of the difference between the proponents and opponents of Shannon's contention that it is possible, desirable, and necessary to redefine homoeopathy is something else, though. Those favouring the contention and those opposing it are not necessarily either fundamentalist or liberal/pluralist at all.
It can easily be argued that those pushing Shannon's proposal are less tolerant of those who continue to point out that our point of universal agreement is that homoeopathy requires the law of similars than the latter are of the former. And it can easily be argued that the latter (i.e. those rallying to the law of similars) are prepared to allow the former (the Shannonites) to practise whatever other modalities they like, but that the former insist upon changing the very nature of the modality called homoeopathy by promoting homoeopathy as something else (to put it broadly and roughly: prescription of potencies).
No: the difference between the two sides is clearly not the difference between fundamentalist and either liberal/pluralist or "general".
But the word general that you've used, if correctly opposed to its opposite, specific, could be more useful.
If specific homoeopathy could be summed up as homoeopathy relying specifically upon the law of similars, then general homoeopathy could be expressed as that "homoeopathy" that relies upon any of a number of laws.
This does seem to accord with both Shannon's and Irene's approaches: Shannon's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon some sort of similarity; Irene's, that she'd like everybody to agree that homoeopathy relies not specifically upon the law of similars but generally upon whichever techniques (which she calls principles) in the Organon suit, ditching entirely the law of similars as something "better" comes along.
From that point of view, Irene's approach may be said to be far more fundamentalist than any real homoeopath's. Real homoeopaths do not confine their techniques to those described in the Organon but only confine their approach to the method that defines homoeopathy: the law of similars, "Let likes be cured by likes".
But leaving that possibility aside, if we're to usefully apply the term fundamentalist, let's use it correctly to describe behaviour that is designed to remove the options of others, and oppose it to a term, such as liberal or pluralist, that describes behaviour designed to retain the options of others.
And if we're going to use the more relevant term general, then let's oppose it to specific and see where that gets us. Because the inaccurate depiction as "fundamentalist" of those who would like to be able to continue using a word to mean what it means without having to contend for weeks at a time with Shannon's proposals to implement the impossible is not only insulting to real homoeopaths but also misleading to others. Most, if not all, of the true homoeopaths on this list (i.e. those who respect and abide by the law of similars as the basis of their homoeopathic practice) are perfectly content to let those who wish to practise Sankaranopathy, Scholtenopathy, and even extreme Irenopathy do so in peace and harmony. When contention concerning use of the word homoeopathy has arisen, it has done so not because some real homoeopath has suggested that Irenopathy is bad, but because an Irenopath such as Shannon suggests that homoeopaths should surrender their identity, to be subsumed within Irenopathy, which should be permitted to appropriate the term homoeopathy!
So that's quite a spin to put on it, to say that the homoeopaths are intolerant or fundamentalist.
That opposition of approach to pluralism, my friend, suggests that it is the Irenopaths, rather than the homoeopaths, who are, by and large, behaving as fundamentalists do: that it is they who are attempting to remove the very choice that the homoeopaths freely allow them.
You have also, I think, repeated another category mismatch in confusing method, or (as it's often called in homoeopathy) principle, with technique.
The method or principle that is homoeopathy is simple and open: it is the effort to prescribe the simillimum on the basis of known pathogenesis and sufficient case-taking. The techniques by which to do so are many, and have long been added to and improved upon by real homoeopaths without criticism by each other.
The criticism that is made of them is due to something quite different, and by others entirely: it is due to their refusal to surrender their method, or principle, and it comes only from those who have surrendered it.
Irene, Shannon, Luise, and several others on this list may be brilliant, forward-thinking pioneers in healing through clever use of alternatives to the law of similars. Irene has even admitted as much on many occasions. That is all well and good, and we homoeopaths wish them well. The Irenopaths' problem is that they have lacked the imagination to name their new methods appropriately.
Shannon argued that the appearance of the word "homoeopathic" on a box of allopathic medicine has educated the general public to understand that homoeopathy is something other than the law of similars. That argument was contrived on the basis that somebody walks into a shop, sees a medicine label, and walks out believing thereafter that the "x" on the label represents homoeopathy. This scenario is so unrealistic that it's laughable. So let's laugh and move on, and let's help those who need names for their new Irenopathies to invent them. The broader term I proposed seems to have been agreed to by Shannon (see her post under "The campaign against spring fever"), but various classes of Irenopaths may need help with the individual variations.
And let us no longer confuse those who understand what homoeopathy is with those, such as Irene, who -- at least ostensibly -- confine their "principles" merely to the techniques outlined in the Organon but abandon homoeopathy's one actual principle. The former are educated, liberal, pluralist, and accurate in their depiction of homoeopathy; the latter range from those innocently unaware to those, such as Irene and a couple of her camp followers, willing to destroy homoeopathic practice for the sake of their own egos.
I'll append here what I wrote to you, Tanya, in August 2007, as you've evidently forgotten it: if there's a single homoeopath today who doesn't sometimes practise something that falls outside the definition of homoeopathy, I'd be fascinated to know how he or she manages, for instance, obstacles to homoeopathic cure. We're all capable of respecting practices that are not homoeopathy. But we must all be capable equally of respecting the name of homoeopathy if common perception of the word's meaning is not to be obscured by the very people supposedly practising it.
Cheers --
John
2009/6/29 tamarque@earthlink.net >