Minutus

One could say he set up a system whereby one can use "everything" for
medicine, not only potentized substances.

Why is that bad?

I trust you don't deny that he *did* use "homeopathy" and "homeopathic"
to refer to these things? Then why do you want to exclude them from
the definition? It is "like cures like." and I can't see what's
"non-Hahnemannian" about using the word in the way that he used it?

Hi Irene, Vera,
He also said in a different aphorism (I WILL find and quote it if
asked to) that the remedy destroys the disease, that it leaves behind
the similar "remedy disease" *which is so weak that it expires by
itself. The life force just has to do some final "mopping up".

There was a long discussion on H's the 2 difffering explanations of
the reason why the remedies work on Lyghtforce many years ago between
John Lundstroth (I think the name is right - Lund is in any case) and
David Little.

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 <==========

It doesn't hurt to consider the broader possibilities.

But let me ask you to notice two things.

One: your focus has not yet settled long enough for you to get the message from the original "argument from particulars" or its restatement in response to Vera. Once you do get it, I've no doubt that you'll be able to restate it for me -- you have something of a gift for this when you try -- in a single sentence. I'd really like you to give that a shot if you're willing.

Two: we can discuss these questions of meaning, of what is and what is not the law of similars, of what is and what is not homoeopathy, without commending or condemning any of the categories under discussion. In other words, to discuss meaning is not to pass judgement.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/3 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Well, I'm not sure I'm wading into the thing you want me to reply on,
but I *think* this is one? I'll try below:
True, he did not advocate substitute a *natural* disease in order to
cure another natural disease. But he *did* use the term "medicinal
disease" in describing the action of a remedy--he described it as the
similar "medicinal disease" displacing the "natural disease", and then
being promptly extinguished by the vital force, leaving health behind
in its place. Are you in agreement with me on that? (I'm not sure yet
if it matters; just trying to go step by step.)
Except that as above.
You mean this? "5. Through his experimentation, provings, and work
throughout the years, Hahnemann harnessed the power contained in often
toxic substances to enable their use for the purpose of cure by
creating stronger, similar, artificial diseases in the organism.
Right, because at that point he's also *certain;* the "hypothesis" has
been re-framed as a "law"--the law of similars. So then he gets busy
developing an arsenal of similars. Am I okay so far?
His earlier experiments, you mean...? The "experiments" Vera mentions
would have been refinements of technique, not part of testing any
theory. (Unless you mean testing theories of method; refining dosage,
potency, etc.)
I'm getting a little confused. You seem to be skipping among different
phases of testing and etc.; but maybe that's not important.
I'm not sure I know what you mean here. Are you saying that he *first*
discovered that illness can be caused by giving a substance which would
(law of similars), and *then* he realized that the same thing can
happen with "natural diseases"? My understanding was that he had made
that observation earlier--that parts of it were well known, e.g. that
schizophrenics tend not to develop severe "acute" diseases, and other
observations. But I'm not sure I remember an "order of events"
explicitly stated--clarify for me?
What hypothesis and law are we at now--still about "like cures like",
or now on to the one about natural diseases, or ?
Right, and my understanding is that initially the trituration and
succussion were done only as a way of further dividing the dose, and
that it was an (?) accidental discovery that these actually increased
the effectiveness of the dose (despite its reduced dosage).

So you're saying that he initially arrived at the law thru observing
medicinal reactions, and only later made connections of the similar
"law of similars" effects of things such as hot water, pressure on a
bump, etc.?

I'm not clear either on how you could know that (most of the examples
he cites were in common usage at the time; what indication is there of
the point at which he connected the two sets of observations?) or why
it matters to the question of definition. Explain more?

in any case, tho, *he* puts the two sets of observations into the same
category, as all being examples of "cure by similar." I don't
understand what's troubling to you about that.

Shannon

Shannon, this is lovely. Thank you. One really nice thing about your e-mails is that you always set them out very neatly and make clear what it is that you're answering; they're always easy to read.

I'll cut out what I can of the below, but should maybe start with your very last paragraph:

'in any case, tho, *he* puts the two sets of observations into the same category, as all being examples of "cure by similar." I don't understand what's troubling to you about that.'

Yes, he does, and one could use homoeopathy as an analogy to how to design military bands as well as use the relationship of shrill military sounds to shrill death screams as an analogy to homoeopathy. And so on.

But the point is that -- excepting the Organon's last few aphorisms, in which Hahnemann specifically discussed such clearly auxiliary measures as exercise, massage, diet, and emergency first aid (some of which he justified or saw the sense in via the notion of health-deranging action similar to the natural derangement) -- what the Organon is all about is the practice of medicine.

Moreover, and this is the heart of the matter: where the similars business all started, and the place in which it was significant, and the place in which it came to rest, was in the observations of which medicines cured patients of which states.

This matters because it's vital to know this fundamental point: that the development of the law of similars, that likes be cured by likes, arose not by particularising a more general principle but by generalising particular medical instances.

Recognition of this is crucial to understanding that the principle, the law, the practice arises not by applying a specific instance (as specific as any single medicine) of a general philosophical observation but by applying a generalised law (as general as any single medicine) of specific action: the law summarising the repeated observation that only a single medicine sufficiently similar to a patient's illness may cure the patient.

The law of similars (indicative, curantur) sums up in just three words Hahnemann's and all of our experiences of the relationships between drug pathogeneses and disease states, and that experience applies only to single medicines. And it was on that basis and on that basis only that Hahnemann then proceeded to state how the rational practitioner should proceed: via the law of similars (imperative, curentur), to use the toxicological and other pathogenetic knowledge of substances to find amongst them the best match to the known state of the patient.

Once this picture is clear, everything else falls into place.
2009/7/3 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
And yes, you are.
Yes. But this came later, and merely confirmed that even in nature such cures are possible. Rare, but possible.
?
Yes...
Yes, absolutely. I should perhaps have explicitly excluded the experimentation in protencies here and even in dosage; what I was saying came first is the experimentation in working to emulate history using similia.
Yes, I hope that I've now clarified that.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It may even be that he did observe the same thing earlier w.r.t. natural diseases -- in which case he missed its significance at the time. But more importantly, although he came to recognise similar diseases as using the same mechanism by which medicinal disease relates to natural disease, his homoeopathic instruction, similia similibus curentur, was explicitly not an instruction to emulate any cosmic law but an instruction to choose amongst medicines of known pathogenesis, that application being its origin and goal.
Only that the medicine capable of curing a patient will be remarkably similar in pathogenesis to the patient's state.
Mmm... it was a matter of precision. Though we could now quite easily measure a tenth of a milligram in mass, in Hahnemann's time even the unit a grain was pretty rough: somewhere from a fifteenth to a twentieth of a gram, so roughly plus or minus 15%. How was he to accurately measure even smaller doses, as small as perhaps a thousandth or a millionth of a grain? He devised something characteristically simple and ingenious: exact ratios. Take a quantity large enough to measure accurately of medicine, spread it evenly (through dilution and shaking or, if insoluble, by extended trituration) though another quantity large enough to measure accurately of alcoholic solution or lactose or sugar, and take a proportion of that that is again large enough to measure accurately, and the calculation, if you use nice round numbers, is easy of how much you hold in your hand.

The obstacle to his finding the minimum dose, of course, lay in his vigorous shaking.
Yes. That's exactly it.
I know it because he very clearly explained the process of discovery. And as for why it matters: please see my opening paragraphs above.
Cheers!

John
"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)

Dear Irene,

You've repeatedly stated that your practice is almost entirely based on what you call the Law of Similars. But for a practice (a particular action, not a business) to be homoeopathic practice, the "law of similars" that it uses must be the same "law of similars" that sums up Hahnemann's definition of how homoeopathy is is practised.
So far, the attempt at the "Law of Similars" that you have provided that is most revealing of what you believe it justifies is this:
"Law of Similars is not something that I consider should even need debate among homeopaths! So many have observed and described the principle, ranging from Hippocrates , Stahl, Paracelsus, Hahnemann, some members of this list, etc - It's a concept we use for all homeopathicity, whether we look for two diseases in one individual cancelling out or whether we use it to look for the remedy to use against the natural one so that they do cancel out or whether we use it prophylactically to prevent similar symptoms later - or whether we use it to choose other therapies (organotherapy, gemnotherspy, detoxification, etc for example) and including uses of this natural law yet to be described.
"It is all part of the Law of Similars." (Iren. 64, 2 Jul 09)
And the attempt that best reveals your understanding of the law of similars is this:
"Provings are not the only way to know something is homeopathic. Being homeopathic is merely the implementation of a natural law - the Law of Similars. It is not the homeopathicity that is guaranteed, but

the Law of Similars IS guaranteed. Homeopathicity is merely one good result of that Law." (Iren. 69, 6 Jul 09)
My posts in this thread set out to show that the law of similars used in homoeopathy -- far from being a particular application of some broader natural law that Hahnemann simply plagiarised -- resulted from careful induction from a great number of particular medical examples, and thus is not a particularisation from a more general law but a generalisation from particular observations.
Having awaited one for two weeks, I haven't yet had the pleasure of a response by you to "The argument from particulars".
May I take it that when you state that in all of your practice you need to be sure that "predicted results fit the Law of Similars", you are stating that:
(1) Except in the odd emergency, you base your prescriptions on an analysis of the best fit of pathogenetic symptoms to patient symptoms or symptoms of the particular epidemic?
(2) Your prescriptions of the multivalent vaccine you've named "URI" for cats already suffering from a cat flu are amongst those prescriptions you base on an analysis of the best fit of pathogenetic symptoms to patient symptoms or symptoms of the particular epidemic?
(3) Your prescriptions of "URI" for cats you consider to be in danger of contracting a cat flu are amongst those prescriptions you base on an analysis of the best fit of pathogenetic symptoms to patient symptoms or symptoms of the particular epidemic?
(4) Your prescriptions of the remedy you've named "the Bord.b remedy" are amongst those prescriptions you base on an analysis of the best fit of pathogenetic symptoms to patient symptoms?
(5) Except in odd emergencies, and excepting the use of "URI" without simultaneous use of any other medicine, you do not prescribe more than one medicine for use at any one time by any one patient?
(6) "URI" is the only medicinal mixture you prescribe?
(7) Any prescriptions, emergency or otherwise, that you do not base on an analysis of the best fit of pathogenetic symptoms to patient symptoms, you do not claim to occur through the practice of homoeopathy?
(8) Any prescriptions, emergency or otherwise, of any arbitrary (non-natural) mixture, including "URI", that has not been shown to produce symptoms similar in its potencies to those it produces in crude form, you do not claim to occur through the practice of homoeopathy?
A simple "Yes" or "No" to each of these questions will suffice to answer it clearly. These questions are designed to elicit an unambiguous understanding of the breadth of practices that you promote as being homoeopathic. Another explanation of how you practise and why will serve not to settle the matter of what you promote as homoeopathy but only to cloud it once more.
Looking forward as always to your responsive reply.
Many thanks --
John
2009/7/2 John Harvey >