What dispute over terminology?

[John Harvey]

Dear Soroush,

How many times now have I reassured you that I do not understand you to be including combinations of potentised substances as one of Hahnemann's single simple medicinal substances or even as one of your "single remedies"?
In my last message but one in this very thread (see below), I said:

"Joy is correct: I don't think that at any point I imagined that you were promoting the use of combinations of potencies as falling within Hahnemann's meaning of single, simple medicinal substance."
In my "combinations and exact remedy preparations" post of 1:57 p.m. GMT, 29 Jul 09, in answer to this same accusation by you, I said:
"You're completely right: the use of one or more remedies at a time was never under discussion. The quotes I cited were about use of one or more medicinal substances, a term with meaning. The distinction of combination remedies from other mixtures is a relatively trivial one in that light."
In my "Perhaps simple just means simple." post of 5:15 p.m. GMT, 28 Jul 09, I wrote:
"Would you please show us the part of the Organon or any other writing of Hahnemann's (not of Sheilagh's!) that would lead us without unduly convoluted reversals of ordinary meaning to your conclusion that when Hahnemann said 'more than one single, simple substance' he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances?"
You have twice responded to that very message as though it were suggesting that you were including, rather than excluding alone, mixtures of potentised medicinal substances in Hahnemann's definition of single, simple substance, demanding to know why I suggest that you say such a thing. In response to both demands, I quoted and asked you to answer the question given above.
In my "Single Simple Remedy" post of 1:24 p.m. GMT, 23 Jul 09, I said:
"If there is any reasonably rational way to counter all the evidence I've yet presented (or any of it) in favour of the commonsense interpretation of 'one single, simple medicinal substance' (i.e. of substantial medicines, only one may be used!), or if there is any evidence for the interpretation that Hahnemann did not mean, by 'more than one single, simple medicinal substance', more than one substance but only more than one insubstantial medicine, I'd be most interested to hear it!"
In my "Simple Substance" post of 1:15 p.m. GMT, 11 Jul 09, I said:

"So your suggestion is that what Hahnemann means by more than one single, simple medicinal substance is only a mixture of potentised substances, excluding all other mixtures."
I don't know how many more ways I can find to acknowledge that you take Hahnemann's meaning, in "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", to include any mixture of potentised substances.
When I ask you for evidence that he did not also mean to include in that term any (potentised or unpotentised) mixture of unpotentised substances, you immediately accuse me of suggesting that he excludes the first group from that set of medicines.

Having just looked over our correspondence and seen how many times you have demanded reassurance on this point, I'm drawn to conclude that indeed you are not at all understanding what I write, which may also explain why you have answered nearly none of my questions to you.

So let me draw this particular point out a little, in order to forestall yet another emotive outburst echoing Irene's "misrepresentation" stratagem.

And, since I am doing this because of your patent inability to take my meaning from denser language, I'd appreciate no carping about length as I draw this out for your readier comprehension.
Hahnemann had certain things to say for decades about polypharmacy. In § 273, the way he went about saying one of them was that the homoeopathic physician will use no more than one of a certain class of things.
To simplify this enough for you to see what I'm saying, let's just call that class "legit medicines".
Now, you have hinted and stated many, many times that Hahnemann excluded from a "legit medicine" any mixture of potentised substances.
So far so good.
But you have also stated often that he did not mean to exclude from a "legit medicine" any mixture, as long as it is later potentised, of unpotentised substances -- and you have attempted to justify this on the basis that once it is potentised, such a mixture of unpotentised substances "becomes a single remedy" -- though without saying what you mean by that term and why it should matter.
To look at this another way: you would include in the phrase "more than one legit medicine" any mixture of potentised substances; but you would exclude from that same phrase any potency of a mixture of unpotentised substances.
If I've lost you at this point, please reread the last two paragraphs slowly, and draw Venn diagrams, and all will, with any luck, become clear.
Now, I have asked you many times what evidence you have that Hahnemann intended to exclude from "more than one legit medicine" all potencies of mixtures.
And that is where the discussion has stalled, as time and again you have misinterpreted the question as entailing an inverted assumption: the assumption that, according to you, Hahnemann would exclude mixtures of potencies from his meaning in "more than one legit medicine".
You have even raised this bizarre accusation in relation to posts that could not possibly be interpreted as supporting it, as in the message you have just now failed once again to respond to.
Let me say it once more, clearly:
I understand that you agree that Hahnemann would regard (if he'd ever heard of them) as "more than one legit medicine" any mixture of potencies. My question is what evidence you have that he does not also regard as "more than one legit medicine" any potencies of mixtures.
And now will you please answer responsively?
Looking forward to it --
John
2009/7/30 >
________________________________
________________________________

[Rochelle]

Soroush wrote:-
>
An interesting statement!!! I have just phoned Helios out of interest who told me that A/G/E is run up to the 30C i.e. potentised, from combining the individual remedies at 4C stage!!! Now there's interesting. Bit he also told me that if anyone requests a 30C combo made up which is different from their stock combos (e,g, AAA, ABC) they mix them at the 29C stage and potentise to the 30C . So presumably of someone wanted 6C the individual remedies would be potentised from the 5C.
BTW I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on this but am just stating what I have found out!!!
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

[John Harvey]

That is interesting! Thank you, Rochelle; it very nicely illustrates that so-called combinations are in fact just a particular form of complex: that mixtures of potencies are merely particular forms of potencies of mixtures.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/31 rochelle >