Minutus

Dear John
If you had started your answer with a yes / no, I would have bothered!
But you keep saying the same old thing!
Answer my qns DIRECTLY and then we can proceed. Else I am out of it.
Now, please, with respect to the starting point of this remedy (APIS) - please explain how this is possible. At what stage was SINGULARITY or SIMPLICITY achieved?
Pretend you are on tweeter!
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 03 August 2009 02:38
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: was Swine flu
Dear Soroush,
Your joy in my "admittance" is very amusing, as is your persistence in pretending that you're discussing the same topic I am.
Unless you're being disingenuous, your joy in the novelty of my confirmation of Hahnemann's inclusion of entire organisms as one class of what he called single, simple substances appears to indicate that you've found yourself unable still to read my 4:31 p.m. GMT 10 Jul 09 post under "Simple Substance"; unable still to read my original (1:35 p.m. GMT, 13 Jul 09) post under "Of substance"; and unable still to read my 6:59 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09 follow-up post under that topic.
The first of these clearly differentiates between arbitrary mixtures such as you propose and the "mixtures that are inherent to a single plant" (or animal, which is of the same chemical order: a mixture naturally occurring within one organism).
The second post clearly defines substance (ii) as "a well-mixed mass, again not necessarily homogeneous, that has derived from one source: a plant, for instance, or a chemical reaction. This sense has all the properties of the first sense of the word but requires in addition that the mass under consideration not have been mixed from two sources".
The third presents reasons to believe that substance (ii) must be the sense in which Hahnemann was using the word substance in § 273 (an argument that remains unrebutted). It also mentions Hahnemann's third illustrative class of single, simple medicinal substances as being of single entire plants, which obviously are of the same broad chemical class as single entire animals: a mixture naturally occurring in one organism. (For the fundamental difference between an arbitrary mixture such as the Duckwater Hypothesis has form a "single remedy", "single substance", "simple substance", etc., and a naturally occurring mixture whose composition is controlled by the recipe for an organism, please try to understand the final two paragraphs of that post, which, though you asked a related question, you still have not addressed.)
More than merely demonstrate that Hahnemann's meaning of one single, simple medicinal substance comprehended an entire organism as one such, I attempted also, in the first of those posts, to outline some of Hahnemann's reasoning in excluding artificial medicinal mixtures as one single, simple medicinal substance whilst including mixtures occurring naturally in a single organism.
That reasoning, in a nutshell, was that although we know that pathogeneses remain reasonably stable from crude substance to potency to potency when they are the pathogeneses of a single substance, we know nothing of such stability in arbitrary mixtures and have less than no reason to believe that arbitrary mixtures will display any such stability.
My reasons for saying so have been given in previous posts in greater detail than you are comfortable with, but please feel free to ask me to refer you again to them.
As I've also reminded you before under "Substantiality and substance", my "Simple Substance" post of 2:15 p.m. GMT 12 Jul 09 asked whether you would seriously claim any of three things, one of which must follow from the claim that Hahnemann would include in "one single, simple medicinal substance" arbitrary mixtures of medicines: that he must have intended (a) to exclude medicines made from plants, or (b) to exclude all medicines containing any impurities, or (c) to include the same mixtures he'd otherwise exclude from that class, once they'd be potentised to a sufficient degree. As I pointed out in my reminder, your lack of response to claim one of these necessary results suggests that you haven't yet thought through all the ramifications of the claim that Hahnemann intended "one single, simple medicinal substance" to comprehend all potentised preparations.
Your lack of responsive reply to any of this illustrates further that rather than explore whether your doctrinal beliefs could possible be just the least bit wrong, your intent remains wholly and solely to prove them right -- or at least to appear to do so, by any means at your disposal.
That such "proof" necessitate serious distortion of the plain words single, simple, medicinal, and substance says it all. That it took Ardavan's intervention to put a stop to your arbitrary censorship of posts by Magda (and whom else whose views you find heretical to the Sheilagh doctrine? Irene, perhaps? Where, after all, is Irene's unreasoning on this topic?) doesn't bode well for your potential to distinguish approval from understanding, definition from assertion, or truth from meaning.
These failures admittedly arise partly from our not attempting the same project in this discussion. Whereas you persist in noting your beliefs and asking me to clarify mine concerning what is and what is not acceptable, and have taken to casually noting Hahnemann as the source of your beliefs in the twistedness of his meaning without any particular reference to support such interpretation, this twiglet of my discussion concerns something of another order entirely: Hahnemann's meaning in deliberately using the extremely plainly spoken phrase "more than one single, simple medicinal substance".
This entire branch of discussion concerns Hahnemann's meaning in defining the word homoeopathy as a practice; not what is acceptable to you, me, or Irene as either good, or Hahnemannian, or any other kind of practice.
Not until one recognises homoeopathy's single but comprehensive requirement can one entirely free oneself of doctrines that depend upon overlooking it.
My motivation in pursuing a process of reasoning together is to arrive at the clearest possible view of Hahnemann's intent and thereby of his definition. What is yours, in steadfastly avoiding it?
Kindest regards --
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

That's very interesting. Thank you. So a tiny bit of tincture in water then. But is the homeopathic 1X sucussed at all?
And Chel. MT is a wonderful remedy as organ support! A la Burnett.
Liz

Dear Soroush,
yes / no?
I'm not sure what you would have bothered with (would you have responded to any of the arguments showing arbitrary mixtures to fall outside Hahnemann's "single, simple medicinal substance" class?), but if "yes / no" is what you need a message to begin with, then there it is.
I have, however, pointed out several times now that answer to your questions don't result in responsive replies from you: that rather than address any argument, you simply trot out the same doctrine.
Now, with respect to Apis, the poison from the honeybee that you think is going to save your mixtures from their obscure fate: its treatment by Hahnemann as a single, simple medicinal substance follows from its derivation from a single source. This much is obvious in footnote 159 to § 273, as I several pointed out in the posts just referred to you.
Thus, the poison's singularity, or simplicity, did not have to be achieved or imposed upon it as you suggest you can impose it upon artificially constructed substance soups. The idea that polypharmacy magically ceases to be significant once one subjects it to sufficient dynamisation is a mysterious one, but one that is entirely unsupported in the Organon. Moreover, Chris's quote from Hahnemann's lesser writings alone suffices to show the clarity of his differentiation of all polypharmacy, including yours, from the only type of remedy that may be reliably used in medicine: the single, simple medicinal substance. His own examples of whole plants surely makes this matter completely obvious.
If you're interested to have your position considered with any seriousness by any thinker on the list -- which I urge you to at least attempt -- then your cause demands some response to the many arguments purporting to show compound remedies to be outside homoeopathy's domain.
Cheers!
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Dear John
Good shifting ground John.
My observations are that:
You have not understood when something becomes dynamic its nature changes.
You have not understood the meaning of single substance.
Hn was not stupid, if he meant the singularity of source, he would have said so.
The fact that he lists a number of organic, inorganic and things that are clearly mixtures of different substances and states
" be considered as simple medicinal substances by the homœopathic physician " is the key to my understanding of what he was saying and the meaning of simple substance.
That is to say it is term! Homeopathic jargon if you will.
I guess by your analogy, the remedy made out of a lake water is also single because it came out of one lake! And you could not possibly mix the waters of two lakes and make remedy out of them!
John - I have said all I need to say on this and I think the result is clear for the colleagues who read these posts.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 03 August 2009 08:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: was Swine flu
Dear Soroush,
yes / no?
I'm not sure what you would have bothered with (would you have responded to any of the arguments showing arbitrary mixtures to fall outside Hahnemann's "single, simple medicinal substance" class?), but if "yes / no" is what you need a message to begin with, then there it is.
I have, however, pointed out several times now that answer to your questions don't result in responsive replies from you: that rather than address any argument, you simply trot out the same doctrine.
Now, with respect to Apis, the poison from the honeybee that you think is going to save your mixtures from their obscure fate: its treatment by Hahnemann as a single, simple medicinal substance follows from its derivation from a single source. This much is obvious in footnote 159 to § 273, as I several pointed out in the posts just referred to you.
Thus, the poison's singularity, or simplicity, did not have to be achieved or imposed upon it as you suggest you can impose it upon artificially constructed substance soups. The idea that polypharmacy magically ceases to be significant once one subjects it to sufficient dynamisation is a mysterious one, but one that is entirely unsupported in the Organon. Moreover, Chris's quote from Hahnemann's lesser writings alone suffices to show the clarity of his differentiation of all polypharmacy, including yours, from the only type of remedy that may be reliably used in medicine: the single, simple medicinal substance. His own examples of whole plants surely makes this matter completely obvious.
If you're interested to have your position considered with any seriousness by any thinker on the list -- which I urge you to at least attempt -- then your cause demands some response to the many arguments purporting to show compound remedies to be outside homoeopathy's domain.
Cheers!
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Sorry I can't remember if the 1x was succussed as this conversation was probably about 10 years ago - probably yes. So is stirring in the glass vigorously much different if at all?
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Dear Soroush,
I've posted at least ten mutually independent arguments in the past several weeks, showing the relentlessly repeated assertion that Hahnemann's meaning in "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" actually excludes more than one single, simple medicinal substance and confines itself to mixtures of insubstantial potencies to be contrived, illogical, groundless, and senseless. So have others posted such arguments.
Your responses have been clever and entertaining. You have ducked and woven, substituting doctrine for logical argument, mistaking belief for definition, confusing substance and essence, forgoing definition for repetition, confounding mixtures with compounds, burning repeatedly the same straw man of belief in mixtures of potencies, hedging your own invented language of "single remedy" etc., and generally treating as incomprehensible Hahnemann's terms substance; medicinal substance; single, simple medicinal substance; and more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- and, above all, replying with questions not of clarification but merely of distraction.
Despite its continual cleverness, unfortunately nothing you have said has been responsive to any of the arguments by which Chris, Joy, and I have attempted to show that, in using the term "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", Hahnemann meant nothing more complicated than that. Those arguments stand entirely unrefuted. And now you've again fulfilled the prediction that your question leads not to any attempt at argument but simple to further distractions -- this time the unnecessary duality you have introduced between substance and dynamic nature.
When you feel you have a way in which to respond to the matter under discussion, I'd really welcome your response. Unsubstantiated assertions don't make very effective rebuttals, as you've probably realised by now; but a thoughtful response may very well introduce something new to the discussion.
I think I've made plain enough my understanding (and how I derived it) of Hahnemann's declared position on arbitrary mixtures such as you've raised in the Duckwater Hypothesis (lakes full of poo etc.): that the mixtures in lakes do not come from a single organism. If you understand that a lake is not an organism, you'll see that that's entirely consistent.
All medicines, even silica, already possess their inherent pathogenetic nature, without the need for it to be created or imposed by dynamisation. Dynamisation merely liberates it. Hahnemann made no sharp distinctions between crude substance and dynamic medicine, for the reason that in his view the dynamic medicine is present always in the crude substance. He therefore made no reference to source as distinct from medicine; the two are the same, with a "medicinally indifferent" vehicle merely carrying a history of its impression by the medicine. Hahnemann referred consistently to a vehicle with such a history without distinction from his reference to the crude substance.
The division you draw between substance and dynamic effect does not derive from Hahnemann's definition. He treated the matter rather more holistically, limiting useable homoeopathic medicines, at all potencies without exception, to those whose medicinal component (the part potentised) is a single, simple medicinal substance. His meaning is so obvious that you have understandably been unable to overcome it by any argument except an appeal to the authority of one Sheilagh Creasy, which is to say, you have overcome it by no argument at all.
Soroush, though you can't yet see it, you're staring the obvious in the face. Perhaps one day, when your own innate intelligence is no longer quite so beholden to authority and doctrine, the obvious will strike you as no longer a problem to be wished away but an explanation that you withheld from yourself by reason of doctrinal necessity. And the obvious lies in a correctly quoted translation of Hahnemann's own words: that in no case is it necessary to administer to a patient "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". Hahnemann did not complicate this restriction with caveats about a potency limit; he simply stated, again and again, that one medicine, one substance, one single medicinal substance, possesses every quality necessary for healing. The rest is your invention, not his.

=
Kindest regards,
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Dear John
With respect you do go on and on and fail to answer the question put to you directly.
I had an extremely knowledgeable friend at uni who was not doing well at exams.
I invited him to show me his answers and soon realised that he never answered questions directly and similar to you would write an assay when a simple para would do. Most of what he wrote had no direct relevance to the questions asked!
I have asked you simple direct questions so you would be kind enough to answer with either a yes or a no so you take the micky by starting with YES/NO.
Very funny! But not clever!
I am at a loss that you are incapable of understanding simple Homeopathic terminology.
That you fail to understand that SIMPLE does not mean simple in terms of physics or chemistry.
Once more - There is nothing simple about any of our remedies' origins - apart from the ones made out of elements, all else are compounds (mineral) and the rest are mixtures of organic compounds. (I am excluding those made out of electromagnetic radiations etc)
But as I attempted once more this morning, Hn clearly is asking us to CONSIDER such substances as SIMPLE.
Unless you can understand these issues and concepts and leave physics and chemistry in this instance and understand what CONSIDER means - then there is nothing I can do for you and to continue would be futile.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 03 August 2009 11:23
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: was Swine flu
Dear Soroush,
I've posted at least ten mutually independent arguments in the past several weeks, showing the relentlessly repeated assertion that Hahnemann's meaning in "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" actually excludes more than one single, simple medicinal substance and confines itself to mixtures of insubstantial potencies to be contrived, illogical, groundless, and senseless. So have others posted such arguments.
Your responses have been clever and entertaining. You have ducked and woven, substituting doctrine for logical argument, mistaking belief for definition, confusing substance and essence, forgoing definition for repetition, confounding mixtures with compounds, burning repeatedly the same straw man of belief in mixtures of potencies, hedging your own invented language of "single remedy" etc., and generally treating as incomprehensible Hahnemann's terms substance; medicinal substance; single, simple medicinal substance; and more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- and, above all, replying with questions not of clarification but merely of distraction.
Despite its continual cleverness, unfortunately nothing you have said has been responsive to any of the arguments by which Chris, Joy, and I have attempted to show that, in using the term "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", Hahnemann meant nothing more complicated than that. Those arguments stand entirely unrefuted. And now you've again fulfilled the prediction that your question leads not to any attempt at argument but simple to further distractions -- this time the unnecessary duality you have introduced between substance and dynamic nature.
When you feel you have a way in which to respond to the matter under discussion, I'd really welcome your response. Unsubstantiated assertions don't make very effective rebuttals, as you've probably realised by now; but a thoughtful response may very well introduce something new to the discussion.
I think I've made plain enough my understanding (and how I derived it) of Hahnemann's declared position on arbitrary mixtures such as you've raised in the Duckwater Hypothesis (lakes full of poo etc.): that the mixtures in lakes do not come from a single organism. If you understand that a lake is not an organism, you'll see that that's entirely consistent.
All medicines, even silica, already possess their=20 inherent pathogenetic nature, without the need for it to be created or imposed by dynamisation. Dynamisation merely liberates it. Hahnemann made no sharp distinctions between crude substance and dynamic medicine, for the reason that in his view the dynamic medicine is present always in the crude substance. He therefore made no reference to source as distinct from medicine; the two are the same, with a "medicinally indifferent" vehicle merely carrying a history of its impression by the medicine. Hahnemann referred consistently to a vehicle with such a history without distinction from his reference to the crude substance.
The division you draw between substance and dynamic effect does not derive from Hahnemann's definition. He treated the matter rather more holistically, limiting useable homoeopathic medicines, at all potencies without exception, to those whose medicinal component (the part potentised) is a single, simple medicinal substance. His meaning is so obvious that you have understandably been unable to overcome it by any argument except an appeal to the authority of one Sheilagh Creasy, which is to say, you have overcome it by no argument at all.
Soroush, though you can't yet see it, you're staring the obvious in the face. Perhaps one day, when your own innate intelligence is no longer quite so beholden to authority and doctrine, the obvious will strike you as no longer a problem to be wished away but an explanation that you withheld from yourself by reason of doctrinal necessity. And the obvious lies in a correctly quoted translation of Hahnemann's own words: that in no case is it necessary to administer to a patient "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time". Hahnemann did not complicate this restriction with caveats about a potency limit; he simply stated, again and again, that one medicine, one substance, one single medicinal substance, possesses every quality necessary for healing. The rest is your invention, not his.
Kindest regards,
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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 Soroush,
Many thanks for persisting with me despite my inability to appreciate the deepest truths of your beliefs. I thought I'd adequately conveyed my appreciation at least of the difference between the dynamic properties transmitted to a potentising medium and the chemical and physical properties of the single, simple medicinal substance used to create it; evidently not, though.
I'm a little disappointed in your lack of intent to answer even once any of the questions you've promised to. But then, authority doesn't need reasons.
Should you some day discover after all some reasons for your beliefs, I remain interested to know what they might be. Until I have the benefit of that wisdom, I'll try to content myself with Hahnemann's sense of a single, simple medicinal substance in the preparation of medicines for use in homoeopathy.
Kindest regards,
John
2009/8/3 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Don't know if stirring is the same as sucussion. I think it might not be as powerful - after all, Ramakrishnan, for example, uses water remedies, but advises 'sucussion' not just stirring.
I've heard the expression "Stir it before taking another dose to re-energise it" Maybe that's all stirring does?
Liz