Minutus

Dear Soroush,
Just checking that you haven't overlooked our conversation here (which, to minimise nesting, I've forwarded, rather than replied to again). I'm hoping for responses to clarify the few aspects of your arguments on this topic that remain unclear.
Thanks!
John
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Harvey >
Date: 2009/8/12
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Hi, Soroush --

Thanks for making this easy.
No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis.
Okay, so you are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
Apparently you believe that this is the inference Hahnemann is drawing. My question concerns your reason for believing it: whether that reason is as stated. If it is not, could you state concisely what gives you reason to believe that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is not simply to state that all medicinal cures he has investigated have been homoeopathic, but to go further and contend that all medicinal cures must, incontrovertibly, be homoeopathic in nature. Just what is it that leads you to believe -- if you do believe it -- that in § 26 Hahnemann is making this very different contention of fact?
This appears to be consistent with the last point discussed, which is encouraging...
... but this is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false. If you're unable to make up your mind what argument you're trying to support, it's hardly surprising if I am unable to sum it up correctly.
Could you please make up your mind whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

— Plutarch
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

— Plutarch

Dear John
I noted that you had not answered any of my qns (which required a simple answer) but asked a number of your own so I gave up!
Sorry!
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 17 August 2009 13:52
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Just checking that you haven't overlooked our conversation here (which, to minimise nesting, I've forwarded, rather than replied to again). I'm hoping for responses to clarify the few aspects of your arguments on this topic that remain unclear.
Thanks!
John
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Harvey >
Date: 2009/8/12
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Hi, Soroush --

Thanks for making this easy.
No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis.
Okay, so you are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
Apparently you believe that this is the inference Hahnemann is drawing. My question concerns your reason for believing it: whether that reason is as stated. If it is not, could you state concisely what gives you reason to believe that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is not simply to state that all medicinal cures he has investigated have been homoeopathic, but to go further and contend that all medicinal cures must, incontrovertibly, be homoeopathic in nature. Just what is it that leads you to believe -- if you do believe it -- that in § 26 Hahnemann is making this very different contention of fact?
This appears to be consistent with the last point discussed, which is encouraging...
... but this is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false. If you're unable to make up your mind what argument you're trying to support, it's hardly surprising if I am unable to sum it up correctly.
Could you please make up your mind whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

- Plutarch
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

- Plutarch

Dear Soroush,
Unfortunately you have a habit of replacing a reasoned discussion by a contest of beliefs. I don't think it's worthwhile stating a belief without giving the reasoning behind it, as without that reasoning the statement leads nowhere. This is why I have tried to avoid stating my beliefs without giving reasons for them.
You began this conversation by stating a belief, the reasons for which I have been pursuing. In response, you have asked questions as to my beliefs, any answer to which I consider to be capable of eliciting nothing more useful than mindless responses as to your own beliefs.
Nonetheless, since you refuse to reason through this matter any further unless I present you with an answer to all of your questions as to my beliefs, here are all three of your questions, in chronological order, with the best answers I can manage at the moment.
(a)
Was the practise of the native Peruvians to use of the bark as a cure for symptoms of Malaria homeopatic in nature?
I remain unclear as to the intent of this question. My questions of clarification are what you have now refused to answer. So I will do my best to answer straightforwardly in the sincere hope that you do not use my answer, for which I offer no justification at this moment, as a springboard to avoid the actual topic, which is clarification of your reasoning process.
I am unaware that native Peruvians used the bark for anything. Taking your word for it that they used it for malaria, I do not believe that its use for malaria shows anything in particular, any more than its use by eighteenth-century allopaths in malaria shows anything in particular. Nor do I believe that you have evidence that the native Peruvian use of the substance resulted in verifiable cures. I have reasons for these beliefs, but wish to understand your reasoning before presenting mine, if that seems reasonable to you.
(b)
Is it not?
Here you were responding to this: "[Y]ou appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?"
You later clarified that the question means:
Is it not the inference that Hn is making?
So you are asking, I think, whether Hahnemann's inference of a homoeopathic relationship from the use of, for example, Peruvian bark in malaria.
As it happens, I believe that it is not. The question that you answered by asking this question did not, though, concern Hahnemann's intent but your reasoning in concluding that this was his intent, and I hope still to elicit that reasoning from you. I answered this question reluctantly, as I do not think it is appropriate for me to jump in with my beliefs before even understanding your reasoning, so I'd appreciate your not demanding my reasons for this answer until I am clear on your reasons for your opening assertion.
(c)
Are you saying that the Peruvian bark was NOT homeopathic to Malaria?
Your question has no bearing whatever on the topic, which concerns Hahnemann's intent in § 26, so you're wandering right away from the topic. And I have clearly answered this question already, stating "No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis".
That request remains unfulfilled, answered instead by your own question as to whether I was stating that something was not homoeopathic to something else.
I have therefore answered all three of your questions. May we resume conversation on the topic of your reasons for making the statements you have concerning Peruvian bark, malaria, and the replacement of provings by clinical success stories? If we may, then my questions remain, unchanged, as follows:
(5a) Do you draw from the example of native use of Peruvian bark the conclusion that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
(6a) You are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?

(8a) Your earlier statement that without assessment of each medicine's curative effects "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind" you have since stated means
that what I infer from Hn in this aphorism is that if something cures, it must be homeopathic.
I have suggested that this is consistent with other things you have said, in treating Hahnemann's statement in § 26 as a contention of fact.
But the statement
In fact that is the definition of something is homeopathic
is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false.
Will you please state whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush. I think that once I understand what your position is -- not just your beliefs, but your reasoning -- I will be able to respond to it. But if you yourself are not clear on how you come to your beliefs, then no amount of reasoning will help either of us to see the other's point of view.
Cheers --
John

Dear John
Before we get embroiled into a lengthy discussion, please can explain using least number of words how the discovery of Homeopathy came about and what was the role of the Peruvian bark?
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 18 August 2009 05:30
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Unfortunately you have a habit of replacing a reasoned discussion by a contest of beliefs. I don't think it's worthwhile stating a belief without giving the reasoning behind it, as without that reasoning the statement leads nowhere. This is why I have tried to avoid stating my beliefs without giving reasons for them.
You began this conversation by stating a belief, the reasons for which I have been pursuing. In response, you have asked questions as to my beliefs, any answer to which I consider to be capable of eliciting nothing more useful than mindless responses as to your own beliefs.
Nonetheless, since you refuse to reason through this matter any further unless I present you with an answer to all of your questions as to my beliefs, here are all three of your questions, in chronological order, with the best answers I can manage at the moment.
(a)
Was the practise of the native Peruvians to use of the bark as a cure for symptoms of Malaria homeopatic in nature?
I remain unclear as to the intent of this question. My questions of clarification are what you have now refused to answer. So I will do my best to answer straightforwardly in the sincere hope that you do not use my answer, for which I offer no justification at this moment, as a springboard to avoid the actual topic, which is clarification of your reasoning process.
I am unaware that native Peruvians used the bark for anything. Taking your word for it that they used it for malaria, I do not believe that its use for malaria shows anything in particular, any more than its use by eighteenth-century allopaths in malaria shows anything in particular. Nor do I believe that you have evidence that the native Peruvian use of the substance resulted in verifiable cures. I have reasons for these beliefs, but wish to understand your reasoning before presenting mine, if that seems reasonable to you.
(b)
Is it not?
Here you were responding to this: "[Y]ou appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?"
You later clarified that the question means:
Is it not the inference that Hn is making?
So you are asking, I think, whether Hahnemann's inference of a homoeopathic relationship from the use of, for example, Peruvian bark in malaria.
As it happens, I believe that it is not. The question that you answered by asking this question did not, though, concern Hahnemann's intent but your reasoning in concluding that this was his intent, and I hope still to elicit that reasoning from you. I answered this question reluctantly, as I do not think it is appropriate for me to jump in with my beliefs before even understanding your reasoning, so I'd appreciate your not demanding my reasons for this answer until I am clear on your reasons for your opening assertion.
(c)
Are you saying that the Peruvian bark was NOT homeopathic to Malaria?
Your question has no bearing whatever on the topic, which concerns Hahnemann's intent in § 26, so you're wandering right away from the topic. And I have clearly answered this question already, stating "No, I am asking you to clarify the nature of your argument: whether you are arguing that the proposition that Peruvian bark cures malaria suffices to demonstrate Peruvian bark's pathogenesis".
That request remains unfulfilled, answered instead by your own question as to whether I was stating that something was not homoeopathic to something else.
I have therefore answered all three of your questions. May we resume conversation on the topic of your reasons for making the statements you have concerning Peruvian bark, malaria, and the replacement of provings by clinical success stories? If we may, then my questions remain, unchanged, as follows:
(5a) Do you draw from the example of native use of Peruvian bark the conclusion that discovery of any such curative relationship as you infer from native use of Peruvian bark in malaria suffices to determine (part at least of) the pathogenesis of the relevant substance?
(6a) You are not attempting to argue a case for your proposition (that if anything cures, then the action was homoeopathic); you are simply stating again that your interpretation of § 26 is that Hahnemann was making a prediction that any cure will be found, upon sufficient investigation to determine it one way or the other, to have a homoeopathic basis, as determined by learning the pathogenesis of the substance bringing about the cure and comparing it with the symptoms cured. Does that accurately state what you are doing here?
(7) Given that it is, you appear to be further arguing that our ability to correctly infer such a homoeopathic relationship shows that Hahnemann's intent in § 26 is also to infer such a relationship from a cure. Is that so?

(8a) Your earlier statement that without assessment of each medicine's curative effects "Homeopathy has no basis and wee are all whistling in the wind" you have since stated means
that what I infer from Hn in this aphorism is that if something cures, it must be homeopathic.
I have suggested that this is consistent with other things you have said, in treating Hahnemann's statement in § 26 as a contention of fact.
But the statement
In fact that is the definition of something is homeopathic
is not. Here you are treating § 26 no longer as a contention of fact but as a definition, which cannot be true or false.
Will you please state whether you wish to treat § 26 as a contention of fact -- that every real cure that has ever taken place is due to symptom similarity, which is how it seems to me to read -- or as a definition of homoeopathicity?
Thanks, Soroush. I think that once I understand what your position is -- not just your beliefs, but your reasoning -- I will be able to respond to it. But if you yourself are not clear on how you come to your beliefs, then no amount of reasoning will help either of us to see the other's point of view.
Cheers --
John

Just an aside on Peruvian bark or Cinchona - it was most certainly used by the native Indians in the jungle in Peru for treating malaria - it was one of their ancient herbal remedies. In the 17th Century a missionary priest discovered that the Indians successfully treated malaria with it, and recommended it, but it didn't gain popularity until some time later, though the Jesuits (again, as with Ignatia!) who brought some to Rome where there was a lot of malaria, and then its worth began to be appreciated.
As for whether the Indians used it based on the homeopathic principle, that I don't know. However, it is more than likely that they had a crude 'Doctrine of Signatures' in operation, as with other herbal traditions. So there may very well have been an element of homeopathicity in their selection of it.
Liz

Dear Soroush,
Since the latest questions you raise doesn't seem to bear at all on Hahnemann's intent in § 26, could we treat it as an entirely separate discussion and get on with the § 26 discussion as well?
Assuming your assent, I'll answer your question under a different subject heading, "role of Peruvian bark". I don't think you'll find any surprises there. Thanks also to you, Liz, and I'll respond briefly in that subject line.
And if you could clarify the remainder of the arguments below, it will help me to understand what exactly your claim regarding § 26 is and how you arrive at it.
Thanks --
John
2009/8/19 >
________________________________

No John!
My question is absolutely critical to Aph 26.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 19 August 2009 10:31
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 26 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,
Since the latest questions you raise doesn't seem to bear at all on Hahnemann's intent in § 26, could we treat it as an entirely separate discussion and get on with the § 26 discussion as well?
Assuming your assent, I'll answer your question under a different subject heading, "role of Peruvian bark". I don't think you'll find any surprises there. Thanks also to you, Liz, and I'll respond briefly in that subject line.
And if you could clarify the remainder of the arguments below, it will help me to understand what exactly your claim regarding § 26 is and how you arrive at it.
Thanks --
John
2009/8/19 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."

- Plutarch

I just want to thank whoever posted this title. I pulled out my dusty Organon and it is now on my desk and I am reading at least one Aphorism a day. Thanks for motivating me!
Jill
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

Dear Jill
You are most welcome!
Every day I post an aphorism.
Some of them are straight forward, some of them cause a discussion.
Please feel free to comment.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rjktethomas
Sent: 19 August 2009 15:42
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Aph 26 - Organon 6
I just want to thank whoever posted this title. I pulled out my dusty Organon and it is now on my desk and I am reading at least one Aphorism a day. Thanks for motivating me!
Jill
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , John Harvey wrote:

Also Soroush, I am missing Ardhavan's quizzes. FTRN- Find the remedy Name. That was a mighty good way to keep connected to the essences of a remedy. Maybe Ardhavan believes that this list has outgrown its need for such an excercise. I do not think so.

When that was going on the membership was close to 800 only. Now with more than triple the membership, will anyone take up such a fine work as Ardhavan's ?

I will welcome even a repost of that series.

Venkat

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote: