Shannon, I think you're overlooking the forest for the trees. As I said, "all of these do reflect the patient's state of derangement from health". The exception amongst those you've listed is, of course, family history, which obviously cannot result from the patient's particular derangement from good health. Would you suggest otherwise?
Cheers --
John
What the heck??? was ... is it any medicine like viagra..
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: What the heck??? was ... is it any medicine like viagra..
Didi, evidently we've been talking at cross-purposes somewhat. Let me clarify a couple of things.
(1) By in "in your case", I meant "in the case of your discussion", rather than "in the case you were discussing"!
(2) In contending that "to say yoh. or ag-c. or ph-ac for impotence is neither a prescription or even tryng to push a remedy onto a single symptom. Any homeopath on this list would think to return to the materia medica to make their own assessment and differentiation", perhaps you overlook that in fact many contributors to this list do use recommendations such as this as a basis for prescription rather than as a basis for studying it in materia medica. Sad but true.
(3) For that reason, it's not at all obvious, even after an earlier disclaimer along the lines "Dysfunction is usually a sign of something else going on and the body has taken steps to protect itself. So if you don't address the
underlying problems you may be causing more harm through this ignorance",
that your intention is any different, when you say "Nevertheless some remedies are there… these remedies,
when not individuall prescribed may or maynot cure, but only work for sort periods" and then proceed to list the remedies that work for short periods. If that wasn't intended as a recommendation for remedies that may successfully palliate the problem for up to an hour -- and, as I'll mention below, I assumed that it was not -- then it was very poorly worded.
(4) The earlier reference to Lycopodium that you correctly note I did not contend with, by contrast said the following:
"That said, didn't a homeopath (Kent?) say Lycopodium helped the older man when married to a younger woman? Please note, if the patient doesn't have 'lycopodium symptoms' it will not work."
The difference is that whereas you, apparently inadvertently, recommended use of particular medicines for palliative purposes, this writer was utterly clear in stating that the entire case was relevant to the prescription.
Yes, it's only a matter of the words you used instead of the words you intended to use, and you knew what you meant to say. But in a list such as this, readers have only the words you actually use by which to gauge your communicative intent. The earlier writer communicated what she had intended to, and you, despite your efforts, apparently did not; and that is partly why you ended up feeling that I had ignored a similar recommendation by another writer but not yours. Nevertheless, you might, had you been less sensitive to this possibility, have noticed that my addendum to your own message made no criticism or untoward assumption of your intent in this regard but sought merely to clarify the message that I'd assumed in good faith you'd actually intended to deliver: that prescribing on the basis of a remedy's history in removing a single symptom has no place in homoeopathy.
Kind regards,
John
(1) By in "in your case", I meant "in the case of your discussion", rather than "in the case you were discussing"!
(2) In contending that "to say yoh. or ag-c. or ph-ac for impotence is neither a prescription or even tryng to push a remedy onto a single symptom. Any homeopath on this list would think to return to the materia medica to make their own assessment and differentiation", perhaps you overlook that in fact many contributors to this list do use recommendations such as this as a basis for prescription rather than as a basis for studying it in materia medica. Sad but true.
(3) For that reason, it's not at all obvious, even after an earlier disclaimer along the lines "Dysfunction is usually a sign of something else going on and the body has taken steps to protect itself. So if you don't address the
underlying problems you may be causing more harm through this ignorance",
that your intention is any different, when you say "Nevertheless some remedies are there… these remedies,
when not individuall prescribed may or maynot cure, but only work for sort periods" and then proceed to list the remedies that work for short periods. If that wasn't intended as a recommendation for remedies that may successfully palliate the problem for up to an hour -- and, as I'll mention below, I assumed that it was not -- then it was very poorly worded.
(4) The earlier reference to Lycopodium that you correctly note I did not contend with, by contrast said the following:
"That said, didn't a homeopath (Kent?) say Lycopodium helped the older man when married to a younger woman? Please note, if the patient doesn't have 'lycopodium symptoms' it will not work."
The difference is that whereas you, apparently inadvertently, recommended use of particular medicines for palliative purposes, this writer was utterly clear in stating that the entire case was relevant to the prescription.
Yes, it's only a matter of the words you used instead of the words you intended to use, and you knew what you meant to say. But in a list such as this, readers have only the words you actually use by which to gauge your communicative intent. The earlier writer communicated what she had intended to, and you, despite your efforts, apparently did not; and that is partly why you ended up feeling that I had ignored a similar recommendation by another writer but not yours. Nevertheless, you might, had you been less sensitive to this possibility, have noticed that my addendum to your own message made no criticism or untoward assumption of your intent in this regard but sought merely to clarify the message that I'd assumed in good faith you'd actually intended to deliver: that prescribing on the basis of a remedy's history in removing a single symptom has no place in homoeopathy.
Kind regards,
John