Minutus

Hi Jan,

This can only be proven (like homeopathy) thru truly
scientific -emprirical- means.

(Try it)

Let's go to your last point first-

obviously, the VF knows not for it is the "derangement" of the VF
which we presume to be the cause of disease. So let's disabuse anyone
reading of the notion that any of us would for a moment suspect that the VF
knows what is good for it. Our model of the VF is simply a "homeostasis
engine" a sort of perpetual motion machine ('til death do us part) like a
little top spinning, always moving *toward* it's percieved point of perfect
balance, always overadjusting a little here & there, but generally doing a
wonderful job of keeping the body & general mental/emotional equipment
functional, until "disease" overwhelms it's abilities. It continues to seek
homeostasis while we live & breathe, but when overwhelmed it's efforts
become destructive or at best confused. Yet it is perfectly (and
relentlessly) consistent in seeking homeostasis from it's relative position.
This is our model, which generally serves.

The VF (the existence of which we also can't "prove" -but generally presume
to exist as a fuzzy definition of the intermediary thru which the remedies
affect the client) reacts to the remedies. That is a tautology; a "given"
point in the equation.

In the non-volitional (autonomic) reflexes/responses, we have the nearest
thing to a "naked" interface with the VF that is possible (outside of
clairvoyance, or near-prophetic dream).

What else would we call whatever-it-is that causes the pulse to skip a beat
and then become strong & steady where it had been weak or irregular... under
the momentary influence of whatever-you-like-to-think is "transmitted" when
a vial of remedy pillules is brought near or into contact with the client?

The VF reacts. That is it's presumed function. That is it's place within
our therapeutic model.

Why should it be surprising that we should, if we are carefully observant to
vital signs, find a window onto the vital force?

There is no way to fully convince anyone of the efficacy of these techniques
other than putting them into practice.

Empirical science. Believe what you see.

You should be able to prove to yourself that there is a response (of
provisionally unknown quality) within about 5 minutes time.

yourself) in practice, in a case.. and then a few more cases.

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer your body for the cause.. (only if you are
*not* a hyper-sensitive) gather a few remedies that you figure you may have
susceptibilty to (based on some homeopathic similitude) .. get together
with another intrepid experimentor, and try a basic pupil (or pulse is
better, if your compatriot is somewhat astute in pulse reading) test with
each several remedies (in two or three potencies, if you have them) ..
record all the responses, ideally keeping the names of the remedies unknown
to the experimentors while the testing is in progress.

Decide if you'd like to take the remedy which made your pulse full &
bounding, or the one which made it smoothly regular. Take the
remedy, and see how it goes.

When I am faced with a case where I have two or more very well indicated
remedies, I use these methods.
I do not give the remedy which appears likely to cause aggravation!
In practice; in the practice of a number of homeopaths who were more
advanced than I will ever be in this lifetime, and in my practical exerience
too-- the remedy which appears likely to be curative... *IS*

This is not rocket science.. it is empirical science.

It is in no way offered, recommended or suggsted as a substitute for doing
painstaking homeopathy and painstaking study of MM.
It *IS* ..in the hands of someone with a little training (easy to learn) a
very reliable way of ruling out totally wrong remedies/potencies or remedies
which appear to have almost no effect.. in favor or remedies which appear
(and later will prove to be) somewhere near-simillimum.

Is it possible to give a very wrong remedy using these techniques?
I don't really think so. The VF either reacts or it doesn't, the reaction is
either a positive seeming one or negative.
Like I said, not rocket science, just practical application in emprirical
fashion, based on seemingly true but unproveable assumptions.

regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Dave, once again, you are managing to obscure your occasional *good*, and
*well-taken* points with (a) too many words, and (b) offensive, negative
phraseology, and (c) personal attacks. (I know *you* don't think you engage
in personal attacks, but I assure you that many of the rest of us so think
so. And when one is attempting to *communicate*, the other person's
interpretation of your words *is* important. It is, in fact, the whole
point of the exercise.)

How about a nice one-liner, "Joy, I find your write-ups fascinating (or
whatever word you choose), and I would love to know how you arrived at these
"new" symptoms?"

Y'know, it's possible to do these things in a *conversational* way, which
lets the other person be *on your side*, at least for purposes of having an
actual *discussion*, as opposed to a juvenile mud-slinging match.
on 11/27/02 5:16 AM, Dave Hartley at dave@localcomputermart.com wrote:

Hi Jan,

Regarding your first two,

on 11/27/02 5:49 AM, Jan Klüssendorf at jk@airstop.be wrote:
I would say this is easily established by different means, e.g. (ahem) the
fact that all these many practitioners find that it *does* cause a chance,
merely from proximity, and even thru the glass bottle.

I have had this effect happen by accident too. At a visit with my
chiropractor, being muscle tested (he uses an elaborate version, full of
"checks and balances", which produces amazing results). The results were
coming up odd, as tho I were not having the problem I had come in for. He
was puzzled, and started trying to figure out what had happened. Then eye
fell on his shelf of remedies, which he had only recently mounted on the
wall, some few feet from the examination table. Among the remedies on the
shelf was "my" remedy, which at that point had always worked well for me,
but which my homepath wanted me to not take yet, as I was not yet "fully
relapsed" (a teeth-gnashing experience, to be sure!). After removing all
the remedies from the room, we re-tested and got the expected results, then
tested the remedy and found that it erased those signs of weakness.

I thought this was a nice little "double blind (accidental) experiment"!
How to draw the right conclusions, that is the point.
I guess some of us are working on it.
???
Define "know"!
Does a thirsty person need instruction to drink water?
Since we've already established that remedies "work", I'm not sure why that
question is there... I assume it refers back to, "does the vital force know
what's good for it even without physical contact..."???

Shannon

Shannon,

Your communication in this instance leaves you hoist on your own petard as
far as I'm concerned.

Shall I feign terrible upset at the slight?
While thanking you kindly for your intent, I have Zero Interest in being
instructed by you on communciation technique.

I have said precisely what I meant to, in carefully chosen words, which I
believe to be factually correct, and which were in no way, shape, or form
*LIBELOUS* (those who claim so are thus guilty imho) -and I cannot see how
anyone could possibly assert that any harm was intended.

In the past, as again, I have challenged Joy's rather free-seeming use of
DOS.

Yes, her writeups are a joy to read, from the point of view of prose, and no
doubt, (as I stated more than once) she has some good insights to offer

BUT- when her insights cannot be reasonably verified anywhere in MM, why
should she, you, or dear Claudia in Germany object to my asking that her
"additions"

*BE ATTRIBUTED*

as such?!

One might as easily take it as a compliment!

EITHER WAY, it is how things are done in scientific, medical, and
homeopathic circles.

Provide references. Take credit for your work. Stand behind it, show others
how you arrived there rather than going into a great huff when questioned.

Too bad that people like so much to turn things into personality-popularity
contests.
I happen to think that several of Joy's comments on ART were quite rude and
uncalled for, but I personally DON'T CARE to make this into some grievous
personal wounding - a petty annoyance at best... like the snide comment
about "your remedy isn't working" -NOT WORTH MENTIONING, until a few people
start trying to whip themselves into a personality lynch mob.

Once again, I suggest attempting to avoid taking insult or hurt.
The propensity to choose to interpret pointed intellectual dialogue as
"personal attack" is to me incomprehensible.

If you make assertions, be prepared to defend them intellectually.
Don't get your self worth all caught up in being an unchallengeable
authority.

Try to get over the feeling that your personality is being attacked when
someone questions you!

p.s. you're forgetting to snip again.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

I have only superficially followed this verbose exchange but as with other such outbursts of imponderable symptoms I am inclined to take the case, since I believe that these emotional feelings are a cause of dis-ease and ergo, must have a cure.
Not being a college trained homeopath and having no faith in the empirical sciences, I am inclined to push the fringe and intuit the remedy, ie, just let it well up from inner space and arrive.
I have done a basic repertorisation, which follows but what I intuited is not there; namely Mag sulph.
On further intuit, it reminds me of Libra; the claws of the scorpion, or for those far from the fringe; RESENTMENT. That would cause me to enquire into Androc but that is not in the repertorisation either.
Hopefully some better-educated and genuine homeopath on the list can relate some experience dealing with remedies for resentment and its pathological results, if not cured.

Kent’ Repertory
CRUELTY (See Moral feeling, Malicious) : Abrot., absin., Anac., croc., cur., nux-v., op., plat.
HATRED (See Malicious, Misanthropy) : Acon., agar., aloe., am-c., Anac., aur., calc., cic., cupr., kali-i., lac-c., lach., led., mang., nat-m., nit-ac., phos., rhus-t., stann., sulph.
absent persons, of, better on seeing them : Fl-ac.
bitter feelings for slight offenses, has : Ang.
men, of : Bar-c., ign., led., lyc., phos., stann.
persons, of, who had offended : Aur., mang., nat-m., nit-ac., sulph.
unmoved by apologies : Nit-ac.
who do not agree with him : Calc-s.
women, of : Puls.
JESTING : Aeth., aloe., arg-m., ars., bar-c., bell., bry., calc., cann-i., caps., carb-v., cic., cocc., croc., cupr., glon., hyos., ign., ip., kali-i., lach., lyc., merc., merl., nat-m., nux-m., op., plat., rhus-r., sars., sec., spong., stram., sul-ac., tab., tarent.
averse to : Acon., am-c., ang., apis., ars., bor., bov., caps., carb-an., cina., cocc., cycl., merc., nat-m., nux-v., puls., sabin., sil., spig., sulph., thuj.
gravity, after : Plat.
indifference, after : Meny.
malicious : Ars.
puns, makes : Cann-i.
ridiculous or foolish : Bell., cic., croc., hyos., stram., tanac., verat.
MALICIOUS : Abrot., acon., agar., aloe., am-c., am-m., ambr., anac., arn., ars., aur., bar-c., bell., berb., bor., bufo., calc-s., calc., cann-s., canth., caps., carb-an., caust., chin., cic., clem., cocc., coloc., com., con., croc., cupr., glon., guai., hep., hydr., hyos., ign., kali-i., lac-c., lach., led., lyc., mang., merc., mosch., nat-c., nat-m., nicc., nit-ac., Nux-v., op., par., petr., phos., plat., sec., squil., stann., Stram., stront., sulph., verat., zinc.

Regards Barry

Which person's resentment are you working with?

Certainly there is some in evidence.
One could assume that I might resent massive condescension, and baseless
aspersions, and employment of disinformation tactics instead of responsive
conversation.

One could also assume that Joy (quite obviously) resents having anything she
writes questioned, and appears to resent the fact that other homeopaths have
developed physical examination skills she lacks.

As far as your rubric choice, it seems a bit simplistic and off the mark in
either case. Also, I don't see where you come up with "jesting" on either
side, but then so much of this type of contentiousness seems to be based on
the very WIDE disparity between what one person means and another reads and
interprets according to h/ir own viewpoint & proclivities.

Is Barry a boy or girls name? (jest kidding
regards,

Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240