provings

[Irene de Villiers]

Except those conclusions are not Hahnemann's words or actions

So it is fine if you work that way, but it is more generally accepted
that cases which aere permanently cured by a remedy - also will
evince symptoms usable in future cases. Our MMs are full of them.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Joy Lucas]

But in principle they are!

I cannot translate but you have 'therefore not permissible' + 'it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means' + 'never think of giving' + 'it is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple medicine' + 'it is absolutely not allowed'

Would you like to discuss the organon, stanza by stanza then you will have over 200 chances to learn.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Chris_Gillen]

Excuse me?? Which parts are not Hahnemann's words or actions in pure
observation of a drug's medicinal properties - i.e. 'Prüfen -to test' ?

(1) Hahnemann recorded symptoms of toxicological poisonings of the drugs he
published in HIS Materia Medica.

(2) Hahnemann developed the system of proving safe dosages of drugs
[unpotentized and potentized] on healthy examiners and gave directives on
how and why in HIS Organon.

(3) Hahnemann observed that true proving symptoms which appear during
treatment could still be differentiated from a patient's morbid symptoms
(Aph 142) in HIS Organon.

(4) Hahnemann stated (everywhere) that the Law of Similars is validated when
the symptoms in a case of disease disappear after administering a remedy
which can produce similar symptoms in a prover.

Please supply any quotes you can find where Hahnemann said any or all of the
above are unnecessary to *the application of homoeopathic medicine*. Take as
much time as you need.

Chris.

[Irene de Villiers]

As i said in the first email, these words:
They were your conclusions not Hahnemann's. That is all I meant.
We each interpret Hahnemann's principles our own way.

Hopefully the common goal is to do the best we can for the client,
using those principles.
It is quite possible that one person does that differently from
another but equally effectively.
That is why I did not like the quoted words being attributed to
Hahnemnan. They are yours.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John Harvey]

Irene, if you read Chris's post again, you'll find that it she made perfectly obvious that her final line is all her own and that even the words above it are paraphrases of Hahnemann.

It's one thing to accurately paraphrase Hahnemann and his principle of treatment by similars as those familiar with his work, such as Chris, can do ably and without raising a real homoeopath's eyebrow. It's quite another to interpret him as you do, without concern either for the form of what you purport to be expressing (as in your inability to recognise that a definition does not occupy an entire treatise such as the Organon) or for completeness (as in your preparedness to ditch the homoeopathic principle in favour of polypharmaceutical "support for the vital force") or for relevance (as in your attempt to drag in every technique mentioned in the Organon as equally disposable "principles") or even for mild accuracy (as in claiming that Hahnemann did not express the need for any rational medicine to be based upon provings).

You could learn a great deal from people like Chris, Fran, and Joy; they actually understand exactly what Hahnemann meant when he used words to mean what rational people understood them to mean.

Cheers --

John
2009/6/30 Irene de Villiers >

[Irene de Villiers]

This sis silly....
My original reply to them was equally obviously in response to them
- so the real question is why Chris then asked "which words".
I answered politely.
End circle.

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Chris_Gillen]

*Sophistry* was my inclusion, the rest were entirely in keeping with
Hahnemann's words and intent! Do you have a copy of Hahnemann's collection
of essays yet? This one is particularly enlightening because Hahnemann goes
into great detail about the utter uselessness of having to depend on sources
of materia medica that have scant regard for pure observation and truth
concerning medicinal properties of drugs.

From "Examination of the Sources of the Common Materia Medica" - S.
Hahnemann

"...Hence it is undeniable, that to ascribe any powers to a medicinal
substance which was never tested PURELY >>he means *proving* of a single,
*simple* substance [see the entire essay]<< ...consequently might as well
have been never tested at all, [and] IS TO BE GUILTY OF DECEPTION AND
FALSEHOOD.

So what you're proposing instead is that homoeopathic medicines can be
applied without even using symptoms first derived from a proving, which
means the Law of Similars is supposedly arbitrary in a homoeopathic
prescription, and that sweetie, is an entirely fallacious notion =
sophistry.

Do I need to send you a spare set of my glasses?

Chris.

[Shannon Nelson]

Chris,

So all use of "family" information, e.g. Will Taylor's use of it to
guide usage of "small" remedies--is that also considered sophistry?
Certainly Scholten's system would be.

[John Harvey]

Shannon, read the Organon! What does it say about speculative systems of indications for medicines? And then think too about the definition of homoeopathy and its entire basis in provings. Now what is a prescription without a basis in any proving: homoeopathic, or fantasy (speculation)?
2009/7/1 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

[John Harvey]

I should have specified that that was actually in relation to the suggestion of incredulity I detected regarding Scholten indications' failure to meet the standard required of homoeopathy.

I can't comment on David's, except to guess that he will be supplementing the "little" pathogenetic knowledge with guesswork -- educated guesswork, no doubt, but he'd readily confirm that guesswork in such a situation is unavoidable. Such a prescription: what can one say? It would be part homoeopathy, obviously, and part guesswork. This much is probably true of many prescriptions anyway, even of big remedies, but here the reliance on "symptoms" or "indications" not derived from provings necessarily places the prescription's methodology as partially homoeopathic: an odd concept but there we are. Does anyone have clearer thoughts on this?

Cheers --

John
2009/7/1 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)