Hello Rik
LOL - I concur with you - and with that I will stop reading this crap. I have been practising Vet. Hom for 3 years and can't believe the stuff that I read here.
Please take me of the list - nouff.
Gisela Di Carlo,Vet Hom
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: barefoothomeopath@yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:52:21 -0700
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Postings
Hello John,
I quite agree with you but I might add that we could ask Soroush to modify or extend the mission statement to specify that the group is "not" a forum for the discussion of pseudopathy outside of the context of defining what is wrong with it as a direct comparative to genuine Homeopathy. The mission statement could contain a brief list of things that have no place here to be promoted, such as, Cheery feel goodedness 30C, Meditative hopefulness 200C, New agey self righteousness 1M or Total Bastardizationness 50M. Or my favorite, Homeopathy is just Energy so I am forced by my cultural good intentions to accept any and all loose definitions of what Homeopathy could be, because I am reluctant to voice anything other than total acceptance of all people and their ways of practicing at all times MT.
What do you think Soroush, John?
All the best to you and yours,
Rik
Postings
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Postings
Rik, this is where it's hard to say what's more helpful: inclusiveness of topic or exclusiveness. For instance, Hahnemann noted in the Organon itself the benefits of such non-homoeopathic steps as moderateness in diet; adequacy of exercise; and restraint from medicinal culinary items, only some of which can arguably be directly related to the effectiveness of a homoeopathic medicine in attaining its primary goal of implanting a single medicinal illness in the patient or its secondary goal of inducing the patient's reaction to that illness. If we were to exclude all discussion of apparent irrelevancies in treatment, we might throw the baby out with the bathwater.
That said, I think you're really referring to discussion not of auxiliary measures but only of substitutes for the homoeopathic method: pseudopathies, as you say.
Even here, it seems to me, it may be useful to allow that it's possible that the homoeopathic method could usefully be superseded by some other.
But it's easy to imagine that those who have for many years enjoyed tolerance of their efforts to sow confusion between homoeopathy and pseudopathies of all kinds will continue to take every opportunity to sow such confusion -- in fact, I find it difficult to imagine otherwise -- which suggests that any encouragement to promote methods that somewhat resemble homoeopathy will be abused just as the purpose of the list to discuss "classical" or "Hahnemannian" homoeopathy has been abused as an opportunity to drive wedges of allopathy into the discussion.
But if no mention in the aim of the list were to be made of other methods, then their possible superiority in value to that of homoeopathy, which doubtless some will mention in passing regardless, can surely be tolerated as a passing mention. The line between maintaining relevance and instituting censorship of views is one that is rarely if ever worth crossing. Once the topic of the list is made perfectly clear, everything else is likely to sort itself out, I think.
But the topic will never be clear while real homoeopathy is nominalised as being some fuddy-duddy corner of homoeopathy labelled "classical or Hahnemannian", inviting the misconception that a broader homoeopathy does not depend on pathogenetic trials, rigorous case-taking, and the effort to use the two to bring to bear on the patient the best mimic from the medicine chest. The list will invite confusion and turmoil whilever its stated aim continues to suggest that homoeopathy may include allopathy.
Cheers!
John
That said, I think you're really referring to discussion not of auxiliary measures but only of substitutes for the homoeopathic method: pseudopathies, as you say.
Even here, it seems to me, it may be useful to allow that it's possible that the homoeopathic method could usefully be superseded by some other.
But it's easy to imagine that those who have for many years enjoyed tolerance of their efforts to sow confusion between homoeopathy and pseudopathies of all kinds will continue to take every opportunity to sow such confusion -- in fact, I find it difficult to imagine otherwise -- which suggests that any encouragement to promote methods that somewhat resemble homoeopathy will be abused just as the purpose of the list to discuss "classical" or "Hahnemannian" homoeopathy has been abused as an opportunity to drive wedges of allopathy into the discussion.
But if no mention in the aim of the list were to be made of other methods, then their possible superiority in value to that of homoeopathy, which doubtless some will mention in passing regardless, can surely be tolerated as a passing mention. The line between maintaining relevance and instituting censorship of views is one that is rarely if ever worth crossing. Once the topic of the list is made perfectly clear, everything else is likely to sort itself out, I think.
But the topic will never be clear while real homoeopathy is nominalised as being some fuddy-duddy corner of homoeopathy labelled "classical or Hahnemannian", inviting the misconception that a broader homoeopathy does not depend on pathogenetic trials, rigorous case-taking, and the effort to use the two to bring to bear on the patient the best mimic from the medicine chest. The list will invite confusion and turmoil whilever its stated aim continues to suggest that homoeopathy may include allopathy.
Cheers!
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Postings
Hi, Shannon --
I think that if you examine his position, you'll find that, though he expresses these things amusingly, Rik's points of fact and his aims in making them are perfectly seriously concerned with making discussion clear and useful to the practitioner who cares about homoeopathy. It is only in his admitted failure to tolerate confusion of homoeopathy with mumbo jumbo that his seriousness expresses itself in the derisiveness so offensive to those who thrive on the confusion.
For myself as somebody with a love of homoeopathy, it's a sad day when we lose yet another sincerely discriminating reader and contributor. Gisela is merely the latest in a long and significant series of contributors to express her disappointment in a list whose promised discussion of homoeopathy is drowned in practised ignorance of homoeopathy's single distinction from everything else.
Kind regards,
John
I think that if you examine his position, you'll find that, though he expresses these things amusingly, Rik's points of fact and his aims in making them are perfectly seriously concerned with making discussion clear and useful to the practitioner who cares about homoeopathy. It is only in his admitted failure to tolerate confusion of homoeopathy with mumbo jumbo that his seriousness expresses itself in the derisiveness so offensive to those who thrive on the confusion.
For myself as somebody with a love of homoeopathy, it's a sad day when we lose yet another sincerely discriminating reader and contributor. Gisela is merely the latest in a long and significant series of contributors to express her disappointment in a list whose promised discussion of homoeopathy is drowned in practised ignorance of homoeopathy's single distinction from everything else.
Kind regards,
John
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Postings
I would love a good list that discusses homeopathy to be revived.
A lot of useful information flowed through the old lists - they were beaut places to learn things - and much easier and faster to navigate than Facebook and modern forums - we seem to have gone backwards in terms of efficiency.
In the beginning - way, way back - the paid membership forum (was it Pegasus, Lyghtforce? Can't remember now) ran with different sub-categories but very similar to a mailing list and not cludgy like the forums available today. It had a sub-category that had the name of 'Fringe' or something like that.
Every time something was discussed in one of categories that obviously wasn't homeopathy, the contributor was asked to take it to the fringe one. This kept everyone happy as 'out there' topics and practices still had a place but homeopathy as such was still protected and easily identified by those new to the group. It also stopped people being slammed if they wanted to raise fringe matters - it had a valid discussion area.
Interestingly and from memory, discussions on fringe topics usually didn't have a long life whereas the truly homeopathic topics flourished. I think this is what we see on Minitus - the goose that lays the golden egg is killed by too much liberality.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
A lot of useful information flowed through the old lists - they were beaut places to learn things - and much easier and faster to navigate than Facebook and modern forums - we seem to have gone backwards in terms of efficiency.
In the beginning - way, way back - the paid membership forum (was it Pegasus, Lyghtforce? Can't remember now) ran with different sub-categories but very similar to a mailing list and not cludgy like the forums available today. It had a sub-category that had the name of 'Fringe' or something like that.
Every time something was discussed in one of categories that obviously wasn't homeopathy, the contributor was asked to take it to the fringe one. This kept everyone happy as 'out there' topics and practices still had a place but homeopathy as such was still protected and easily identified by those new to the group. It also stopped people being slammed if they wanted to raise fringe matters - it had a valid discussion area.
Interestingly and from memory, discussions on fringe topics usually didn't have a long life whereas the truly homeopathic topics flourished. I think this is what we see on Minitus - the goose that lays the golden egg is killed by too much liberality.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Re: Postings
Judging from the number of people that are contacting me off list, asking where they can go to get the good info, you are certainly not the only one Fran.
Kerry
Kerry
Re: Postings
Hello John,
Yes Hahnemann did mention diet etc. but he did not write more than a few sentences about these issues on the periphery. He did of course write several editions of the Organon in which he exhaustively worked out the relevance of similarities as relevant to the vital force and hammered out a whole lot of posology, case taking etc.
In an effort to save the baby and bathwater though, I think it is possible to evolve the mission statement so as to become both exclusionary of speculative, unproven gibberish and inclusive of anything and everything specific and general to genuine Homeopathy.
You mention the inclusiveness to censorship analogy, which is a difficult one to breach of course, and for good reason. But I might put forward, as an example, that I belong to a number of different organizations, mostly related to certain sciences, both online and in actual real life. Within these various professional forums there is no accepted room for deviating at all from the specifics and or generals of the given mission statement. For example, at one seminar recently a speaker started in on a lengthy diatribe about how we all needed to invest in gold because the world was collapsing. Since this could not, even under the influence, be in any way related to anything the organization promotes or even discusses in it's mission statement, he has been chastised and I am sure he will not be speaking at the lectern again.(This was an Engineering/Infrastructure conference)
There is a fine line about what to include and what to exclude, but I would rather stumble even through trying to improve this list to something pragmatic and useful to the majority, than have it continue to be an anything under the sun free for all.
Best regards,
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
Yes Hahnemann did mention diet etc. but he did not write more than a few sentences about these issues on the periphery. He did of course write several editions of the Organon in which he exhaustively worked out the relevance of similarities as relevant to the vital force and hammered out a whole lot of posology, case taking etc.
In an effort to save the baby and bathwater though, I think it is possible to evolve the mission statement so as to become both exclusionary of speculative, unproven gibberish and inclusive of anything and everything specific and general to genuine Homeopathy.
You mention the inclusiveness to censorship analogy, which is a difficult one to breach of course, and for good reason. But I might put forward, as an example, that I belong to a number of different organizations, mostly related to certain sciences, both online and in actual real life. Within these various professional forums there is no accepted room for deviating at all from the specifics and or generals of the given mission statement. For example, at one seminar recently a speaker started in on a lengthy diatribe about how we all needed to invest in gold because the world was collapsing. Since this could not, even under the influence, be in any way related to anything the organization promotes or even discusses in it's mission statement, he has been chastised and I am sure he will not be speaking at the lectern again.(This was an Engineering/Infrastructure conference)
There is a fine line about what to include and what to exclude, but I would rather stumble even through trying to improve this list to something pragmatic and useful to the majority, than have it continue to be an anything under the sun free for all.
Best regards,
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Postings
Hi, Rik --
Well, fair enough. Of course, what possibility there is of having the aim tightened up or even clarified is another matter, one I'm not privy to. But it's nice to dream.
Cheers!
John
Well, fair enough. Of course, what possibility there is of having the aim tightened up or even clarified is another matter, one I'm not privy to. But it's nice to dream.
Cheers!
John