Minutus

Hi Irene,
I apologize if you take offence. I don't know where I have been rude. What I have stated is not my opinion. If you read the Organon, everything I state is directly Hahnemann. Show me where my statements are not aligned with hahnemann.
If you are offended that I suggest you read the Organon again, and that this is the case for numerous homeopaths, including Vitoulkas and Margaret Roy, consider yourself in good company. But is exactly because the text is not properly studied, in an unbiased way. So someone starts studying Organon, having a preconceived idea of homeopathy being a vitalist idea, so that they don't fully grasp hahnemann's thoughts. Usually it gets adapted to fit their frame of reference. Vitoulkas did this, Roy copied him, Herscu did it to justify his segments and cycles. I am not doing any personal attack. I am merely stating what is. All of these put forward the notion that the signs and symptoms show the healing mechanism of the intelligent vital force. Stimulate the vital force and you increase the healing. A quantitative kind of approach. The natural extension of this is that aggravations are welcome because they 'bring out the disease ". This is contrary to hahnemann, and in fact he said the vital force lacks intelligence.
Show me where I having mistaken hahnemann.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

Hi Irene,
- They are not my definitions, they are hahnemann's.
- It's not irrelevant, - current understanding of allopathy only focuses on treatment by opposite, we have lost the knowledge of what allopathy considered as their healing modality, and yet allopathy in that sense is still practiced today, in the guise of detoxing, fasting, hey I am in Africa and sangoma's still give emetic's to bring out the evil.
- How can we understand the concepts if we don't understand the definition?
Regards,
Paul

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Hi Irene,
Thank you for this quote. Read the second footnote. He is talking of allopathic method, clearly differentiating from opposites.
I rest my case.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

This is an example of what I see as plain rude.
(Say it to someone for whom it applies, or don't say it.)
You fail to quote Hahnemann, much less in context, resulting in a circular argument with tangents that are your personal conclusions, NOT Hahnemann's words as you then claim. I do not have time to unravel such musings, especially when the result is not usefeiul:
You arre failing to apply his PRINCIPLES to 2015 - which is necessary in order to meet Aph 1 which has one and only one principle
In other words, just becase Hahnemann did not specifically say one needs to understand the body and what it is doing internally, that is not an excuse for pretending that such information is irrelevant in 2015. He likely had no access to it in his day, or not much. The common sense is to use the newly available information sensibly - unlike the way his peers back then used the information thay had.

It is important to take what Hahnemann saw in PRINCIPLE.
He saw his peers being idiots with the knowledge of the time.
That means (in PRINCIPLE) we shoould be SMART with the knowledge of OUR time.
That is all it means. That is the principle to be extracted.

It does not mean we shoud go about looking for, and defining, 1834 idiocy.

I see no point in studying the Organon as if it is a mere history book.
It is a book of guiding principles towards cure of illness - not pedantic details of what not to do - the latter of which I feel you are reading into it, and which I find an inappropriate use of an excellent work.

I consider the appropriate approach to involve extraction of the principles plus application of them to the current illnesses and times.
in other words, spend time on what TO do, and how to do it well, in THIS century - based on extrated PRINCIPLES from the organon.
Not on who did what wrong in 1834.
I am aware Hahnemann was at pains to convince his peers of the error of THEIR ways. It is history, and only the principle to do what is appropriate with current knowledge, applies.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,
OK, so you have taken me out of context to ram home your idea I was being rude.
Well, read the whole paragraph. I was speaking of people who have a great influence on homeopathic education. I was not making a personal attack, I was stating what I think is something I have observed that is worth looking at. I am sure hahnemann would have been far more vociferous.
Debate it and show me I am wrong. I am open to other views. In fact I used to believe almost a similar line of thought many years back.
Some of you may remember John Lundsroth. He challenged many on the old list (lyghtforce, I think), so I decided to study Organon more. Disprove him if it leads to that or gain new insight. Well for me it was an eye opener.
As for your accusation of rudeness, I mentioned someone, vitoulkas, Roy and herscu. As examples, not as personal attacks. I am not knocking their ability as homeopaths or denying what I may have learnt from them. But I am calling them on these issues. You shouldn't be so quick to take it personally. No where did I mention you, Irene.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

Hi Paul,

There is mention of a VF conversation between David Little and John Lundstrom on this site: http://.homeopathyhome.com/forums/forum/homeopathy/homeopathy-list-discussion/6372-vf
(scroll down to the 4Nov05 post by Louise.)

However, I don't seem to be able to navigate this site to locate the conversation. Any tips on how to locate the conversation?

Thanks,

Leilanae

Ooooooops..............left out the www
http://www.hommeopathyhome.com/forums/f ... on/6372-vf

Leave out the most in hommeo. Still can't see how to navigate though.
Thanks for John's correct surname.
Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

I mean the m in hommeo. Damn spellcheck.
Sent from Samsung Mobile

I'm an ex tutor at BIH, and now I own the International School of advanced veterinary homeopathy IVYHOM, run two forums for study of homeopathy, and promote its use at my Catwell group of over a thousand and educate there too. And my homeopathy work in FIP is published in five languages for others to learn from, at the request of those who have translated and published it overseas for that purpose, having found the english versiom useful. I am in court for the fourth year running, defending homeopathy and my right to free speech to teach it and publish in USA.
So of course it seemed to be personal.
I don't need to do that.
I do not believe in people "being right" or people "being wrong". People are just people.
If you were debating a principle instead of "right-fighting" then by all means point out the principle.
I am happy with the priciples evident in the organon, and have found their use most efficatious:-)
Except for using my name as in "Hi Irene" and responding to my words you mean?


Let's be real.
Have a good day,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."