Minutus

Me too!!!
My opinion: I have great interesting in and curiosity about the wide
variety of approaches, but I do feel there should be some consideration
given the meaning that was assigned by the person who coined the term,
Mr. H himself. He left much to the judgment of the practitioner, but
he was completely adamant about what homeopathy "is", and "one remedy
at a time" was stated clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically. To say
the least...

I've already said that in dire emergency I (speaking only for myself)
am willing to entertaining giving two--lordy, perhaps even
more!--remedies at once--*if* I thought the situation warranted it.
And I have no trouble at all with being told that is "not
homeopathy"--I agree! I also use or recommend a variety of other
sorts of modalities when I feel it is appropriate, and have no trouble
with the realization that *those* aren't homeopathy either.

A lot of the "marginal" approaches (combination remedies and various
other uses of potentized substances) could maybe be lumped together
under a term such as "homeotherapeutics"--is that one already taken?
And "classical homeopathy" is a useful--tho somewhat imprecise--term to
further specify just what is meant.

Simon, what's your opinion?
Shannon
...

Jennifer-
You did an excellent job and my salutes to you. It is a very
difficult case to start with and if instead of one medicine you
needed three to clear it up- so what? As long as the patient gets OK
without any more antibiotics. Adding Strep and Pyrogen is not going
to be worse than further allopathic drugging...Moreover these drugs
with the exception of Pyrogen have not had very good proving and you
cannot repertorize to get them...

Once again keep up the good work...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer Ruby" wrote:
but in
Staphylococcus was
was rotting
under
have the
physicians)
remedy at a
the less...
to learn
can't in
one of
so I guess
a cup
*other*
all this

snip
On the namings? Not sure I have one. I find the term 'classical' a bit
fuddy duddy myself, like you expe ct the clinic to have marble
statuettes and baroque music playing, (not a bad idea actually;-)) -
and prefer just the term homeopathy.
Seems the most simple and elegant - like the discipline itself
However as we all know and are discussing there are arguements to be
argued and definitions to be defined...

I'd be interested in the general consensus
Simon

It would be nice to stick with plain ol' "homeopathy", but... In
addition to arguments and definitions, there are folks using the name
who have no connection to or interest in us, and I can't imagine how
they could be dissuaded and re-named! I agree, tho, that "classical"
is neither the most gripping nor the most descriptive. But
maybe better than "Hallowed Old Dead Guys' Homeopathy", or
"Hahnemannian-and-then-some" (some of course are just
"Hahnemannian"--in practice I mean, or even in name! )
Shannon

"Classical" has bad overtones- for me at least... this is used by
some to impress others and to set themselves apart as the true
descendants of Hahnemann much more like the way Kent gripped the
throat of Hughes and others reaching across the Atlantic..

Currently with Guru movement is full force... it is as if only
delusional prescribers or people prescribing on new fangled
approaches are "classicals"...

The "schism" is homeopathy starts with this naming... we do not have
to split hairs... We have people doing muscle testing, AK,
pendulums, and computers doing the selection using standardized forms
( which is not Hahnemann had in mind for case-taking) etc...

When you find a medicine using muscle testing and give a single
medicine using that is it still homeopathy? If you find a medicine
working thru the delusional picture of someone is it still
Homeopathy? If you theorize ( which Hahnemann opposed) that you are
attacking one of the vital sensations etc. or Tridoshas or Five
elements or classifying that all Kalis are like this or all spiders
are like this... is it still Classical... As Simon "speaks" what we
need is a definition of all these terms... Classical once meant
following the "classical masters" - Hahnemann, Hering,
Boenninghausen, Lippes - Now classical might mean following the Neo
masters - some of them good - some of them in appearance...and using
medicines that are half-baked with references to dreaming and chakra-
deciphering...- welcome New Age....

Once again our efforts should be strengthening the base instead of
splintering it...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
name
how
that "classical"
a bit
)) -
to be
recommendation
any
the
special,
change
receive a

Yet the term "homeopathy" today is used so broadly, that if we hear
someone is a "homeopath", with no further description, we know almost
nothing about what they do. The first "homeopath" I saw (maybe 25
years ago) did a method that I don't even know a name for (but he was
called a "homeopath"), but involved extensive testing with an EAV
machine, and I got maybe 8 - 15 different remedies at a time, a
different set after pretty much each monthly visit. They were adorable
little things--some in tiny glass bottles you broke the neck off to
take each dose; others in little tubes that you'd score and break; and
I don't remember what other forms, but they were awfully cute! He was
very popular with "my crowd" for a few years, but once I started with a
"classical" homeopath some years later, the difference was just huge.
(Guess which one I liked better? hint hint--I'm here!)

Then there are the products such as Heel, Apex, and others whose names
I can't remember--some use the term "Homeotherapeutics", which I think
is good, as it states both the connection and the difference. I also
recall the term "Homotoxicology"... But even despite those
similar-yet-different labels, it does tend to all be lumped under the
term "homeopathy".

I've gotten mailings for "homeopathic" skin care products--apparently
so called *only* because calendula was one of the ingredients.

Some "homeopaths" have no grounding whatever in the Organon, nor its
principles--and I for one would not want to be treated by someone who
doesn't know the difference between cure, palliation, and suppression,
nor by someone who doesn't recognize the interconnectedness of a
person's symptoms. Those to my mind are an absolutely, bare
minimum--but some who call themselves "homeopaths" do not.

I see it as a dilemma--I am very strongly in favor of community, and I
prefer inclusion to exclusion. But I also feel/see that if boundaries
are not recognized, defined, and maintained, then it can all kind of
smush together in a way that makes choices, differentiation, and
independent development difficult or impossible.

Some more comments interspersed:
Certainly there will be grey areas. But (do I recall correctly) Hughes
was in fact using remedies in a much more allopathic way than Kent,
with both different processes and different aims? Maybe he *should* be
in a different class than Kent, or maybe we call him "close enough". I
don't know.

If I can call on the ghost of Julian , some of the "new fangled
approaches" probably should *not* be viewed as a true "classical" or
Hahnemannian approaches. Which doesn't mean we need to "fire" the
excellent homeopaths who are working with them, but maybe recognize
that parts of the procedure are in fact "outside the box", for better
or worse.
The naming doesn't *have* to be divisive!!! I think it should more
appropriately be simply descriptive. And at some point it should IMO
be a matter of, "If you want to know--ask"--don't think we need to have
a special name for homeopaths who (begin the remedy search in the
traditional way, but then) use muscle testing, or who (begin with a
computerized form but then) narrow the choice in the traditional way,
etc., etc. To my mind those are details...
If you confirmed the remedy in "the usual way", then IMO yes. (Might
be "good homeopathy" or "crummy homeopathy", depending on how careful
your confirmation is...)
Symptom correspondence at a different ("deeper") level. Definitely.
You are being a homeopath *and* ayurvedic theorist, or some such. Or,
a homeopath who is fascinated by the correspondences, etc. We *are*
allowed to have other lives and interests too, I would hope! We have a
variety of skills and interests, and it's natural to explore how they
fit together.
Well, despite his injunctions against "theorizing", Hahnemann of course
did this... He does say snippets about family relationships, and if
his theory of miasms isn't theorizing, well... But I think we get his
point!
I think this would be an error, to equate "classical" with "the new
guys".
How about strengthening the base and defining its constituent parts?

Another advantage to this, IMO, is that instead of seeing, say, a
practitioner who uses combos, or ST, or whatever, as a "bad classical
homeopath", we can see them as simply a *different* type of
practitioner. It's not fair to see a lion as a "weird" tiger, when in
fact they are *different*!

Shannon

I read in the newspaper here recently about a toothpaste with homeopathic
remedies in it for weight loss or something!!

Unfortunately the public here, in the main, are totally ignorant when it
comes to homeopathy.

Michele.

I agree
Thanks
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
hear
almost
was
adorable
to
and
was
with a
huge.
names
think
also
the
apparently
its
who
suppression,
and I
boundaries
of
Hughes
Kent,
*should* be
enough". I
fangled
or
recognize
better
have
forms
more
IMO
have
a
way,
(Might
careful
Definitely.
Or,
*are*
have a
they
course
if
his
Neo
new
chakra-
of
parts?
classical
when in

Well put, Shannon!
Your "cute" experience reminds me of my mom's most
recent one... She consulted a different "homeopath" in
panic... and the guy proceeded to give her some twenty
remedies in a row, asking after each take: "how do you
feel now?", "how about with this one?".
Grrrrr....

--- hahnemannian2002
wrote:

=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com