Minutus

Probably feeling generous may be? I would've added dream and
meditation provings and thrown in periodic table for good measure...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
reference -
or
studies?
the
have

you can throw into your cauldron what ever substance you want - it doesn't matter where it comes from, if it isn't proved then there can be no sx similarity, thus the list would/could be endless

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

But that's exactly the point. Each of these examples is one where the
remedy is either not proved (e.g. many a la Scholten, or has so little
information available--from whatever source--that it could not have
been selected except by "speculation" such as family
relationship--which *is* speculative, because "in the family" does not
necessarily mean "having similar action".

Or are you thinking of something different as a "speculative" remedy?

On May 11, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Joy Lucas wrote:
A not inconsequential correction--if it isn't (either) proved (or have
information via toxicity and/or clinical), then there can be no
*certainty* about symptom similarity. The similarity / resonance is
what it is; but we don't *know* what the remedy picture is, until we
get information--from provings and/or poisonings and/or clinical use.

Some of the remedies now in common use have gotten there *not* via
provings, but via clinical use. In other words--some "speculated",
possibly on basis such as herbology and/or some other; or in other
cases it was used for a "traditional" use, and other changes were
observed repeatedly (e.g. thiosin).

Some people like to "draw within the lines", while others like to
wander.
Classical homeopathy accommodates both types...

Joy Lucas wrote:

Depends on the definition of speculative.
One man's logic, data and interpretation is another man's speculation.
)

It pays to look at each case individually to see what is best for it
....a homeopathic approach not so?

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."

and you know quite well my call for provings of all remedies in use in our MM is very loud

we need a university of homeopathy where all provings are conducted according to hahnemann, then we can have a reliable sx similarity

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

not so when the prescription is unproven (and that includes speculative rx)

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

That would be great ( if unrealistic) but we would also need the repertories (+MMs) to be rewritten from scratch and every reference checked and rechecked. (again - unrealistic).

Not a bad objective to aim for though as at least NEW provings or reprovings done that way (and subsequent rep and MM additions) can be clearly referenced and checked.

There are certainly many inaccuracies and omissions in the current reps., and reinterpretations of original proving expressions ( e.g. see Dr Shah on the 'duty' of Aurum ) - one only has to to cross reference say 'Macrep' results with 'reference-works' results to see this , if one hasn't already come across it again and again in everyday practice,

I for one am totally against meditative/speculative/DOS types of informatin/provings being included in the reps and MMs (The inclusion of verifiable Clinical experience is another matter altogether), however that does not mean to preclude such perspectives in discussing or researching Rxs or as aide memoires in MM , but that there should be a delineation made in the reps and MMs between knocking a Rx about (chewing it over, extrapolating etc) and its proven attributes. Some current MMs have content that will be taken as gospel by future users who don't know ( or will not check) that such and such a Rx was hummed over in a bat cave on st swithins day by a group of 'provers' who all have relationship problems ( please take with a light heart folks!) )

We have to acknowledge and accept that the tools we work with are far from perfect and will never be so, that doesn't mean we can't aim to improve them though!

Simon

On May 12, 2007, at 12:04 AM, Irene de Villiers wrote:
LOL--Boy have we seen *that* illustrated here, time and again!!!

Yes, that would be wonderful!!!
I think the issue here is not "what would be best", but how to deal
with the actual, present situation--and still be permitted to call
oneself a homeopath!
)