My apologies if I wasn't being clear.
The confusion I was referring to was your confusion between definition (of homoeopathy) and variety of example (of methods illustrated by Hahnemann):
'The idea of claiming the term "homeopathy" as applying strictly and
only to those practices developed and "approved" by Hahnemann has an
appeal I can definitely relate to; after all, he *coined* the term and
invented a system to apply it, so why not let his definition be the one
that stands? But practical considerations aside (and that's quite an
elephant we are shoving into the corner), there are obviously all sorts
of philosophical problems with that approach--again, as frequently and
energetically ranted
about here--which edition? What about his non-Organon practices? What about his apparently "approved" disciples
whose practices deviated--which parts do we shove out from under the
umbrella? And if it's purely a semantic thing, then it becomes pretty
much of a "who cares"...
'OTOH what if we see it as an *honor*--which I believe it is--that "our
founder" (trumpets in the background
) has given us work sobroadly useful that it's given rise to all of these variations? And
from there we could specify and explore which "tools" (non-Organon
methods) are appropriate to which tasks, pitfalls, etc.
'Fighting over the terminology will not stop these other "developments",
and will not stop people from using them; it only distracts us from IMO
more useful matters and puts us into an adversarial framework which
serves no one--except perhaps the "quackbusters" and allopaths.
'Holding tight to the "purity of the teaching" is IMO a wonderful thing;
but it should not displace the fact that "the teaching" is a living
thing, in a changing world. If we want our "roots" to continue to
nourish the entire "plant" (e.g. understanding of basic principles even
among people using "variations" such as combos), all the "exclusivity"
does not IMO seem to be very useful.
'Shannon'
Without a concept of what a definition does to limit horses, you will keep calling all four-legged animals horses. It may be that somebody else here can help you understand better than I can how to understand the effect of a definition, which is to include anything it doesn't exclude and to exclude anything it doesn't include; NOT to describe in a vague, open-ended way and invite endless pointless discussion over what needed no discussion in the first instance had every participant simply opened a dictionary.
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism."
-- Carl Sagan