Minutus

Some of this discussion overlooks the different functions of a definition from those of a description and those of a manual.
A manual describes in applicable detail various ways in which (so far) the principle has been discovered to be applicable. It might, for instance, describe how to interview a patient; how to understand the healing process in terms of energy or re-experience; how to apply any of the miasmatic theories to repertorisation or follow-up; or how to distinguish degrees of similarity or symptom importance or pathogenetic rankings.

None of these tidbits helps in determining what is and what is not homoeopathy. None of them restricts the practice of homoeopathy.
A description of homoeopathy may not even define the word, though it's certain to narrow it down somewhat. It may include some inessential information, as would appear in an encyclopaedia entry on the subject. This could include details of who discovered and developed the principle; the invention of the technology of trials on the healthy, which enabled its discovery and development; the refinements of its application through the technology of potency and the channel of miasmatic understanding; and other interesting tidbits. None of these tidbits are essential to whether a certain practice is homoeopathic in method; they are simply added extras.

If the description fails to exclude practices that are not homoeopathy -- for instance, if it restricts homoeopathy's compass only insofar as to say that homoeopathy is a healing practice, which also fits acupuncture -- then it is not any kind of definition and does not contain a definition.
A definition of homoeopathy tells you exactly what is and what is not homoeopathy. The description and manual can come later. First you have to know what it is and what it is not.
As Fran (April 7), Ardavan (April 8), Farbod (9 April), and Shannon (April 9) have pointed out, potentisation is terribly useful (along with miasmatic theory, repertories, materia medicae, and breakfast) to the practice of homoeopathy but does not of itself help one jot in determining whether a practice is homoeopathic. This is so even in any particular case. If the potency is out of whack with the patient, it doesn't make the selection of the substance from which it is made unhomoeopathic! Inversely, the wrong remedy cannot be rendered any more homoeopathic no matter how "right" its potency is.

In other words, potency is irrelevant to the definition.

The function of a definition is to tell you what the term defined excludes as much as it is to tell you what it includes; otherwise it is no more than a description (e.g. "homoeopathy is medicine" -- but so is suppression of discharges by penicillin). An accurate definition of homoeopathy must unambiguously exclude all those things that homoeopathy is not. Without meeting that condition, the definition will be worse than useless.

Fran's refined definition ("A process that exploits Law of Similars phenomena to treat or prevent mental and physical disease by agents capable of producing similar symptoms in those unaffected") in particular will do that, as will nearly all the dictionary definitions I've ever seen.

The only problem I can see with this particular definition is that it will be obscure to any reader who does not know what "Law of Similars phenomena" are. If that law were spelled out simply enough in the definition to comprehend quickly, and if the answer to the question "Similar to what?" were clear, the definition would be technically perfect.

But a technically perfect definition, even one that uses only terms fully understandable to the uninitiated, may have significant disadvantages over one that has slight technical faults but better keeps before the mind's eye the mechanism that homoeopathy exploits: the organism's healing reaction to stimulation of similar symptoms.

For technical perfection of definition, we might want to ensure that it include rather than exclude the homoeopathic application of the interview process, of magnets, of moonlight, and, if it becomes possible to apply homoeopathically, of galvanism (electricity). And for our own internal purposes this may, just possibly, be more useful than not. (Considering the magic, nonsense, and utter confusion dominating these discussions, I have my doubts.)

To the uninitiated, though, a real-life street definition of homoeopathy is there to tell how to gauge whether a treatment is homoeopathy. And if it that suggests those way-out homoeopathic possibilities, it is likely to be worse than useless.

Why? Because by it detaches the definition from the concrete, visible thing that all homoeopaths do in all cases that they treat homoeopathically -- i.e., prescribe the similar remedy -- replacing it by an abstract and unverifiable mechanism that may be operative through a self-help group, mirror-gazing, or the homoeopathic interview itself. And in so doing, it utterly confuses the newcomer -- which is not the intended function of a definition.

Don't get me wrong. I've recently seen a case report (unpublished) in which clearly the interview healed the patient. But the homoeopathic interview was not prescribed as a homoeopathic remedy by the interviewing homoeopath in this case, and cannot be.

If the occasional definition excludes (as the dictionary ones tend to) a far-flung possible outlier, then its correctness is obviously technically compromised. But if inclusion of the oddity were to cause more confusion, distraction, unwarranted criticism, and discouragement than is worthwhile for technical accuracy, then perhaps it's worth sticking to what is comprehensible and practicable by homoeopaths and not worrying about those means (talking, electricity/galvanism, magnets, staring at the sun, etc.) that would not anyway normally fall under the heading of medicine of any kind and those means (talking) cannot in fact be applied in any systematic way as homoeopathic treatment but can only be interpreted in retrospect as a possibility.

This is not to say that a definition is unimportant or that its accuracy is unimportant.

It is to suggest that trying to include every outlying, even outlandish, application of the Law of Similars may be trying to make of a referent already counterintuitive -- adding more of the same problems to the patient that the patient already has! -- a real headache. Pity the intelligent informed practitioner, let alone the average novitiate, who must, in trying to comprehend the meaning of homoeopathy, compass "homoeopathic" applications

• whose basis cannot readily be verified as homoeopathic;

• whose mechanism of action is clearly foreign to the (relatively) straightforward homoeopathic approach to the predictable positive (i.e. pathogenetic) effects of medicines; and

• whose inclusion will thereby add to, rather than mitigate, the difficulties of incredibility, incomprehensibility, and vagueness that presently plague homoeopathic opponent and proponent alike.

Moreover, artificially squeezing talk and sungazing into the concept of homoeopathic medicine will invite both opponent and proponent to indulge increasingly in home-brewed "explanations" and "mechanisms" ranging from "placebo effect", intentionality, and energy-force-signature paradigms to alchymical magicks and the allopathic doctrine of signatures.

A definition that loses the function of exclusion for the sake of inessential information thereby loses its function as a definition. A true (exclusionary) definition that includes everything conceivably "homoeopathic" (i.e. applied on the basis of similars) might be marginally more accurate than the definitions we find in good dictionaries. Even if it were, its disadvantages, I submit, would significantly outweigh its advantages.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

-- Bertrand Russell

I believe you are falling onto your own trap of discussing what
belongs in a manual, not what belongs in a definition.
The fact that remedies in homeopathy come in various potencies, IS
relevant to the definition - as part of it not all of it.
Another important aspect is the individual matching of remedy to
symptoms.
No that is not a logical conclusion from what you said.
Potency belongs ijn the definition but in the right context.
Not so.
It is impossible to foresee exactly what is included or what may be
discovered in the future.
So you can state principles of what can be included or excluded but
not specifics.
For example, many years back, you might have assumed that homeopathic
remedies could only be made from physical substances, and in theory
your kind of logic might have excluded remedies from non-physical
substances like cell phone waves.
That would have been an incorrect definition - and ALL definitions
that try to include or exclude specifics - instead of sticking to the
principles only - will become inaccurate quickly. So you can not
specify directly, what is or is not homeopathy - but only what
principles may be applied to test whether it is or is not homeopathy.

Same thing with any definition we devise now. It needs to state
*principles* and NOT include or exclude any specific examples that
say "what is not homeopathy". We can state only what principles must
be met for it to be homeopathy.

It is worse to exclude things incorrectly, than to have a definition
that alllows for future knowledge that we do not have now.
Fran's thought is a good one, but I do not think it goes far enough.

The definition I suggested most recently for consideration is below
in the post you answered:
It might be massaged into a shorter sentence perhaps (?) - but does
THAT contain the principles we need?

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."

On Apr 10, 2008, at 11:09 PM, leilanae wrote:
Hi Leilanae,
Well, channeling my grammar freak father , "homeopathy" is
always a noun, and "homeopathic" is always an adjective--but I agree
with you that the fact that he defined cure of a burn by heat as
"homeopathic" does not have to mean that he considered it part of the
*system* that he was naming "homeopathy". One way of (maybe) settling
that question would be going back thru all of his uses of the words
"homeopathy" and "homeopathic" in relation to other specific
non-potentized-substance treatments, and analyzing on that basis.
By my quick re-reading, he does plainly insist that these
"non-substance" cures are "homeopathic", but that does not necessarily
mean that he intended them to fall under the umbrella of his system of
Homeopathy.

But as I was saying, I do think that at this point, where we draw the
boundaries is mostly a matter of convenience--the "map" (word) is not
the "territory" (thing), and definitions are arbitrary, not God-given
or intrinsic. So maybe the next step should be to consider the pros
and cons of including / excluding mention of "potentized substances [or
remedies[" *in the definition*?

Pro:
- That is what most people think of when they think of "homeopathy";
most people figure if it has designations such as 12x, 30c, etc., after
the name, then it must be "homeopathic"--no matter how many such
name-and-number combinations on the label, and no matter how it's
selected, and no matter how it's used.
- As Irene pointed out, it's what people *expect* from the homeopath,
and would expect to see in a definition of "homeopathy".
- (Others?)

Con:
- You do NOT HAVE TO HAVE potentized anything in order to practice
homeopathy! Just as you do not have to have a telescope to practice
astronomy. In each case, having versus not-having will make a HUGE
difference to the depth and power of what you're able to achieve--one
might reasonably call them "essential tools" for modern practice--but
they are not, IMO, essential to the *definition* of the (either)
practice. For that reason I do not believe it should properly be part
of the *definition*.
- Leaving it out of our definition then turns attention to what you
*do* have to have, in order to practice homeopathy:
the cases of many commonly used remedies, we do not have "proof" that
the substance will *cause* that symptom picture in a healthy person,
and so those remedies we are using on a clinical basis rather than
documented "like-cures-like". I acknowledge this; but we are assuming
that additional and/or extended provings *would* produce them, and we
make that assumption on the basis that the correspondence / pattern has
been found valid in general...)
of palliation and suppression;
than palliation or suppression; (d) a rather specific understanding of
the meaning of "health" and "cure" (not that this definition of
"freedom" etc., nor the understanding of direction-of-cure, are unique
to homeopathy; my understanding is that they share these with Oriental
medicine for one, and there may be others too), which differ
greatly--and importantly!--from those of allopathy;
than a specific amount!);
perhaps to be more arbitrary than the above four criteria, but
Hahnemann did insist on it, and had numerous reasons for doing so...)

All of the above criteria could be met thru use of e.g. tinctures,
heat, or whatever, and without consideration of potentization.

OTOH it would not be horrible either for a homeopath using tinctures
(or whatever) to simply explain that he is in this case treating by
"homeopathic correspondence"... It would be a nuisance to have a
*legal* definition of homeopathy that confined one--legally--to the use
of potentized substances. It would be better if we are able to use
*any* potency--or none--on basis of "homeopathic correspondence". How
likely is it that we would become legally constrained by our own
manufactured definition? Not very, I acknowledge, and in absence of
that it's not a very important point, but I still am biased toward not
including in the *definition* something which is really not an
*essential* part of the practice.

Whew, long enough post from me this morning!

Shannon

To me it sure does (even tho I included them both in my "definition").
Leaving in "minimum dose" still makes sense to me, tho, because it is
in contradistinction to the "more is better" mindset, and emphasizes
the importance of response over the importance of dosage.

"Single remedy" I am still of two minds about, in part because I
recognize that good "homeopathic" results are obtained by some very
successful and well-trained homeopaths thru judicious use of more than
one remedy given at a time. There are all sorts of ways to reconcile
the practice--e.g. ST's assertion of "single remedy *per disease*";
e.g. assertion that only the needed remedy will *act*; e.g. the
observation--which keeps coming up, even tho not "popular" with strict
Hahnemannanians (as it was not popular with Hahnemann!), that certain
remedies work well *with* each other (either in alternation, which is
certainly "allowed", or in combination, which is "not allowed"
by Hahnemann's published instructions).

....?
Shannon

Whew!
But then should also include meaning of "cure", meaning of "health"...
Those IMO are essential too.
Shannon

Why?
Homeopathy is not only used to cure or achieve health; it can also be
used to palliate or prevent.
Is not the use of "cure' and "health" in homeopathy, (and other
details) covered through the reference to detail in the Organon:-)
The one thing I'd like to include if anything more, is that
homeopathy replaces ill health with resistance to recurrence - not
just with health. It's one of the things that differentiates
homeopathy from suppressive systems like allopathy.

But getting succinct wording, that includes all we want, needs work:-)

So here's another try:-)
(The rest it is implied, may be looked up in the Organon)

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."

Hi Shannon,
. How

Well, in Germany it is, in a way.

In our hoemaopathic pharmacopaia (I think that would be the name in
English) the method of making "homeopathic" remedies is regulated. And
hose h. rx mean potentized substances (and also the substances to be
used for them for a specific rx are standardized.

In addition: those remedies, while OTC, may only be sold in
pharmacies. Tinctures on the other hand, if allowed at all, you can
get in drug stores.

Regards

Luise
I acknowledge, and in absence of

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

...........the same way that to define aerodynamics, you need to say how it relates to the Law of Gravity........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

When Hn was translating the book by the Scottish doctor which lead him to try China on himself, I do not think he was thinking of the law of similars.
It was a pure EUREKA moment!

Regards

Soroush

On Apr 11, 2008, at 7:32 PM,
wrote:

Depends what that book actually said - but I consider it relevant
that the law of similars was discovered independently by several
people before Hahnemann. What was different with Hahnemann is that he
took this observation from nature further, and developed a system of
medicine from it.
Basically he took it and ran with it - and developed homeopathy from it.

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."