Single Simple Remedy

[John Harvey]

Soroush, I'd be delighted to give you a one-word answer, if (1) you hadn't already indicated how unconstructively you propose to respond to it and (2) I hadn't already learned my lesson concerning your diversionary questions.
To every carefully structured argument I've presented you concerning Hahnemann's plain meaning and the consequent irrelevance of the Duckwater Hypothesis, you have replied nonresponsively -- either by asking some question of clarification, the answer to which you express dissatisfaction with or noncomprehension of; or by asking some other barrage of questions of seeming relevance, the careful answers to which you don't even bother reading before jumping down the next rabbit-hole. So for this twig of discussion, I intend to stick at least to topics releveant to this question: what Hahnemann meant by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance".
If you can tell me how an answer already plain by implication and explication in what I addressed to Joy under "Of substance" and have since redirected your attention to in the past ten hours could possibly put you back on track rather than give you yet another twiglet from this twig of the discussion, I'll be pleased to indulge you. The trunk from which this latest budding twiglet ultimately branches is after all the centrality to homoeopathy of the law of similars -- not the cleverness or otherwise of a novel concept of "single remedy" that is patently made from more than one single, simple medicinal substance.
If you can't -- your latest questionbeing simply another diversion from all clear thinking -- then I'll be pleased to refocus your attention on arguments using evidence and simple logic to derive the conclusion that was obvious anyway were you to open your mind to the possibility that no more than for the rest of us is everything you wish to practise homoeopathy either.
And once again, as those capable of reading Hahnemann have stated for the benefit of those clawing for identity as homoeopaths: your practices, and mine, and probably those of very many of us, that deviate from homoeopathy don't make us less of a practitioner or less of a homoeopath; they simply indicate that we were unable to apply the homoeopathic method in a particular instance. Whether it be Scholtenist guesswork, Sankaranian magical divination, or reading between the lines, our various departures from use of similar symptoms to guess at the remedy that would appear by that guidance -- though it is not homoeopathy and never will be for all the wishful thinking in the world -- is no greater a failure than we frail humans can be expected to engage in in order to have a shot at success.
In other words, Peter Chappell's allopathy and your allopathy are no more subject to inherent value judgement, and are no more inherently judged by us, than is Irene's allopathy. What is subject to value judgement -- and rightly so -- is the conscious misnaming of those various allopathic practices homoeopathy -- for all the reasons you already know.
I urge you to pay attention to arguments of substance, even if it necessitates printing them on paper. You could start with Aphorism 11, which if you had read and understood it yourself could have saved a lot of frivolous time-wasting.
Kindest regards,
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

[usrardr]

ur absoluetly right . thank u
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "warriorhomeopath" wrote: