Minutus

Please. please can we all stop having a go at Irene!
She has amply demonstrated that she is absolutely classical in the way she goes about her repertorising and choice of remedy. That is the basis of her practice - and that is what matters. It feels like a witch-hunt!
Irene has NOT said that provings are a bad idea - simply that she finds case results helpful and worthy of consideration as valid rubrics. Can I remind you of her exact words:
"I guess it is a matter of opinion as to what is a proven symptom. I
would see 3300 cases cured by a remedy as valid rubrics, whether
called a proving or a case proof."
Indeed, that is how we have always added to our homeopathic MM - unless you want to exclude such great homeopaths as Clarke et al from being classicists!
I really think that we should all focus more on the positive aspects of what each one can contribute to this list. Irene knows a lot - so does David - in fact everyone is interesting to read. I feel that we should perhaps query an approach we are not clear about, in order to understand the arguments behind it, but then keep any disapproval we may feel to a simply expressed "not for me" message. After all, we are free to accept or refuse any ideas we want - but let's not try to ban free speech! If we don't like something - ignore it! That way, the non-classicists will fall away.
I really value the input of everyone here - there is such a breadth of knowledge available. In particular, I think Irene's contributions to the mental and emotional side of prescribing for animals is hugely interesting (she helps a lot on the CATWELL list too) At college we had vets come to talk to us about how to take a case if the patient is unable or unwilling to talk. It gives another insight into how to look for clues to the remedy.
All this arguing is such a waste of time and energy.
Let's help, not hinder each other.
Liz

Hi Chris
I know that - what I meant was that Hahnemann used his knowledge of the doctrine of signatures as a possible starting point for investigation of a substance - it excited his curiosity. That at least is my understanding.
I did not mean to imply that he based his remedy picture on this.
Liz

Again quod erat demonstrandum.

Why I do what I do, why I di what I did, why I have done what I have
done is none of your or anyone else's business.

What I post is determined by 2 persons only - myself and the
moderator.

If he does not want my posts on the list, he can tell me so and I will
withdraw. As long as he does not I will post what I want to post.

I abide by his instruction to be respecful to the persons posting
here and have done so in the past, because I think that is a
reasonable rule:-)

Luise
--
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 <==========

You have been asked to quit this or we still all have the right to reply and will do

Joy

Yes Indeed.
I would only add that it is not only the side effects but the direct
effects that are relevant with drugs.
(They - and side effects - will vary by species too due to chemical
aspects, making it a complex thing to document because we are not at
a purely energy level. There is chemical involvement.)

For example if you give Prozac to a hyperactive child, it's direct
effect is to slow the hyperactivity - but if you give Prozac to a
normal child, they will become hyperactive - a direct effect.
(Actually in this case also a homeopathic one!).

Cured symptoms are to me the best evidence, but there are pros and
cons of drugs versus provings as a way to get to them. Provings
usually are with potentised substance so the chemical direct effects
that apply to a specific species, are removed leaving only the
homeopathic energy aspects. That part is nice - the use of potentized
substance at energy-only level.
With drugs and their side effects, there are chemical aspects. For
example effects of garlic vary by species, beneficial to soe, toxic
to others. This makes it hard to know what is good at the energy-only
level used in homeopathy and which applies to ALL species.
Looking at it the other way round though -at a CURED case - you
know that the energy is what cured, so THAT symptom (or set of
symptoms) was indeed at a homeopathic energy level and thus
applicable to all species.

So drugs can lead you towards appropriate symptoms, but ideally I
feel you still need to separate the chemical toxic effect on
individual species from the more universal medicinal potential of the
drug as a homeopathic one at an energy level for ALL species. (The
cured case does that, as opposed to the drug side effects alone.)

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 Irene,
Well, I'd include the effect on the norml child in the side effects,
lthough, of course, it is not the sme.
This is true for modern provings, it seems. But the old provings,
e. g. those of our polycrests were to gret percentge done with the
crude substance.

According to Huges, for instance, in the years that Hahnemann himself
did the provings - except for the years of about 1820 to 1829, (i. e.
the provings on his patients for the MM of CD) he did them with crude
substances. Of course, H. never published the details of his provings,
i.e. of what exactly he gave to the people who did the proving. I also
do not know what evidence Hughes had for this conviction.

Anyway, as far as the other provings of these substances go they were
in most cases published in detail. And when we rread the Encyclopedia
by Allen, we find that probably most of the formal provings (as
contrasted to the poisonings) were done with the crude substance or
with a combination of potentized and crude substance.

are removed leaving only the

It would be interesting to have in our MM the symptomse divided into
those derived from poisonings and other kinds of "accidentl provings",
symptoms from Hahnemannian kinds of provings with the crude substance
and symptoms from provings with the potencies, no?

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

Hi Luise,

An interesting debate, but I think the way it is handled is important
so as not to complicate things in a way that is not practical.
I would hope that most of the older remedies (originally proved as
crude substances as you reminded me!)
have since been confirmed quite well with cured cases, so to me that
makes them very reliable.

And since modern provings use potentized substances, that more or
less (hopefully) covers the newer ones, in terms of knowledge of
what they do at an *energy* level. It may be that we just need more
awareness of the relevance of energy level knowledge of remedy action
as opposed to crude substance level action. (Especially for
veterinary and plant homeopathy, but also for people.)

The more we document about a proving or case or however the
information is obtained, the nicer it is - it gives us choices and
options so we can apply everything known for a specific case. But I'd
not divide the repertory into what is done each way - perhaps a link
to more information on the rubric (in a software repertory) is
perhaps the best way to handle this and also is easy to do with
modern technology with its high-volume-storage of data, and ease-of-
finding-by-search engine - all at very low cost.

I'm a great fan of "more information" (of the right kind) - it gives
more options and chances of successful remedy selection.

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."

Except the match of what kind of mood disorder, headache, skin
eruption etc is relevant.
Not just any matching of remedy will work, it's a lot more specific
than that.
For antipsorics and for all other remedies.
That does not follow!
Not even every antipsoric can cure every disease:-)
If that were so, we could choose ANY antipsoric to cure ALL cases.

How convenient that would be

A cured symptom is special to me as it proves that the homeopathic
*energy* has been reponsible for cure.
I firmly believe homeopathy is an energy medicine.
Why would you think that any antipsoric can cure any illness
(assuming your above logic implies that)?
If that is not implied for all antipsorics, then it is also not
implied for any other remedy that cures (and in so doing provides
cured symptoms).
It seems to me self-evident that if the remedy cures the symptom,
then it is a symptom that the remedy can cure.
that includes ability to cure the symptom in other cases as well as
in the current case - as the *energy* of the dis-ease has been
displaced by homeopathic energy medicine. Since no chemistry is
involved, the ENERGY action of the homeopathic medicine has been proved.
Proof of the pudding being in the eating so to speak.

I am not sure what aspect is bothering you or if i touched on the
right one?
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 Chris,
I didn't know that - I have the English versions.

Thank you for the information.

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

Hi Irene,
I do not mean the reps - just have an MM like this to refer to.

In Allen's Encyclopedia we have this *informtion* - but it is very
cumbersome to hunt it up.

Regards

Luise

into what is done each way - perhaps a link

--
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 <==========