Minutus

Prescriptions based on symptom similarity! That is the CORNER STONE of Homeopathy

Regards

Soroush

Hi Luise,
I wasn't trying to *write* a definition, only noting what I felt to be
central and non-central.

Any definition would have to be made according to its intended
purpose...
Shannon

So that principle,

Yeah , right - like cures like is not the core???
and
principle.

Energy, vital principle etc. are also old principles - right from
the Qi of the Chinese to the Prana of Indian philosophies...

The way Hahnemann differentiated the Homeopathic art from the
same "like cures like" principles before his time is by organizing
and finding such likes properly. By planning and doing PROVINGS...

Provings done on healthy human beings is the cornerstone of
Homeopathy but still subservient to the Law of Likes be treated by
Likes. We KNOW what substance is needed and how the similar likes
can be identified from all the substances of the world- not because
Hippocrates said it or because it is what the ancients did it- we
do not assume that since Thymus gland seems to be the problem give
Thymus 3x.- we KNOW based on organized provings...

But the overarching organizing law is always like cures like. When
Hahnemann used a mother tincture Bryonia to treat the patient - he
discussed what it was able to cause and that is how he went to
arrive at Bryonia. Poisons were also used the same way - but may
be "diluting" them further - not necessarily potentizing... do you
think Aconite and Nux vomica were not poisons? It is only inert
substances that could not be used without potentization...
anyway the argument is not about the benefits of potentizing...
everyone is in agreement to that...it is also NOT suggested that we
talk to allopaths only about mother tinctures- potentization and
dilution are NOT new to them even though the names might be;- they
are aware of dilutions at least to a certain degree- we are not
talking about allopaths from 18th century-

at least they can understand 6th potency-

It is only after you dilute out any substance (and many remedies
like
in
energy
Well it is not ANY energy Irene- it is the ENERGY that is capable of
causing the SAME SYMPTOMS as the patient is suffering from-

otherwise undifferentiated magnetic energy might be enough-
otherwise Homeopathy is not different from other energy therapies of
the world...

It is a SPECIFIC energy - the specificity is ruled by LIKE CURES
LIKE....

Also is there a difference between Calc.phos 30x used as a biochemic
tissue salt and as a homeopathic agent in how and where you would
prescribe them?

If there is a difference

what is the difference - it is the same potentised substance with
the same *energy* ....
If there is no difference then are homeopathic medicines replacing
depleted tissue salts? Is homeopathy and biochemic the same?

I consider them different- since I would "diagnose" differently in
biochemisty and homeopathy - that is the indications would be
different even though the medicine remains the same energy- in
homeopathy I would select the remedy on the basis of LIKE CURES
LIKE...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers
wrote:
agree
accept
or by
cures
several
considered the
don't
and
principle.
context
substance.
core of
homeopathy
causing
remedies
like
in
energy
what's
energy
mother
where
out
principle
and to
Hahnamann
principle.
example, the
TB but
homeopathy ones
so.
signature at
which
the
Again -
apart -
an in
lifetime to
a
imaginations
energy
it
get any
by
than the
for a
a
THAT
substance -
acts
energy
place - the
Homeopath.)

Hi H.,
Yes, but to the best of my knowledge Hahnemann was not aware of that.

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 <==========

Dear Irene,

Many, many "truths" have been observed through history and prehistory.
Some of those you've described here -- such as those involving the
energy of this and the energy of that -- are resistant to
investigation. To use these in an attempt to convince anybody with a
closed mind of homoeopathy's validity is certain to result not in
fresh thought but in further laughter.

And though many such truths are undoubtedly of value -- and some will
even be true! -- that doesn't make all or any of them a necessary part
of homoeopathic practice.

It may be the case that prescribing a particular remedy at full moon
will enhance its activity. It's obviously the case that a potency of
a substance will act with greater immediacy and for longer and more
gently than the crude substance, and that increasing potency with each
dose avoids medicinal aggravation, and that the second prescription is
a tougher call than the first, requiring greater discernment and
familiarity with the patient than a successful first prescription
requires. And certainly it's the case that knowledge of a disease's
symptoms and of what is common and uncommon will make for better
practice.

But none of these important matters affects whether a practice may be
called homoeopathic. None is NECESSARY in order to practise
homoeopathically. That is decided by only one thing: whether the
prescriber seeks the substance whose known pathogenesis is most
similar to the patient's disease.

And I'm sorry to have to correct you again, but crude substances do
contain energy and sometimes have effects as explicit and specific as
their potentised counterparts.

Such an observation is not, as you interpret it to be, to recommend
prescribing crude substances. It is to say that there is no possible
reason to exclude their use from an understanding of the meaning of
"homoeopathic". Arsenic trioxide is homoeopathic to an Ars. alb.
patient in all potencies, and it's the means of learning that that
constitutes the essential part of homoeopathic practice, not the
choice of a number thereafter, the choice of timing, the care in
opening the bottle -- or even the correctness of the remedy!
Homoepathic practice need consist of no more than the attempt to
prescribe the simillimum: the substance of greatest symptom
similarity. A successful attempt results in finding the nature of
that simillimum: a particular crude substance, which, if we're clever,
we'll probably then use in potency.

(It is the case, actually, that dilutions without succussions retain
medicinal energy for a short time -- shorter than succussed or
triturated potencies do -- even in ultra-dilutions, i.e. beyond the
Avagrado limit. This has been demonstrated in the laboratory, though
I'm sorry that I can't readily offer you a reference to it.)

To be explicit about what homoeopathy is not: homoeopathy does not use
an "energy signature principle". It uses many things to advantage;
but it depends on only one in order to BE homoeopathy.

If "any form of energy signature" means the use of radionics boxes or
even sunlight, it cannot be homoeopathy, as it does not meet the
necessary condition of administering a substance with a pathogenesis
known to be similar to the patient's natural state. Neither is any
other vague "similarity" or "likeness" homoeopathic that is not based
on the same clear symptom similarity. H2002 made this point very
clearly, but I'll take it further: the homoeopathic remedy cannot be
anything other than a substance.

Homoeopathy does not depend on an "energy signature principle". This
term is a nonsense designed merely to obfuscate, and is best left
undeployed in sensible conversation. I don't believe that there is,
as yet, any meaning even to the term "energy signature", though one
can live in hope. But an energy signature principle? Just how big a
target do you want to present to your critics? Homoeopaths could
attempt to defend not only potentisation but also all kinds of
mystical nonsense and obfuscatory terms such as energy signature
principles. Instead, they need defend only the Law of Similars, since
that explains exactly and precisely what homoeopathy is: the attempt
to prescribe the substance most closely able to mimic the patient's
symptoms.

I use the word "substance" absolutely deliberately. Without
substance, there is no medicine. If that substance be nothing more
toxic than a water-alcohol solution but retain the dynamic properties
of some other substance, then it's a particular kind of medicine,
probably a potentised one. But if some of the other substance should
remain (even if no succussion has taken place), that makes the search
for that medicine no less homoeopathic in method, and it makes its use
no less homoeopathic in result.

An "energy signature principle" is neither sufficient nor necessary to
homoeopathic practice. A substance is necessary, or there is no
medicine.

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

John Harvey wrote:

You have yet to "correct me", and saying so is merely impolite as you
have not been nominated the one and only guru here:-) Try not to stress
about that fact. Your own views might in fact be better respected if you
were to also to respect those of others. Rudeness is unlikely to
persuade an allopath to ANY opinion either.

To the point:
To refresh your memory - I was at pains to point out that ONLY the
energy is curative, and not the material substance, in an unpotentised
substance. Therefore I consider you can not divorce the implications of
energy from the practice of homeopathy and present it to allopaths, sans
energy as the active force - potentized or not.
As for presuading someone with a closed mind - if it is closed, only
they can open it:-)

I suggest - Try reading my email again if you have any interest in my
views - it seems you answer here without doing so.
I think my email made my opinion clear, so I'll stand by it as answer to
this one as well.

Have a great evening.
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."

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

No it is not the core - it needs more.

(Also in answer to Shannon who asked how I'd write a core statement
currently - I may have a better idea next week of course:-)))):

Homeopathy has at its core that "like cures like (where like means
similar remedy, not identical to the disease) using energy of higher
magnitude in the remedy than that of the disease, details being
available in the 5th and 6th editions of the Organon".
That would be my approach.

Thus, an unpotentised entity can cure ONLY IF it is similar ion energy
signature and has has stronger energy than the disease energy.
The use of energy - and which energy - is key.

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."

Dear Irene,

I think that it's difficult to hear what anybody is saying who appears
to be attacking you personally or your favourite security blanket.
But I don't think anybody here has been doing that, at least not
deliberately. You've made some good points, and one of them that is
sadly correct is that the owner of a mind is the only who can open it.
To absorb anything new can be confronting and frightening if it
shakes up a profound and self-satisfied complacency. The effect of
that can be to make the owner of that complacency draw the noose ever
tighter around her own mind. It's unfortunately common and something
we need to take into account in thinking about how big a challenge to
offer the wilfully ignorant.

Though Hahnemann gave plain and -- as you've often and helpfully
pointed out -- changing directions in the various editions of the
_Organon_ and though he might have -- as again you've helpfully
pointed out -- given more advanced directions still concerning the
preparation of medicines had he lived longer, it remains fundamental
to medical practice of any kind, as Hahnemann himself was at pains to
point out, that its basis lies in the effects on human health of
substances rather than of imagination.

Exactly how substances do this work, though much of it is understood,
will undoubtedly justify many new theories yet. Fads such as
practitioner intent and energy signatures will always be popular for
their seeming power to explain without requiring any power of
prediction. But what is predictable, reproducible, and understandable
is that substances act on organisms.

What is intuitively understandable also is that potencies act
similarly through their ability to transmit the dynamic effects of
substances previously impressed upon them. No doubt almost every
homoeopath sees the effect of it in daily practice.

For that reason, it's most probable that you're essentially correct:
that medicines operate via patterns or energy or (more sensibly)
patterns of forces that organisms detect and respond to.

The differences between this convenient, comforting, and highly likely
scenario and the reality of homoeopathic practice are:

• that we know that homoeopathic practice essentially involves giving
a similar medicine; we merely surmise the way in which that medicine
operates.

• that giving a medicine is necessary to homoeopathic practice; giving
an invisible energy or force or pattern or signature may be, or it may
not be, and we shall probably never know.

• that attempting administration of the simillimum is necessary to
homoeopathic practice; attempting energy transfer is not.

• that the relationship between the ill patient, the simillimum, and
the curative process can be indubitably demonstrated; the relationship
between the ill patient and an "energy signature" cannot be seen,
measured, demonstrated, or proven, and it looks, feels, and quacks
like hocus-pocus.

If a genuine skeptic watches the process of case analysis;
administration of a homoeopathic remedy of any potency; and cure, she
will have learned something and gained a reason to begin to question
some assumptions. If that remedy happens to constitute a "high"
potency, then a genuine skeptic has reason also to question a
fundamental materialism.

The materialist, of course, will find in it any excuse to avoid the
concepts it suggests!

But if a genuine skeptic watches a process of mumbo-jumbo transfer of
energy signatures via the theoretical ether and understands that the
mumbo-jumbo is necessary for so-called homoeopathic practice to work,
what is there for her to conclude but that the materialists were right
and homoeopathy depends on magical beliefs?

The fact is that homoeopathic practice depends on no such beliefs, no
such theories, and no "energy signature principles" or other nonce
terms.

Occasionally, a high potency will act where a crude dilution will do
nothing; occasionally, the inverse will be true. Most simillima will
act to some degree all the way from diluted mother tincture to
extremely high centesimals.

What is true in every case, however, is that cure depends upon
sufficient overall similarity of symptoms. This may be interpreted as
the product of divine irony, of energy signatures, of a cosmic
intelligence. All such interpretations are unprovable. What is
certain and provable is the relation of similars. The fairy tale we
tell ourselves to explain this, whether it be energy signatures or
cosmic standing waves, doesn't matter and is unnecessary. What
matters is the similarity.

Rather than require a genuine skeptic to adhere to one particular
religion of homoeopathic "explanations" (fairy tales) or another, we
could instead choose to be agnostics or, better yet, active scientists
and simply ask the open-minded to witness the relationships we've
witnessed: relationships between patients and similar medicines.
Explanations are appropriate for understanding established fact, but
not for establishing it.

Does that paint a clearer picture of essentials versus inessentials?

Kind regards,

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

"Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know."

-- Bertrand Russell

The actual method of the transfer of the power of remedies is a fascinating subject in itself!

We have the routine ways of oral ingestion, olfaction, by rubbing n skin or pulse point.

We have a report of actually injecting it!

And then we have colleagues who transfer it by sound - even through a telephone line.

Others by sending the thought of the remedy to the patient though the person may be a distance away from them.

Others write the remedy name on paper and put it under the patient's pillow.

Others write the remedy name on paper and put it under a glass of water and the patient drinks the water etc.

And they all claim that their method of transfer or dosing works!

During a C4 tritration exercise we did with a group of colleagues - some who started were adversely affected and became emotional and depressed etc. and had to leave the project.

However after some weeks when the last session was completed, they contacted the Master Tritrator and reported that it was as if something had been lifted off them.
(They live about 5 miles away!)

What are the explanations?

Does one even dare to discuss these things with sceptics?

Regards

Soroush