Minutus

Irene, I am talking to you. And I'm still waiting to hear "yes" or "no": for you to commit yourself to a definition of the law of similars.

Here again is the quote you're having such a problem in owning:
"> 1. In the Organon Hahnemann points out that two similar diseases
"Dear Vera - This IS the Law of SImilars - and it seems you place it

as number one after all?"
So it's a simple question:
Is the Law of Similars, to you, "that two similar diseases cannot exist in the organism at the same time. The stronger destroys the weaker"?
Thanks!
John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >

John I have no plans to comit to your interpretation of yes/no.

Law of Similars is not something that I consider should even need
debate among homeopaths! So many have observed and described the
principle, ranging from Hippocrates , Stahl, Paracelsus, Hahnemann,
some members of this list, etc - It's a concept we use for all
homeopathicity, whether we look for two diseases in one individual
cancelling out or whether we use it to look for the remedy to use
against the natural one so that they do cancel out or whether we use
it prophylactically to prevent similar symptoms later - or whether we
use it to choose other therapies (organotherapy, gemnotherspy,
detoxification, etc for example) and including uses of this natural
law yet to be described.
It is all part of the Law of Similars.

How it is used by Hahnemann may be a bit narrower depending on
interpretation but Law of Similars is at the core of all homeopathy.
Natural laws are not confined by any one person's work, (such as
Hahnemann's, yours or mine.)
It is just not something anyone can change being a natural law. I
think every homeopath should understand it, whatever aspects or
applications they actually use it for.
I have no problem owning anything I write - ever:-)
The problems have always been with owning your much altered
assumptions and conclusions.
Glad you quoted this time.
Glad you asked a question about the quote too:-)
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."

Thank you, Irene.
So if you had the ability to condense those four paragraphs into one phrase to tell your reader (any reader) what you mean by "the Law of Similars" when you confirm with Vera that
"two similar diseases cannot exist in the organism at the same time. The stronger destroys the weaker... IS the Law of Similars"
and you tell me that
"we use it to choose other therapies (organotherapy, gemnotherspy, detoxification, etc for example"
and that it is
"not confined by any one person's work"
and that
"every homeopath should understand it, whatever aspects or applications they actually use it for",
what would that phrase would be? What explanatory phrase could you substitute for "the Law of Similars" as you use that phrase in a sentence?
Thanks!
John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >

Dear John,

I believe condensation would be a mistake.
When a principle is as core to a system as this Law of Similars is,
clarity matters more than brevity.

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."

2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >
Yes, I'll just bet you do!
Oh? So far we have a Law of Similars that nobody invented, is not confined by anyone's work and had nothing to do with Hahnemann, and offers a guide to "organotherapy, gemnotherspy,

detoxification, etc for example)", and yet somehow "IS"... "two similar diseases cannot exist in the organism at the same time. The stronger destroys the weaker", a law that "every homeopath should understand it, whatever aspects or applications they actually use it for" -- that you yourself cannot define.
Interesting. So if every homoeopath should understand it -- with which I agree entirely -- then what does that say about somebody unable to define it?
In any case, I hereby withdraw from my original post on this thread the entire sentence referring to your understanding of the Law of Similars, as that's obviously not relevant, and invite you again to comment on that post minus that sentence.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

Correction: my original post on the thread "The argument from particulars". Thanks, Irene.

John
2009/7/2 John Harvey >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

To me it seems reasonable.
Thinking back over some of the "like cures like" examples that've been
mentioned, it's a bit of a stretch to see e.g. controlled external
pressure (e.g. his mentioned cure for a bad bump on the head) or heated
(applied to a burn) as a "disease," but for purposes of the definition
I'd accept it.

What's your thought?
Shannon

Hi, Shannon --

Do you mean that the couple of sentences that Irene said "IS the Law of Similars" seems reasonable? And what do I think of what?

I've kind of said twice already in the "argument from particulars" thread what I think of the idea that the law of similars is some cosmic phenomenon just waiting to be noticed all over the place. I recognise it to be the same law that everybody else (that is, everybody one superstellar practitioner) does.

I'm most interested to hear what somebody thinks the law of similars is (if anything) who can now admit that homoeopathy is, after all, practice of the law of similars but later insist that that may mean just about anything, all the way from some guidance in "gemnotherspy" or detoxification through to prescribing two ore more remedies at once without so much as a proving to go by. Such a person wouldn't have refined her idea of homoeopathy very well, would she. I wonder whether such a person would be willing to actually state her understanding of what the law of similars is rather than duck and weave around aspects of it. Perhaps not.

I fail to see how anybody unable to express what the law of similars is can possibly be capable of using it to refine her choice of remedy down to the one.

Of course, possibly that's been the entire trouble: the refinement of remedy selection has been rendered impossible, naturally leading such a person to abandon homoeopathy as too difficult.

What else do you think might happen in such a case?

Cheers --

John
2009/7/2 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

What's wrong with defending CLASSICAL homeopathy from those who claim to but don't practice it?

With what authority and what exactly have you written about "homeopathy"?

Looking at your background, http://www.prohealth.com/fibromyalgia/b ... id=1279713, and they made fun of Michael Jackson and his hyperbaric chamber, it's obvious your grasp of CLASSICAL homeopathy is practically nil.

Before you attack those who've studied, comprehend and successfully practice CLASSICAL homeopathy while you have little experience studying or being treated by it, you should rethink criticizing those who actually understand what they're writing about and are willing to defend it.

If you don't wish to end up like Michael Jackson, running around searching for hypochondric cures prior to expiration, I suggest you pay attention to those who have mastered and defend CLASSICAL homeopathy. Start now with classical treatment from one who solely practices it as it will take years for you to approach cure and not have to rely on an ever growing list of temporary fixes. .

Susan

I don't know anything about Will Taylor or how he uses "family" information. I know Hering suggested studying Materia Medica by grouping remedies according to kingdoms. I don't think Hering ever suggested anywhere that we should bypass the actual symptoms in the case and prescribe only according to kingdoms, if that's what you're getting at? Scholten? I believe I've saved myself a lot of time by giving that whole iconoclastic extravaganza a wide berth. For years, his books and seminars were extremely popular here, with people running about echoing views and sentiments expressed in his seminars ..."burn all those old books", and "polychrests don't work anymore, we need new remedies for the new millenium", and "provings are useless" Blah de blah de blah...
I just stick to homoeopathy. Polychrests work just fine, why did they suddenly stop working for other people? Interestingly, some of the most vocal Sankaran/Scholten exponents here seem to be rekindling their interest in traditional homoeopathy. If I understand them correctly, Rajan himself is advocating a return to the basics. His Dad has probably stopped turning in his grave too.
Chris.