Minutus

yes, christine, thank you that quote. it summarizes my problem with
the ongoing dialogue. it is not the differences of opinion,but the
attitudes and lack of reconciliation.

my understanding of history informs that the failure of homeopathy
was not the protocol but the inability of the practitioners to work
together to ensure an ongoing public presence. the profession
argued itself out of existence while the allopaths worked on
coalescing their power and waging a more successful political
battle. and they won, to our loss!

i always define individualism as the national pathology in the usa
and it is used most successfully to maintain the divide and conquer
of the public. it works massively well in liberal/progressive circles
to prevent any movement of consequence from forming. and it
works extremely well in keeping homepaths from ever forming
a protected presence in our society.

it is not that i support bastardizing hahnemannian homeopathy, but
it seems that we need to figure out how to converse without
trashing each other. i do agree with those that say we should
clearly define our philosophical approach to healing in order to
not confuse. conversations on this list seem to go much better
when discussing cases or remedies. it is the broader questions
that throw everyone askew.

for those of us in more rural areas where there is less opportunity
to connect with people in the profession, this list serves a very
important function. i do hope that we can learn from our weaknesses
and continue to move forward.

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

but Tanya, no-one is trashing anyone, it is just a discussion about something really quite
important - funnies are being made, pronouncements are being made, folk are patting
each other on the back, some come out of the woodwork and go back in again, it's ok for
someone to be funny but not another - none of this has got anything to do with the
discussion at hand, but it is just a discussion.

Some people use these 'flareups' as a reason not to post but with well over 2000 members
we all know that a huge percent don't post anyway.

As I see it Ardavan has worked hard to promote this list along the lines of Hahnemannian
homeopathy and that doesn't include the promotion of combo rx and unless he, as list
owner, tells us that it is good and proper to do so and as the combo devotees cannot
support their claims in Hahnemannian terms, then it shouldn't be happening. If it does
then the description of this forum should be changed and then we can all decide where we
want to be.

Mostly what has been happening is that because no support can be found for combos in
the Organon (and I hasten to add that just saying 'it worked' isn't enough 'cos we don't
know what worked) then the devotees start bringing up all the other very interesting
subjects such as Rajan, Divya, homeopathy alongside other practices, Scholten et al and
claim some kind of victory in mirroring combo rx with all these other subjects and use this
as a barrier to getting to the grips of a discussion (it is escapism) - that is what is bad but
no-one is trashing anyone else that I am aware of (but then I don't read all the posts -
probably a good job). Best wishes, Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette" wrote:

edited

Hi Joy and all,
Due to sick kids and various other crises, I haven't been able to keep
up with (or read any of yesterday's) discussion, but:
I'm sure you remember that, perhaps a couple of years ago, Ardavan was
asked very directly whether or not he wanted the list to exclude all
discussion about non-Hahnemannian or non-classical methods. His reply
was that this is a list for homeopathy, and he has very explicitly
refrained from defining that term. If anyone recalls him saying
anything different--that is, if anyone recalls him saying that no
discussion of non-classical methods is to be permitted--then please do
tell.

What he *has* said, repeatedly and explicitly, is that he wants us to
"play nice" and treat each other respectfully.

It has been the ongoing *preference* of this list that we focus
*mostly* on classical methods, and since I am of that preference
myself, I would in no way wish to argue against that. But to my mind
that is *very* different from making a policy of it being okay (or even
mandatory, or at least "purer-than-thou") to greet non-classical input
with (fill in the blank) ridicule, or rudeness, or hostility (and
Didi's post brought out each of those three--despite the fact that we
already know and esteem her! And yeah the memories of how this list
has treated folks who were *less* known and esteemed for daring to make
a similar post!)
Joy, since that is *your* stated criterion, please take it upon
yourself to ASK HIM! Please ask him to write the list and tell us
whether or not Didi's post and similar, and discussion thereon, should
be banned from the list. In the past he has said otherwise, and if his
position has now changed, then I think it is important that he let us
all know.
Nowhere in the list's information does it specify "Hahnemannian
homeopathy".
Well, it's not irrelevant! Combos and "creative analysis" have in
common that neither approach falls specifically within Hahnemann's
guidelines. One difference is that he specifically spoke *against*
giving more than one remedy at a time--but then, he also spoke against
eating lettuce, for example... Why not simply acknowledge that combos
are on the hazy periphery outside the bounds of "Hahnemannian"
homeopathy; that some will not use them (and in such a discussion of
course reasons should be cited) but others do (and invite those who do,
or who know of those who do, state some of those reasons).

And I think the point is valid--should we, then, disallow discussion of
Scholten and Sankaran? And if we decide to go "Hahnemannian only" yet
want to allow those luminaries' methods (etc.) to be discussed, then
why? What's the justification?

Joy--what's your position on that? Do you feel that Scholten's work
is Hahnemannian, and/or are you opposed to discussion of it?
Best wishes,
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

then someone needs to tell him to change the description on the home
page clearly stating 'classical and hahnemannian homeopathy'- will do
so myself at some point

no, cannot accept combos

if you keep saying that something nasty is going on here then all will
believe eventually - I don't see it as that, I don't see it as
hostile, it is just a discussion like any other, if it gets
passionate, so be it - if we were all sat round a table it wouldn't be
any different - it should be interesting, with vigour not a yawn - I
still uphold that no-one has been disrespectful - who has, please stop
describing these discussions as though they are sinful otherwise what
is the point

still waiting for recognised validity on combos re the organon and
will discuss my point of view on Scholten some other time, or at least
later as I'm going offline now for awhile. I don't get the posts and
only check online to read, I am trying to dutifully answer those that
are addressed to me but got to go.

also still waiting to hear why the other 'creative analysis' isn't
hahnemannian. I am trying to answer people's requests but not getting
any in return. definitely a one sided case

Hope your family is better soon. Joy
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
other

So you've decided to *tell* him what his list should allow, rather
than ask?
Well, I will be interested to hear what he says.
No one insists that you do! But if you mean that you cannot accept the
idea of combos being okay to mention or discuss on this list,
then--well, I look forward to Ardavan's decision--*if* he makes one;
the poor man has tried so hard in the past *not* to have to spoon-feed
us our manners and boundaries!
Since I still haven't read all of this most recent discussion, I won't
push the point. Perhaps manners have been alright this time--certainly
things *have* been better than at various points in the past.

I guess the best I could do with that, is to repeat the idea that "the
needed remedy has its effect", and that in this case the "effect" may
be local rather than global, but then that is the case with single
remedies as well...

Organon specifically directs against giving remedies in combination, as
most of us are very aware! But again, it also directs
against... can anyone post the list? Lettuce, strong-smelling
flowers, living in damp basements, "medicinal" foods (including
lettuce, but also presumably our "herbs")... So I assume you are
asking that we also disallow any discussion about use of herbs on the
list? (Which of course is off-topic, but has certainly been
"allowed"!)
Actually I believe that question was turned back to you, but I guess
without specifics for you to sink your teeth into...
I am not aware of anywhere that Hahnemann directs us to search out a
"central delusion", or perform analysis based on "families" (tho he and
his direct students certainly did follow that line of inquiry, yet it's
not included in Organon's instructions), or Mappa Mundi, or even
"remedy relationships"... I'm sleep deprived, but maybe later I'll
think of more.
Thanks--getting there!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

no, I am not going to tell him anything, it is his list but re. your post it seems there is
some discrepancy as you said there is nothing in the text that mentions classical/
hahnemann homeopathy - people are good at twisting text it seems right now

I'm out of ideas about spoon feeding - smacks of the childishness that prevails

Herbs?? oh please but yeah let's discuss if you want to - we are what we eat - seems to be
much more vital to discuss this subject than consuming potentised combination rx - your
call, not mine. Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

??
Yes, that is what I said. The only thing *I* read, is that the list is
"for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its
members."
The occasional references to combos (or herbs, or even, dare I say, ST)
don't seem to me to go against that in any way. In fact it would be
far *more* in line with that intention, IMO, if we could have *open*
discussion on these topics, exploring how they do and don't fit into a
classical practice.
Nope, not at the moment.
My point has been only about the *permissibility* of these topics.
Some other time I will take advantage thereof.

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]