Minutus

Hello Robin,

Prior to my PC being reformatted recently I remember that you had sent a post to the List in which you asked me if I thought it was not unreasonable to separate the wheat from the chaff in Homoeopathy, or to question and scrutinize the works of Homoeopathic masters. Sorry, I no longer have the specific email, so I'm not sure if this was the whole question, or even the right context.

Nevertheless, I would say it is incumbent upon us to review the works of all great Homoeopaths to gain better clarity into what they were able to achieve. My personal view is not to hold them up to personal ridicule in the process. In all the works I've been able to read from Boenninghausen himself, and about Boenninghausen, I don't see him as some kind of idealistic prat, so full of love and adoration for his idol Hahnemann and the Homoeopathic cause, that he invented a story about his own cure from phthisis, and then being caught up in a lie, continued to deceive everyone, and continued to embellish the facts of the story throughout the rest of his life. In contrast, I view him as an ordinary man who deeply understood he was involved in an extraordinary process of important discovery and that precision and truth should never be compromised at any cost. I don't see any example where the truth of his endeavours were compromised. He had many successes and he had many failures just like all of us, and he endeavoured to learn from both. He admitted when he made errors. He was most definitely an ordinary human being with his own personality processes and temperament, and he always answered his critics with decisiveness and forthrightness and encouraged them to work hard to seek the truth. He was truly a person who was known by the fruit of his labours, even his detractors used his work comprehensively because they knew it was reliable. He most definitely was a strong and passionate advocate of the High Potencies, and indeed continued his own antipsoric self-treatment after his initial cure by Dr Weihe, and this self-treatment is recorded in the posterity of his own Casebooks. These actions do not indicate any personal deceit or unbridled idealism on his part. If one is to accuse him of making up stories, then proof should be given from Dr Weihe's casebooks that the story of the cure is a fabrication. As well, proof should be shown that the initial phthisis diagnosis by the renowned allopathic physicians Drs Bush and Tourtual sen is also a fabrication. None of this has been produced as research, only a fanciful weaving together of speculations about Boenninghausen's supposed motivations and personality attributes.
The real reasons for Boenninghausen's advocacy of the High Potencies can be found in his Lesser Writings. The culmination of his years of clincal practice resulted in the formation and publication of his Therapeutic Pocketbook - a work which is highly esteemed by all reputable Homoeopaths and is still used today in their daily clinic. The higher potencies bring out and cure the many symptoms not accessible by the lower potencies. For goodness sake, even a Combination Remedy Proving of Rhus tox and Bryonia elicited more symptoms in the 200th potency compared to the 30th. So there is no deceitful conspiracy about this fact. Even moreso, Boenninghausen had the aptitude and observational skills to recognize how the higher potencies manifested themselves most frequently and most strikingly in reference to the locations and sensations of the characteristic symptoms, whilst the higher and lower potencies have the same effect on the modalities of characteristics. Despite this acute level of attentiveness to detail, some would have us believe Boenninghausen was 'either a liar or a sloppy case taker'. Perhaps the truth might be we still have a lot of catching up to do to get in tune with these old masters, rather than to waste time holding them up to ridicule.

Best,
Chris.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Chris, List,

to the post below I merely want to point out that you are
mix-representing the parts where I presented the evidence for my
thesis and the part where I speculated about possible reasons.

In my presentation on my side those parts are clearly separated.

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 <==========

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

The greatness of the old masters cannot be gainsaid. The truth of
their observations bears out in daily practice and in everything we
do. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose in dedicating
their lives to the growth and spread of homeopathy in the face of so
much opposition. Irrespective of what Boenninghausen did to himself
and his phthisis, his work is such a guiding post for all farers of
the homeopathic way.

Reading the old journals and the "lesser writings" of Hahnemann,Lippe,
Boenninghausen, PP Wells, Hering, Dunham and Farrington is one of the
best ways that any one can really know the "spirit" of homeopathy.
These are from the experiences of the masters who really were in the
frontiers and gave real life experience as against arm-chair
theorists. Theirs was the real medicine of experience. There may be
faults here and there which we can criticize with the benefit of
hind-sight. But these faults in no way discredit their fundamental
contribution and guidance for the rest of us.

Instead of spending time on finding faults with their work, time spent
on really understanding their heritage and seminal works will provide
bountiful benefits.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen" wrote:
sent a post to the List in which you asked me if I thought it was not
unreasonable to separate the wheat from the chaff in Homoeopathy, or
to question and scrutinize the works of Homoeopathic masters. Sorry, I
no longer have the specific email, so I'm not sure if this was the
whole question, or even the right context.
works of all great Homoeopaths to gain better clarity into what they
were able to achieve. My personal view is not to hold them up to
personal ridicule in the process. In all the works I've been able to
read from Boenninghausen himself, and about Boenninghausen, I don't
see him as some kind of idealistic prat, so full of love and adoration
for his idol Hahnemann and the Homoeopathic cause, that he invented a
story about his own cure from phthisis, and then being caught up in a
lie, continued to deceive everyone, and continued to embellish the
facts of the story throughout the rest of his life. In contrast, I
view him as an ordinary man who deeply understood he was involved in
an extraordinary process of important discovery and that precision and
truth should never be compromised at any cost. I don't see any example
where the truth of his endeavours were compromised. He had many
successes and he had many failures just like all of us, and he
endeavoured to learn from both. He admitted when he made errors. He
was most definitely an ordinary human being with his own personality
processes and temperament, and he always answered his critics with
decisiveness and forthrightness and encouraged them to work hard to
seek the truth. He was truly a person who was known by the fruit of
his labours, even his detractors used his work comprehensively because
they knew it was reliable. He most definitely was a strong and
passionate advocate of the High Potencies, and indeed continued his
own antipsoric self-treatment after his initial cure by Dr Weihe, and
this self-treatment is recorded in the posterity of his own Casebooks.
These actions do not indicate any personal deceit or unbridled
idealism on his part. If one is to accuse him of making up stories,
then proof should be given from Dr Weihe's casebooks that the story of
the cure is a fabrication. As well, proof should be shown that the
initial phthisis diagnosis by the renowned allopathic physicians Drs
Bush and Tourtual sen is also a fabrication. None of this has been
produced as research, only a fanciful weaving together of speculations
about Boenninghausen's supposed motivations and personality attributes.
can be found in his Lesser Writings. The culmination of his years of
clincal practice resulted in the formation and publication of his
Therapeutic Pocketbook - a work which is highly esteemed by all
reputable Homoeopaths and is still used today in their daily clinic.
The higher potencies bring out and cure the many symptoms not
accessible by the lower potencies. For goodness sake, even a
Combination Remedy Proving of Rhus tox and Bryonia elicited more
symptoms in the 200th potency compared to the 30th. So there is no
deceitful conspiracy about this fact. Even moreso, Boenninghausen had
the aptitude and observational skills to recognize how the higher
potencies manifested themselves most frequently and most strikingly in
reference to the locations and sensations of the characteristic
symptoms, whilst the higher and lower potencies have the same effect
on the modalities of characteristics. Despite this acute level of
attentiveness to detail, some would have us believe Boenninghausen was
'either a liar or a sloppy case taker'. Perhaps the truth might be we
still have a lot of catching up to do to get in tune with these old
masters, rather than to waste time holding them up to ridicule.

as conclusion of your mail:
Why then spend time on investigating and contradicting the myths of
the anti-vaccination groups?

I so far understood that it was for the sake of truth - i.e. that
conclusions based on facts are more helpful than others.

Why should that different be different where the old masters are
concerned?

Is it as Swami Vivekananda has said: "Things get sacred as they get
old"?
No one, myself included, has said anything to the contrary.

Regards

Luise

The truth of

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

-
Let's

Thanks for this. Very interesting.

Hallo all,

Actually the matter boils down to 2 very simple qustions:

1) Would v. Boenninghausen (any homeopath worth any consideration)
omit in an anamnesis (case history) of a patient a deadly disease,
which could at that stage at that point in history be called
incurable), of which the patient had suffered as late as 2 years
before?

I say he would never have omitted it. Chris says he did.

2) Would v. Boenninghasen have omitted Pulsatilla and Sulphur among
the remedies that had cured him of this deadly disease and instead
have mentioned Nux and Dulcamara as having worked well for him for
nausea and common colds?

I say he would not, Chris says he did.

So we disagree - so what:-)

Other people will disagree among each other. Those disagreements will
never be dissolved. Weihe's case books no longer seem to exist, no
letters from Weihe, concerning this illness, were found. V. B. never
mentioned it in his correspondence with Hahnemann. He does not refer
to this illness anywhere in records found so far. Never mentions it
when he is treating patients for tuberculosis, never referred to it in
the famous (in Germany) case of his famous cousin Annette v. Droste
Hülshoff, who was his first patient and whom he treated for
tuberculosis, although her brother had just died of it.
To add a
little further speculation: **Please note: it is clearly marked as
speculation:

This brother, who, of course, was also a cousin of v.
B., was ill with tuberculosis at the same time that v. B. would have
been, if his published account were true. No trace of v. B. mentioning
anywhere that - after his presumed miraculous cure - he applied to Dr.
Weihe for his cousin.

Also it is quite mysterious, why v. B. would have treated Annette
himself, although he had not experience yet (remember, she was his
first patient) instead of asking Dr. Weihe for help (if he did ask and
it was Dr. Weihe who suggested the remedies, he never mentioned it in
his casebook. Nor did he give credit to Dr. Weihe for the cure when he
published the of the cure of Annette v. D. H. 2 or 3 years later. He
referred to himself as the homeopath who treated her.)

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 <==========

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