Minutus

In the beginning there was the Organon, 4th edition.

Things were clear-cut. There was Hahnemann and his purist followers -
there were the allopaths and there were the "Leipzig" group around
Mueller and Griessenich, the mongrel-homeopaths, who claimed the right
to use methods other than homeopathy in their practices - either
without using homeopathy at all or using them parallel.

Then Hahnemann wrote his CD - and the rank of his followers screamed
at the Theoretical Part.

The CD was a flop and so was the 5th Organon - only very few (one of
them was v. Boenninghausen) followed H. in his new approach to
"treating by name" (Psora, Syphilis, Sykkosis) resp. treating by
"etiology", as written in the 5th Organon. This was so in Germany and,
it seems, also in the US - the vast majority kept prescribing by the
methods of the 4th Organon, using the MM of CD the way Hahnemann had
taught in the 4th and previouos editions - to peak in Kent's
"explaining" that Hahnemann had meant A when he wrote B:-)

Well, Kent wrote what everyone wanted to believe, what everyone had
more or less done before, and was very convincing. Only after Sam's
casebooks got known it could be shown that obviously he had meant
exactly what he said: that in most cases Psora was the basic illness
and that Psora should be treated by using Sulphur as mainstay, to be
interrupted by Hepar sulph. and possibly Sepia. The other antipsorics
were to be used as intermediates according to symptoms. This is the
way he worked, and since I do not consider him schizophrenic, it must
be what he had meant in his 5th Organon and the CD.

This obviously was also the way his followers understood him and the
reason why they were so shocked and to a great degree dismissed him -
probably because they thought that he had become senile. (Ever wonder
why he went to Paris and stayed there?)

Considering this, it seems to be very unlikely that we can develop a
standard based on Hahnemann, resp. on his Organons + CD.

So which Organon should the standards be based on?

Scientifically speaking and now actually knowing that Hahnemann was in
no way senile when he wrote the 5th and 6th Organon, it would be
scientific and also reasonable to consider the 6th authorative - since
it was the last revision. (And he did quite a bit of revising on the
5th)

Well, we know what happened on this list when Sheri very strongly
voiced this opinion as being binding - so the chances of agreement on
this "Standard" would be quite small among the classicals:-)

And those classicals agreeing to the 6th edition being the
standard there would not agree to the way Hahnemann meant it - as
witnessed by his own way of working. They would follow one or the
other of the modern gurus or, if you do not like the
word guru "those on the loop", or authors, or teachers, or famous or,
or ..." Since their interpretations are widely divergent, however, and
almost all of them can be shown to be flawed when you read the Organon
Original, since on the other hand many of the 6th edition classicals
tend to strictly follow one or the other of them, there is hardly any
better chance that even the "6th-Classicals" will agree among eacht
other what the Standard should be.

Well - we can handle it one of two basic ways, IMO.

Either like the Christians and Moslems, where the division inside
their religion has to a great degree meant animosity between the
different groups ..

..or like the Hindus and Buddhist, where the different groups to a
great degree respect each other.

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 <==========

What we need to do is arrive at a minimal list of items that would
characterize homeopathy- since we already have a large following of
people doing dry dosing we could allow that but otherwise 6th edition
should be the basis for details of practice.( personally I would be
willing to become 100% water doser if that would allow to develop a
common front.)

Form an international committee with members from different groups -
MDs, non-MD prescribers etc. and they should form the guidelines for
practice in tune with modern world. With globalization etc. this
should not be difficult to organize if there is no politics ( yeah
right

When we need to say what our practice is based on - this charter is
what we need to refer to - we can call this Homoepathy Book of
Knowledge - HomBOK- ( there are other book of knowledges in IT field -
Project management book of knowledge, Business Analysis Book of
Knowledge etc.)

We cannot have Organon serve as the basis for guidelines but it will
help in details of practice. These are not Organon guidelines but
based on Organon and also tempered by modern needs. This way we can
sidestep the accusation that we are following a book written century
and more ago at the same time allows us to follow it without rabidly
defending it in even where it is weak.

Single remedy , symptom similarity must be there- this I think is the
most important criteria defining the practice.

Groups / associations from all countries that participate would agree
to bide the rules... this would give them clout because of volume of
members...

There would be splinters but I believe in time there might be consensus.

All the other kinds of practices would be in recommendation form or in
pre-approval ( delusions, periodic tables etc). They will not be in
the standard practice area but in research area. Members will not be
asked to give this up but cannot claim that this is homeopathy in
terms of defending a prescription etc. at least until there are some
tests that would allow us to accept them etc. So any one cannot say
that this is homeopathy. We cannot of course be responsible for what
any individual practitioner does - at least this cannot be held
against the profession as a whole...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:

Hi Sam,

agreed with most of it, but ...
.

Then we will exclude v. Boenninghausen, or is his way of prescribing
inside this definition? At what point is tandem and sequential therapy
no longer covered by it?

...in the light of what I have been writing about symptom similarity,
I ask you the same question I am asking Soroush

symptom similarity to what?

(Similarity always needs to say what something is similar to.)

Similarity to symptoms that came up on patients during treatment to
be included? Alltogether part of the law of similars "on healthy
people" to be skipped?

How about the symptoms that did not come up in provings of any kind
but are just a matter of experience? What similarity would there be in
those?

If those two are to be the rock-bottom of our standards, these
questions have to be addressed and answered before any other.

Regards

Luise
this I think is the

--
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,
I'm embarrassed to ask, after all the discussion that's already taken
place about him, but can you briefly describe in what ways v.B's
practice differs? Does the difference have to do with "series" etc.?
Why would it be, unless considered either a proving sx or part of a
"healthier state" still within the remedy picture? *(In which case I'd
say, "that depends"...) Can you give an example?
I don't see why that would be a problem. Surely we can't assume that
any proving would bring out every sx capable of being associated with
the remedy...?
"Cured" sxs have been an admissible source.
Shannon

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

Whatever Hahnemann advocated is classical homeopathy - after all he
invented the word as well as the method:-)
Don't make it more complicated!

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."

Actually, H2002 was simplifying it.

The reason this discussion continues to circle in the same old grooves
is that not all participants recognise the confusion between practice
(including principles, standards, AND plain old bad habit) and
definition. Looked at another way, if we use words to denote nothing
but vague abstractions -- in the way that some will separate
"similarity" from the terms it comes with -- symptoms of patient,
symptoms CAUSED by substance -- then we have nothing on which to hang
our hat; no definite meaning; no limitations. Anything goes. This
explains how, after all that had been said, Annemieke could say:

" That 'like cures like' is a law of nature that must be there,
independent of anyone.
But Hahnemann developed a method that made it possible to use that
law."

"Like cures like" is not a law of nature. It's nothing more than an
abstract and extremely vague concept, almost devoid of meaning. Try
pinning down someone in a court of law who's previously stated that
"Like cures like" and now doesn't want to be held to its meaning any
particular thing. You think you'll pin him down? If he knows what
he's doing, he'll easily outsmart the best lawyer money can buy. It
means almost nothing.

What Hahnemann did was state something that could be tampered with
only by using the most tortuous argument, as it is here -- though I
note that those who are able to differentiate the definition from the
practice seem also be to those who understand how to practise what
Hahnemann called homoeopathy and to understand intuitively that there
are serious weaknesses in deviating -- not from the practice, but --
from the understanding of what homoeopathy is. If you deviate from
the definition of homoeopathic practice -- NOT from the practice
Hahnemann may have recommended in O4, O5, or O6, but from the
DEFINITION of the practice of homoeopathy at all -- and you do so
having first mastered an understanding of what that was, you may then
be able to do some comparisons and push forward. If you're unable to
differentiate the two, then you'll keep following Eeyore and Piglet.

As some keep saying on this list (Soroush said it very well on the
"combos" line, and H2002 said it very well on this one), it's simple.
Simple. What it is is simple. How you do it may have endless
variations. But what it is isn't up for grabs. It's simple; you can
visualise it. And if you can't visualise it, you haven't yet
understood it. What's necessary in that case is to reach past the
words for the meaning, a meaning you could cut in stone; something you
could give directions about to a simple person who had no experience
in engaging in endless philosophical construction.

When someone applies for a patent, the language used to specify what
the invention is has to say what it is! It can't say the kind of
thing the invention means; it can't say the invention is a motto. It
has to describe something somebody does.

That's what the definition of homoeopathy does, in barest terms. The
variations are infinite: one dose, repeated doses; high potency, no
potency; substance, radiation (but let's not get into that; it's a
triviality); all symptoms, totality; and a couple of other things that
I dare not mention for fear of sidetracking.

But there is a core to all those variations. That core is not "Like
cures like" or "law of similars" (let alone "potentised remedy") but
the use in the patient of a thing that can mimic the patient's
symptoms. Once you have the meaning of that down pat, it becomes
BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS why it is that combinations of potencies have
nothing at all to do with homoeopathy.

But "getting" it takes a quest for meaning -- for real meaning. Words
don't mean other words! They denote something in the real world. If
they didn't, dictionaries would be useless.

Look up "homoeopathy" in a large volume of a good dictionary, and it
will tell you much more clearly than you'll seen in ten thousand
typical words here what it is. That's because the person who put that
entry together understood that he had to convey the upper and lower
limits, the inner and outer limits, the near and far limits, of the
word. For those with eyes to see them, those limits are conveyed very
simply in the dictionary and in the Organon -- and I'd suggest that it
doesn't matter which edition you pick up.

The recommended best practice varies, as we all know. But we have to
acquire the basic intelligence to distinguish between a particular
recommended practice WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHAT IS DEFINED AS
HOMOEOPATHY -- and what homoeopathy is! Without that fundamental
understanding, we'll never ever even have an intelligent conversation
about it, let alone know what the hell it is that we're doing.

Cheers!

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

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Not all people produce all symtoms of a remedy. The symptoms that come
up during treatment need to be catalogued and used for further
verification- it IS an ongoing process- sometimes the provings need to
be done to get a more modern perspective on the symptoms

Regarding similars and likes etc. I found this in wholehealth now from
the pen of PP Wells- one of the stalwarts if there ever was one-

"Characteristic symptoms are those which individualize both the
disease and the drug. That which distinguishes the individual case of
disease to be treated from other members of its class is to find its
resemblance among those effects of the drug that distinguish it from
other drugs. This is what we mean when we say that with these the law
of cure has chiefly to do. When we say 'like cures like' this is the
'like' we mean."
None - but many of these are added due to repeated observations- even
these need to be triaged, independently verified before admitting
These guidelines are suggestive and probably would be agreed by most
of the practitioners. We are not talking about being 100% right -
there will be exceptions and groups crying "unfair"... the process is
not supposed to be all-inclusive but definitive - to define best
practices- will there be some good also lost in the process- yes sure
thing ( where there is good there is also bad - otherwise there is no
homeopathy - primary and secondary action and all that jazz)

consensus.
right
and,
was in
since
agreement on
however, and
Organon

But that is exactly what Hahnemann (and homeopaths since) *meant* in
saying "Like cures like." What would you hold to be the difference?
Shannon

Irene-
Let me simplify it - this is what I think when I select a Homeopathic
medicine for a patient - nothing more , nothing less -

CAN IT CAUSE THIS SYMPTOM?

Before you give any medicine - be it using the principle of tissue
affinity, law of signatures , biochemic salts- whatever it is - "WILL
IT PRODUCE / HAS IT PRODUCED THE SAME SYMPTOMS AS THIS PATIENT HAS"-

you may give Brain or Bone or Kidney in potencies as tonics, quoting
tissue affinity etc. etc. - but - for it to be homeopathic IT NEEDS
TO CAUSE WHAT IT CAN CURE- or at least you think it should based on
your experience etc. etc.

Can't go any simpler than that...

Also, Irene--
Some would say that Kent, for e.g., is "classical", but not
"Hahnemannian." Sounds like v.Boenninghausen would also be in that
category.
Shannon