Definition of homeopathy
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 11:44 am
As I mentioned in a previous post, there are times when a tautopathic prescription will improve overall well being and vitality, even though the SX are no longer evident.
Should this then not be considered homeopathy? This prescription was not made on a totality of current Sx but very clearly had a benefit. It was made on the totailty of Sx at the time the substance was causing its effect, ( i.e. the totality was a proving of the material substance).(H also mentioned why iso/tauto could be homeopathic, i.e. potentisation rendered it similar rather than identical).
So one question I what to pose is whether the definition of totality must contain current Sx or not.
Also there are times when an Aetiological prescription will cure ( i.e. prescription based on mental aetiology not on totality of Sx). Example: I saw a gent whose physical Sx did not rep out to Staph in any way, yet due to a Staph aetiology his physical SX were cured with staph. Surely we have all seen this many times?
So the question here is how to define the totaility i.e. is it still valid where we are prescribing by ignoring the phys Sx and concentrating on mental Sx alone (from aetiology)? i.e. is it still a totality when the aetiological mental sypmtoms call for one remedy but the physical SX point to a different remedy.
So another question is: If it is not a totality (above), yet the remedy cures, should we than say that although it cured this was not homeopathy? If it is homeopathy, can we discuss why the aphorisms pertaining do not clash? (i.e. can any aph be taken in isolation out of context of the whole Organon). Also should we no longer call it homeopathy if it does not agree to the word with every aphorism in the organon OR do we ask whether that there are discoveries subsequent to the writing of the organon which need to be incorporated under the definition of homeopathy) e.g. prescibing on mentals alone in aetiology, prescribing isopathically on SX that no longer present (Dyscrasias etc) or discuss where provision already exists for these within the organon
- If we accept non present Sx (as example above), is that mentioned in the Org and if it is how does such an Aph not contradict #18 below;
-or do we refute prescribing on non present Sx as being part of H?
Or perhaps we should ask whether we accept that 'Hahnemannian' homeopathy must adhere to the letter of the Organon without exception; that 'Classical' defines an umbrella which incorporates e.g. aetiological prescribing and tautopathy/isopathy and other established practices used by many 5th + 6th homeopaths referring to themselves as classical, because essentially they adhere to the single prescription dictum (and who 's practice is essentially holistic) and do we then exclude all else from the 'homeopathy' umbrella or are there others to consider?
Simon
Should this then not be considered homeopathy? This prescription was not made on a totality of current Sx but very clearly had a benefit. It was made on the totailty of Sx at the time the substance was causing its effect, ( i.e. the totality was a proving of the material substance).(H also mentioned why iso/tauto could be homeopathic, i.e. potentisation rendered it similar rather than identical).
So one question I what to pose is whether the definition of totality must contain current Sx or not.
Also there are times when an Aetiological prescription will cure ( i.e. prescription based on mental aetiology not on totality of Sx). Example: I saw a gent whose physical Sx did not rep out to Staph in any way, yet due to a Staph aetiology his physical SX were cured with staph. Surely we have all seen this many times?
So the question here is how to define the totaility i.e. is it still valid where we are prescribing by ignoring the phys Sx and concentrating on mental Sx alone (from aetiology)? i.e. is it still a totality when the aetiological mental sypmtoms call for one remedy but the physical SX point to a different remedy.
So another question is: If it is not a totality (above), yet the remedy cures, should we than say that although it cured this was not homeopathy? If it is homeopathy, can we discuss why the aphorisms pertaining do not clash? (i.e. can any aph be taken in isolation out of context of the whole Organon). Also should we no longer call it homeopathy if it does not agree to the word with every aphorism in the organon OR do we ask whether that there are discoveries subsequent to the writing of the organon which need to be incorporated under the definition of homeopathy) e.g. prescibing on mentals alone in aetiology, prescribing isopathically on SX that no longer present (Dyscrasias etc) or discuss where provision already exists for these within the organon
- If we accept non present Sx (as example above), is that mentioned in the Org and if it is how does such an Aph not contradict #18 below;
-or do we refute prescribing on non present Sx as being part of H?
Or perhaps we should ask whether we accept that 'Hahnemannian' homeopathy must adhere to the letter of the Organon without exception; that 'Classical' defines an umbrella which incorporates e.g. aetiological prescribing and tautopathy/isopathy and other established practices used by many 5th + 6th homeopaths referring to themselves as classical, because essentially they adhere to the single prescription dictum (and who 's practice is essentially holistic) and do we then exclude all else from the 'homeopathy' umbrella or are there others to consider?
Simon
basis to prescribe, and