Minutus

John-
A friendly note-

Now that everyone understands the stands of different people and that
the said stands are not going to be given up by either side preaching
to the other- is it not time to may be go on to other issues?

I would have preferred at the end of all of this discussion that there
was a definition of homeopathy arrived- that all could live with, even
if it is not the same one in Organon ( though every one claims that
the way they practice is from the Organon) at least something that
reflects the plurality of practice that goes in the name of Homeopathy
and at the same time preserves to maintain the identity of homeopathy
as against Flower remedies, Biochemics and the rest...- so that in a
court of law or even to ourselves we will know that what we do is
homeopathy and not liquid prana for example...

Unfortunately that is not to be so - there is too much wrangling and
self-justfication, audience mongering to achieve that...

may be it is time to call off the shots and live to discuss another
day....
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "John Harvey" wrote:
sounds very
thinking
suggestion, if
of one
antidoting
provided
ahead of
you-think-for-others and
Homeopath.)

Hi, H2002 --

You certainly have a point.

Courts of law rely on the same commonsense definitions that are
available to those who haven't been thoroughly confused by discussions
such as these: the definitions available in reputable dictionaries.

It's to our misfortune that not all students of homoeopathy appreciate
such resources; it results, I agree, in distraction from real issues.

But there's a question of consent, here; a question of consensus; and
a question of respect.

The effect of "audience mongering" may be too valuable an effect to
give up for the sake of common sense, respect for language, and
respect for fellow practitioners. Does that mean that we should all
remain silent in the face of it?

Perhaps there can be no resolution while the "mongering" appears to be
effective in wowing an audience, and we'll drown in pointless debate
over arbitrary wishes for inclusion under a respectable banner of
every passing fancy. But to stand by and watch the abuse of the
language and of students' good faith seems less useful than to at
least contest the presumption of the right to force both homoeopaths
and the language to accept unwanted and impossible intrusions of
various kinds. Homoeopaths don't need it, homoeopathy doesn't need
it, and the definition of homoeopathic practice -- by the nature of
definitions -- hasn't the room for it.

Respect for those who care about the identity of homoeopathy certainly
would be enough to see this silly debate lapse into silence, I think.
Respect for the dictionary would. Respect for Dr Hahnemann certainly
would. The debate arises through a fundamental disrespect for all
three and a certain reticence to open a dictionary to learn something
that has no appeal to the ego of any practitioner preparing to march
forth to better Hahnemann -- in ignorance, wilful or otherwise, of
what homoeopathy actually is.

But essentially I think you're right: acceptance of what is after all
the dictionary's definition, Hahnemann's definition, and the common
understanding of homoeopathy's essence requires humility or life
experience; no amount of discussion is likely to invoke either.

Thanks, H.

Cheers!

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

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan

On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:33 AM, John Harvey wrote:
Especially not when products harking to other definitions fill pharmacy
shelves (well, fill their "homeopathy" section anyway), and when people
call themselves "homeopath", and programs train people in "homeopathy",
which have nothing to do with any of said definitions. It is a problem
that, at this point, goes well beyond humility or life experience. I'm
not sure it's either respectful or reasonable to imply (say) that
anyone who disagrees with your position is lacking in any particular
qualities...

And BTW I do not mean this above comment to necessarily apply to this
latest "round" with Irene, which IMO had to do with different issues;
but I do mean it to apply to the discussions which have repeatedly
arisen over whether "homeopathy" should be permitted to "mean" anything
other than [fill in the blank].
Shannon

Dear Shannon,

Your point about the ad hominem argument is well-taken here; thank
you. What I hoped, and evidently failed (at least with you and
Luise), to make clear a long time ago is that my topic does not
concern what is allowed but simply what is, in keeping with the
question that set the discussion off on 12 May, which was a question
of fact ("why today homeopathy can't move on to combo rems as a branch
of practice rather sidelining combos as 'not homeopathy'") that was
answered, and continues to be answered, with assertions of fact.

To any reader who confuses the question of what homoeopathy includes
with the question of what is good, the motivations of those writing on
this topic will remain obscure and cause needless hurt.

They're two entirely separate topics.

I hope that that helps.

Cheers!

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

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan