Minutus

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

Since you quoted my post to John, I'll respond to this with my views on it:

I believe the differences have to do with following the principles of
the Organon versus following the meticulously detailed examples of the
Organon.

Some homeopaths use a "big-picture" view and see the principles as the
definition of homeopathy and see the rest of the Organon as examples and
explanations but not necessarily all-inclusive ones.

Others see the examples in the Organon (without the principles if there
is conflict) - and follow those to the letter as their belief of what
defines homeopathy. If there is no other example to illustrate a
principle used differently then they assume there is no other valid
example that can be called homeopathy.

In addition - some people see homeopathy as a live and growing
science/art - and others want it stuck as it was when Hahnemann died
(despite his several upgrades till his death).

The principles versus rules approach - is a problem in any discipline
where there is a set of principles and also some rules or guidelines
developed from those principles.
Some people are just sticklers for "rules" and others are
principle-based in their thinking. This in my view, will always result
in differences of opinion among practitioners.
As will the principles of whether to grow the science OR to frame it and
hang it on the wall as a fait accompli.

I'm one of those who follows the principles - and can see examples other
than the ones presented, and who believes homeopathy needs to continue
to grow to meet modern and changing needs - WITHIN the original principles.
Others will follow "the letter of the law" and if they can't find it in
an *applied* aphorism, will say it's not homeopathy. It's "not in the
frame on the wall".

Could that explain the diversity of thinking on what constitutes homeopathy?
I've not seen anyone here call flower remedies homeopathy for example -
so I do not think homeopaths in general on this list, are as far
afield in what they call homeopathy, as a few extremists would have us
believe:-)
As with any legal issue - the interpretation of the law is based on the
intention behind the law and not only on the letter of the law. So both
the homeopaths arguing they use the principles of the Orghanon - AND
those using specific examples - would have at least two legs to stand on
in saying that they are using homeopathy:-)
Those who can not show any relationship to either the principles or
the examples in practice of what''s in the Organon - will have no leg to
stand on.

As I see it - we have the Organon - we need not have any other
definition!
It might be convenient to have an abbreviated definition - but life is
not always convenient, and in this case any abbreviation leaves out
something important to someone somewhere! So the true definition of
homeopathy is the Organon - and anyone too lazy to read it, is up a
creek without a paddle, and in no shape (unqualified) to appear in a
courtroom - on either side of any argument about homeopathy.

In my view:-)
Not really. Everyone on the list deserves respect for their views, and
not to have them misrepresented by other members. I don't see that as
"wrangling, self-justfication and audience mongering" - just as common
respect.

The subject of "what is a definition of homeopathy?" is one yoo just
raised - it was never part of the thread you refer to!

Now that you asked for it, I've answered that aspect.
And changed the topic accordingly.
--
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."

I did not quote your post at all. I was just replying to what John
posted-

I addressed it to him because I felt he would listen to reason as
against people who suffer from FIP ( Fundamentally Irritating
Postures)...

This whole thing started out about / or at least addressed at some
point - defining homeopathy - about whether we should filter out
some aspects or not-

I am more concerned about not getting some clarity around that -
than whether your practice is rules-based homeopathy or principle-
centered or lawful or awful...( could not resist the word

I have practised using combos, intercurrents etc. and so have no
qualms about your using any of that singly or in mixtures- so my
post was not about you and your innovations in therapeutics- I am
not qualified to evaluate your practice as I hardly know any cats -I
have never dealt with them before - neither as pets nor as email
patients- may be catty people yes- not cats

I am not well versed in Organon so I cannot say if how homeopathy is
defined there- but must be very dense since everyone - whatever is
the nature of the practice he/she does- claims following Organon-

It must be the most "shape shifting" book of all times....

People who read this forum know that I have even defended poly-
pharmacy and combos - without calling it homeopathy- call it
experimental homeopathy or whatever-as long as periodical table
prescribing is also called the same and not as classical homeopathy-

I am an eclectic and always shall be and I do not have any
reservations about doing it - and I have never hesitated to accept
it and call it for what it was- I do not claim to be classical
homeopath nor a purist not an Organon follower-

That is all I got to say - you will not get a single "meow" out of
me after this on this subject....
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers
wrote:
there
with, even
that
views on it:
of
the
the
examples and
there
what
valid
died
discipline
guidelines
result
it and
other
continue
principles.
it in
the
homeopathy?
Homeopathy
homeopathy
example -
have us
on the
both
AND
stand on
principles or
leg to
life is
out
of
a
a
and
and
as
common
just
Homeopath.)