Minutus

Let's get back to the basics.

1)

Let's agree that homeopathy is what Hahnemann kdescribed in his
Organon.

There are (almost) as many opinions on what Hahnemann said in his
Organon that there is bound to come out oodles of definitions.

2)

So one group decides on a definition. As John H. et al. define it
it would only be what perhaps 10 - 20 percent of those do who have
been considering themselves homeopaths and have been doing so for
about 150 years.

Telling the other 80 percent that they no longer should consider nor
call themselves that will probably result in a worldwide outburst of
hilarity.

Since they have also been considered homeopaths by the general public,
the latter will join in the laughter.

Of course there is no reason why some group (any group) should not
devote time and energy on trying to find the "right" definition -
It's, after all, a harmless occupation:-)

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 <==========

Ah, then I should desist... Worldwide hilarity sounds like such a nice
outcome!
LOL

Hi, Luise --

Describing something does not define it. We've been through that, remember?

What is white and sweet and can be eaten in various ways? Well, that
describes ice cream. But does it tell us what ice cream is? Using
your argument that a description is enough, we'd have to conclude that
leaded white paint is ice cream.

Of course, if what you really want to do is to sell leaded paint as
ice cream, a description will do very nicely.

Kind regards --

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

We've been thru it, but obviously there is still disagreement.
When the explanations just keep devolving to "we've been thru that",
plus footnotes maybe it's time to "agree to disagree" and move
on.

Your second paragraph nicely points up the dangers of confusing "map"
with "territory".
Shannon

I do not know about the world - Luise - but considering that even at
this late stage of the discussion you are confusing between defining
what is homeopathy and defining whatever people who are calling
themselves homeopaths are doing - that is certainly hilarious for me...

Let me get this straight- and may be I should not post on this
'definition" business anymore ... if we want to advance homeopathy (
and have it still resemble the homeopathy that was there even 30
years ago) and make it respectable ( and without getting it confused
with ayurveda, herbals and all other sundries in the world) and make
it a legal profession - you will have to address this question one
time or other...

If homeopaths get hauled in the courts for practising Electro
homeopathy / color medicine / gemmology and if then the homeopathic
association or whatever had to bail them out and had to defend
practices that have nothing to do with homeopathy per se - then you
will see how hilarious the allopathic world finds that...

I have seen this confusion among the public even in India... I have
been variously called practioner of ayurveda or herbal or whatever -
when all I was doing was practising Homeopathy. Esp. if you are also
giving Chamomile and the herbalist is also doing the same, how do you
differentiate?
Anyway I just bring out these points to make sure we do not lose the
rich legacy and scientific tool Hahnemann gave us in the single
medicine that sets us apart. If getting rid of that is what will make
homeopathy superior to other systems and will be good for homeopathy
to counter the ills of the modern world then so be it...

when homeopaths cannot differentiate between suppression and cure
then it is time for old dinosaurs of homeopathy to quieten I guess...

Hi Hahnemannian,
First I want to state, I am very much in agreement with your concern
that homeopathy not become diluted and altered and confused from its
roots. And in fact that *is* the reason that I keep coming back to the
idea of cutting lose the unadorned term from its Organon-ic
moorings--well, it has already *been* cut loose by popular and
commercial usage; it's just a matter of whether we as a community want
to keep living in this state of attempted denial about that fact, or
whether we want to adapt to circumstasnces, and proceed accordingly.

If "homeopathy" means one thing (or rather, one large, ambiguous,
undefined and even by us unacknowledged collection of practices) to the
public, and means a different thing to "we the enlightened", how does
that put us on sounder footing in any respect at all?
Shannon

It does not - and that is the reason we need to define it-
Moreover since there has never been an organized body to allow /
disallow practices.

Uncontrolled growth - we would call in cancerous were it to occur on
the human body- and that is what is happening in homeopathy. Not all
of it is wrong; but we do not have a vetting process; how do we cull
the bulls?

Controlled growth is where there would be checks and balances -
lacking that all we could do is howl in the darkness- but for sure if
even the token resistance and rear-guard action is not there- we
would end up as an also-ran in the alternative medicine camp.

There should be an action somewhere - to make sure that there is some
control put in the process. It cannot be in India - since that is the
birth place of quackery. Anything goes in India. So that is not where
some such corrective action could be taken.

And there should definitely be some Body that governs best practices
and also allows some of these practices after some kind of vetting.
And if not Organon then we should have a current best practices work
that gets updated every 4 years or so...

I am not sure what else could be done... we will be always looked
down upon if we cannot come up with some creative ways to get out of
this label that we carry because of being in the alternative medicine
camp...

To be tarred with the same brush as astro-gemmological-numero-chakra -
therapeutics is not something that I care for...I do not want to
trade my steth for the pendulum either...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
concern
its
the
want
or
the
does
consider nor
outburst of
not
definition -
even at
defining
for
homeopathy (
confused
make
one
homeopathic
you
have
whatever -
also
do you
the
make
homeopathy
guess...

And I want to state that even combinations can go thru the process.
If someone says that abc together is better for all flu instead of
these separate then that is also ok,there are some special situations
in which they might be serviceable- Where there are less resources -
1) Human - not enough people to handle the clients - for example
Didi's practice 2) Information: lack of computer, internet facilities
or whatever 3) Time - as in point 1 4) Money - to buy all the 3000
odd remedies or whatever-
But still we need to have a Practice manual that would say the system
of treatment - first this - if it does not work - try this etc. Like
a hierarchy of approaches...

And homeo combos should be available everywhere including allopathic
pharmacies so that people know that there is something like this and
they will be good for starters and also for the homeo pharmas -
otherwise who will get us our medicines...

Combos, periodic tables are in experimental mode and may be could be
used with enough justification where classical methods fail or proven
to fail -

maybe the word I am searching for is Accountability and Extenuating
circumstances...

Just bringing in some order to the process - The art and science of
homeopathy seems to have too much art and too little science...

Reiterating our committment to being a medical system of treatment
instead of becoming a be-all for everyone...

But posting here is just a cry in the wild- what are we going to
achieve- where does the momentum come from? We do not have political
clout - we do not have philosophical strength - we do not know who we
are- we will keep on antagonizing the established medicine instead of
somehow managing to get along with orthodoxy till we establish
ourselves-

The only thing that is going for us is the strength and truth of
homeopathy itself - and the ways of allopathy that keeps pursuing its
dehumanizing treatment where the individual has less and less say in
anything

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
concern
its
the
want
or
the
does
consider nor
outburst of
not
definition -
even at
defining
for
homeopathy (
confused
make
one
homeopathic
you
have
whatever -
also
do you
the
make
homeopathy
guess...

John Harvey wrote:

In the case of the Organon it does:-)

But I am tempted by the hilarity option via Luise:-)

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."

Watching the live stream of the Connecticut debate yesterday (started
at 4am here) between several Homoeopaths and Allopaths reminded me of
the deep level of committment serious Homoeopaths like Iris Bell have
for the promotion of our medical practice. And wasn't it inspiring to
see how she confidently refuted accusations of quackery from prominent
Allopathic medical scientists!
Hi Chris

I agree, she did a wonderfull job. She looked confident and was very
convincing. She really knew what she was talking about.
I also liked the promising measuring results of Rustum Roy and others a
lot. And it was most interesting to see the apparently importance of
succusion. I really hope that scientists get encouraged by this to do
more of this kind of exciting research.

Annemieke