Hi Laura,
Since you said that you are signing off I am sending this to your
private mail address also.
This is indeed interesting, since I have never heard about it and have
seen no evidence in any of his German casebooks of his doing so. (Of
course they have not all be studied yet thoroughly, so there may be).
I'll follow this up below.
so although his case notes (the
No, this is not so. Two of them have been published, and anyone who is
able to read either German or French can get them for study.
Is that what v. Keller said in his articles? I do not know them, he
probably was the first of the scholars you are asking about below. The
others think they have found them documented before that, around
1838/39 or so at the latest - which would be in line what Hahnemann himself
says in his Organon: i. e. that for the last 3 or 4 years he had been
working on them or with them. Matter of fact, my reason for starting
my own research was that I did not believe that he had told the
untruth about it in his Organon.
he was playing around outside of the
really, the 6th ed really is based
Who would those be? The Paris Casebooks cover roughly 7 years
pre-Organon. And of course, his further research on the *C* potencies
was started not only in 1832 but sometime after 1821, leading up to
his recommendation of prescribing them in single dissolved dose in his
CD and later on his recommendation of repeating them in the 5th
Organon. So it had been a continuous process, culminating in his
recommendation of the LM's.
Well there is one Swiss guy I did not know the name of and whose
articles I did not read - I just know that he exists. I suppose it is
v. Keller, the homeopath you mention below.
Then U. Adler from Argentinia published an article in the Journal of
the "Institute for the History of Medicine", short IGM-Bosch in
Stuttgart. Some years later I published an article in that journal,
based on Adler's and extending the research. This is availabe in
English on my site. Later Adler did more research and published an
article, whichh it seems was not published in the journal, but is
available on his site. I privately wrote to him refuting at least part
of his conclusions - I may yet publish this on my site some day.
So there are at least 3 different findings, published in a scholarly
manner so as to enable others to verify or falsify the details and by
looking up the references given, which gives them the opportunity to
challenge the interpretation of the author.
It seems that David and Dr. de Schepper did not give such details and
references - so no-one can find out whether there is any substance to
their findings. I am still looking forward to David's Magnum Opus and
hoping that in there he will provide details and references.
They are online, parallel chapter by chapter, at
http://homeoint.org/books/hahorgan/index.htm
Yes, February 1842 is generally accepted, since that is the date of
the covering letter under which he sent it to his Publisher in
Duesseldorf.
and it took 18 months
No, this conclusion is not valid.
For one thing, as I wrote above: It is only v. Keller who dates the
first documentation of the LM's in the casebooks at 1840.
For another: Only a small part of the revision has to do with the LM
potencies. He may very well have waited till the last month to add
that - and he probably did.
Yes, I agree. And it is backed up by what he wrote to his publisher,
i. e. that this would be his last Organon.
Would you tell me more about that? Which letter is this resp. are
those? To whom. Where is it/are they published? As I said, I have
never heard about that before and would definitely want to read them
myself before I accept this. After all - this would be quite a
sensation!
This is significant
There is IMO no question of that - and I have never heard it
questioned. After all, he says so in his 6th Organon in no uncertain
terms.
The bone of contention - where it exists - is whether the individual
homeopaths agree that Hahnemann was right.
He continued,
Well, I myself would not infer from "infection" that he considered
it "energy healing" - but that just btw:-)
Well, if you want to know this you'll have to read Adler's and my
articles.
The point is that H. never seems to have said anywhere what
notations/symbols he used for the LM's in his casebooks. So ko-one
really knows for sure when he used them. One thinks this notation
means LM, others see other notations as doing so.
If related to exclusive use or not of
I do not think that it has any bearing on that - I do not think it has
been of any practical significance yet. Thaat may change if one day
homeopaths get interested in the question, which mode of dosing had
better results in Hahnemann's practice and start doing research to
find out.
tell me how this issue makes it matter if one thks along
I do not think that it matters at all - afair I never said anything
about this. Maybe Irene's mail was answering something you had written
before. That was while I was offline, and I have not yet read most of
the mails that had accumulated during that time.
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 <==========
but that 