§ 11 Sixth Edition
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 6 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 7
6 Materia peccans!
7 What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
Regards
Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Aph 11 - Organon 6
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Soroush, the first section of the message you've just told me was irrelevant to the subtopic of what Hahnemann intended by the phrase "single, simple medicinal substance" (my "Of substance" post of 2:07 a.m. GMT 21 Jul 09) excerpts one of this aphorism's most telling parts, its footnote, in demonstrating that Hahnemann's intent was very much to refer to substance, not to essence, in using the word substance.
Interestingly, not once, even in this footnote lengthily discussing not only energy but the inner medicinal properties released and developed by potentisation -- not once, anywhere -- does Hahnemann refer to those inner properties or to the medicine in potentised form as the medicine's "simple substance". The supposition that his few references to a particular "simple substance" is not exactly what it seems is a complete misconception and one that is easy to see through unless one has been thoroughly indoctrinated otherwise before even reading the Organon. Hahnemann's plain meaning here is not at all difficult to see if the filter of doctrine does not impede understanding.
Passages as long as this one, though, are far easier to read and digest on paper than on a screen. It's probably easier to roll one line up at a time than to face an entire screenful.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/23 >
Interestingly, not once, even in this footnote lengthily discussing not only energy but the inner medicinal properties released and developed by potentisation -- not once, anywhere -- does Hahnemann refer to those inner properties or to the medicine in potentised form as the medicine's "simple substance". The supposition that his few references to a particular "simple substance" is not exactly what it seems is a complete misconception and one that is easy to see through unless one has been thoroughly indoctrinated otherwise before even reading the Organon. Hahnemann's plain meaning here is not at all difficult to see if the filter of doctrine does not impede understanding.
Passages as long as this one, though, are far easier to read and digest on paper than on a screen. It's probably easier to roll one line up at a time than to face an entire screenful.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/23 >
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Dear Colleagues
The part para below is from footnote to aph 11
Is Hahnemann right?
Or can we say this he got it wrong because he did not know about specific micro-organisms causing specific named diseases such as smallpox?
Soroush
The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected.
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
§ 11 Sixth Edition
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 6 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 7
6 Materia peccans!
7 What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
Regards
Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
The part para below is from footnote to aph 11
Is Hahnemann right?
Or can we say this he got it wrong because he did not know about specific micro-organisms causing specific named diseases such as smallpox?
Soroush
The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected.
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of finrod@finrod.co.uk
Sent: 23 July 2009 10:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
§ 11 Sixth Edition
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 6 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 7
6 Materia peccans!
7 What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
Regards
Soroush
Treat others as you would wish to be treated.
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Isn't it a reference to susceptibility (he is using the word 'dynamic' here as well = immaterial, invisible manner) - just as we can inherit susceptibilities without 'being there' - he is writing about conceptual influence.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Dear Joy
I don't think so.
The reason being that he says that the disease is TRANSFERRED dynamically.
He is not talking about the reception of the disease by the second child which with out the susceptibility (as you correctly state) would not take place.
(Like scattering radish seeds on to a patio - only the seeds that land in the earth filled cracks between the paving blocks may have a chance of growing - the rest probably get eaten by birds.)
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 24 July 2009 10:41
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
Isn't it a reference to susceptibility (he is using the word 'dynamic' here as well = immaterial, invisible manner) - just as we can inherit susceptibilities without 'being there' - he is writing about conceptual influence.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
I don't think so.
The reason being that he says that the disease is TRANSFERRED dynamically.
He is not talking about the reception of the disease by the second child which with out the susceptibility (as you correctly state) would not take place.
(Like scattering radish seeds on to a patio - only the seeds that land in the earth filled cracks between the paving blocks may have a chance of growing - the rest probably get eaten by birds.)
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 24 July 2009 10:41
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
Isn't it a reference to susceptibility (he is using the word 'dynamic' here as well = immaterial, invisible manner) - just as we can inherit susceptibilities without 'being there' - he is writing about conceptual influence.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
In mine it uses the word 'communicates' and not 'transferred'. Maybe lost in translations then - perhaps Louise or Chris or other german speaking can help but even the word 'transferred' can have several meanings other than what you are suggesting, i.e. from air transmission.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Dear Joy
Another clue is the word DYNAMICALLY! Same as magnetism! ie no particles etc are involved but a force is transferred.
Yet we know that we always need a disease causing micro organism for things like Measles / smallpox etc
This is from http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cMxpSlos9K ... ge-a11.htm
(fn11) What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 24 July 2009 15:13
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
In mine it uses the word 'communicates' and not 'transferred'. Maybe lost in translations then - perhaps Louise or Chris or other german speaking can help but even the word 'transferred' can have several meanings other than what you are suggesting, i.e. from air transmission.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Another clue is the word DYNAMICALLY! Same as magnetism! ie no particles etc are involved but a force is transferred.
Yet we know that we always need a disease causing micro organism for things like Measles / smallpox etc
This is from http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/cMxpSlos9K ... ge-a11.htm
(fn11) What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joy Lucas
Sent: 24 July 2009 15:13
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
In mine it uses the word 'communicates' and not 'transferred'. Maybe lost in translations then - perhaps Louise or Chris or other german speaking can help but even the word 'transferred' can have several meanings other than what you are suggesting, i.e. from air transmission.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Personally, I think it's evident that you're completely correct about this: that Hahnemann did not realise that the miasma, or contagious influence, of smallpox or measles was a microorganism, though he did suggest as much elsewhere in relation to some infectious illnesses.
I'm not sure why you raised the question, though: is it of particular significance in your mind?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
Personally, I think it's evident that you're completely correct about this: that Hahnemann did not realise that the miasma, or contagious influence, of smallpox or measles was a microorganism, though he did suggest as much elsewhere in relation to some infectious illnesses.
I'm not sure why you raised the question, though: is it of particular significance in your mind?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Thank you John.
Only to show that our Master, BRILLIANT though he was, was not perfect and did not have absolute knowledge and yes he did get things wrong as a matter of fact.
Once we accept that, we need to then look at his writings with a different eye and not regard it as gospel.
Have a good w/e.
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 25 July 2009 03:49
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Personally, I think it's evident that you're completely correct about this: that Hahnemann did not realise that the miasma, or contagious influence, of smallpox or measles was a microorganism, though he did suggest as much elsewhere in relation to some infectious illnesses.
I'm not sure why you raised the question, though: is it of particular significance in your mind?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
Only to show that our Master, BRILLIANT though he was, was not perfect and did not have absolute knowledge and yes he did get things wrong as a matter of fact.
Once we accept that, we need to then look at his writings with a different eye and not regard it as gospel.
Have a good w/e.
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 25 July 2009 03:49
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Aph 11 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
Personally, I think it's evident that you're completely correct about this: that Hahnemann did not realise that the miasma, or contagious influence, of smallpox or measles was a microorganism, though he did suggest as much elsewhere in relation to some infectious illnesses.
I'm not sure why you raised the question, though: is it of particular significance in your mind?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Hi, Soroush --
I thought that that may have been your understanding of the situation.
It's never been my contention that Hahnemann must have been, or was, correct about every statement he made.
What I do contend is that it is not possible to falsify Hahnemann's intent in what he said, any more than it is possible to falsify a promise, an order, or a pronouncement of man and wife. Underlying his intent may have been various illusions, misapprehensions, or false assumptions; but the meaning he intended in using any particular term cannot be shown to be either true or false; it merely is.
To take an example close to home: you may believe in angels. I may have modern scientific evidence that what you call angels have no more independent existence than thoughts, because they are entirely the product of delirious hallucination. Yet if you state that what you mean by counting angels on the head of a pin is exactly that, then there is no way in which I can gainsay that intent by producing my scientific proof that there is no such thing as an angel.
Does that make sense to you?
Assuming that it does, let me go on a little further to say that, in similar fashion,
(1) no matter what scientific evidence there may be (as it happens, there is none and can be none -- but leaving that aside) that any mixture of two medicinal substances will become a single substance (i.e. a compound) given enough succussions and dilutions, the fact is that before that point comes, there are, in the product being so treated, two or more medicinal substances;
(2) Hahnemann's intent in using the word "substance" to indicate substantiality rather than Kent's and Sheilagh's intent in using the phrase "simple substance" to indicate insubstantiality is what is relevant to Hahnemann's meaning of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance"; and
(3) your intent in concocting the phrase "single remedy" to replace Hahnemann's "one single, simple medicinal substance" and Hahnemann's intent in using the original phrase bear no relation to each other and cannot affect each other. Your intent is yours, and it would be nonsensical to argue that your intent was wrong. Hahnemann's intent is similarly immovable: he meant what he meant, no matter how misguided Kent, Sheilagh, or you may regard his views as having been.
That being so, and given that the Duckwater Hypothesis is nothing more than your intent for the term "single remedy", which in terms of § 273 has no meaning, the Duckwater Hypothesis too has no meaning in relation to § 273. You may (and do) call any mixture a "single remedy" if you wish -- whatever you mean by that term -- but, unless you mean by it something identical to some term in Hahnemann's § 273, then it has no relevance to Hahnemann's intent in using the phrase (in order to proscribe its implementation) "more than one single, simple medicinal substance an one time".
Does that make clearer the difference between doctrine (which concerns belief independent of any perception of relationships between concepts) and understanding (which concerns exactly a perception of relationships between concepts)? Does it at least make clearer that my argument concerns not Hahnemann's correctness, which is irrelevant here, but his meaning, which is immune to attack even by Sheilagh, even by Kent, even by rigorously obtained scientific evidence?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
________________________________
I thought that that may have been your understanding of the situation.
It's never been my contention that Hahnemann must have been, or was, correct about every statement he made.
What I do contend is that it is not possible to falsify Hahnemann's intent in what he said, any more than it is possible to falsify a promise, an order, or a pronouncement of man and wife. Underlying his intent may have been various illusions, misapprehensions, or false assumptions; but the meaning he intended in using any particular term cannot be shown to be either true or false; it merely is.
To take an example close to home: you may believe in angels. I may have modern scientific evidence that what you call angels have no more independent existence than thoughts, because they are entirely the product of delirious hallucination. Yet if you state that what you mean by counting angels on the head of a pin is exactly that, then there is no way in which I can gainsay that intent by producing my scientific proof that there is no such thing as an angel.
Does that make sense to you?
Assuming that it does, let me go on a little further to say that, in similar fashion,
(1) no matter what scientific evidence there may be (as it happens, there is none and can be none -- but leaving that aside) that any mixture of two medicinal substances will become a single substance (i.e. a compound) given enough succussions and dilutions, the fact is that before that point comes, there are, in the product being so treated, two or more medicinal substances;
(2) Hahnemann's intent in using the word "substance" to indicate substantiality rather than Kent's and Sheilagh's intent in using the phrase "simple substance" to indicate insubstantiality is what is relevant to Hahnemann's meaning of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance"; and
(3) your intent in concocting the phrase "single remedy" to replace Hahnemann's "one single, simple medicinal substance" and Hahnemann's intent in using the original phrase bear no relation to each other and cannot affect each other. Your intent is yours, and it would be nonsensical to argue that your intent was wrong. Hahnemann's intent is similarly immovable: he meant what he meant, no matter how misguided Kent, Sheilagh, or you may regard his views as having been.
That being so, and given that the Duckwater Hypothesis is nothing more than your intent for the term "single remedy", which in terms of § 273 has no meaning, the Duckwater Hypothesis too has no meaning in relation to § 273. You may (and do) call any mixture a "single remedy" if you wish -- whatever you mean by that term -- but, unless you mean by it something identical to some term in Hahnemann's § 273, then it has no relevance to Hahnemann's intent in using the phrase (in order to proscribe its implementation) "more than one single, simple medicinal substance an one time".
Does that make clearer the difference between doctrine (which concerns belief independent of any perception of relationships between concepts) and understanding (which concerns exactly a perception of relationships between concepts)? Does it at least make clearer that my argument concerns not Hahnemann's correctness, which is irrelevant here, but his meaning, which is immune to attack even by Sheilagh, even by Kent, even by rigorously obtained scientific evidence?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/25 >
________________________________