Minutus

Sorry - pressed send by accident - this is the full post:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vera Resnick
Date: Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
I can't agree with the idea that what one leading homeopath says is
holy writ (except perhaps Hn himself...), I think it's inappropriate
to stop debate by saying if Sheilagh Creasy says something that is the
full stop, the alpha and omega.

I'm allergic to the idea that combining substances, potentising them
and proving them creates a simple substance. But it does seem that
Hahnemann did mean that, as long as the substances involved are in
"constant combining proportions", and on the understanding that this
doesn't apply to plants. He writes in the footnote to 273 (caps are mine):

"Two substances, opposite to each other, united into neutral Natrum
and middle salts by chemical affinity in UNCHANGEABLE PROPORTIONS as
well as sulphuretted metals found in the earth and those produced BY
TECHNICAL ART in CONSTANT COMBINING PROPORTIONS of sulphur and
alkaline salts and earths, for instance (natrum sulph and calc sulph)
as well as those ethers produced by distillation of alcohol and acides
MAY TOGETHER WITH PHOSPHORUS BE CONSIDERED AS SIMPLE MEDICINAL
SUBSTANCES by the homeopathic physician and used for patients. On the
other hand, those extracts obtained by means of acids of the so-called
alkaloids of plants are exposed to a great variety in their
preparation (for instance chinin, strychnine, morphine) and CAN,
THEREFORE NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS AS SIMPLE
MEDICINES"

the idea seems to center around repeatability. If the preparation of
the combo keeps everything in exactly the same proportions, and the
substance is totally stable, it can be used. If not - it can't.
Which is the essence of the science element of H's work.

Vera
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com

Dear Vera

Sure thing that experts can get it wrong too! Hence the reason that we
have Uni professors at odds with each other.

But in Sheilagh we have a lady who has been practising homeopathy for more
than 50 years and can tell you references to Organon aphorisms as she is
talking.
[I hope my memory would be so good when I am in my 90's too - ]

We have a lot of remedies which remain in their original mother tincture or
C3 tritration formats. And this is the beauty of it that we need so little
to progress to the next level of potency that our original source materials
are carefully maintained.

As I said in an earlier email to John, it is a matter of definitions.

'Simple Substance' in homeopathy has a special meaning.

And I would encourage any one who has not read it, to read Kent's Philosophy
- Chapter 8.
(As an aside, a colleague said that if anyone wants to understand Kent's
philosophy, they should read Kent's Ch 8 before starting at his Ch 1)

We achieve a 'Simple substance' by potentisation.

So whatever mixture you start up with, if you then proceed to potentise it
and then prove it, you have added to our MM another simple substance.
As you indicate the mixing proportions should be carefully noted.

Please see at least one carcinocin remedy which is a mixture of a number
cancerous tumours.

In fn to 273 amongst other things Hn is say use the plant tincture as your
source as the purified extract eg morphine, may not be consistent from one
production to another.

Best wishes
Soroush

Hi Soroush,

Kent was greatly influenced by Swedenborg in his writings on the
simple substance. There's an interesting debate on Hpathy on this
between Julian Winston and Shirley Reichman.

I don't accept that the simple substance is obtained by potentisation.
The way I see it, Hn meant that the simple substance can also be a
combined substance which is completely stable. The potentisation
provides a way of using the substance, provings and symptom similarity
provide the understanding of the substance's curative qualities and
the rationale for using the substance in the case.

In terms of plants, as far as I understand fn to 273 H says to use the
plant itself "as he possesses, in the plants themselves, in their
natural state (Peruvian bark, nux vomica, opium) every quality
necessary for healing."

So I still come away from this with the understanding that minerals
can be deliberately combined if their combination is completely stable
and if the process is repeatable, they are still considered a simple,
single substance, can be potentised, proved and used. Plants are a
lot more iffy in combination (from their natural state) as the process
is less stable and less repeatable. I would think the same is true of
combination nosodes - which Carc were you refering to?

I find myself wondering somewhat sacrilegiously what happens if you do
a combo of plant (or any) remedies that have already been potentised,
and do a proving on that. Can that kind of combination be considered
stable? Does it count as a simple single substance? I think there has
been some discussion of this on the list, but don't remember what was
concluded.

I think very often the experts are right (the ones I agree with, of
course...) - but I believe that everyone has to come to their own
independent understanding of each issue, and it's important to debate
until that happens.

Just noticed something in the footnote 273 - maybe it's too much
nit-picking but Hn does say that the combo may "be considered as
simple medicinal substances..." he doesn't use the word "single" here.

Regards,
Vera
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com

But did you read chapter 8?

yes, and the rest of the book.
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com

What today?

As did I, Soroush, long ago. Kent's "simple substance" is no news to me. But it is not what Hahnemann meant. Set Kent's Swedenborgian views aside for a moment, set Sheilagh's beliefs about what's usable aside for a moment, and if you set out to understand what Hahnemann himself meant, you will find that -- despite his great preparedness to discuss the dynamic activity of remedies -- he makes no reference to this "simple substance" as being something dynamic. Instead, it is exactly what he said it is: substance. Only by inverting the meaning of "substance" can you arrive at a conclusion such as the one you've posited.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/23 Vera Resnick >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

May I respectfully request you re-read it.
We are now in a position that you know better than Kent and Sheilagh!
Good on you!
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 14:51
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy (rest of the post!)
As did I, Soroush, long ago. Kent's "simple substance" is no news to me. But it is not what Hahnemann meant. Set Kent's Swedenborgian views aside for a moment, set Sheilagh's beliefs about what's usable aside for a moment, and if you set out to understand what Hahnemann himself meant, you will find that -- despite his great preparedness to discuss the dynamic activity of remedies -- he makes no reference to this "simple substance" as being something dynamic. Instead, it is exactly what he said it is: substance. Only by inverting the meaning of "substance" can you arrive at a conclusion such as the one you've posited.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/23 Vera Resnick >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Kent is actually writing mostly about the vital force in Chapter 8 and specifically refers to immaterial and material substances and their function in force and the energy derived from both and how they also function within the vital force - not the same thing and not what H was referring to as regards medicines and the SSS.

He does though write some about compound and complex substances but only in the way that H was writing about in §273 and as John has explained.
Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Soroush, I'll honour that respectful request when I have a moment; but please understand that my position is that Hahnemann knew his own stuff better than Kent and Sheilagh did and do, and that Hahnemann has made his position on this matter so clear that not even you have made any attempt to refute my seven arguments to date elucidating that position.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________