Minutus

Dear Soroush,
If what you mean (by "What is being disputed in the origin or the Nature of the remedies and terminology") is that you dispute Hahnemann's terminology, I have yet to see anything from you except a contention, repeated many times but never with reason or relevance, that many substances become a single remedy upon potentisation. This disputes no term that Hahnemann used or I used before you attempted to replace that term, single simple medicinal substance, with the undefined term "single remedy".
If you wish to leave the term single remedy meaningless, that's your prerogative, but try explaining to somebody exactly what is not a single remedy, and perhaps you'll begin to see the vacuity of the meaning you suppose it to have.
In any case, what you mean by "single remedy" doesn't appear to be relevant to what Hahnemann means in the phrase "one single, simple medicinal substance". If you can see some connection that you can justify with reasoning rather than merely through admitted repetitions of groundless irrelevant assertions, it would be refreshing to read those reasons.
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/28 >
________________________________
________________________________

Dear John
I did my best to give you the logic of my understanding of what Hn has written.
I have double checked with Sheilagh Creasy once more today and she confirms my understanding to be correct.
If these do not satisfy you, then I am at a loss as to what to do - other than to accept that one cannot win them all!
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 28 July 2009 17:55
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ardavan Shahrdar
Subject: [Minutus] What dispute over terminology?
Dear Soroush,
If what you mean (by "What is being disputed in the origin or the Nature of the remedies and terminology") is that you dispute Hahnemann's terminology, I have yet to see anything from you except a contention, repeated many times but never with reason or relevance, that many substances become a single remedy upon potentisation. This disputes no term that Hahnemann used or I used before you attempted to replace that term, single simple medicinal substance, with the undefined term "single remedy".
If you wish to leave the term single remedy meaningless, that's your prerogative, but try explaining to somebody exactly what is not a single remedy, and perhaps you'll begin to see the vacuity of the meaning you suppose it to have.
In any case, what you mean by "single remedy" doesn't appear to be relevant to what Hahnemann means in the phrase "one single, simple medicinal substance". If you can see some connection that you can justify with reasoning rather than merely through admitted repetitions of groundless irrelevant assertions, it would be refreshing to read those reasons.
Kind regards,
John
2009/7/28 >
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Dear Soroush,

I accept that you are genuinely perplexed over the apparent conflict between what you perceive to be the truth concerning what may go to make up a "single remedy" and what you accept that Hahnemann specifically excluded from use by homoeopathic physicians in the preparation of a medicine for homoeopathic use, which is to say, the use at one time of more than one single, simple medicinal substance.

My point was that, since you have clearly stated that you are not, in wielding the term "single remedy", referring to a medicine for homoeopathic use, there is no conflict, and it's as simple as that.

If you should change your mind and wish to assert, after all, that Hahnemann's exclusion from the use, in any medicine for homoeopathic prescription, of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" is overridden by Sheilagh Casey's opinion that one may after all use such mixtures given that they have received a proving, then you will be attempting to challenge upon a basis of fact a definition, which by its nature is not amenable to such a challenge. (I have mentioned more than once before the examples of promises, orders, and the wedding of a man and a woman, which are insusceptible to factual challenge, and pointed out that, just so, the act of defining something is also.) Therefore in that case too there is no conflict.

Conflict between what I have argued Hahnemann means by one single, simple medicinal substance and your contention that a "single remedy" may contain mixtures could arise only if:

(a) you stated what you mean by a "single remedy";

(b) you showed your contention's relevance to my arguments concerning Hahnemann's meaning, by demonstrating a relationship between your definition of "single remedy" and the definition that I argue Hahnemann has clearly given to "one single, simple medicinal substance";

(c) you presented your contention not merely as received truth and not as relevant merely to some possible practice that homoeopaths have putatively engaged in between homoeopathy and lunch, but rather as the conclusion of an argument concerning Hahnemann's intent in defining his term "single, simple medicinal substance".

Doing such a thing, though, would require a little reading and a little thought, rather than a little consultation with Sheilagh.

The problem you face is not whether Sheilagh is right or Hahnemann is right. Sheilagh may be right or wrong; nobody will know till combinations have been tested, as a class of "stuff", for the patterns of their effects on the healthy and on the sick, as thoroughly as single, simple substances have been. Whilst Sheilagh can be wrong in imagining that mixtures have effects as controllable and predictable as the effects of any single medicine, Hahnemann cannot be wrong in stating what he considers to be a single, simple medicinal substance, which is to say, he cannot be wrong in performing the act of defining the term.

No, the problem you face is different from such a conflict of assertions, and it is twofold: (1) that you cannot at once disclaim any relationship between Sheilagh's undefined "single remedy" and Hahnemann's single, simple substance and at the same time suggest that Sheilagh's "single remedy" is what Hahnemann meant by his term; and (2) that you cannot argue that Hahnemann's definition should be interpreted on the basis of any putatively factual matters concerning Sheilagh's "single remedy" (once that term is defined), because a definition is an action rather than a factual assertion.

Once you understand that the possibility that Sheilagh be eventually proven correct is irrelevant to Hahnemann's meaning, your entire problem becomes a moot point.

Let me forewarn you that, should you decide that you wish to challenge my arguments as to Hahnemann's plain meaning, you will also have to overcome a further piece of evidence that you have significantly omitted from every misstatement you've so far made of "one single, simple medicinal substance" -- and that further piece of evidence consists of Hahnemann's comma.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Dear John
I am not at all perplexed! To my perhaps simple mind, the position is extremely clear - I have written at length about it.
If it is not acceptable to you - then it shows my inability to explain it to you properly.
However, if you are once again implying that I am suggesting - or that Sheilagh Creasy has ever suggested that one should use more than a 'simple medicinal substance, then I suggest you check what has been written. It will also be the start of conflict between us as you would be mis-representing both myself and Sheilagh. You can say anything about me, about I will protect the good name of Sheilagh with all of my might.
You have plainly failed to understand or even contemplate the TERM single substance.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 July 2009 05:57
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ardavan Shahrdar
Subject: Re: [Minutus] What dispute over terminology?
Dear Soroush,

I accept that you are genuinely perplexed over the apparent conflict between what you perceive to be the truth concerning what may go to make up a "single remedy" and what you accept that Hahnemann specifically excluded from use by homoeopathic physicians in the preparation of a medicine for homoeopathic use, which is to say, the use at one time of more than one single, simple medicinal substance.

My point was that, since you have clearly stated that you are not, in wielding the term "single remedy", referring to a medicine for homoeopathic use, there is no conflict, and it's as simple as that.

If you should change your mind and wish to assert, after all, that Hahnemann's exclusion from the use, in any medicine for homoeopathic prescription, of "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" is overridden by Sheilagh Casey's opinion that one may after all use such mixtures given that they have received a proving, then you will be attempting to challenge upon a basis of fact a definition, which by its nature is not amenable to such a challenge. (I have mentioned more than once before the examples of promises, orders, and the wedding of a man and a woman, which are insusceptible to factual challenge, and pointed out that, just so, the act of defining something is also.) Therefore in that case too there is no conflict.

Conflict between what I have argued Hahnemann means by one single, simple medicinal substance and your contention that a "single remedy" may contain mixtures could arise only if:

(a) you stated what you mean by a "single remedy";

(b) you showed your contention's relevance to my arguments concerning Hahnemann's meaning, by demonstrating a relationship between your definition of "single remedy" and the definition that I argue Hahnemann has clearly given to "one single, simple medicinal substance";

(c) you presented your contention not merely as received truth and not as relevant merely to some possible practice that homoeopaths have putatively engaged in between homoeopathy and lunch, but rather as the conclusion of an argument concerning Hahnemann's intent in defining his term "single, simple medicinal substance".

Doing such a thing, though, would require a little reading and a little thought, rather than a little consultation with Sheilagh.

The problem you face is not whether Sheilagh is right or Hahnemann is right. Sheilagh may be right or wrong; nobody will know till combinations have been tested, as a class of "stuff", for the patterns of their effects on the healthy and on the sick, as thoroughly as single, simple substances have been. Whilst Sheilagh can be wrong in imagining that mixtures have effects as controllable and predictable as the effects of any single medicine, Hahnemann cannot be wrong in stating what he considers to be a single, simple medicinal substance, which is to say, he cannot be wrong in performing the act of defining the term.

No, the problem you face is different from such a conflict of assertions, and it is twofold: (1) that you cannot at once disclaim any relationship between Sheilagh's undefined "single remedy" and Hahnemann's single, simple substance and at the same time suggest that Sheilagh's "single remedy" is what Hahnemann meant by his term; and (2) that you cannot argue that Hahnemann's definition should be interpreted on the basis of any putatively factual matters concerning Sheilagh's "single remedy" (once that term is defined), because a definition is an action rather than a factual assertion.

Once you understand that the possibility that Sheilagh be eventually proven correct is irrelevant to Hahnemann's meaning, your entire problem becomes a moot point.

Let me forewarn you that, should you decide that you wish to challenge my arguments as to Hahnemann's plain meaning, you will also have to overcome a further piece of evidence that you have significantly omitted from every misstatement you've so far made of "one single, simple medicinal substance" -- and that further piece of evidence consists of Hahnemann's comma.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

To arbitrate I don't think either of you are questioning the dreadful use of combination remedies, i.e. when more than one potentised substance has been mixed with another or more to make a new 'rx' - (that is the first part of §273). And then § 274 continues to explain more about the single simple remedy. All clear enough really. Liz and Rochelle take note! As I see it is the footnote of §273 that is causing the most confusion as many of us are not chemists

Clearly there are many remedies that are mixtures (not combinations as above) before they even become potentised and their use is questionable, as per the footnote of §273. These are not the same things at all. You may be working at cross purposes here but John has explained thoroughly. Forget the misrepresentation as there isn't any - we are just trying to get to grips with a few words of meaning of that footnote.
Joy

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

Dear Soroush,

Joy is correct: I don't think that at any point I imagined that you were promoting the use of combinations of potencies as falling within Hahnemann's meaning of single, simple medicinal substance.

You have, however, stated as though it were indisputable fact that a mixture of substances becomes a single "remedy" upon potentisation, with the suggestion (given the context) that this is relevant to Hahnemann's use of the term single, simple medicinal substance.

You're trying to have it both ways because you refuse to face one stark fact: that Sheilagh's doctrine concerning the acceptability of mixtures is at odds with Hahnemann's exclusion of such mixtures from use in homoeopathy. Your allegiance to Sheilagh clearly taking precedence over your wish to understand the difference between a mixture and a chemical compound, you repeatedly conflate the two chemical concepts as one and the same thing in order to justify this metaphysical fiction of "simple substance", or essence. This view is as though two bodies mashed together sufficiently well share a single soul with a new identity. The fiction rather obtusely overlooks, however, that in mixtures the separate "essences" (their chemical and dynamic properties being the relevant "essences" here) do not combine to form a new essence, a new set of chemical and dynamic properties (as in the combination of elements and groups into compounds), but retain their own properties -- which do, however, interact in unpredictable ways, a phenomenon not found in a single, simple medicinal substances as Hahnemann has defined it.

The mixtures of potencies that you keep raising are a trivial distraction from the more important distinction to be drawn. So are the undefined "single remedies" that you persistently state result from your mixtures once potentised. The subject is not your so-called single remedies but Hahnemann's meaning in the term single, simple medicinal substance. If you wish to discuss the other matters any further, please do so under their own topic, where you can deny as many times as you like your support for "combos" and nobody will gainsay you. Otherwise, you contribute only to further confusion on this topic.

Kind regards,

John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

Firstly John
Explain Sheilagh's doctrine concerning the acceptability of mixtures
Where did you get it from?
The we will progress.
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 29 July 2009 15:07
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] What dispute over terminology?
Dear Soroush,

Joy is correct: I don't think that at any point I imagined that you were promoting the use of combinations of potencies as falling within Hahnemann's meaning of single, simple medicinal substance.

You have, however, stated as though it were indisputable fact that a mixture of substances becomes a single "remedy" upon potentisation, with the suggestion (given the context) that this is relevant to Hahnemann's use of the term single, simple medicinal substance.

You're trying to have it both ways because you refuse to face one stark fact: that Sheilagh's doctrine concerning the acceptability of mixtures is at odds with Hahnemann's exclusion of such mixtures from use in homoeopathy. Your allegiance to Sheilagh clearly taking precedence over your wish to understand the difference between a mixture and a chemical compound, you repeatedly conflate the two chemical concepts as one and the same thing in order to justify this metaphysical fiction of "simple substance", or essence. This view is as though two bodies mashed together sufficiently well share a single soul with a new identity. The fiction rather obtusely overlooks, however, that in mixtures the separate "essences" (their chemical and dynamic properties being the relevant "essences" here) do not combine to form a new essence, a new set of chemical and dynamic properties (as in the combination of elements and groups into compounds), but retain their own properties -- which do, however, interact in unpredictable ways, a phenomenon not found in a single, simple medicinal substances as Hahnemann has defined it.

The mixtures of potencies that you keep raising are a trivial distraction from the more important distinction to be drawn. So are the undefined "single remedies" that you persistently state result from your mixtures once potentised. The subject is not your so-called single remedies but Hahnemann's meaning in the term single, simple medicinal substance. If you wish to discuss the other matters any further, please do so under their own topic, where you can deny as many times as you like your support for "combos" and nobody will gainsay you. Otherwise, you contribute only to further confusion on this topic.

Kind regards,

John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Dear Soroush,
And you say you are not perplexed.

I was of course referring to the doctrine that you say comes from Sheilagh, that you have been relying upon, that you have raised in discussion of Hahnemann's intent in precluding from use in homoeopathy "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" (§ 273), and that you say makes any mixture useable as a homoeopathic medicine once potentised: the doctrine that
"If you mix a few substances and then potentise the mixture, it then becomes a single remedy (ala Causticum)";
"SC said so long as any 'combination based' was properly proved, then it could be used";
"It is God's gift to Humanity that ANY substance or mixture of substances can be potentised, proved and used via homeopathy to cure";
"What ever hodgepodge it may, it cannot be worst that a lake's water, with the fish poo and bird dropping etc ... When potentised it make a homeopathic simple/single substance";
"anything and from any source, when potentised will be able to cause disease in the healthy. These are each a single remedy. If it does so, it will cure a similar set of symptoms in unhealthy person";
"the lake water is regarded as a single remedy and it has all sorts in it";
"one starts with whatever substance or product that one would wish to make a remedy out of, for whatever reason";
"The use of potentised substances, is NOT homeopathy! The use of proved potentised substances IS";
"Sheilagh very kindly rang this afternoon to confirm that my stance was correct with emphasis on proving. That the key is proving - if it has been proved, then it can be employed";
"Any potentised remedy can be regarded as Single Simple Substance";
"A Single Simple Medicinal (SSM) (homeopathic) substance = A potentised substance which has been proved - ie we know about it properties...
"By more that a SSM Hn means Combo remedies - ie the mixture of more than one POTENTISED remedies. Which we all agree is a No No as its properties are unknown...
"Sheilagh Creasy is the BASTION of Hahnemannian Homeopathy - what she does not know about, it is not worth writing about";
"So long as it is potentised as one, it forms a SINGLE SIMPLE SUBSTANCE";
""...the term SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE means any material that has been potentised";
"I repeat that after proving, any such substance is a SINGLE, SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE. (SSMS) ... Let me add this also - taking one of the lake water remedies in question which will contain many compounds: organic (from many vegetation and animal sources; micro organisms) and inorganic - clearly a mixture of substances, potentising this, will make an SSMS".
This is the doctrine about which you stated,
"What I wrote to you about when a remedy becomes Homeopathic is from Sheilagh Creasy."
Now, I'm beginning to doubt that even this will make sufficiently plain to you the difference between doctrine -- as in the doctrine you continue to espouse concerning what "is accepted" (by Sheilagh) -- and the question of what Hahnemann meant by a phrase.
Although the context of its lone appearance in the Organon made the phrase's meaning clear enough, you assume that you have carte blanche to reinterpret the meaning of the word substance simply because Kent and Sheilagh have pounced on the phrase one "single, simple medicinal substance" -- one, a number that you can count, as you can count individual oats -- and wrongly linked it to another esoteric phrase, "simple [not necessarily medicinal!] substance", expressed as a non-count noun -- one you cannot count, as you can't count porridge -- a phrase having no connection with homoeopathy and never relied upon by Hahnemann in explaining his meaning of one single, simple medicinal substance.
In answer to all of the evidence-based arguments that you have read here -- arguments demonstrating that Hahnemann actually meant exactly the words that he wrote concerning not using, at one time, more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- you have fallen back, every single time, on two things:
(1) misquotations from § 273 of the Organon, as in "Single Simple Substance", "Simple Single Substance", and "simple substance" (need I offer more of them?); and
(2) unadulterated doctrine -- unsubstantiated, almost religiously held beliefs that serve to stop thought.
Think, Soroush. Put aside whatever you believe to be good to believe because it comes from "experts" and "masters", and ask yourself whether there may be reason to doubt its truth. The reason I've asked you so many questions, almost all of which you have deftly managed to avoid answering, is not that I don't think you can answer them if you try; it is that they are questions that lead one naturally to explore, to test one's own beliefs, to think, and to draw conclusions with some merit.
You might begin with what I've said above and the challenge below that you've again avoided responding to. Or you might begin with any of the arguments put under "Of substance". You might begin by facing up to why you have consistently (though in various ways) misquoted Hahnemann's exact phrase, "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", and why you have avoided answering responsively all questions concerning that phrase. Your difficulty with the phase as Hahnemann used it and as he well explained it in his footnote from the word "simple", if you care to stop and analyse it, will tell you all that you need to know: the phrase itself, and even more powerfully in context with its footnote, undermines your "simple substance" doctrinal beliefs so utterly and expressly that you are unable to suit it to those beliefs.
When evidence is in conflict with hypothesis, the religious or doctrinal solution is often to ditch the evidence: ignore it, twist it, distract from it, set up a straw man. You have show your skill in all of those things. When questions threaten to tear a flimsy gossamer of beliefs, the religious or doctrinal solution is often to ignore them, twist them, distract from them, set up a straw man. Again, your skills in doing so are beyond reproach. But for ideation, hypothesis, and questioning to be able to serve the pursuit of the truth necessitates a different priority: that you be prepared to cast your beliefs behind you and forge on in pursuit of the facts. (To forge the facts, forge the questions asked, and forge the arguments you oppose is not at all the same thing!) Your utter certainty that Sheilagh's factual declarations are worth something is the very thing stopping you from asking, answering, or pursuing any meaningful question that appears to threaten those declarations. Hahnemann himself could not want and would not ask for such devotion; the basis of his entire invention, the art that is Similia similibus curentur, was not untested ideas such as you propose we accept on faith (mixtures becoming single "simple substance"? Give us a break) but systematic, reproducible, rigorous scientific experimentation and observation, and only on that basis did he dare conclude that Similia similibus curantur.
The fairy tales that Irene and evidently Sheilagh are prepared to offer to oppose Hahnemann's clear and declared stance concerning all polypharmacy (which in his day probably didn't even include anything as fiendish as combinations of potencies anyway) have not yet earned the respect of any thinking person.
Kind regards,
John
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________

John
Please stop this!
You are showing an absolute knack of understanding something completely incorrectly because of your mindset and then misrepresenting the case.
For the FINAL record:
1- Neither Sheilagh Creasy or myself approve of COMBINATION REMEDIES.
For the removal of all doubts in your or any one else who may read these pages:
Combinations remedies (Combos) are mixtures of already potentised substances. For example as in Jeff's case Aloe and Bell.
2- Anything potentised as one entity - irrespective of the source - being sea water, lake water, from my aquarium, mixtures of tumours, etc etc etc - form a SINGLE SIMPLE MEDICINAL COMPOUND.
This is a dynamic state - it is not physical - and that is the case for you to understand.
I trust you will not misrepresent any one on Minutus in future.
Best wishes
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 30 July 2009 04:04
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] What dispute over terminology?
Dear Soroush,
And you say you are not perplexed.

I was of course referring to the doctrine that you say comes from Sheilagh, that you have been relying upon, that you have raised in discussion of Hahnemann's intent in precluding from use in homoeopathy "more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time" (§ 273), and that you say makes any mixture useable as a homoeopathic medicine once potentised: the doctrine that
"If you mix a few substances and then potentise the mixture, it then becomes a single remedy (ala Causticum)";
"SC said so long as any 'combination based' was properly proved, then it could be used";
"It is God's gift to Humanity that ANY substance or mixture of substances can be potentised, proved and used via homeopathy to cure";
"What ever hodgepodge it may, it cannot be worst that a lake's water, with the fish poo and bird dropping etc ... When potentised it make a homeopathic simple/single substance";
"anything and from any source, when potentised will be able to cause disease in the healthy. These are each a single remedy. If it does so, it will cure a similar set of symptoms in unhealthy person";
"the lake water is regarded as a single remedy and it has all sorts in it";
"one starts with whatever substance or product that one would wish to make a remedy out of, for whatever reason";
"The use of potentised substances, is NOT homeopathy! The use of proved potentised substances IS";
"Sheilagh very kindly rang this afternoon to confirm that my stance was correct with emphasis on proving. That the key is proving - if it has been proved, then it can be employed";
"Any potentised remedy can be regarded as Single Simple Substance";
"A Single Simple Medicinal (SSM) (homeopathic) substance = A potentised substance which has been proved - ie we know about it properties...
"By more that a SSM Hn means Combo remedies - ie the mixture of more than one POTENTISED remedies. Which we all agree is a No No as its properties are unknown...
"Sheilagh Creasy is the BASTION of Hahnemannian Homeopathy - what she does not know about, it is not worth writing about";
"So long as it is potentised as one, it forms a SINGLE SIMPLE SUBSTANCE";
""...the term SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE means any material that has been potentised";
"I repeat that after proving, any such substance is a SINGLE, SIMPLE MEDICINAL SUBSTANCE. (SSMS) ... Let me add this also - taking one of the lake water remedies in question which will contain many compounds: organic (from many vegetation and animal sources; micro organisms) and inorganic - clearly a mixture of substances, potentising this, will make an SSMS".
This is the doctrine about which you stated,
"What I wrote to you about when a remedy becomes Homeopathic is from Sheilagh Creasy."
Now, I'm beginning to doubt that even this will make sufficiently plain to you the difference between doctrine -- as in the doctrine you continue to espouse concerning what "is accepted" (by Sheilagh) -- and the question of what Hahnemann meant by a phrase.
Although the context of its lone appearance in the Organon made the phrase's meaning clear enough, you assume that you have carte blanche to reinterpret the meaning of the word substance simply because Kent and Sheilagh have pounced on the phrase one "single, simple medicinal substance" -- one, a number that you can count, as you can count individual oats -- and wrongly linked it to another esoteric phrase, "simple [not necessarily medicinal!] substance", expressed as a non-count noun -- one you cannot count, as you can't count porridge -- a phrase having no connection with homoeopathy and never relied upon by Hahnemann in explaining his meaning of one single, simple medicinal substance.
In answer to all of the evidence-based arguments that you have read here -- arguments demonstrating that Hahnemann actually meant exactly the words that he wrote concerning not using, at one time, more than one single, simple medicinal substance -- you have fallen back, every single time, on two things:
(1) misquotations from § 273 of the Organon, as in "Single Simple Substance", "Simple Single Substance", and "simple substance" (need I offer more of them?); and
(2) unadulterated doctrine -- unsubstantiated, almost religiously held beliefs that serve to stop thought.
Think, Soroush. Put aside whatever you believe to be good to believe because it comes from "experts" and "masters", and ask yourself whether there may be reason to doubt its truth. The reason I've asked you so many questions, almost all of which you have deftly managed to avoid answering, is not that I don't think you can answer them if you try; it is that they are questions that lead one naturally to explore, to test one's own beliefs, to think, and to draw conclusions with some merit.
You might begin with what I've said above and the challenge below that you've again avoided responding to. Or you might begin with any of the arguments put under "Of substance". You might begin by facing up to why you have consistently (though in various ways) misquoted Hahnemann's exact phrase, "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", and why you have avoided answering responsively all questions concerning that phrase. Your difficulty with the phase as Hahnemann used it and as he well explained it in his footnote from the word "simple", if you care to stop and analyse it, will tell you all that you need to know: the phrase itself, and even more powerfully in context with its footnote, undermines your "simple substance" doctrinal beliefs so utterly and expressly that you are unable to suit it to those beliefs.
When evidence is in conflict with hypothesis, the religious or doctrinal solution is often to ditch the evidence: ignore it, twist it, distract from it, set up a straw man. You have show your skill in all of those things. When questions threaten to tear a flimsy gossamer of beliefs, the religious or doctrinal solution is often to ignore them, twist them, distract from them, set up a straw man. Again, your skills in doing so are beyond reproach. But for ideation, hypothesis, and questioning to be able to serve the pursuit of the truth necessitates a different priority: that you be prepared to cast your beliefs behind you and forge on in pursuit of the facts. (To forge the facts, forge the questions asked, and forge the arguments you oppose is not at all the same thing!) Your utter certainty that Sheilagh's factual declarations are worth something is the very thing stopping you from asking, answering, or pursuing any meaningful question that appears to threaten those declarations. Hahnemann himself could not want and would not ask for such devotion; the basis of his entire invention, the art that is Similia similibus curentur, was not untested ideas such as you propose we accept on faith (mixtures becoming single "simple substance"? Give us a break) but systematic, reproducible, rigorous scientific experimentation and observation, and only on that basis did he dare conclude that Similia similibus curantur.
The fairy tales that Irene and evidently Sheilagh are prepared to offer to oppose Hahnemann's clear and declared stance concerning all polypharmacy (which in his day probably didn't even include anything as fiendish as combinations of potencies anyway) have not yet earned the respect of any thinking person.
Kind regards,
John
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"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)

Dear Soroush,

How many times now have I reassured you that I do not understand you to be including combinations of potentised substances as one of Hahnemann's single simple medicinal substances or even as one of your "single remedies"?
In my last message but one in this very thread (see below), I said:

"Joy is correct: I don't think that at any point I imagined that you were promoting the use of combinations of potencies as falling within Hahnemann's meaning of single, simple medicinal substance."
In my "combinations and exact remedy preparations" post of 1:57 p.m. GMT, 29 Jul 09, in answer to this same accusation by you, I said:
"You're completely right: the use of one or more remedies at a time was never under discussion. The quotes I cited were about use of one or more medicinal substances, a term with meaning. The distinction of combination remedies from other mixtures is a relatively trivial one in that light."
In my "Perhaps simple just means simple." post of 5:15 p.m. GMT, 28 Jul 09, I wrote:
"Would you please show us the part of the Organon or any other writing of Hahnemann's (not of Sheilagh's!) that would lead us without unduly convoluted reversals of ordinary meaning to your conclusion that when Hahnemann said 'more than one single, simple substance' he meant only mixtures of potentised medicinal substances?"
You have twice responded to that very message as though it were suggesting that you were including, rather than excluding alone, mixtures of potentised medicinal substances in Hahnemann's definition of single, simple substance, demanding to know why I suggest that you say such a thing. In response to both demands, I quoted and asked you to answer the question given above.
In my "Single Simple Remedy" post of 1:24 p.m. GMT, 23 Jul 09, I said:
"If there is any reasonably rational way to counter all the evidence I've yet presented (or any of it) in favour of the commonsense interpretation of 'one single, simple medicinal substance' (i.e. of substantial medicines, only one may be used!), or if there is any evidence for the interpretation that Hahnemann did not mean, by 'more than one single, simple medicinal substance', more than one substance but only more than one insubstantial medicine, I'd be most interested to hear it!"
In my "Simple Substance" post of 1:15 p.m. GMT, 11 Jul 09, I said:

"So your suggestion is that what Hahnemann means by more than one single, simple medicinal substance is only a mixture of potentised substances, excluding all other mixtures."
I don't know how many more ways I can find to acknowledge that you take Hahnemann's meaning, in "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", to include any mixture of potentised substances.
When I ask you for evidence that he did not also mean to include in that term any (potentised or unpotentised) mixture of unpotentised substances, you immediately accuse me of suggesting that he excludes the first group from that set of medicines.

Having just looked over our correspondence and seen how many times you have demanded reassurance on this point, I'm drawn to conclude that indeed you are not at all understanding what I write, which may also explain why you have answered nearly none of my questions to you.

So let me draw this particular point out a little, in order to forestall yet another emotive outburst echoing Irene's "misrepresentation" stratagem.

And, since I am doing this because of your patent inability to take my meaning from denser language, I'd appreciate no carping about length as I draw this out for your readier comprehension.
Hahnemann had certain things to say for decades about polypharmacy. In § 273, the way he went about saying one of them was that the homoeopathic physician will use no more than one of a certain class of things.
To simplify this enough for you to see what I'm saying, let's just call that class "legit medicines".
Now, you have hinted and stated many, many times that Hahnemann excluded from a "legit medicine" any mixture of potentised substances.
So far so good.
But you have also stated often that he did not mean to exclude from a "legit medicine" any mixture, as long as it is later potentised, of unpotentised substances -- and you have attempted to justify this on the basis that once it is potentised, such a mixture of unpotentised substances "becomes a single remedy" -- though without saying what you mean by that term and why it should matter.
To look at this another way: you would include in the phrase "more than one legit medicine" any mixture of potentised substances; but you would exclude from that same phrase any potency of a mixture of unpotentised substances.
If I've lost you at this point, please reread the last two paragraphs slowly, and draw Venn diagrams, and all will, with any luck, become clear.
Now, I have asked you many times what evidence you have that Hahnemann intended to exclude from "more than one legit medicine" all potencies of mixtures.
And that is where the discussion has stalled, as time and again you have misinterpreted the question as entailing an inverted assumption: the assumption that, according to you, Hahnemann would exclude mixtures of potencies from his meaning in "more than one legit medicine".
You have even raised this bizarre accusation in relation to posts that could not possibly be interpreted as supporting it, as in the message you have just now failed once again to respond to.
Let me say it once more, clearly:
I understand that you agree that Hahnemann would regard (if he'd ever heard of them) as "more than one legit medicine" any mixture of potencies. My question is what evidence you have that he does not also regard as "more than one legit medicine" any potencies of mixtures.
And now will you please answer responsively?
Looking forward to it --
John
2009/7/30 >
________________________________
________________________________