Minutus

Dear Soroush,
Though you say you understand the difference, you once again confuse the compounds that Hahnemann instantiates (in § 273 footnote 159) as single simple medicinal substances (including neutral natrum salts, sulphuretted metals, and ethers produced by distillation of alcohol and acids) with the mixtures that he instantiates as too variable to consider to be single, simple substances (including acid extracts of plant alkaloids: compounds highly adulterated by admixture with the various compounds that may be used in extracting them).
Hahnemann clearly explained that he was instantiating three classes of single, simple medicinal substance. The first class is that of compounds; the second, that of elements; the third, that of entire plants. I understand that the footnote is difficult to follow if read in a hurry; but read very slowly, one sentence at a time, this intent becomes abundantly apparent.
Assuming that you would like to fully understand what Hahnemann's intent was in explaining the meaning of his terminology in that footnote, rather than to continue to interpret his intent through what somebody else tells you is acceptable in homoeopathy, it might make for easier discussion if, instead of mixing all these things together through some interpretation of "substance" as "non-substance", you deal straightforwardly with one class at a time.
In fact, you could try responding to my original "Of substance" posts to which you've promised responses before. In one of those, as I've mentioned several times, I deal with Hahnemann's use of these classes separately and give examples of them. Perhaps you could likewise discuss one class at a time and argue your case for how you come to conclude (1) that Hahnemann meant to exclude substances from those things that he called substances, (2) that Hahnemann meant to include immaterial things in those things that he called substances, (3) that Hahnemann meant to exclude chemical compounds from those things he called single, simple substances, and (4) that Hahnemann meant to include chemical mixtures amongst "single, simple substances".
This does not constitute an invitation for yet another haranguing repetition of blind doctrine, Soroush; it constitutes an invitation to engage in a process of reasoning together. I hope that the difference is apparent.
And I look forward to it. Kind regards,
John
2009/7/28 >

Dear John
Quite obviously your understanding of English and your Logic is different to mine.
Hn is quite clear and I cannot add any more to what I have already explained at length.
I think we need to agree to differ.
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 28 July 2009 18:12
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Ardavan Shahrdar
Subject: [Minutus] Argue your case
Dear Soroush,
Though you say you understand the difference, you once again confuse the compounds that Hahnemann instantiates (in § 273 footnote 159) as single simple medicinal substances (including neutral natrum salts, sulphuretted metals, and ethers produced by distillation of alcohol and acids) with the mixtures that he instantiates as too variable to consider to be single, simple substances (including acid extracts of plant alkaloids: compounds highly adulterated by admixture with the various compounds that may be used in extracting them).
Hahnemann clearly explained that he was instantiating three classes of single, simple medicinal substance. The first class is that of compounds; the second, that of elements; the third, that of entire plants. I understand that the footnote is difficult to follow if read in a hurry; but read very slowly, one sentence at a time, this intent becomes abundantly apparent.
Assuming that you would like to fully understand what Hahnemann's intent was in explaining the meaning of his terminology in that footnote, rather than to continue to interpret his intent through what somebody else tells you is acceptable in homoeopathy, it might make for easier discussion if, instead of mixing all these things together through some interpretation of "substance" as "non-substance", you deal straightforwardly with one class at a time.
In fact, you could try responding to my original "Of substance" posts to which you've promised responses before. In one of those, as I've mentioned several times, I deal with Hahnemann's use of these classes separately and give examples of them. Perhaps you could likewise discuss one class at a time and argue your case for how you come to conclude (1) that Hahnemann meant to exclude substances from those things that he called substances, (2) that Hahnemann meant to include immaterial things in those things that he called substances, (3) that Hahnemann meant to exclude chemical compounds from those things he called single, simple substances, and (4) that Hahnemann meant to include chemical mixtures amongst "single, simple substances".
This does not constitute an invitation for yet another haranguing repetition of blind doctrine, Soroush; it constitutes an invitation to engage in a process of reasoning together. I hope that the difference is apparent.
And I look forward to it. Kind regards,
John
2009/7/28 >

Dear Soroush,

Your contention has consisted of slight variations on a groundless assertion concerning how many medicinal substances may constitute something you call a "single remedy" -- a term you have yet to define except by explicitly differentiating it from "one single, simple medicinal substance". You have left this slightly variable contention unsupported by evidence or fact except:

• in the form of the very opinion you have echoed from the beginning of your interest in this conversation; and

• in the form of what some people do.

None of it has any relevance whatever to Hahnemann's meaning 200 years before they opined it or did it.

Yes, Hahnemann is clear enough in § 273, when one looks carefully and thoughtfully at the footnote to it. Until one calms down enough to do that, one will be unable to see the forest for one's own inventions. One might even try reading some of my more difficult arguments on the topic -- under the subject line "Of substance" -- which reading, if they're incorrect, will give one the best possible opportunity for showing that to be the case.

Until you have an argument in support of the contention that Hahnemann's phrases have a meaning other than the plainest possible sense of his words that I have carefully argued they must have -- yes, perhaps all you can do is agree to differ. But I find it rather sad that you remain incapable of interpreting Hahnemann's intent on his own terms despite his utmost efforts to make himself, if not plain in style, then at least unambiguous.

Kindest regards,

John
2009/7/29 >
________________________________