Minutus

For those who seem to have a warped view of Classical (Hahnemannian ) Homeopathy, here are the main
principles:

1- Understanding the role of Vital Force

2- Understanding Susceptibility

3- Understanding Miasms (or fundamental cause)

4- Symptom Similarity

5- Provings

6- Potentisation (Dilution & Succussion)

7- Use of Single Remedy

8- Understanding Direction of Cure.

If you have any difficulty with any of the above points, please let me know - It will make a superb
vehicle for our education.

Best Regards
Soroush

(May the Lord give Sheilagh Creasy an even longer life.)

Hi Jeff,
you mean "homeopaths" (in which case there are some persons called homeopaths but are not), or "all persons registered and calling themselves homeopaths" (in which case some persons are delusional/ill-read and/or deceptive) ?
regards,
Paul

I'll bite.

I think that whereas numbers 1–3, 6, and 8 represent important criteria for good homoeopathic practice, only numbers 4, 5, and 7 represent criteria for practising homoeopathy at all.

The value of limiting discussion to 4, 5, and 7 is that their necessity to homoeopathy is unarguable.

Now, if, as perhaps you're suggesting, Soroush, it's also unarguable that a "classical" homoeopath must also incorporate 1–3, 6, and 8, then I have no argument with it. But is it unarguable? Did the coiner of that term (Vithoulkas, as I recall it) state that this was what he intended by the term? If not, then isn't the term's meaning subject to argument?

And if "classical homoeopathy" and "Hahnemannian homoeopathy" are subject to misunderstanding in good faith in a way that the simple term "homoeopathy" is not, then mightn't we get further by discarding them? Isn't it perfectly evident that a great deal of the strife on this list arises from the present use of the undefined terms "classical homoeopathy" and "Hahnemannian homoeopathy"?

If the mission of this list became, for instance, discussion and promotion of homoeopathy, and if that term, homoeopathy (and homoeopathic practice) were expected to be used in accordance with the definition that Hahnemann gave it and that appears in every significant dictionary -- I can't speak for the insignificant ones -- would it not short-circuit a lot of the circular debates that have gone on here forever?

If its mission were to include, say, discussion of matters of concern to homoeopathy, then would it not continue to invite discussion of the value of other matters without the same misunderstanding that undermine every attempt at clarification? Notice that every time somebody attempts to point out where the line is drawn between homoeopathy and something else, those practising the something else interpret the distinction as an attack. Surely obviating that discussion by using a known demarcation, the demarcation between homoeopathy and everything else, must do something to cut through that confusion.

I urge that mission change.

I made a suggestion, 33 hours ago ("Removing the linguistic confusion"), that since we all state that we agree that the terms homoeopathy, homoeopathic practice, etc., require one and only one thing -- the search for the best symptomatic mimic on the basis of known symptoms of patient and substance -- we should should be understood, on this site, to be referring to exactly that, and I asked for any objections to the proposal.

Did you notice that there were no objections?

One reply sought clarification. But there has been no objection to the idea. Doesn't that say something about its potential value in reducing the dissension that arises through misunderstanding? If the mission of the site were expressed in defined terms instead of terms that there will always be various ways to interpret, such as "classical homoeopathy" or "Hahnemannian homoeopathy", then surely that could only reduce the misunderstandings that very obviously arise presently largely due to differing interpretations of these terms?

Nobody here disagrees with what homoeopathy means, even when invited to. Doubtless some would like the term to include methods that don't entail knowledge and comparison; but who can argue with Hahnemann's meaning of it? And none are arguing so far. Nobody here could object, I think, to a term such as "matters of concern to homoeopathy", which may include everything from maintaining causes and good and poor practice to potency to treatment methods with commonalities with homoeopathic treatment (such as use of polypharmacy with intent to invoke a specifically envisaged kind of primary action, regardless of whether the vision is realistic).

Then, at last, discussion of the value of some of those practices (such as polypharmacy) that presently appear to homoeopaths to be little better than child's play with adult toys can be conducted without motivation for belligerence either by their practitioners in seeking some kind of incorporation as some kind of homoeopathy or by homoeopaths seeking to keep the demarcation lines visible. Discussion could actually focus on what value these practices may have and which of them could, and under what circumstances, usefully complement homoeopathic practice.

Kind regards,

John

Jeff, I am asking what you mean. Because your statement that all homeopaths understand points 1 to 8 and practice these points is false. This is not just in my part of the world. This is a world wide occurrence and hey, look at this list. If you think any homeopath who is ok with prescribing combo's is in touch with points 1 to 8, then I guess we need to agree to disagree.
There are homeopaths (persons registered as homeopaths) who think using combo's is totally homeopathic in practice. These are the people I believe are delusional/ ill-read or deceptive. You want to take offence, then tell me why.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who honestly acknowledges points 1 to 8 and understands these points (and this is not difficult - the Organon is very clear) - they may be called homeopaths. Anyone else should find another name to call themselves. So in a way I have a problem with using the term "Classical Homeopath" because one is forced to do so to differentiate oneself from those who have hijacked the title homeopath when it is false in their case. There should be Homeopaths and then there should be all the rest doing whatever and using a new title. "Combination Therapist" "Polydoctor" "Integrated medicine therapist". And they should have their own theory and history to stand on, not the Organon.
Some practioners are qualified and registered as homeopaths, but are not homeopaths, they don't practice homeopathy.
Regards,
Paul

Paul,
There is no way I am getting into a pointless discussion.
I know Homeopaths who have given mouth-to-mouth resustication
which is not mentioned in the Organon...so? They are still Homeopaths
and doctors.
Jeff
Have you visited http://www.jeffspage.com as yet?
Visit it - you'll have a pleasant time

Are you delusional? On the one hand you say you are not getting into a "pointless" discussion" but "you" keep posting on this thread.
And now you are simply being some kind of mentally disabled, childish devils advocate. Why? Are the questions Paul asked to difficult? Why not just answer them?
Your analogy of "resuscitation" is at a minimum inane and idiotic.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "J tikari" wrote:

Jeff
I am at a loss to understand your stance!
But tell me - were these guys who were giving mouth-to-mouth resus practising Homeopathy or CPR?
I think the subject of the discussion was the practise of homeopathy so why such a question?
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J tikari
Sent: 09 December 2010 13:51
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Classical Homeopathy
Paul,

There is no way I am getting into a pointless discussion.

I know Homeopaths who have given mouth-to-mouth resustication

which is not mentioned in the Organon...so? They are still Homeopaths

and doctors.
Jeff
Have you visited http://www.jeffspage.com as yet?
Visit it - you'll have a pleasant time

Hi Jeff,
That is an absurd argument. Paramedics give mouth to mouth and CPR. That does not make them homeopaths. First aid is not contra-indicated by Organon at all.
refer footnote 1 to aph 7:

1 It is not necessary to say that every intelligent physician would first remove this where it exists; the indisposition thereupon generally ceases spontaneously. He will remove from the room strong-smelling flowers, which have a tendency to cause syncope and hysterical sufferings; extract from the cornea the foreign body that excites inflammation of the eye; loosen the over-tight bandage on a wounded limb that threatens to cause mortification, and apply a more suitable one; lay bare and put ligature on the wounded artery that produces fainting; endeavour to promote the expulsion by vomiting of belladonna berries etc., that may have been swallowed; extract foreign substances that may have got into the orifices of the body (the nose, gullet, ears, urethra, rectum, vagina); crush the vesical calculus; open the imperforate anus of the newborn infant, etc.

I think that is quite clear. What I am questioning, is the therapeutic application of a medicinal substance to affect the VF and in so doing remove the inner disease state. That is homeopathy and I firmly state that this can not be done by combination remedy. Combination remedies act on the local manifestation of pathology and are not homeopathic to the inner disease state. So, a cold and flu remedy can give relief and the person may get over the acute manifestation, but their inner state remains and will manifest again, if not in the same way, then on a deeper level.

Paul

As I said before, homeopathy progresses with time; it doesn't remain static. What HS gave us was guidelines to its implementation - which is just as important today as it was back then. To ignore everything SH wrote as being outdated is absolutely ludicrous. We learn from him and Hering. If you know your history, Hering was sent in by the Dutch Government I believe to find fault with SH's writings. However, he agreed with the writings and could not disprove them in any way. He gave up a very good job in those days to stand by his findings. Today, such a person would fabricate the findings!
What we have got today they didn't have back then is technology, which can confirm or deny a doctor's diagnosis. No doubt, SH would have made good use of that and homeopathy would have progressed further - as it is today - but his guidelines would still have remained in use. As David Little puts it, they are the checks and balances to protect the patient from aggravations. A good article to read in detail is David Little's "Crisis in Classical and Contemporary Thought. What is Classical Homeopathy?" http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... rticle.php
So, Dr Jeff, you've quoted an incident where you dispute Hering's observations. I have read cases where it confirms them. However, nothing is 100% and there will always be exceptions to the rules.
Regards
Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.homoeopathyclassical.com