Minutus

This is not a trick question.

I understand that if I eat a little arsenic that does not kill me but makes me miserable as hell, that someone with those very same symptoms can be cured by taking a minuscule amount of arsenic. That is the like cures like rule. I understand and appreciate that.

But what happens if someone is given a potentized version of say peaches, which are basically good for a person, organic figs or carrots?

I will try to answer this, since it is not good to depend upon others for all of one's thinking. But I hope that one of you-all will answer whether I am right or wrong, and if wrong please tell me what is right.

There is no derangement of the physical from eating peaches, assuming no allergies and no getting fat from eating them and no addiction and no bad things, just enjoying peaches. So a potentized version at 30C would have no affect upon the person's inner vital force.

I am not sure that we can understand all this logically, but it seems to me that the BFR are positively good and do affect the inner vital force. So a potentized version of a BFR might, theoretically, be bad for a person, unlike peaches which do not really impact the inner vital force. I may be over thinking this. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: freelynn@optonline.net
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:02:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Brassica napus oleifera / was proving of cabbage
Hi ,

the following is not Napa Cabbage but the name has Napa in it
Brassica napus oleifera (Brass)

Brassica campestris subsp. napus
Cole Seed, Rape Seed, Wild Corn Kale.

knowledge of the pathogenetic effects of Brassica napus is derived from the experience of the Irish famine, during which the people ate it freely.
Dropsical swellings, scorbutic mouth, voracious appetite, tympanitic abdomen, blotches like burns, dropping off of nails, and gangrene.
All the symptoms of impoverished blood appear, such as growth of downy, colorless hair.

Best.
Lynn
-------------------------------------
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

Dear Roger
Large amounts of anything are poisonous - including water!

Small - medium amounts have food value - e.g. you example of peaches or even arsenic which is needed by the body for some of its functions.

Tiny amounts have medicinal power.
Medically inert substances can be processed to produce medicinal substance with power to derange the vital force during provings - for example Silica which is silicon oxide or Lycopodium.
So in effect any material can be homeopathically prepared (diluted and succussed) and then proved.
Another example to chamomile tea which people take to calm their nerves and heart. When taken to excess, it produces anxiety and heart palpitations.
So yes - your peaches could be made into a homeopathic remedy.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
Sent: 29 July 2013 22:34
To: Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Peaches
This is not a trick question.

I understand that if I eat a little arsenic that does not kill me but makes me miserable as hell, that someone with those very same symptoms can be cured by taking a minuscule amount of arsenic. That is the like cures like rule. I understand and appreciate that.

But what happens if someone is given a potentized version of say peaches, which are basically good for a person, organic figs or carrots?

I will try to answer this, since it is not good to depend upon others for all of one's thinking. But I hope that one of you-all will answer whether I am right or wrong, and if wrong please tell me what is right.

There is no derangement of the physical from eating peaches, assuming no allergies and no getting fat from eating them and no addiction and no bad things, just enjoying peaches. So a potentized version at 30C would have no affect upon the person's inner vital force.

I am not sure that we can understand all this logically, but it seems to me that the BFR are positively good and do affect the inner vital force. So a potentized version of a BFR might, theoretically, be bad for a person, unlike peaches which do not really impact the inner vital force. I may be over thinking this. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: freelynn@optonline.net
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:02:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Brassica napus oleifera / was proving of cabbage

Hi ,

the following is not Napa Cabbage but the name has Napa in it

Brassica napus oleifera (Brass)

Brassica campestris subsp. napus
Cole Seed, Rape Seed, Wild Corn Kale.

knowledge of the pathogenetic effects of Brassica napus is derived from the experience of the Irish famine, during which the people ate it freely.
Dropsical swellings, scorbutic mouth, voracious appetite, tympanitic abdomen, blotches like burns, dropping off of nails, and gangrene.
All the symptoms of impoverished blood appear, such as growth of downy, colorless hair.

Best.
Lynn
-------------------------------------
From: Lynn Cremona

Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:55 PM

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Minutus] proving of cabbage
Hello Christine,

The remedy is Brassica oleracea (Brass. o., Brass ol. or Bra. ole.)
Cabbage

Made from the whole plant

Synthesis
External Throat - Goitre (1) Brass-O.
Female Genitalia/Sex - Menses - Copious (1) Brass-O.

Murphy
Repertory version 3
Eyes - Exophthalmus (1) brass-o.
Eyes - Protrusion, eyes (1) brass-o.
Glands - thyroid, gland, general - goitre, thyroid (1) brass-o.
Mind - Aloof, reserved (1) brass-o.
DeGroote
Dream Repertory
MIND - Delusions - ill-used, being (1) brass-o.

I don't know of any Provings

Best,
Lynn
Lynn Cremona

Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:55 PM

Hello Christine,

The remedy is Brassica oleracea (Brass. o., Brass ol. or Bra. ole.)
Cabbage

Made from the whole plant

Synthesis
External Throat - Goitre (1) Brass-O.
Female Genitalia/Sex - Menses - Copious (1) Brass-O.

Murphy
Repertory version 3
Eyes - Exophthalmus (1) brass-o.
Eyes - Protrusion, eyes (1) brass-o.
Glands - thyroid, gland, general - goitre, thyroid (1) brass-o.
Mind - Aloof, reserved (1) brass-o.
DeGroote
Dream Repertory
MIND - Delusions - ill-used, being (1) brass-o.

I don't know of any Provings

Best,
Lynn
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

It's an interesting question! What's the likelihood that potentized peaches would be *medicinal* (to anyone)?
Would be fun to see!

Roger, FWIW, we do have provings, and apparently useful remedies, made from such things as lettuce, parsley, milks of various animals including human…
________________________________
________________________________

Sorry I missed this, in the changes of subject.
To add another thought to it: there are of course substances that are neither “good” (nutritious) nor “bad” (pathogenetic) to humans in their crude form that we are nevertheless able to use as homoeopathic medicines. (I use this term not in the loose sense that any potentised single, simple substance is sometimes known as a “homoeopathic medicine”, but in the more useful sense of a medicine whose pathogenesis is most similar to the symptoms of the patient to whom it is given: a medicine with a homoeopathic relationship to its recipient.)
Probably the readiest sure example to hand is that of pure silicaceous sand: silicon dioxide. Swallowed by the handful, it has no health effect beyond that of any cubic crystalline substance, the potential to cause mild abrasions. In potency, it is a cause of so many symptoms that we regard it, after Hahnemann, as a polychrest.
It is because its potentisation allows its dynamic nature to emerge that Silicea has a pathogenesis at all; and it is due to that same dynamic nature that its homoeopathic prescription results in curative action.
This dynamic nature of a medicine is distinct from the “good” effects we see in foods; and what makes it utterly distinct is that rather than fulfilling nutritional requirements, it has the capability of dynamically deranging a dynamically balanced state of health. It enjoys the same capability of deranging a dynamically unbalanced state. And it is only through the similarity between the two -- between the dynamic derangement that a medicine can predictably cause, and the derangement pre-existing in the recipient -- that a medicine (1) is correctly prescribed homoeopathically and (2) operates curatively.
Peaches fall into that class, which Shannon has exemplified nicely, of substances that can both act (in everyday doses) nutritionally and act (in attenuated doses) dynamically. In fact, there’s no substance that I’m aware of -- aside perhaps from pure water uninfused with pre-existing dynamic influences -- that does not, once sufficiently potentised, attain a dynamic capability of deranging health. But if anybody can think of some, it would be of interest.
Cheers --
John
________________________________
________________________________

Hi Roger,
I like your question.
Lots of remedies are made from essential nutrients. Of course, too much salt would be poisonous ect. Seemingly non-toxic plants, animal milks also. I think the point is, in potency, the new remedy has to produce pathological (not necessarily toxic) reactions. How do you know you should potentize it and prove it? I see new provings of very toxic things, but how do they find the non-toxic remedies? Herbalists use many non-toxic herbs. So herbal record are helpful. Animal milks attract provers just by the "personality" of the animal. I heard of a homeopath who had turkey potentized because he had an incurable patient who walked like a turkey. Sounds weird to me, but apparently his new remedy worked because he was bragging about it.
Best,
Ellen

There are as many reasons for doing a proving as there are provers.
I recall Jeremy Scherr saying he chose scorpion because of their
prevalence in the Isreali desert and the frequency with which people
got stung by them. Other poisons get selected for proving for similar
reason. They are prevalent in the culture and problems may arise with
them. Or they may just be a common thing. Melissa Assilem did a
workshop proving of apple when she came to the Big Apple to teach.
It just felt culturally appropriate. Given the number of natural things
in the world there is not bottom to the list of possibility. But even
drugs get proven and they are far from natural—just common and
health threatening.
t
From: Ellen Madono
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:42 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Peaches

Hi Roger,
I like your question.
Lots of remedies are made from essential nutrients. Of course, too much salt would be poisonous ect. Seemingly non-toxic plants, animal milks also. I think the point is, in potency, the new remedy has to produce pathological (not necessarily toxic) reactions. How do you know you should potentize it and prove it? I see new provings of very toxic things, but how do they find the non-toxic remedies? Herbalists use many non-toxic herbs. So herbal record are helpful. Animal milks attract provers just by the "personality" of the animal. I heard of a homeopath who had turkey potentized because he had an incurable patient who walked like a turkey. Sounds weird to me, but apparently his new remedy worked because he was bragging about it.
Best,
Ellen

Hi Tamara,

I am dissapointed if this is really what we should expect from serious choices for proving. But then I was born yesterday.

BEst,
Ellen

Why be disappointed. This process is most reasonable—people chosing
things from their own environment or that they stumble across. Janet
Snowden did the Dream Remedy proving based on an herbal cure given to
her by a Sangoma in S. Africa that had an interesting impact on her. She
didn’t even know what the tree was that the substance came from—and
maybe it still hasn’t been identified.
Scholten was unusual in his methodical way of dealing with the Table of
Elements. But this was after so many elements had undergone provings
and a systematic pattern could be observed.
Sankaran is trying to duplicate the process in a similar way with plants, kind
of like a reverse engineering.
Neumann started doing some provings of desert flowers, the region she was
living in. She was already familiar with the herbal use of some of them.
I think the list could go on.
t
From: Ellen Madono
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:39 PM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Peaches

Hi Tamara,
I am dissapointed if this is really what we should expect from serious choices for proving. But then I was born yesterday.
BEst,
Ellen

Hi Tamara,

Some of your examples suggest what I would expect. There is a reasonable set of information leading to investigation. I don't know much about dream provings but have had very good experiences (unrelated to homeopathy) with information that has been given through the heavens etc, so no reason to put them down. But, the very source (dream proving) suggests that less reasonable basis would be required. Has something to do with the frame of mind of the prover. Maybe??

I personally am the more resonable type. But, I would like to be more open to less reasonable sources. I am saying this as what I see as a personal weakness (and a strength in the reasonable area). Typically I seek out these experiences outside homeopathy. Because in homeopathy, so much is available leading to reasonable conclusions, I am a little confused as to why one would seek out the less reasonable intuitive route. Unless, as I suspect, there is some plus alpha to that approach too. Not sure how this would work out in the area of provings.

Best,
Ellen

I think you have a misunderstanding about the dream remedy.
Janet was given an herbal drink which produced intense healing dreams.
She brought some of the herb back to England and did a proving of it.
Not knowing what the tree was that the remedy came from she called it
the Dream remedy. There was nothing speculative about it. It is listed in
the materia medica as the Dream remedy.
Life gives us gifts in many ways and doesn’t always name them.
t
From: Ellen Madono
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 6:43 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Peaches

Hi Tamara,
Some of your examples suggest what I would expect. There is a reasonable set of information leading to investigation. I don't know much about dream provings but have had very good experiences (unrelated to homeopathy) with information that has been given through the heavens etc, so no reason to put them down. But, the very source (dream proving) suggests that less reasonable basis would be required. Has something to do with the frame of mind of the prover. Maybe??
I personally am the more resonable type. But, I would like to be more open to less reasonable sources. I am saying this as what I see as a personal weakness (and a strength in the reasonable area). Typically I seek out these experiences outside homeopathy. Because in homeopathy, so much is available leading to reasonable conclusions, I am a little confused as to why one would seek out the less reasonable intuitive route. Unless, as I suspect, there is some plus alpha to that approach too. Not sure how this would work out in the area of provings.
Best,
Ellen