Introduction - Part 2
These metamorphoses are not changes
to be mysteriously discovered. You can clearly notice the change in idea through the initial articles of Hahnemann and different versions of Organon and Chronic Diseases. In the introduction to the last version of Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann clearly confesses of the incompetence of simillimum principle if selected according to totality of patient in chronic diseases. He names the simple act of choosing a remedy according to the crude totality of patient's symptoms, 'General Homeopathy'; which he says can be disappointing in many cases.
It is not just the meaning behind the 'simillimum' that is changed. The principles of posology are dramatically changed. The diluted potentized solution which is how homeopathy is primarily introduced by many homeopaths, were not present at the birth time of homeopathy. The Hahnemann's idea of theory of infection is clearly changed when we compare his pre-homeopathic articles on venereal diseases and when he talks of them in his book, Chronic Diseases. Many things were changed.
I cannot say that Hahnemann was a pure empiricist but you can see major signs of empiricism in the path his experiments went through. Considering the context of Hahnemann's time, it is normal to find a truth seeker being affected simultaneously by empiricism, rationalism and mystical occultism. But Hahnemann was trying to focus more on empirical data in his mission to improve and transcend the science of homeopathy.
I am not devaluating rationalism or mystical occultism. I cannot even talk about absolute empiricism, as the same aforementioned dualistic problem with its counterpart, rationalism, exists. But any space demands its own mode of focus. Dress mode of homeopathy is empricism not extreme rationalism. I do believe that empricism without rarionalism cannot form theories but in science, empricism's duty is data work and rationalism's duty is forming theories. Just observing the pure data and valuing them leads to no practical knowledge. You will later see through the book that the above mentioned point has made great deviations from the path to truth in the history of homeopathy.
....to be continued.
Sent from my iPhone
Introduction - Part 2
Re: Introduction - Part 2
That's Okay, but do you think what similimum is understood as off today is not right? The way, the homeopaths prescribe the medicines to the patient is not a correct way? If so, we are eager to know what your understanding is. How should we take the case and how should be the remedy selected. The tools (homeopathic software) which we have today are worthy to use or not? Kindly advise. Many thanks for your kind inputs.
Shakir
Introduction - Part 2
These metamorphoses are not changes
to be mysteriously discovered. You can clearly notice the change in idea through the initial articles of Hahnemann and different versions of Organon and Chronic Diseases. In the introduction to the last version of Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann clearly confesses of the incompetence of simillimum principle if selected according to totality of patient in chronic diseases. He names the simple act of choosing a remedy according to the crude totality of patient's symptoms, 'General Homeopathy'; which he says can be disappointing in many cases.
It is not just the meaning behind the 'simillimum' that is changed. The principles of posology are dramatically changed. The diluted potentized solution which is how homeopathy is primarily introduced by many homeopaths, were not present at the birth time of homeopathy. The Hahnemann's idea of theory of infection is clearly changed when we compare his pre-homeopathic articles on venereal diseases and when he talks of them in his book, Chronic Diseases. Many things were changed.
I cannot say that Hahnemann was a pure empiricist but you can see major signs of empiricism in the path his experiments went through. Considering the context of Hahnemann's time, it is normal to find a truth seeker being affected simultaneously by empiricism, rationalism and mystical occultism. But Hahnemann was trying to focus more on empirical data in his mission to improve and transcend the science of homeopathy.
I am not devaluating rationalism or mystical occultism. I cannot even talk about absolute empiricism, as the same aforementioned dualistic problem with its counterpart, rationalism, exists. But any space demands its own mode of focus. Dress mode of homeopathy is empricism not extreme rationalism. I do believe that empricism without rarionalism cannot form theories but in science, empricism's duty is data work and rationalism's duty is forming theories. Just observing the pure data and valuing them leads to no practical knowledge. You will later see through the book that the above mentioned point has made great deviations from the path to truth in the history of homeopathy.
....to be continued.
Sent from my iPhone
Shakir
Introduction - Part 2
These metamorphoses are not changes
to be mysteriously discovered. You can clearly notice the change in idea through the initial articles of Hahnemann and different versions of Organon and Chronic Diseases. In the introduction to the last version of Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann clearly confesses of the incompetence of simillimum principle if selected according to totality of patient in chronic diseases. He names the simple act of choosing a remedy according to the crude totality of patient's symptoms, 'General Homeopathy'; which he says can be disappointing in many cases.
It is not just the meaning behind the 'simillimum' that is changed. The principles of posology are dramatically changed. The diluted potentized solution which is how homeopathy is primarily introduced by many homeopaths, were not present at the birth time of homeopathy. The Hahnemann's idea of theory of infection is clearly changed when we compare his pre-homeopathic articles on venereal diseases and when he talks of them in his book, Chronic Diseases. Many things were changed.
I cannot say that Hahnemann was a pure empiricist but you can see major signs of empiricism in the path his experiments went through. Considering the context of Hahnemann's time, it is normal to find a truth seeker being affected simultaneously by empiricism, rationalism and mystical occultism. But Hahnemann was trying to focus more on empirical data in his mission to improve and transcend the science of homeopathy.
I am not devaluating rationalism or mystical occultism. I cannot even talk about absolute empiricism, as the same aforementioned dualistic problem with its counterpart, rationalism, exists. But any space demands its own mode of focus. Dress mode of homeopathy is empricism not extreme rationalism. I do believe that empricism without rarionalism cannot form theories but in science, empricism's duty is data work and rationalism's duty is forming theories. Just observing the pure data and valuing them leads to no practical knowledge. You will later see through the book that the above mentioned point has made great deviations from the path to truth in the history of homeopathy.
....to be continued.
Sent from my iPhone
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
The current ways of using miasms only make sense to me if the use is very limited.
Jeremy Sherr said in a lecture that I heard recently that Miasm are not useful for selecting a remedy. They are used to for prognosis and based on the prognosis to access the progress of the case after the first prescription. As an example of a prognostic use of miasms, Farokh Master says that if a case moves from sycotic or syphilitic symptoms, to Psoric symptoms, then the direction of cure is good. Unfortunately, he can cite no authoritative reference for deciding which symptoms belong to which miasms. I think his idea is there is a basic though vague rule of thumb that can guide us. See below.
Sherr is limiting the use of miasmatic groups for a good pragmatic reason.
This limitation makes practical sense because I know of no definitive authority assigning any remedy exclusively to a single miasm. If we are unsure of the membership of remedies to miasm categories, how could the miasms guide us in our choice of remedies? The typical way of describing a miasm is to say that xx remedy is the poster child (typical representative) of that miasm. Fortunately, remedies that are similar to the poster children of each miasm also have individual characteristics. So Calc-c has tumors in 3rd grade but it not supposed to be sycotic. I thought the excess growth of cells was characteristic of the sycotic miasm. Confirming this observation, if you look at any carefully constructed listing of remedies separated into miasmatic groups, you will always find many cross overs between groups. This happens because the principles for dividing up groups are unclear.
Obviously homeopaths wish for methods to help them in choosing and confirming remedies. ? So something is wrong here ?
Here is an example of one reason for a lack of criterion. In the CD, we are given only 3 miasms. How could potentially 3000 remedies (and actually a infinite number of remedies) be divided into only 3 categories? On what empirical basis do we assume the stability of groups over time?
I personally see no empirical justification for the groups assigned in the CD. Modern authors love to proclaim their miasmatic groups, but on what principle? That principle needs to be clarified.
I am guessing that the basic notion that epidemic or infectious diseases are the clearest groups that humans must adapt to in order to survive could be defended as a purely biological subject. (Or course, the worst enemy of humans is other humans and even within our own mind/bodies. But, that is being ignored here because self destruction is not an immune system problem. It is a cultural and spiritual problem. )
We know that pathogens such as viruses are continually adapting to new immune system ecologies. The immune system of current human organism have adjusted to pathogens in the same way. For example, any terrible epidemic that happened even 20 years ago no longer happens today. Why? In my opinion, because we have adapted to one another. The adaption could not even be totally genetic for humans since we reproduce slowly compared to pathogens. Each organism adapts to other around it. (I can't separate pathogens from humans because we are all mutually dependent immune systems. We are as dependent on microorganisms as much as they are dependent on us.) As a consequence, no organism's immune system is exactly the same as it ways during the time that the CD was written.
We need a system that will adjust to a continually evolving immune system ecology if we are to have a valid way of using miasms to choose remedies. We need criterion for claiming that miasm groups are based on at least empirical evidence.
I believe we can use our limited rationality to formulate such principles.
? Ellen
Jeremy Sherr said in a lecture that I heard recently that Miasm are not useful for selecting a remedy. They are used to for prognosis and based on the prognosis to access the progress of the case after the first prescription. As an example of a prognostic use of miasms, Farokh Master says that if a case moves from sycotic or syphilitic symptoms, to Psoric symptoms, then the direction of cure is good. Unfortunately, he can cite no authoritative reference for deciding which symptoms belong to which miasms. I think his idea is there is a basic though vague rule of thumb that can guide us. See below.
Sherr is limiting the use of miasmatic groups for a good pragmatic reason.
This limitation makes practical sense because I know of no definitive authority assigning any remedy exclusively to a single miasm. If we are unsure of the membership of remedies to miasm categories, how could the miasms guide us in our choice of remedies? The typical way of describing a miasm is to say that xx remedy is the poster child (typical representative) of that miasm. Fortunately, remedies that are similar to the poster children of each miasm also have individual characteristics. So Calc-c has tumors in 3rd grade but it not supposed to be sycotic. I thought the excess growth of cells was characteristic of the sycotic miasm. Confirming this observation, if you look at any carefully constructed listing of remedies separated into miasmatic groups, you will always find many cross overs between groups. This happens because the principles for dividing up groups are unclear.
Obviously homeopaths wish for methods to help them in choosing and confirming remedies. ? So something is wrong here ?
Here is an example of one reason for a lack of criterion. In the CD, we are given only 3 miasms. How could potentially 3000 remedies (and actually a infinite number of remedies) be divided into only 3 categories? On what empirical basis do we assume the stability of groups over time?
I personally see no empirical justification for the groups assigned in the CD. Modern authors love to proclaim their miasmatic groups, but on what principle? That principle needs to be clarified.
I am guessing that the basic notion that epidemic or infectious diseases are the clearest groups that humans must adapt to in order to survive could be defended as a purely biological subject. (Or course, the worst enemy of humans is other humans and even within our own mind/bodies. But, that is being ignored here because self destruction is not an immune system problem. It is a cultural and spiritual problem. )
We know that pathogens such as viruses are continually adapting to new immune system ecologies. The immune system of current human organism have adjusted to pathogens in the same way. For example, any terrible epidemic that happened even 20 years ago no longer happens today. Why? In my opinion, because we have adapted to one another. The adaption could not even be totally genetic for humans since we reproduce slowly compared to pathogens. Each organism adapts to other around it. (I can't separate pathogens from humans because we are all mutually dependent immune systems. We are as dependent on microorganisms as much as they are dependent on us.) As a consequence, no organism's immune system is exactly the same as it ways during the time that the CD was written.
We need a system that will adjust to a continually evolving immune system ecology if we are to have a valid way of using miasms to choose remedies. We need criterion for claiming that miasm groups are based on at least empirical evidence.
I believe we can use our limited rationality to formulate such principles.
? Ellen
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
I fully agree.
In fact I have reclassified the notion of miasms into "Acquired", "Ancestral" and "Metabolic" and attempted to remove the use of the word miasm itself, but will probably not be accepted as it is so entrenched in the homeopathic parlance.
Details in "Third Millennium Homeopathy" and in a future more detailed publication (but do not hold your breath, we are talking a few years away...).
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
In fact I have reclassified the notion of miasms into "Acquired", "Ancestral" and "Metabolic" and attempted to remove the use of the word miasm itself, but will probably not be accepted as it is so entrenched in the homeopathic parlance.
Details in "Third Millennium Homeopathy" and in a future more detailed publication (but do not hold your breath, we are talking a few years away...).
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
Hi Dr. Roz,
Wishing you the best so you can get that book out.
Like your words. Ancestoral, metabolic, and acquired. They are descriptions of what we see as the results of something that is bigger than a random cause as a source of stress. As concepts can they be applied to what we see in the clinic?
But, I am asking how the traditional concept with it’s basic assumption that that problem is infectious disease is or is not relevant to the practical problems of homeopathy. Is what we know about infectious disease relevant as a primary source of stress leading to disease tendencies.
Best,
Ellen
Wishing you the best so you can get that book out.
Like your words. Ancestoral, metabolic, and acquired. They are descriptions of what we see as the results of something that is bigger than a random cause as a source of stress. As concepts can they be applied to what we see in the clinic?
But, I am asking how the traditional concept with it’s basic assumption that that problem is infectious disease is or is not relevant to the practical problems of homeopathy. Is what we know about infectious disease relevant as a primary source of stress leading to disease tendencies.
Best,
Ellen
Re: Introduction - Part 2
We are still in dark as per you both Ellen/Joe said. We don't know the reason of diseases as yet." Miasms are the reason?", some are acquired, some ancestral, some are metabolic, some are infectious, reactive and so on. How do we classify them? On the other hand so many remedies??? really confused. Modern medicine at least go behind the end products by searching for viruses, bacteria through lab tests, x-rays and other means. What we......?
Shakir
Hi Dr. Roz,
Wishing you the best so you can get that book out.
Like your words. Ancestoral, metabolic, and acquired. They are descriptions of what we see as the results of something that is bigger than a random cause as a source of stress. As concepts can they be applied to what we see in the clinic?
But, I am asking how the traditional concept with it’s basic assumption that that problem is infectious disease is or is not relevant to the practical problems of homeopathy. Is what we know about infectious disease relevant as a primary source of stress leading to disease tendencies.
Best,
Ellen
Shakir
Hi Dr. Roz,
Wishing you the best so you can get that book out.
Like your words. Ancestoral, metabolic, and acquired. They are descriptions of what we see as the results of something that is bigger than a random cause as a source of stress. As concepts can they be applied to what we see in the clinic?
But, I am asking how the traditional concept with it’s basic assumption that that problem is infectious disease is or is not relevant to the practical problems of homeopathy. Is what we know about infectious disease relevant as a primary source of stress leading to disease tendencies.
Best,
Ellen
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
We take the term "infectious" as "originating from bacterial, viral or parasitic infections", but infection has the original meaning of "something that comes from the outside and affects us": infectious thoughts are not bacterial, infectious laughter, infectious anger at XYZ.
To me that is the origin of what was called "miasms": famine is a miasm, war is a miasm (PTSD the obvious "miasmatic" disease), pollution is a miasm, etc,...
See what I mean?
Homeopaths seem to have a quasi religious respect for what H and the ancient ones wrote by the knowledge of their time; this does not make their discoveries less grandiose, but we should not be paralysed by fear in bringing those concepts to today's understanding.
It is called evolution as opposed to stagnation.
OK???
Joe, on his way to the Australian conference and hoping NOT to read any emails for almost a week....detox!!!!!!!!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
To me that is the origin of what was called "miasms": famine is a miasm, war is a miasm (PTSD the obvious "miasmatic" disease), pollution is a miasm, etc,...
See what I mean?
Homeopaths seem to have a quasi religious respect for what H and the ancient ones wrote by the knowledge of their time; this does not make their discoveries less grandiose, but we should not be paralysed by fear in bringing those concepts to today's understanding.
It is called evolution as opposed to stagnation.
OK???
Joe, on his way to the Australian conference and hoping NOT to read any emails for almost a week....detox!!!!!!!!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
I do not see where the confusion is.
Let's take it backwards: you have the flu; the symptoms of the flu come from the action/reaction of the immune system when encountering a specific virus; those symptoms are there because we have not been able to neutralise the virus before it triggered the immune system.
Conventional medicine stops at virus. Natural medicine goes to "where did we go wrong, why and how do we correct it?"
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
Let's take it backwards: you have the flu; the symptoms of the flu come from the action/reaction of the immune system when encountering a specific virus; those symptoms are there because we have not been able to neutralise the virus before it triggered the immune system.
Conventional medicine stops at virus. Natural medicine goes to "where did we go wrong, why and how do we correct it?"
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 2
The classical miasms were broadly assigned the following characteristics:
Psora : Under-function
Syc : Over-function
Syph : Destructive
A good visual example of Hn’s disease theory that you have to be affected by Psora to be affected by the others is very well demonstrated by a bath tub.
Imagine water is flowing into the bath and all of a sudden the plug falls and blocks the drain. The plug-hole is now under-functioning.
As water level rises in the bath, it eventually reaches the overflow hole and water starts to go out of the overflow. This system should normally be dry. But now water is going through it – so it is over-functioning.
If the water level rises still, then it will go over the edge of the bath and destruction starts.
==
Those who are familiar with Dr Shahrdar’s work on Repertorium Virosum would know that each virus is able to produce its own ‘miasm’ and have remedies associated with it.
Rgds
Soroush
Rgds
Soroush
Psora : Under-function
Syc : Over-function
Syph : Destructive
A good visual example of Hn’s disease theory that you have to be affected by Psora to be affected by the others is very well demonstrated by a bath tub.
Imagine water is flowing into the bath and all of a sudden the plug falls and blocks the drain. The plug-hole is now under-functioning.
As water level rises in the bath, it eventually reaches the overflow hole and water starts to go out of the overflow. This system should normally be dry. But now water is going through it – so it is over-functioning.
If the water level rises still, then it will go over the edge of the bath and destruction starts.
==
Those who are familiar with Dr Shahrdar’s work on Repertorium Virosum would know that each virus is able to produce its own ‘miasm’ and have remedies associated with it.
Rgds
Soroush
Rgds
Soroush
Re: Introduction - Part 2
Dear Joe,
You have joined Minutus Homeopathy Group but are not seen for the last many days. We would like you to join us and take part in continued discussion. Thank you if you could spare time for the purpose.
My Best,
Shakir Mahmood
I fully agree.
In fact I have reclassified the notion of miasms into "Acquired", "Ancestral" and "Metabolic" and attempted to remove the use of the word miasm itself, but will probably not be accepted as it is so entrenched in the homeopathic parlance.
Details in "Third Millennium Homeopathy" and in a future more detailed publication (but do not hold your breath, we are talking a few years away...).
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
You have joined Minutus Homeopathy Group but are not seen for the last many days. We would like you to join us and take part in continued discussion. Thank you if you could spare time for the purpose.
My Best,
Shakir Mahmood
I fully agree.
In fact I have reclassified the notion of miasms into "Acquired", "Ancestral" and "Metabolic" and attempted to remove the use of the word miasm itself, but will probably not be accepted as it is so entrenched in the homeopathic parlance.
Details in "Third Millennium Homeopathy" and in a future more detailed publication (but do not hold your breath, we are talking a few years away...).
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz