Introduction - Part 3
Although many things are changed in Hahnemann's path toward perfection of homeopathy, there are things that were never changed; his courage to ask the truth of existing statements which were considered to be absolutely axiomatic; his growing emphasis on empirical data; his reliance on practical outcomes and not mere imaginary theoretical speculations. Although nowadays no one who studies science denies these features but unfortunately there is a huge gap between verbal mottoes and what is actually being done.
This gap is clearly apparent in today's homeopathy; the way it is introduced and practiced. We do not have any coherent materia medicas. Materia medicas are actually an eclectic mixture of proving symptoms, indirect data from cured patients, psychoanalytical speculations, doctrine of signatures, family of remedies' features, concomitant clinical features, ...... . I know that it is so hard to work with primary proving symptoms but difficulties in handling this complexity should not lead to easy stories just for the sake of a shortcut fake clarity. All I can say about our materia medicas is that they all suffer from different levels of impurity and eclecticism far from the pure provings.
Principles of case analysis, posology and all of the features of homeopathy all suffer from this kind of incoherence. Now, isn't it the time for revaluation of our beliefs, theoretical speculations and personal preferences and again improve homeopathy the way it was itself born? Isn't it the time for being real unprejudiced scientists and become free of the epistemological dualistic dogmas and freely embrace the fresh empirical data while keeping the robust basic rational concepts of homeopathy?
The time has come!
Copyright - Dr. Ardavan Shahrdar 2016
Sent from my iPhone
Introduction - Part 3
Re: Introduction - Part 3
Thanks again!
But where from this fresh empirical data will come? We are ready to embrace it though.
Shakir
Introduction - Part 3
Although many things are changed in Hahnemann's path toward perfection of homeopathy, there are things that were never changed; his courage to ask the truth of existing statements which were considered to be absolutely axiomatic; his growing emphasis on empirical data; his reliance on practical outcomes and not mere imaginary theoretical speculations. Although nowadays no one who studies science denies these features but unfortunately there is a huge gap between verbal mottoes and what is actually being done.
This gap is clearly apparent in today's homeopathy; the way it is introduced and practiced. We do not have any coherent materia medicas. Materia medicas are actually an eclectic mixture of proving symptoms, indirect data from cured patients, psychoanalytical speculations, doctrine of signatures, family of remedies' features, concomitant clinical features, ...... . I know that it is so hard to work with primary proving symptoms but difficulties in handling this complexity should not lead to easy stories just for the sake of a shortcut fake clarity. All I can say about our materia medicas is that they all suffer from different levels of impurity and eclecticism far from the pure provings.
Principles of case analysis, posology and all of the features of homeopathy all suffer from this kind of incoherence. Now, isn't it the time for revaluation of our beliefs, theoretical speculations and personal preferences and again improve homeopathy the way it was itself born? Isn't it the time for being real unprejudiced scientists and become free of the epistemological dualistic dogmas and freely embrace the fresh empirical data while keeping the robust basic rational concepts of homeopathy?
The time has come!
Copyright - Dr. Ardavan Shahrdar 2016
Sent from my iPhone
But where from this fresh empirical data will come? We are ready to embrace it though.
Shakir
Introduction - Part 3
Although many things are changed in Hahnemann's path toward perfection of homeopathy, there are things that were never changed; his courage to ask the truth of existing statements which were considered to be absolutely axiomatic; his growing emphasis on empirical data; his reliance on practical outcomes and not mere imaginary theoretical speculations. Although nowadays no one who studies science denies these features but unfortunately there is a huge gap between verbal mottoes and what is actually being done.
This gap is clearly apparent in today's homeopathy; the way it is introduced and practiced. We do not have any coherent materia medicas. Materia medicas are actually an eclectic mixture of proving symptoms, indirect data from cured patients, psychoanalytical speculations, doctrine of signatures, family of remedies' features, concomitant clinical features, ...... . I know that it is so hard to work with primary proving symptoms but difficulties in handling this complexity should not lead to easy stories just for the sake of a shortcut fake clarity. All I can say about our materia medicas is that they all suffer from different levels of impurity and eclecticism far from the pure provings.
Principles of case analysis, posology and all of the features of homeopathy all suffer from this kind of incoherence. Now, isn't it the time for revaluation of our beliefs, theoretical speculations and personal preferences and again improve homeopathy the way it was itself born? Isn't it the time for being real unprejudiced scientists and become free of the epistemological dualistic dogmas and freely embrace the fresh empirical data while keeping the robust basic rational concepts of homeopathy?
The time has come!
Copyright - Dr. Ardavan Shahrdar 2016
Sent from my iPhone
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 3
Hi,
The beauty of an empirical system is it can define the categories without our interference. The categories may change over time as a fact of nature, not because of cultural or ideological change.
Pretend that I am a carpenter and I am trying to design a three legged stool. Any help would be appreciated.
1. In homeopathy, we have proving symptoms produced from specific remedies. If a set of symptoms are the same as those produced by any specific disease, then we use those symptoms to identify the curative remedy.
As Dr. Roz says, the phenomena of war might be famine. But there are other symptoms too and it gets a confusing. We have much more narrowly defined notions of what happen when an organism is exposed to a specific pathogens. Even more narrowly, when a specific type of organism is exposed to a specific pathogen for the first time characteristic disease patterns emerge empirically. In allopathy, this becomes a disease name or category.
In homeopathy, we don't get stuck on a miasm/disease name. But, it is hard to ignore infectious diseases that produce such uniform results in a large population. So, we do pay attention to allopathic facts as well. Allopathy also tries to be empirical about it’s disease names, but it lacks a system to prove their medicine. I see no reason to ignore all of their information especially in the case of infectious disease.
Dr. Roz, I argue that it is easier to work with the results of pathogens than the much more complex results of war. So, we are talking about practicality and not a purely abstract definitions of miasm. The more practical problem is "how is this information useful to a homeopath? Is there a way to organize it so that we can use it?"
2. Without investing in "fake clarity" (Love that ?), among homeopaths, there maybe a lack of agreement on theoretical issues, but I do get the impression that there is more agreement about broad facts about well known remedies concerning tissues that they will affect, personality/body types that they affect, and characteristic symptoms. I think we can safely use this information despite Dr. Shadar's caveats. Good judgment is required, but that holds in any setting. This may seem like the same as 1. above, but
the emphasis is on how these remedies are used in the clinic, and not provings per se. Perhaps general ideas such as miasmatic characteristics, or allopathic disease conditions might fit in this rather fuzzy area. Maybe this kind of thinking is too fuzzy for you.
For me, any empirical homeopathy framework should include the above two legs. Over-functioning, under, and destructive are just too distant from a truly empirical setting to be used as an independent leg. Metabolic, ancestoral... these are also distant from what I see as empirical facts too. I might use such notions with many other fuzzy supports, but not as stand alone legs of my stool.
(note I am still not able to sit down. ?) Any good stool needs a third leg. What is it? If you don't like my second leg, suggest another one, please.
Best,
Ellen
The beauty of an empirical system is it can define the categories without our interference. The categories may change over time as a fact of nature, not because of cultural or ideological change.
Pretend that I am a carpenter and I am trying to design a three legged stool. Any help would be appreciated.
1. In homeopathy, we have proving symptoms produced from specific remedies. If a set of symptoms are the same as those produced by any specific disease, then we use those symptoms to identify the curative remedy.
As Dr. Roz says, the phenomena of war might be famine. But there are other symptoms too and it gets a confusing. We have much more narrowly defined notions of what happen when an organism is exposed to a specific pathogens. Even more narrowly, when a specific type of organism is exposed to a specific pathogen for the first time characteristic disease patterns emerge empirically. In allopathy, this becomes a disease name or category.
In homeopathy, we don't get stuck on a miasm/disease name. But, it is hard to ignore infectious diseases that produce such uniform results in a large population. So, we do pay attention to allopathic facts as well. Allopathy also tries to be empirical about it’s disease names, but it lacks a system to prove their medicine. I see no reason to ignore all of their information especially in the case of infectious disease.
Dr. Roz, I argue that it is easier to work with the results of pathogens than the much more complex results of war. So, we are talking about practicality and not a purely abstract definitions of miasm. The more practical problem is "how is this information useful to a homeopath? Is there a way to organize it so that we can use it?"
2. Without investing in "fake clarity" (Love that ?), among homeopaths, there maybe a lack of agreement on theoretical issues, but I do get the impression that there is more agreement about broad facts about well known remedies concerning tissues that they will affect, personality/body types that they affect, and characteristic symptoms. I think we can safely use this information despite Dr. Shadar's caveats. Good judgment is required, but that holds in any setting. This may seem like the same as 1. above, but
the emphasis is on how these remedies are used in the clinic, and not provings per se. Perhaps general ideas such as miasmatic characteristics, or allopathic disease conditions might fit in this rather fuzzy area. Maybe this kind of thinking is too fuzzy for you.
For me, any empirical homeopathy framework should include the above two legs. Over-functioning, under, and destructive are just too distant from a truly empirical setting to be used as an independent leg. Metabolic, ancestoral... these are also distant from what I see as empirical facts too. I might use such notions with many other fuzzy supports, but not as stand alone legs of my stool.
(note I am still not able to sit down. ?) Any good stool needs a third leg. What is it? If you don't like my second leg, suggest another one, please.
Best,
Ellen
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 3
As you know, I am a simple minded and dimwitted person...so I do not really understand the differentiation you seem to be making.
When it comes to my practice, I use everything that is available to me that could help me find:
1. the actual problem(s)
2. the underlying problem(s)
3. the proper/correct approach/approaches or methodology/mix thereof to use
And that is it....and I often sit on the floor too...
...
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
When it comes to my practice, I use everything that is available to me that could help me find:
1. the actual problem(s)
2. the underlying problem(s)
3. the proper/correct approach/approaches or methodology/mix thereof to use
And that is it....and I often sit on the floor too...
...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 3
Hi Dr. Roz,
I'm thrown on the floor but try to stand up as soon as possible. I rarely understand what I am saying either. Wish others would clear out the dust. So far, I have not discovered such a free service. ?
I have been thinking about Lippe's defense of Hahnemann in 1881 against the materialists Hughes and Dake and many other allopaths who wanted a homeopathy disinfected from subtle sensations, delusions, dreams ect. They wanted an allopathic homeopathy. Lippe pointed out that they would never find the curative remedy if they did that. Lippe was right, but the debate continues, so I assume Hughes and Dake were not persuaded.
Hahnemann's call for clearing out the disease name from our database was also Lippe's battle cry. How really useful is this battle?
Thinking of my difference with Hughes and Dake, I brought up the use of allopathic disease names in homeopathy. For example, infectious disease as the foundation of our miasmatic understanding.
Dr. Shahdar wants to talk about where we vary or support our classical tradition. It seems to me that this is an area that requires some clarification.
We see the incorporation on disease name in even greater numbers in the current Synthesis. I am told that renown homeopaths sign off on the inclusion of xx remedy curing yyy disease. To that extent, those rubrics are valid. Toxicology is another materialist tradition from which homeopathic remedies often are described. So, is materialism an issue that we can take for granted without discussion? How do we use materialistic evidence without being caught up with the obsessions of Hughes and Dake. (Originally Hughes was compiling proving data with T. Allen. He split off from Allen over the non-material doses of remedies, 30c and above. Hughes' material and therefore valid dilution level limit was 6c.) How do we remain as classical as Hahnemann who clearly used toxicology and also disease descriptions if not names? What is the difference between a disease name description and a disease name?
Best,
Ellen Madono
I'm thrown on the floor but try to stand up as soon as possible. I rarely understand what I am saying either. Wish others would clear out the dust. So far, I have not discovered such a free service. ?
I have been thinking about Lippe's defense of Hahnemann in 1881 against the materialists Hughes and Dake and many other allopaths who wanted a homeopathy disinfected from subtle sensations, delusions, dreams ect. They wanted an allopathic homeopathy. Lippe pointed out that they would never find the curative remedy if they did that. Lippe was right, but the debate continues, so I assume Hughes and Dake were not persuaded.
Hahnemann's call for clearing out the disease name from our database was also Lippe's battle cry. How really useful is this battle?
Thinking of my difference with Hughes and Dake, I brought up the use of allopathic disease names in homeopathy. For example, infectious disease as the foundation of our miasmatic understanding.
Dr. Shahdar wants to talk about where we vary or support our classical tradition. It seems to me that this is an area that requires some clarification.
We see the incorporation on disease name in even greater numbers in the current Synthesis. I am told that renown homeopaths sign off on the inclusion of xx remedy curing yyy disease. To that extent, those rubrics are valid. Toxicology is another materialist tradition from which homeopathic remedies often are described. So, is materialism an issue that we can take for granted without discussion? How do we use materialistic evidence without being caught up with the obsessions of Hughes and Dake. (Originally Hughes was compiling proving data with T. Allen. He split off from Allen over the non-material doses of remedies, 30c and above. Hughes' material and therefore valid dilution level limit was 6c.) How do we remain as classical as Hahnemann who clearly used toxicology and also disease descriptions if not names? What is the difference between a disease name description and a disease name?
Best,
Ellen Madono
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 3
There is a huge difference between disease name and disease.
When anyone reads the word "eczema", an image flashes in our brain, showing the picture of that skin eruption *WE* each have, and it is different for each one of us. Therefore "eczema" is a linguistic shortcut to say "we are talking about a skin eruption that can be dry or wet, itching or not, with different modalities, different causes and different evolution. We then characterise individually what we are talking about. Therefore we should not confuse semantics and precise information.
It is the same in life. "I have a computer" is correct but does not say anything about it: would anyone be interested in hearing the make of it, its hard drive capacity, memory, etc,...No unless talking to someone specifically about the computer for a good reason.
Including pathology in our work is absolutely essential because we deal with this as a presenting picture, which we have to analyse and understand in order to treat and cure. Homeopaths have kept the ability to dig deep and reach roots and origins of disease that others do neglect, happy that the obvious symptoms have disappeared...for now...other natural therapist unfortunately have fallen into that trap and practice Green Allopathy; safer but still not curative.
Yet we HAVE TO deal with pathology! I keep repeating that homeopathy works best on living patients! It is not a joke. At the Brisbane conference I just attended, Farouk Masters presented a case of cardiomyopathy he treated with Nat Mur 30C, 5 dilution glasses, twice a day. It took him 3 YEARS to change an ejection fraction of 20% (almost bedridden) to 40% (active but still sick and easily tired, SOB, etc,....). Although it is remarkable to see the demonstration of what a single remedy in constant repetition can do, my patients and I would never accept such a slow evolution, hence the need of treating the organ/system at the same time as the deeper issue.
Do I make sense here?
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
When anyone reads the word "eczema", an image flashes in our brain, showing the picture of that skin eruption *WE* each have, and it is different for each one of us. Therefore "eczema" is a linguistic shortcut to say "we are talking about a skin eruption that can be dry or wet, itching or not, with different modalities, different causes and different evolution. We then characterise individually what we are talking about. Therefore we should not confuse semantics and precise information.
It is the same in life. "I have a computer" is correct but does not say anything about it: would anyone be interested in hearing the make of it, its hard drive capacity, memory, etc,...No unless talking to someone specifically about the computer for a good reason.
Including pathology in our work is absolutely essential because we deal with this as a presenting picture, which we have to analyse and understand in order to treat and cure. Homeopaths have kept the ability to dig deep and reach roots and origins of disease that others do neglect, happy that the obvious symptoms have disappeared...for now...other natural therapist unfortunately have fallen into that trap and practice Green Allopathy; safer but still not curative.
Yet we HAVE TO deal with pathology! I keep repeating that homeopathy works best on living patients! It is not a joke. At the Brisbane conference I just attended, Farouk Masters presented a case of cardiomyopathy he treated with Nat Mur 30C, 5 dilution glasses, twice a day. It took him 3 YEARS to change an ejection fraction of 20% (almost bedridden) to 40% (active but still sick and easily tired, SOB, etc,....). Although it is remarkable to see the demonstration of what a single remedy in constant repetition can do, my patients and I would never accept such a slow evolution, hence the need of treating the organ/system at the same time as the deeper issue.
Do I make sense here?
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
-
Elham Mohajer
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 3
The important thing is not to go to extremes.
Many times you try to find a constitutional remedy which is good. But not all remedies can be prescribed on a constitutional basis. Try prescribing Cardus, or crategus or chelidonium, or the other hundreds of such remedies that work on a specific organ or a specific disease on a constitutional basis and you will never prescribe them.
To try and always prescribe on the mental symptoms is not a bright idea in the same way that it is foolish to to try and prescribe always on physical symptoms and worse still on disease names. One has to look for a peculiar combination of symptoms that point to a remedy.
If you know the patient is suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver or diabetes or Hypertension it is of course extremely useful. Not just for prescription but more importantly to follow up on the case to see if he is improving or not.
In fact when the pathology is too advanced you should know that. Your constitutional remedy will in that case only aggravate the problem. Here you need to give a series of specifically acting remedies some for the disease others for the organ involved one after the other in a series. Waiting for one remedy to do all that it can before giving the next. In very low potencies and building up the patient before you can give a single dose of the constitutional remedy
Best regards
Elham
Many times you try to find a constitutional remedy which is good. But not all remedies can be prescribed on a constitutional basis. Try prescribing Cardus, or crategus or chelidonium, or the other hundreds of such remedies that work on a specific organ or a specific disease on a constitutional basis and you will never prescribe them.
To try and always prescribe on the mental symptoms is not a bright idea in the same way that it is foolish to to try and prescribe always on physical symptoms and worse still on disease names. One has to look for a peculiar combination of symptoms that point to a remedy.
If you know the patient is suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver or diabetes or Hypertension it is of course extremely useful. Not just for prescription but more importantly to follow up on the case to see if he is improving or not.
In fact when the pathology is too advanced you should know that. Your constitutional remedy will in that case only aggravate the problem. Here you need to give a series of specifically acting remedies some for the disease others for the organ involved one after the other in a series. Waiting for one remedy to do all that it can before giving the next. In very low potencies and building up the patient before you can give a single dose of the constitutional remedy
Best regards
Elham
Re: Introduction - Part 3
Thanks to both, Ellen and Joe. Both have commented good. I would request to have permission from both of you to copy these comments on "Telegram" Minutus group. Would you?
Shakir
The important thing is not to go to extremes.
Many times you try to find a constitutional remedy which is good. But not all remedies can be prescribed on a constitutional basis. Try prescribing Cardus, or crategus or chelidonium, or the other hundreds of such remedies that work on a specific organ or a specific disease on a constitutional basis and you will never prescribe them.
To try and always prescribe on the mental symptoms is not a bright idea in the same way that it is foolish to to try and prescribe always on physical symptoms and worse still on disease names. One has to look for a peculiar combination of symptoms that point to a remedy.
If you know the patient is suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver or diabetes or Hypertension it is of course extremely useful. Not just for prescription but more importantly to follow up on the case to see if he is improving or not.
In fact when the pathology is too advanced you should know that. Your constitutional remedy will in that case only aggravate the problem. Here you need to give a series of specifically acting remedies some for the disease others for the organ involved one after the other in a series. Waiting for one remedy to do all that it can before giving the next. In very low potencies and building up the patient before you can give a single dose of the constitutional remedy
Best regards
Elham
Shakir
The important thing is not to go to extremes.
Many times you try to find a constitutional remedy which is good. But not all remedies can be prescribed on a constitutional basis. Try prescribing Cardus, or crategus or chelidonium, or the other hundreds of such remedies that work on a specific organ or a specific disease on a constitutional basis and you will never prescribe them.
To try and always prescribe on the mental symptoms is not a bright idea in the same way that it is foolish to to try and prescribe always on physical symptoms and worse still on disease names. One has to look for a peculiar combination of symptoms that point to a remedy.
If you know the patient is suffering from Cirrhosis of the liver or diabetes or Hypertension it is of course extremely useful. Not just for prescription but more importantly to follow up on the case to see if he is improving or not.
In fact when the pathology is too advanced you should know that. Your constitutional remedy will in that case only aggravate the problem. Here you need to give a series of specifically acting remedies some for the disease others for the organ involved one after the other in a series. Waiting for one remedy to do all that it can before giving the next. In very low potencies and building up the patient before you can give a single dose of the constitutional remedy
Best regards
Elham
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Introduction - Part 3
Is that still on? I never received any "alert" that there is a new post despite having set it to do so....please do copy, but I will remove myself when I have the time to do so, it has been useless to me.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
Re: Introduction - Part 3
Many thanks for your reply and please note that "Telegram" group has started again and discussion is on. We need you there too. Until then I copy these of your comments there.
Shakir
Is that still on? I never received any "alert" that there is a new post despite having set it to do so....please do copy, but I will remove myself when I have the time to do so, it has been useless to me.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz
Shakir
Is that still on? I never received any "alert" that there is a new post despite having set it to do so....please do copy, but I will remove myself when I have the time to do so, it has been useless to me.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
www.naturamedica.co.nz