Earthworms revisited (was sick dog---bones?)
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2002 11:50 am
Dave wrote:
Organon
I was always under the impression that Hahnemann stressed the use of
remedies in potency because they were more "rapid, gentle and permanent" in
their effects, not because potentisation turned the remedy into something
else. In other words, they were superior, more dynamic, compared to crude
substance, but not different in nature from it.
Confirmation for this appears to be evident in Hahnemann's actual practice.
Before evolving homeopathy, Hahnemann used remedies herbally. He didn't
exclude this information later on merely because the remedy was not
potentised. These symptoms are included in the repertories.
Example: Abdomen, Noises, rumbling, morning.
Nux vomica is listed in the 3rd degree.
Hahnemann lists this symptom in the Materia Medica Pura and Hering confirmed
it clinically. However, the first mention of this symptom by Hahnemann is in
1802: pre-homeopathy.
It seems to me that the indiscriminate inclusion of toxicological, herbal
and proving data all together in all the earlier MM and reps amply attests
to the fact that their authors saw no essential differences between the
various sources. All symptoms, from any intimate encounter between human and
remedy, were relevant.
Roger van Zandvoort (who's obviously studied this extensively in compiling
his repertory) is about to introduce a new grading system where he proposes
regarding information from cured cases, provings, toxicology and
*non-homeopathic* (often herbal) sources on an equal footing. All such
sources will result in a repertory listing for a given symptom in the first
degree. Only subsequent clinical confirmation (and the number of such
confirmations) will determine whether a remedy is listed in a higher degree.
I find the idea that provings of potentised substances produce a
special class of symptom - different from any other symptom that speaks of
the nature of the substance - a bit strange. (I've also proved both flower
essences and remedies and would have a deal of a job differentiating one
from the other purely on the basis of their effects.) From where I'm
standing I can't see any confirmation for it in Hahnemann's work either. An
earthworm is always going to be an earthworm.
Personally, I find Isali's posts interesting and informative. I may not know
enough about TCM to make any kind of practical use of the information, but I
know enough to see some connections. To continually take issue with his
posts just because he happens to have found a synthesis between homeopathy
and TCM seems a bit over the top to me, and rather disrespectful of his
particular path. We're all here to learn from each other after all, and
since there *is* homeopathic content in his posts, they seem perfectly
relevant. For those who prefer their homeopathy untainted, there's always
the [Del] key.
Regards
Wendy
Organon
I was always under the impression that Hahnemann stressed the use of
remedies in potency because they were more "rapid, gentle and permanent" in
their effects, not because potentisation turned the remedy into something
else. In other words, they were superior, more dynamic, compared to crude
substance, but not different in nature from it.
Confirmation for this appears to be evident in Hahnemann's actual practice.
Before evolving homeopathy, Hahnemann used remedies herbally. He didn't
exclude this information later on merely because the remedy was not
potentised. These symptoms are included in the repertories.
Example: Abdomen, Noises, rumbling, morning.
Nux vomica is listed in the 3rd degree.
Hahnemann lists this symptom in the Materia Medica Pura and Hering confirmed
it clinically. However, the first mention of this symptom by Hahnemann is in
1802: pre-homeopathy.
It seems to me that the indiscriminate inclusion of toxicological, herbal
and proving data all together in all the earlier MM and reps amply attests
to the fact that their authors saw no essential differences between the
various sources. All symptoms, from any intimate encounter between human and
remedy, were relevant.
Roger van Zandvoort (who's obviously studied this extensively in compiling
his repertory) is about to introduce a new grading system where he proposes
regarding information from cured cases, provings, toxicology and
*non-homeopathic* (often herbal) sources on an equal footing. All such
sources will result in a repertory listing for a given symptom in the first
degree. Only subsequent clinical confirmation (and the number of such
confirmations) will determine whether a remedy is listed in a higher degree.
I find the idea that provings of potentised substances produce a
special class of symptom - different from any other symptom that speaks of
the nature of the substance - a bit strange. (I've also proved both flower
essences and remedies and would have a deal of a job differentiating one
from the other purely on the basis of their effects.) From where I'm
standing I can't see any confirmation for it in Hahnemann's work either. An
earthworm is always going to be an earthworm.
Personally, I find Isali's posts interesting and informative. I may not know
enough about TCM to make any kind of practical use of the information, but I
know enough to see some connections. To continually take issue with his
posts just because he happens to have found a synthesis between homeopathy
and TCM seems a bit over the top to me, and rather disrespectful of his
particular path. We're all here to learn from each other after all, and
since there *is* homeopathic content in his posts, they seem perfectly
relevant. For those who prefer their homeopathy untainted, there's always
the [Del] key.
Regards
Wendy