Minutus

Dave,

ART which I have now renamed GAS = 'grabbing at straws' is my last take on
this subject.

As for Asterias I can only say try and get to see some cases on this remedy
and get more clinical experience of it, then you might appreciate the
pointing of fingers aspect (there seems to be a lot of it around lately).

Let's not forget that the limbs regenerate, so having one cut off is a mere
indiscretion, a contradiction in the true sense of the word.

This remedy also has a particular type of vertigo - transient and with the
limbs all over the place - in all directions. Most of the MM's tell you
this.

The sharp pain that is often experienced with the breast cancer travels to
the fingers, making them extend the arm suddenly, almost electric shock like
(these electric shock like pains are also felt in the head).

Lastly, some remedies are woefully inadequate from a point of view of their
representation in the MM's, look at Calendula for example, worthy of a new
proving in my humble opinion. The sx pictures of many remedies could do with
a bit of make over or at least a more thorough evaluation.

Each case of Sepia, teaches us a bit more about Sepia - the same goes for
Sulphur, Causticum, every remedy, including Asterias. Perhaps just a remedy
that you do not 'know' yet.

Joy

Hi Joy,

Yes, as I mentioned I certainly do not "know" asterias from cases.... any
more than you could be expected to have perfect insight on physical
examination procedures which you claim to completely, totally avoid.

Your writing on remedies is very flowing & flowery, maybe you are the modern
age Margaret Tyler .. but I see the tendency to express things strongly in
DOS allegory "as if" this were reason & explanation on it's own-- rather
than a way to fix in memory the symptoms of the remedy.

So, while I admittedly have not had any cases of Asterias, I do have more MM
& reference material on hand than a person could digest in several
lifetimes, and I am capable of reading up on a remedy, and of course, have
done so prior to asking you for MM which would support your "fingers
pointing" DOS allegory. (which is why it took me so long to mention it.)

I take it from your answer that there is no such reference, though you may
believe there should be?

Perhaps you should write your own Margaret Tyler -style book ... but I would
still like to see less emphasis on trying to wrap up neatly be-ribboned
gift-pack'd & semi-trite anthropomorphic DOS allegories, and more on
proving symptoms, or clinical case data presented as such.

Hard to say which would be more laughable to the Randy's of the world ...
starfish= contradiction, because of all fingers pointing out ... or
superficial scorn for physical examination techniques that were in use by
our homeopathic forbears with respect to pulse, skin tone, and other
autonomic reflexes...

regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Dave, I have never said what you claim above - I examine when necessary,
very often it isn't - that is the sort of practice I have.

You should change your remedy, the current one obviously isn't working.

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Also to say Dave, that there must be many hundreds of remedies that you do
not prescribe correctly as they are so poorly represented in the MM's - how
could you go about learning about them and from them. My knowledge of
Asteria is from cases.

But of course if you are uncertain about what remedy to use because the MM's
don't give a full picture then I guess there is always ART to fall back on.

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

And here ends my last write up of any remedy - what you write is tantamount
to libel, and an apology wouldn't go amiss. Sorry to others not caught up in
this slander and I guarantee that I won't be conducting this argument on
Minutus.

Joy Lucas
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Hi Joy,

This brings up a couple of good points.

One being that as you allude to- probably (undoubtedly, really) every
remedy as pictured in MM is only partial, and one's cases are surely
instructive. Postitively the best instruction in true scientific fashion.

So, no doubt with a smaller remedy, someone who's had a number of cases
should well have something valuable to add to MM, and I hope that more and
more cases can be collected & collated, and eventually incorporated in to MM
& Rep.

You seem very knowledgeable, but you also seem to get a little huffy when
questioned about sources.
I have been trained to examine information, and seek sources, and find
corroborations - or NOT.
If NOT, I throw it into the "maybe" box instead of the "yes, confirmed by 3
independent sources" box.

If you are a single-point originating source of new material, that's great,
just say so when you're writing up a remedy... perhaps mark your new
additions and save people like me, who are concerned with being able to
independently corroborate sources.. the trouble of coming up empty when
trying to verify what you've said !

Then everyone can decide to use the information or not, based *properly* on
the source.
Unattributed symptoms are simply loose cannons.
They don't belong in MM or in student's heads without attribution.

I don't expect you to accept some new clinical symptom that I've found in a
case (or a case from anyone else who you are not highly familiar with)
without at least knowing that it was such (!) and I should expect you would
be able to be *consistent* with homeopathic tradition in identifying your
additions *as such*

This is how I (and others, to the best of my knowledge) go about learning
new remedies - they read the literature until buggy-eyed, and find a
coherent-seeming pattern to match (or not) against the case they're working
on.

So, when I have a case where two remedies I've never used both have strong
evidence of simillitude in MM, YES, I do have a means of using physical
examination techniques to verify at the very least that a remedy will not
aggravate (I should've asked you this question too, whether you've ever had
a first Rx aggravate.. this can be easily and totally eliminated by applying
ART as a supplement to one's well considered views on Rx selection and
posology)
-and in addition to verifying that there will be no aggravation, it is
generally possible for me to verify that there will be some curative
response, which inevitably has proven to be so.

It is simple physical examination technique. You may ridicule it only from a
position of lack of understanding or practice of it, as you obviously lack
any other basis!. A generation or two ago, practically all homeopaths were
Dr.'s, and were all naturally deeply involved in physical exam, and for the
most part seem to have been more astute in *physical* physical exam (very
few gadgets intervening) and therefore in touch (pun?) with pulse,
respiration, skin tone, muscle tone percussing, and other autonomic
reflexes/observations than today's Dr's or today's British homeopath... and
therefore it should be no great surprise to find that ART was used by
medical doctor homeopaths in the past, and was recieved favorably and
without the sort of baseless scorn which you for some odd reason seem to
feel is justified by your lack of any training in or attempt at using these
physical exam techniques.

It seems like my remedy is working just fine..

thanks for your concern =;->)

p.s.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Dear Joy,

Please do not cease your wonderful write ups of remedies. It becomes very difficult to deal with a person's arrogance and hositlity when they wont take criticism for erroneous behavior. I would suggest hitting the delete button when such people write and effectively isolate them.

tanya

Wow again..

Certainly have mangaged to push your hot-buttons here, huh?

Try to look at if from an outsider's viewpoint.
NOTICE that I said "the Randy's of the world?"

I'm sorry that you are being so huffy about this, and libel it SURE isn't !

Why don't you give Randy a call, and get HIS opinion??

I assure you that from an outside "skeptic" viewpoint, either of these
propositions would seem (& would even more strongly be MADE to seem) fully
laughable.

If you cannot see this, -again, I'm sorry ...
for you.

I hope you go ahead and post any remedy writeups you like, many people enjoy
them, and I have no doubt that you have much to offer, but I hope you'll
consider what I've mentioned about attributions.

If you would hold yourself up as an example of a homeopathic
practitioner/author, you should follow accepted and reasonable practice of
claiming attribution of your new material, giving the reader the opportunity
to classify the information as s/he sees fit.

regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Hi Dave,

What you write below sounds reasonable.
But there is one argument you uses in which your steps are a little too big.
That's when you say, with regards to ART:

"It is simple physical examination technique.
A generation or two ago, practically all homeopaths were
Dr.'s, and were all naturally deeply involved in physical exam, and for the
most part seem to have been more astute in *physical* physical exam (very
few gadgets intervening) and therefore in touch (pun?) with pulse,
respiration, skin tone, muscle tone percussing, and other autonomic
reflexes/observations than today's Dr's or today's British homeopath... "

Because it is NOT the 'physical examination' part as such in ART which is
odd,
but the apparent (and unproven) premises behind what these physical
examinations 'show' us which need some more reliable proof I would say.
Which are:
* the energy (or whatever) of a remedy, beams through the glass of the vial
in all kind of directions
* the vital force is able, not only to react on the energy through the body
when in *direct* contact with the molecules of that remedy, but even
already when it catches the beams of that remedy from a distance, coming
through the glass of that vial(*)
* the vital force react in a way, directly and immediately, so that the
homeopath can draw legitimate conclusions out of that reaction.
* the vital force 'knows' what's good for it

Jan
Dave wrote:
Hi Joy,

This brings up a couple of good points.

One being that as you allude to- probably (undoubtedly, really) every
remedy as pictured in MM is only partial, and one's cases are surely
instructive. Postitively the best instruction in true scientific fashion.

So, no doubt with a smaller remedy, someone who's had a number of cases
should well have something valuable to add to MM, and I hope that more and
more cases can be collected & collated, and eventually incorporated in to MM
& Rep.

You seem very knowledgeable, but you also seem to get a little huffy when
questioned about sources.
I have been trained to examine information, and seek sources, and find
corroborations - or NOT.
If NOT, I throw it into the "maybe" box instead of the "yes, confirmed by 3
independent sources" box.

If you are a single-point originating source of new material, that's great,
just say so when you're writing up a remedy... perhaps mark your new
additions and save people like me, who are concerned with being able to
independently corroborate sources.. the trouble of coming up empty when
trying to verify what you've said !

Then everyone can decide to use the information or not, based *properly* on
the source.
Unattributed symptoms are simply loose cannons.
They don't belong in MM or in student's heads without attribution.

I don't expect you to accept some new clinical symptom that I've found in a
case (or a case from anyone else who you are not highly familiar with)
without at least knowing that it was such (!) and I should expect you would
be able to be *consistent* with homeopathic tradition in identifying your
additions *as such*

This is how I (and others, to the best of my knowledge) go about learning
new remedies - they read the literature until buggy-eyed, and find a
coherent-seeming pattern to match (or not) against the case they're working
on.

Hi Jan,

This can only be proven (like homeopathy) thru truly
scientific -emprirical- means.

(Try it)

Let's go to your last point first-

obviously, the VF knows not for it is the "derangement" of the VF
which we presume to be the cause of disease. So let's disabuse anyone
reading of the notion that any of us would for a moment suspect that the VF
knows what is good for it. Our model of the VF is simply a "homeostasis
engine" a sort of perpetual motion machine ('til death do us part) like a
little top spinning, always moving *toward* it's percieved point of perfect
balance, always overadjusting a little here & there, but generally doing a
wonderful job of keeping the body & general mental/emotional equipment
functional, until "disease" overwhelms it's abilities. It continues to seek
homeostasis while we live & breathe, but when overwhelmed it's efforts
become destructive or at best confused. Yet it is perfectly (and
relentlessly) consistent in seeking homeostasis from it's relative position.
This is our model, which generally serves.

The VF (the existence of which we also can't "prove" -but generally presume
to exist as a fuzzy definition of the intermediary thru which the remedies
affect the client) reacts to the remedies. That is a tautology; a "given"
point in the equation.

In the non-volitional (autonomic) reflexes/responses, we have the nearest
thing to a "naked" interface with the VF that is possible (outside of
clairvoyance, or near-prophetic dream).

What else would we call whatever-it-is that causes the pulse to skip a beat
and then become strong & steady where it had been weak or irregular... under
the momentary influence of whatever-you-like-to-think is "transmitted" when
a vial of remedy pillules is brought near or into contact with the client?

The VF reacts. That is it's presumed function. That is it's place within
our therapeutic model.

Why should it be surprising that we should, if we are carefully observant to
vital signs, find a window onto the vital force?

There is no way to fully convince anyone of the efficacy of these techniques
other than putting them into practice.

Empirical science. Believe what you see.

You should be able to prove to yourself that there is a response (of
provisionally unknown quality) within about 5 minutes time.

yourself) in practice, in a case.. and then a few more cases.

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer your body for the cause.. (only if you are
*not* a hyper-sensitive) gather a few remedies that you figure you may have
susceptibilty to (based on some homeopathic similitude) .. get together
with another intrepid experimentor, and try a basic pupil (or pulse is
better, if your compatriot is somewhat astute in pulse reading) test with
each several remedies (in two or three potencies, if you have them) ..
record all the responses, ideally keeping the names of the remedies unknown
to the experimentors while the testing is in progress.

Decide if you'd like to take the remedy which made your pulse full &
bounding, or the one which made it smoothly regular. Take the
remedy, and see how it goes.

When I am faced with a case where I have two or more very well indicated
remedies, I use these methods.
I do not give the remedy which appears likely to cause aggravation!
In practice; in the practice of a number of homeopaths who were more
advanced than I will ever be in this lifetime, and in my practical exerience
too-- the remedy which appears likely to be curative... *IS*

This is not rocket science.. it is empirical science.

It is in no way offered, recommended or suggsted as a substitute for doing
painstaking homeopathy and painstaking study of MM.
It *IS* ..in the hands of someone with a little training (easy to learn) a
very reliable way of ruling out totally wrong remedies/potencies or remedies
which appear to have almost no effect.. in favor or remedies which appear
(and later will prove to be) somewhere near-simillimum.

Is it possible to give a very wrong remedy using these techniques?
I don't really think so. The VF either reacts or it doesn't, the reaction is
either a positive seeming one or negative.
Like I said, not rocket science, just practical application in emprirical
fashion, based on seemingly true but unproveable assumptions.

regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240