The nature of the dynamis ... was potentized vaccin/ homeopathy or isopathy

[Wendy Howard]

Joy wrote:
out

Yes I can see where you're coming from because I used to see it the same
way. It stems from the viewpoint that the vital force has a "doing"
function, rather than a purely reflective one, and that we are fundamentally
flawed ... and that one goes right back to the Garden of Eden! However, I've
come to this fresh perspective by way of studying a huge number of different
views on life and how it works from the mundane to the spiritual, and I find
that it works (for me anyway) much better. Neither does it seem to be
inconsistent with Hahnemann's viewpoint, though I've yet to go through the
Organon with a toothcomb to check it out.

Hahnemann instructs us to take "note of *nothing* (my emphasis) in every
individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the
mind". To me this adds emphasis to the point about disease being the product
of a discordant note in the vital force, rather than a "deranged" vital
force. I don't think the vital force has to be "deranged" in order to accept
the discordant note. It just has to have resonance with it. We attract what
we resonate with, and it's how we react to what we attract that determines
whether the outcome is beneficial or detrimental. It can go either way. As I
said before, discordant notes can be used to utterly sublime effect (John
Tavener's compositions for example). I think they have a *transcendental*
quality -- illness does present the opportunity for growth and
transcendence, and perhaps that can provide another insight to help people
deal with what they experience.

The basic reason why I think this model is a more powerful one stems from
the repeated observation that energies and thought patterns create physical
reflections. (This is what provings are about after all.) If that's the
case, then ANY thought pattern is capable of creating a physical reflection.
So if you accept the energy of "fundamental flaw" then you will continually
create a reflection of it, and your healing potential is consequently
limited to the extent that a fundamental flaw remains. (Could this be why
miasms prove so difficult to treat?) "Fundamental flaw" is a both judgement
and a sentence. I don't think it helps people heal.

This is what I mean by a greater level of response-ability. Yes we have a
certain degree of responsiveness, but it is restricted, sometimes severely,
by what we perceive as unalterable, something we have no power to change. If
you believe that you have no power to change something, then you can't. If
you come to a viewpoint whereby you can see that you DO have that power,
then all of a sudden the impossible becomes possible. That's not to say that
life in physical form doesn't have its limitations, but it's certainly the
case that we're very good at adding to them. So if it's possible to derive
and verify in experience a model which has its foundation in a fundamental
state of perfection, then I think it may have some considerable value.

So yes, we are born with some challenges in the form patterns of energy
inherited from our parents, but it's what we make of those challenges that
determine whether we ever reach the dizzy heights of aphorism 9 or not.

the
lost

How you use the information that dynamis-language speaks is up to you and
how it speaks to you ... in much the same way that each of us develops our
own approach to selecting remedies based on what "speaks" to us. You could
use it to add more weight to the suitability of a homeopathic remedy. You
could use it to increase your understanding of the nature of the disease and
the remedies that have proved successful in treating it (especially the
"smaller" ones with undeveloped mental symptomatology). You could use it in
the context of preventive social reform, etc, etc. Whether it helps further
the cause of homeopathy, who can say, but personally I feel that the more we
understand what we're doing, and how and why it works, the better equipped
we are to enjoy some success at it.

the

I couldn't agree more, but to my mind it's more of a circular process --
each should continually inform the other.
Not at all, but it IS a reason to be cheerful!
You're right! I did think of doing so a few posts ago then forgot!

Regards
Wendy
http://www.smeddum.net/