Minutus

Suppose I take some Canon printer fluid - red, mix it with some PTFE and
dynamise it as should be done. This would give me a 'remedy'. But for what?
(Maybe for some Canon printers where the red doesn't adhere to paper that
well.) But what patients would I give it?
The same principle: what would be valid reasons to give any combination of
whatever substances, however prepared, to anybody? Real valid reasons. Can
anyone imagine good reasons for giving a combo of Psorinum, Luesinum,
Medorrhinum and Tuberculinum in 10M? (I can: sloppyness.)

Reading some on anthroposophical medicine might help, too. They 'mix'
(potentise together) and have their own good background for it. They are
careful with potencies - not too high - also with good reason. And we can
safely agree anthroposophical remedies are not equal to homeopathic
remedies. Each system has its own procedures, rules, ways to work, and if
used well, results will come. But not the same results.

Some 20 years ago I might (I'm sure I have) easily have mistaken a
Pulsatilla patient for a Sulphur or a Medorrhinum, or some other remedies.
As it is, this happens less frequently (good for them and me). But still I
do not want anyone to leave the office within the hour or so, because even
if it seems (to me) to be a clear Pulsatilla patient within 10 minutes or
so, I want all that I can get to improve and further my 'sense' of
Pulsatilla (or maybe think again of Med. etc).

I feel using combos (of any type) is wanting the easy way out. And my guess
is that using combos will lead to proportionate, that is: cheap and easy,
results. Expecting real good results from any treatment without digging deep
is a failure to understand the nature of things-as-they-work. I wish the
good reasons to think twice about the results from cheap and easy ways to
work would be apparent to all, but it seems they are not. In this time and
age (? - oh well) 'cheap and easy' seems to be the preferable way to work. I
think it won't work, it never did, it never will.

(On the other hand: digging deep without proper knowledge doesn't bring you
anywhere, either.. Go figure..)

Whatever/however: I do feel I must thank Anna for the opportunity to speak
up like this. It may not appeal to her, but maybe it will to some. I hope it
does.

(And this is about all I wanted to say on the subject).

Hennie

Dear Hennie,

I am afraid you have completely misunderstood what I said, and perhaps you
should read messages more carefully and try to understand what is being said
before going off "half-cocked" with insulting remarks. This kind of
knee-jerkism interferes with serious discussion. I was actually referring to
the so-called single remedy Hepar Sulphur, as Dr Rozencwaijg has understood.
To ones who exhibit the symptoms similar to the ones seen in the proving of
your remedy.
Likewise, Hahnemann took Sulphur and Calc Carb. He mixed them together. Then
he potentised them, and created this new remedy, seen as a single remedy,
and the results obtained from provers went down as clinical information.
Your Canon printer fluid and PTFE could be made up together into a remedy
just the same way, and I imagine may be useful for people who have ingested
extremely nasty substances (c.f. Ars Alb?)
You haven't understood anything, then. See what Hahnemann did with the Hepar
Sulph.

To make this really simple: we are talking about the difference between
these two things:
1. Putting the parts together *before* dynamisation (remedy creation)
2. Putting the parts together *after* dynamisation.

We are trying to understand whether (1) is "more than the sum of its parts",
and thus exactly how it differs from (2), and why it is different for having
been proven all as one rather as separate components. OK?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

At 7:11 PM +0000 3/8/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

He did not MIX them together. He placed them together in a crucible
and heated them to molten. He altered their characteristics.
Hepar is NOT a mixture. It is as much a unity as any of the salts are.

JW