Forwarded message for Simon - Re Truly Homeopathic - definition
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:40 pm
Hi all,
Simon seems unable to 'post' this email and has asked me to send it from
my account.
Regards, Barbara
-------------------------
Hi Barbara,
any chance you could forward this to the minutus lists as although I have
been getting the mails the ones I post don't appear at all, for some reason
I no longer am able to post, which isn't a huge problem but I would like
to send this below?
thanks
Simon King
From: Simon King
Date: 3 October 2004 20:59:57 BST
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Truly Homeopathic - definition.
Hi Joy,
sorry for loss of continuity of discussion, I have been very very busy,
including moving house for my each of my daughters, that's two house
moves in as many weeks! I will understand if there is no longer any
interest in this topic.
comments below as #
regards
Simon King
But you are challenging similars if you are saying you don't need a
proving
that creates the similar state.
#the proving doesn't 'create ' the similar state, i would rather say it
REVEALS it. It provides a perception upon which to prescribe.
I will meet you half way and say that occasionally I have used a rx that
has
not had a full and correct proving but there has always been reasonable
and
secure data that will give me the 'inkling'
# we all do this. Reasonable and secure data is not the same thing for
every homeopath though, it is not a constant. Lucas, Sankaran, Scholten,
Sehgal, Master, Seine, King, will all have slightly differing criterion for
'secure data' ( see current discussion on LOTR for example of differing
approaches e.g. whether manc or anac was prescribed and whether the
perception was that it was a truly homeopathic prescription or not, (
after all they couldn't both be so at the same time) the remedy that was in
fact homeopathic would be the one that actually worked irrespective of
who thought which prescription was most homeopathic prior to the
patient actually taking and responding to it, (hypothetical I know but it
serves to illustrate). Reasonable and secure data is what every
(competent) homeopath prescribes on, when there is cure then they
know that the remedy was 'truly homeopathic' (the topic of discussion)
not before.
Nor is 'Inkling' a constant, it is based I suggest, on the peripheral
perceptions of the individual prescriber, which will be different for each
prescriber dependent upon their individual qualities. Therefore what
constitutes' tuly homeopathic according to your definition would be
different for each prescriber, according to their qualification for ' secure
data' or 'Inkling'. there are too many variables in your definition for my
liking, I prefer the simplicity of it being the patient's reaction to the Rx
that determines its 'true homeopathicity' .
Prescriptions are made every day that are 'truly homeopathic' in that
they CURE. to do that they must by my definition be 'truly
homeopathic'. (irrespective of whether the reasonable and secure data is a
*full* proving or not.
The reasonable and secure data, which by your definition is required for
the Rx to be 'truly homeopathic' , changes therefore according to
practitioner and according to Rx (the quantity and quality of its data
considered to be reasonable and secure)
Whether we know HOW they are truly homeopathic or not is a different
matter. we either may or may not, this won't affect that fact that the
remedy will or will not be truly homeopathic according to the patients'
response.
The process of determining the PRESCRIPTION will be 'true
homeopathy' according to our understanding of its similarity; and the
true homeopathicity of the remedy is dependent on the accuracy of our
understanding of the homeopathicity of the remedy to the case, there is
no guarantee that our choice will be accurate, that is, 'effectively' (truly)
homeopathic, until it works. Some of the best prescribers' 'truly
homeopathic' prescriptions fail to cure. ergo it wasn't actually
homeopathic, despite their best efforts. ( I seem to remember Jeremy
Sherr stating at a SOH conference many years ago that if we were honest
we got no more than 50% success.)
The provings give us information upon which to determine
homeopathicity. They do not dictate whether a remedy will actually
work, only when it SHOULD work
Perhaps what we're really discussing is the difference between a remedy
in of itself being truly homeopathic and the act of prescribing being based
on true homeopathy. It is true that it is difficult to imagine being an
effective homeopath without the provings, nonetheless I have given
remedies based upon 'inklings' as have we all, which have cured, therefore
they were by my definition, 'truly homeopathic' ,thee is no other
mechanism by which they could have cured as far as I'm aware. I accept
that I might have not known the extent of a given remedy's homeopathic
potential without a proving, but that is not to say that the remedy was
not truly homeopathic without the proving. That is a different thing.
- but I have to say that I am
not always happy with that.
# I also will always strive to prescribe on the basis of all the available
matera medica. I am no more happy than you with a limited remedy
picture, however sometimes that's what we have to go on.
I also work quite closely with a colleague who
uses a lot of remedies that have not been proved (often plants that have
a
herbal sx data) but I have never prescribed in this way but I am very
interested in her work as she is gathering some important materia medica.
# I agree with you entirely that the quantity and quality of matera medica
is of paramount importance. I stiill argue that the proving itself does not
determine whether a remedy WORKS, i.e whether it is truly
homeopathic by my definition
So I can only repeat - that I believe we need provings = materia medica
to
make any potentised substance qualify as being homeopathic as per the
Organon.
And that should also include combination remedies which I note you
promote on your website. Again, how can these be prescribed without
knowing
what the combination sx picture is. We need the provings.
Joy
#There is no arguement that we need provings or that we need to base
our prescriptions on matera medica. It is definitions we are discussing.
#There are remedies that were used and which cured before they had
provings. Are we then to say that they were not truly homeopathic?
That wouldn't be acceptable to me at all.
Imagine the scenario where a child with a given disease opened a remedy
chest and took a remedy which cured them. Would that remedy have
been truly homeopathic or not?
Imagine a scenario where a remedy was given before it ever had a
proving and which cured ( this has happened a lot) Was that remedy
truly homeopathic only after the proving date and not before, despite the
cures? How then was the patient cured by a remedy which wasn't 'truly
homeopathic' ?
Imagine a scenario where a prover is undergoing a proving in which the
prover is cured of some ailment at the beginning of the proving and before
the collated information (proving symptomology) is known. Was the
remedy truly homeopathic to that prover or not? If so was it truly
homeopathic, before it was given, at the moment it was given, at the
point of cure, or afterwards when the proving was published? What if the
proving never got published, what then, how would that effect the true
homeopathicity of a remedy that cured?
Stretching the point, Imagine a scenario where a life event cures
homeopathically. Is that homeopathy or not? If yes is it 'true'( e'g'
someone hears or sees someone say or do something that presents a
similarity sufficient to resolve their conflict. ( this happens)
Is a remedy truly homeopathic by its concept or by its action? They are
not always the same
Another point to consider is that provings do not , in fact, equal matera
medica in a pure sense. Much matera medica is speculative and
inaccurate, even in those respected and well established. e.g. I'm sure
you're familiar with Dr. Shah's essay on Aurum, in which he points out
that some of the best known rubrics pertaining to Aur are distortions of
the true proving Sx. The MMs are fa from complete and full of errors,
hence the need for reference works over MacRep fo instance. I mention
these things to illustrate how unreliable the Mtera medica can be with
regarde toi determining hwat is 'truly homeopathic'.
As per the above example what if a remedy were APPARENTLY 'truly
homeopathic' based on the MM of Aur, yet did not cure because the
matera medica was in fact inaccurate, yet the homeopath wasn't aware of
this and so prescribed a remedy on faulty MM. How do we ( the
prescribing homeopaths) know whether the remedy is truly homeopathic
using your definition, when we have not checked and double checked
each entry in the MM to ensure it is an accurate proving Sx? this is
obviously an impossible task for the majority of us. I would argue that all
prescriptions are only APPARENTLY truly homeopathic until they
actually cure.
I concede that the ACT of prescribing on a proving is 'true homeopathy',
but argue that THE REMEDY itself cannot be known to be 'truly
homeopathic' until it has cured.
It being truly homeopathic is not INVARIABLY determined by its
having had a proving, therefore a proving alone does not make the
remedy truly homeopathic, but its action does.
Perhaps this seems like splitting hairs, I don't think so myself, I think it's
an important differentiation.
I hope I have managed to explain the point, if not I think I'll leave it there
anyway and move on to other topics.
regards
Simon
on 21/9/04 10:19 am, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:
need
Simon seems unable to 'post' this email and has asked me to send it from
my account.
Regards, Barbara
-------------------------
Hi Barbara,
any chance you could forward this to the minutus lists as although I have
been getting the mails the ones I post don't appear at all, for some reason
I no longer am able to post, which isn't a huge problem but I would like
to send this below?
thanks
Simon King
From: Simon King
Date: 3 October 2004 20:59:57 BST
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Truly Homeopathic - definition.
Hi Joy,
sorry for loss of continuity of discussion, I have been very very busy,
including moving house for my each of my daughters, that's two house
moves in as many weeks! I will understand if there is no longer any
interest in this topic.
comments below as #
regards
Simon King
But you are challenging similars if you are saying you don't need a
proving
that creates the similar state.
#the proving doesn't 'create ' the similar state, i would rather say it
REVEALS it. It provides a perception upon which to prescribe.
I will meet you half way and say that occasionally I have used a rx that
has
not had a full and correct proving but there has always been reasonable
and
secure data that will give me the 'inkling'
# we all do this. Reasonable and secure data is not the same thing for
every homeopath though, it is not a constant. Lucas, Sankaran, Scholten,
Sehgal, Master, Seine, King, will all have slightly differing criterion for
'secure data' ( see current discussion on LOTR for example of differing
approaches e.g. whether manc or anac was prescribed and whether the
perception was that it was a truly homeopathic prescription or not, (
after all they couldn't both be so at the same time) the remedy that was in
fact homeopathic would be the one that actually worked irrespective of
who thought which prescription was most homeopathic prior to the
patient actually taking and responding to it, (hypothetical I know but it
serves to illustrate). Reasonable and secure data is what every
(competent) homeopath prescribes on, when there is cure then they
know that the remedy was 'truly homeopathic' (the topic of discussion)
not before.
Nor is 'Inkling' a constant, it is based I suggest, on the peripheral
perceptions of the individual prescriber, which will be different for each
prescriber dependent upon their individual qualities. Therefore what
constitutes' tuly homeopathic according to your definition would be
different for each prescriber, according to their qualification for ' secure
data' or 'Inkling'. there are too many variables in your definition for my
liking, I prefer the simplicity of it being the patient's reaction to the Rx
that determines its 'true homeopathicity' .
Prescriptions are made every day that are 'truly homeopathic' in that
they CURE. to do that they must by my definition be 'truly
homeopathic'. (irrespective of whether the reasonable and secure data is a
*full* proving or not.
The reasonable and secure data, which by your definition is required for
the Rx to be 'truly homeopathic' , changes therefore according to
practitioner and according to Rx (the quantity and quality of its data
considered to be reasonable and secure)
Whether we know HOW they are truly homeopathic or not is a different
matter. we either may or may not, this won't affect that fact that the
remedy will or will not be truly homeopathic according to the patients'
response.
The process of determining the PRESCRIPTION will be 'true
homeopathy' according to our understanding of its similarity; and the
true homeopathicity of the remedy is dependent on the accuracy of our
understanding of the homeopathicity of the remedy to the case, there is
no guarantee that our choice will be accurate, that is, 'effectively' (truly)
homeopathic, until it works. Some of the best prescribers' 'truly
homeopathic' prescriptions fail to cure. ergo it wasn't actually
homeopathic, despite their best efforts. ( I seem to remember Jeremy
Sherr stating at a SOH conference many years ago that if we were honest
we got no more than 50% success.)
The provings give us information upon which to determine
homeopathicity. They do not dictate whether a remedy will actually
work, only when it SHOULD work
Perhaps what we're really discussing is the difference between a remedy
in of itself being truly homeopathic and the act of prescribing being based
on true homeopathy. It is true that it is difficult to imagine being an
effective homeopath without the provings, nonetheless I have given
remedies based upon 'inklings' as have we all, which have cured, therefore
they were by my definition, 'truly homeopathic' ,thee is no other
mechanism by which they could have cured as far as I'm aware. I accept
that I might have not known the extent of a given remedy's homeopathic
potential without a proving, but that is not to say that the remedy was
not truly homeopathic without the proving. That is a different thing.
- but I have to say that I am
not always happy with that.
# I also will always strive to prescribe on the basis of all the available
matera medica. I am no more happy than you with a limited remedy
picture, however sometimes that's what we have to go on.
I also work quite closely with a colleague who
uses a lot of remedies that have not been proved (often plants that have
a
herbal sx data) but I have never prescribed in this way but I am very
interested in her work as she is gathering some important materia medica.
# I agree with you entirely that the quantity and quality of matera medica
is of paramount importance. I stiill argue that the proving itself does not
determine whether a remedy WORKS, i.e whether it is truly
homeopathic by my definition
So I can only repeat - that I believe we need provings = materia medica
to
make any potentised substance qualify as being homeopathic as per the
Organon.
And that should also include combination remedies which I note you
promote on your website. Again, how can these be prescribed without
knowing
what the combination sx picture is. We need the provings.
Joy
#There is no arguement that we need provings or that we need to base
our prescriptions on matera medica. It is definitions we are discussing.
#There are remedies that were used and which cured before they had
provings. Are we then to say that they were not truly homeopathic?
That wouldn't be acceptable to me at all.
Imagine the scenario where a child with a given disease opened a remedy
chest and took a remedy which cured them. Would that remedy have
been truly homeopathic or not?
Imagine a scenario where a remedy was given before it ever had a
proving and which cured ( this has happened a lot) Was that remedy
truly homeopathic only after the proving date and not before, despite the
cures? How then was the patient cured by a remedy which wasn't 'truly
homeopathic' ?
Imagine a scenario where a prover is undergoing a proving in which the
prover is cured of some ailment at the beginning of the proving and before
the collated information (proving symptomology) is known. Was the
remedy truly homeopathic to that prover or not? If so was it truly
homeopathic, before it was given, at the moment it was given, at the
point of cure, or afterwards when the proving was published? What if the
proving never got published, what then, how would that effect the true
homeopathicity of a remedy that cured?
Stretching the point, Imagine a scenario where a life event cures
homeopathically. Is that homeopathy or not? If yes is it 'true'( e'g'
someone hears or sees someone say or do something that presents a
similarity sufficient to resolve their conflict. ( this happens)
Is a remedy truly homeopathic by its concept or by its action? They are
not always the same
Another point to consider is that provings do not , in fact, equal matera
medica in a pure sense. Much matera medica is speculative and
inaccurate, even in those respected and well established. e.g. I'm sure
you're familiar with Dr. Shah's essay on Aurum, in which he points out
that some of the best known rubrics pertaining to Aur are distortions of
the true proving Sx. The MMs are fa from complete and full of errors,
hence the need for reference works over MacRep fo instance. I mention
these things to illustrate how unreliable the Mtera medica can be with
regarde toi determining hwat is 'truly homeopathic'.
As per the above example what if a remedy were APPARENTLY 'truly
homeopathic' based on the MM of Aur, yet did not cure because the
matera medica was in fact inaccurate, yet the homeopath wasn't aware of
this and so prescribed a remedy on faulty MM. How do we ( the
prescribing homeopaths) know whether the remedy is truly homeopathic
using your definition, when we have not checked and double checked
each entry in the MM to ensure it is an accurate proving Sx? this is
obviously an impossible task for the majority of us. I would argue that all
prescriptions are only APPARENTLY truly homeopathic until they
actually cure.
I concede that the ACT of prescribing on a proving is 'true homeopathy',
but argue that THE REMEDY itself cannot be known to be 'truly
homeopathic' until it has cured.
It being truly homeopathic is not INVARIABLY determined by its
having had a proving, therefore a proving alone does not make the
remedy truly homeopathic, but its action does.
Perhaps this seems like splitting hairs, I don't think so myself, I think it's
an important differentiation.
I hope I have managed to explain the point, if not I think I'll leave it there
anyway and move on to other topics.
regards
Simon
on 21/9/04 10:19 am, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:
need