The Rx Time and a Proposed Re-Classification of Imponderables
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:35 am
=================
Gaby Rottler wrote:
**** Dear Gaby, Thanks for the definition.
The inherited word imponderable (maybe formerly used in pharmacy profession as unweighable with a physical scale) as used NOW (in American english, at least) connotes that something "cannot be fathomed; measured; considered". My point, in championing the notice and use of remedies made from Forces and Emanations , is to point out that the idea of immeasurability is absolutely false for most of the Physical forces and emanations (hertzian electrical and spectral; thermodynamic; magnetic; newtonian; atomic; subatomic; cosmic; etc etc forces and emanations, as we have ways to
measure (applicable parameter) intensity; frequency; flux; speed; temperature; voltage; current; radioactivity; etc etc. Unlike Hahnemann's time, the technology for measuring the forces is extremely sophisticated and CALIBRATED by internationally standardized units. So a well-developed design for rx making should be precisely repeatable based on making the appropriate measurements of all the appropriate parameters. The parameters do not include measuring the WEIGHT of the sample, as the sample is not a material. So what? That should not be a fatal requirement. If it is, it
ignores the physical universe in favor of the chemical. This is an inappropriate and unnecessary PREJUDICE.
So the definition of "to ponder" meaning to "weigh on a scale", IF that is how the pharmacal use of the term came about; is (technically) CORRECTLY applied to this class of rx. But the MODERN and commonly understood meaning of "ponder" is NOT to "weigh on a scale", but to CONSIDER. And rx made from forces and emanations can certainly be *considered*, and MEASURED, in every which way, although assessing their apparent mass against in the earth's gravitational field is often not one of the possible measurements. The parameters, procedures, and controls, properly designed, can
define a medicine manufacture at least as repeatable as say, different crops of arnica montana.
The fact that rx from Forces and Emanations must be carefully made by exposure to the force or emanation instead of only sampled or harvested and processed as a material is a difference which makes Forces and Emanations a different class of remedies, certainly. But ANY medicine we are making ultimately also defies being weighed with a scale. To call the Forces and Emanations "imponderable"---"not able to be considered"--- connotes that they are somehow on a lesser par than material remedies. This connotation, if so comprehended, is false. X-ray in potency acts on organisms
just as well as does Arnica.
And by another perspective, just because we can chemically assay Arnica by weight, does that mean we "know" (ponderable) its energetic meaning and effect any more than we know that of x-ray? They both become "known" through proving and clinical use of their POTENTIZED (with no physical weight) form.
Gaby wrote:
**** This could be a formidable problem, and must be well thought out as you correctly point out. That is where the design of the making of the remedy must be precise and well-considered. For the sun, a focal hood which was manually moved to track the sun for the desired period would be in order to make the sunlight the prime influence. Or a telescope without lens or the like. In the case of other celestial bodies, a telescope is the best option, but also requires tracking.
Gaby wrote:
**** This should be shielded from, not probably a difficult problem.
Gaby wrote:
**** None of these influences are specific to exposing an original sample to a Force or Emanation. Every remedy being potentized by hand (an influence of people which occurs for all potentized rx BTW) or a korsakovian machine are exposed all during the process to magnetic field, solar storms, earthquakes, planetary influences, bees and insects, flying by, etc, etc. Each iteration in the potentization is susceptible to these things. They are not unique to the problem of shielding a sample to a desired Force or Emanation.
Gaby wrote:
**** I assume the rx maker would be intelligent enough to eliminate such a variable fairly easily.
Gaby wrote:
**** If there were such uncontrollable variables, then the sample could not be prepared, and the remedy not made.
Gaby wrote:
**** "Radi onically made rx work as approximations. But they are in the same category as pharmacy potencies-- we can (I assume) measure them as can pharmacy potencies using NMR or "double Beam" spectroscopy, but there are not many people doing that even now--as far as I know, even pharmacies do not measure their own remedies that way for QC (as does the school in India we heard about from Cinnabar and Jim).
If thought focus or intent is involved, this uses human mind faculties which are in the realm of non-hertzian (metaphysical) forces and emanations. Metaphysical forces and emanations are measureable qualitatively by Kirlian and silver emulsion (eg Polaroid) photography; and perhaps quantitatively by spectroscopy, but such measurement is not commonplace. Quantitative meters specifically made for this purpose are not yet available to even the scientific community. So, while the human apparatus can well assess geomantic and paranormal forces, it would take quite a bit of effort
and unusual equipment to measure these forces routinely and portably; and regulatory bodies such as the HPUS might not find the data too convincing unless they were convinced of precedent; and the measurement methods were completely described in the proving.
**** Agreed. Metaphysically-driven rx, as I said, would probably (and unfortunately) more correctly be placed into the category of "imponderable" at the present time. But physical forces and emanations should not be.
**** Measure them from a chemical species standpoint, yes. This is easier at the present time-yes. But the lactose or liquid has undergone a change by irradiation by the emanation or the influence of the force, also. We may be able to measure it using an appropriate spectroscopic method. If Benveniste or someone like him has not already done this, someone needs to do their PHD thesis on it and then start a company and sell the equipment. Just because it is not easy to measure does not mean it cannot be measured. And we don't necessarily need to measure it. We haven't
done so with Magnetis polis aus for 175 years, and it still works on ingrown toenail cases.
A purely materialistic perspective to the exclusion of rx made by means of forces and emanations is hypocritical when we have known for up to100 years that x-ray, Sol, and Luna work in potentized form; probably 175 years that magnet does when made into a potentized remedy. And---the final remedy product of ANY of our potentized rx is to date only measureable by spectroscopy, proving, or appropriate client--not chemically assayable. So applying a chemical paradigm toward considering Force and Emanation rx secondary is incongruous.
(Not saying that you are in any way materialistic or hypocritical Gaby
! please dont mistake the point as if I am speaking directly to you--- this is merely a discussion:-))
The 3C of Luna for example cannot be assessed by chemical assay based on valence chemistry, but that does NOT make it a lesser remedy than one based on a chemical--does it? Have you used the deep sycotic rx X-ray (Lou Klein considers it "one notch more sycotic than thuja") in a case before (I expect that you have many times)--was it less effective than any plant remedy?
I MAKE THE POINT to try to break the materialistic perspective where it still exists, even as we give non-material remedies every day. Remedies made from stuff other than plants, fungi, animals, pathogens, etc. are essential and exciting additions to the field. New remedies do not come into existence "by accident". Fire and Vacuum are being used , for example, only a a handful of years after introduction. It is wise, IMO to open up to the possibilities of these (many of them new) remedies and not be prejudiced against them.
Shannon wrote:
**** Dear Shannon, I'm having the song "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof go through my head as I read this. It was precisely my point that we inherited a term which, while it is apparently still literally correct for conventional pharmacal preps (the treated sample is unweighable since it is a force or emanation); for homeopathic purposes it is misleading (because "ponder" commonly no longer means to weigh on a scale)--and the eventual active component of the homeopathic pharmacal product being manufactured ALSO cannot be weighed on a scale. The "active ingredient" of ANY
potentized remedy would be- under the reasoning implied by the archaic term imponderable;--IMPONDERABLE. You correctly grokked the hypocrisy of it in that sense in your other paragraph above.
andy wrote:
The webster's says IMPONDERABLE: "not ponderable:incapable of
JW
THAT is a good definition.
**** And an archaic inherited one (in the sense of PHYSICAL WEIGHING) that none of us knew without looking in the dictionary, because the contemporary understood meaning is more like "incapable of being evaluated/considered/fathomed/measured".
JW
This is getting bogged down in Semantics.
ALL the imponderables (x-ray, electricitas, magnet, sol, luna) fit
the above definition-- they are incapable of being WEIGHED.
It is NOT that they are incapable of being *measured*.
**** But that is the modern "take" on what is an inherited word that none of us really knew the archaic definition of. In common parlance now, it means "unfathomable/measureable/considerable"--yes? Not a good name for a pharmaceutical category when this is largely NOT the case. So semantics are important, and were a significant point in a discussion which has (for me) become TOO PONDEROUS. I trust my point has been made. Force and Emanation remedies are not "second class citizens". Enough time spent on this.
JW
But to MAKE any of them you can't use the balance scale and say 1g of
this to 9 g of that.
***** Right. But in an pharmaceutical science producing for the most part medicinal products which cannot be physically weighed, this is not a logical stumbling block.
***** I'm bailing out of this discussion for time management reasons, and because the point has been made, and I am now repeating myself.
Best to All,
Andy
Gaby Rottler wrote:
**** Dear Gaby, Thanks for the definition.
The inherited word imponderable (maybe formerly used in pharmacy profession as unweighable with a physical scale) as used NOW (in American english, at least) connotes that something "cannot be fathomed; measured; considered". My point, in championing the notice and use of remedies made from Forces and Emanations , is to point out that the idea of immeasurability is absolutely false for most of the Physical forces and emanations (hertzian electrical and spectral; thermodynamic; magnetic; newtonian; atomic; subatomic; cosmic; etc etc forces and emanations, as we have ways to
measure (applicable parameter) intensity; frequency; flux; speed; temperature; voltage; current; radioactivity; etc etc. Unlike Hahnemann's time, the technology for measuring the forces is extremely sophisticated and CALIBRATED by internationally standardized units. So a well-developed design for rx making should be precisely repeatable based on making the appropriate measurements of all the appropriate parameters. The parameters do not include measuring the WEIGHT of the sample, as the sample is not a material. So what? That should not be a fatal requirement. If it is, it
ignores the physical universe in favor of the chemical. This is an inappropriate and unnecessary PREJUDICE.
So the definition of "to ponder" meaning to "weigh on a scale", IF that is how the pharmacal use of the term came about; is (technically) CORRECTLY applied to this class of rx. But the MODERN and commonly understood meaning of "ponder" is NOT to "weigh on a scale", but to CONSIDER. And rx made from forces and emanations can certainly be *considered*, and MEASURED, in every which way, although assessing their apparent mass against in the earth's gravitational field is often not one of the possible measurements. The parameters, procedures, and controls, properly designed, can
define a medicine manufacture at least as repeatable as say, different crops of arnica montana.
The fact that rx from Forces and Emanations must be carefully made by exposure to the force or emanation instead of only sampled or harvested and processed as a material is a difference which makes Forces and Emanations a different class of remedies, certainly. But ANY medicine we are making ultimately also defies being weighed with a scale. To call the Forces and Emanations "imponderable"---"not able to be considered"--- connotes that they are somehow on a lesser par than material remedies. This connotation, if so comprehended, is false. X-ray in potency acts on organisms
just as well as does Arnica.
And by another perspective, just because we can chemically assay Arnica by weight, does that mean we "know" (ponderable) its energetic meaning and effect any more than we know that of x-ray? They both become "known" through proving and clinical use of their POTENTIZED (with no physical weight) form.
Gaby wrote:
**** This could be a formidable problem, and must be well thought out as you correctly point out. That is where the design of the making of the remedy must be precise and well-considered. For the sun, a focal hood which was manually moved to track the sun for the desired period would be in order to make the sunlight the prime influence. Or a telescope without lens or the like. In the case of other celestial bodies, a telescope is the best option, but also requires tracking.
Gaby wrote:
**** This should be shielded from, not probably a difficult problem.
Gaby wrote:
**** None of these influences are specific to exposing an original sample to a Force or Emanation. Every remedy being potentized by hand (an influence of people which occurs for all potentized rx BTW) or a korsakovian machine are exposed all during the process to magnetic field, solar storms, earthquakes, planetary influences, bees and insects, flying by, etc, etc. Each iteration in the potentization is susceptible to these things. They are not unique to the problem of shielding a sample to a desired Force or Emanation.
Gaby wrote:
**** I assume the rx maker would be intelligent enough to eliminate such a variable fairly easily.
Gaby wrote:
**** If there were such uncontrollable variables, then the sample could not be prepared, and the remedy not made.
Gaby wrote:
**** "Radi onically made rx work as approximations. But they are in the same category as pharmacy potencies-- we can (I assume) measure them as can pharmacy potencies using NMR or "double Beam" spectroscopy, but there are not many people doing that even now--as far as I know, even pharmacies do not measure their own remedies that way for QC (as does the school in India we heard about from Cinnabar and Jim).
If thought focus or intent is involved, this uses human mind faculties which are in the realm of non-hertzian (metaphysical) forces and emanations. Metaphysical forces and emanations are measureable qualitatively by Kirlian and silver emulsion (eg Polaroid) photography; and perhaps quantitatively by spectroscopy, but such measurement is not commonplace. Quantitative meters specifically made for this purpose are not yet available to even the scientific community. So, while the human apparatus can well assess geomantic and paranormal forces, it would take quite a bit of effort
and unusual equipment to measure these forces routinely and portably; and regulatory bodies such as the HPUS might not find the data too convincing unless they were convinced of precedent; and the measurement methods were completely described in the proving.
**** Agreed. Metaphysically-driven rx, as I said, would probably (and unfortunately) more correctly be placed into the category of "imponderable" at the present time. But physical forces and emanations should not be.
**** Measure them from a chemical species standpoint, yes. This is easier at the present time-yes. But the lactose or liquid has undergone a change by irradiation by the emanation or the influence of the force, also. We may be able to measure it using an appropriate spectroscopic method. If Benveniste or someone like him has not already done this, someone needs to do their PHD thesis on it and then start a company and sell the equipment. Just because it is not easy to measure does not mean it cannot be measured. And we don't necessarily need to measure it. We haven't
done so with Magnetis polis aus for 175 years, and it still works on ingrown toenail cases.
A purely materialistic perspective to the exclusion of rx made by means of forces and emanations is hypocritical when we have known for up to100 years that x-ray, Sol, and Luna work in potentized form; probably 175 years that magnet does when made into a potentized remedy. And---the final remedy product of ANY of our potentized rx is to date only measureable by spectroscopy, proving, or appropriate client--not chemically assayable. So applying a chemical paradigm toward considering Force and Emanation rx secondary is incongruous.
(Not saying that you are in any way materialistic or hypocritical Gaby
! please dont mistake the point as if I am speaking directly to you--- this is merely a discussion:-))The 3C of Luna for example cannot be assessed by chemical assay based on valence chemistry, but that does NOT make it a lesser remedy than one based on a chemical--does it? Have you used the deep sycotic rx X-ray (Lou Klein considers it "one notch more sycotic than thuja") in a case before (I expect that you have many times)--was it less effective than any plant remedy?
I MAKE THE POINT to try to break the materialistic perspective where it still exists, even as we give non-material remedies every day. Remedies made from stuff other than plants, fungi, animals, pathogens, etc. are essential and exciting additions to the field. New remedies do not come into existence "by accident". Fire and Vacuum are being used , for example, only a a handful of years after introduction. It is wise, IMO to open up to the possibilities of these (many of them new) remedies and not be prejudiced against them.
Shannon wrote:
**** Dear Shannon, I'm having the song "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof go through my head as I read this. It was precisely my point that we inherited a term which, while it is apparently still literally correct for conventional pharmacal preps (the treated sample is unweighable since it is a force or emanation); for homeopathic purposes it is misleading (because "ponder" commonly no longer means to weigh on a scale)--and the eventual active component of the homeopathic pharmacal product being manufactured ALSO cannot be weighed on a scale. The "active ingredient" of ANY
potentized remedy would be- under the reasoning implied by the archaic term imponderable;--IMPONDERABLE. You correctly grokked the hypocrisy of it in that sense in your other paragraph above.
andy wrote:
The webster's says IMPONDERABLE: "not ponderable:incapable of
JW
THAT is a good definition.
**** And an archaic inherited one (in the sense of PHYSICAL WEIGHING) that none of us knew without looking in the dictionary, because the contemporary understood meaning is more like "incapable of being evaluated/considered/fathomed/measured".
JW
This is getting bogged down in Semantics.
ALL the imponderables (x-ray, electricitas, magnet, sol, luna) fit
the above definition-- they are incapable of being WEIGHED.
It is NOT that they are incapable of being *measured*.
**** But that is the modern "take" on what is an inherited word that none of us really knew the archaic definition of. In common parlance now, it means "unfathomable/measureable/considerable"--yes? Not a good name for a pharmaceutical category when this is largely NOT the case. So semantics are important, and were a significant point in a discussion which has (for me) become TOO PONDEROUS
. I trust my point has been made. Force and Emanation remedies are not "second class citizens". Enough time spent on this.JW
But to MAKE any of them you can't use the balance scale and say 1g of
this to 9 g of that.
***** Right. But in an pharmaceutical science producing for the most part medicinal products which cannot be physically weighed, this is not a logical stumbling block.
***** I'm bailing out of this discussion for time management reasons, and because the point has been made, and I am now repeating myself.
Best to All,
Andy