Minutus

Dear Paul,
I have studied various traditions in many areas and have discovered that the "No NO you may not mix and match ideas or have your own" comes from some very pratical pedagogical considerations: Some people are confused by contradiction. If you are not easily confused, and I am not either, then you can look at and personally practice other contradictory and complementary ideas. But, in a forum like this, probably it is not a good idea to confuse those who are easily confused by contradictions. Also, because it is hard enough to understand the straight and narrow aspects of homeopathic philosophy, if you are going to contradict, say clearly that you intend to contradict the received truth of the list. I personally think it is ok to say things that contradict the tradition if you give fair warning that you are going to do that, intentionally, clearly and up front. Then people who are going to be confused will avoid you. The other school says, never contradict because any contradiction leaves the path of truth. I have see enough straying from the straight and narrow path on this list to say that you are not alone. After straying from the path, there are times when the straight and narrow becomes clearer, easier to follow and more valuable. I personally have trouble thinking on a tight rope.
Blessings,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Ellen,

I am a little confused, so forgive me if I misread what you have said. As
far as contradicting the truth of the list, what truth are we talking about?
I don't think the list truth and tradition can be equated or are even true.
Who has strayed from the truth, me or "the list". I assume you are thinking
my comments were isolated? I think some of my ideas are not unique and may
be shared by others. But I am not sure what you are refering to.

As far as the straight and narrow is concerned, what path are you
describing? I would rather you explained yourself clearly before I can
answer.

Perhaps if you comment on specific parts of my email?

Regards,
Paul
the "No NO you may not mix and match ideas or have your own" comes from some
very pratical pedagogical considerations: Some people are confused by
contradiction. If you are not easily confused, and I am not either, then
you can look at and personally practice other contradictory and
complementary ideas. But, in a forum like this, probably it is not a good
idea to confuse those who are easily confused by contradictions. Also,
because it is hard enough to understand the straight and narrow aspects of
homeopathic philosophy, if you are going to contradict, say clearly that you
intend to contradict the received truth of the list. I personally think it
is ok to say things that contradict the tradition if you give fair warning
that you are going to do that, intentionally, clearly and up front. Then
people who are going to be confused will avoid you. The other school says,
never contradict because any co
the straight and narrow path on this list to say that you are not alone.
After straying from the path, there are times when the straight and narrow
becomes clearer, easier to follow and more valuable. I personally have
trouble thinking on a tight rope.

Dear Paul,

I am reading replies from Joy (who seems to be quite an authority and I do treasure her insights), that "you cannot talk about this and that on this list." I don't think you are unique and I am trying to think how could one talk about a subject that is really interesting but not orthodox and not arouse list watch dogs to send you scoldings. I should probably just develop a thicker skin.

I think I was responding to something you wrote implying use of two remedies because 2 layers were presenting at the same time. I was thinking, how does he distinguish 2 distinct layers in the first place, and then before I wrote my question, I got the admonishment concerning what can and cannot be discussed. Regardless of your non-classical solution (2 remedies at once, or so I thought), your observation is interesting. These watch dog statements make it difficult for me to think out loud. Maybe I was misinterpreting your message in the first place. Your description of 2 layers presenting at the same time, in my early beginniner world, was not very clear. Hanhemman says one layer dominates over the other but I don't think he talks about 2 layers presenting at the same time (based on little reading). That doesn't mean that you can see something that he did not see. Or maybe I misunderstood you.

Blessings,
Ellen

Hello Ellen,
Firstly, unless I am mistaken, I don't think Joy was directing any replies
to me.

remedies because 2 layers were presenting at the same time. I was thinking,
how does he distinguish 2 distinct layers in the first place, and then
before I wrote my question, I got the admonishment concerning what can and
cannot be discussed. Regardless of your non-classical solution (2 remedies
at once, or so I thought), your observation is interesting. These watch dog
statements make it difficult for me to think out loud. Maybe I was
misinterpreting your message in the first place. Your description of 2
layers presenting at the same time, in my early beginniner world, was not
very clear. Hanhemman says one layer dominates over the other but I don't
think he talks about 2 layers presenting at the same time (based on little
reading). That doesn't mean that you can see something that he did not see.
Or maybe I misunderstood you.

I am not necessarily promoting the layer theory or treating with separate
remedies as a rule or as good practice. When I mentioned in the case that I
gave Arg nit. but felt that some thuja was in there, I meant that I have
decided to give the Arg. nit as it is indicated for the current VF
disturbance. At some time in the patient's life there seemd to be a need
for Thuja. Had I seen the patient earlier she might have got Thuja.
Whether that means Thuja will resurface, cannot be assumed. You have to
wait and see, but if it does, at least I will be ready.

This is not the same as giving two remedies for a current condition, or two
remedies, one for one part and one for another. Even Hahnemann teaches that
you treat the acute psora and when that is over, you treat the underlying
chronic miasm of psora. Or in a case where there are "two miasma" such as
syphhilis and psora (brought on e.g. by medication) then you treat the one
"layer" or state, the psora first, or else your patient is too weak to
respond to the syphillitic remedy e.g. Merc sol. Remember that your remedy
needs to react on the level of the VF, i.e. disturb the vital force, and so
if your VF is weak, the remedy action is weak. We always argue about one
potency "stronger" than another without looking at the part that it acts on.
Remedy action is weak when
1. you have weak VF
2. you have other effects on the VF such as another remedy or morbific
influence or stress.
3. it is not the simillimum. The closer it is to the VF disturbance, the
greater the susceptibility, the stronger it's effects will be.

Now if "two states" are seen that manifest at different times, one the acute
state and the other a latent state or even what seems as another chronic
state, someone like Mangliovori might say he can prescribe one remedy for
all the states. Depends on you knowledge of mat.med.

Regards,
Paul

Thanks Paul,
I was clearly misreading you.
Blessings,
Ellen

Hello Ellen,
Can often happen.

regards,
paul