Hi Didi,
It is an interesting question,though, whether we should be
encouraging a solid and exclusive base to homeopathic teaching, or a
more inventive and experimental application to fall under its umbrella.
If the former then the teachings of Hahnemann have been ardently
upheld as the yardstick by which use of the term 'homeopathy' should
measured, if the latter then we must ask where will the line be
drawn, and if it can be drawn at all.
It has been frequently ( some might say relentlessly) been pointed
out on this list that to fall within the definition of the term
'homeopathy' certain criteria must be met - specifically the
teachings of Hahnemann, in fact to the word. When the methods
proposed fall outside those criteria should the term 'homeopathy'
therefore not be dropped to prevent confusion? If not then how far
can homeopathy be stretched before it ceases to be homeopathy, and
importantly, who will decide this?
E.g. (this already discussed) can it be considered homeopathy to
give a remedy to termites to prevent them causing symptoms? Leaving
aside the question of whether the invaded shed has a vital force or
not, homeopathy might normally expect the remedy to be given to the
Shed being invaded, or to the person concerned about the shed. I.e.
the ones exhibiting the symptoms - rather than to the cause of the
symptoms, as suggested here. Removing the cause, by whatever means,
makes good sense, but are the methods used homeopathy? i.e Why can
it be called homeopathy when we give a potentised substance to the
invading agent itself, to repel it ( by whatever mechanism) but not
when we give a physical dose of something that would repel it. This
would potentially mean that dilution = homeopathy, which is not as
far as I know generally considered to be the case.
I am however interested in speculating how such a thing could indeed
be homeopathic, these and similar questions are intriguing , but
until we understand the principle by which they operate how can we
call it homeopathy, if ( as has previously been emphatically stated)
Homeopathy is defined specifically by symptom similarity; as this
principle has not been exhibited in the scenario above?
Why is this a problem? It is only a problem if we are to believe the
emphasis that has been placed on the use of the terms 'homeopathy',
'homeopathic'. These terms have been rigidly defined by reference to
Hahnemanns writings. Anything that has fallen outside his writings
has been condemned. e.g combination or complex remedies, prescribing
on disease name, - there have been heated discussions whether
prophylaxis can be considered homeopathy, etc..
Yet those very authors that objected to any deviation from the letter
of Hahnemanns teaching now happily lend credence to the application
of diluted sbstances being used in a manner that does not adhere to
any teachings of Hahnemann, as being homeopathic. This is the
problem, in that it must sow the very seeds of confusion that these
protagonists were erstwhile trying to purge.
I am not concerned whether the understanding of the term homeopathy
is stretched or not, I am happy to to expand the understanding and
teaching of homeopathy, what does concern me though is that those
that have repeatedly and vehemently defined the boundaries, should
transgress them with the flimsiest of justification. If we abandon
the most fundamental principle of homeopathy, (prescribing on symptom
similarity), then are we to also abandon others, e.g. the single dose?
Throwing out part of Homeopathic philosophy whilst retaining other
parts is confusing and inconsistent, and doesn't give a very good
impression for the student, for the public, for for scientists or the
media.
In the same way defining homeopathy as scientific then proposing
that other methods of application which have yet to be proved as
being either scientific or homeopathic (as defined) should also be
called homeopathy, is inconsistent. It may be that the scientific
principle will be determined in due course, and it may or may not be
homeopathic, but until then it is not accurate to call it homeopathy
- if the definitions previously placed by those same posters are to
mean anything. This is not to say that explorations must not be made
but that the terminology used (which had previously been defended)
remain consistent.
What I found so amusing was the depth of disparity between the stated
positions - it only requires a modicum of extrapolation to see the
quixotic possibilities!
Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]