symptom similarity for the dead etc.

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Dear Joy,

it is not a question of how many times you have to say something,
because if you just repeat something that makes no sense it doesn't
make more sense from repetition. Neither does the frustration you
experience trying to convey your beliefs, make it a stronger arguement.

I am not smirking at you honestly, but I think that as you have been
a stickler for correct definition of homeopathy in the past it would
behove you not to tack your own extra definition on the side.

As far as ants or termites are concerned, I have already made it
clear why it isn't homeopathy

As for dead persons, what you are expousing here is YOUR OWN PERSONAL
BELIEFS. I have no problem with what you believe until you call it
homeopathy, because your personal beliefs do not coincide with
established homeopathic philosophy.

Giving remedies to dead persons isn't 'homeopathy'. It may very well
be possible to give 'remedies' to the dead, but not homeopathically.
There is no authoritative precedent for homeopathy being used this
way. There is a tradition in Christainity and perhaps other religions
of the dead coming back to life or of there being an 'afterlife'.
However for that to be part of homeopathy ALL bona fide homeopaths
would have to subscribe to Christianity or the other relevant
religion for it to be true, which situation we know is not the case.
It is not in the arena of homeopathic philosophy to treat the
permanently deceased - only your beliefs and imagination that can
stretch the point that far.

You have expressed your belief about it, mine is that it is pure
speculation, a romantic religiosity - that is definitely not meant to
be insulting, just to make it clear that there are equally valid
opposing views on this. Neither of our BELIEFS are relevant to the
definition of homeopathy as it is not possible to present a
reproducible or quantifiable result from them.

To expect others who do not share the same personal or religious
beliefs to accept them as falling within the definition of of
homeopathy is unrealistic. To do so would append a specific religious
meaning to homeopathy (a 'scientific' discipline both you and Chris
strongly argued). And as for getting the public at large to accept a
homeopathy that also treats the dead and garden furniture - that
presents a pretty daunting prospect.

If you want to treat the Dead that's OK, you're certainly unlikely to
do any harm.

These are your personal beliefs Joy, not homeopathy, it is important
not to confuse the two
Simon
All things are possible, some are just more probable than others.

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Joy,
yahoo is acting up hence the funny formatting to overcome this...

joylucas wrote
"Believe it or not I am a very pragmatic practitioner but outside of
that I am interested in exploring how symptom similarity can be
applied, i.e. the vast potential of homeopathic practice. "

#agree so far....
joylucas wrote
"You cannot
denounce what you do not know."

# I do know that dead people don't answer questions.

joylucas wrote
We can only ask questions and explore
#You cannot ask questions of dead people because they are dead.
Unless you are a medium, which as iI have pointed out before is not a
pre-requisit of becoming a homeopath.

joylucas wrote
We are poles apart on this and not coming anywhere close on the
philosophical planes and for this reason I do not want to keep saying
the same things

# that's fine I am not asking you to agree with me philosophically
nor me with you , that isn't the issue. You are entitled to your
philosophy, me to mine. Does that mean there are different types of
homeopathy?

joylucas wrote
when it either gets read incorrectly by you and then
misquoted (it IS very frustrating when this happens and no fun for
anyone to keep reading these sort of posts)

#no misquote!----your-How do any of us know if the dead do not
take
their disease with them, unless they died of so called natural causes
or just old age they will have died because of something. We do not
know.-----

# quite right we do not know - and never will - BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD
Anyway your philosophical arguement falls flat on it's face if you
believe the dead can be treated with homeopathy, because if that's
the case then logically there are dead homeopaths who can treat the
dead much better, their being on the same plane!

joylucas wrote
or you don't want to begin
to explore either and keep telling people how I have contradicted
myself - for me that is a non starter.

# I am more than happy to explore, but you cannot state the outcome
before you do the exploration, - which is what you are doing by
saying it is homeopathy to treat the dead. - better put it , 'it
might turn out to be homeopathy one day when all homeopaths are
mediums." That is less implausible.

joylucas wrote

"I am not putting forward any personal beliefs beyond the basic
fundamentals of homeopathy.

# Show me where the fundamental of homeopathy condone treating the dead.

joylucas wrote
Whether or not what I write resides on some
other cosmic plane doesn't invalidate is as qualifying as homeopathy.

#First of all 'some other cosmic plane' is a nebulous undefined
concept, so what you appear to be really saying here is ' homeopathy
might be some nebulous undefined concept'... and 'that doesn't
invalidate it as qualifying as homeopathy'

I
have said all along that I am writing from a point of view of the
potential of sx similarity and I call it homeopathy.
# there is no such thing as the 'potential of symptom similarity'
within your use of the term. Sypmtom similaritry either exists of it
doesn't. To suggest homeopathy encompasses the 'potential of symptom
similarity' is again a nebulous undefined concept
joylucas wrote
You write from a
point of view of combo remedies and call it homeopathy
# I don't know why you keep saying this... I don't!
-what I have done is include info and references to tissue salts on
my website which seems to have stuck like a fish bone in your throat.
If you read the rest of my site you'd see that is not what I call
homeopathy. Anyway I am challenging what YOU define homeopathy as,
not promoting my own definition.
BTW do you also denounce Tinus Smits? - because he uses combo Rxs
that aren't even tissue salts but both proved and unproved Rxs
together (e.g. his carcinosin) ?

joylucas wrote
So write what you want but I am not coming back on this.
# suit yourself

I would rather
discuss it with others.
# do you mean with those that won't challenge your assumptions but
just accept what you say as gospel?

joylucas wrote
Also please do not assume I need your grace to
have any kind of intellectual thinking. It would be pleasant if you
could refrain from making these kinds of announcements.
#I am very aware Grace is not mine to bestow, but the good Lord's. I
only try to make it clear that the point I wish to concentrate on is
the definition of homeopathy, not religious beliefs.

Simon