gpm,
Thanks for clearing up avagadro's number!

Anna,
Thank you for clarification of fn276a/161. Ouch, was I spelling avgadro's number wrong all this time - and it is really avAgadro [img]redface.gif[/img] ?
I wasn't intending to claim H knew about avagadro's number; it was only a reference point. Isn't it interesting, though, what H's observations yielded without knowing this?!

Chris,
Do you think Kent was correct? Or that he muddied things beyond reason? I'm beginning to think Kent got some things wrong. That worries me from the angle that we're taught Kent( in some colleges) without these subtle differences being pointed out - AT LEAST as food for thought! Though, it's enough trying to decipher the Organon, I suppose. Seriously, though, is there a conflict - such that the two 'schools of thought' are irreconcilable, is I guess, what I'm now asking?

Snoopy,
I don't understand: "the crude substance stops at 24X, and you can't get lower than zero; so the idea that you get way up to, say, 1M, and there's even less (?) crude substance, making it more gentle than the 200, which must consequently be more gentle than the 30, and so on, just doesn't fly on the face of it."

That isn't what I was talking about. I guess this is in line with Kent's philosophy which Chris distinguishes above. And, it seems to me that Kent might have been a little off on this point of simple substance - which might mislead us to thinking the amount of a remedy doesn't matter....which seems to be in conflict with what Hahenmann wrote. sigh sigh sigh
You quote Luc - who quotes Kent...must be along the simple-substance line of thinking.... I'm in bad need of chocolat now.

I'm just realizing how important dosing is and that it is not that simple with a set-starting-point. Which makes it more exasperating - the thought of getting a patient's dosage right and the fact it's different in every case. Listen, thanks for Luc's take on this, but I'm trying to decipher H's words/works . Who is to say who is right amongst the contemporary homeopaths? I think I'll take H's words for now (if I can crack the 'code') and check on Luc and others later (it'll be good to understand them all - yeh baby, as if the Organon isn't enough to swallow). This is what adds what I call the frustration-factor of Homeopathy. So, have that dose of Lachesis if you feel you need it. I need something after all this, myself (chocolat is screaming to me now, baby). Just make sure you don't overdose like Hering did . Or was it an overdose - repeated too low too often ? Maybe the potency was too high? Just kidding. Listen, it might affect your mojo - so tread carefully. Mojo is important. I've found chocolat to be ok.

I'm seeing §275/6 more as a general statement that we have to carefully consider/select potency, amount and repetitions with each case, rather than a blanket statement banning high potencies or advocating low potencies as such; with two warnings:
-of the harm that repeated low potencies can do
-along with the damage that can ALSO be done if the dose is too strong in higher potencies that are repeated too often. Much like Anna's 'overdose' explanation I guess - just different words. Did I just repeat myself? Maybe there is nothing to expand on. Have I at least got some understanding here? I'm going in circles now. Better get in my car and drive in a straight line for the moment. And I'm taking chocolat with me. Beglian...lots of it...eating it all.. Austin.