Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy
Hi Jeff,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...
|
They are certainly not interested in history! |
"History" was not the best word to use, but I think my meaning was explained. To make the statement misses the fact that a *great* deal has happened in the field. But if they have pre-judged and are not interested in *hearing* the facts, there's not much one can do...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer,(?) still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development,(?) and development has been taking place--newer remedies
|
They too have newer remedies all the time |
Sure, but that's neither here nor there. I would hope that progress is happening on both sides of the "fence". My only point was that, to say that nothing has changed in homeopathy is an extraordinarily misguided statement, and quite untrue.
Some practitioners make more use than others of new material, and some are actively opposed to anything that breaks out of what Hahnemann did and said. But that is a matter of personal choices within the broader framework, not something that is true of homeopathy as a whole, even if we define it pretty strictly. At least that is how it looks to me. What do *you* think? From what you know and see of homeopathy, do *you* think that nothing's changed in 200 years?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
progressively broader and deeper
|
But the same form of application |
?? By mouth / nose, you mean? If it works, why change it? Allopaths still give their meds by mouth too. ??? I don't think I understand...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
understanding of older remedies
|
And SH didn't have that understanding? |
Did he know everything about each the remedies he used, and did he feel he had used and known every possibly useful remedy? No, certainly not, to both.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable"
|
What's new here? |
Some will say that methods such as Eizayaga's, Ramakrishnan's, Sankaran's, Scholten's, etc., are all in that category. And yes I know that some say (some or any of) these are "not homeopathy", and IMO that is really a different discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
new methods of teaching, learning, information management...
|
Still S.H's way- 200+ years old! |
No... We have new materia medicas that present the information in different ways, with different emphasis, placing varying degrees of emphasis on various types of information (locals vs. generals vs. mentals vs. remedy relationships vs. "bigger picture" (for lack of a tidy term)...
We have computers, on-line databases, journals, additional provings, additional discussion about pros and cons of various approaches, ways of sharing experiences and insights.
Want to describe your understanding of "how Sam did it", and we can compare that with the present? I think we need to make this more concrete...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result
|
They are cynical |
So that cynicism has no basis except their own uninformed conversations, or ??
[QUOTE=j tikari]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case)
|
It is, Shannon - accepted]/QUOTE]?? Wow, this *list* can't even agree on a definition, so I'm eager to hear what that "universe" has decided on! :-))
Then are they figuring that everything they read about "homeopathy" refers only and precisely to strict Hahnemannian methods? That would evidence a HUGE lack of understanding of the present situation--don't you agree???
To some people, "homeopathy" means anything using potentized substances; to others, herbs can fairly be called "homeopathic" (honestly, I've seen it done!). To some people methods such as VOLL and Vegatesting are homeopathy, and to others they are not. Some make a distinction between "homeotherapeutics" and homeopathy, while others class them together. What definition are they using?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?
|
Definitely unfamiliar |
Well... If they are so cynical in absence of any familiarity at all with the subject, there's not a whole lot one can say. If they want to know about it, they will have to look into it. If all they want to is mouth about how backward and useless it is, then the usefulness of conversation might be limited.
I suppose the only hope of waking them up, will be to let them see some good results. And depending on where they are, I guess that might be harder, or easier... Or they could read...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
(As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic"
|
What is non-homeopathic? |
Well, this turns on what one takes as the definition of "homeopathy". As per discussions on the lists, some people (myself included, tho I am not so extreme as some) feel that the term should mean (at least more or less) what its founder / inventor / discoverer--the person who coined the term--intended it to mean: one remedy at a time, chosen based on "like cures like", given in minimum dose (potentization being an added tool, rather than actually defining; which is interesting, because in popular usage, at least in many places, anything involving potentized substances is called "homeopathy", regardless of how the remedy is chosen or what the goal is or etc.
So--"what is non-homeopathic" at this point certainly depends upon whom you ask.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by j tikari
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shannon
that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???)
|
Of course they care - their bread is being pulled from their mouths |
So they care about competing, not about understanding. Someone should explain, they will be better able to "compete", if they take the time to "understand"!
Quote:
|
one leading light(a surgeon), said homeopathy was like the Masonic cult, steeped in secrecy and like an alchemists depraved belief in the occult - they all clapped. Did I have a chance? I made a surrepticious departure. They had closed ranks, they were secure in their infaliability.
|
Sounds that way. It's probably a discussion better carried on one-to-one, and then only with someone who is actually able to listen to what you're saying.
So... Basically what you are wondering is how one might spread *information* in an environment which is basically closed to receiving it. That's a tough one! That "leading light" remarks are so absurd that they would be easily countered--*if* anyone chose to listen, and *if* there were opportunity of speaking. But if neither possibility was there, then leaving does seem the most reasonable response. It's too bad...
Maybe there are opportunities to have that conversation one-on-one, or to give them chances to *see* homeopathy working. I don't know what to say on that--good luck!
Best,
Shannon
|