Mechanisms and the Vital Force

MRC_Hans and Tim et al.,

I see this remark on the back flap of Harris Coulter's DIVIDED LEGACY (DL), Vol. IV:

Both of you guys want to impose upon homeopathy the allopathic model of reductionism and mechanisms. You are both talking about things going on inside the cell. I think that all of us find that an impossible notion given the fact that we use subAvogadrean, ultramolecular, etheric medicines.

Both homeopathy and allopathic medicine have shown that there is so little of value for medicinal treatment of diseases in the materialism model of modern science that underlies both Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy. I would ask you two to please read volumes III and IV of DL before too much longer. Receptor-Site Theory is a bunch of whooie, guys. Please do not try to superimpose it upon homeopathy, especially given that we use ultramolecular drugs that prove it is both crude and unnecessary to the unraveling of drug powers to cure. We already know how that's discovered.

[ 23. October 2003, 14:35: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Albert,
We cut our eyeteeth on the established Scientific mechanisms.

I don't want to impose anything on you. Just looking for the ONE truth...can't be two truths.
Hahnemann's "allopaths" no longer exist. The word doesn't even exist outside Homeopathy.

"we?"- Are you people unanimous? Let's ask others, e.g., ChaCha or Bach.

Tim

Mr. Albert & others,

Can you give awnser to my questions as I asked in 'SIGHTLT BIGGER THAN THE BIGGEST' topic. There can be five types of concentration of any remedy to find out & note its symptons/chracteristics:-

1. Symptoms/chracteristics in its raw form(non toxic/inert substances).

2. Symptoms/chracteristics in its natural form,a form/concentration which we naturally ingest.

3. Symptoms/chracteristics in its toxic/inert concentration.

4. Symptoms/chracteristics in its differant potentized forms as a homeopathic medicine to find out effects of any potency.

5. Symptoms/chracteristics in its diluted forms(non potentized).

I want to know that which concentration/s is/are used out of above concentrations to find out the Symptoms/chracteristics of any remedy for the purpose of incorpotation in Materia Medica?

[ 24. October 2003, 05:18: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

I'll try to answer this one but doubt I'll avoid errors or manage to answer them completely.

Restated, your questions are as follows:

1. Can we discern characteristic/uncommon, strange, rare or peculiar, therapeutically important symptoms from inert substances in their natural state?

No, because inert means nonreactive, and this class means things like rocks, the metals and their compounds and alloys that are only able to produce symptoms in the healthy when potentized.

Note well the extreme nature of this discovery by Hahnemann, for he unlocked the curative potential of such substances via a few triturations and subsequent homeopathic potentization.

Gold is a homeopathic medicine called Aurum metallicum, and Aurum-met. patients either went uncured or their cases had to be zig zagged to cure by a series of nearly homeopathic medicines over a much longer period of time, not always successfully, until its pathogenic ("suffering-inducing") powers were discovered.

Platinum is a homeopathic medicine called Platina metallicum, and Plat. patients either went uncured or...(bla bla bla) until its pathogenic powers were discovered.

This holds for all of the inert substances, and Hahnemann was the hyper-genius who also, among many major medical discoveries, rediscovered this process.

That is to say, the Spagyric physicians also used such chemically inert substances in homeopathic potentization and per the Law of Similars (etc.) and that Hahnemann invoked them in paragraph 43 of his first paper on homeopathy** as well as that he had charge of the library of the Governor of Translyvannia (I believe that's who) before rediscovering homeopathy.

2. Can we discern uncommon symptoms from foods and spices?

No, because these things only become medicinal upon homeopathic potentization.

If you want to argue that allergies demonstrate such uncommon symptoms via their toxicological powers upon people sensitive to these substances, I'd demur to greater authority about that.

In the meantime, I'd provisionally say maybe but cannot say otherwise with any assurance because I'm not sure I know enough to say those symptoms are sufficiently differential to provide for unambiguous prescriptions but doubt it.

3. Can we discern uncommon symptoms from toxicology ("study of toxins or toxic properties") of inert substances?

Inert substances cannot produce toxic reactions or they would be reactive physically, chemically or medicinally, because inert means nonreactive.

Actually, you said "in its toxic/inert concentration," but that seems to be either a contradiction in terms or a problem for you as a nonnative speaker of English.

4. Can we discern uncommon symptoms from homeopathically potentized substances?

This is the principal, if not the only, source for these all-important symptoms.

What you actually asked was, however, can we discern uncommon symptoms of a substance "in its different [variously] potentized forms [i.e., in its various potencies? end question] as a homeopathic medicine to find out effects of any potency?"

What that seems to be asking is if we discover different uncommon symptoms from different potencies?

Yes, for homeopathic potentization unfolds or extends the range of effectiveness and increases the precision of the symptoms of a drug (Minutus.com, Boenninghausen on "The Value of High Potencies").

5. Can we discern the uncommon symptoms of a substance in its diluted, non-potentized form?

Yes and no.

Yes, and only provisionally, if the substance is medicinal as a chemical drug or medicinal botanical, but then we only learn its chemical and physical properties, unlikely to be uncommon symptoms, which can only prove to be curative and only to a degree if a substance is homeopathic to a person's case symptoms.

Potentization is the great means by which we control the power of homeopathicity; without it substances can only be chemically medicinal, which experience shows is rarely sufficient to sustain curative reactions.

No if it's not chemically medicinal, for mere dilution does nothing; succussion (i.e., vigorous shaking of half-full vials) is synonymous with potentization.

What serial dilution does in the case of physically and chemically active substances is to remove its physical and chemical properties from the equation and somehow increasingly unlock or unfold its deeper medicinal properties via succussion; and in the case of physically and chemically inert substances, serial dilution produces nothing medicinal, just non-homeopathic water (to coin an expression).


------------

** "But, to use a Spagyrian expression, they did not advance beyond particulars; the great philosopher’s stone, the knowledge of the fundamental cause of all diseases, they never attained to." (http://www.minutus.org/essay.html)

[ 25. October 2003, 10:40: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Mr.Albert,

Thanks for restating my questions & explainations. But I am afraid that some mis-interpretation is there due to language errors in my questions(sorry for that). I again restate my question:-

How we discern the common & uncommon therapeutically important symptoms or chracteristics of homeopathic remedies as mentioned in Matria Medica's from the following types of concentrations & forms of remedy substances:-

1. In the raw form (but can be trirurated) of substance which are not inert or toxic.

2. In the concentration & form which we naturally ingest.(Eg; we may not be taking some toxic or inert materials in its raw form but may be taking in its diluted(not potentized) form).

3. In the raw form or concentration of toxic or inert substances (symptoms may be noted be observations/accidents).

4. In its various potentized forms to discern the effects(not symptoms or chracteristics) as a homeopathic medicine in any potency.

5. In its triturated and diluted (not potentized)form or concentration.

In short, I want to know how all the chracteristics or therapeutically symptoms as mentioned in MMs are taken or discerned of various homeopathic remedies.

Regards.

[ 25. October 2003, 08:19: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Common symptoms cannot be therapeutically important.

For example, there are 90 pages of symptom rubrics in KENT'S REPERTORY for headaches under Head Pain because headaches without details are common to many diseases and are cured by so many drugs.

Headaches or any other common symptoms can become uncommon symptoms due to some strange, rare or peculiar detail(s) of them.

This is more usual because the below five criteria of symptoms often provide these uncommon symptoms that, for various reasons, when left out or are undiscovered keep them common to large numbers of drugs and diseases.

Restated, they can also become uncommon or "characteristic" symptoms (by which they are more usually referred) due to learning the five details of symptoms because this collection of details more greatly differentiates drugs from each other:

1. Cause
2. Location
3. Sensation or Kind of pain or sensation (very important if they are reliable "as if" sensations and are known as such in well-developed symptom rubrics)
4. Modalities, esp. about time of occurance, the motions or positions that make them better or worse, and about temperatures that do so (very important)
5. Concommitants or Accompanying complaints (also very important)

We need to know these five principal factors of symptoms by rote in order to search for them during case taking.

Common symptoms form part of the symptom totality and should be part of the pathogenic record of the drug if it's a polychrest ("many useful purposes" because it's a well-known and thus often-prescribed drug), but they do not lead to any reliable prescriptions because they occur in many disease states and are cured by many drugs.

On the other hand, characteristic symptoms are uncommon symptoms, and they are easier to identify and remember by calling them uncommon symptoms (Article 154) because common symptoms are part of diagnostic categories or are later discovered are not even disease symptoms if removal of the sustaining cause(s) makes them go away.

Among the latter false symptoms are found poor diet, insufficient sleep, ill-fitting shoes, poor hygiene, poisoning influences (that thus produce toxicological symptoms rather than disease symptoms), repeated exposure to pathogens that can thus act as sustaining causes of diseases if immunity is not involved in them (e.g., as in ameboid dysentery), emotional stresses and many other "avoidable disease agents and influences" (Hahnemann).

----------

1. Something that is NOT inert or toxic is a contradiction; for a non-inert substance would be physically, chemically or medicinally active, and something that is NOT toxic would (on the contrary) be innocuous, benign, unhurtful like foods to healthy people.

Edit that please and I will delete this and try again.

2. This refers to foods and beverages, which I answered.

3. Although you make the same mistake about inert (innocuous) and toxic substances, this one seems to refer to toxins.

I don't know if we can get uncommon symptoms from toxicology, but someone else here may have asked themself this question.

4. The effects of potentized drugs are going to be symptoms, so I don't know what you're referring to.

5. I think I answered this at #5 above.

----------

Okay, I think I understand this.

There are, in my opinion, two ways to think of characteristic/uncommon symptoms.

One way is the easier and more usually heard manner, and the other is the more difficult but I feel expert understanding of uncommon symptoms.

In the case of the former, which we initially got from Boenninghausen, there are certain symptoms and especially groups of symptoms that constitute the characteristic symptoms of a drug because some detail about a symptom indicates one drug more than any other (this is extremely rare) or the group of symptoms collectively indicate one drug more than any other.

Hahnemann's case reports and those of most experts down through time concentrate on this factor, for we will find that many drugs under consideration for a case will NOT have certain symptoms of a case or WILL have opposite symptoms of the ones in the case, both of which contraindicate medicines.

These are perhaps best identified as the classical characteristics of the drugs (to coin an expression).

These are a principal part of what Hahnemann meant by "knowledge of medicinal powers" in Article 3 of the ORGANON, meaning that he insisted we know our tools, of which knowledge I am a poor example because of meager therapeutic experience compared with many others due to legal issues and my poverty.

I'm not very good at these, so I am a poor source to answer details about them, but many others here are either expert or sufficiently learned about them to speak with authority.

The others here already know this, so I stipulate for you and any newcomers, since this was made clear by me earlier, that I am really a bozo at materia medica but know how to identify uncommon symptoms and thus get by effectively in homeotherapeutics but with more difficulty than more learned folks.

The other way of discerning uncommon symptoms is, in my opinion, more sustainable, for it instead examines what is characteristic about the case that may not presently include known characteristic symptoms of the needed drug.

Moreover, to add this, I feel this is how the majority of recognized characteristic symptoms may have been earlier discovered.

From this direction, we concentrate upon what Hahnemann called "knowledge of the disease" (Article 3, ORGANON).

Although this should be obvious, it is understandably sometimes fouled up because we permit our prejudices about known characteristics of drugs to interfere in the all-important case-taking procedure by coming to a decision before the case is fully taken down for complete cure to be possible over a period of time by later accurately evaluating how it has progressed or degredated according to that case record.

We cannot easily avoid these things because our observations and things said by patients or attendants to or friends/relatives of them cause us to think of particular medicines or (this is more common for us) cognate groups of medicines.

We thus unconsciously make decisions DURING the case-taking process about the needed drug by spotting what we feel are indications for medicines INSTEAD of gathering in the case totality in an unprejudiced manner.

They're sometimes called "favorite medicines," and here's a nice article by Hering early in his life that spoke about what I am referring to ( Hering's "On the Study of Homoeopathic Materia Medica" )

The upshot of what I have a great deal of difficulty imparting about this, and have had many previous times, is that CASES MAKE SYMPTOMS UNCOMMON/CHARACTERISIC due to the peculiarity of some symptom or group, and these odd symptoms will necessarily be unknown characteristics of poorly known ("small") medicines of which we now have an abundance with over 2500 drugs.

Other than that, I feel I perhaps already answered what I know about this to fitness first at the thread named "Whose Characteristic?"

----------

If you're testing me, I hope I passed what you feel is important for one to know as a homeopath or upwardly adjusted that criteria, as is natural for us forever.

[ 28. October 2003, 23:47: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Mr.Albert,

Many thanks for detailed explaination. While mentioning inert or toxic, I mean inert & toxic seprately. Since these are differant than common substances, I mentioned in one question.

I asked one question in SLIGHTLY BIGGER.....topic as under;

Actully I think the best concentration of any raw remedy for noting its symtoms should be the concentration which we naturaly ingest. We ingest sand/silica in very fine particle form not in origional form in which it is inert. So we can say that very fine particle is a natural concentration to us & we can note the symptoms on giving this natural concentation.

The basic principal of 'similar cures similars' should be that whatever causes symptoms in its natural form(can be converted in fine particles instead of crystal form ), a form which we ingest/can ingest in its natural concentration without potentization, should be able to cure in its potentized homeopathic remedy form. The above levels then this natural concentration is a toxic or inert level which we do not ingest in normal circumstances so should not be considered.

Furthur para 128 along with pare 121,122 & 123 indicate that 30th potency should be used in finding the medical substance of any remedy as under:-

§ 128 Sixth Edition

The most recent observations have shown that medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent. In this manner we now find it best to investigate the medicinal powers even of such substances as are deemed weak, and the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potency of such a substance, moistened with a little water or dissolved in more or less water and thoroughly mixed, and let him continue this for several days.

What does it means? If the symptoms mentioned in MMs are the symptoms of 30th potencies? if the same symptoms produced in healthy persons by 30th potency of any remedy(will be considered as medical substance), will cure the same symptoms in sick person with this 30th potency of the same remedy(will be considered as homeopathic medicine)?
In short the same potency which produces symptoms in healthy person will cure the same symptoms in sick person which were produced by it in healthy person.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Yup, yup, yup...so did I and plenty of other practicing homeopaths.

Yes, there can be several truths in simultaneous existence--and perhaps you'd better consider the validity of your own "sacred" and threatened truth in light of the other ones.

Yes, Hahnemann's "allopaths" do, in fact, exist. They may be using different "substances", but the methods and the mindset exist today absolutely unchanged. "Same ****, different year"...I'm sure you've heard that somewhat fitting phrase. It applies here beautifully.

"Allopathy" does in fact exist as a word completely outside of homeopathy. It existed as a word in medicine before Hahnemann, and its exists as a word after him too. It is absolutely NOT a word only homeopaths use. I daresay there are a vast number of medical historians who are very familiar with the word as well...and who may know little about homeopathy as a specific medical system.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

News to me. I thought he coined them both.

OOps! he did.

I looked it up on the OED and confirmed it ( OED

But you rarely make mistakes and now we all know for sure where it came from, unless you know something OED scholars don't know, which wouldn't surprise me since I do myself and have taken the issues to them many times.

Moreover, present-day allopaths ARE the same personality types with the same pitiful and destructive results as in Hahnemann's time, and that's the point you were making: it doesn't change, contrary to Tim and MRC_Hans's notion that it has.

I believe they think it has changed due to how they clothe themselves in the mystique and terminology of modern sciences.

Still, all of its hydra-headed forms suck, and everybody in them sucks for air!

I have no trouble being courteous and respectful to them in person and as persons, but I struggle to be charitable with them when it comes down to what they do BECAUSE their results are still, after 200 years, virtually identical to what they were when they engaged in bloodletting and calomelization for all diseases during Hahnemann's time: they kill ALL of their patients, guys.

I don't honestly understand what's so important about scientific method presently being used by allopathic and "scientific" Minds nor how that makes them and it somehow different than during Hahnemann's time given that their results are virtually identifical.

Moreover, their results are pitiful, pathetic, barbaric, backward and warped compared to homeopathy precisely because their basic assumptions are still wrong and they're still mindlessly chasing phantoms, just as Hahnemann said.

Some people say that Hahnemann's remarks about allopathy and allopaths are no longer relevant, but I have read them many, many times and see them being still relevant today.

Would you two or anyone else therefore care to attempt to defend such views?

[ 27. October 2003, 02:04: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

CCH,

[quote]Tim:
I don't want to impose anything on you. Just looking for the ONE truth...can't be two truths.
Hahnemann's "allopaths" no longer exist. The word doesn't even exist outside Homeopathy.[/b]

Example, please, of several truths. What truth of mine are you referring to?

I didn't know what "allopath" meant until I read the Organon. Nobody I know knew the term either.
Why might that be?

I note how you never give examples supporting your statement. Allopathy, like virtually all English words, has an origin going back centuries.

Tim