--- Robert & Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net> wrote:

> Yes, your guess as to the motivation makes sense!

[SNIP]

>>>>

Is there a competition to see how long additive posts can
be that I missed?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert & Shannon Nelson" <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net>
To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: [H] Delayed/lost reply


> Thanks Chris,
> You're quite right, I wasn't thinking...
> And I guess one doesn't have to accept the idea that there's any sort of
> "energy" stored in an object (e.g. the Berlin Wall, Shroud of Turin,
> etc.). Still I find it odd that the criticisms are directed against the
> idea itself, without even *looking* at the evidence--the provings and/or
> cured cases. That's an understandable reaction from someone who's already
> committed to "not believing in homeopathy", but I find it a funny reaction
> from a homeopath!
>
> That's all; just think it's better to examine the evidence before flinging
> flaming brands...
> :-)
> Shannon

Hi Shannon,

The way I see it, the "energy" that is stored IN an object is what it is
comprised of; minerals, acids, H20, organic matter, etc in various chemical
bonds that hold the substance together and give it its functionality. It
simply is what it is, no hidden agendas. When a traditional proving is
conducted, it is the direct interaction of the simple substance within the
organic human body which elicits its 'pure' drug effects. We know exactly
what the starting medium is comprised of, and the remedy can be reproduced
in a reliable way from the pharmaceutical monograph.

When you make a remedy from a wall in Berlin, let's face it, it is comprised
of bricks and mortar whether the wall was situated right at Checkpoint
Charlie or along Zimmerstrasse. But there is another concentration of energy
that might *accompany* an object, perhaps ethereal entities that are still
attached to the object or place where some calamnity occured. My feeling is,
that it is those entities that provers experience when such an intense focus
is placed on an object or site in the context of a "meditative proving". One
problem I have with these so-called "provings", is that you don't know if
the people in the meditative group are clear channels or just New Age
wankers, and more importantly, what is the nature and agendas of the
entities they are inviting in?? Do the entities have a consensus? Are we
getting a remedy that will work in a predictable way every time?

Take that 'remedy/concentration of energy' home with you and the
accompanying entities will probably follow because 'like attracts like' but
is this really medicinal in the homoeopathic context? It seems to me like
your patient could have a host of unwanted guests hanging around in his aura
with their own unfinished agendas and wills of their own. Does this
facilitate healing or add more confusion? And, do the entities stay in the
bottle if you keep the lid tightly screwed:) ?

Chris.

???? :-/ This is tongue-in-cheek, right?
(I share your discomfort with the list of uncertainties about
meditative provings; the answer, IMO, is to see how well a given remedy
works out clinically.)

Below:

On Dec 6, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Chris Gillen wrote:

> Hi Shannon,
>
> The way I see it, the "energy" that is stored IN an object is what it
> is comprised of; minerals, acids, H20, organic matter, etc in various
> chemical bonds that hold the substance together and give it its
> functionality. It simply is what it is, no hidden agendas. When a
> traditional proving is conducted, it is the direct interaction of the
> simple substance within the organic human body which elicits its
> 'pure' drug effects.

With high potencies, of course, the only "simple substance" given is
sugar/water/alcohol.

> We know exactly what the starting medium is comprised of, and the
> remedy can be reproduced in a reliable way from the pharmaceutical
> monograph.
>
> When you make a remedy from a wall in Berlin, let's face it, it is
> comprised of bricks and mortar whether the wall was situated right at
> Checkpoint Charlie or along Zimmerstrasse.

Yes, and we have the same problem in making any remedy, which is why
they are *ideally* made each time from the same sample (not always
possible, I know). Root/stem/flower? Taken during which season? In
what state of health? If from animal, what's the animal's "state"? (I
assume you've read the same that I have, re how the remedy Eagle should
probably be re-named "Wounded Eagle"; and speculation whether lac-c
would give the same proving symptoms if made from a different breed of
dog...
Shannon

> But there is another concentration of energy that might *accompany* an
> object, perhaps ethereal entities that are still attached to the
> object or place where some calamnity occured. My feeling is, that it
> is those entities that provers experience when such an intense focus
> is placed on an object or site in the context of a "meditative
> proving". One problem I have with these so-called "provings", is that
> you don't know if the people in the meditative group are clear
> channels or just New Age wankers, and more importantly, what is the
> nature and agendas of the entities they are inviting in?? Do the
> entities have a consensus? Are we getting a remedy that will work in a
> predictable way every time?
>
> Take that 'remedy/concentration of energy' home with you and the
> accompanying entities will probably follow because 'like attracts
> like' but is this really medicinal in the homoeopathic context? It
> seems to me like your patient could have a host of unwanted guests
> hanging around in his aura with their own unfinished agendas and wills
> of their own. Does this facilitate healing or add more confusion? And,
> do the entities stay in the bottle if you keep the lid tightly
> screwed:) ?
>
> Chris.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert & Shannon Nelson" <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net>
To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [H] Delayed/lost reply


> ???? :-/ This is tongue-in-cheek, right?
> (I share your discomfort with the list of uncertainties about meditative
> provings; the answer, IMO, is to see how well a given remedy works out
> clinically.)

No, I was being perfectly serious. Except my last sentence was an attempt at
lighthearted humour. Hahnemann's purpose in using provings was to establish
a reliable apriori source of data concerning drug action. The starting
medium was fixed, the subsequent tests using various dynamized potencies
added further concomitant symptoms to the collective information from
poisonings and provings. There will always be extraneous symptoms that occur
during a proving because the prover is a dynamic, organic being and is
responding naturally to various internal and external influences as well as
the drug. Not every symptom that occurs during a proving is a 'pure' drug
effect, and importantly, it is these specific drug effects that are verified
through clinical verification. If we start the proving on shaky grounds with
an undetermined source, we will still develop obtuse symptoms and
impressions, but are they really effects of that "substance" or "emanation",
or are they symptoms that would have naturally arisen outside of the
proving?

You can hardly call it a scientific approach when the object that is to be
meditated on has been researched and studied beforehand as to historical
themes of power, oppression and excess use of will. Then the person who
writes up the "meditative proving" summary picks out the symptoms that
deeply reflect those preconceived themes. Next thing is, a patient's
existentialist processes are resolved after a long consultation and
swallowing a quantum pack of Berlin Wall emanation. Voila! A legend is born.
A reasonable question to ask is how seriously do we take our duty of care
towards patients when we use remedies based on these techniques? Homoeopathy
should be able to pride itself on a reliable Materia Medica so that we can
apply the Law of Similars in a steadfast manner and anticipate predictable
results. That was Hahnemann's overriding intention all the way through. Some
of the modernizations stretch the bounds of analogy in induction too far, in
my view, and the rules of logic governing inductive reasoning become
farsical. This will problaby upset some people, but there it is.

Chris.

>
> Below:
>
> On Dec 6, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Chris Gillen wrote:
>
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>> The way I see it, the "energy" that is stored IN an object is what it is
>> comprised of; minerals, acids, H20, organic matter, etc in various
>> chemical bonds that hold the substance together and give it its
>> functionality. It simply is what it is, no hidden agendas. When a
>> traditional proving is conducted, it is the direct interaction of the
>> simple substance within the organic human body which elicits its 'pure'
>> drug effects.
>
> With high potencies, of course, the only "simple substance" given is
> sugar/water/alcohol.
>
>> We know exactly what the starting medium is comprised of, and the remedy
>> can be reproduced in a reliable way from the pharmaceutical monograph.
>>
>> When you make a remedy from a wall in Berlin, let's face it, it is
>> comprised of bricks and mortar whether the wall was situated right at
>> Checkpoint Charlie or along Zimmerstrasse.
>
> Yes, and we have the same problem in making any remedy, which is why they
> are *ideally* made each time from the same sample (not always possible, I
> know). Root/stem/flower? Taken during which season? In what state of
> health? If from animal, what's the animal's "state"? (I assume you've
> read the same that I have, re how the remedy Eagle should probably be
> re-named "Wounded Eagle"; and speculation whether lac-c would give the
> same proving symptoms if made from a different breed of dog...
> Shannon
>
>> But there is another concentration of energy that might *accompany* an
>> object, perhaps ethereal entities that are still attached to the object
>> or place where some calamnity occured. My feeling is, that it is those
>> entities that provers experience when such an intense focus is placed on
>> an object or site in the context of a "meditative proving". One problem I
>> have with these so-called "provings", is that you don't know if the
>> people in the meditative group are clear channels or just New Age
>> wankers, and more importantly, what is the nature and agendas of the
>> entities they are inviting in?? Do the entities have a consensus? Are we
>> getting a remedy that will work in a predictable way every time?
>>
>> Take that 'remedy/concentration of energy' home with you and the
>> accompanying entities will probably follow because 'like attracts like'
>> but is this really medicinal in the homoeopathic context? It seems to me
>> like your patient could have a host of unwanted guests hanging around in
>> his aura with their own unfinished agendas and wills of their own. Does
>> this facilitate healing or add more confusion? And, do the entities stay
>> in the bottle if you keep the lid tightly screwed:) ?
>>
>> Chris.

excllently put .... and reflecting the truth as it is without
infiltration of noise ... I enjoyed this post..
thanks.
V.T> From: chrisgillen (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> To: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com> Subject: Re: [H] Delayed/lost reply> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:03:28 +1100> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert & Shannon Nelson" <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net>> To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:59 AM> Subject: Re: [H] Delayed/lost reply> > > > Thanks Chris,> > You're quite right, I wasn't thinking...> > And I guess one doesn't have to accept the idea that there's any sort of > > "energy" stored in an object (e.g. the Berlin Wall, Shroud of Turin, > > etc.). Still I find it odd that the criticisms are directed against the > > idea itself, without even *looking* at the evidence--the provings and/or > > cured cases. That's an understandable reaction from someone who's already > > committed to "not believing in homeopathy", but I find it a funny reaction > > from a homeopath!> >> > That's all; just think it's better to examine the evidence before flinging > > flaming brands...> > :-)> > Shannon> > Hi Shannon,> > The way I see it, the "energy" that is stored IN an object is what it is > comprised of; minerals, acids, H20, organic matter, etc in various chemical > bonds that hold the substance together and give it its functionality. It > simply is what it is, no hidden agendas. When a traditional proving is > conducted, it is the direct interaction of the simple substance within the > organic human body which elicits its 'pure' drug effects. We know exactly > what the starting medium is comprised of, and the remedy can be reproduced > in a reliable way from the pharmaceutical monograph.> > When you make a remedy from a wall in Berlin, let's face it, it is comprised > of bricks and mortar whether the wall was situated right at Checkpoint > Charlie or along Zimmerstrasse.. But there is another concentration of energy > that might *accompany* an object, perhaps ethereal entities that are still > attached to the object or place where some calamnity occured. My feeling is, > that it is those entities that provers experience when such an intense focus > is placed on an object or site in the context of a "meditative proving". One > problem I have with these so-called "provings", is that you don't know if > the people in the meditative group are clear channels or just New Age > wankers, and more importantly, what is the nature and agendas of the > entities they are inviting in?? Do the entities have a consensus? Are we > getting a remedy that will work in a predictable way every time?> > Take that 'remedy/concentration of energy' home with you and the > accompanying entities will probably follow because 'like attracts like' but > is this really medicinal in the homoeopathic context? It seems to me like > your patient could have a host of unwanted guests hanging around in his aura > with their own unfinished agendas and wills of their own. Does this > facilitate healing or add more confusion? And, do the entities stay in the > bottle if you keep the lid tightly screwed:) ?> > Chris.> > >

Okay, then I'll try to recreate the reply I first made, before I
suddenly wondered whether I was being gullible again... :-)

But--I truly do not see where the idea of "entities" rather than
"energies" giving rise to proving symptoms is any less weird to the
"average" person; it seems no more (and perhaps less) provable, and no
easier to work with. I suppose part of your point in offering that was
the idea that the effects may not be reproducible or consistent (to the
extent that remedy effects *are* consistent, which is only "within
boundaries..."). The answer to that, surely, would be to do a
non-meditative proving, as well as more clinical cases, and *see*
whether it's as predictable and reliable as other remedies. Rather
than rejecting it at face value.

Below:

On Dec 7, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Chris Gillen wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert & Shannon Nelson"
> <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net>
> To: <homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [H] Delayed/lost reply
>
>
>> ???? :-/ This is tongue-in-cheek, right?
>> (I share your discomfort with the list of uncertainties about
>> meditative provings; the answer, IMO, is to see how well a given
>> remedy works out clinically.)
>
> No, I was being perfectly serious. Except my last sentence was an
> attempt at lighthearted humour. Hahnemann's purpose in using provings
> was to establish a reliable apriori source of data concerning drug
> action. The starting medium was fixed,

Yes, and the more fixed, the better! Ideally using the same starting
sample, but when that is not possible, coming as close as possible. It
would be interesting to see whether different samples of the Wall yield
different provings (tho I do not know what area could be expected to
have a highly individual "energy", so different from that of the
rest)--just as it would be interesting to compare milks from different
dogs, different breeds, different mothers; "wounded eagle" with healthy
wild eagle (tho hm, how would you get that blood??), etc.

We know that some of these are likely to be different--e.g. rotten
tarentula is different from fresh... :-)

> the subsequent tests using various dynamized potencies added further
> concomitant symptoms to the collective information from poisonings and
> provings. There will always be extraneous symptoms that occur during a
> proving because the prover is a dynamic, organic being and is
> responding naturally to various internal and external influences as
> well as the drug. Not every symptom that occurs during a proving is a
> 'pure' drug effect, and importantly, it is these specific drug effects
> that are verified through clinical verification. If we start the
> proving on shaky grounds with an undetermined source, we will still
> develop obtuse symptoms and impressions, but are they really effects
> of that "substance" or "emanation", or are they symptoms that would
> have naturally arisen outside of the proving?

As I said, I share your reservations about meditative provings.
So is that your only reservation about that remedy, that it hasn't got
a "real" proving? I sounded like you were objecting to the idea of
"that sort" of remedy, rather than to the method of its proving? I
don't know a thing about how BW was proved, but emphatically agree that
the proving should be done "blind", especially from such an emotionally
charged source.
Shannon

>
> You can hardly call it a scientific approach when the object that is
> to be meditated on has been researched and studied beforehand as to
> historical themes of power, oppression and excess use of will. Then
> the person who writes up the "meditative proving" summary picks out
> the symptoms that deeply reflect those preconceived themes. Next thing
> is, a patient's existentialist processes are resolved after a long
> consultation and swallowing a quantum pack of Berlin Wall emanation.
> Voila! A legend is born. A reasonable question to ask is how seriously
> do we take our duty of care towards patients when we use remedies
> based on these techniques? Homoeopathy should be able to pride itself
> on a reliable Materia Medica so that we can apply the Law of Similars
> in a steadfast manner and anticipate predictable results. That was
> Hahnemann's overriding intention all the way through. Some of the
> modernizations stretch the bounds of analogy in induction too far, in
> my view, and the rules of logic governing inductive reasoning become
> farsical. This will problaby upset some people, but there it is.
>
> Chris.