Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Spicy Debate...Any takers???

Expand Messages
  • MaryK
    Wake up my philosophy friends/colleagues. I hope to spurn an avid discussion in this forum. So, I will pose some spicy questions. I m going to state at the
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 12, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Wake up my philosophy friends/colleagues. I hope to spurn an avid
      discussion in this forum. So, I will pose some spicy questions. I'm
      going to state at the very beginning of this that NOT A SINGLE WORD
      OF THIS IS SAID WITH MALICE OR INTENT OF ATTACKING OR HURTING (I know
      that affect is hard to read through e-mail)...I really DO want to
      start a really nice heated debate, though :). And like everyone
      here, I don't claim to have any answers or claim that my opinions are
      right...We are all searching, right?

      Hahnemann said that, "The high and only mission of a physician is to
      restore the sick to health, to CURE, as it is termed". Now, I love
      homeopathy...and I love our medicine...but, let us step back for a
      moment and examine this statement.

      Do I really believe that I have the power to cure... am I really so
      pompous as to believe that I can CURE a patient and this is my high
      and only mission?

      If I examine the the Vital Force and the Vis (should that be a whole
      new discussion or should I delve into it abit now?), how would this
      apply?

      Okay, so I won't wait for another discussion...I'll throw it out now.
      How often do we hear people state that they are stimulating the vital
      force...or learning the vis? I have a hard time with statements like
      these that are thrown around without so much as a thought (yes, I am
      intentionally using harsh language to get everyone's juices
      running :)). Do I really believe that I can stimulate the vital
      force? Or do we just clumsily move around and try to tweak whatever
      we can in the physical realm, while the vital force channels that
      amazing Vis? And back to that statement "learning the vis"...um, did
      I miss that class in school? The class where we were able to
      transcend all of our humanness and physical ties to this existence
      and actually learn about the intricacies of something that has no
      boundaries and follows no rules.

      Okay, I'm done ranting...

      ~Tweaking around on the physical level and trying to learn the art of
      practice, MaryK Martin Geyer
    • moehabbahoo
      Hello, I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to promote cure and health in our patients. So we use these tools (homeopathy,
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to
        promote cure and health in our patients. So we use these tools
        (homeopathy, manipulation, nutrition, hydrotherapy, mind body
        medicine, etc)to accomplish our mission to cure the unhealthy.

        As far as the phrase "learning the vis", in my inexperienced
        experience, I have not heard people using that phrase. As doctors in
        training are we not trying to learn the vis anyway? I don't find this
        controversial at all, it is what we are doing.

        tom
      • MaryK Martin Geyer
        Well, if we apply a tool to cure the unhealthy...What makes us any different than any other doctor? Do we promote cure? Isn t it really the patients own body
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, if we apply a tool to cure the unhealthy...What makes us any different than any other doctor?  Do we promote cure?  Isn't it really the patients own body that does the work?  Do we attempt to remove the obstacles and watch the vis in action? 
           
          No, I don't personally believe that we are learning the Vis.  I think that we attempt to understand that amazing force called the Vis...but, it seems like saying that we are learning God/Goddess/Whatever higher power that you believe in.  Do you learn God?   It is my thought that we are learning the aspects of health, variations from health, and nature that are tangible to us...I emphasize tangible.  What do we do?....Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph, and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that amazing vis?).
           
          Are these just semantics?  Or, are they fundamental philosophical concepts that we should be questioning and seeking answers for?
           
          I'll end with a statement that may cause some discomfort...Do I run a battery of tests, treat lab values as the end all be all, throw a bunch of supplements at a patient, and cause cure? Is that really any different that the allopathic model?  Also, something I observed alot in private practices, but not actually on site while in school...when was the last time you asked a patient on your initial intake, "do you have a spiritual connection?, what is is?, how do you feel about this?" 
           
          I respect and honor your words...and thank you for being the only one to join the discussion thus far.
          Peace and Light~MaryK
           
           

           
          On 6/13/07, moehabbahoo <moehabbahoo@...> wrote:

          Hello,

          I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to
          promote cure and health in our patients. So we use these tools
          (homeopathy, manipulation, nutrition, hydrotherapy, mind body
          medicine, etc)to accomplish our mission to cure the unhealthy.

          As far as the phrase "learning the vis", in my inexperienced
          experience, I have not heard people using that phrase. As doctors in
          training are we not trying to learn the vis anyway? I don't find this
          controversial at all, it is what we are doing.

          tom




          --
          Dr. MaryK Martin Geyer, NMD
          naturecure@...
          (480-221-7485)

          Humankind has not woven the web of life.  We are but one thread within it.
          Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.  All things are bound together.  All things connect. ~Chief Seattle, 1854
        • George.L.Gonzales.01@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG
          ... Since mind/body/and spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one? In addition many of our modalities focus act directly on the
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph,
            > and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical
            > level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that
            > amazing vis?).


            Since mind/body/and spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one? In addition many of our modalities focus act directly on the non-physical aspect of the mind/body/spirit, as well as the physical ones.

            As to "learning the vis" I have never heard of such a term either but I hope that is precisely what we are doing. We are learning the laws of nature so that we can live in accordance with them, help our patients to do so and to direct our therapies in a way that makes use of this knowledge. You say the Vis is God. I wouldn't disagree with you but I would say that in my opinion the naturopathic view of god/nature is one that does not separate it from the physical realm, nor make it inaccesible to human capacities. This split of reality into Spirit and Matter is the basis of the philosophy of scientific rationalism or mechanism and is quite different or even the opposite of what I understand to be naturopathic principles. Certainly there are aspects that are mysterious and beyond our knowledge but I think we are capable of "learning" enough to work in accordance with it. That is why the Vis medicatrix is partially defined in our six principles as being "the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

            To merely "learn" the ways and complexity that makes it ordered and intelligent and the different manifestations of the healing process is a great start to catching a glimpse of its mysterious aspects. Other gifted individuals (NOT ME) may in fact catch much more than a glimpse.

            Luke, NCNM
          • William Franklin
            OK I ll bite. Since mind/body/spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one? That is a very good question! How is it possible for
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              OK I'll bite.
               
              "Since mind/body/spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one?"
               
              That is a very good question!  How is it possible for allopathic medicine to treat only one?  How is this a departure point for "our" way of doing medicine?  How?  No one ever really mentions this elephant sitting in the room.  You cut a man's chest open, put someone else's heart in, sew him back up and we say, it was a physical treament.  Really?!  Is that all it was?  Give a woman an abx for her UTI and you're dealing with the physical, give her, oh I don't know, cranberry instead and what changes?  Give her a potentized remedy, homeopathic to the case and then what are you treating?  Can we say with any degree of authority that there is a difference?  What we can observe is that there seems to be a subtle and sometimes not so subtle difference in the outcome.  But why is it different?  Are you going to answer with, "Becuase it's natural!"? 
               
              I have an issue (anyone gotta tissue?  ok, sorry) with the whole "nature/natural" thing.  Frankly, "nature" simply means "things which exist".  Pharm therapy is natural, in that it exists.  I think we are on very thin ice philosophically by trying to claim "natural" as our distinguishing characteristic.  Wholistic, wholism, Holon-ism, I think is more accurate. 
               
              Dr. Mitchell described the Vis Medicatrix Naturae (important to remember that the "thing" we are referring to is known by all three words together, the Vis by itself is something different, it is simply a force) as the equation through which what we call health and life is given some value.  If it is best described as the equation itself, then it can't be manipulated/stimulated.  What is left for us to do is to change the value of the variables in the equation so that we come to a more favorable or an optimal end result.  We can stimulate the vital force which is one of the variables but we can't stimulate the equation itself... it is always working exactly as designed whether we acknowledge it or not.  At least this is my interpretation of what Bill was saying.  This is also something that I can see happening in real life and which I think gets to some of those questions in the previous paragraph. 
               
              It is also important, I think, that while we are honoring the innate wisdom of the body, that we keep in mind that it isn't always the right.  If it was, there would be no need for ND, MD, DO, DC,  LMNOP's.  Take H. pylori as one example, where the majority of the damage to the stomach wall is coming from the immune system rather than the "pathogen".  The healing power of nature is a real force and so is the destructive power of nature.  Let's not forget that things which exist are capable of both. 
               
              Anyway, I'm starting to get lost in my head here so I'm going to check out for now.
               
              William
              PS: Does a buddhist's immune system fight off invading pathogens?  I guess that is for another thread!

              George.L.Gonzales.01@... wrote:
              > Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph,
              > and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical
              > level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that
              > amazing vis?).

              Since mind/body/and spirit are not separate then how is it possible to tweak only one? In addition many of our modalities focus act directly on the non-physical aspect of the mind/body/spirit, as well as the physical ones.

              As to "learning the vis" I have never heard of such a term either but I hope that is precisely what we are doing. We are learning the laws of nature so that we can live in accordance with them, help our patients to do so and to direct our therapies in a way that makes use of this knowledge. You say the Vis is God. I wouldn't disagree with you but I would say that in my opinion the naturopathic view of god/nature is one that does not separate it from the physical realm, nor make it inaccesible to human capacities. This split of reality into Spirit and Matter is the basis of the philosophy of scientific rationalism or mechanism and is quite different or even the opposite of what I understand to be naturopathic principles. Certainly there are aspects that are mysterious and beyond our knowledge but I think we are capable of "learning" enough to work in accordance with it. That is why the Vis medicatrix is partially defined in our six principles as being "the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment. "

              To merely "learn" the ways and complexity that makes it ordered and intelligent and the different manifestations of the healing process is a great start to catching a glimpse of its mysterious aspects. Other gifted individuals (NOT ME) may in fact catch much more than a glimpse.

              Luke, NCNM



              William Franklin
              SCNM Student

              "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius


              Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

            • George.L.Gonzales.01@Alum.Dartmouth.ORG
              ... Yes, they are both affecting the mind/body/spirit unity. But, and a big but, one of them is consciously working WITH the laws of nature, the vis, to
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > Give a woman an abx for her UTI and you're dealing with the
                > physical, give her, oh I don't know, cranberry instead and what
                > changes? Give her a potentized remedy, homeopathic to the case
                > and then what are you treating? Can we say with any degree of
                > authority that there is a difference? What we can observe is
                > that there seems to be a subtle and sometimes not so subtle
                > difference in the outcome. But why is it different? Are you
                > going to answer with, "Becuase it's natural!"?



                Yes, they are both affecting the mind/body/spirit unity. But, and a big but, one of them is consciously working WITH the laws of nature, the vis, to promote healing, and the other is intervening in the process of nature to stop the symptoms and presumably then give a window for healing to take place at some future time. They are NOT mutually exclusive but I have to say that there is a difference. BECAUSE homeopathy or acupuncture or hydrotherapy attempts to rebalance the mind/body/spirit entity it acts in an indirect but stimulating fashion to bring about healing. It is indirect to the "bug" or the "icd-9" code but direct on the bodies own healing forces and therefore aids the body's healing reaction to become succesful and not prolonged or chronic. It is stimulating because it allows the vis to work more efficiently and effectively to bring about healing. An Antibiotic or surgery act in a direct but non-stimulating or even suppressive way to bring about an affect on the symptom of the healing crisis and therefore will require more work in the future to accomplish the task it was setting out to accomplish in the present reaction/illness/healing crisis. It goes without saying in my mind that both have their place in the medical world and in the patient's health care choices.

                Luke, NCNM
              • 2
                Alright, I ll bite, but I hope you aren t disappointed that I m not coming in with my rhetorical fists swinging. At best, I ve got a few observations. Or
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 13, 2007
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Alright, I'll bite, but I hope you aren't disappointed that I'm not
                  coming in with my rhetorical fists swinging. At best, I've got a few
                  observations. Or reflections. Or something.

                  > Do I really believe that I have the power to cure... am I really so
                  > pompous as to believe that I can CURE a patient and this is my high
                  > and only mission?


                  I certainly don't think of my mission being to cure my patients,
                  though I admit that I'm often guilty of forgetting that that's not my
                  mission. A garden, so the saying goes, is never finished. Neither are
                  people, I don't think. "Cure" is definitive. It has sharp boundaries,
                  not fuzzy ones. It's a box that can get checked.

                  I feel that what I'm doing is entering into a relationship with my
                  patients, and that my role is to facilitate some process that the
                  person is engaged in already. As they enter my office, I never know
                  where in the river of life they are, but my job is to figure that
                  out, to float along with them for a time (days, months or years) and
                  bring the skills I have to understanding why their ride is bumpy.

                  In my experience, the bumps don't end when the migraines stop. Or
                  when the knee pain is gone. Or when the anxiety has lifted. It's that
                  a new layer of bumps get noticed. As Ogden Nash wrote:

                  Even fleas have fleas that bite'em
                  And on it goes, ad infinitum.

                  That may not be a quote, but the point is the same. If there is such
                  a thing as "cure," I imagine it is very much like death. Our maladies
                  make us human, and my role (*my* role; I do not pretend to speak for
                  anyone else) is to apply the skills I have to bring people into a
                  different kind of relationship with their world, because it is that
                  relationship that is causing trouble.

                  Perhaps I can get part of the way with some chromium. Perhaps I can
                  cover some more of the distance with acupuncture. And a bit more by
                  listening - intensely listening - to where they are, and where they
                  want to be, and offering a few words that help them see how the
                  distance can get spanned. I never know going into it, and every time
                  before I walk in the room for a visit - every single time - I get
                  nervous wondering if I'll have anything to offer that will be of
                  benefit. But somehow they keep coming back, and we both feel more
                  enriched because of it.

                  "Cure" is not a word in my lexicon. If I can connect - something I
                  find to be enormously challenging, beyond a relatively superficial
                  naturopathic doctor/patient level - then everything else is gravy.
                  There are places (I believe) in the human experience that are
                  unreachable by another person (http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/L/
                  LawrenceDH/DeeperThanLo.htm). But the closer I can get to that place
                  in the time I have, the closer I come to changing their experience on
                  this planet.

                  > How often do we hear people state that they are stimulating the vital
                  > force...or learning the vis?

                  There are a a dozen models for how the human psyche works. There are
                  computer models that describe things in terms of programs and
                  hardware and software and whatnot. There are neurological models that
                  describe behavior in terms of synapses and neurons and
                  neurotransmitter this and that. There are even morphogenic models
                  that describe behavior, personality and memory as things that
                  originate outside the confines of the brain, organized and informed
                  by fields that exist non-locally. Milton Erickson, the Godfather of
                  hypnotherapy and the most masterful technician of the unconscious
                  that I know, was never ambiguous in his belief that the idea of the
                  unconscious is just a concept, a model that is useful.

                  In my mind, conceiving of humans as animated by the vis is a model.
                  It has many ways that it can be used which are useful. There are
                  other models that I find useful as well, and I try my best to shift
                  between them as the situation asks. In one moment I may think in
                  terms of the vis, and in another I may think in terms of mechanism
                  (how else could I understand why I am giving the chromium?) and in
                  the next I might throw out bodies altogether, offer up a prayer, and
                  think in terms of non-duality and Godness (which does not jive with
                  the vis model, because the vis model is fundamentally dualistic).
                  It's not that I think that someone else sticking with one model is
                  handicapped, it's just that I haven't felt at home in any particular
                  one. I'm always striving for the non-dual model, but alas, I keep
                  mistakenly finding myself in a dual world.

                  Thanks to all who have shared. What a long, strange trip this
                  profession has been...

                  Greg
                • William Franklin
                  Hello again everyone, My thoughts on the original questions, I guess are these... I don t believe we can stimulate the VMN, I believe we can change our vital
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 14, 2007
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello again everyone,
                     
                    My thoughts on the original questions, I guess are these... I don't believe we can stimulate the VMN, I believe we can change our vital force.  To me it is like gravity; I can gain or lose weight but I don't effect gravity itself, only its effect on me.  I can go to another planet even, but gravity is still the same force, acting the same way, it isn't effected by me.  Same for the VMN.  And, like gravity I think we can learn about it but probably will never learn "it" directly.
                     
                    I don't believe I can heal another person anymore than I can make another person happy or sad or mad or fulfilled.  I can, however, give them opportunities to choose any of those for themselves.  Their choices may be conscious or unconcious and I can also point out when they are being made unconsciously which I believe is usually beneficial for people to know.  I don't even really believe that my responsibility is to remove obstacles since it is ultimately the patient who must even do that. My responsibity as I see it is to compellingly alert the patient to the obstacles, the decisions un/conscious, the environmental conditions which need to be changed for optimization of health and provide assistance where I can in taking the actions necessary.  Docere is my one true modality.  If I fail at that, the script for the perfect remedy may not even be filled or followed.  As a trainer and rehab specialist I didn't take credit for a client's succes nor the blame for their failures.  I focused on whether the message got across clearly or not.  I intend to practice medicine the same way.
                     
                    I do believe that philosophical concepts are always fundamental and that they are entirely semantic but never "just".  :)  I also believe that philosophy is first and foremost practical and should inform one's way of living or it isn't really philosophy.  Much of what people call philosophy is actually cleverness for its own sake, in my opinion.
                     
                    The battery of tests and treat the labs thing.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that, specifically.  I'll give an example from of how I see it.  I am trained in karate and I am attacked at the ATM by a man who intends to harm me.  I respond in kind with my karate training and injure him to defend myself.  Same scenario, I am trained in aikido and I am attacked at the ATM.  Because I am trained in aikido, my objective is to restore balance to the relationship between this man and myself, not merely to defend myself.  I take responsibility for his safety and my own.  So, I thwart his attack and I hold him immobile until he has exhausted whatever caused him to lose his balance and attack me.  And, much like homeopathy, I exaggerate his lack of balance so that his body experiences the fall his mind spirit have already gone through, which more quickly returns him to "here/now".  Nothing like the jolt of the earth and gravity to wake up an attacker!  From the outside they both look like a fight between combatants.  But in the second scenario, there is only one combatant and there is one teacher.  In allopathic medicine there is the doctor waging war and there is the patient's body mind spirit doing the same.  In naturopathic medicine there is the patient's body mind spirit at war and there is a teacher of peace and balance. 
                     
                    And, finally, I believe that asking questions about spiritual relationship to the world at large should be as easy to a physician as asking about masturbation, drug use, abusive relationships and all of those other socially awkward topics we are expected to get comfortable with in school.  Am I going to take responsibility for "treating" spiritual issues?  No.  I am going to refer out to an appropriate authority just as I would if the person needed drug rehab, sex counseling, abuse shelter, or a good cardiologist.  But I do believe it is negligent of me to pretend it has no place in the overall treatment plan and so, it should be consciously acknowledged.  To me, treat the whole person means, the entire person, in his/her entirety, which includes spiritual componants.  An atheist still has some sort of underlying concept of relationship to the big picture.  This is what I consider sprituality.  Just because a patient states they are an a-theist and don't believe in a god doesn't mean they are a-spiritual and don't believe they have a place in the scheme of things. 
                     
                    Merely my opinion in each case.  And I'm not trying to answer for anyone else or set professional policy.  Who can argue with another physician's success?!  Why would I want to?  I'm just saying how I will practice next year and how I practice, practicing now. 
                     
                    Thanks MK for getting a little fire going..
                    William


                    MaryK Martin Geyer <naturecure@...> wrote:
                    Well, if we apply a tool to cure the unhealthy... What makes us any different than any other doctor?  Do we promote cure?  Isn't it really the patients own body that does the work?  Do we attempt to remove the obstacles and watch the vis in action? 
                     
                    No, I don't personally believe that we are learning the Vis.  I think that we attempt to understand that amazing force called the Vis...but, it seems like saying that we are learning God/Goddess/ Whatever higher power that you believe in.  Do you learn God?   It is my thought that we are learning the aspects of health, variations from health, and nature that are tangible to us...I emphasize tangible.  What do we do?....Attempt to clean up the waste, promote normal blood and lymph, and increase vitality (isn't that tweaking around on the physical level and hoping that the vital force can properly channel that amazing vis?).
                     
                    Are these just semantics?  Or, are they fundamental philosophical concepts that we should be questioning and seeking answers for?
                     
                    I'll end with a statement that may cause some discomfort.. .Do I run a battery of tests, treat lab values as the end all be all, throw a bunch of supplements at a patient, and cause cure? Is that really any different that the allopathic model?  Also, something I observed alot in private practices, but not actually on site while in school...when was the last time you asked a patient on your initial intake, "do you have a spiritual connection?, what is is?, how do you feel about this?" 
                     
                    I respect and honor your words...and thank you for being the only one to join the discussion thus far.
                    Peace and Light~MaryK
                     
                     

                     
                    On 6/13/07, moehabbahoo <moehabbahoo@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                    Hello,

                    I thought that we were supposed to use the tools available to us to
                    promote cure and health in our patients. So we use these tools
                    (homeopathy, manipulation, nutrition, hydrotherapy, mind body
                    medicine, etc)to accomplish our mission to cure the unhealthy.

                    As far as the phrase "learning the vis", in my inexperienced
                    experience, I have not heard people using that phrase. As doctors in
                    training are we not trying to learn the vis anyway? I don't find this
                    controversial at all, it is what we are doing.

                    tom




                    --
                    Dr. MaryK Martin Geyer, NMD
                    naturecure@gmail. com
                    (480-221-7485)

                    Humankind has not woven the web of life.  We are but one thread within it.
                    Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.  All things are bound together.  All things connect. ~Chief Seattle, 1854



                    William Franklin
                    SCNM Student

                    "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius


                    Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
                    Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

                  • William Franklin
                    Hey everyone, You make some good points Luke. My point was that one of the main slanders we have about allopatihc treatments is that they only treat the
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 16, 2007
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hey everyone,
                       
                      You make some good points Luke.  My point was that one of the main slanders we have about allopatihc treatments is that "they only treat the physical" and then whenever that argument comes up about our modalities we claim body mind spirit can't be separated.  My point is,  if we really mean one of the things which separates what we do from allopathy is that we are treating the whole person and they aren't; we can't then claim it isn't possible for us to treat one part because the parts are interwoven.  Not a logical argument in any way, shape or form.
                       
                      So, I examined what I mean when I say "they only treat the physical" and I discovered that isn't really what I believe to be happening at all.  I am only being lazy when I say "they only treat the physical" but I've said it so often that I was beginning to believe it enough that it was becoming confusing to me about how are we different from mainstream medicine. 
                       
                      What I find to be the real belief behind that statement is that mainstream medicine doesn't consciously accept responsibility for what they are doing on the mind spirit or even fully on the physical.  They have a tendency to write effects off as "side" whenever they are undesired even if they are expected.  As far as the mind spirit aspects, there is no thought consciously given as a profession to these aspects of the humans they treat or to the humans doing the treating. 
                       
                      This oversite makes for sloppy medicine and lots of opportunity for "placebo" and "spontaneous healing".  I think what really makes us different is that we attempt to the best of our ability to accept responsibility for, to plan for, and to include in our treatments all the effects of our interventions.  There aren't side effects in homeopathy because we don't just focus on the ones we want and discard the rest.  There is an acknowledgement of the mind spirit effects because we include them in the provings.  Pharm could do the same thing with their studies but they don't, by choice, consciously or unconcsciously.  Doesn't mean the effects aren't happening though.
                       
                      The danger I see is that as a profession, we've lost our way with some of our modalities, botanicals being the greatest casualty so far.  We are taught to choose and use botanicals based on very limited pharmacological understanding of them and then we struggle with explaining how this is different from mainstream approaches... because it isn't and we know it isn't.  I've had the good fortune to learn from practitioners who prescribe plants based on other aspects than their chemical makeup and they get amazing results.  Essentially, they prescribe based on the overall effect of the plant, including mind spirit, matching the personalities of plants and patients. 
                      So I guess a point I want to make is that I don't believe that homeopathy treats on a whole person level while pharm drugs treat on a physical level, or even that one is better at treating on any of those levels than the other.  What I believe is that we, as a profession, have taken the time and responsibility to accurately describe and include in our prescriptions, how our homeopathic medicines effect the body mind spirit as a whole, while mainstream medicine has not.  And in some cases we are following their lead instead of holding to our own, as is the case for botanicals.
                       
                      Another way I like to differentiate what we do in my mind is that I stay away from terms like "stimulating or suppressing the vital force" because I don't think that is the important distinction.  For example, surgery is very stimulating to the vital force.  It presents the VF with what would be a fatal wound, in most cases, that must be healed and the vital force gets on it like a champion.  All actions are stimulating to some aspect and suppressive to others so it isn't helpful to me to think in those terms.  I choose "sustainability" as my marker.
                       
                      Is the reaction I am seeking to cause in the patient a sustainable one or is it not. In the case of most pharm drugs, I see them as unsustainable... like going on a temporary weight loss diet.  Makes you feel good now but the end result is further from your goal.  One of the things that makes pharm/mainstream approaches unsustainable is that I am shooting in the dark.  To use them, I must take very limited knowledge about a very isolated compound only studied in very controlled situations and attempt to extrapollate out to my complex patient's complex case in his/her complex world.  And, much of the information I need to do this well is written in fine print at the end of the commercial and called side effects.
                       
                      One thing that makes things sustainable or not, I believe, is the learning contribution of the treatment.  What is the patient going to learn from this treatment?  What is the patient going to learn about life on this planet from the medicine born in a lab 5 years ago vs from a plant born 7 billion years ago?  I see pharm drugs as teenagers... overly aggressive, smart and completely ignorant of the world.  What can my patient learn from them?  Maybe, sometimes, it is more appropriate to take advantage of their youth and ignorance when the patient is being over-run by an especially aggressive and violent predator and prescribe temporary fixes...  But for the most part, I prefer to educate the patient on wholistic levels through what I say, do and give.  Hydrotherapy is so powerful I believe because it came before even the plants.  And we are predominantly water.  Sounds like a great educational opportunity to me.  Homeopathy takes minute doses, onlt the essense of an entity and teaches the body something with it. Isn't that how we describe it?  The remedy contains the information from the mother tincture?  Anyway, enough with that.
                       
                      So my belief statements about what makes us different would be that we take conscious responsibility for the whole person effects of our medicines and we practice sustainable medicine.  We practice docere as physician's and we use medicine that has something to teach as well.  Mainstream medicine is not being consciously responsible nor is it sustainable... we see that people on their protocols decline rapidly over time as the unsustainalbe effects pile up. 
                       
                      Again, just my way of figuring through all of this craziness and trying to find solid ground to stand on.
                       
                      Peace and Light y'all,
                      William


                      William Franklin
                      SCNM Student

                      "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius


                      You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
                      in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
                    • serron wilkie
                      Hey everyone..... I like your talk to William.... always have :0) I d like to add a few things to the discussion, and try to offer a few more thought from a
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 16, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hey everyone.....

                        I like your talk to William.... always have :0)
                        I'd like to add a few things to the discussion, and try to offer a few more thought from a different angle.  Yes it is true that we include our "side effects" as part of the medicine but this does not give use the excuse to over prescribe our medicines.  Let me explain a little.....One of the traps that we fall into is prescribing our substances and thinking that because they possess the wisdom of time, are more supportive of the body's functions, and make us feel better that we can take them with less discretion.  I don't know if its actually less discretion or more discression but they seem to so easily get taken of the self, written down on a piece of paper, and make it into the lives of our patients on a regular basis.  The reason treating the body/mind/spirit with docere, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and energetic medicine is so powerful is because these all offer  "reminders" to the body of what it is like to feel heard, free, healed etc.  but that is all that they are is reminders..... it is up to the vis and the consciousness of the person....... to hold a place for that memory.  The trouble comes when in any medicine weather we use herbs, homeopathics, supplements, pharmaceuticals or whatever.....and rely on them as the avenue to retain that memory.  Let me explain a bit further.....if we decide to take a substance and take that substance indefinitely (or even regularly) then healing is not occurring at its deepest level.  A person may feel better and it may address their symptoms very effectively but they have become reliant upon that substance, in some capacity and it has become a part of how they operate in the world.  The effects of the substance continues to affect them on "all" levels, weather we intend it to or not.   When they stop taking that substance their body will have to readjust to not having it....sometimes this takes only a short time and sometimes this takes a while but the body was not learning how to function optimally it was learning how to respond to the substance.  Our relationship to the patient has this danger too if they lean to heavily on us.  I think the key is variety.  We have soooo many options for affecting each of the systems of the body.  We could choose a different approach every month and still treat the same system from different angles, in the meantime, not allowing the body to become reliant upon any one thing..... yet still treating the affected system.  This would offer a way of addressing the issue, while at the same time "training" or "reminding" the body of how it can do it itself, what feels good, and where balance is.   These are my newest thoughts on my journey through this medicine.....  not sure what you all think but would love to here about it.....
                        Sittin' here in the NW listenin' to the sound of the rain as it hits the earth outside my window, wow what a beautiful universe we are.  
                        warmly, 
                        serron 
                        NCNM

                        "If nothing ever changed, there'd be no butterflies." 
                        ~Author Unknown

                        “The very least you can do with your life is to figure out what to hope for.  And the most you can do is to live inside that hope. Not admire it from a distance but live right in it, under its roof” 

                        Barbara Kingsolver
                        Animal Dreams (1990)

                        Change requires the courage

                        to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice

                        what you are for what you could become.

                        Author ~unknown




                        On Jun 16, 2007, at 1:31 PM, William Franklin wrote:


                        Hey everyone,
                         
                        You make some good points Luke.  My point was that one of the main slanders we have about allopatihc treatments is that "they only treat the physical" and then whenever that argument comes up about our modalities we claim body mind spirit can't be separated.  My point is,  if we really mean one of the things which separates what we do from allopathy is that we are treating the whole person and they aren't; we can't then claim it isn't possible for us to treat one part because the parts are interwoven.  Not a logical argument in any way, shape or form.
                         
                        So, I examined what I mean when I say "they only treat the physical" and I discovered that isn't really what I believe to be happening at all.  I am only being lazy when I say "they only treat the physical" but I've said it so often that I was beginning to b! elieve it enough that it was becoming confusing to me about how are we different from mainstream medicine. 
                         
                        What I find to be the real belief behind that statement is that mainstream medicine doesn't consciously accept responsibility for what they are doing on the mind spirit or even fully on the physical.  They have a tendency to write effects off as "side" whenever they are undesired even if they are expected.  As far as the mind spirit aspects, there is no thought consciously given as a profession to these aspects of the humans they treat or to the humans doing the treating. 
                         
                        This oversite makes for sloppy medicine and lots of opportunity for "placebo" and "spontaneous healing".  I think what really makes us different is that we attempt to the best of our ability to accept responsibility for, to plan for, and to include in our treatments all the effects of our interventions.  There aren't side effects in homeopathy because we don't just focus on the ones we want and discard the rest.  There is an acknowledgement of the mind spirit effects because we include them in the provings.  Pharm could do the same thing with their studies but they don't, by choice, consciously or unconcsciously.  Doesn't mean the effects aren't happening though.
                         
                        The danger I see is that as a profession, we've lost our way with some of our modalities, botanicals being the greatest casualty so far.  We are taught to choose and use botanicals based on very limited pharmacological understanding of them and then we struggle with explaining how this is different from mainstream approaches... because it isn't and we know it isn't.  I've had the good fortune to learn from practitioners who prescribe plants based on other aspects than their chemical makeup and they get amazing results.  Essentially, they prescribe based on the overall effect of the plant, including mind spirit, matching the personalities of plants and patients. 
                        So I guess a point I want to make is that I don't believe that homeopathy treats on a whole person level while pharm drugs treat on a physical level, or even that one is better at treating on any of those levels than the other.  What I believe is that we, as a profession, have taken the time and responsibility to accurately describe and include in our prescriptions, how our homeopathic medicines effect the body mind spirit as a whole, while mainstream medicine has not.  And in some cases we are following their lead instead of holding to our own, as is the case for botanicals.
                         
                        Another way I like to differentiate what we do in my mind is that I stay away from terms like "stimulating or suppressing the vital force" because I don't think that is the important distinction.  For example, surgery is very stimulating to the vital force.  It presents the VF with what would be a fatal wound, in most cases, that must be healed and the vital force gets on it like a champion.  All actions are stimulating to some aspect and suppressive to others so it isn't helpful to me to think in those terms.  I choose "sustainability" as my marker.
                         
                        Is the reaction I am seeking to cause in the patient a sustainable one or is it not. In the case of most pharm drugs, I see them as unsustainable... like going on a temporary weight loss diet.  Makes you feel good now but the end result is further from your goal.  One of the things that makes pharm/mainstream approaches unsustainable is that I am shooting in the dark.  To use them, I must take very limited knowledge about a very isolated compound only studied in very controlled situations and attempt to extrapollate out to my complex patient's complex case in his/her complex world.  And, much of the information I need to do this well is written in fine print at the end of the commercial and called side effects.
                         
                        One thing that makes things sustainable or not, I believe, is the learning contribution of the treatment.  What is the patient going to learn from this treatment?  What is the patient going to learn about life on this planet from the medicine born in a lab 5 years ago vs from a plant born 7 billion years ago?  I see pharm drugs as teenagers... overly aggressive, smart and completely ignorant of the world.  What can my patient learn from them?  Maybe, sometimes, it is more appropriate to take advantage of their youth and ignorance when the patient is being over-run by an especially aggressive and violent predator and prescribe temporary fixes...  But for the most part, I prefer to educate the patient on wholistic levels through what I say, do and give.  Hydrotherapy is so powerful I believe because it came before even the plants.  And we are predominantly water.  Sounds like a great educational opportunity to me.  Homeopathy takes minute doses, onlt the essense of an entity and teaches the body something with it. Isn't that how we describe it?  The remedy contains the information from the mother tincture?  Anyway, enough with that.
                         
                        So my belief statements about what makes us different would be that we take conscious responsibility for the whole person effects of our medicines and we practice sustainable medicine.  We practice docere as physician's and we use medicine that has something to teach as well.  Mainstream medicine is not being consciously responsible nor is it sustainable... we see that people on their protocols decline rapidly over time as the unsustainalbe effects pile up. 
                         
                        Again, just my way of figuring through all of this craziness and trying to find solid ground to stand on.
                         
                        Peace and Light y'all,
                        William


                        William Franklin
                        SCNM Student

                        "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius


                        You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck
                        in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.


                      • William Franklin
                        Mm. Thanks Serron, I ve been looking forward to hearing you in here! Thanks for that reminder, there is truly a fine line between healthy and unhealthy
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 16, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mm.  Thanks Serron, I've been looking forward to hearing you in here!
                           
                          Thanks for that reminder, there is truly a fine line between healthy and unhealthy dependence.  I am so accustomed to seeing what I feel to be unhealthy examples that I struggle with the idea of dependence more than I think is necessary.  This is where a good backpacking trip helps me out.  I can remember that dependence is natural, healthy, built in. 
                           
                          In that spirit, I would say that "let thy medicine be thy food and thy food be thy medicine" reminds me that it is important to eat on a regular basis that which makes me healthy.  What is botanical medicine, if not food?  My nutritional supplements are food.  I am completely dependent upon my food to keep me healthy.  No amount of learning will change that dependence.  If the food doesn't enter the system the system will falter.  Not just the food itself but my relationship to it.  
                           
                          I am also dependent upon my relationships to other people and creatures.  Humans are by design cultural, social, dependent creatures.  I would argue that everything which exists is, by design, social and dependent.  We are designed to depend upon one another and everything else which exists for that matter... this is what I believe the term "namaste" to refer to.
                           
                          So I see nothing wrong with building a community with my patients where we depend upon one another and lean on one another.  I also see nothing wrong with relying on my food and medicines to keep me in touch with my world and healthy in my body mind spirit. The trick is discerning when the line has been crossed into unhealthy dependence and relationship.
                           
                          For right now, the best I can come up with is, it seems to be up to the individual. I can't tell you what is unhealthy dependence for you but I can certainly point you at areas which could use some additional attention, in my opinion.  Then it remains for you to decide.  Some people function very well in what would be very unhealthy relationships from my perspective.  So, in terms of that scenario, where a patient is overly dependent on me, I think it is up to me and the patient to decide for ourselves.  If I feel it is unhealthy, then it needs to be addressed within myself and then within our relationship; and vice versa.  It seems to be based on when I feel I am being asked to contribute more than I am willing to contribute to the relationship.  At that point I would decide it is not healthy. 
                           
                          There is definitely part of me that feels that we should each be independent and healthy within ourselves but the evidence of biology and life experience says to me "that is your ego talking, you can always tell because you begin to use plurals instead of "I" statements as if you know the right way for everyone.  Just nod politely to ego and then go call your friend on the phone and be dependent.  Have lunch and be dependent on the food you eat, the people who grew it, the people who harvested and delivered it, the people who prepared it and the people who made all those steps possible." 
                           
                          By the same token, if my use of some substance is keeping me healthy and in balance, then I would call that healthy.  If it is allowing me to continue avoiding some area which needs my attention or to postpone the ill effects of poor decisions, I'd call that unhealthy.  If I suspect a patient is doing the latter, I'd call them on it and I'd eventually refuse to be their pusherman.
                           
                          I am a part and a whole, simultaneously and one way I define illness is as a forgetting of one of those roles.  If I forget that I am a part, believing myself only to be a whole I behave as a cancer would; hoarding all resources for my own means, denying others, killing the whole as I seek only to perpetuate myself.  If I believe myself to be only a part, denying that I am a whole, I lose my boundaries and am overrun by every little thing; giving until I am spent, taking on until I cease to exist as a whole.  For humans, I believe the ego represents the "whole" aspect and the connection to the world at large, what I call "spirit" is our "part" aspect.
                           
                          If I attempt to deny my ego and think of myself as only spirit, then I lose all boundaries.  If I attempt to deny my spirit and think of myself as only an ego, I become as cancer.  Both are equally important to me to be healthy and in balance. I was taught by my roshi that it is not the purpose of awakening/enlightenment to defeat or transcend the ego.  Indeed, when we say enlighten/awaken, we refer to something that happens to the ego.  The ego is the thing which awakening/enlightening happens to... it is remembering that while it is indeed a whole person/soul it is also merely a part of something much larger.  "Battling the ego" and "having no ego" is an ego trick to give us something to do instead of waking up!
                           
                          So now I've gotten way over into another topic and I'll shut up for now. 
                           
                          Thank you for this internet which keeps me in touch with my tribe wherever they may be,
                           
                          Gassho,
                          William



                          William Franklin
                          SCNM Student

                          "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only – Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes, and everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual source." --Marcus Aurelius


                          Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.