I want to hear about your table of potencies, etc.!
Sounds like your instruction has been quite different than mine, in some
ways -- room for interesting comparisons!!!
Re whether it's "too high a jump" to go from 12 to 200: I should say first,
that for some cases it *would* be too high a jump. E.g., if I had begun
with low potencies *because the case required low potencies*, for issues of
hypersensitivity, pathology, frailty, etc., then I would *not* jump from 12c
to 200, but would do as you have said, move up either (e.g. the two scales
I'm familiar with) 6, 9, 12, 15, etc., or (in a less delicate case) 6, 12,
30, etc.
But in most of the cases where I've begun with 12 (or more rarely with 6), I
began that way more for reasons of convenience, where high potencies would
also have been acceptable. One of my first teachers had become equally
comfortable with (a) single-dose high, a la Kent, and (b) low, repeated, a
la Eizayaga (et al.). We had many lively discussions in class about the
relative merits (and risks?) of the two approaches, and had several students
in the class with extensive experience in low-potency chronic prescribing
(which was new to me). So over the years I've played a bit, and gotten to
feel pretty comfortable, with both.
I find that each end of the scale has its potential advantages and
disadvantages: On the low end (up to 12?), there is a greater possibility
of palliation, where a remedy that is merely "close" will work fine for a
while, but without having done the necessary deep work, and the benefit is
not lasting. Sometimes this is okay, if e.g. you don't have or haven't
found the simillimum, but you (or the patient) just really need some relief
*now* -- a few nights of sleep, or pain relief, or whatever. Low potency
can give you that, even if the remedy is not "right enough" to do much in
high potency.
High potencies (tho this can happen also with them) are more apt to be
(more nearly) "all-or-nothing" -- if it's right it works great (and more
deeply and lastingly than lows, in many cases?); if not, it does nothing (or
very little). Sometimes this is preferrable -- e.g. if you just want to
find that blasted "right" remedy, and don't want to mess around with the
"yeah, but's" any longer than you have to.
High potencies are longer-acting, which means that if the remedy
*doesn't* work as you need it to, you will have to wait longer before giving
the next remedy; it may, even if it's the right remedy, need longer to kick
in and gear up, or, if it's the wrong one, it may need longer to release
the VF so that it can respond properly to the next remedy.
When I'm deciding what potency to start with, one of my considerations
is whether I am more concerned about "doing something, now" or "getting down
to the deeper healing". I yearn for the day when I will have enough
accuracy and reliability that I will not have to make choices like that, but
will simply be able to give "the right remedy" in the first place; that,
however, is not yet the case!
My first homeopath was "very Vithoulkian", and had carefully explained
that high potencies address the mental sphere, while low potencies do not.
I have found this to be *very* untrue!!!!! On a number of occasions I have
either taken (myself) or given (someone else) a 12c of an (apparent)
constitutional remedy, and seen it act *very* well, at all levels. I will
continue this dose (repeating as needed according to symptoms, usually
anywhere from daily to every four days) until either (a) effectiveness
begins to lessen, indicating need to change either remedy or potency
(various possibilities there), or (b) I/they decide to go to single dose,
high. At which point I have I think always gone to 200 (well, once to 30,
and in theory I could envision circumstances where I'd go to 1M). I have
never had any problems from this.
Below:
on 12/16/02 4:35 PM, Zaidee at insan@gjr.paknet.com.pk wrote:
?? Could you explain that last?
I think different
Interesting!
I think your explanation will be different, and I want to hear! But I have
had a couple (only two, I think) of occasions where I gave a potency lower
than what was called for (according to the means of evaluation I was taught)
-- I felt I ought to give (in one case) 10M or (in another) at least 1M, but
instead began with (I think in both cases) 200, basically because I was
chicken
, and produced a strange sort of aggravation. In each casegoing higher brought about a very smooth and immediate improvement, no
further aggravation. Which is in a way counter-intuitive, that 1M or 10M
should be smoother than 200... (And I have had no other problems with 200s,
so I took it be an issue of "too low", rather than of "200 is a dangerous
potency", but who knows...)
I think that *sometimes* if the remedy is accurate enough to "get the
attention" of the VF, yet not strong enough to really give it what it needs,
you can get this sort of crisis.
I'd love to hear further thoughts or experiences on this one...
Again, I would agree with this *if* it is a delicate case, etc.; but for an
"average, functional" case, for which I would normally begin with either 200
or 1M, I have not seen this to be any problem at all.
I was taught a table of potencies and under which
I would love to hear this!
Adherence to that elementary table has
Thanks, Zaidee!
Hope this isn't hopelessly long and convoluted...
Best,
Shannon