Def constitutional [was: Digest Number 879]

[Shannon Nelson]

For curiosity, could I take a "survey" as to how folks here use and
understand the term "constitutional remedy"? My understanding over some 15
years has been that most homeopaths here in the US use the term in a rather
vague way, to mean something like "the largest totality I'm able to find
right now", or "the remedy that will shift (most of) whatever needs shifting
right now." It's used (again, in my experience by "most" homeopaths here in
the US) in distinction with e.g. "acute", "local", "palliative", etc., more
so than as a definitive term in itself. (If others here in the US disagree,
please speak!)

Could you guys weigh in with your own personal (so far) understanding/
definition of the term "constitutional remedy" as it is commonly used, to
the best of your own understanding?

With interest!
Shannon
on 1/12/03 5:33 AM, George Kaplan at dr_georgekaplan@hotmail.com wrote:

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

My understanding............

The constitution is who we are, how we are made and how we function, on a
physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspect, all of them lumped
together, this in the realm of what we consider normality.

A constitutional remedy would be the "medicinal representation" of this
state; in that normal state, we vary and change all the time, within
"normal" boundaries: good or bad news, emotions, weather,..... all those
modalities will change our presentation but will still be within our "normal
constitution".

If it is normal, why do we need a remedy?

Within the changes, we might be stuck in one or more of them, or the change
might be too strong to revert to regular function. I often compare the
constitution to a spring, or a rubber band: you may twist it, pull it,
squeeze it, when you release the action, it comes back to its previous,
normal state.
The constitutional remedy will help release the action and help bring the
constitution back to a regular, normal pattern of function. Given as
"prevention", it will help sustain it and stand the action inflicted on it.
That is the situation also when an acute disease/condition perturbs the
constitution but does not push it out of the boundaries of its elasticity:
in this case, the constitutional remedy will cure the acute by acting on the
constitution, even if it does not cover 100% of the acute symptoms.

If you distort your spring or your rubber band too much, it does not come
back to its previous state and you need special techniques or instruments to
fix it.
That is where the actual Simillimum, corresponding to the symptoms as they
present now and differ from before is needed; in this situation the
constitutional remedy will not do anything. Once you are back to the
previous situation, you can use the constitutional remedy if it is indicated
or you can give the next Simillimum if you are still outside of the
"constitutional boundaries".

How to find the boundaries? By repertorising separately what belongs to the
actual situation and what has been the usual "behaviour" previously; then
comparing both.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Arun]

Hi shannon,

My understanding is of a remedy which covers the overall picture, *as
opposed to one covering the local/chief complaint* alone. There is no
assumption that there is one remedy which will cover *everything* or is the
only one needed (though i will be happy if it were that simple !)

about what this overall picture should include, i have not strictly followed
aph 6. ("...only the deviations from the former healthy state "). Like joy
said in another post many traits/behaviour patterns ( which would not
strictly fall under the "sick state") etc have guided to the right remedy.
Food desires aversions / sleep position etc. also come to mind

regards,
Arun

[Peter Quenter]

Adding my bit -

The term 'constitutional remedy', and the expression 'a
person *is* a remedy-type',
have become rarities in my vocabulary -

The fact (or should I say, the seeming fact) that some
people have tendencies to manifest, under stress and
challenge of whatever sorts, symptoms that resemble one
particular remedy, more so than any other remedy, does not,
in my view, *make* them *be* that remedy-type -

It is, of course, a simple way of describing and terming the
observation. Yet, as we can see, it also gives rise to much
mis-understanding, confusion, and endless open-ended
interpretations ....
This does show, in some way, that no-one really has any
final truth or the-only-one-and-correct way of defining the
terms -
Everyone has good arguments and valid points for their
interpretation -

Similibus Curentur is a principle observed in Nature -
no discussions about it, no personal interpretations needed
or possible -
Artificial disease - natural disease -
initial action - secondary action ...

all principles of Nature -
observable, confirmed, reproducible -
It is part of why some call homoeopathy scientific -

Whereas the concept of 'constitution' seems to be founded on
various intellectual constructs, rather than on a basic
principle in Nature -
To be clear, the concept/s of 'constitution' are quite
helpful in many ways in
regards understanding people, and connecting all sorts of
psychology and personality and body-types and even universal
symbolism, etc etc ...

However, for actual treatment choices of disease it may be a
mis-application,
a mis-placed use of the concept of 'constitutional types' -

When even 'Constitutional--believed-to-be-Icon' Kent says:
" Classification of Constitution useless in Prescribing"
(Lesser Writings)
we may realize that the whole concept is not as simple as it
sometimes is
made to seem -

When I take the case and find the person in health resembles
the image of what is known of Phosphorus-in-health, then I
may make a mental or side note on the record, for whatever
fascinating study it may be worth - but I still would wish
to find the actual disease-image and a remedy that matches
the disease - clearly most people obviously agree on this
anyway -
Actually, these days I would *deliberately not* term the
person a 'Phosphorus constitutional type' -

It is all too easy to be tempted to give Phosphorus
- when no other remedy becomes clear in *my* study of the
case (which does not mean a better homoeopath could not
possibly see a true similimum, that I missed)
- when the person is basically symptom free and
well-balanced, but to 'improve their resistance' /
'constitution' - without there being a disease-image of the
Vital Force to match -
which, as I see it, is really not much else than doing a
proving, albeit, if only one dose is given, maybe a rather
subtle proving -
( in which case I admittedly am not quite decided as to any
benefit or detriment ...
it is said that provings can leave the prover in better
health afterwards ... but I would, as of yet, still wish to
figure out how the effects of those principles of Nature
actually would manifest into a 'strengthening of what is
thought to be the 'constitution' )

Also, even if some 'affinity' between person--remedy can be
perceived, who knows, maybe giving the 'constitutional'
remedy could 'impress' that remedy-type further onto the
person .... in other words, maybe giving 'constitutional'
remedies 'forces' the Vital Force more into that
remedy-'type' .... ?!? limiting future freedom of
evolvements of other remedy-affinities/experiences .... on
whichever levels .... (after all, it is about the *healthy*
aspects of the person ! )

The concept of 'constitution' and 'constitutional types' is
fascinating study and expands for me beyond any
homoeopathic application, and threads itself through many of
the study-pursuits in my life - it benefits the
understanding of people, and for homoeopathy it benefits the
understanding of substances and Materia Medica, but *for
treatment purposes* people are too varied,
disease-expressions too variable and innumerable, and
possibilities and influences too vast to narrow them down
into classifying people into groups/'constitutions', and
remedies into 'types' -

- no matter how many arthritis cases I've seen,
each new case is a new case, as if I've never seen joint
problems before -
- no matter how many similarities we may recognize in an
individual person with
another different person or with a group of 'types',
each person is an individual never seen before

*as I see it* -
( presently ...

bestens
peter quenter

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Peter,

So do I understand you right that,
(a) your understanding of the meaning of "constitutional remedy" would be a
remedy to "treat the healthy person", the state presumed to underly whatever
disease they may have, and
(b) you find it more useful to prescribed based on those symptoms that
actually need "curing", rather than on healthy characteristics.

A bit more below:

on 1/16/03 11:58 AM, peter quenter at bihcdn@superaje.com wrote:
Just to clarify -- what I'm looking for is an understanding of what the term
"constitution" and "constitutional remedy" *mean* to us; once this is clear,
I think the reasons why some of us like/use the term and others don't, will
become both more clear and more interesting (since we'll better understand
what we're trying to say!).

But I think you did answer that too, if I got you right. Thanks! Onward:

Nope. Could equally be a "complementary" etc. remedy, such as e.g. when a
(sorry) phos or calc pt tends to have (e.g.) ars acutes (ars is considered
an acute complement to each of those, if I recall right).

Especially when terms are not defined, or are defined differently by
different participants, without realizing they're using the words
differently!

(snips)

Yes. If you are treating an acute etc., you would treat on the basis of
existing symptom picture, not on the basis of the picture that would be
there if the thing you're trying to treat, weren't! (Unless you follow
Mangialavore's lead, and believe you've got that "lifetime thing" going for
the pt...)

But that's a discussion not really related to definition of "constitutional
remedy", except by way of contrast.

(snip)

Yes, but it is very important that we have an agreed upon definition *within
the context of homeopathy*, and that we try to have our conversations on the
basis of shared definitions! Clearly this isn't the case yet...
Yes, but we still match the case with the remedy... Your remarks above hold
true regardless of whether it's "a case of diabetes" or "Mr. Smith with
diabetes" or "a case with boundary issues and lots of fears, who is too
attached to salt and has nosebleeds, and oh yeah, also diabetes...." A
substance can be *similar* to many things/people/ situations/diseases,
without compromising that ol' individualization thing. Regardless of
whether we're talking similarity with "the disease" or similarity with "the
(yet-to-be- defined) constitution"...

Thanks for your thoughts!

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Dr. R,
This gives me plenty to chew on...
Questions below:
on 1/15/03 6:58 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD. at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:
So this sounds similar to Eizayaga's usage of the term?
If your use of it is not quite the same as his, could you explain? (I think
he says there are only, what, half dozen possible "constitutional"
remedies???)
Hmmm... What is a person's "normal constitution" is not normal...
In that case would you be calling your starting remedy (e.g. stram for a
baby born in that state) something other than "the constitutional remedy"?
If not "constitutional", what term would you use for that starting, chronic
remedy? (If we simply call it "simillimum", my first question is, "similar
to *what*?" Since we can have simillimum for acute, for trauma, or for
etc.)

Thanks,
Shannon

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I have probably been influenced by Eizayaga, as well as by all the other
authors I ever read, but this is my personal understanding.
It is true that when looking for "basic" constitution, not too many remedies
appear, but then I see that as templates for humanity, a bit like the blood
groups, where the different subgroups can then be compared to the different
expressions of the constitution: eg we know that Pulsatilla can be the
"typical" sentimental one but can also be a cruel SOB and still be a
Pulsatilla.
Unfortunately, "constitutions" are often presented as stereotypes, and this
is certainly not the case.

Your second question is semantics......... if the constitution behaves
extremely within the boundaries of its constitution (the cruel Pulsatilla)
you still use the same remedy; whether you call it constitutional or
something else does not matter.
And Simillimum, is similar to the actual presentation, to whatever has to be
corrected. When you are back to a normal situation, you can (but do not have
to) use the constitutional remedy to stabilise, to fix, to reinforce the
patient in his centre of equilibrium.

You can use the knowledge of the patient's constitution to foresee what are
the fragilities he could present (I do not do that....) or what type of
acute remedies would be more indicated should he encounter an acute
situation (I do not do that either, I repertorise, then if there is a
difficult choice, decide according to many parameters, constitution being
one of them).

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Phosphor]

be a cruel SOB and still be a Pulsatilla.
in which case Puls is typically cruel.

Phosp is typically extraverted, reserved, friendly, and given to sudden
impulses of violence.

so where does all this lead us? nowhere and anywhere our fertile
imagination takes us, to horse milk for the enslaved noble soul.

it is supposed the 'constitutional' remedy will fortify the VF against
future illness. so where is the evidence for this?

andrew