CD - HMN - 8 - A QUESTION

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Shannon

It is very good if the definition is not weird for you. But comparing Sankaran's view of Miasm is different from Ortega and both are different from Hahnemann. If you firstly work with for example Sankaran's view, understanding HMN's view would be confusing.

Best
Farbod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dale Moss]

Sad, but understandable that Julia Green's notes were not a useful teaching
tool. I would imagine she never intended them to be. Those of us who are
relative neophytes write down our thought processes so we won't look back at
a file months or years later and say, "What on earth was I thinking when I
gave that Rx!" Someone as experienced as Julia had the sureness of
intuition to guide her and didn't need reminders.

But wouldn't it have been a treat to be in her office when she took some of
those cases!

Peace,
Cinnabar

[andyh]

Andy had written in part:

"And as CD posits, the miasm(s) which express in the form of symptom complexes may not
succumb to symptomatic rx, but may need a miasmatic idem along the way which may not be obvious but may require
inductive reasoning..."

****** I may have been misunderstood with this statement. Thank you for clarifying it Farbod. I agree, Hahnemann himself did not mention using the nosode of the miasm in a disease complex emblematic of that miasm. He suggested groups of homeopathic remedies which were curative by symptomatic similarity--remedies which took at least 18 years to dilineate. BUT: the empirical connection he drew in CD between infectious diseases and types of disease in the offspring presaged such a development at later time and was absolutely required for that development by other workers in
homeopathy. That is what was meant -- if there was no miasmatic theory, then cases which did not respond to an apparently similar remedy but really needed a miasmatic nosode would remain incurable. Hahnemann did not say that in CD. But without CD, investigators probably would not have thought about potentizing assumed products of psora, sycosis, tuberculosis etc; at least not for a much longer time in the future.

Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:38:54 +0430
Dear Andy

Thanks. I agree with you. It really needs great patience. But I wanted to emphasise on the point that HMN beleived that
general homeopathy is not enough.
****** I agree that (my interpretation) that HMN thought general homeopathy was not enough, on the aspects:

--obstacles to cure must be removed, i.e.diet, exercise, and life circumstances, occupation, environmental exposures must be addressed as far as one is susceptible to their influence
--the apparently similar remedy will not always work or work on a long term because there are larger "forcing functions" to human disease, which are in fact what disease is, the reason physical beings are susceptible to illness, and a guide to why they get sick according to certain patterns. (This latter point is the main point of CD, to my understanding so far (maybe that will change after our reading is complete).
When I first studied HMN's CD I was confuesd, because I found something different from orthodox homeopathy.

****** What is orthodox homeopathy? Do you mean homeopathy without the concept of miasms? Or according to a modern teaching which is not altogether correct?
When the
first time I confronted with HMN's meaning of miasm I was astonished. He never spoke of Idem remedies to cure miasms.

****** No, he did not speak of use of miasmatic nosodes in CD. In fact, he did not like anything that sounded like isopathy (not sure where he said this--was it in the Organon, or in one of his letters, i.e. lesser writings?). It was his star pupil, Hering, that introduced the use of miasmatic nosodes, (if I am not mistaken), by introducing Psorinum around 1830 or so (although it is in question whether Scabies is the psoric infectious agent, according to Will Taylor). CD was published in 1828. Without CD and the concept of Psora and miasms in general, would Hering have
considered that a remedy made from a product of a disease thought to be seminal in human disease might be an important remedy? I don't think so. Regardless of whether Hahnemann ever mentioned or espoused miasmatic nosodes (eg use of a remedy which has, in a sense, direct connection to the miasm afflicting the client) CD laid the ground for use of these "idems". But even as I refer to them as "idems" their use is NOT isopathy, for when they are indicated, they are as homeopathic as any other rx, although sometimes they must be used as an intercurrent on scanty and inductive
indications (eg it's a "psoric case" and carefully selected remedies fail to act, for example); and thus may appear to be chosen on grounds other than the symptoms.
think the best to understand what did he say, is to read it as an unprejudiced observer, as I know nothing from
homeopathy.

****** I don't know if reading CD as unprejudiced means ignoring the development of Hom. after 1828. I don't see that as bias. But I understand your point about trying to read without preconceived notions, and I agree.
Farbod Rahnamai wrote:
****** We know that nosodes were developed by others (Hering, Lux, Swan, etc), and I had not meant to imply that Hahnemann mentioned their use (which nonetheless his theory of chronic diseases presaged). Would the developers of miasmatic nosodes have thought that these rx would be so important without the seminal concept of Miasms introduced in 1828? Possibly not.. After all, Hering called his nosode "Psorinum" after Hahnemann's name for the hydra-headed miasm. Miasms were a discovery worth many Nobel Prizes, and laid the groundwork for solving insoluble cases by showing
the background forcing functions of human disease, and thus showing the forests (miasms) in which the trees (similar remedy disease complexes) grow. This is my assumption. I doubt it is incorrect. But as we continue reading CD, if it is, I expect to be corrected. I will not let my assumption cloud an unprejudiced reading, but at the same time I will be testing the assumption as I read.
****** I agree that it is best that we temporarily put aside earlier notions we might have had about what HMN really meant and try to gain any fresh insights. Just as Will Taylor suggests that the infectious disease behind Sycosis is really (at the time undiscovered) Papilloma virus, and not gonorrhea (an idea passed on because of translation error); and that the infectious agent of Psora/itch is not Scabies (but *speculatively* fungal overgrowth, e.g. Candida--again not specifically identified at the time of Hahnemann) (again made unclear because of translation error);
readers must not let notions already in place bias our reading. At the same time, we are not in 1828, so I hope that ideas from beyond that date are allowed into the discussion. That Hahnemann spoke of a miasm as an infectious agent does not contradict that it can enter the genome and emerge through procreative transmission as disease complexes which do not resemble the original disease. As we read on, I expect to see that idea come up (or is that something which he did not directly say in CD?--would be surprised if it was only implied).

Andy

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Andy

Thanks for your consideration. I have a suggestion. From now on let us use our common term in the subject. Hahnemann cathegorize homeopathic treatment into two parts: "genral homeopathy" and "miasmatic homeopathy"
I think you ment genral homeopathy when you talked of "symptomatic rx". Please correct me if I am not right.

Rgds
Farbod

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Chris
Sorry for delay in replying.

You wrote:

"The occurence of less-than-long-term-successful superficial
symptom-similarity prescriptions led Hahnemann to think there was a deeper
cause which he attributed to chronic miasm."
Hahnemann did not mention miasm as a cause of chronic disease. Miasm means the same: infectious disease. If we accept law of similars we shopuld base our practice on it. HMN in his organon wrote of allopaths that always talked of fancy causes of disease. It is far beleiveable that he himself use such causes for disease. He only says that in some cases we can not find simillimum because of some problems. By use of his method we can overcome to these problems and find the simillimum. Like in epidemic diseases.
You wrote:
"Boenninghausen, and subsequent homoeopaths, have delivered their various divisions based on Hahnemann's early model."

As I know Boenninghausen did not act as HMN's model in defining Sycosis and sycotic remedy. That is obvious in his article: ANAMNESIS OF SYCOSIS in Lesser writing. ( I think it is available on www.minutus.org)
You Wrote:
"I can't see a division between "general homoeopathy" and "miasmatic
homoeopathy" unless there is no real recognition and understanding of
miasmatic influence, and an overreliance on core essence delusions and
sarcodes using other modifications."

I propose to take a look at HMN's preface to to the first edition of Chronic Disease 1828:

"At least I can not hope that these important communications will fare any better than the genral homeopathy which I have published hitherto."

"May they do better with the great discovery herewith presented to them"

It seems tht for HMN himself the discovering of CD is a discovery as important as general homeopathy.
Regards
Farbod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Hi Chris
You wrote:
"Miasm, according to Hahnemann's writings, meant an *infecting agent*.
Therefore, an acute miasm (Cholera) was one capable of producing an acute
disease reaction in the organism.
A chronic miasm (Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis) was one capable of producing a
chronic disease reaction in the organism.

As well, the following nomenclature applies to miasmatic chronic disease...
Psoric disease = Disease reaction after infection with the Psora miasm.
Sycosic disease = Disease reaction after infection with Sycosis miasm.
Syphilitic disease = Disease reaction after infection with Syphilis miasm."

Here is some quotes from HMN's CD:
"The itch disease is, however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious than the other two chronic miasmata, the venereal chancre disease and the figwart disease."
1- Here it is obvious that the venereal chancre disease and the figwart disease are refered to the other two chronic miasmata.

2- I agree with you in some extent. When HMN wanted to talk about contageons and infecting agent he used Miasm and when he wanted to talk about disease, he used internal malady or external symptom And also looking up miasma in dictionaries find infective agent. But it seems that according to HMN the agent, internal malady and external symptoms are all the same.
You wrote:

"Psoric disease = Disease reaction after infection with the Psora miasm.
Sycosic disease = Disease reaction after infection with Sycosis miasm.
Syphilitic disease = Disease reaction after infection with Syphilis miasm."
According to CD, he never talked of syphilitic or sycotic disease. He only talked about sycosis as a unique disease and Syphilis as a unique disease also. I think it is better to say:
Psora = Disease reaction after infection with the Psora miasm.
Sycosis = Disease reaction after infection with Sycosis miasm.
Syphilis = Disease reaction after infection with Syphilis miasm
You wrote:

"Interestingly, he never referred specifically to Scabies in Chronic Diseases
as the definitive "itch eruption". So it is clear from our modern medical
understanding that a psoric infection can be caused by several different
micro-organisms (miasms) that can produce the specific clinical psoric
eruption."
This quote is from page 10 of CD and its footnote:
"The oldest monuments of history which we possess show the Psora even then in great development. Moses* 3400 years ago pointed out several varieties.

(*In Leviticus not only in the thirteenth chapter, but also (chapt. 21, verse 20) where he speaks of the bodily defects which must not be found in a priest who is to offer sacrifice, malignant itch is designated by the word garab, which the Alexandrian translators (in the Septuagint)"
This shows that he refered psora to Garab, which is an arabic synonym of scabies. As I know itch disease were used for Garab.
You wrote:

"In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann gave the following examples of primary psoric
eruptions.
Herpes, Tinea Capitis, Milk crust, and Tetter."
HMN did not give herpes and tinea capitis as examples of primary psoric eruptions. But he called them "the sores which later arise from it(psora) "

Look at this:
"Only this skin symptom of the psora which has permeated the whole organism (and which as more manifestly falling under the cognizance of the senses has the name of itch), only this eruption, as well as the sores which later arise from it and are attended on their borders with the itching peculiar to psora, as also the herpes which has this peculiar itching and which becomes humid when rubbed (the tetter), as also the tinea capitis - these alone can propagate this to other persons, because they alone contain the communicable miasma of the psora. But the remaining secondary symptoms of the psora, which in time manifest themselves after the disappearance or the artificial expulsion of the eruption, i.e., the general psoric ailments, cannot at all communicate this disease to others"
Please let me know your idea.
To avoid elongation of mail I will discuss about Boeninghausen later.
Best

Farbod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]