I am currently working on the philosophy assignment:
With reference to the 12 levels oh health diagram of G Vithoulkas (Page 112
diag 11 - in EM Roberts textbook) reconcile these apparently conflicting
statements with Vithoulkas on one hand and Farrington/Kent on the other
Vithoulkas:
Materia Medica Viva Vol Ammonium Carb It is misleading to categorise some
Rx as constitutionally only because they are deep acting...all Rx can act
deeply when they are the simillimum, consequently any Rx may act as a
constitutional, one when appropriately prescribed. Any Rx when only
superficially prescribed will have no powerful action, and conversely, any
Rx when properly prescribed according to deeper indications can affect the
entire constitution.
Farrington:
When the indicated Rx fails to cure completely because of its limited sphere
of action, a complimentary will be needed to continue the process and
complete the cure.
Kent:
Short acting Rx have never been known to produce alleviation by induration
and infiltration, hence the wise prescriber will not select thses Rx for
patients with these conditions, when he has those, from which to select,
which are pre-eminently related to the exact condition present.
I have been unable to find the Kent quotation - its supposed to be in
'Lesser writings' - does anyone know which book it is in?
I thought that you might find it interesting anyway!!
I look forward to your comments
Philosophy Question
-
Feras Hakkak
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Philosophy Question
Dear Joan,
All of us agree on the principles of similars (homoeopathy), but the question is that how we can find the simillimum. Almost never is a case exactly the same as a proving picture, and therefore we have to find the most similar. What is the most similar? What aspects of these two (patient symptoms and proving symptoms) have to fit? This is the point for which different schools of homoeopathy have different approaches. Some consider that only the present mental state is enough (like Sehgal), some propose miasmatic theory (like Hahnemann), etc. I have strived to understand these different views but still I have not been successful so far. But it seems to me that all of these views (surely of those who understand the principles) must have the same essence but with different manifestations. May God help us understand and feel the truth to serve the humankind.
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
Joan Dunn wrote:
I am currently working on the philosophy assignment:
With reference to the 12 levels oh health diagram of G Vithoulkas (Page 112
diag 11 - in EM Roberts textbook) reconcile these apparently conflicting
statements with Vithoulkas on one hand and Farrington/Kent on the other ..........
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
All of us agree on the principles of similars (homoeopathy), but the question is that how we can find the simillimum. Almost never is a case exactly the same as a proving picture, and therefore we have to find the most similar. What is the most similar? What aspects of these two (patient symptoms and proving symptoms) have to fit? This is the point for which different schools of homoeopathy have different approaches. Some consider that only the present mental state is enough (like Sehgal), some propose miasmatic theory (like Hahnemann), etc. I have strived to understand these different views but still I have not been successful so far. But it seems to me that all of these views (surely of those who understand the principles) must have the same essence but with different manifestations. May God help us understand and feel the truth to serve the humankind.
Sincerely,
Feras Hakkak
Joan Dunn wrote:
I am currently working on the philosophy assignment:
With reference to the 12 levels oh health diagram of G Vithoulkas (Page 112
diag 11 - in EM Roberts textbook) reconcile these apparently conflicting
statements with Vithoulkas on one hand and Farrington/Kent on the other ..........
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Philosophy Question
At 7:06 PM +0000 3/23/04, Joan Dunn wrote:
I don't understand what is conflicting! They are all saying the same
thing, but looking at it from different points.
They are ALL talking about the accurate selection of the remedy for the case.
Can you point out *specifically* where you see conflicts?
JW
I don't understand what is conflicting! They are all saying the same
thing, but looking at it from different points.
They are ALL talking about the accurate selection of the remedy for the case.
Can you point out *specifically* where you see conflicts?
JW
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Philosophy Question
Hi Joan,
Vithoulkas' and Farrington's statements aren't really in conflict, but
describe different situations. Farrington describes a situation where "the
indicated remedy" did not cover the entire need of the case, because the
"sphere of action" of the remedy did not entirely cover the "sphere of need"
of the case. No one could state with certainty that there wasn't another
indicated remedy, or a better indicated one, nor could anyone state with
certainty that there isn't/wasn't!
Vithoulkas's statement tell us that "indicated remedy" from Farrington's
case needed the assist of another remedy not because of any characteristic
of the remedy itself (i.e., not because of its "limited sphere of action"),
but rather because it did not suit *the case* deeply and completely enough.
(Whether there's some other remedy that *would*, that could have cured the
case all on its own, is entirely speculative, and I think not necessarily
relevant to either quote.)
Kent's statement simply notes that, since induration and infiltration are
processes that have taken a while to produce, a short-acting remedy would
not have (let's say) enough staying power/depth of action to bring about
that level of pathology, and so by extension it would not have enough
staying power/depth of action to cure it.
Does this help? Again, I don't think the three are in conflict, but are
just addressing different things.
Shannon
on 3/23/04 1:06 PM, Joan Dunn at joan@endsleigh.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Vithoulkas' and Farrington's statements aren't really in conflict, but
describe different situations. Farrington describes a situation where "the
indicated remedy" did not cover the entire need of the case, because the
"sphere of action" of the remedy did not entirely cover the "sphere of need"
of the case. No one could state with certainty that there wasn't another
indicated remedy, or a better indicated one, nor could anyone state with
certainty that there isn't/wasn't!
Vithoulkas's statement tell us that "indicated remedy" from Farrington's
case needed the assist of another remedy not because of any characteristic
of the remedy itself (i.e., not because of its "limited sphere of action"),
but rather because it did not suit *the case* deeply and completely enough.
(Whether there's some other remedy that *would*, that could have cured the
case all on its own, is entirely speculative, and I think not necessarily
relevant to either quote.)
Kent's statement simply notes that, since induration and infiltration are
processes that have taken a while to produce, a short-acting remedy would
not have (let's say) enough staying power/depth of action to bring about
that level of pathology, and so by extension it would not have enough
staying power/depth of action to cure it.
Does this help? Again, I don't think the three are in conflict, but are
just addressing different things.
Shannon
on 3/23/04 1:06 PM, Joan Dunn at joan@endsleigh.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Re: Philosophy Question
Not wanting to be a stick in the mud, nor wanting to do Joan's homework for
her
but the question asks to reconcile the apparent Vithoulkas versus
Farrington/Kent point of view. It is working from the point of view that
there is a conflict which needs reconciling. I personally think there is a
conflict.
Vithoulkas is saying that any remedy can be the simillimum whether it is
deep acting or not. If the remedy is not the simillimum but only close
enough to have a reaction that only partly cures, then it is superficial.
For GV it is the simillimum, the remedy, rather than whether the remedy can
be short acting or not. And the way to avoid the simillimum is to be
superficial about prescribing!!
Farrington takes a completely different point of view - that some remedies
are limited in their sphere of action and although well indicated will not
actually cure and the case progresses to another prescription.
Kent appears to confirm Farrington by deducing that short acting remedies
will never be truly indicated in deep pathology or pathology that has taken
time to develop, i.e. short cannot be similar to long.
The question asks how to reconcile these statements - perhaps Joan will let
us know what she thinks.
Best, Joy
www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 24/3/04 3:04 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:
Hi Joan,
Vithoulkas' and Farrington's statements aren't really in conflict, but
describe different situations. Farrington describes a situation where "the
indicated remedy" did not cover the entire need of the case, because the
"sphere of action" of the remedy did not entirely cover the "sphere of need"
of the case. No one could state with certainty that there wasn't another
indicated remedy, or a better indicated one, nor could anyone state with
certainty that there isn't/wasn't!
Vithoulkas's statement tell us that "indicated remedy" from Farrington's
case needed the assist of another remedy not because of any characteristic
of the remedy itself (i.e., not because of its "limited sphere of action"),
but rather because it did not suit *the case* deeply and completely enough.
(Whether there's some other remedy that *would*, that could have cured the
case all on its own, is entirely speculative, and I think not necessarily
relevant to either quote.)
Kent's statement simply notes that, since induration and infiltration are
processes that have taken a while to produce, a short-acting remedy would
not have (let's say) enough staying power/depth of action to bring about
that level of pathology, and so by extension it would not have enough
staying power/depth of action to cure it.
Does this help? Again, I don't think the three are in conflict, but are
just addressing different things.
Shannon
on 3/23/04 1:06 PM, Joan Dunn at joan@endsleigh.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
her
but the question asks to reconcile the apparent Vithoulkas versusFarrington/Kent point of view. It is working from the point of view that
there is a conflict which needs reconciling. I personally think there is a
conflict.
Vithoulkas is saying that any remedy can be the simillimum whether it is
deep acting or not. If the remedy is not the simillimum but only close
enough to have a reaction that only partly cures, then it is superficial.
For GV it is the simillimum, the remedy, rather than whether the remedy can
be short acting or not. And the way to avoid the simillimum is to be
superficial about prescribing!!
Farrington takes a completely different point of view - that some remedies
are limited in their sphere of action and although well indicated will not
actually cure and the case progresses to another prescription.
Kent appears to confirm Farrington by deducing that short acting remedies
will never be truly indicated in deep pathology or pathology that has taken
time to develop, i.e. short cannot be similar to long.
The question asks how to reconcile these statements - perhaps Joan will let
us know what she thinks.
Best, Joy
www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 24/3/04 3:04 PM, Bob&Shannon at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:
Hi Joan,
Vithoulkas' and Farrington's statements aren't really in conflict, but
describe different situations. Farrington describes a situation where "the
indicated remedy" did not cover the entire need of the case, because the
"sphere of action" of the remedy did not entirely cover the "sphere of need"
of the case. No one could state with certainty that there wasn't another
indicated remedy, or a better indicated one, nor could anyone state with
certainty that there isn't/wasn't!
Vithoulkas's statement tell us that "indicated remedy" from Farrington's
case needed the assist of another remedy not because of any characteristic
of the remedy itself (i.e., not because of its "limited sphere of action"),
but rather because it did not suit *the case* deeply and completely enough.
(Whether there's some other remedy that *would*, that could have cured the
case all on its own, is entirely speculative, and I think not necessarily
relevant to either quote.)
Kent's statement simply notes that, since induration and infiltration are
processes that have taken a while to produce, a short-acting remedy would
not have (let's say) enough staying power/depth of action to bring about
that level of pathology, and so by extension it would not have enough
staying power/depth of action to cure it.
Does this help? Again, I don't think the three are in conflict, but are
just addressing different things.
Shannon
on 3/23/04 1:06 PM, Joan Dunn at joan@endsleigh.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Philosophy Question
Thankyou to those who responded !
As per my original post - I did state *apparently* conflicting!
I was looking for the book from which the Kent quote was derived!
It has been helpful to receive all comments so far!
If anyone can suggest additional reading/research I would be grateful!!
Again
Much Thanks
Joan
As per my original post - I did state *apparently* conflicting!
I was looking for the book from which the Kent quote was derived!
It has been helpful to receive all comments so far!
If anyone can suggest additional reading/research I would be grateful!!
Again
Much Thanks
Joan
Re: Philosophy Question
Hi Joan
I did a search in EH and could not find anything remotely resembling the
statement. It must have come from an obscure source - maybe someone
with Reference works can have a look - there may be additional or different
sources available - However, I have the full EH library so..................
Robyn
"If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the
observation yourself." (Bertrand Russell)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 16/03/2004
I did a search in EH and could not find anything remotely resembling the
statement. It must have come from an obscure source - maybe someone
with Reference works can have a look - there may be additional or different
sources available - However, I have the full EH library so..................
Robyn
"If the matter is one that can be settled by observation, make the
observation yourself." (Bertrand Russell)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.627 / Virus Database: 402 - Release Date: 16/03/2004
Re: Philosophy Question
Thanks Robyn for checking EH
I have already checked the entire KHA and cannot find the quote either
(Apparently Julian has also looked - same result!)
I will let everyone know (if you like?) when I get some more answers!
BTW Joy - I will post you the results when I get the assignment back (not
due until May so will probably be in June!)
Thanks
Joan
I have already checked the entire KHA and cannot find the quote either
(Apparently Julian has also looked - same result!)
I will let everyone know (if you like?) when I get some more answers!
BTW Joy - I will post you the results when I get the assignment back (not
due until May so will probably be in June!)
Thanks
Joan
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Philosophy Question
At 5:44 PM +1000 3/25/04, Robyn wrote:
I looked in RW. Since RW is about Materia Medica, nothing of Kent's
stuff which is not MM is there. It is NOT in his MM lectures.
Whatever that quote is, I can't find it. He uses the term "short
acting remedies" a few times, but never in that context. Checked
"Zizia" and he does not say anything in his book on Philosophy.
JW
I looked in RW. Since RW is about Materia Medica, nothing of Kent's
stuff which is not MM is there. It is NOT in his MM lectures.
Whatever that quote is, I can't find it. He uses the term "short
acting remedies" a few times, but never in that context. Checked
"Zizia" and he does not say anything in his book on Philosophy.
JW