State of disposition

[Chris_Gillen]

'Mental' is translated from GEIST (spirit) and 'emotional' is translated
from GEMUET (the emotional mind). O'Reilly/Decker - The Organon of the
Medical Art by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, p196

[Piet Guijt]

Hello David

I really benefit from your post!
OK, now you know my sensibilities and I know yours.
I can understand why you react so strong, because you see parts of a
beautiful system been thrown away.
Please see me as a friend, trying to learn from you.

I'm not trying to separate § 210 -213 from the rest, but I hope we can
discuss this component of the totality in detail.

§ 210 : Of psoric origin are almost all those diseases that I have above
termed one-sided, which appear to be more difficult to cure in consequence
of this one-sidedness, all their other morbid symptoms disappearing, as it
were, before the single, great, prominent symptom. Of this character are
what are termed mental diseases. They do not, however, constitute a class of
disease the condition of the disposition and mind is always altered; and in
all cases of disease we are called on to cure the state of the patients
disposition is to be particularly noted, along with the totality of the
symptoms, if we would trace an accurate picture of the disease, in order to
be able therefrom to treat it homoeopathically with success.

Hahnemann states that the disposition and mind is ALWAYS altered;
And in all cases of disease we are called on to cure the state of the
patients disposition is to be particularly noted, along with the totality of
the symptoms.

It is a ALTERATION! Just like taking a road to another direction, the road
is not always interesting by it self but its direction is always different
than the previous one.

You talk about: Mental symptoms "often [not always] tip the
scales in the selection of the homeopathic remedy" (aph. 211), and
"One must still judge the characteristic value of symptoms of the patient's
emotional
state."
I say in addition the state as a whole must also be recognised and added to
the totality.

§ 211 : This holds good to such an extent, that the state of the disposition
of the patient often chiefly determines the selection of the homoeopathic
remedy, as being a decidedly characteristic symptom which can least of all
remain concealed from the accurately observing physician.

§ 211 speaks of 'the state of the disposition' as a whole, not about
symptoms of the patient's emotional state.

Disease is a dynamic ALTERATION:

§ 19: Now, as diseases are nothing more than alterations in the state of
health of the healthy individual which express themselves by morbid signs,
and the cure is also only possible by a change to the healthy condition of
the state of health of the diseased individual, it is very evident that
medicines could never cure disease if they did not possess the power of
altering man's state of health which depends on sensations and functions;
indeed, that their curative power must be owing solely to this power they
possess of altering man's state of health.

§ 213: We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature -
that is to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease,
even in such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those
relating to the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we
do not select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a
disease-force which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to
those of the disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the
disposition and mind.

Hahnemann said that the state of disposition is always altered, and should
be integrated in every prescription, just like you said about always using §
153.
We can measure or at least try to verify the present (by definition altered)
state by the component method.
So, even when prescribing an intercurrent this must be kept in mind.
I hope you understand what I tried to explain, this is how I see it, when
you don't, let's end our discussion, it will be useless.
Kind regards,

Piet Guijt

[David Little]

At 10:56 PM 11/14/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Dear Piet,

We are colleagues who are trying helping each other. I like what you
saying and that is why I am putting so much time into this. I only wanted
you to explain your points clearer with better references. That's all.
Seghal speaking of the totality as "jungle"and putting down the SEUO-SRP
characteristics and aphorism 153 may confuse students and alienate old
practitioners. There is no reason to throw the baby (the characteristics)
out with the bath water (the unimportant symptoms). It is better to teach
the proper meaning of the essence, totality and disease-Gestalt and how to
judge the characteristic value of symptoms (aph 153). Anytime the Organon
is misrepresented it is the duty of homoeopaths to teach the aphorisms to
the best of the their ability. And yes, these are subjects I do not take
lightly. Why? Because the future of homoeopathic education is at stake.
This is not personal.
Absolutely! In Jungian psychology the "whole" is the persona, shadow,
anima-animus, collective unconscious, and the Self. Each of these aspects
of consciousness express valuable parts that make up a whole human being.
Taking a few unrelated mental symptoms does not offer the Esse and totality
of consciousness. Sometimes, however, a non-logical concomitant that is
coincidental befallment that has no apparent meaning other than it just
happens can also help find the true simillimum. Not all of the psyche can
be understood or made sense of. At times it can be only observed. Jung
wrote that the "whole psyche" can never be known because most of it is
unconscious by nature.
The word Hahnemann uses in aphorism 211 is: "Gemuethszustand" which
means Gemueths (emotional mind) + zustand (state) = emotional-state; state
of the emotional mind; state of the emotional disposition. I was looking
at my German Organon. My German dictionary does not use the term
disposition here. It says "state of mind". I usually translate the term
Gemuet as emotional disposition and O'Reilly uses emotional mind.

The Geist is related to the spirit and intellect and is more associated
with the brain. The Gemuet is the emotional nature and feelings associated
with the emotional heart. Is Hahnemann emphasizing the state of the
emotional disposition here?. Kent thought the emotional symptoms where more
intrinsic than those of the intellect and memory. German speaking people
usually often speak of their Geist and Gemuet when speaking of there "whole
mind" because German does not have one word that means mind. I will leave
it to the those who speak German to translate Gemuethszustand. Can anybody
help with this term?
Hahnemann wrote that a case should be based on the observable physical
constitution, mental (Geist) and emotion (Gemuet) character, occupation,
lifestyle and habits, civic and domestic relationships, age, and sexuality
(aph 5) and well as the objective signs, coincidental befallments and
subjective symptom of the entire body and soul (aph 6). The use of the word
"Character" is very revealing because it is a term used for a psychological
profile not one or two mental symptoms or a passing mood. I would this in
your thesis. In these 2 aphorisms Hahnemann speaks of Seele (soul), Geist
(spirit) and Gemuet (emotional nature).
I always understood this aspect of your discourse from the beginning
and I have always agreed with it. I have taught the importance of the whole
psychological profile and linked with aphorism 211 for years. We are in
complete agreement that the psychology of the patient is always altered. We
are in complete agreement that Gemuetszustand (state of the emotional
disposition) should always be included in the case analysis. We are in
complete agreement that the state of the disposition "often tips the scales
in the balance of the selection of the remedy". We are in complete
agreement that one should not record random mental symptoms without
understanding the essential nature of the disposition, character,
temperament, as a whole.

We no longer disagree on the meaning of the striking, extraordinary,
unusual and odd symptoms, the purpose of aph. 153 and the SEUO
characteristic, nor what it means to judge the characteristic value of the
symptoms. What else can I say? I never disagreed with what you had to say
about the importance of the psychological profile or what it constitutes.

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Now, as I said I had no intention of diverting your discussion of the
important of the psychological disposition and the methodology of carrying
out such an investigation. To be truthful, I like your explanation much
better than Seghal's!
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

[Piet Guijt]

David wrote:

unusual and odd symptoms, the purpose of aph. 153 and the SEUO
characteristic, nor what it means to judge the characteristic value of the
symptoms. What else can I say? I never disagreed with what you had to say
about the importance of the psychological profile or what it constitutes.

Sincerely, David Little

important of the psychological disposition and the methodology of carrying
out such an investigation. To be truthful, I like your explanation much
better than Seghal's!
Thanks, David for your time and attention, I hope to discuss some other
subjects with you in the near future.

Have a nice day,
regards,
Piet Guijt

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Thank you David and Piet.

I loved the exchanges - Thanks for your inputs.
Very educational.

Soroush

[Lisa Barrett]

Hello,

My name is Lisa Barrett and I would just like to clarify some
misunderstandings regarding the Sehgal method as outlined in David Little's
recent posts.

the
On the contrary I think that Sehgal has understood fully this concept but
has taken it one step further in that he has delved more deeply into the
mind rubrics so we can use them more creatively and recognise their subtle
expression within the patient.

get".

If this is in reference to discussions on the Lightforce list regarding RH,
firstly I would say we are not disciples we are just practitioners who are
using this method and continuing to develop it. Some use the indepth
analysis of mind rubrics within their own classical practice. Others are
using this method solely. It is not separting the pysche from the soma as
we are looking at the direct reaction of the patient to his physical
problem. If he has a pain, a cough, a discharge we look at how this is
affecting him. Admittedly we are not repertorising physical symptoms. For
instance recently I read on this list of a case of Jayesh Shah of
Hashimoto's thyroiiditis on the modality of worse any movement resulting in
a prescription of Bryonia. We would have taken the rubric Fear of
Suffering. The woman did not want to talk because of the pain. Therefore
the general symptom of Bryonia of worse any movement relates to their fear
of suffering.
In practice I see this with the Bryonia. They dont want to cough because it
hurts so much so they keep completely still. The Bryonia excema patient
will say that although the itching is terrible they will not itch it -
again because it could get worse and be more painful. I cannot see how
David can see this as restrictive practice, and to say that we "Just didnt
get" is frankly very arrogant and judgemental against those who are putting
a lot of work into taking this forward.

Every year we are looking at groups of rubrics and seeing how we can apply
them in more creative ways. We then test these intepretations in our
clinics and when we get positive results these are then noted. Therefore we
are using rubrics that maybe in the classical teachings are often
overlooked.

I can see that misunderstanding has arisen with regard to what Dr. Sehgal
has written about toxins. Firstly I must say that there has been a
misunderstanding of this because of a poor translation of the books. In the
forward Dr R K Kapoor gives a brief description of this "Further, he
observes that the remedy so selected on the basis of usual and common
symptoms of mind with the new technique, establishes discharges from the
five natural outles in the form of excreta which he has named as a toxin,
and thus elimiates the present suffering and also gradually takes the case
towards the permanent cure."
Disease firstly is a mistunement of the VF because of this mistunement
toxins build in the body and are directly connected to the symptoms of the
disease. This we can only assume because when a correct remedy is given the
pains begin to reduce and this is directly preceded or followed by a release
of toxins. This I have seen borne out in practice time and time again.
This has been badly expressed in the books.

I hope this addresses some of the misunderstandings. I will be working with
Yogesh and Sanjay Sehgal here in London in December and I will have further
discussions with them regarding these points.

Thank you
Lisa Barrett

[David Little]

At 05:00 AM 10/22/2001 +0100, you wrote:

My statement was that one can see from Seghal's writings that he did
not understand the terms *essence, totality and disease-Gestalt* and the
*striking, extraordinary, unusual and odd characteristics symptoms (aph.
153)* as explained in Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and the Organon. For this
reason, some in the mind-only school say things like the SRP symptoms might
be OK "if you can ever find them", and "the totality is a jungle". Some
speak of SRP as strange as in never seen, rare as in impossible to find,
and peculiar as useless. This shows they do not understand the theorem of
judging the characteristic value of symptoms or its applications. They tend
to talk down classical homoeopathy in order to present ROH. I believe this
is mistake that only divides instead of unites the best aspect of
everyone's work.

I >>>>can see that misunderstanding has arisen with regard to what Dr. Sehgal
has written about toxins.

Seghal writes in Rediscovery of Homeopathy, ROH Book Series 1:

"Here it will be out of the scope of this work to go into details of
the accumulations, of sections deposited in the body, which need to be
eliminated where and how they originate and accumulate; and how they become
the CAUSE OF THE DISEASE; and exactly could be the relationship between the
over-stocked secretions which we have termed elsewhere as TOXINS AND WHICH
BECOME THE CAUSE OF DISEASE." (capitals DL).

In this explanation there is nothing about the mistunement of the
vital force being the cause of disease. It only talks about toxins and "the
cause of disease". That is a materia peccans. The entire discourse does not
even mention the vital force.

Seghal also says:

"Therefore, I would like to state here that there is no such diseases
as Acute or Chronic, it is the same. (page 31)."

Seghal speaks about a disease taking more or less time as being the
definition of acute and chronic. That is an outdated allopathic view. This
shows a lack of understanding of acute and chronic as used by Samuel
Hahnemann.

An acute disease is one that is *self-limiting by nature* and a chronic
disease is one which is *not self limiting by nature*. An acute miasm is a
self-limiting infection like smallpox, flu, cholera. These disease by
nature CANNOT last long. A chronic miasm is one that last life long by
nature like syphilis. This is a scientific fact. Seghal is showing he does
not understand acute and chronic disease as taught in the Organon or
epidemiology.

This is the problem with much of ROH's criticisms of what they call
classical homoeopathy. First they define something incorrectly and then
refute what they have defined by their own concepts. This approach is
counter productive, iconoclastic and it will be answered. I believe
Seghal's work shows much genius and it can stand own two feet without
misrepresenting the teachings of the Organon.

Lastly, I don't believe in a mind-body split in any direction. Psyche
and soma are two aspects of one phenomena. I have cured hundreds of cases
by the psychological profile but I have also radically cured many cases
because an SEUO symptoms of the somatic sphere confirmed a remedy.

Sincerely, David Little
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000