Lord of The Rings fan and a homoeopath as well?

[Liz Lalor]

Yes good points Frod as represented in the books is VERY different to the
film presentation. BUT why did he feel more comfortable walking alone? and
Why did he not leave? and did he often already display conflicting emotional
desires?

[andyh]

*** Hi liz, well, I don't know if your repertorizations confirm manc
over hyos, but I did say that it might work in the case of gollum. I
dont know mancinella well, but (unlike Frodo) gollum certainly is
susceptible to discarnate influence even when NOT wearing the the ring,
but being only near it. He is drawn to it even when it is far away.
Yet he was but a keeper of it when he had it, nothing more--hoarding it
after stealing it (hyos). When serving the hobbits, he did show some
resistance to being taken over by the power of the discarnates in
Mordor. It could be Fear of being taken by the devil, though it seems
less that than simply having no defense against it. The idea of greed
and possessiveness and fascination with shiny things, and talking to
himself seem more in the fore than fear of the devil. His sexual
instinct seems to have become equivalent to obsessive possessiveness of
a ring.

However, reading a case in Sankaran's plant book shows some similarity
of mancinella to gollum in the obsessive compulsive side of things in
conjunction with "seduction" by the "devil" or discarnate entities that
are endemic and EXTERNAL to them (whilst in contrast, Anac ALREADY has
such an energy splitting them in two from the inside, and sharing the
body with them).

So, not sure if the rx for Gollum would be manc, hyos, or some other rx
we have not discussed which is not as well known but has all these
characteristics and the regressiveness and the reptilian-ness.
Possibly a snake or amphibian or spider remedy would fit better, and
would still cover the case. But Manc or hyos are in the ballpark,
certainly. The regressiveness and shiny-object thing (gollum thinks
light is spying on him) would go toward hydrophobia, perhaps.

MIND; HYDROPHOBIA (69) : acet-ac., acon., aconin., agav-a., agn.,
am-c., anag., anan., ant-c., anthr., apis, apisin., aran., arg-n.,
ars., aspar., bell., brom., calc., camph., camph-br., cann-i., canth.,
carc., cedr., chlol., cocci-s., crot-h., cupr., cur., fagu., gels.,
gent-c., grin., gua., ho., Hydr-ac., hyos., hyper., iod., jatr.,
kali-br., lach., laur., lith-br., LYSS., mand., merc., naja, nat-m.,
nux-v., phel., phos., phys., plb., ran-s., ruta, sabad., scut.,
spirae., Stram., stry., sulph., tanac., tarent., ter., trach., verat.,
xanth.
Here are the animal remedies with an aversion to light:

Aversion/agg [sen] light/shiny: ambr., amph., androc.222, apis5,
apisin., aran.91, blatta, 2bufo8, bufo-s.11, buth-aust., 2calc.5,
canth.155, cocci-s.54, cor-r., cortico.119, culx.223, 2elaps8,
haliae-lc., hipp.36, ichth.77, lac-c., lac-d.36, lac-f.11, lac-gl.,
lach.5, lar-ar., 2lyss.8, ol-an.36, pitu-a., psor.8, ratt-n., 3Sep.5,
2tarent.5, tarent-c., tela, ther.221

And aversion to light along with spied on:
Aversion/agg [sen] light/shiny [rem] delusion [sen]
spied/watched/pursued: calc., elaps, 3Lach.223, ratt-n., sep.

and crossing that with hydrophobia, we end up with a snake:
MIND; HYDROPHOBIA (69) : acet-ac., acon., aconin., agav-a., agn.,
am-c., anag., anan., ant-c., anthr., apis, apisin., aran., arg-n.,
ars., aspar., bell., brom., calc., camph., camph-br., cann-i., canth.,
carc., cedr., chlol., cocci-s., crot-h., cupr., cur., fagu., gels.,
gent-c., grin., gua., ho., Hydr-ac., hyos., hyper., iod., jatr.,
kali-br., lach., laur., lith-br., LYSS., mand., merc., naja, nat-m.,
nux-v., phel., phos., phys., plb., ran-s., ruta, sabad., scut.,
spirae., Stram., stry., sulph., tanac., tarent., ter., trach., verat.,
xanth.
cross
Aversion or agg [sen] light or shiny [rem] delusion [sen] spied or
watched or pursued (5) : calc., elaps, Lach., ratt-n., sep.

result:Elimination: calc., Lach.

Snakes and Hyos are similar type rx. Before you commit to Manc for
your book, I would scour the reptiles amphibians and snakes and other
animal rx (tarent-greed, desire to kill) Example: Bufo--Gollum does not
seem to want to serve the dark lord at all after he gets the
ring--wants to keep it for himself (similar to desires solitude to
practise masturbation of Bufo---masturbate endlessly and obsessively
with the object of ones desire; with the rest of the sx of gollum
being considered less important in this view. Bufo has throat choking.

The fish in his mouth in the movie, and the preferring raw meat might
mean something in regard to it being an animal remedy.

In greco-roman mythology, I would place Gollum as congruent with
Charon, the boatman, who guides the seeker over the river Styx. As
quoted in the discussion, it was Frodos ambition before being
introduced to the ring to "cross the river" which is the great
attainment mentioned in the I Ching--"Crossing the great water".
Smeedle/gollum performs this function of guide, though under duress
initially, temporarily subsumed to a new master who remembers his
former identity; and with desire to be near the ring. Tolkien was
obviously not just a linguist, but combined all his formal training and
study with other influences (perhaps some contact with former members
of the Golden Dawn, other mystical society teachings); with his sense
of the medieval/grail type epic; to channel and craft a tale of the
demise of evil and the end of the world as we know it.
)))) If one can find the sensation, key peculiar, or key urge, then
that can be guiding, sure. But the totality of the case with all
aspects weighted is also of importance. Gollum's sensation might be
LUST for the Ring and how it makes him feel (maybe in control, as you
say). He was originally able to KILL to possess it. But our ascribing
a sensation to Gollum is a bit speculative. The only thing we really
know about his motivation is his lust for the ring and hoarding of it
obsessively.

What do you feel is the sensation of Hyos?
I think the keynote polarity of the rx is "desire to expose oneself" or
its antithesis. In full expression, it represents the desire for fame
and/or being seen, even if it takes being exhibitionistic in order to
draw that attention.

What do you feel is the sensation of Manc?
The classic view is fear of the devil, which Gollum may have less of
than Frodo. Smeedle persona did appear to have some fear of being taken
over, but then succumbed again. Of course, more modern understanding
of Mancinella is available which has not been incorporated into books
fully--what do you think is its sensation?
(( I assume you mean Gollum here. Good point. I dont know if desire
to expose himself is anything Gollum has in his desires. But that may
be already accomplished, as he is naked all the time, as Joy pointed
out. Whether that is peculiar or not is a question. He used to be a
fully clothed (Hobbit?) or (human?) so it may be an important clue
which supports hyos, which by repertory, is superior to mancinella
(albeit mancinella is far less fleshed out in the rep than it should
be).

Best,
Andy

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

[J Lucas]

I meant his 'representation' doesn't die - the essence of Gollum is
everywhere.

Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 25/9/04 2:16 am, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

No in the story Tolkien actually does have him die and he needs him to die
in the Fires of Mordor???

[Shannon Nelson]

If there is as you say, a "tug" to do find "great things" to do, then that
would seem to me significant in terms of constitution/susceptibility. But
Frodo simply did the necessary task that was put in front of him. I think
rising to the task was a sign of his *health*, not his weakness.

IMO to *do* the necessary things comes with good health and balance; to
*fear or fail* to do the good and necessary, is part of dis-ease. If not,
then what *would* be signs of a good, balanced and proper relationship
between self and the environment (which is part and parcel with "good
health" as Hahnemann defines it)??

Interesting!

Shannon
on 9/24/04 7:54 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

And fortunately, so is the essence of Frodo!

on 9/25/04 3:29 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:

[J Lucas]

What is this 'constitutional picture'?

I know we have had this discussion before, one that often confuses and can
be quite confused in its own definition.

As I see there there is acute disease and chronic disease - that's it. Acute
disease is usually quite self explanatory but chronic disease can be harder
to pin down, more diffused in its presentation.

working from the point of view that disease is merely an inability to adapt
to any given situation, an individual can be (as we all are?) challenged
frequently throughout life and we have to call up all our resources to
prevent the diseased state taking hold. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes
we don't.

When a chronic situation begins to develop along these lines, over a long
period of time, and one succumbs finally to a diseased state the sx can
often be a fusion of apparent 'wellness' and 'unwellness'.

My own pragmatic approach to homeopathy is to advise sorting these out as I
do not think we should be prescribing on the 'wellness' within an
individual. But that grey area in between, when the wellness has fused with
the unwellness - you could say when the struggle becomes insurmountable and
the breaking down begins but the struggle still continues - the wellness
state is drawn into the diseased state to the point of possibly showing sx
or signs which are usable in any case.

I have always said that asking the question "WHY?" is one of the most
important questions to ask during case taking. Why someone does something in
their life is highly significant - even if that decision involves a healthy
part of someone's life.

So in that respect I am not disagreeing with what you say but I think this
methodology has been picked up poorly in the homeopathic community and lends
itself to terrible confusion and judgemental prescribing, often because it
is too vague and full of interpretation.

If you take this route you HAVE to have back up and solid symptoms of the
'real' diseased state, i.e. the way the delusion/sensation/pathology etc
presents itself in the relative here and now.

Individuals move through remedy states, it isn't always a stagnant picture
or even a building block whereby one slowly moves towards a needed remedy by
virtue of their life's decision making process - it all comes down to what
needs to be cured and this cannot be guessed at (in Frodo's case) as there
are no diseased state sx, only those what you call 'tugs' - but is has been
interesting trying.

Millions of people have tugs of doing good, being bad, lack of self worth,
evil, devils, hell and heaven, love and hate, doing the will of others,
being martyrs, telling lies, being heroes and heroines, stealing, driven by
greed and jealousy etc but they are not all mancinella or anacardium without
solid diseased state sx to support that choice of remedy.

The 'tugs' in Frodo's case (if we are to keep guessing) appear to be well
within the cancer miasm (but not exclusively).

For Frodo I would choose Physostigma - the ordeal bean.

Regarding Andy's point about the light and dark issue with Gollum, I am sure
there is a Sankaran? case somewhere on Hyos where the client dreams of being
trapped underground in darkness with connection to the holocaust. Hmmm

best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 9/24/04 7:54 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Any time of change (e.g. growing up) will involve a time of conflict, as the
old ("happy at home") is replaced by the new ("time to leave"). But I do
agree that the walking alone seems significant, as do the wandering, talking
with elves and etc., and longing to see other places.
Shannon

on 9/24/04 8:32 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Liz,

Interspersed:

on 9/24/04 8:04 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote:

...

Too speculative! *I* think they chose him because (in addition to being a
hobbit) his goodness and lack of egotism would give him some protection from
the perils.
Gandalf tells Frodo in the beginning that *anyone* who possesses the Ring
for too long *will* be overcomem by it. But he feels the Frodo will be able
to hold out the longest and the best -- partly because he is a hobbit, and
hobbits (Gandalf speculates) seem to be less susceptible than other mortals
to the Ring's influence; and partly because Frodo is (were these Gandalf's
words? I think so) good and well-intentioned, which gives him further
buffering from the Ring. Gandalf says that *no mortal* can withstand the
Ring's power indefinitely; but they need someone who can resist long enough
and well enough to take it to its destruction.
So if you are doing this as an "archetype", then anacardium might fit;
taking the Ring as part of the image. But Frodo himself does not show any
signs of having such a struggle within himself, except what is specifically
brought by the Ring, and that is direct "toxicity".
If a person has a friend (or enemy) always telling him to do the wrong
thing, does that make the person Anacardium? No, because the friend's
message is external, not part of him. Similarly the Ring is not part of
Frodo, and he responds to it only with symptoms "common" to the "toxicity"
of the Ring.
...

I just don't see anything at all in the story to support this.
Not so!!! Gandalf tells us that *any* mortal is vulnerable to the power of
the Ring, and Frodo perhaps less so than any other.

...
This proves not that Frodo was weak (he had already resisted more
successfully than any other could have); it only proves that he was Mortal.
you cannot hang a prescription on a symptom that is "common to the species",
let alone "commmon to all mortals"!
Yes, and this is a direct effect of the Ring. But even *if* we explore the
possibility of an internal split (perhaps over time the Ring will cause
one?), there are many possibilities:

MIND; ANTAGONISM; herself, with (21) : acon., Anac., anh., ant-t., aur.,
bar-c., cann-i., cann-s., caps., irid., kali-c., lac-c., lach., lim-b-c.,
lyss., naja, op., paro-i., sep., sil., verb.

To my mind several of these seem more plausible, as I just don't see either
the kind or the degree of imbalance that would be needed to justify anac.


Shannon

[Liz Lalor]

YES but why was Frodo less vulnerable to be seduced as quickly?

[Shannon Nelson]

If I'm understanding your question right, according to Gandalf, Frodo may be
less vulnerable because (a) he is a hobbit, and hobbits seem less
susceptible to the Ring than other mortals; and (b) he is a strong and
well-intentioned "person" (or words to that general effect), which slows the
Ring's effect (tho it can't stop it). (Did I answer the right question?)
on 9/25/04 7:47 PM, liz lalor at lalor@ozonline.com.au wrote: