Dear David,
To answer your first question "Who do You think you are".
Firstly I am just somone searching to improve my cure rate and asking
questions as to why homoeopathy fails and what can be done about this
failure rate. All practitioners of ROH have come from a classical
background in this country and also the medical doctors and lay
practitioners in Germany, Italy Switzerland and Czech Republic. With regard
to yourself you have read the Sehgal books and had conversations with ROH
practitioners and on this you have formed the opinion that "they do not get
it". Seeing as you have never practiced the method I feel I am entitled to
ask you the same question - who do think you are???? Is there one rule for
you to be able to denigrate practitioners of ROH and another for us. When
Dr. Sehgal commented on what he observed with classical prescribing this was
just an observation leading to a questioning of how can we improve on this.
No need to feel threatened, not a personal attack just an observation of
what was going on. It is by this questioning and examining of our
weaknesses,
and that ,of maybe our system, that we are able to look for further answers.
From the very beginning on lygthforce I only presented this as a method (not
as a 100% guaranteed cure) I detailed cases for discussion, and spoke of an
increased cure rate. Your last but one post was interesting because I
thought that there was room for some fruitful discussion, but once again you
have targeted me with the vitriol that you resort to against anyone who
dares to contradict you. Unfortunately this leaves no further room for
discussion. I will leave other to decide just who doesnt get it.
Lisa Barrett
Sehgal
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Lisa wrote,
"Firstly I am just someone searching to improve my cure rate and asking
questions as to why homoeopathy fails and what can be done about this
failure rate.
Dear Lisa,
Of course you mean 'why I fail'.
The answers are all there in the Organon but sometimes we are confused.
I share this feeling with you, (and who don't?) but the fault is likely not
to be found in the system of Homoeopathy as founded by Hahnemann.
Yes, of course there is confusion in Homeopathy world-wide, and of course
there are a lot of well-trained homeopaths also.
Some (big V) say that the 'state of disposition is ALWAYS altered' (§ 210)
was an overstatement of Hahnemann.
Some promote the 'Holy grail' remedy, to them are 'layers a curse.
Some prove remedies by meditation.
Some write the name of the remedy on a bottle with fluid, and claim this is
also the remedy.
You can see 'they just didn't get it'.
It is a good attitude to improve our cure rate and asking questions as to
why we fail, and what can be done about this failure rate.
Sehgal started also from a confused point, but the Homeopathy that time he
is talking about is a deviation from the practice Hahnemann promoted.
And Seghal is right this was not correct.
Some always tried to prescribe the grand constitutional remedy, using al
characteristics they could get, and when this didn't work they gave a
nosode, as a lucky hit.
And for an 'acute' they used some 'keynotes' and most of the time failed.
Sehgal missed a guideline, and he found that in the 'present predominating
state',
This was surely an improvement for his practice.
He called this 'Rediscovery of Homeopathy' and for him and many others it
was.
I wrote him a letter ones and I told him this was a true classical approach
in my opinion, and he was happy with this remark.
So we need a clear guideline, because without one we are confused, on which
symptoms and characteristics, we must base our prescription, right here and
now.
Without a guideline we are in the jungle.
Sehgal found this in the 'present predominating state', indeed a
rediscovery:
§ 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 told us to add this to the totality, the state is not in
contradiction with the rest, it is a part of it. You can call this CENTRE or
Central Disturbance, so the CENTRE is not forgotten.
Of course you have to know what symptoms and characteristics (also becoming
symptoms) you can use for the totality. This is something Sehgal is afraid
of, because his guideline is only 'mental'.
That's his problem, but there are clear guidelines to do this:
After collecting all data: symptoms, characteristics, etc. (§ 5+6)
We must identify the simillimum for the patients current state.
We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints.The present condition and totality will yield
the expression of the dominant miasm. The simillimum will have to cover and
eliminate the symptoms or that part of symptoms corresponding to that miasm.
After no further progress follows with your first remedy, (in case of the
grand constitutional remedy you're already done) the remaining symptoms will
be taken care of by selecting the next remedy in the same way.
I'm convinced when we do it this way, we come to a remedy what is curing
according the rules of Hering. To me this is the same what Sehgal means,
that after the simillimum the first action is a lasting improvement of the
state, and the second a curing reaction (discharges of toxic matter).
§ 253: Among the signs that, in all diseases, especially in such as are of
an acute nature, inform us of a slight commencement of amelioration or
aggravation that is not perceptible to every one, the state of mind and the
whole demeanor of the patient are the most certain and instructive. In the
case of ever so slight an improvement we observe a greater degree of
comfort, increased calmness and freedom of the mind, higher spirits - a kind
of return of the natural state. In the case of ever so small a commencement
of aggravation we have, on the contrary, the exact opposite of this: a
constrained helpless, pitiable state of the disposition, of the mind, of the
whole demeanor, and of all gestures, postures and actions, which may be
easily perceived on close observation, but cannot be described in words.
Sehgal even uses § 153 (without knowing this himself):
"A house wife says: nobody likes me, no one cares for me. You give me the
medicine so that i could do something for myself. I do not want to take any
favour from anybody"
But in reality the people around her are very nice co-operative and
sympathic toward her.
Her expresion would point to Ignatia, (PPP):
But taken the second in concern the remedy is Thuja. (SRP or SEUO)
This is using § 153 !!!!!
We can come to the exactly same remedies, the techniques offered by Sehgal
are sometimes very useful in one-sided diseases (§172-184).
Yes a masterkey has fallen in the hands of Sehgal.
But would it be wise to throw more than 200 year good healing tradition
overboard?
Do we have enough mental symptoms of our remedies to use those techniques
always?
Why use a small part, when there is more information available, resulting in
less failure?
Sehgal admits in book VII the results are not always as expected.
Classical or Hahnemannian Homoeopathy differs not in opinion from ROH,
about the mental state. They are not saying mental symptoms are not found in
every patient, but some modern homeopaths do. Don't blame the rest!
Here Sehgal sees things wrong, and also about the use of physical symptoms
and case management.
In his Introduction to the 'Perfect Materia Medica of Mind' he writes:
I shall like to advice to him (big S) to get good results, by adopting the
new concept completely and not partially.
As I said before I think Sehgal is a great men. He has really made a
contribution to Homoeopathy. Sehgal and others set me on the right track,
but he is also very confusing and demanding.
He earns respect, like all the men who struggled with a frustration, why
cure was not coming as expected, and came up with a solution (like
Hahnemann).
I'm always interested in what those kind of men have to say, so I can
integrate their methods into mine (broaden it).
To be honest that makes me also a unfaithful disciple.
My advice to you learn the techniques he offers, but think for yourself,
Aude Sapere!
Don't blindly follow 'Revolutionized' Homeopathy totally, or
'Systematic' Homeopathy,
'Predictive' Homeopathy,
'Inspiring' Homeopathy,
etc. etc.
Remember the guideline I told you about, in each and every case, that's the
real masterkey Hahnemann gave us.
Kind regards,
Piet Guijt
P.S. Lets not fight each other this way, although I can understand how you
feel. We are brothers in arms, I think David is basically right, Sehgal is
brilliant, and David accepts his techniques, but Sehgal is also confusing
people with his wrong outdated information and stubborn attitude. I hope
you're willing to agree on this.
"Firstly I am just someone searching to improve my cure rate and asking
questions as to why homoeopathy fails and what can be done about this
failure rate.
Dear Lisa,
Of course you mean 'why I fail'.
The answers are all there in the Organon but sometimes we are confused.
I share this feeling with you, (and who don't?) but the fault is likely not
to be found in the system of Homoeopathy as founded by Hahnemann.
Yes, of course there is confusion in Homeopathy world-wide, and of course
there are a lot of well-trained homeopaths also.
Some (big V) say that the 'state of disposition is ALWAYS altered' (§ 210)
was an overstatement of Hahnemann.
Some promote the 'Holy grail' remedy, to them are 'layers a curse.
Some prove remedies by meditation.
Some write the name of the remedy on a bottle with fluid, and claim this is
also the remedy.
You can see 'they just didn't get it'.
It is a good attitude to improve our cure rate and asking questions as to
why we fail, and what can be done about this failure rate.
Sehgal started also from a confused point, but the Homeopathy that time he
is talking about is a deviation from the practice Hahnemann promoted.
And Seghal is right this was not correct.
Some always tried to prescribe the grand constitutional remedy, using al
characteristics they could get, and when this didn't work they gave a
nosode, as a lucky hit.
And for an 'acute' they used some 'keynotes' and most of the time failed.
Sehgal missed a guideline, and he found that in the 'present predominating
state',
This was surely an improvement for his practice.
He called this 'Rediscovery of Homeopathy' and for him and many others it
was.
I wrote him a letter ones and I told him this was a true classical approach
in my opinion, and he was happy with this remark.
So we need a clear guideline, because without one we are confused, on which
symptoms and characteristics, we must base our prescription, right here and
now.
Without a guideline we are in the jungle.
Sehgal found this in the 'present predominating state', indeed a
rediscovery:
§ 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 told us to add this to the totality, the state is not in
contradiction with the rest, it is a part of it. You can call this CENTRE or
Central Disturbance, so the CENTRE is not forgotten.
Of course you have to know what symptoms and characteristics (also becoming
symptoms) you can use for the totality. This is something Sehgal is afraid
of, because his guideline is only 'mental'.
That's his problem, but there are clear guidelines to do this:
After collecting all data: symptoms, characteristics, etc. (§ 5+6)
We must identify the simillimum for the patients current state.
We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints.The present condition and totality will yield
the expression of the dominant miasm. The simillimum will have to cover and
eliminate the symptoms or that part of symptoms corresponding to that miasm.
After no further progress follows with your first remedy, (in case of the
grand constitutional remedy you're already done) the remaining symptoms will
be taken care of by selecting the next remedy in the same way.
I'm convinced when we do it this way, we come to a remedy what is curing
according the rules of Hering. To me this is the same what Sehgal means,
that after the simillimum the first action is a lasting improvement of the
state, and the second a curing reaction (discharges of toxic matter).
§ 253: Among the signs that, in all diseases, especially in such as are of
an acute nature, inform us of a slight commencement of amelioration or
aggravation that is not perceptible to every one, the state of mind and the
whole demeanor of the patient are the most certain and instructive. In the
case of ever so slight an improvement we observe a greater degree of
comfort, increased calmness and freedom of the mind, higher spirits - a kind
of return of the natural state. In the case of ever so small a commencement
of aggravation we have, on the contrary, the exact opposite of this: a
constrained helpless, pitiable state of the disposition, of the mind, of the
whole demeanor, and of all gestures, postures and actions, which may be
easily perceived on close observation, but cannot be described in words.
Sehgal even uses § 153 (without knowing this himself):
"A house wife says: nobody likes me, no one cares for me. You give me the
medicine so that i could do something for myself. I do not want to take any
favour from anybody"
But in reality the people around her are very nice co-operative and
sympathic toward her.
Her expresion would point to Ignatia, (PPP):
But taken the second in concern the remedy is Thuja. (SRP or SEUO)
This is using § 153 !!!!!
We can come to the exactly same remedies, the techniques offered by Sehgal
are sometimes very useful in one-sided diseases (§172-184).
Yes a masterkey has fallen in the hands of Sehgal.
But would it be wise to throw more than 200 year good healing tradition
overboard?
Do we have enough mental symptoms of our remedies to use those techniques
always?
Why use a small part, when there is more information available, resulting in
less failure?
Sehgal admits in book VII the results are not always as expected.
Classical or Hahnemannian Homoeopathy differs not in opinion from ROH,
about the mental state. They are not saying mental symptoms are not found in
every patient, but some modern homeopaths do. Don't blame the rest!
Here Sehgal sees things wrong, and also about the use of physical symptoms
and case management.
In his Introduction to the 'Perfect Materia Medica of Mind' he writes:
I shall like to advice to him (big S) to get good results, by adopting the
new concept completely and not partially.
As I said before I think Sehgal is a great men. He has really made a
contribution to Homoeopathy. Sehgal and others set me on the right track,
but he is also very confusing and demanding.
He earns respect, like all the men who struggled with a frustration, why
cure was not coming as expected, and came up with a solution (like
Hahnemann).
I'm always interested in what those kind of men have to say, so I can
integrate their methods into mine (broaden it).
To be honest that makes me also a unfaithful disciple.
My advice to you learn the techniques he offers, but think for yourself,
Aude Sapere!
Don't blindly follow 'Revolutionized' Homeopathy totally, or
'Systematic' Homeopathy,
'Predictive' Homeopathy,
'Inspiring' Homeopathy,
etc. etc.
Remember the guideline I told you about, in each and every case, that's the
real masterkey Hahnemann gave us.
Kind regards,
Piet Guijt
P.S. Lets not fight each other this way, although I can understand how you
feel. We are brothers in arms, I think David is basically right, Sehgal is
brilliant, and David accepts his techniques, but Sehgal is also confusing
people with his wrong outdated information and stubborn attitude. I hope
you're willing to agree on this.
-
David Little
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Dear Lisa,
We have gotten off on the wrong foot because we both believe strong in
what we practice. For my part in the story I am sorry. I will use this
moment to refine myself for I have many shortcomings.
Most homoeopaths do not take all the symptoms from head to foot and
then try to match ALL the symptoms to as many remedies as they can until
something happens. This idea of classical homoeopathy is negative
stereotyping. I never said ROH does not work and I said Seghal showed much
genius. What I said that the ROH practitioners I talked to "don't get" the
way WE practice the Organon. Most homoeopaths look for the essential
symptoms that have the highest characteristic value and base their cases
upon them. From this point on we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"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
We have gotten off on the wrong foot because we both believe strong in
what we practice. For my part in the story I am sorry. I will use this
moment to refine myself for I have many shortcomings.
Most homoeopaths do not take all the symptoms from head to foot and
then try to match ALL the symptoms to as many remedies as they can until
something happens. This idea of classical homoeopathy is negative
stereotyping. I never said ROH does not work and I said Seghal showed much
genius. What I said that the ROH practitioners I talked to "don't get" the
way WE practice the Organon. Most homoeopaths look for the essential
symptoms that have the highest characteristic value and base their cases
upon them. From this point on we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"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
-
David Little
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Dear Lisa,
We have gotten off on the wrong foot because we both believe strong in
what we practice. For my part in the story I am sorry. I will use this
moment to refine myself for I have many shortcomings.
Most homoeopaths do not take all the symptoms from head to foot and
then try to match ALL the symptoms to as many remedies as they can until
something happens. This idea of classical homoeopathy is negative
stereotyping. I never said ROH does not work and I said Seghal showed much
genius. What I said that the ROH practitioners I talked to "don't get" the
way WE practice the Organon. Most homoeopaths look for the essential
symptoms that have the highest characteristic value and base their cases
upon them. From this point on we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"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
We have gotten off on the wrong foot because we both believe strong in
what we practice. For my part in the story I am sorry. I will use this
moment to refine myself for I have many shortcomings.
Most homoeopaths do not take all the symptoms from head to foot and
then try to match ALL the symptoms to as many remedies as they can until
something happens. This idea of classical homoeopathy is negative
stereotyping. I never said ROH does not work and I said Seghal showed much
genius. What I said that the ROH practitioners I talked to "don't get" the
way WE practice the Organon. Most homoeopaths look for the essential
symptoms that have the highest characteristic value and base their cases
upon them. From this point on we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely, David
---------------
"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
-
Lisa Barrett
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Dear David,
Yes I think we did get off on the wrong foot and for that I am sorry. It
was never my intention. I do respect what you are doing and and after
reading your one but last post actually see that the gap between what we are
doing is not that huge.
I agree that that there has been misunderstanding in that ROH practitioners
"do not get" the way you practice the Organon. I am also acutely aware that
there are classical homoeopaths who do not understand the way you are
practicing and that is why you have been stressing this on a constant basis
on lyghtforce and other lists.
I am always interested in other peoples cases and how they have solved them
and would be interested to hear from yourself and others what they saw as
SRP in a given case to lead them to a remedy. If I do not solve a case I
will look for another answer I am not completely rigid to the method I use
(although I probably use it 80% of the time). We have been doing a lot of
work on improving on the information that has been given to us. This is not
just about following Dr. Sehgal blindly and not thinking for ourselves.
I also give credit to others work. Recently I watched the proving of
Germanium on video and from Jeremy's book of provings. I had a case that I
had not solved for 3 years. I noticed a strong mental symptom within that
proving, was able to see where it belonged in the mind symptoms of the
repertory and consequently cured a chronic cough of 3 months standing and a
continuing improvement in Raynauds that previously had not responded to
anything. I am also looking at all the other remedies that Jeremy has
proved with a view to doing the same. I most certainly am grateful to him
for his work. I will pass this information on to others in our group and we
will all learn by it.
I hope that our communications in future could take the same line in spite
of a few differences of opinion.
regards
Lisa Barrett
Yes I think we did get off on the wrong foot and for that I am sorry. It
was never my intention. I do respect what you are doing and and after
reading your one but last post actually see that the gap between what we are
doing is not that huge.
I agree that that there has been misunderstanding in that ROH practitioners
"do not get" the way you practice the Organon. I am also acutely aware that
there are classical homoeopaths who do not understand the way you are
practicing and that is why you have been stressing this on a constant basis
on lyghtforce and other lists.
I am always interested in other peoples cases and how they have solved them
and would be interested to hear from yourself and others what they saw as
SRP in a given case to lead them to a remedy. If I do not solve a case I
will look for another answer I am not completely rigid to the method I use
(although I probably use it 80% of the time). We have been doing a lot of
work on improving on the information that has been given to us. This is not
just about following Dr. Sehgal blindly and not thinking for ourselves.
I also give credit to others work. Recently I watched the proving of
Germanium on video and from Jeremy's book of provings. I had a case that I
had not solved for 3 years. I noticed a strong mental symptom within that
proving, was able to see where it belonged in the mind symptoms of the
repertory and consequently cured a chronic cough of 3 months standing and a
continuing improvement in Raynauds that previously had not responded to
anything. I am also looking at all the other remedies that Jeremy has
proved with a view to doing the same. I most certainly am grateful to him
for his work. I will pass this information on to others in our group and we
will all learn by it.
I hope that our communications in future could take the same line in spite
of a few differences of opinion.
regards
Lisa Barrett
-
Lisa Barrett
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Dear Piet,
You wrote
Yes I meant that and many others of us, whatever method we use. We know
that it is not the science of homoeopathy that fails but rather our
understanding in a given case which does not allow us to perceive what is
needed for cure.
there are
I agree but why is there this persistant misunderstanding of SRP or SEUO
within the classical teaching generally. I do agree that Sehgal has
misunderstood it but he was classically trained and so were his sons. He is
a clever man so why does happen. I do see homoeopaths not understanding
about characteristic symptoms of the disease. Maybe more emphasis needs to
be put on this. I dont know you may have some idea.
he is
Where has this deviation come from and why is it still continuiing. I do
agree that standards in colleges have improved considerably over the last
few years.
contradiction with
Disturbance, so the
Maybe the totality is sometimes mistaken for the Centre when the centre
cannot be perceived.
I can see this from the way I perceive a case. For instance because I would
look for the patients reaction around his disease if I saw that regarding
his disease he was Fasitidious, even if he was not fastidious in his general
way of life I would see this as part of the disease process. Now if he was
very Fastidious in his general way of life but the state did not come
through regarding his disease and when he is sick, I would see this as not a
disease process but his nature. I have seen students taking this symptom in
a given case and not being able to discern whether it is disease or nature.
This is where I feel some confusion reigns within the classical method. How
do teach the difference between nature and disease I feel sometime is
becomes blurred. Maybe yourself or David could answer this question for me.
This is just one example that springs to mind.
Mainly because I see a lot of overprescribing of Arsenicum on this
Fastidious aspect of the remedy. How do you teach when to take and when
not.
according
after the
second
This is what I had understood also. But as David pointed out he does say t
hat Toxins are causative although from his personal teaching I never took it
this way. I am definately going to go over this point with his sons next
month.
This is the human aspect again.
This is what myself and others have been doing for the last 6 years building
on the basic teachings and understandings. To blindly follow would be to
not question.
I am always open to other systems as long as they are based on gaining an
understanding of the Central Disturbance. For myself personally it has to
prove its worth in the clinic.
regards
Lisa Barrett
You wrote
Yes I meant that and many others of us, whatever method we use. We know
that it is not the science of homoeopathy that fails but rather our
understanding in a given case which does not allow us to perceive what is
needed for cure.
there are
I agree but why is there this persistant misunderstanding of SRP or SEUO
within the classical teaching generally. I do agree that Sehgal has
misunderstood it but he was classically trained and so were his sons. He is
a clever man so why does happen. I do see homoeopaths not understanding
about characteristic symptoms of the disease. Maybe more emphasis needs to
be put on this. I dont know you may have some idea.
he is
Where has this deviation come from and why is it still continuiing. I do
agree that standards in colleges have improved considerably over the last
few years.
contradiction with
Disturbance, so the
Maybe the totality is sometimes mistaken for the Centre when the centre
cannot be perceived.
I can see this from the way I perceive a case. For instance because I would
look for the patients reaction around his disease if I saw that regarding
his disease he was Fasitidious, even if he was not fastidious in his general
way of life I would see this as part of the disease process. Now if he was
very Fastidious in his general way of life but the state did not come
through regarding his disease and when he is sick, I would see this as not a
disease process but his nature. I have seen students taking this symptom in
a given case and not being able to discern whether it is disease or nature.
This is where I feel some confusion reigns within the classical method. How
do teach the difference between nature and disease I feel sometime is
becomes blurred. Maybe yourself or David could answer this question for me.
This is just one example that springs to mind.
Mainly because I see a lot of overprescribing of Arsenicum on this
Fastidious aspect of the remedy. How do you teach when to take and when
not.
according
after the
second
This is what I had understood also. But as David pointed out he does say t
hat Toxins are causative although from his personal teaching I never took it
this way. I am definately going to go over this point with his sons next
month.
This is the human aspect again.
This is what myself and others have been doing for the last 6 years building
on the basic teachings and understandings. To blindly follow would be to
not question.
I am always open to other systems as long as they are based on gaining an
understanding of the Central Disturbance. For myself personally it has to
prove its worth in the clinic.
regards
Lisa Barrett
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Sehgal
Lisa wrote:
would
general
was
a
in
nature.
How
me.
How about this: Select those symptoms directly related to and obtained from
his complaints!
After collecting all data: symptoms, characteristics, etc. (§ 5+6)
We must identify the simillimum for the patients current state.
We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints.The present condition and totality will yield
the expression of the dominant miasm. The simillimum will have to cover and
eliminate the symptoms or that part of symptoms corresponding to that miasm.
And those techniques you mentioned, how to use symptoms as facets of the
state, David and I understand and approve, that's how this discussion
started, because I did the same in online casus No1.
I wrote to David:
§
altered)
David answered:
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).
from his personal teaching I never took it this way.
Seghal teaches that the PPP emotions have a direct link with the 'causative
toxins'
Do you see the link with:
"We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints"
Those toxins are not the 'real cause', but when toxins come out under
control by the vital force, it is surely a curative sign.
Yes, that would be interesting, let them read our discussion please, maybe
they are willing to comment by mail on Minutus, I like to know what they say
very much.
cannot be perceived.
No doubt the Centre is a part of the totality, perceived or not perceived.
Nice to hear from you, lets stay in contact,
Kind regards, Piet Guijt
would
general
was
a
in
nature.
How
me.
How about this: Select those symptoms directly related to and obtained from
his complaints!
After collecting all data: symptoms, characteristics, etc. (§ 5+6)
We must identify the simillimum for the patients current state.
We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints.The present condition and totality will yield
the expression of the dominant miasm. The simillimum will have to cover and
eliminate the symptoms or that part of symptoms corresponding to that miasm.
And those techniques you mentioned, how to use symptoms as facets of the
state, David and I understand and approve, that's how this discussion
started, because I did the same in online casus No1.
I wrote to David:
§
altered)
David answered:
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).
from his personal teaching I never took it this way.
Seghal teaches that the PPP emotions have a direct link with the 'causative
toxins'
Do you see the link with:
"We must do this by selecting the symptoms which are directly related to and
obtained from his complaints"
Those toxins are not the 'real cause', but when toxins come out under
control by the vital force, it is surely a curative sign.
Yes, that would be interesting, let them read our discussion please, maybe
they are willing to comment by mail on Minutus, I like to know what they say
very much.
cannot be perceived.
No doubt the Centre is a part of the totality, perceived or not perceived.
Nice to hear from you, lets stay in contact,
Kind regards, Piet Guijt