In Search of the Vital Force/Piet

[David Little]

At 11:07 PM 12/3/2005, you wrote:

Hello Piet,

I knew you would find some potential "hole" in my attempt to be as
universal and all embracing as possible! It is very obvious that Kent most
of his ideas about the origin psora from Hempel. This is not surprising as
Rousseau and Swedenborg shared similar interest. They were both part of the
Deist movement of free thinkers so let us keep the free thinking flowing.
This says nothing about psora. I would agree with the idea that medicine
and theology are linked as a human being is made up of both psyche and soma.
This says nothing about psora but susceptibility certainly provides for
predisposition.
The quote says Psora is the "EVOLUTION" of the state of man's distorted
will not the distorted will itself. Kent taught the disease is the RESULT
of distorted will and understanding. The OUTCOME is psora, the ultimate of
his former sin. This is in perfect line with the teachings of Rousseau and
Swedenborg. Human being were developed in purity and harmony. Due to a
spiritual decline in thought and feeling men and women became
SUSCEPTIBILITY to physical illness. First came the moral decline, then the
susceptibility, then came physical illness. Psora may be the outcome but
not the cause of the fall from the state of perfection.
Yes. THE OUTGROWTH is Psora but it does not say that psora is the changes
in the perfected state, will and understanding nor the susceptibility. An
outgrowth has a priori that is its cause.
Yes, this is true but it says nothing about psora. This is about the psyche
and the psychosomatic axis and how moral states negatively affect the
physical organism. How true!
Psora is the ultimation of the causes not the priori. I will say that the
above idea of Kent's is much more like Hempel's writings but nothing like
Hahnemann.
Yes, distortions of thinking, willing and doing are what cause the
SUSCEPTIBILITY that FINALLY PROCEED to the chronic miasms. It does not say
that the distortions in thinking, willing and doing are identical nor that
the chronic miasms proceed the changes in will and understanding.
Yes, miasms are collective diseases of common cause and similar symptoms
that affect the whole human race. They have been based down through family
lineage since prehistorical times. They are part of the universal
condition. That does not mean the miasms exist before the susceptibility to
the miasms existed! First came the moral decline which opened up humanity
to disease and this "outcome " was psora.
That is simply your opinion. Kent's quotes say "evolution" "finally
proceed" "the outgrowth" "the ultimate" "the result" in reference to psora.
Not one of these quotes says that psora is identical to the susceptibly to
psora nor that psora IS the negative change in willing and understanding
that led to the fall of humanity. Psora is the evolution, outgrowth,
ultimate which "finally proceeded" from a prior state. That state
originated in the psyche and then proceed to produce susceptibility to the
chronic miasms. That is how I read the statements when I put them all
together.
The RESULT is not identical with the CAUSE. Cause is first then comes
result as in cause and effect. For example, a persons suffers a great
disappointed (Cause). This then lowers the person resistance and vitality
(increased susceptibility). Then the person contracts a illness like the
acute or chronic miasms (result). We see such things all the time. Cause,
and effect are not identical although they are intimately related!
One has to have psora itself before one can transmit it as a contagious
disease but the whole process has to start somewhere. I would certainly say
the susceptibility to psora and the transmission of psoric infections are
linked but I personally would not call them identical in every and all cases.

Just from the clinical point of view, I would say that I see psora in
some of its most primitive and virulent forms in Asia. It is like looking
back in time. Most Westerners have never been exposed to psora in all of
the states that Hahnemann discussed in the Chronic Diseases. I see leprosy
and almost every type of skin disease know. I did not see this is the USA
or England. What seems to increase the susceptibility to contracting
clinical psora is hereditary predispositions, bad diet, poor hygiene, over
crowding, and mental and physical stress.
I would agree that inherited miasms produce a state that predisposes to
easy infection and troublesome sequels. This is what Hempel was speaking
about and is the source of Kent's ideas. The inherited predispositions that
set a state from new conception. Nevertheless, the whole process had to
start somewhere. That is what we are talking, 'the beginning". I simple to
not call the mental priori "psora" nor do I think Kent was. In truth the
answers to these questions are lost in the unknown prehistory so this is
more of an intellectual exercise than a practical scientific study. No one
can answer these questions!

Some of Kent's statements are very similar to what Hempel wrote while
others are much more exacting and deal with genesis of disease and the
pathological progression in more detail than Hempel. The quote I used is
very clear in this regard and is the source of my comments.

Let's look at the quote I was referring to.

1. "It is altogether too extensive, for it goes to the very primitive
wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the human race, that is
the spiritual sickness, from which first state the race progressed into
what may be called the TRUE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PSORA which in turn laid the
foundation for other diseases. (Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy; J. T.
Kent, Chronic Diseases ­ Psora, page 146

The progression is shown with these words "the spiritual sickness, from
which first state the race progressed into what may be called the TRUE
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO PSORA" These very detailed quote show three stages. These
are the "spiritual sickness" to which the race "progressed" to the "true
susceptibility to psora". It does not say psora came first, second and
third and that all these stages are psora.

In this quote there is a sequence.

1. Negative changes in will and understanding.
2. Susceptibility
3. Psora and the chronic miasms.
I wouldn't reject Hempel as he started the entire discussion! Have you
read the complete text of what he wrote? If not, you should because his
ideas a very, very similar to yours as well as James Kent's. As far as I
can see, Kent equated psora with the "outcome" of a process that started
with changes in will and understanding. There is nowhere in these quotes
where he says that psora is identical with the distortion of will and
understanding that lead to disease. In fact, when he speaks of psora he
uses the words evolution, outcome, progressed, ultimate,finally proceeding,
result NOT priori, originating, starting, identical with and same as.

It is very obvious that Kent got ideas from Hempel. He is the source of
these ideas and those that think them. I have a different much more
clinical view of the miasms but I find room for these types of ideas in my
overall view of the human condition, disease and healing. I personally
prefer to follow Hahnemann more closely than either Hempel or Kent when it
comes to the pathogeneses of disease. In the first sentence of the
Introduction of the Organon Hahnemann wrote:

"As long as humanity has existed, people have been exposed,
individually and collectively, to illnesses of physical and moral causes."

I think this statement transcends the very discussion were are having
about the psora being or not being the origin. It clearly states "as long
as humanity has existed". It does not speak about some perfectly pure
priori Eden-like state or a fall. Since the *beginning* people have been
"exposed" both "individually and collectively" to diseases of "physical and
moral causes". This is just the why it IS.

Hahnemann then explains how diseases of civilization are increasing
day by day making the situation more and complex. Some disease are physical
and some diseases are mental some are a combination of both. Since the
beginning human beings have been tripping over something and falling down
or suffering exposer to unseasonable cold, etc! They also have been exposed
to wrong thinking, willing and actings that produces mental pain. Infection
by microorganisms has always been around as the microorganisms came first
and then human beings.

People have suffered individually with unique disorders and as a group
with collective disorders that are diseases of common causes and similar
symptoms like the infectious miasms, endemic nutritional diseases,
environmentally induced disorders, exposure to poisons and toxins, etc.
This statement sets the foundation the development of two case taking
methods, the individual and group anamnesis. It is we that must learn when
to use one or the other or a combination of both. It also shows how
importance factors like moral decline, poor lifestyle and habits as well as
over population and environmental degradation that increases the number and
virulency of disease causes agents.

Eden is an archetype image of the perfection of the Self and a vision of
a higher existence. The Golden Age is mythologem that is part of the human
mind. These ideas exist because we need them. Did these states ever exist
physically or will they ever exist on the physical plane? More questions
that will always be questions to us mortals! It is best to say in the
question than imagine we have the right answers.

Sincerely, David Little
In truth, we both wish to understand the art of healing. This is much
more important than trying to answer questions like "which came first the
chicken or the egg". That is exactly what our discussion is about! You say
chicken and I say egg - I say egg and you say chicken! To take this type of
discussion too seriously would be to invite madness! In reality, no one
knows the answers to these questions about origins.

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

[doctorleelah2h]

Dear David,
Imagine I have been working on an article like this and I thought I
may have been able to answer it adequuately. Obviously I would have
fallen short - thanks David for taking this up. I look forward to your
completed article of the same.
leela

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, David Little wrote:
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
philosophy. One
Kent most
surprising as
of the
flowing.
down from
medicine
and soma.
man thinks
his sin."
RESULT
ultimate of
Rousseau and
then the
but
willing,
changes
susceptibility. An
truth; in
adulterate
psyche
that the
like
not say
nor that
individual,
symptoms
family
susceptibility to
humanity
things, which
psora.
susceptibly to
understanding
to the
Psora IS the
vitality
the
Cause,
Psora is also
disease).
contagious
certainly say
infections are
all cases.
psora in
looking
all of
leprosy
the USA
hygiene, over
INFECTION. And
similar
caused
predisposes to
speaking
predispositions that
simple to
truth the
this is
No one
used is
primitive
that is
laid the
J. T.
stages. These
"true
do I, but
Have you
as I
started
quotes
proceeding,
source of
in my
when it
causes."
having
long
been
"physical and
increasing
physical
down
exposed
Infection
first
group
similar
learn when
well as
number and
vision of
human
exist
questions
again. I
people, who
eager to
take a look
much
first the
You say
type of
Homoeopathy
in any
this
arising out
consequential,
howsoever
no more
Homoeopathic

[Piet Guijt]

I wrote:

David responded:
proceed" "the outgrowth" "the ultimate" "the result" in reference to psora.
Not one of these quotes says that psora is identical to the susceptibly to
psora nor that psora IS the negative change in willing and understanding
that led to the fall of humanity. Psora is the evolution, outgrowth,
ultimate which "finally proceeded" from a prior state. That state
originated in the psyche and then proceed to produce susceptibility to the
chronic miasms. That is how I read the statements when I put them all
together.

Hello David,
Not to discuss whether Kent is right or wrong, or what came first etc, you
made that perfectly clear in your reply, but just to get clear what he
precisely thought.

First some quotes from the Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy; J. T.
Kent, Chronic Diseases ­ Psora Chapter 19;

"There must have been some sickness prior to this state, which we recognize
as the chronic miasm psora ; some state of disorder, some state that it
would be perfectly rational and proper for man to undertake to solve as to
its cause, as to its history, and as to its very nature."

"Hence this state, the state of the human mind and the state of the human
body, is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing evils, from
thinking that which is false and making life one continuous heredity of
false things, and so this form of disease, psora, is but an outward
manifestation of that which is prior in man."

"It is the state that is prior, the itchbug is not prior."

"As the internal is so is the external, and the external cannot be except as
the result of the internal.
The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him ; therefore,
environment is not cause ; it is only, as it were, a sounding board ; it
only reacts upon and reflects the internal."

"This state has continued to progress, and it has accumulated and become
complex.
So it is with the external forms of psora, the vesicular and squamos
eruptions, and all the outgrowths and outcroppings of psora."

After reading this carefully over, I still come to the conclusion that Kent
sees the 'susceptibility state' as the "internal" form of psora ("some
sickness"), and the external disease, ("all the outgrowths and
outcroppings") as the external form of Psora. (see the last quote).
It just seems like saying, "symptoms reflect the disturbance of the vital
force". They are not one and the same, but they both belong to the same
unity, which forms the complete disease picture?
Kind regards, Piet

[David Little]

At 10:00 PM 12/5/2005, you wrote:

Psora is not the change in willing and understanding. That is the
priori. This lead to the 'psoric-susceptibility" and then came the "itch
infection". So if we wish to read it this way that if fine with me! The
priori in the psyche, however, is not psora. Hempel was less clear on this
point. That is what I have been trying to point out.
Yes, what is prior in man. In this philosophy it is the changes in will
and understanding. This is not psora. It did, however, lead to
psoric-susceptibility and the outcome is psoric infection. I can read it
this way also. It has all the stages.
Psora is not the changes in will and understanding. The psoric-susceptible
and psora infections are the outcome of the changes in psyche. This is
different than what Hempel wrote.
This may refer directly to the psyche, which in the tradition of Rousseau
and Swedenborg is the first cause.
I read it this way.

1. Changes in will, understanding and improper actions
2. Psoric-susceptibility
3. Psoric infection

So I have no problems with changes in the psyche from the first state,
psoric-susceptibility as the second prior state, and the infection as the
third state. What I am getting at is that the original changes in the
psyche are not psora. Hempel did not make this clear whereas I think Kent
did. Do you understand this difference, my friend?
I am willing to agree with the idea that their was a mental change from
the perfect condition and this established the "psoric-susceptibly" as a
inner state which this lead to the outer infection with psora. The inner
state of specific susceptibly is first and the outer manifestation is
second. This is accurate as one must have "measles susceptibility" to get
measles, etc.

Remember Kent did not think that the microorganisms played any role in
pathology. He thought the "bacteria" was an "innocent fellow!" He thought
there was no external agents at all involved in the miasms. How wrong he
was and how right Hahnemann was to consider the Cholera germs as "inimical
to human life!" Modern sciences have definitely come down on the side of
Hahnemann rather than Kent although his insights are very sharp and useful
in many ways.

Thank you for helping refine my ideas and including terminology.
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

[doctorleelah2h]

Hi Piet,
BElow is your statement i your last post that we initially had a
miasmatic discussion a few months back.
This unity which forms teh disease picture, how does this translate
into ACTUAL clinical management?

I"m not disputing the unity. I"m intrigued to uinderstand HOW for you
this "disturbance" of the vital force which is expressed as Psora or
any of the other miasms translates into case managemnt.

In essense what I think you're saying is taht either there is that ONE
central disturbance remedy or else, you simply follow the expressed
picture of teh central disturbance with no need to classify it inot
Psora, Sycosis or Syphilis. How does one know in this understnading
whether one is treating a general "miasmatic expression" with a remedy?

I"d be obliged this time, since you've had the time for discussion to
clearly show us how this central disturbance translates into miasmatic
management with the help of a clinical case treated on your understanding.
thanks,
D.r Leela
"After reading this carefully over, I still come to the conclusion
that Kent
sees the 'susceptibility state' as the "internal" form of psora ("some
sickness"), and the external disease, ("all the outgrowths and
outcroppings") as the external form of Psora. (see the last quote).
It just seems like saying, "symptoms reflect the disturbance of the vital
force". They are not one and the same, but they both belong to the same
unity, which forms the complete disease picture?
Kind regards, Piet"
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Piet Guijt" wrote:
things, which
psora.
susceptibly to
to the
etc, you
recognize
as to
human
except as
therefore,
that Kent
vital

[Piet Guijt]

Leela,

This example in my mail to David has nothing to do with what you're saying.
This is common homeopathic knowledge, please read the Organon aph 5,6,7, 210
etc.

Kind regards, Piet

[doctorleelah2h]

Oh OK, I realise that now.. I thought you were still dicussing the
miasm Psora and its expression.

I think I'm still looking for your explanation that treating a
"central disturbance" is akin to miasmatic management in terms of
combined miasmatic expression, progression of disease....
So maybe one day you'll oblige.
thanks!
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Piet Guijt" wrote:
saying.
5,6,7, 210
remedy?
understanding.
the vital
same
developed in
"finally
understanding
them all
what he
that it
evils, from
heredity of
board ; it
and become
("some
the same