was Nux vomica

[Theresa Partington]

Not sure this is correct. I think they grew up together and Paris was also an exciting place for 'mad-doctors' in Hahnemann's latter years. I don't know if anyone else has read Sebastian Faulk's Human Traces, but I think it should be on college reading lists.
BW
Theresa

AH wrote
((( Of course, homeopathy presaged psychology just as it did microbiology
and epidemiology. And psychosomatic medicine is what is really happening in
triggering of miasmatic susceptibility as for example Hamer has proved
conclusively and scientifically with some 20,000 cases or more.

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

[AH]

on 1/31/06 2:09 AM, theresa partington at
theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

((( Hi Theresa!
If you mean homeopathy did not really presage psychology, then please
provide additional information. I agree from a mainstream perspective, and
regarding the "lineage" to Freud, Jung, et al and psychoanalysis,
behaviorism and humanism -- homeopathy may be sidelight. So am interested
what the book you cite says. All the same, if we define psychology as study
of syndromes of behavior and mental outlook, then I would say it would be
difficult to argue that homeopathy did not include that study ("-ology") in
its therapeutic method to a degree - and degree of success - that had never
been present before its inception. The study of mind symptoms of provings
and in cases was extensive in homeopathy starting in the late 1790's.

Homeopathy presaged psychology in time, if not in "lineage" because it (when
applicable) includes psychological state as part of the disease picture
under treatment -- whether or not there was a diagnosable psychiatric
condition. Provings contain mental symptoms. Many prescriptions included
them. That was early on -- and well before Paris (which was approx
1835-1843).

Homeopathy presaged microbiology because Hahnemann attached importance of
transmission and demonstrated effect to Von Leewenhouk's "animalcules" some
number of decades before Pasteur. The effects (miasmatic complex) are of
course still not recognized by patent pharmaceutical medicine which treats
only the densest of the human bodies using biochemistry. The nonphysical
nature of miasmatic transmission (and homeopathic treatment in general)
makes Hahnemann's part in history in this regard obscure in the mainstream.
Of course there were many others involved (Bechamp, etc).

Homeopathy presaged epidemiology because Hahnemann developed the Organon
paragraph 101-104 group totality. This is pursuit of the remedy for the
disease outbreak itself -- as opposed to an individual case. This requires
study of the outbreak in all its facets. It undertakes group treatment
based on concatenation of cases. Of course Hahnemann did not develop this
in a vacuum -- any other historical contributions would be interesting.

If you are discussing Hamer, it is clear to me that he has empirically and
conclusively proven the connections between psychosomatic forcing functions
and results in disease. This is evident by studying his material in any
depth (and much of this is available online). Hamer does not include
miasmatic susceptibility in his model. But has statistically proven the
"circuits" between etiological factors and somatic loci. He has classified
diseases according to embryological germ layer. This is nobel prize work if
it did not threaten the business of medicine because Hamer is an oncologist
-- and because of a personal situation involving European aristocracy
involved in the death of his son. In simple terms, Hamer has taken "Louise
Hay" type indications to a deeper and exhaustively substantiated level.

In homeopathy we have etiology/triggering cause as one of the cardinal
elements in a "complete case" -- eg. location, extension/radiation,
sensation (which Sankaran has expanded in importance and meaning),
modality(time environment circumstance etc), concomitant, alternation,
etiology, psychology (etc). Psychosomatic assumptions are a cornerstone of
homeopathy which can treat the nonphysical bodies which include thought
forms and the effects of psychological trauma. An entire school of thought
(Sankaran) within homeopathy holds that "delusion" is connected to somatic
disease pattern. The "Ailments from" section of the repertory is the
beginnings of a proof of psychosomatic effect that goes back to the
beginnings of homeopathy in the late 1790s.

I don't doubt that all of the above fields which are encompassed and had
early inclusion in homeopathic medicine had other parallel or prior
contributors of course. Hahnemann gleaned from the state of the art at the
time and could read in several cardinal languages.

Psychology for example had antecedents separately (and I would like to hear
more about what they were -- if that is what the book you cite refers to).
Please clarify any error I may be making. Please amplify what is the meaning
of "Human Traces" to the discussion.

Thanks

Merci,
Andy

[Joy Lucas]

Psychology is as old, if not older than Psyche, Aphrodite and Eros. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[AH]

on 1/31/06 12:37 PM, Joy Lucas at joylucas@mac.com wrote:
((( Sorry, Joy. Should have spelled it out for you a bit more clearly,
though I thought it would be clear for most that was referring to the
schools of thought of what we call modern psychology. "Psychoananalysis"
and its theories originated with Freud; "Behaviorism" with Skinner, and
"Humanistic" Psych with Maszlow et al. All these postdate homeopathy by
over a century.

Thanks,
Andy

[Joy Lucas]

You were perfectly clear but perfectly wrong - psychology has 'ancient'
status so you cannot have psychology 'stuck' where you want it to be
for the sake of making a point. Chicken and egg. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]