acutes vs. constitutional and ranking symptoms (was: Causticum again )

[Celia M. Malm]

This is a point that has always confused me. As I understand Kent, he
recommends ranking mentals first (regardless of the acute symptoms), then
distinctive general symptoms, and *then* the particulars of the acute
illness. It seemed to me that he was saying that it was more important to
choose a remedy that was suited to the mentals and generals than to the
acute complaint. Can anyone unconfuse me? Or am I opening a philosophical
can of worms?

Shannon wrote:

It's kind of hard to describe--it's more apparent on talking with her and
from long familiarity with her. Also, I wonder if it's more of a subjective
thing--a trait she doesn't share with the other members of the family, and
therefore seems "wrong" to us. So I'd better stick with some objective
observations:

She definitely has an impaired memory. She forgets names easily, even when
she has been reminded repeatedly and recently. I think the impaired memory
had something to do with the difficulties she had in learning to read. When
she was 4 and should have already known her alphabet, she could only
identify three or four letters, despite drilling her with flashcards. She
just couldn't seem to remember the letters from one minute to the next. I
actually saw the same thing as she was beginning to learn to read--her
memory was very flakey from one moment to the next. She would read a "sight"
word just fine, but further down the page, she would encounter exactly the
same word and have no idea what it said. She also sometimes uses the wrong
word in speaking; for instance, she referred to our recent houseguests as
"customers" instead of "guests." She also occasionally stutters mildly,
although she can overcome it by concentrating on it.

Again, thanks to all for the recommendations. Giving me a lot to think
about!
Cee