Definition of homeopathy

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are times when a tautopathic prescription will improve overall well being and vitality, even though the SX are no longer evident.

Should this then not be considered homeopathy? This prescription was not made on a totality of current Sx but very clearly had a benefit. It was made on the totailty of Sx at the time the substance was causing its effect, ( i.e. the totality was a proving of the material substance).(H also mentioned why iso/tauto could be homeopathic, i.e. potentisation rendered it similar rather than identical).

So one question I what to pose is whether the definition of totality must contain current Sx or not.

Also there are times when an Aetiological prescription will cure ( i.e. prescription based on mental aetiology not on totality of Sx). Example: I saw a gent whose physical Sx did not rep out to Staph in any way, yet due to a Staph aetiology his physical SX were cured with staph. Surely we have all seen this many times?

So the question here is how to define the totaility i.e. is it still valid where we are prescribing by ignoring the phys Sx and concentrating on mental Sx alone (from aetiology)? i.e. is it still a totality when the aetiological mental sypmtoms call for one remedy but the physical SX point to a different remedy.

So another question is: If it is not a totality (above), yet the remedy cures, should we than say that although it cured this was not homeopathy? If it is homeopathy, can we discuss why the aphorisms pertaining do not clash? (i.e. can any aph be taken in isolation out of context of the whole Organon). Also should we no longer call it homeopathy if it does not agree to the word with every aphorism in the organon OR do we ask whether that there are discoveries subsequent to the writing of the organon which need to be incorporated under the definition of homeopathy) e.g. prescibing on mentals alone in aetiology, prescribing isopathically on SX that no longer present (Dyscrasias etc) or discuss where provision already exists for these within the organon
- If we accept non present Sx (as example above), is that mentioned in the Org and if it is how does such an Aph not contradict #18 below;
-or do we refute prescribing on non present Sx as being part of H?
Or perhaps we should ask whether we accept that 'Hahnemannian' homeopathy must adhere to the letter of the Organon without exception; that 'Classical' defines an umbrella which incorporates e.g. aetiological prescribing and tautopathy/isopathy and other established practices used by many 5th + 6th homeopaths referring to themselves as classical, because essentially they adhere to the single prescription dictum (and who 's practice is essentially holistic) and do we then exclude all else from the 'homeopathy' umbrella or are there others to consider?
Simon

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Simon,
But aetiology is an "Organon-approved" basis to prescribe, and
IMO tautopathic one (based on "presumed causation"), wouldn't that fall
under its umbrella?
Shannon

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Shannon , sure but that's not really my gist , it's about the question of 'totality' etc as per my post
"The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer."
Edward R Murrow

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

ps- soory osted the last one is a rush as Px had just arrived, but gone to move car now, was I clear?

my comment was re the aph18 "We can categorically declare that the totality of symptoms ... in each individual case is the one and only indication that can guide us to the choice of the remedy."
i.e. how does this incorporate aetiology/tauto etc or does it preclude them. If so how to define H..etc
i.e. can you take aph in isolation?
"The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer."
Edward R Murrow

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Simon,

just a small remark: Hahnemann never said that the symptoms must cover
all the symptoms of the person - he said they should cover the most
SRP and characteristic of the case/the present illness.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Michael]

I translated this paragraph 18 from German to English.
Luise, please check, if this is correct. I am sure you
can make this translation more perfect and
understandable. I am a student and I do not know all
the details of Organon, so it is better to know what
people are talking about. When we compare the original
and the translation we can discuss the meaning of
words and we can try to understand what Hahnemann
really meant.

Michael

Organon der Heilkunst, 6. Auflage, Samuel Hahnemann,
nach der Ausgabe von Richard Haehl 1921

§ 18

Von dieser nicht zu bezweifelnden Wahrheit, daß, außer
der Gesammtheit der Symptome, unter Hinsicht auf die
begleitenden Umstände (§ 5.) an Krankheiten auf keine
Weise etwas auszufinden ist, wodurch sie ihr
Hülfe-Bedürfniß ausdrücken könnten, geht
unwidersprechlich hervor, daß der Inbegriff aller, in
jedem einzelnen Krankheitsfalle wahrgenommenen
Symptome und Umstände die einzige Indication, die
einzige Hinweisung auf ein zu wählendes Heilmittel
sei.

"From this indubitable truth, that apart from the
totality of symptoms (with respect to the accompanying
circumstances - §5) there is no way to find in
diseases anything by means of which they could express
their need for help, follows without contradiction
that the totality of all the symptoms and
circumstances which can be perceived in every separate
case of disease must be the only indication, the only
hint to the remedy which is to be chosen."

§ 5

Als Beihülfe der Heilung dienen dem Arzte die Data
der wahrscheinlichsten Veranlassung der acuten
Krankheit, so wie die bedeutungsvollsten Momente aus
der ganzen Krankheits-Geschichte des langwierigen
Siechthums, um dessen Grundursache, die meist auf
einem chronischen Miasm beruht, ausfindig zu machen,
wobei die erkennbare Leibes-Beschaffenheit des
(vorzüglich des langwierig) Kranken, sein gemüthlicher
und geistiger Charakter, seine Beschäftigungen, seine
Lebensweise und (Gewohnheiten, seine bürgerlichen und
häuslichen Verhältnisse, sein Alter und seine
geschlechtliche Function, u.s.w. in Rücksicht zu
nehmen sind.

“As a help in the cure the doctor can use the data
about the possible cause of the acute disease, as well
as the most meaningful moments from the whole history
of the long-existing disease, in order to find its
main cause which most often lies in a chronic Miasm,
taking into account the body condition (structure,
build) of the patient (mostly if he is ill for a long
time), the character of his mind and soul, what he
does in life, his mode of life and habits, his social
and home relations, his age and his sexual function,
etc.”
--- Simon King wrote:
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hi Louise,
no I never thought he said that.
I didn't mean to suggest it either, I guess my point wasn't well made.
"The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer."
Edward R Murrow

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Michael,

seems to be quite ok.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Michael]

I have just noticed that Boericke already translated
this, so it was just for my practice in German. It
looks like in the 6th edition Hahnemann wrote about
using not only the totality of symptoms for choosing
the remedy, but also taking into account the
accompanying circumstances (or modalities, as Boericke
translated) in addition to the totality of symptoms.
These accompanying modalities include causation
(etiology) which certainly belongs among the most
significant points in the history of the chronic
disease (not only for acute diseases), so it must be
quite normal to use NWSs. And paragraph 18 must be
used only in connection with paragraph 5, to which it
relates.

Michael

--- Michael wrote:

=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for
your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http: ... ter07.html