occurrence of two, or even three, natural diseases in the same body.
This complication, however, happens only in the case of two dissimilar*
diseases, which--according to the laws of nature--do not remove, nor
annihilate, and cannot cure one another, but both (or all three)
remain, as it were, separate in the organism, and each takes possession
of the parts and systems peculiarly appropriate to it...
The posology I was taught for that situation would be to give the
remedy for whichever part of the complex was uppermost (the most
troublesome) at the time, and sort of alternating. (I'm not assuming
this is news to anyone
, just remarking.)We do talk about different "levels" of totality (organ, trauma,
situational, constitutional (varying definitions), etc.), so it seems
to me equally reasonable to talk about different "levels" or types of
simillimum, e.g. a "constitutional simillimum" and a "functional
simillimum" etc.?
Except in those cases where they are (still) the same... Which I
gather becomes less likely as the patient becomes more severely ill,
but is more likely with certain "remedy types", e.g (example from the
way-back of my memory) calcarea constitutional type tend to be
"sturdier" then other types, and more likely to have stayed within the
the range of the remedy.
But I do understand that, if the patient has "changed states" (now
needs a different remedy) it would confuse things to be repping on both
at once...
I have always made a practice to first see *if* I can find a "bigger
picture" in the patient's history to accommodate the more recent
picture. I do recall that my first homeopath worked this way, and it
seemed good to me! So e.g. a good percentage of our apparent "acutes"
were treated with re-dose of the constitutional rather than with an
acute remedy; ditto in some cases for injuries. But--not
necessarily...
Your broader, more basic meaning of "constitutional" is an expansion...
Some of the "old guys" did have observations re constitutional
characteristics; but I can't quote anything at the moment. And
Eizayaga's--Irene, I think you are in good company with these
observations! The (ahem) controversy around your posology I will stay
firmly out of :-&
--but am hoping that the conversation re "constitutional" remedies, as you have been seeing them, will be able
to play out further! (And let us know when your book comes out!)
Really I don't think anyone could ever have said there was a "single
remedy" for any one case at any time--always you could find "larger and
smaller totalities", organ, situational, etc. But what I think *is* a
valid question, is when/whether/to what degree "different totalities"
can usefully be treated at the same time--by which I do *not*
necessarily mean thru combo, tho I am keeping an open mind on that one
too, for the moment. Of course various people *do* treat various
"levels" at the same time (with or without combos), e.g.
"intercurrents", drainage...
It seems that usually it's not necessary to treat these various
"levels" within the same time frame--in most cases (or so it has seemed
to me) treating the "larger totality" enables the body to deal with the
"smaller totalities" quite handily on its own. *But* in some cases the
extra assistance seems useful, esp. for the very ill!!
Shannon