Organon 6 - 31

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Please study the Footnote - please can we discuss

§ 31

The inimical forces, partly psychical, partly physical, to which our terrestrial existence is exposed, which are termed morbific noxious agents, do not possess the power of morbidly deranging the health of man unconditionally1; but we are made ill by them only when our organism is sufficiently disposed and susceptible to attack of the morbific cause that may be present, and to be altered in its health, deranged and made to undergo abnormal sensations and functions - hence they do not produce disease in every one nor at all times.

1 When I call a disease a derangement of man's state of health, I am far from wishing thereby to give a hyperphysical explanation of the internal nature of disease generally, or of any case of disease in particular. It is only intended by this expression to intimate, what it can be proved diseases are not and cannot be, that they are not mechanical or chemical alterations of material substance of the body, and not dependant on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life.

[Shannon M]

Translation:
Harmful things (whether mental/emotional or physical)
do not *necessarily* cause harm;
a person will only suffer harmful effects (i.e. disturbing changes to
sensation and/or function) if the person (or whatever) is susceptible
(i.e. vulnerable) to its influence;
So, even in the presence of e.g. germs, abuse, trauma, etc., not
everyone will become ill or suffer harm.

Of course this applies only to a certain organism-specific range of
circumstances; every air-breather will eventually succumb to lack of
oxygen; every physical being would eventually succumb to excessive heat
or pressure, strong acids, etc., etc. Each organism has a range of
susceptibility that simply "comes with the territory" of being what
they are.

apparently meaning "completely physical"??
Inn speaking of derangement of the state of health, I am not referring
to the physical "causes", such as mechanical or chemical influences,
toxins, germs, etc.; rather (he says) these derangements are
(?)energetic, dynamic effects.

He suggests that, in a state of good health, mechanical or chemical
alterations would be quickly set right by the body. So e.g. in a case
of cholera, the "disease" is not the presence of organisms, but is
instead [defined as] the deranged functioning that has been caused by
them. So--if we return the functioning to normal, we have cured the
"disease", even if the organisms were still present.

Same could be said of, say, death in a fire: the fire is not the
injury. (Certainly putting out the fire is not sufficient to "cure" a
person already severely burned; nor to save someone determined to throw
himself into a fire--there will be another fire somewhere!)

To my mind this section is useful as a sort of definition of the
Hahnemannian treatment approach--treat by strengthening/re-balancing
the patient, not by attacking "germs" etc. For the vast majority of
challenges, this is born out as (in the opinions of many ) the
more useful approach--make the person better able to *cope* with life
and its problems (and microorganisms), versus chasing each challenge
(germ,disease, situation, etc.) individually.

Reading this part again:
So, the disease is the *derangement*, not the supposed cause thereof.

Hahnemann did "believe in" pathogenic microorganisms (i.e. "germs").
Certainly he acknowledged causation; he taught of "maintaining cause",
and situations which are simply inimical to health of *anyone*; and he
did emphasize importance of appropriate food, sufficient rest, not
living in damp basements, etc.

So, I believe that this footnote must not be taken to suggest that
external factors (anything from germs to trauma to abuse, etc.) do not
*matter*, but rather, and simply, that they are not (usually) the most
important factor to consider--susceptibility being *usually* of greater
importance, and reduction of susceptibility being *usually* sufficient
to cure; nor should they be considered the "end of the story" in
healing the patient (don't just heal an acute, or a trauma, but also,
if feasible, heal the deeper susceptibility).

I think that this section is sometimes understood at an inappropriate,
and apparently unintended, extreme--the idea that external causation
(including germs) doesn't matter. But I think the understanding of it
that bears up better both to real-life observation *and* to the fuller
context of Hahnemann's work and teaching, is as I've written above.

That's my two cents--thanks, Soroush!

Shannon

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

I'd be interested in the word "conceptual" as part of the footnote. "Spirit-like" and "conceptual" don't necessarily mean the same thing to me. What was the German, and is that a truly accurate translation?
Soroush, when you requested a discussion, could you give us an idea what your main concern was about the footnote and our reading of it?
Rosemary

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Rosemary
The bit that got my antennae up was
"Diseases ..... are not mechanical or chemical alterations of material substance of the body, and not dependant on a material morbific substance, but that they are merely spirit-like (conceptual) dynamic derangements of the life."
The normal medically trained person would say - AHA - but what about pathology?
The homoeopath would reply - But pathology is only a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.
(Even if you cut it out, it is likely to stick its head out somewhere else.)

Regards

Soroush

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Ah. I see. And yet there ARE (I think) mechanical or chemical alterations of the material substance of the body that are not treatable by medicines. I.e., if a body part has been destroyed through disease, it can't be grown back, most of the time. On the other hand, until actual necrosis occurs, remedies can reverse disease processes for an amazingly long time. I guess Hahnemann is talking about the disease processes here, not the outcomes?
Thanks for raising the question.
Rosemary

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon, Soroush,

actually in German it is quite clear:

Let me translate:

*************

In addition, the inimical forces, partly pschylogical, partly
physical, which are called pathological perniciousness, do not
necessarily have the power to derange the health of man to a morbid
condition. 2)

We only get ill by them when our organism is disposed to and ready
for being affected and changed, for being disturbed and put into
anormal feelings and actions - they however do not make ill everyone and
every time.

2)When I call illnes a tuning or distuning of the human condition, I
in no way thereby want to give a supernatural explanation of the inner
nature of illness generally or of an individual case of illness
specifically. This expression is intended only to hint at what
illnesses evidently are not and cannot be, i. e. not mechanical or
chemical changes of the material budy substance and not depending on
a material illness-substance - but only spirit-like, dynamic
disturbance of life.

*************************

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]

Footnote in German:
2) Wenn ich Krankheit eine Stimmung oder Verstimmung
des menschlichen Befindens nenne, so bin ich weit
entfernt, dadurch einen hyperphysischen Aufschluß über
die innere Natur der Krankheiten überhaupt, oder eines
einzelnen Krankheitsfalles insbesondere geben zu
wollen. Es soll mit diesem Ausdrucke nur angedeutet
werden, was die Krankheiten erwiesenermaßen nicht
sind, und nicht sein können, nicht mechanische oder
chemische Veränderungen der materiellen Körpersubstanz
und nicht von einem materiellen Krankheits-Stoffe
abhängig - sondern bloß GEISTARTIGE, DYNAMISCHE
Verstimmung des Lebens.

Michael
--- Rosemary C Hyde PhD wrote:
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/

[Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.]

Thanks, Michael.

I really like the term "Krankheits-Stoffe"!

So the text originally read "spirit-like, dynamic life-force. " That makes
more sense than "conceptual" to me, in English (obviously not to the
translator).

Not that I'm that good at reading German...

But it's an interesting illustration of the disadvantage we're at reading
Hahnemann in English, through the lens of a translator's word choices.

Rosemary
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 226 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

[Shannon M]

Wow, Luise, that is so much clearer--why is the Dudgeon translation to
*dense*, then??? "Hyperphysical" = "supernatural"--LOL! Of course,
but I don't think I'd ever have gotten there. )
Shannon

[Leilanae]

Hi Rosemary,

Lois Hoffer has been doing a word for word translation of the Organon for a couple of years. Here is her post on Aph. 31 footnote:
--------

"Wed Jan 23, 2002
Aphorism 31: footnote
Hello all,
By the way...has anyone noticed something odd about footnotes in recent
aphs? It seems there's a bit of confusion in various editions of the
6th as to where exactly various footnotes belong! Decker gives a
footnote as being part of Aph 29. The Boericke edition puts this
footnote, as belonging to Aph 30 instead! This he most likely got from
Dudgeon, who also says that the same footnote (which was part of Aph 29
in the 5th and was only slightly changed) became part of the 30th
Aphorism in the 6th edition. I tend to take the German, as prepared by
Josef Schmidt from the original manuscript, as being the most accurate
of all in this kind of situation, and he gives the footnote as part of
Aph 29, and gives no footnote for Aph 30. Just on the basis of the text,
it makes more sense that a footnote concerning the duration of action of
a medicine go under Aph 29, than 30... In the interests of accuracy,
though, I thought I ought to point it out.

Anyway...here's the interlinear of the footnote to Aphorism 31. Enjoy!

Lois
----------
Wenn ich Krankheit
When I Disease

eine Stimmung oder Verstimmung des menschlichen Befindens nenne,
a Tuning or Mistuning/Detuning of-the human Condition call,

so bin ich weit entfernt,
so am I widely distant,

[Note: literally "weit entfernt" means "widely/far remote/distant/far",
but the two words most often used together to express the English
equivalent of "far from", "a mile away", "a far cry", etc.]

dadurch einen hyperphysischen Aufschluß
thereby/by-this a hyperphysical Explanation/Information/Data

über die innere Natur der Krankheiten überhaupt,
concerning/over/about the inner Nature of-(the) Diseases generally,

oder eines einzelnen Krankheitsfalles insbesondere
or of-a single Disease-case in-particular

geben zu wollen.
to-give to want.

Es soll mit diesem Ausdrucke nur angedeutet werden,
It/One should with this Expression/Phrase only hinted/suggested be,

was die Krankheiten erwiesenermaßen
what the Diseases as-has-been-proved/shown/demonstrated

nicht sind, und nicht sein können,
not are, and not be can,

nicht mechanische oder chemische Veränderungen
not mechanical oder chemical Alterations/Changes

der materiellen Körpersubstanz und
of-the material Body-substance and

nicht von einem materiellen Krankheits-Stoffe abhängig
not by/from/on a material Disease-stuff dependent

- sondern bloß geistartige, dynamische Verstimmung des Lebens.
- but only/solely [a] spirit-like, dynamic Mistuning of-the Life.

----------------
Additional Note:

In order to track down the exact meaning of a word as important as
"geistartig", I'd like to give you some background on various words and
their meanings. Using the Langenscheidts German-English dictionary, you
will find:

geistlich: spiritual, religious, sacred, clerical, ecclesiatical

geistig: spiritual, immaterial, intellectual/mental,
spirituous/alcoholic

Geist: spirit, mind, wit, intellect, thought, genius, morale

Art: manner, way, mode, style, method, procedure; nature, kind,
character "auf dieser Art" = "of this nature or kind".

artig: as an adjective in its own right, not as a suffix, it means
"well-behaved, good, polite, civil, courteous, nice", thus:

Artigkeit = Good behavior (manners), civility, politeness, courtesy,
etc.
These last two seem to refer to one's BEHAVIOR in particular. However,
as a suffix, -artig has other meanings, related more to the noun "Art".

I've searched through the Organon in german, to find all the ways that
Hahnemann uses this "-artig". I've found that the words involving
"-artig" come in two main categories. First, there are those words which
relate to concrete things, and where "-artig" truly means "-like" in
English, such as, for example:
rotlaufartig = erysipelas-like
frieselartig = miliary-fever-like
wechselfieberartig = intermittent-fever-like or malaria-like
ruhrartig = dysentery-like
blumenkohl-artig = cauliflower-like (referring to a growth)
pechartig = pitch-like (referring to a color)
staubartig = dust-like
ahnungartig = hunch-like

then there are those instances where "-artig" seems very much to have
the meaning of "Art" as "kind, type", such as:
gleich = same;
gleichartig = of the same kind, homogenous, similar, analogous
eigen = own, of one's own, particular, special;
eigenartig = peculiar, characteristic, individual
verschieden = different, distinct;
verschiedenartig = of a different kind, dissimilar, heterogenous
anders = otherwise, different(ly);
andersartig = of a different kind, different

On the other hand, there are cases in which something more abstract is
referred to. In some of these cases, the form with "-artig" do not
appear in teh modern dictionaries and in truth, there seems to be little
difference in meaning between the adjective and adjective+artig.
Perhaps it's an old usage that's fallen out of favor over time? However,
thinking of "Art" and the adjective itself, "artig", maybe adding
"-artig" was a way of expressing that something had this TYPE of
*behavior*, acted in this way, etc. Examples of this type are:

böse = evil, wicked, bad;
bösartig = evil-like? evil-acting? (H. uses only the noun
"Bösartigkeit", to describe the quality of a disease)
fremd = strange, unknown, unfamiliar;
fremdartig = foreign, exotic, alien
übel = vile, loathsome, evil, nasty;
übelartig = nasty? evil-acting?
instinkt = instinct;
instinktartig = instintive (the German dictionary gives this word as
a synonym to both "instintiv" and instinktmäßig)
gut= good;
gutartig = good-natured, harmless

Thus, one way or the other, it seems clear that in Hahnemann's usage,
"geist-artig" meant either "something that is of spirit-like or
mind-like character or nature" or "something that has that manner, mode
or style of acting". It is also possible that it is simply an older
word for "geistig", so we can substitute "immaterial" for it. If
Hahnemann had meant "spiritual" instead, he'd have certainly used
"geistlich", which he did not, and he wouldn't have added this footnote
in order to emphasize that he does NOT mean anything hyper-physical or
beyond the physical.
Whenever he uses the word, he often adds "dynamic" t refine his
meaning, and his best attempt at explaining that word, I think, is in
the footnote to Aph 11. Since he talks there about things such as
magnetic and gravitational fields (both of which are ALSO invisible, and
immaterial, but certainly not spiritual!), rather than about anything
"psychic" in the ESP sort of way, I agree 100% with what Michael Dean
wrote in the Nov issue of HIP: "Hahnemann often compared his medicines
with magnets or electricity, never with angels".

Author: Lois Hoffer
Her group is a Yahoo group: Hahnamanics

If you search the archives of the group there is discussion on this footnote.

Leilanae