If you are going to reply all the time with "I never said this" and "you are inventing" then you are obviously hampering any quality discussion, clear for all to see.
I never 'said' that you 'said' anything but I was giving instruction regarding a previous post of yours that suggested (are we allowed to use that word as this is what it seemed to me hence my questions for clarity purposes which you don't want to answer), that what you call 'local' sx for some reason do not = the whole case or what needs to be cured and that one always has to look further, that these' local' sx are not representative of what needs to be cured.
If you, sorry, if anyone! makes a case more difficult for themselves than it need be and this so often includes the emotional sphere because it is open to so much interpretation, then, then it is a waste of resources. On another discussion there is already a great deal of 'talk' about poor practices in case taking and so called essence prescribing - this is easy to do if you make a case bigger than what it is.
Shannon wrote:-
When the prescriber sees that the patient is exhibiting *any* active miasmatic state, one thing that tells them is that it is not a local or temporary sort of problem they're treating, and that the presenting complaint(s) will not represent the whole of "what is to be cured."
Past that, recognition of *which* the active miasm(s) is/are, helps to refine the choice of remedy, and may help give "heads up" about other possible issues, ailments, and likely progress of the case.
fickle can also mean flippant.
and to make things even clearer, my points about the single sx are in addition to John's comments.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
