What is Cure? (was) that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row

[Gail A]

I have alsways puzzled around that aphorism 210 concept - you are talking about the footnote aren't you?

"[121] How often, for instance, do we not meet with a mild, soft disposition in patients who have for years been afflicted with the most painful diseases, so that the physician feels constrained to esteem and compassionate the sufferer! But if he subdue the disease and restore the patient to health-as is frequently done in homeopathic practice-he is often astonished and horrified at the frightful alteration in his disposition. He often witnesses the occurrence of ingratitude, cruelty, refined malice and propensities most disgraceful and degrading to humanity, which were precisely the qualities possessed by the patient before he grew ill.

Those who were patient when well often become obstinate, violent, hasty, or even intolerate and capricious, or impatient or desponding when ill; those formerly chaste and modest often become lascivious and shameless. A clear-headed person not infrequently becomes obtuse of intellect, while one ordinarily weak-minded becomes more prudent and thoughtful; and a man slow to make up his mind sometimes acquires great presence of mind and quickness of resolve, etc. "

I get that there is a sort of balance between physical symptoms and mental/emotional state. And in this set of Aphorisms 210-230 Hahnemann is focusing on the treatment of mental illness. Is he really saying in this footnote that being 'shameful and lascivious' , 'obstinate, violent, hasty' or 'obtuse of intellect' are indications of a state of good health, just because there are no physical symptoms?

So - using these two cases put forward by Liz and Chris as an example......

The cat now has no skin disease - he has returned to his former state, in line with Hahamann's observation about physical symptoms and mental state - he is 'robust and domineering' with something of the quality of 'dreadful' about him, and has become more settled in his new home without his testicles, in fact as though he never lost them.

The woman now has no eczema, which left following an established physical direction of cure. She has come to terms with a life shattering event - but we don't know how her mental state compares to her pre-eczema state, only that she is happy, apparently healthy, and establishing a new life in a new home (without her husband and son, the people who have testicles, in her life - opps sorry, that's my brain making irrelevant connections)

It's maybe a personal quirk here, but I would be edging along the lines of wanting to treat 'domineering' because I don't think it's healthy, it often indicates deep insecurities and, it would be hard to tell whether it's a reaction to something that happened previously or part of his inherited genetic susceptibility picture.

For the woman I guess a more thorough interview would be needed to make a true assessment of whether her cure is a true cure - or whether, like many of Hahnemann's early patients, she will return for treatment in a couple of years in a progressed state of chronic disease. There is a possibility that rather that simply trading in the skin symptoms and going back to her previous mental state, that not only the skin disease has gone but she is emotionally and mentally healthier than before the traumatic events.

Gail
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Gillen" wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

I agree, about treating the "negative" traits. Why wouldn't one simply take that as the next thing in need of treatment?
Shannon