Andrew wrote:
the significance of Aph 42 is to show that two or more disease energies can
indeed be present and active simultaneously, in which case we cannot
corectly put all symptoms together as a whole in order to make an analysis.
Hello Andrew,
So the conclusion is, there are here two seperate totalities at the same time?
Two seperate states of dispositions at the same time (Aph 210-213)?
Feelings of poverty and being rich, coward and courages, sad and happy at the very same time both aspects from a different source or reason?
Yes, a very logical concept (?), but not very wholistic to me
Different active aspects can exist beside each other in a person, but it means they have something in common, that they come from the same underlying feeling.
But when you look superficial they seem to contradict eachother.
But two different states don't exist at the same time, there is always one uppermost feeling.
The fact the symptoms can exist equal active beside eachother, already shows a certain unique relation.
When differentiating the symptoms on the appearent causes, you miss the deeper cause, which they have in common.
Remedies are not limited to just one causative cause, they can be multi-anti-causal.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
-
Rosemary Hyde
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
I'm finding this discussion a bit confusing. I would assume that a headache
and a stomachache would be parts of the single totality. Often the
modalities of different specific symptoms are similar, and I was under the
impression that it was preferable, in this case, to combine them, to
acknowledge their existence as general symptoms. What am I missing?
Rosemary C. Hyde
and a stomachache would be parts of the single totality. Often the
modalities of different specific symptoms are similar, and I was under the
impression that it was preferable, in this case, to combine them, to
acknowledge their existence as general symptoms. What am I missing?
Rosemary C. Hyde
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Piet said:
time?
the problem here is the ambivalence in the word 'state.' we are not using
it in the same way. i did not say "state," but "disease state." Aph 42
explains that two or more disease states can co-exist simultaneously in the
body. You use "state" in the sense of tempermanent, of which there can only
be one.
andrew
time?
the problem here is the ambivalence in the word 'state.' we are not using
it in the same way. i did not say "state," but "disease state." Aph 42
explains that two or more disease states can co-exist simultaneously in the
body. You use "state" in the sense of tempermanent, of which there can only
be one.
andrew
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Andrew wrote:
time?
Andrew:
Hello Andrew,
I understand what you mean, but I'm trying to explain, there is only one diseased person, so one state.
Disease is a state of being, you're diseased or not, you don't say I'm diseased twice.
Aph 8 footnote 1:
"......... he still holds thoroughly material notions respecting disease, which he is still unable to regard as a state of being of the organism wherein it is dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force, as an altered state of health"
what does Hanhnemann say in APH 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and mind."
So there is a direct relation between the disease state and the state of disposition.
He says every case of disease, not diseases.
I agree a disease can be build up from more diseases, but it is just how you look at it.When the concequence is you HAVE to treat them seperate, I certainly don't agree.
Take the example of the different diseases, Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis. You see a case of active Psora and active Syphylis symptoms.
Your plan is to treat the Syphilic symptoms first with say Remedy A. and then you treat the Psoric symptoms with Remedy B.
This because you say they are seperate different diseases, certainly needing a different remedy each.
Maybe another (wise) Homeopath would say; This a clear Tuberculosis miasmatic disease, I see a combination of functional and destructive symptoms. The remedy that covers this disease is Remedy C.
Do you know what I mean, It is just how you look at it.
When you have only three miasm, you see more 'mixed' cases, when you have more, you see less.
Every chronic complex disease can be built up from the three main miasms: Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis.
They are the basic three dimensions in chronic disease. It is like using vectors in Mathematics, but the resultant vector is the real one disease of the moment. Your remedy should cover that disease and the constition that resists it.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
time?
Andrew:
Hello Andrew,
I understand what you mean, but I'm trying to explain, there is only one diseased person, so one state.
Disease is a state of being, you're diseased or not, you don't say I'm diseased twice.
Aph 8 footnote 1:
"......... he still holds thoroughly material notions respecting disease, which he is still unable to regard as a state of being of the organism wherein it is dynamically altered by the morbidly deranged vital force, as an altered state of health"
what does Hanhnemann say in APH 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and mind."
So there is a direct relation between the disease state and the state of disposition.
He says every case of disease, not diseases.
I agree a disease can be build up from more diseases, but it is just how you look at it.When the concequence is you HAVE to treat them seperate, I certainly don't agree.
Take the example of the different diseases, Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis. You see a case of active Psora and active Syphylis symptoms.
Your plan is to treat the Syphilic symptoms first with say Remedy A. and then you treat the Psoric symptoms with Remedy B.
This because you say they are seperate different diseases, certainly needing a different remedy each.
Maybe another (wise) Homeopath would say; This a clear Tuberculosis miasmatic disease, I see a combination of functional and destructive symptoms. The remedy that covers this disease is Remedy C.
Do you know what I mean, It is just how you look at it.
When you have only three miasm, you see more 'mixed' cases, when you have more, you see less.
Every chronic complex disease can be built up from the three main miasms: Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis.
They are the basic three dimensions in chronic disease. It is like using vectors in Mathematics, but the resultant vector is the real one disease of the moment. Your remedy should cover that disease and the constition that resists it.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
> I understand what you mean, but I'm trying to explain, there is only one
diseased person, so one state.
diseased twice.
this is, as I have said to David's post, meaningless meataphysics, and
nowhere in Hn's thinking. Diseases really do exist, they have tolerably
recognizable boundaries, and as Aph 432 states, can occupy separate parts of
the organism. The confusion is that diseases may [by no means always -eg
disease of malnutrition] have an energetic dimension and can be treated by
energetic treatment. homeopathy shows this method can override and correct
physical correlates. we know this by observaton, just as Hn knew by
observation that dissimilar diseases may exist simultaneously.
well, if the two correspond with separate remedies, it can't be done.
simple. If an Ars type gets a Puls cold, you can't cover both. but you have
two treatment options.
disposition.
but they are not one and the same thing. nothing could be further from the
truth. Taking into account the change in disposition means the symptoms
exhibited by the change in mental and emotional state of the patient. The
dispositon - or what I mean by temperament - is the fixed, healthy state.
Its simply a leap of metaphysics to surmise that because we have one
temperament and one vital force we can only suffer from one disease. Since
we can suffer from two miasms, we can cetainly suffer from two acute or
sub-acute diseases simultaneously. and so we should not and must not mix
symptoms of one with symptoms of the other if they don't belong.
i read of a story in renaissance england where a man who was deaf for a long
time recovered his hearing after being hit in the head. we may suppose the
original deafness was an arnica-induced illness. apart from this lucky
chance, he would of course merely added one disease to another. if someone
with a stomach ulcer gets the flu, is the ulcer thereby always cured? use
your common sense. it beats flights of fancy every time.
andrew
diseased person, so one state.
diseased twice.
this is, as I have said to David's post, meaningless meataphysics, and
nowhere in Hn's thinking. Diseases really do exist, they have tolerably
recognizable boundaries, and as Aph 432 states, can occupy separate parts of
the organism. The confusion is that diseases may [by no means always -eg
disease of malnutrition] have an energetic dimension and can be treated by
energetic treatment. homeopathy shows this method can override and correct
physical correlates. we know this by observaton, just as Hn knew by
observation that dissimilar diseases may exist simultaneously.
well, if the two correspond with separate remedies, it can't be done.
simple. If an Ars type gets a Puls cold, you can't cover both. but you have
two treatment options.
disposition.
but they are not one and the same thing. nothing could be further from the
truth. Taking into account the change in disposition means the symptoms
exhibited by the change in mental and emotional state of the patient. The
dispositon - or what I mean by temperament - is the fixed, healthy state.
Its simply a leap of metaphysics to surmise that because we have one
temperament and one vital force we can only suffer from one disease. Since
we can suffer from two miasms, we can cetainly suffer from two acute or
sub-acute diseases simultaneously. and so we should not and must not mix
symptoms of one with symptoms of the other if they don't belong.
i read of a story in renaissance england where a man who was deaf for a long
time recovered his hearing after being hit in the head. we may suppose the
original deafness was an arnica-induced illness. apart from this lucky
chance, he would of course merely added one disease to another. if someone
with a stomach ulcer gets the flu, is the ulcer thereby always cured? use
your common sense. it beats flights of fancy every time.
andrew
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Andrew wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Yes, they exist ofcourse they do!
But we don't treat diseases directly.
We treat the vital force which is reacting to it through the constitution. This pattern of the vital force must be matched by our remedy.
Normally one disease or miasm is dominant and forms the base of the totallity.
But our discussion was about the rare situation were two miasm are equal active, then there are not really to seperated miasm, but actual one complex one.
This complex one forms here the base of the totallity.
There cannot be two totalities at the same time, there can be symptoms that are not selected for the totality, but that's a different thing.
Piet;
Andrew
What does Hanhnemann say in APH 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and mind"
in every case of disease, even in such as are acute!
This not the same as the constitutional type
The constitutional Ars with the Puls cold, has the Puls state of disposition. Even Acute!!!!!!
In ( relative) health there is also a state of disposition, but it is someones natural state.
In disease it is changed, not as symptoms, but a changed state of being APH 8, 19 etc etc
You only think in symptoms and diseases.
But symptoms are a reaction by the whole organism to disease influences.
Integrating disease and constitution does not always mean the prescription of someone's constitutional remedy, but an individual selected remedy for the disease.
You're right we should not mix what don't belong together, but we must not seperate what belongs together.
By using the actual, present predominating symptoms for the totality and making the connection with the underlying disease/ cause/ constitution we can take care of this. This forms the essence of disease, and this has also a direct relation with the present predominating state of the patient.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello Andrew,
Yes, they exist ofcourse they do!
But we don't treat diseases directly.
We treat the vital force which is reacting to it through the constitution. This pattern of the vital force must be matched by our remedy.
Normally one disease or miasm is dominant and forms the base of the totallity.
But our discussion was about the rare situation were two miasm are equal active, then there are not really to seperated miasm, but actual one complex one.
This complex one forms here the base of the totallity.
There cannot be two totalities at the same time, there can be symptoms that are not selected for the totality, but that's a different thing.
Piet;
Andrew
What does Hanhnemann say in APH 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is to say, homoeopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and mind"
in every case of disease, even in such as are acute!
This not the same as the constitutional type
The constitutional Ars with the Puls cold, has the Puls state of disposition. Even Acute!!!!!!
In ( relative) health there is also a state of disposition, but it is someones natural state.
In disease it is changed, not as symptoms, but a changed state of being APH 8, 19 etc etc
You only think in symptoms and diseases.
But symptoms are a reaction by the whole organism to disease influences.
Integrating disease and constitution does not always mean the prescription of someone's constitutional remedy, but an individual selected remedy for the disease.
You're right we should not mix what don't belong together, but we must not seperate what belongs together.
By using the actual, present predominating symptoms for the totality and making the connection with the underlying disease/ cause/ constitution we can take care of this. This forms the essence of disease, and this has also a direct relation with the present predominating state of the patient.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Piet wrote:
We treat the vital force which is reacting to it through >the constitution.
this is mixture of metaphysics, speculation, and begging the question. No
one knows the ultimate nature of the VF. stick to what we can actually
observe.
one disease or miasm is dominant and forms >the base of the totallity.
if you merely assume what we are trying to debate, its easy to make your
chosen conclusion! the mutual occurence of dissimilar diseases occurred
often enough for Hn to observe this phenomena. otherwise we would not have
homeoapthy at all.
active.
not at all. Miasms are one example of two mutually-occuring dissimilar
diseases. but non-chronic diseases can and do occur mutually, whether
sub-acute [like gastric ulcer], acute, nutritional or accidents. does the
broken arm amazingly repel the flu? the immune weakness repelled by
migraine?
maybe, or maybe not. they can be just two miasms manifesting with relatively
equal strength. of the two, one is bound to be somewhat dominant. by what
arcane mathematics do we calculate the exact degree of dominance?
yes, but only in the case where the previously separate disease energies
have evolved into a new complex. for example, the symptoms may rise and fall
together, take on the same modalities. does your asthma get worse when your
head aches more?
Since two diseases can manifest simultaneously, there obviously can. would
you rather simply say straightforward that Hn was wrong in Aph42? What law
has constrained the VF to be able to express only one state of disturbed
energy?
yes, but not every disease energy manifests changes in the mental
disposition any more than they manifest abdominal symptoms. Hn enjoins us to
look for them if they are there, not make them up.
secondly, the mind is hardly so monolithic that it may suffer from a maximum
of one only disturbance. how easy life would be if so. is the mind wracked
with excessive nostalgia magically free from money anxieties?
disposition. Even Acute!!!!!!
ok, a little confusion about terminology. makes no difference to the
argument.
the whole organism to disease influences.
prescription of someone's constitutional remedy, but an >individual
selected remedy for the disease.
yes..or diseases.
not seperate what belongs together.
both are true. the first is almost universally neglected.
making the connection with the underlying disease/ >cause/ constitution we
can take care of this.
why do u wish to spirit in 'constitution' now? if by constitution you mean
symptoms of the altered state of the mind, then just use 'mental symptoms'.
if u use constitution in the conventional sense, then we take into account
what is the constitution in order to *exclude* the signs and attributes
thereof from the analysis.
Whether you subscribe to the conventional misunderstanding I am not sure,
but it may be expressed as "we treat people, not diseases." this is
considered to be the essence of 'wholistic' treatment. And since we treat
the person, and there is only one vital force, there can only really be one
illness, ie the disturbance in this essence, so all symptoms must be put
together. But it is gnostic nonsense if this is considered to be the *only*
way diseases show. In this dream world diseases have no real nature. They
do; what is unique in homeopathy is that we treat them *as they manifest* in
the organism, and give preference to the non-pathological symptoms in doing
so. Does pathology still exist? yes. can two or more pathologies manifest
simultaneously? yes.
andrew
We treat the vital force which is reacting to it through >the constitution.
this is mixture of metaphysics, speculation, and begging the question. No
one knows the ultimate nature of the VF. stick to what we can actually
observe.
one disease or miasm is dominant and forms >the base of the totallity.
if you merely assume what we are trying to debate, its easy to make your
chosen conclusion! the mutual occurence of dissimilar diseases occurred
often enough for Hn to observe this phenomena. otherwise we would not have
homeoapthy at all.
active.
not at all. Miasms are one example of two mutually-occuring dissimilar
diseases. but non-chronic diseases can and do occur mutually, whether
sub-acute [like gastric ulcer], acute, nutritional or accidents. does the
broken arm amazingly repel the flu? the immune weakness repelled by
migraine?
maybe, or maybe not. they can be just two miasms manifesting with relatively
equal strength. of the two, one is bound to be somewhat dominant. by what
arcane mathematics do we calculate the exact degree of dominance?
yes, but only in the case where the previously separate disease energies
have evolved into a new complex. for example, the symptoms may rise and fall
together, take on the same modalities. does your asthma get worse when your
head aches more?
Since two diseases can manifest simultaneously, there obviously can. would
you rather simply say straightforward that Hn was wrong in Aph42? What law
has constrained the VF to be able to express only one state of disturbed
energy?
yes, but not every disease energy manifests changes in the mental
disposition any more than they manifest abdominal symptoms. Hn enjoins us to
look for them if they are there, not make them up.
secondly, the mind is hardly so monolithic that it may suffer from a maximum
of one only disturbance. how easy life would be if so. is the mind wracked
with excessive nostalgia magically free from money anxieties?
disposition. Even Acute!!!!!!
ok, a little confusion about terminology. makes no difference to the
argument.
the whole organism to disease influences.
prescription of someone's constitutional remedy, but an >individual
selected remedy for the disease.
yes..or diseases.
not seperate what belongs together.
both are true. the first is almost universally neglected.
making the connection with the underlying disease/ >cause/ constitution we
can take care of this.
why do u wish to spirit in 'constitution' now? if by constitution you mean
symptoms of the altered state of the mind, then just use 'mental symptoms'.
if u use constitution in the conventional sense, then we take into account
what is the constitution in order to *exclude* the signs and attributes
thereof from the analysis.
Whether you subscribe to the conventional misunderstanding I am not sure,
but it may be expressed as "we treat people, not diseases." this is
considered to be the essence of 'wholistic' treatment. And since we treat
the person, and there is only one vital force, there can only really be one
illness, ie the disturbance in this essence, so all symptoms must be put
together. But it is gnostic nonsense if this is considered to be the *only*
way diseases show. In this dream world diseases have no real nature. They
do; what is unique in homeopathy is that we treat them *as they manifest* in
the organism, and give preference to the non-pathological symptoms in doing
so. Does pathology still exist? yes. can two or more pathologies manifest
simultaneously? yes.
andrew
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Piet wrote:
Andrew:
Since two diseases can manifest simultaneously, there obviously can. would
you rather simply say straightforward that Hn was wrong in Aph42? What law
has constrained the VF to be able to express only one state of disturbed
energy?
Hello Andrew,
I already agreed there can be two diseases, our discussion is how to treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of all present symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there can only be one totality. This is not the same as putting all symptoms together. Like you said. When a patient comes to you he talks of his most troubling complaint(s), not all his symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain (characteristic) way about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s), that is his state. On those symptoms and that state you must concentrate for you first prescription. The other symptoms maybe are already also covered by your remedy, maybe you have to treat them later with another remedy. So time is a factor you can't ignore, you have to work along the timeline back. Of course you can see old symptoms, but that does not mean your remedy acts directly on that.You must start your treatment at the begin, you cannot jump in were you want, in an on going process.
In disease we treat two things, the symptoms and the underlying maintaining cause. The state of disposition is directly coupled to that underlying predisposition. Symptoms are expressions to restore balance, you're mixing up symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain ratio, depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / causation and constitutional factors.
It is: we treat disease in men. This refers to an individual remedy for the same disease. I'm not advocating the use of the constitutional remedy always, this is always making a totality for present and the past. I'm only talking of the present whole. You cannot make two conversations at the same, now I write this mail I think most of you, sometimes about David. You can only be occupied mainly with one thing, so it is with disease.
You're mixing up two different things here.There is only one vital force, one state, so there is only one disease to be treated at the present time. We don't treat the person, when we say there is only one vital force. We only say when we put an organism under stress, it react a unit, as a whole. The nature of the present reaction depends of the type of stress (disease), and the person involved (constitution). When a car approaches you very fast, your only thought is 'get out of here' You react a whole, one state, and this has priority. After that other things that worried you before the near accident come up again. So it is exactly with disease, the most urgent one first, etc, etc.
Is pathology the same as disease in our discussion? I don't think so. More pathological aspects in a person can come from the same disturbance. And when they come from different disturbances, one will be more on the background. When the non-pathological symptoms are connected with the pathology, we would be fools to ignore them. Those signs show us the individual features of the pathology, which doesn't mean this leads to the 'constitutional remedy' How do you want to differentiate a remedy out of a group known, to be able to influence a certain pathology? The only thing is individualisation. Pathology doesn't fall out of the sky, it is formed in the individual constitution under influence of disease factors.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrew:
Since two diseases can manifest simultaneously, there obviously can. would
you rather simply say straightforward that Hn was wrong in Aph42? What law
has constrained the VF to be able to express only one state of disturbed
energy?
Hello Andrew,
I already agreed there can be two diseases, our discussion is how to treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of all present symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there can only be one totality. This is not the same as putting all symptoms together. Like you said. When a patient comes to you he talks of his most troubling complaint(s), not all his symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain (characteristic) way about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s), that is his state. On those symptoms and that state you must concentrate for you first prescription. The other symptoms maybe are already also covered by your remedy, maybe you have to treat them later with another remedy. So time is a factor you can't ignore, you have to work along the timeline back. Of course you can see old symptoms, but that does not mean your remedy acts directly on that.You must start your treatment at the begin, you cannot jump in were you want, in an on going process.
In disease we treat two things, the symptoms and the underlying maintaining cause. The state of disposition is directly coupled to that underlying predisposition. Symptoms are expressions to restore balance, you're mixing up symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain ratio, depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / causation and constitutional factors.
It is: we treat disease in men. This refers to an individual remedy for the same disease. I'm not advocating the use of the constitutional remedy always, this is always making a totality for present and the past. I'm only talking of the present whole. You cannot make two conversations at the same, now I write this mail I think most of you, sometimes about David. You can only be occupied mainly with one thing, so it is with disease.
You're mixing up two different things here.There is only one vital force, one state, so there is only one disease to be treated at the present time. We don't treat the person, when we say there is only one vital force. We only say when we put an organism under stress, it react a unit, as a whole. The nature of the present reaction depends of the type of stress (disease), and the person involved (constitution). When a car approaches you very fast, your only thought is 'get out of here' You react a whole, one state, and this has priority. After that other things that worried you before the near accident come up again. So it is exactly with disease, the most urgent one first, etc, etc.
Is pathology the same as disease in our discussion? I don't think so. More pathological aspects in a person can come from the same disturbance. And when they come from different disturbances, one will be more on the background. When the non-pathological symptoms are connected with the pathology, we would be fools to ignore them. Those signs show us the individual features of the pathology, which doesn't mean this leads to the 'constitutional remedy' How do you want to differentiate a remedy out of a group known, to be able to influence a certain pathology? The only thing is individualisation. Pathology doesn't fall out of the sky, it is formed in the individual constitution under influence of disease factors.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Piet said:
treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of >all present
symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there >can only be one
totality. This is not the same as putting all >symptoms together. Like you
said. When a patient comes to >you he talks of his most troubling
complaint(s), not all his >symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain
(characteristic) way >about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s),
that is >his state.
well, if you define "state" that way, then I agree. It does make sense from
a practical point of view to treat whatever is the dominant picture. But it
is not a very neutral definition, its a loaded one.
maintaining cause. The state of disposition is >directly coupled to that
underlying predisposition. Symptoms >are expressions to restore balance,
you're mixing up >symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain
ratio, >depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / >causation
and constitutional factors.
this is just mish-mash. if you read this yourself you will see it makes no
sense. if you can't express an idea with clarity it means the idea is simply
a chimera.
the same disease. I'm not advocating the use of >the constitutional remedy
always, this is always making a >totality for present and the past. I'm only
talking of the present >whole.
well, you seem to be differentiating between constitutional and prsent
disease, which i agree with wholeheartedly. These are two distinctive
options and we ahould not mix signs and symptoms of one with othe other.
one state, so there is only one disease to be >treated at the present time.
well, this is only because you have defined "state" this way. You are free
to define it however you wish, but its better to use it in a conventional or
neutral sense. otherwise it becomes an Alice-in-Wondrland exercise.
only say when we put an organism under stress, it >react a unit, as a whole.
The nature of the present reaction >depends of the type of stress (disease),
and the person >involved (constitution).
Now you are getting mixed up in trying to explain how diseases and symptoms
arise with the intereaction of the disease energy, vital force, and
constitution. This is forever beyond our grasp. All we can observe is the
results...symptoms.
No. the first is a subset of the second.
would be fools to ignore them.
yes.
doesn't mean this leads to the 'constitutional remedy'
precisely.
able to influence a certain pathology? The only >thing is individualisation.
yes. and we should favour the non-pathological over the pathological. But we
don't exclude the former unless the latter are very indicative. And somehow
many think this means that the person does not 'really' suffer from
ulcer/asthma etc. The pathology gives us a starting point to investigate
what other more individual symptoms are associated with it. And it allows
us to differentiate between symptoms belonging to two different pathologies,
a situation i gather we are all now agreed exists and is explicated in
Aph42.
None of this has contradicted my fundamental point: don't mix symptoms in
the repertorising process which don't belong. Know what strategy you are
employing to arrive at the prescription:
are u treating the disease state?
are u treating one of the disease states present?
are u treating the constitution?
are u treating a miasm?
Symptoms of one don't belong with symptoms of the other. If the symptoms of
the disease are an amplification of the constitution you will arrive at the
answer either way, so this is no problem.
treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of >all present
symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there >can only be one
totality. This is not the same as putting all >symptoms together. Like you
said. When a patient comes to >you he talks of his most troubling
complaint(s), not all his >symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain
(characteristic) way >about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s),
that is >his state.
well, if you define "state" that way, then I agree. It does make sense from
a practical point of view to treat whatever is the dominant picture. But it
is not a very neutral definition, its a loaded one.
maintaining cause. The state of disposition is >directly coupled to that
underlying predisposition. Symptoms >are expressions to restore balance,
you're mixing up >symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain
ratio, >depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / >causation
and constitutional factors.
this is just mish-mash. if you read this yourself you will see it makes no
sense. if you can't express an idea with clarity it means the idea is simply
a chimera.
the same disease. I'm not advocating the use of >the constitutional remedy
always, this is always making a >totality for present and the past. I'm only
talking of the present >whole.
well, you seem to be differentiating between constitutional and prsent
disease, which i agree with wholeheartedly. These are two distinctive
options and we ahould not mix signs and symptoms of one with othe other.
one state, so there is only one disease to be >treated at the present time.
well, this is only because you have defined "state" this way. You are free
to define it however you wish, but its better to use it in a conventional or
neutral sense. otherwise it becomes an Alice-in-Wondrland exercise.
only say when we put an organism under stress, it >react a unit, as a whole.
The nature of the present reaction >depends of the type of stress (disease),
and the person >involved (constitution).
Now you are getting mixed up in trying to explain how diseases and symptoms
arise with the intereaction of the disease energy, vital force, and
constitution. This is forever beyond our grasp. All we can observe is the
results...symptoms.
No. the first is a subset of the second.
would be fools to ignore them.
yes.
doesn't mean this leads to the 'constitutional remedy'
precisely.
able to influence a certain pathology? The only >thing is individualisation.
yes. and we should favour the non-pathological over the pathological. But we
don't exclude the former unless the latter are very indicative. And somehow
many think this means that the person does not 'really' suffer from
ulcer/asthma etc. The pathology gives us a starting point to investigate
what other more individual symptoms are associated with it. And it allows
us to differentiate between symptoms belonging to two different pathologies,
a situation i gather we are all now agreed exists and is explicated in
Aph42.
None of this has contradicted my fundamental point: don't mix symptoms in
the repertorising process which don't belong. Know what strategy you are
employing to arrive at the prescription:
are u treating the disease state?
are u treating one of the disease states present?
are u treating the constitution?
are u treating a miasm?
Symptoms of one don't belong with symptoms of the other. If the symptoms of
the disease are an amplification of the constitution you will arrive at the
answer either way, so this is no problem.
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42
Piet said:
treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of >all present
symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there >can only be one
totality. This is not the same as putting all >symptoms together. Like you
said. When a patient comes to >you he talks of his most troubling
complaint(s), not all his >symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain
(characteristic) way >about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s),
that is >his state.
Andrew replied:
I don' think it is loaded at all.
The totality is the sum of ALL characteristic syptoms, which are the signs of the individality in this presenting dominant diseasepicture.
what does APH 153 say?
"In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug."
The more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view. Is there a difference to what I said? The symptoms of the other 'silent state' are not striking, characterizing, etc, they are more on the background, so are not qualified to be taken for the totallity.
Aph 7:
"Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, Aph 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it - and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires - the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy - and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health."
"the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease"
Do you understand, there can be two diseases at the same time, but there is only one totality, because the sum of Aph 153 symptoms come from one disturbance which is dominant.
Now to come back to our discussion, when the so called, two diseases, are equal active, both equal dominant, both equal contributing to the totality, how can we make a distinction between them any longer? Together they form one dominant disturbance, with a common deeper cause.
Piet:
maintaining cause. The state of disposition is >directly coupled to that
underlying predisposition. Symptoms >are expressions to restore balance,
you're mixing up >symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain
ratio, >depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / >causation
and constitutional factors.
Andrew replied:
sense. if you can't express an idea with clarity it means the idea is simply
a chimera.
It takes two, the one who explains, and the one who has to understand. I guess this is your way to say you don't understand what i mean?
Does APH 63 help you?
"Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine, deranges more or less the vital force, and causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a longer or a shorter period. This is termed primary action. Although a product of the medicinal and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former power. To its action our vital force endeavors to oppose its own energy. This resistant action is a property, is indeed an automatic action of our life-preserving power, which goes by the name of secondary action or counteraction."
And APH 11:
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known
This is what is said: "primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life" and "automatic action of our life-preserving power" underlying cause and reaction. Two things in disease. Clear enough now?
Piet:
one state, so there is only one disease to be >treated at the present time.
Andrew replied:
to define it however you wish, but its better to use it in a conventional or
neutral sense. otherwise it becomes an Alice-in-Wondrland exercise.
It is not my definition, this is Hahnemann 's he says in Aph 210:
"...in all cases of disease we are called on to cure the state of the patient's disposition is to be particularly noted, along with the totality of the symptoms, if we would trace an accurate picture of the disease, in order to be able therefrom to treat it homoeopathically with success."
Piet wrote:
only say when we put an organism under stress, it >react a unit, as a whole.
The nature of the present reaction >depends of the type of stress (disease),
and the person >involved (constitution).
Andrew: >Now you are getting mixed up in trying to explain how diseases and symptoms
arise with the intereaction of the disease energy, vital force, and
constitution. This is forever beyond our grasp. All we can observe is the
results...symptoms.
In epidemic disease the the same cause can give rise to different states in involved people, so we can say something about the interaction of diseases and individuals.
Piet wrote:
able to influence a certain pathology? The only >thing is individualisation.
Andrew replied:
As I said in the characteristic symptoms we don' have to differentiate.
Andrew:
Yes, this mainly true, it reminds me of APH 5
"Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration."
And Aph 7:
"we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, Aph 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it - and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force"
Andrew:
Characteristics of the patient are often confused with his symptoms, they only are symptoms when the have a relation with his complaints.
Ok, Andrew I think everything need to be said is said now, thanks for this conversation.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
treat them. I also said you must make a selection out of >all present
symptoms, you use for the totality. I still say there >can only be one
totality. This is not the same as putting all >symptoms together. Like you
said. When a patient comes to >you he talks of his most troubling
complaint(s), not all his >symptoms. Your patient feels in a certain
(characteristic) way >about that strongest most recent, actual complaint(s),
that is >his state.
Andrew replied:
I don' think it is loaded at all.
The totality is the sum of ALL characteristic syptoms, which are the signs of the individality in this presenting dominant diseasepicture.
what does APH 153 say?
"In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug."
The more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view. Is there a difference to what I said? The symptoms of the other 'silent state' are not striking, characterizing, etc, they are more on the background, so are not qualified to be taken for the totallity.
Aph 7:
"Now, as in a disease, from which no manifest exciting or maintaining cause (causa occasionalis) has to be removed, we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, Aph 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it - and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force, must be the principal, or the sole means, whereby the disease can make known what remedy it requires - the only thing that can determine the choice of the most appropriate remedy - and thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, indeed the only thing the physician has to take note of in every case of disease and to remove by means of his art, in order that it shall be cured and transformed into health."
"the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease"
Do you understand, there can be two diseases at the same time, but there is only one totality, because the sum of Aph 153 symptoms come from one disturbance which is dominant.
Now to come back to our discussion, when the so called, two diseases, are equal active, both equal dominant, both equal contributing to the totality, how can we make a distinction between them any longer? Together they form one dominant disturbance, with a common deeper cause.
Piet:
maintaining cause. The state of disposition is >directly coupled to that
underlying predisposition. Symptoms >are expressions to restore balance,
you're mixing up >symptoms and base. The underlying cause is in a certain
ratio, >depending of the case, build up from disease (miasm) / >causation
and constitutional factors.
Andrew replied:
sense. if you can't express an idea with clarity it means the idea is simply
a chimera.
It takes two, the one who explains, and the one who has to understand. I guess this is your way to say you don't understand what i mean?
Does APH 63 help you?
"Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine, deranges more or less the vital force, and causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a longer or a shorter period. This is termed primary action. Although a product of the medicinal and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former power. To its action our vital force endeavors to oppose its own energy. This resistant action is a property, is indeed an automatic action of our life-preserving power, which goes by the name of secondary action or counteraction."
And APH 11:
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known
This is what is said: "primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life" and "automatic action of our life-preserving power" underlying cause and reaction. Two things in disease. Clear enough now?
Piet:
one state, so there is only one disease to be >treated at the present time.
Andrew replied:
to define it however you wish, but its better to use it in a conventional or
neutral sense. otherwise it becomes an Alice-in-Wondrland exercise.
It is not my definition, this is Hahnemann 's he says in Aph 210:
"...in all cases of disease we are called on to cure the state of the patient's disposition is to be particularly noted, along with the totality of the symptoms, if we would trace an accurate picture of the disease, in order to be able therefrom to treat it homoeopathically with success."
Piet wrote:
only say when we put an organism under stress, it >react a unit, as a whole.
The nature of the present reaction >depends of the type of stress (disease),
and the person >involved (constitution).
Andrew: >Now you are getting mixed up in trying to explain how diseases and symptoms
arise with the intereaction of the disease energy, vital force, and
constitution. This is forever beyond our grasp. All we can observe is the
results...symptoms.
In epidemic disease the the same cause can give rise to different states in involved people, so we can say something about the interaction of diseases and individuals.
Piet wrote:
able to influence a certain pathology? The only >thing is individualisation.
Andrew replied:
As I said in the characteristic symptoms we don' have to differentiate.
Andrew:
Yes, this mainly true, it reminds me of APH 5
"Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration."
And Aph 7:
"we can perceive nothing but the morbid symptoms, it must (regard being had to the possibility of a miasm, and attention paid to the accessory circumstances, Aph 5) be the symptoms alone by which the disease demands and points to the remedy suited to relieve it - and, moreover, the totality of these its symptoms, of this outwardly reflected picture of the internal essence of the disease, that is, of the affection of the vital force"
Andrew:
Characteristics of the patient are often confused with his symptoms, they only are symptoms when the have a relation with his complaints.
Ok, Andrew I think everything need to be said is said now, thanks for this conversation.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]