Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

[Piet Guijt]

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]

[Phosphor]

> The totality is the sum of ALL characteristic syptoms, which >are the
signs of the individality in this presenting dominant >disease picture.
well i agree with this, as long as you agree that we should not mix in
symptoms from other disease energies that the patient is also experiencing.
do u agree with this?
state' are not striking, characterizing, etc.
depends on the case. if you are suffering from two disease energies some
symptoms from both may be manifesting characteristically. One can only
observe, not theorise about this. However, see below...

is only one totality, because the sum of Aph >153 symptoms come from one
disturbance which is dominant.
Can i construct a hypothetical from this?:
there is a disease energy, with some expressive. characteristic symptoms.
the person then acquires a second, dissimilar disease energy, with its
peculiar expressive symptoms. Since the VF is now 'pre-occupied' with the
2nd, the symptoms of the first fall away into more the general and purely
patholigcal, ill-defined grades.

is this basically your position?
andrew

[Piet Guijt]

Piet wrote:

Andrew replied:
well i agree with this, as long as you agree that we should not mix in symptoms from other disease energies that the patient is also experiencing.
do u agree with this?

Hello Andrew,

Yes.

Piet wrote:

Andrew replied:
there is a disease energy, with some expressive. characteristic symptoms.the person then acquires a second, dissimilar disease energy, with its peculiar expressive symptoms. Since the VF is now 'pre-occupied' with the 2nd, the symptoms of the first fall away into more the general and purely
patholigcal, ill-defined grades.

is this basically your position?

Basically yes, when the 2nd is the strongest impression on the vital force, but this is covered by Aph 38.
In Aph 40/42 they are more or less equal strong.
Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]