Andrew, it is quite ridiculous and misleading to read, appreciate and
understand (or not understand as in your case) aphorism 42 without doing the
same with 43, 44, 45 and 46 - pertaining as they do to similar and
dis-similar diseases.
Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
aphorism 42
Re: aphorism 42
It is quite ridiculous and misleading to read, appreciate and
i would agree. 42 refers to dissimilar diseases. 43-46 refers to similar
diseases. in the case of the former, they can co-exist in the body
simultaneously, and separately, and therefore require different remedies. Or
they may form a new, unified complex disease requiring one remedy. if someoe
with a stomach complaint catches cold, there is no need to assume they
require the same remedies, unless on close inspection the modalities or
other peculiarities of the second turns out to match the first.
Unfortunately, many have understood 'totality of symptoms' to mean totality
of all the symptoms affecting the individual' rather than 'totality of the
prevailing individual disease energy.'
andrew
i would agree. 42 refers to dissimilar diseases. 43-46 refers to similar
diseases. in the case of the former, they can co-exist in the body
simultaneously, and separately, and therefore require different remedies. Or
they may form a new, unified complex disease requiring one remedy. if someoe
with a stomach complaint catches cold, there is no need to assume they
require the same remedies, unless on close inspection the modalities or
other peculiarities of the second turns out to match the first.
Unfortunately, many have understood 'totality of symptoms' to mean totality
of all the symptoms affecting the individual' rather than 'totality of the
prevailing individual disease energy.'
andrew
Re: aphorism 42
Andrew, so if the sx of both the stomach complaint and the cold weren't
covered by one remedy you, personally, would prescribe 2 remedies at the
same time (and this is assuming that both conditions were bad enough to need
treating immediately)?
Your example of 2 diseases isn't quite the best - if you choose to treat the
stomach complaint first the cold will have gone by the time you get round to
treating it.
What do you propose Hahnemann meant by dis-similar diseases - give some
examples of cases whereby the client expresses the need to be relieved and
cured of more than one disease state that requires more than one remedy.
Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
covered by one remedy you, personally, would prescribe 2 remedies at the
same time (and this is assuming that both conditions were bad enough to need
treating immediately)?
Your example of 2 diseases isn't quite the best - if you choose to treat the
stomach complaint first the cold will have gone by the time you get round to
treating it.
What do you propose Hahnemann meant by dis-similar diseases - give some
examples of cases whereby the client expresses the need to be relieved and
cured of more than one disease state that requires more than one remedy.
Joy
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
-
Farbod Rahnamai
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: aphorism 42
Dear Andrew
I agree with you on the subject but not on your example. There may be a patient who affected with only one disease (psora) but suffer from both of maladies (cold - stomach).
Best
Farbod
I agree with you on the subject but not on your example. There may be a patient who affected with only one disease (psora) but suffer from both of maladies (cold - stomach).
Best
Farbod
Re: aphorism 42
diseases whose symptoms are dissimilar, ie with some combination of
different aetiology, modalities or other peculiarities. an example would be
someone with a stomach ache [say chamomila] who gets a cold [camphor].
Farbood Rahnamai correctly points out that some apparently independent
afflictions may be linked by a miasm, so careful investigation is, as usual,
required. As we know from Rima Handley Hahnemann gave two remedies
simultaneously in his later pratice.
andrew
different aetiology, modalities or other peculiarities. an example would be
someone with a stomach ache [say chamomila] who gets a cold [camphor].
Farbood Rahnamai correctly points out that some apparently independent
afflictions may be linked by a miasm, so careful investigation is, as usual,
required. As we know from Rima Handley Hahnemann gave two remedies
simultaneously in his later pratice.
andrew
-
David Little
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: aphorism 42
At 07:31 AM 6/7/2002 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Minimus,
Andrew wrote: "As we know from Rima Handley Hahnemann gave two
remedies simultaneously in his later practice.
The above statement is taken out of context and can only cause
confusion. Saying that Hahnemann gave two remedies "simultaneously" makes
it sound like he was administering two remedies together at the exact same
time. This would be a mixture. This is NOT true. I have examined 100s of
Hahnemann's prescriptions between 1837 and 1842. Hahnemann did NOT
administer two remedies to be taken simultaneously. Almost all his cases
were single prescriptions often interspersed or followed by placebos.
There were, however, rare exceptions where Hahnemann did alternate two
remedies at different times. For example, when a rather gentleman fell of a
horse and psora seem to be an obstacle to the cure of his trauma, Hahnemann
alternated Arnica and Sulphur until the traumatic symptoms ceased and then
he continued with Sulphur alone. As I said such alternations of two
remedies at different times were very rare in his last years. So rare, that
Dr., Croserio did not even notice them. For this reason, he said Hahnemann
"never" alternated two remedies. Well, it would have been more true if he
said "rarely alternated remedies", especially in his last days because he
had more proven remedies.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Dear Minimus,
Andrew wrote: "As we know from Rima Handley Hahnemann gave two
remedies simultaneously in his later practice.
The above statement is taken out of context and can only cause
confusion. Saying that Hahnemann gave two remedies "simultaneously" makes
it sound like he was administering two remedies together at the exact same
time. This would be a mixture. This is NOT true. I have examined 100s of
Hahnemann's prescriptions between 1837 and 1842. Hahnemann did NOT
administer two remedies to be taken simultaneously. Almost all his cases
were single prescriptions often interspersed or followed by placebos.
There were, however, rare exceptions where Hahnemann did alternate two
remedies at different times. For example, when a rather gentleman fell of a
horse and psora seem to be an obstacle to the cure of his trauma, Hahnemann
alternated Arnica and Sulphur until the traumatic symptoms ceased and then
he continued with Sulphur alone. As I said such alternations of two
remedies at different times were very rare in his last years. So rare, that
Dr., Croserio did not even notice them. For this reason, he said Hahnemann
"never" alternated two remedies. Well, it would have been more true if he
said "rarely alternated remedies", especially in his last days because he
had more proven remedies.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000