Let me read Organon:
§64
As seen from the following examples, during the initial action of the
artificial disease potences (medicines) upon our healthy body, our life
force appears to comport itself only conceptively (receptively,
passively as it were) and appears as if it were forced to allow the
impressions of the artificial potence impinging from without to occur in
itself, thereby modifying its condition.
The life force then appears to rally in one of two ways:
1. Where there is such a one, the life force brings forth the exact
opposite condition-state (counter-action, after-action) to the impinging
action (initial action) that has been absorbed into itself. The
counter-action is produced in as great a degree as was the impinging
action (initial action) of the artificial morbific or medicinal potence
on it, proportionate to the life force's own energy.
2. If there is no state in nature exactly opposite to the initial
action, the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by
extinguishing the alteration produced in itself from without (by the
medicine), in place of which it reinstates its norm (after-action,
curative-action).
Rgds,
Nader
primary and secondary action - was 30C's- Dr. John
-
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
-
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: primary and secondary action - was 30C's- Dr. John
Hello Nader
This describes remedy action alone, as in a proving, or any remnants of
remedy action after the disease state is extinguished.
Disease state is a maintained state which controls the vital force and gives
it direction. The vital force is obedient to the disease state - in those
parts which the disease state operates if it is not in complete control of
the organism. The body also suffers in parts not affected by the disease
state, by virtue of being too occupied by the disease state and not able to
fulfill adequate function in other areas.
Regards,
Paul.
Let me read Organon:
§64
As seen from the following examples, during the initial action of the
artificial disease potences (medicines) upon our healthy body, our life
force appears to comport itself only conceptively (receptively,
passively as it were) and appears as if it were forced to allow the
impressions of the artificial potence impinging from without to occur in
itself, thereby modifying its condition.
The life force then appears to rally in one of two ways:
1. Where there is such a one, the life force brings forth the exact
opposite condition-state (counter-action, after-action) to the impinging
action (initial action) that has been absorbed into itself. The
counter-action is produced in as great a degree as was the impinging
action (initial action) of the artificial morbific or medicinal potence
on it, proportionate to the life force's own energy.
2. If there is no state in nature exactly opposite to the initial
action, the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by
extinguishing the alteration produced in itself from without (by the
medicine), in place of which it reinstates its norm (after-action,
curative-action).
Rgds,
Nader
This describes remedy action alone, as in a proving, or any remnants of
remedy action after the disease state is extinguished.
Disease state is a maintained state which controls the vital force and gives
it direction. The vital force is obedient to the disease state - in those
parts which the disease state operates if it is not in complete control of
the organism. The body also suffers in parts not affected by the disease
state, by virtue of being too occupied by the disease state and not able to
fulfill adequate function in other areas.
Regards,
Paul.
Let me read Organon:
§64
As seen from the following examples, during the initial action of the
artificial disease potences (medicines) upon our healthy body, our life
force appears to comport itself only conceptively (receptively,
passively as it were) and appears as if it were forced to allow the
impressions of the artificial potence impinging from without to occur in
itself, thereby modifying its condition.
The life force then appears to rally in one of two ways:
1. Where there is such a one, the life force brings forth the exact
opposite condition-state (counter-action, after-action) to the impinging
action (initial action) that has been absorbed into itself. The
counter-action is produced in as great a degree as was the impinging
action (initial action) of the artificial morbific or medicinal potence
on it, proportionate to the life force's own energy.
2. If there is no state in nature exactly opposite to the initial
action, the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by
extinguishing the alteration produced in itself from without (by the
medicine), in place of which it reinstates its norm (after-action,
curative-action).
Rgds,
Nader
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: primary and secondary action - was 30C's- Dr. John
Dear Chris,
Why do you place more emphasis on the Chronic Diseases or MM Pura? (I am asking because I am not systematically doing the reading that you are suggesting and would like to be able to convince myself that I should do it.)Was the master a clearly better observer than other mortals? I know it is blasphamy to ask, but can you give me a clear example of how this is true? I bump into Hanhemann's writings as I am doing my MM searches in the EH, but I must lack the sensitivity to see how much better he is than modern homeopathic writers. Especially the mental sx are much easier to understand from the modern authors. Do the original writings differentiate between primary and secondary effects?
I would naively think that px vary greatly in the length of time that they take to react to a remedy. I know there are books that say x remedy takes x time for the primary effect, but I have never tested such statements. I don't have enough experience to differentiate between the normal expected time per remedy and the individual reaction. Should I be doing my homework better and know per remedy how long it take for the primary effect to take place? For me at this point, the individual variation is overwhelming.
Blessings,
Ellen
Why do you place more emphasis on the Chronic Diseases or MM Pura? (I am asking because I am not systematically doing the reading that you are suggesting and would like to be able to convince myself that I should do it.)Was the master a clearly better observer than other mortals? I know it is blasphamy to ask, but can you give me a clear example of how this is true? I bump into Hanhemann's writings as I am doing my MM searches in the EH, but I must lack the sensitivity to see how much better he is than modern homeopathic writers. Especially the mental sx are much easier to understand from the modern authors. Do the original writings differentiate between primary and secondary effects?
I would naively think that px vary greatly in the length of time that they take to react to a remedy. I know there are books that say x remedy takes x time for the primary effect, but I have never tested such statements. I don't have enough experience to differentiate between the normal expected time per remedy and the individual reaction. Should I be doing my homework better and know per remedy how long it take for the primary effect to take place? For me at this point, the individual variation is overwhelming.
Blessings,
Ellen
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: primary and secondary action - was 30C's- Dr. John
Dear Chris,
Thank-you very much for such a complete reply. I will get a paper copy of the MM Pura and the CD. Obviously, I have to develop an analytical mind for this kind of reading. It feels kind of overwhelming, but that's how all adventures begin.
Blessings,
Ellen
Thank-you very much for such a complete reply. I will get a paper copy of the MM Pura and the CD. Obviously, I have to develop an analytical mind for this kind of reading. It feels kind of overwhelming, but that's how all adventures begin.
Blessings,
Ellen