Thanks Ginny, I will indeed look back at that when i have the time--David's site is just *full* of wonderful information, and thanks for the reminder. (Much of what I've been trying to put across simply has to do with clarifying terminology, tho.)
Thanks,
Shannon
________________________________
more on constitutional
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: more on constitutional
Thanks Lisa, that's a good direction, and I'd definitely look into that.
*But* not always fruitful. E.g. to use my daughter as an example: she was born with HUGE issues, problems physical and emotional: clingy and frantic with repeated illnesses as an infant, and by age 4 had developed night terrors, severe allergy to milk, and emotional issues that were truly just about at the limit of what I could handle, physically and emotionally. (Finally resolved with a single dose--dry, no less
--of Lyssin 200. And no aggravation, BTW.) All this despite an uneventful and very happy pregnancy, and the birth did have an "off-center" feel to it due to circumstances, but not in any way "bad", and no medical intervention nor drugs nor vaccination (I had to slap their little paws away!). So where did the imbalance come from??? (Normally I'd have said "miasm", but dunno where the heck she got that particular miasm either!! Actually how does *anyone* acquire the miasm of an invariably fatal disease?!?)
Anyway, that's an instance where there *was* no "before the illness" to compare with; she was born with it and things developed from there.
Okay, I don't want to drag this out... (I *love* Dr. Roz's response! But will finish my train of thought before moving on.) It's just one main thing I've had in mind, trying to goad Liz into mentioning as a basis for evaluating symptoms in a person who never *had* a "prior, healthy state" (I think that's the phrase used in the Organon?). And that is simply to compare the person's state of wellbeing etc. with an idealized concept of good health. I'm not proposing this as an original idea in any way! It's the same way we go about treating e.g. an unconscious or non-verbal person, or an animal--by comparing what we *see* with what we would expect from a healthy state.
So when I looked at my daughter clinging and terrified to be put down even for a moment, I didn't have to wonder what her "healthy state" might have looked like--if she'd ever had one--or view this as "as good as it gets" for her, since she had never had better. The broad outlines of her state were clearly incompatible with "good health", and those "deviations" are of course the things that were repped.
That's basically what I was after in the questions I was asking Liz. It's also my reply to the aphorism where Hahnemann *instructs* us to compare the person's diseased state with their "prior healthy state"...
The second thing that follows on that (comparing patient with a "healthy state", is the concept of miasms, as being a heritable form of disease or dis-ease.
To my mind that is where the difference comes in, between Eizayaga's meaning of the term "constitutional remedy (state)"--which could indeed be consistent with a state of good health (likes milk? enjoys open air? chatty and enthusiastic? not a problem! All can be completely consistent with a state of good health), versus the *other* use of the term "constitutional remedy", the way apparently Kent and Jahr and "all those guys" used it. Kent et al. used it to refer to the person's ongoing chronic state. That might include but is not limited to those parts *for which they are seeking help*. (And he notes that the underlying / overarching ongoing chronic state--which he refers to as the constitutional--is what gives rise to their dis-ease, and that in some cases that broader remedy will cure, even if the specific disease symptoms are not listed as part of the remedy's symptom picture. Many homeopaths have found the same to be true!)
So to look for a *chronic* remedy for someone, you don't have to rely on their memory of a prior healthy state--there might not have been one!--but can instead take note of all "deviations from health." (Admittedly this isn't foolproof. E.g. an unusual behavior might come from delusion etc.--or might have been learned, or other possibilities.) That's also where the concept of miasms comes in--imbalance that was present from birth, and is seen in context of deviations from a conceptualized "healthy state."
Liz, does that work for you? (Comments and criticisms welcome...)
Shannon
*But* not always fruitful. E.g. to use my daughter as an example: she was born with HUGE issues, problems physical and emotional: clingy and frantic with repeated illnesses as an infant, and by age 4 had developed night terrors, severe allergy to milk, and emotional issues that were truly just about at the limit of what I could handle, physically and emotionally. (Finally resolved with a single dose--dry, no less
--of Lyssin 200. And no aggravation, BTW.) All this despite an uneventful and very happy pregnancy, and the birth did have an "off-center" feel to it due to circumstances, but not in any way "bad", and no medical intervention nor drugs nor vaccination (I had to slap their little paws away!). So where did the imbalance come from??? (Normally I'd have said "miasm", but dunno where the heck she got that particular miasm either!! Actually how does *anyone* acquire the miasm of an invariably fatal disease?!?)Anyway, that's an instance where there *was* no "before the illness" to compare with; she was born with it and things developed from there.
Okay, I don't want to drag this out... (I *love* Dr. Roz's response! But will finish my train of thought before moving on.) It's just one main thing I've had in mind, trying to goad
Liz into mentioning as a basis for evaluating symptoms in a person who never *had* a "prior, healthy state" (I think that's the phrase used in the Organon?). And that is simply to compare the person's state of wellbeing etc. with an idealized concept of good health. I'm not proposing this as an original idea in any way! It's the same way we go about treating e.g. an unconscious or non-verbal person, or an animal--by comparing what we *see* with what we would expect from a healthy state. So when I looked at my daughter clinging and terrified to be put down even for a moment, I didn't have to wonder what her "healthy state" might have looked like--if she'd ever had one--or view this as "as good as it gets" for her, since she had never had better. The broad outlines of her state were clearly incompatible with "good health", and those "deviations" are of course the things that were repped.
That's basically what I was after in the questions I was asking Liz. It's also my reply to the aphorism where Hahnemann *instructs* us to compare the person's diseased state with their "prior healthy state"...
The second thing that follows on that (comparing patient with a "healthy state", is the concept of miasms, as being a heritable form of disease or dis-ease.
To my mind that is where the difference comes in, between Eizayaga's meaning of the term "constitutional remedy (state)"--which could indeed be consistent with a state of good health (likes milk? enjoys open air? chatty and enthusiastic? not a problem! All can be completely consistent with a state of good health), versus the *other* use of the term "constitutional remedy", the way apparently Kent and Jahr and "all those guys" used it. Kent et al. used it to refer to the person's ongoing chronic state. That might include but is not limited to those parts *for which they are seeking help*. (And he notes that the underlying / overarching ongoing chronic state--which he refers to as the constitutional--is what gives rise to their dis-ease, and that in some cases that broader remedy will cure, even if the specific disease symptoms are not listed as part of the remedy's symptom picture. Many homeopaths have found the same to be true!)
So to look for a *chronic* remedy for someone, you don't have to rely on their memory of a prior healthy state--there might not have been one!--but can instead take note of all "deviations from health." (Admittedly this isn't foolproof. E.g. an unusual behavior might come from delusion etc.--or might have been learned, or other possibilities.) That's also where the concept of miasms comes in--imbalance that was present from birth, and is seen in context of deviations from a conceptualized "healthy state."
Liz, does that work for you? (Comments and criticisms welcome...)
Shannon
Re: more on constitutional
Lyssin would probably finds its place in the acute phase of the Psoric miasm, either inherited or produced possibly from the 'trauma?' of being born (just an example but it does happen). Sometimes you cannot locate the cause of such a situation but nonetheless worth recognising it has some use.
Single dry doses in acute phases of chronic disease are often required such as you might get with so called bi-polar, schizophrenia, ongoing panic attacks etc, where you know, if you match the simillimum rx with the simillimum potency you can 'get away' with a single dose, just like you should do in true acutes - but water posology would still be a better choice to be safer and surer and this acceptance is hardly worth arguing about.
Some would challenge this idea that there is no 'before the illness' in a newborn as miasms are inherited generations down, basic. But sx are sx and even if there is no obvious comparison to be had, such as with a new born, (and you would always factor in the parents medical history and even further back if you had to) + what Lisa has written, a reliable prescription can still be made as your daughter's case shows. And don't forget causation. This is often essential when a comparison cannot be made. If someone has become unconscious then the causation becomes a high ranking sx and you don't always need to know how their health was prior to the causation. You go with what you've got and what pertains to what needs to be cured. If there is nothing to be cured then you don't have a case. However when a comparison can be made then it should be, no point judging Hahnemann on that point, would be facile to exclude a possible comparison - how health has changed = sx.
Best to avoid the use of terminology that either has a varied meaning or is inadequate in describing the real situation. To keep explaining oneself because a term has too many interpretations seems a waste of time. Exclude the word 'constitution' and it becomes so much easier.
Do you want to clarify what you mean or indeed what Kent meant by saying the chronic state gives rise to their disease. What is the difference. One is either chronically ill or not and then all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'. What does that mean. Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture. That's original!
How can you use 'deviations from health' and at the same time not have a comparison? Unusual behaviour, delusions? All sx of deviations from health.
Struggling to understand what you mean.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Single dry doses in acute phases of chronic disease are often required such as you might get with so called bi-polar, schizophrenia, ongoing panic attacks etc, where you know, if you match the simillimum rx with the simillimum potency you can 'get away' with a single dose, just like you should do in true acutes - but water posology would still be a better choice to be safer and surer and this acceptance is hardly worth arguing about.
Some would challenge this idea that there is no 'before the illness' in a newborn as miasms are inherited generations down, basic. But sx are sx and even if there is no obvious comparison to be had, such as with a new born, (and you would always factor in the parents medical history and even further back if you had to) + what Lisa has written, a reliable prescription can still be made as your daughter's case shows. And don't forget causation. This is often essential when a comparison cannot be made. If someone has become unconscious then the causation becomes a high ranking sx and you don't always need to know how their health was prior to the causation. You go with what you've got and what pertains to what needs to be cured. If there is nothing to be cured then you don't have a case. However when a comparison can be made then it should be, no point judging Hahnemann on that point, would be facile to exclude a possible comparison - how health has changed = sx.
Best to avoid the use of terminology that either has a varied meaning or is inadequate in describing the real situation. To keep explaining oneself because a term has too many interpretations seems a waste of time. Exclude the word 'constitution' and it becomes so much easier.
Do you want to clarify what you mean or indeed what Kent meant by saying the chronic state gives rise to their disease. What is the difference. One is either chronically ill or not and then all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'. What does that mean. Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture. That's original!
How can you use 'deviations from health' and at the same time not have a comparison? Unusual behaviour, delusions? All sx of deviations from health.
Struggling to understand what you mean.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: more on constitutional
Hi Joy,
I agree with all you've said, and will just clarify for your questions at the end.
You wrote: "Do you want to clarify what you mean or indeed what Kent meant by saying the chronic state gives rise to their disease. What is the difference. One is either chronically ill or not and then all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'."
S: It means that before you have severe and unmistakable disease, you had preexisting minor and "doesn't everyone have that?" sorts of imbalance, and before that you had susceptibilities. If one treats at an earlier stage, then the later stage need not develop.
J: "... all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'. What does that mean. Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture."
S: That if, e.g. the patient appears, on basis of generals, mentals, history, etc., and the overall "case", to need Remedy Q, *but* their chief complaint is something not listed within the materia medica for Remedy Q, that you may get excellent resolution by still *giving* Remedy Q, rather than by saying, "But I don't see Malady Y listed, so I'd better find a 'remedy for Malady Y.' "
J: "Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture. That's original!"
S: Sorry, i don't understand that question. What I am saying is as in the paragraph above. Does that clarify, and do you disagree?
J: "How can you use 'deviations from health' and at the same time not have a comparison? Unusual behaviour, delusions? All sx of deviations from health."
S: What I said is that, if the patient has not *had* a prior state of good health, or does not remember it, or can't meaningfully describe it or the changes, etc., our hands are not tied. In that case (and sometimes in any case) we are comparing the current state with a state of *health*. So yes, including unusual behavior, delusions, whatever.
Shannon
I agree with all you've said, and will just clarify for your questions at the end.
You wrote: "Do you want to clarify what you mean or indeed what Kent meant by saying the chronic state gives rise to their disease. What is the difference. One is either chronically ill or not and then all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'."
S: It means that before you have severe and unmistakable disease, you had preexisting minor and "doesn't everyone have that?" sorts of imbalance, and before that you had susceptibilities. If one treats at an earlier stage, then the later stage need not develop.
J: "... all this stuff about a 'broader rx will cure'. What does that mean. Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture."
S: That if, e.g. the patient appears, on basis of generals, mentals, history, etc., and the overall "case", to need Remedy Q, *but* their chief complaint is something not listed within the materia medica for Remedy Q, that you may get excellent resolution by still *giving* Remedy Q, rather than by saying, "But I don't see Malady Y listed, so I'd better find a 'remedy for Malady Y.' "
J: "Are you saying that a good homeopath can match sx similarity even though the client doesn't have the full blown sx picture. That's original!"
S: Sorry, i don't understand that question. What I am saying is as in the paragraph above. Does that clarify, and do you disagree?
J: "How can you use 'deviations from health' and at the same time not have a comparison? Unusual behaviour, delusions? All sx of deviations from health."
S: What I said is that, if the patient has not *had* a prior state of good health, or does not remember it, or can't meaningfully describe it or the changes, etc., our hands are not tied. In that case (and sometimes in any case) we are comparing the current state with a state of *health*. So yes, including unusual behavior, delusions, whatever.
Shannon
Re: more on constitutional
The first part, highlighted is a nonsense. If someone has susceptibilities you only know that from sx that could well be needing to be cured unless they can be dealt with by other means such as removing the 'stress' factor. If someone has a repeated type of acute. So you either have to treat an acute, an acute phase of a chronic, a true acute or remove the problem by other means as stated.
The second part doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Where is the sx similarity? Who practices like this, i.e. giving a rx that doesn't match the totality of what needs to be cured. If someone presents with sx of their own individualised Diabetes you give a rx that doesn't match those sx? Give "Q" because "Y" is needed. Strange!
This might help.
http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... rticle.php
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
The second part doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Where is the sx similarity? Who practices like this, i.e. giving a rx that doesn't match the totality of what needs to be cured. If someone presents with sx of their own individualised Diabetes you give a rx that doesn't match those sx? Give "Q" because "Y" is needed. Strange!
This might help.
http://www.simillimum.com/education/lit ... rticle.php
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Re: more on constitutional
Somehow managed to delete a bit, should have read, 'if someone has a repeated type of acute then you can start to look towards a chronic rx that deals with this, cure the susceptibility'.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
'
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
'
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: more on constitutional
Okay, we've again moved from "conversation" to "scoldings", so I have lost interest. None of this is my own invention, and I'm sorry my explanations are inadequate!
Cheers,
Shannon
Cheers,
Shannon
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: more on constitutional
Okay, I'm glad you got that back in, as it's pretty crucial.
The chronic case may be a great deal more subtle than the acutes are, which would lead into my prior--but I don't want to get back into spitballs, so will leave it at that.
Out for the day...
The chronic case may be a great deal more subtle than the acutes are, which would lead into my prior--but I don't want to get back into spitballs, so will leave it at that.
Out for the day...
Re: more on constitutional
It is your invention Shannon, have to contradict you there. You are always announcing that people are being this, that or the other. But your choice.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
Re: more on constitutional
what about the dad? Does he have any influence during pregnancy on the fetus?
He is lying there right next to you while you're pregnant...freaking out that
he is going to lose you when the baby comes.
He is lying there right next to you while you're pregnant...freaking out that
he is going to lose you when the baby comes.