Minutus

accordingly.

in a chronic case i think it is folly to rely exclusively on mentals.
there has to be, or have been, some clear physicals to go on as well.
the whole issue of mental symptoms has been overblown: what to account for
is specific and observable changes that have overtaken the person in their
thoughts and emotions.

andrew

Hi Jim,

Ever see (or been) a little kid, pulling wings off insects?

I'd say there is a continuum of what could be termed cruel, and one end
of it is pathological.

Much of the continuum might interfere with "achieving higher purpose"
-but may or may not be a reasonable focal point of curative effort..
Dave Hartley
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Santa Cruz, CA (831)464-8127

witnesses
most

You know, I can't say I have ever seen this - am I alone?

Certainly not as a lasting state. Sure a submissive Staphysagria may take a
stand. A person who has suppressed anger (e.g. Aurum) may let it out, but
the end result will be a healthier state of relationship with the
environment/people.

Paul

This is a reference to one sided diseases which when they are prescribed for
and go on to cure the layer which is visable at that time, often help open
up the case to another treatable state.

As Hahnemann goes on to say in 210 - we are called on to cure the state of
the patient's disposition, along with the totality of the symptoms.

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

needs

Don't provings also show symptoms on the "subtlest intellectual and
spiritual spheres"?.

Throughout this whole discussion I've been waiting to see reference to miasmatic influences. Personally, I would be inclined to think that someone who was at the very cruel end of the spectrum -- as someone has said, unbalanced in that direction -- was under the influence of the syphilitic miasm, and I would expect the other symptoms to add up to a syphilitic remedy. Unbridled cruelty is purely destructive, as much for the perpetrator as the victims.

Rosemary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Paul,

I've puzzled over this one before...
I view it in line with the one about "prior healthy state", and figure that
once you've done your "acute" work, or your "first layer", the you look to
see whether more needs to be done!

Shannon
on 1/25/03 12:26 AM, Paul Booyse at pb000014@pixie.co.za wrote:

I think "cruelty" takes its meaning less from the acts, and more from the
context, awareness, and intent. When a cat plays with a mouse, it's not
being cruel, it's just being a cat. *Usually* with those little kids, it's
more similar to that; they don't realize they're causing pain. (And, uh,
sheesh, what *does* a bug feel? Beats me...)

Probably there are some people like this, who cause pain simply because they
don't see it as meaningful. If the person is not obviously mentally
deficient, we'd call them "cruel", but maybe that wouldn't be the right
term; maybe "morally deficient" would be closer.

But "cruel" as I understand it, would mean someone who actively enjoys
others' suffering, and unfortunately there are some of those around too.
For whatever reasons...

Shannon

on 1/24/03 3:53 PM, Dave Hartley at dave@localcomputermart.com wrote: