Andy had written in part:
"And as CD posits, the miasm(s) which express in the form of symptom complexes may not
succumb to symptomatic rx, but may need a miasmatic idem along the way which may not be obvious but may require
inductive reasoning..."
****** I may have been misunderstood with this statement. Thank you for clarifying it Farbod. I agree, Hahnemann himself did not mention using the nosode of the miasm in a disease complex emblematic of that miasm. He suggested groups of homeopathic remedies which were curative by symptomatic similarity--remedies which took at least 18 years to dilineate. BUT: the empirical connection he drew in CD between infectious diseases and types of disease in the offspring presaged such a development at later time and was absolutely required for that development by other workers in
homeopathy. That is what was meant -- if there was no miasmatic theory, then cases which did not respond to an apparently similar remedy but really needed a miasmatic nosode would remain incurable. Hahnemann did not say that in CD. But without CD, investigators probably would not have thought about potentizing assumed products of psora, sycosis, tuberculosis etc; at least not for a much longer time in the future.
Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:38:54 +0430
Dear Andy
Thanks. I agree with you. It really needs great patience. But I wanted to emphasise on the point that HMN beleived that
general homeopathy is not enough.
****** I agree that (my interpretation) that HMN thought general homeopathy was not enough, on the aspects:
--obstacles to cure must be removed, i.e.diet, exercise, and life circumstances, occupation, environmental exposures must be addressed as far as one is susceptible to their influence
--the apparently similar remedy will not always work or work on a long term because there are larger "forcing functions" to human disease, which are in fact what disease is, the reason physical beings are susceptible to illness, and a guide to why they get sick according to certain patterns. (This latter point is the main point of CD, to my understanding so far (maybe that will change after our reading is complete).
When I first studied HMN's CD I was confuesd, because I found something different from orthodox homeopathy.
****** What is orthodox homeopathy? Do you mean homeopathy without the concept of miasms? Or according to a modern teaching which is not altogether correct?
When the
first time I confronted with HMN's meaning of miasm I was astonished. He never spoke of Idem remedies to cure miasms.
****** No, he did not speak of use of miasmatic nosodes in CD. In fact, he did not like anything that sounded like isopathy (not sure where he said this--was it in the Organon, or in one of his letters, i.e. lesser writings?). It was his star pupil, Hering, that introduced the use of miasmatic nosodes, (if I am not mistaken), by introducing Psorinum around 1830 or so (although it is in question whether Scabies is the psoric infectious agent, according to Will Taylor). CD was published in 1828. Without CD and the concept of Psora and miasms in general, would Hering have
considered that a remedy made from a product of a disease thought to be seminal in human disease might be an important remedy? I don't think so. Regardless of whether Hahnemann ever mentioned or espoused miasmatic nosodes (eg use of a remedy which has, in a sense, direct connection to the miasm afflicting the client) CD laid the ground for use of these "idems". But even as I refer to them as "idems" their use is NOT isopathy, for when they are indicated, they are as homeopathic as any other rx, although sometimes they must be used as an intercurrent on scanty and inductive
indications (eg it's a "psoric case" and carefully selected remedies fail to act, for example); and thus may appear to be chosen on grounds other than the symptoms.
think the best to understand what did he say, is to read it as an unprejudiced observer, as I know nothing from
homeopathy.
****** I don't know if reading CD as unprejudiced means ignoring the development of Hom. after 1828. I don't see that as bias. But I understand your point about trying to read without preconceived notions, and I agree.
Farbod Rahnamai wrote:
****** We know that nosodes were developed by others (Hering, Lux, Swan, etc), and I had not meant to imply that Hahnemann mentioned their use (which nonetheless his theory of chronic diseases presaged). Would the developers of miasmatic nosodes have thought that these rx would be so important without the seminal concept of Miasms introduced in 1828? Possibly not.. After all, Hering called his nosode "Psorinum" after Hahnemann's name for the hydra-headed miasm. Miasms were a discovery worth many Nobel Prizes, and laid the groundwork for solving insoluble cases by showing
the background forcing functions of human disease, and thus showing the forests (miasms) in which the trees (similar remedy disease complexes) grow. This is my assumption. I doubt it is incorrect. But as we continue reading CD, if it is, I expect to be corrected. I will not let my assumption cloud an unprejudiced reading, but at the same time I will be testing the assumption as I read.
****** I agree that it is best that we temporarily put aside earlier notions we might have had about what HMN really meant and try to gain any fresh insights. Just as Will Taylor suggests that the infectious disease behind Sycosis is really (at the time undiscovered) Papilloma virus, and not gonorrhea (an idea passed on because of translation error); and that the infectious agent of Psora/itch is not Scabies (but *speculatively* fungal overgrowth, e.g. Candida--again not specifically identified at the time of Hahnemann) (again made unclear because of translation error);
readers must not let notions already in place bias our reading. At the same time, we are not in 1828, so I hope that ideas from beyond that date are allowed into the discussion. That Hahnemann spoke of a miasm as an infectious agent does not contradict that it can enter the genome and emerge through procreative transmission as disease complexes which do not resemble the original disease. As we read on, I expect to see that idea come up (or is that something which he did not directly say in CD?--would be surprised if it was only implied).
Andy