Minutus

Hi Paul,
You wrote:

"One could argue that using LM's would have been better but remember he
was
dealing with a non responsive patient. The child couldn't have said " I
am
feeling better in myself doctor". or " My head doesn't hurt etc."

he says:
"I had to select a remedy to meet this grave condition - from these very
scanty symptoms. No other characteristic symptoms were available."

So no characteristics to observe and watch. No way of knowing that the
patient was improving other than by watching the aggravations and the
subsequent changes that also happened which were part of the return to
health as the patient regained sensation.

With LM's you expect the aggravation at the end of cure, not the
beginning.
So they would have been inappropriate in this case."
regards,
V.T.Yekkirala

Hi Julian,

Thanks, but do you not see any conflict between
a) the vital force cannot cure disease, and
b) most diseases "run their course" because the immune system knocks them
out? Isn't the immune system part and expression of the vital force?

Chronic disease is of course the exception, and a whole separate topic.

Don't you see any conflict between
a) remedies act on their own, *not* thru the agency of the vital force, and
b) I've yet to see a remedy raise the truly dead, or heal a drained battery
or an old shoe. If it doesn't need the life force (VF) to act, why can't it
do these things?

Irritatingly yours (weak smile),
Shannon
on 5/4/04 2:31 PM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

Hello Shannon,

and
battery
it

perhaps it will be easier to understand if you make this distinction. A
bacteria coming into the organism is a stressor. It's not the disease state
which is a dynamic condition. Now if the patient is healthy, the immune
system can effectively do it's (aph 9) job. But if the patient is not
healthy, then the immune system cannot mount an effective response, or the
conditions which allow growth of bacteria (the "soil ") now favour
proliferation (an increase in stressor impact) - which must need an increase
in immune response).

Now healthy does not mean total health. It just means healthy in terms of
susceptibilty to that infection. So someone could be unhealthy in terms of
cardiovascular complaints, but quite healthy in terms of digestive
disturbances. Read aph 31. We must aslo remember that here we are talking
about diseases such as infection of cardio for convenience, but the disease
state is actually dynamic i.e it is Sulphur state or a Lachesis state and we
know from provings that each one represents a pattern of characteristic
disease pathologies.

Regards,
Paul

At 6:49 AM -0500 5/4/04, Bob&Shannon wrote:

Both John Lunstroth and Paul Booyse have taken good shots at this, so
I'll just try to add to it.
Hahnemann say that the body and the dynamis are ONE, but for us to
understand it we attempt to separate them and name them. This a
problem will all human understanding. Somehow man tries to separate
and define-- and by doing so loses the larger picture.

The remedy cannot raise the dead (except in the case of carbo-v )
because the dead body is not alive-- the regulatory dynamis has gone.
But just because it needs the working dynamis to act, it does NOT
mean that the remedy works THROUGH the dynamis.
I am sitting here trying to think of a good analogy, and I really can't.
The dynamis animates the body and keeps it in operation, buit it does
not have CONTROL of it. It is, simply, a servant.
I think Wendy Howard, long ago, likened it to the janitor of a
theater company who gets the stage ready and then, after the play,
cleans the place up and makes sure the lights are still working.
Long ago, Robert Heinlein, the great philosopher and writer, posited
the word "Grok" which implies a complete understanding of systems and
implications. It is not really translatable because it evolves from
another culture (Martian).
All I can say here is you don't seem to "grok" the vital force.
Keep working on it.

JW