Miasmatic Repertory

[Robyn]

Dear Nader

if this is all you have to say from my posts, then i am disappointed - maybe
i don't articulate well. Your interpretation of the Anxiety example I gave
was not what I was intending to convey. Oh well..........
So, is what you are saying, that anyone who lists Aconite as anti-psoric is
wrong, because Hahnemann didn't?
If this is what you are saying, then my reaction is that is not a good
enough reason for me to come to that conclusion. Of course you are welcome
to form that conclusion if you may, but me, I would rather think there was a
very good reason why this rem and others are included, without Hahnemanns
say so, and I guess 'clinical experience' is likely to be one of the main
contenders.

Best

Robyn
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.795 / Virus Database: 539 - Release Date: 12/11/2004

[Shannon Nelson]

Nowadays, at least in the circles I've been accustomed to, the term "miasm"
is usually used to mean "chronic miasm". If it's not chronic, I think the
custom has been to talk instead of "infectious disease" or "acute illness"
rather than use the term miasm, tho I do recall you're correct that
Hahnemann used the term that way. In his day people did not know about
viruses and bacteria and etc., and I think that is why the more vague term
"miasm" was used for it.

In your understanding, what properties would Aconite need to have in order
to be properly put into the antipsoric group?

Shannon

on 11/14/04 1:47 PM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Robyn,

Your articulation is very good but it is my low IQ that I couldn't
understand it well.!!!!

As I said before,it is better to say our mean of Miasm then we can continue
our discussion.

My mean of miasm is Hahnemann's one and it is infectious disease.

I didn't say " anyone who lists Aconite as anti-psoric is
wrong, because Hahnemann didn't?" but I say : anyone whose mean of miasm is
Hahnemann's one and lists Acon as antopsoric is wrong because He couldn't
understand Hahnemann well.!!!!!!!!

Nader

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Andy,

You wrote:
one which is undergoing change. Sankaran is the innovator. >He puts
Aconite in his "Acute" miasm for obvious reasons (See the rubric "sudden
manifestations", etc and what we really know >aconite in application--the
sharp edge of any rapidly onsetting condition, the fear associated with it,
and sometimes that even becomes >fixed in a chronic state). So, Sankaran
agrees with both Hahnemann--that Acon is not antipsoric--that it may be the
acute analogue of >Sulphur the great antipsoric, but may actually not be

and

be how they were both placed in Psora. Homeopaths who >were not slouches
(Allen, Patel, Hartlaub-Trinks) said Acon was psoric. But I surmise that it
(could be) because of our poor >definitions which are undergoing
revision......""""

Regarding Sankaran's miasms,I love it but it differs from Hahnemann's ones
and IMO,It was better that Sankaran named his classification other than
"Miasm".Although IMHO,he has made some mistake in his classification !!!!!!!
but it is very useful,then it not correct that we add Sankaran's remedy
grouping to Hahnemann's classification.But as I remeber Allen wanted to
illustrate Hahnemann miasm theory and then he has added some remedies to
Hahnemann classification,for example he has added Acon as an
antipsoric!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as we see in the mentioned chart, then I myself
cannot rely on Allen's Book on Miasm and his clasification!!!!!!

Best,
Nader

[Nader Moradi]

Dear Shannon,
Although Hahnemann may be had not electronic Microscope but in his article he has spoken about microanimacules.
Miasm was not so vague for him,you can read Asian Cholera article in his lesser writing to see how Hahnemann describe the role of microanumacules in transmitting disease.

Nader

[Shannon Nelson]

hi Nader,

Why do you feel that Sankaran should have given "his" miasms a name other
than "miasms"? What do you feel is the fundamental difference between "his"
and Hahnemann's?

Shannon

on 11/15/04 2:34 PM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

If the sum total of Hahnemann's meaning of miasm is "infectious disease",
then what (in Hahnemann's framework, as you understand it) is the difference
between, say, flu "miasm" and Tubercular, Sycotic, and Psoric miasms?

Shannon
on 11/15/04 2:57 PM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

I suppose it would be more accurate if we talk about "chronic miasms" rather
than simply "miasms". Today, tho, in the circles I'm accustomed to at
least, "miasm" *means* "chronic miasm", since generally the term is no
longer used by people outside the homeopathic community, and within the
homeoathic community it is (someone correct me if I'm wrong) synonymous with
"chronic miasm". In Hahnemann's day "miasm" was a more commonly used term,
which he adapted to his purpose.

Today, if we mean "infectious disease", that is the term we use. Or "bug",
or etc. What is the practical implication, tho?

Shannon

on 11/15/04 3:04 PM, Nader Moradi at mn0021@issa2000.net wrote:

[andyh]

Nader Moradi wrote:
((( Why do you say this. The methodology, while more subtle and using computer database analysis , was similar to Hahnemann;s observation of the trends in symptomology which had *common threads* and showed echoes of their precursor infections. IMO Sankaran is doing pretty well so far. Please show me where you think the errors are..
((( In the miasm class itself _______or the remedies he has placed in them>____ BTW, one exclamation is enough for me to understand exuberance. A string of them becomes suspect.
((( Well, as was pointed out, the problem may lie in confusion about what was a hydra headed, huge miasm which Hahnemann said encompassed most of disease. And the fear of aconite could easily make it worthy of psoric. But maybe there is a bit of Hahnemann in Sankaran, and the old man knew he would be back in a couple of hundred years to complete his theory, and put Acon in the Acute miasm.

I think it is always a mistake to throw babies out with bathwater, if you know that expression. If TF Allen was not worthy of respect, then who is... And does that possible discrepancy void that whole chart?
All the best to you,
Andy

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Chris, a nice summary!
I stand corrected on my statement that Hahnemann wasn't aware of microbes,
but I don't think that alters my main point--what benefit is there in
talking about a flu "miasm" versus simply a "flu"? Do you disagree with me
that, in general, when homeopaths speak of a "miasm", they are talking about
a "chronic miasm", and that if they are referring to a communicable disease
they will just say that? (I realize that we *do* sometimes use terms such
as "flu miasm"; but if someone is talking about "curing the miasm", would
you not assume it was a *chronic miasm* they were talking about?)
Shannon

on 11/16/04 12:19 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote: