Minutus

David wrote:
Hello David,

Sorry for not being clear enough, but what I meant to say is that in
opposite pictures of the same remedy prescribed as the simillimum the way or
pattern of being sick is exactly the same.
You illustrate the crux of this discussion in the above sentences.
You say the polychrests contain multiple archetypes, this is somehow true,
but this means this is on a more superficial level.
Some say a remedy like Sulphur has no face of its own, because it is able to
produce almost every symptom of our repertory.
I do not agree, of course Sulphur has a face of its own, but because it has
such a broad symptom picture it will cover single phases or present states
of other remedies as well.
But is Sulphur the simillimum in such a case? No it steals the show, but is
nothing more then a simile, covering a satellite expression of the deeper
problem.
To prescribe the simillimum one must connect the different phases of the
disease. Such a prescription will also take care of the underlying deeper
susceptibility of the complete disease.
Prescribing on the present symptom complex without understanding the bigger
picture where it comes from, will lead to superficial prescriptions. This
way of treatment is a practical tool, but in the long run a never ending
story.
This is what I meant, with 'looking deeper'.
The complete disease as a unity, has a dynamic pattern, just like Shannon
said that must be captured in a precise statement (which is more then a
single keynote) that sums up not only all that the remedy encapsulates, but
also the dynamic aspects of it, how it moves from one stage of the illness
to the next (Paul Herscu http://www.wholehealthnow.com/herscu/)
Or like Per Neesgaard (Masi) says: "The establishment of a hypothesis for a
remedy that explains the fundamental problem, to which the totality of
symptoms can be traced, which explains how the totality of symptoms for that
remedy can been seen as counterbalance for the deepest violation of the laws
of nature in the hierarchy of that person"
The fundamental problem is connected to the transcendental quality of the
remedy, the central theme of the remedy in absolute form.

An example of such a remedy statement by Paul Herscu (Stramonium, With an
indtoduction to analysis using Cycles and Segment): "Driven by confusion,
fears, and vulnerability, Stramonium is engaged in an ongoing and violent
battle between the unconscious and the conscious, between dark and light,
between succumbing to the death realm and yearning to exist in the life
realm."

An example showing that opposite poles express the same problem by Per
Neesgaard (Man Miasm and Modality):
"Moschus which is has the susceptibility to want to have privileges and
respect alone by virtue of their membership of society, alone on the basis
of their affiliation to the group. They expect all privileges and protection
from society without first having to earn it. In the first phase they feel
insecure as soon as they move outside the staked out territory, in the next
phase they emphasise the advantages of the collective and in denial of the
loss, they behave in a opposite manner. They reject every society."

With the centre of the case I mean the Trancendental Quality, which I
believe is the true individual point of the case.
How man reacts on this depends on the miasmatic phase of the disease.
The complete disease has only one pattern (cycle), but more segments.
Prescribing for an isolated segment with an polychrest, might be
suppressive, at the best palliative.

I hope this explains my point of view, and the nature of my earlier comments
Kind regards, Piet

At 06:05 PM 5/18/2005, you wrote:

I am saying that our deep acting remedies (I don't necessary mean our
known polychrests) are capable of treating more than one undigested
archetype and psychological complex in patients! This is a clinical fact.
The medical powers of a remedy do not come into play until it is tested on
a human being. All remedies were proven on a group of human beings with
different constitutions, temperament, dispositions. This makes what we know
about the remedy relative to the human conditioning as well as human
observers. Every soul experience is different and although they may share
similar experiences. If one compares all the patients taking the same
remedy they will not find the exact, same cause or the exact same
undigested archetypes and complexes. They will be all be similar but not
exactly the same. The remedy, however, has the potential to produce all
these states in people due to its medicinal Wesen.

Jung pointed out that images from the unconscious witnessed in dreams,
fantasies and altered states of consciousness share certain religious,
mythological, philosophical and alchemical motifs that are expressions of
the collective unconscious. This is what is called an "archetype" in
psychology. For example, Natrum Muriaticum reflects the melancholic,
abandoned Mother archetype; the overly romantic, naive Daughter archetype;
the emotionally parched, alienated Amazon archetype, the inflexible,
unbending Father archetype; the unyielding, hardened Hero archetype as well
as mythologems like Lot's wife and the Pillar of Salt and the great
alchemical "sal" as well as images like sinking in the deep dark sea, a
dried out soul, a salty dog, the salt of the earth, etc. All these symbols
share a common origin in the remedy Wesen of Natrum muriaticum. This
essence cannot not be reduced to a singularity because it is an energy
configuration in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts. The
archetypes and complexes we seen in patients are parts of the Esse which we
cannot see or explain from one point of view.

These are examples of collective archetypes in psychology and each one
has a story to tell that will be unique to the individual according to the
time and circumstances. The individual experiences around the archetype
must be expanded on by the patient during the interview process so that its
unique individual elements are further elucidated. This is true in both
psychoanalysis and Homoeopathy. One must find the characteristic symptoms
that make each patient special. Many times images and experiences arise
synchronically from the Unconscious and cannot be explained by linear cause
or logic relationships and may be totality unique in nature. When I speak
of remedies treating more than one archetype I am speaking specifically
about the use of the term in Jungian psychology. What I am saying is true
in the original paradigm that I am discussing and can be confirmed in the
clinic by anyone with knowledge of the field. This is not a superficial
view of the psyche. These images come directly from the Unconscious.
A remedy that has the essential nature of the more striking,
exceptional, unusual and odd characteristic of the patient is the best
simillimum. One has to approach the patient in a balanced fashion where
one's understanding of the essential remedy Gestalt is balanced with the
locations, sensations, modifications and concomitants of the individual
patient. Just generalizing the states down to one psychological portrait
does not explain all the "quirk symptoms" of the individuals and remedies
that are VERY important in finding deep acting remedies. The stranger,
rarer and more peculiar the symptom the better. Some of our best rubrics
are "non-logical" and do not related to linear causes. They may relate to
things we will NEVER understand. This is also part of Jungian psychology
and Homeopathy.
Yes, we try to capture the essential nature of the remedy by collecting
the characteristics and understanding how they relate to time and
progression. Hahnemann spoke of both the "essential nature" of the symptoms
as well as the "totality" of the symptoms. Both are very important. We
should understand to the best of our ability what these symptoms mean in
each remedy and each individual patient. One uses the Gestalt of the
symptoms to paint a portrait that reveals, as best as is possible, the Esse
of the remedy. There is no use in gathering al the symptoms if we don't
know what they mean.
I also try to understand the root causes behind signs and symptoms.
Proximate cause, however, is not always observable, linear or logical.
Therefore, we also need a system that can deal with logical cause as well
as synchronisms and non-linear phenomena. Hahnemann provided us with such a
system. To gain understanding of the Source one tries to grasp how the
totality of the symptoms point to the essential nature of the disease in
remedies and individual patient. A remedy hypothesis should contain all the
major facets that make up the whole which is more than the sum of its
parts. This composite view is the best glimpse of the essence.
The central theme of a remedy in its "absolute form"? No one can speak
in terms of the "absolute" while they live in the relative world. According
to Dr. Whitmont, a MD Jungian psychologist, one CAN"T see the absolute
transcendental essence of an archetype. You can only study the display of
its imminent Gestalt-pattern in the relative world through the senses and
mind. One may think they see the "absolute form" but in truth they are
only seeing a relative reflection which is neither absolute nor independent
from the person who is the observer. If one compares all the psychological
portraits of experienced homeopaths one will find many differences. This is
because they all only present a partial view because "beauty is in the eye
of the beholder".
This is the one central theme that expresses the "absolute form" of the
remedy??? This could be said about several remedies and many patients and
is not sufficient by itself to understand the uniqueness of Stramonium or
Stramonium patients! Many remedies are driven by confusion, fear and
vulnerability and demonstrate a battle between the unconscious and
conscious, light and dark and death and life! Why? Because this is a
*collective human existential dilemma*not the absolute form of any
so-called 'Stramonium archetype." This merely proves the point that one
cannot present a simple essence that express the whole "absolute form", or
its "transcendent archetype" of remedy. This is nothing more than a
therapeutic hint that needs to be filled out.

We could say the same about nearly every remedy in the Solanaceae
family as well as different remedies from different families that share a
similar existential dilemma. The symptoms used for the final differential
analysis would have to be much more individualized to the patient to find a
true simillimum. This says more about one level of a collective condition
than it does any single remedy or patient. One would need to find more
strikingly, uncommon, unusual, odd characteristic rubrics that really
express the individual patient that makes them different from the group
that shares a similar existential dilemma.
My fourfold review of psychopathology includes these ideas. This is an
expression of the bipolar nature of the human mind. This is a nice lecture
on a remedy but other observers will explain this remedy different ways
depending on their personal experience of patients and the angle of their
observation. Every experienced homeopath has such portraits but to think
such things grasp the absolute form of a transcendental archetype is a bit
presumptions. This is merely one useful picture of a remedy among many.
I have already made it clear that the total experience of a patient is
part of the unified disease-Gestalt. I have also noted that opposite states
are based on bipolar states, compensation and other coping mechanisms
within the unified psyche. I have suggested many times that just recording
the totality of the symptoms without understanding their essential nature
is not sufficient. I agree that we need to form an understanding of how the
symptoms all related to one another to understand the bigger picture. I
agree that we need to try an understand the root causes and their symptoms
as much as possible.

Where the problem is coming from is you (Piet) don't seem to
understand how I am using the word "undigested archetypes" in relationship
to Jungian psychology. Jungian archetypes are component parts of the
structure of the Unconscious NOT the Unconscious itself. To assess a
pattern of archetypes, mythologems and symbols like I gave for Natrum
Muriaticum helps us to understand the Unconscious which we cannot see or
explain in absolute terms. Each of these archetypal symbols becomes more
complete when they are interpreted and related to individual patients. This
is neither superficial nor ignoring the core of the psyche. They are the
visible direct expressions of the Priori.

What I am not supporting is the idea that ANY human being can SEE or
EXPLAIN the "absolute form" of a remedy in its totality with a single
symptom, keynote or simple essence. Even our best portraits cannot be
considered to express the absolute truth. I have never seen, nor expect to
see, such an explanation although pictures shared by experience homeopaths
are very valuable. Nevertheless, none of these explanations are the exactly
the same nor does any contain ALL there is to know from EVERY angle under
all circumstances and at all times. Why, because no human being can SEE the
absolute form of an Esse and no human being can express the absolute truth
in relative words. None one can explain the Unconscious because it is
UNCONSCIOUS. We can only offer our limited experience by viewing phenomena
which is automatically conditioned by the observer, time and circumstances.

The is no Absolute other than God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman - call it
what you will. No one can explain the Absolute in full. What we see are
relative phenomena based on the view of the observer conditioned by the
place, time and circumstances of that observation. Let our hubris not fly
too high.

Similia Minimus
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

David wrote:

If one compares all the patients taking the same
Hello David,

Yes, the contribution of one prover or patient of a remedy is only a part of
the complete picture. The patient can only produce symptoms that are
contained in the arsenal of his vital force.
When we have a thorough proving of a remedy, we can reconstruct what those
symptoms can be traced back to.
Not with absolute certainty, but relatively close enough to establish a well
founded hypothesis, which then can be verified and adjusted, so it can be
replaced by a safe foundation for prescription.
Yes, this is exactly, what this is about.
Yes, Masi has a special schema for this, which includes the Guiding motive,
Transcendental Quality, Man's life condition, Focus of the Inner Attention
and the five Nuclei: Guilt, Loss, Punishment, Longing and Justification,
Themes and Miasmatic dynamics. (It goes to far to elaborate all this here)
Oh no, this is not what is meant with this.
In it nature man is only relative and it isn't human possible to be absolute
perfect or complete at any point.
If man claims to be perfect on one point and refuses to be relative good at
that point, this has consequences.
This point is not chosen by coincidence, but is precisely that point where
the person individually has his susceptibility.
Man accepts to be relatively good at all other areas, just as everybody
else, but on that individual point it is hard to accept, because it has its
individual weakness precisely here; its inherited predisposition.
The hypothesis for this deepest susceptibility, can be expressed as the
claimed absolute ability, specified from mans conditions of life by the
relative area or absolute condition.
No, this comes from Paul Herscu, his proposed statement for Stramonium.
I would love to hear your statement of Stramonium
The Hypothesis must explain the deepest susceptibility and the miasmatic
dynamics of the remedy concerned.
This will help us to find the simillimum for the patient, which has a great
and fast curing potential.
We can only can get a clear picture of the symptoms of the remedy, when it
was prescribed as the true simillimum.
This means that the prescription is based on a 100% individual dynamic
picture.
When a remedy is prescribed as a layer the similarity is not at the deepest
level of the remedy and patient.
This is something similar to what Sankaran is doing with his search for 'the
Vital sensation'
He is trying to find the true dynamic symptoms, by excluding the less
accurate additional symptoms of the lower levels.
Sankaran recognizes seven levels, with the energy level as the highest
indication level, which also contains the involved miasm at that given time
as a fixed component of this pattern.
The way I understand this is that the Masi analysis goes even one level
higher, because it regards symptoms on the energy level as tri-miasmatic
expressions to the 8th higher transcendental level.

For more information, please read Per Neesgaards booklet: Man Miasm and
Modality - a Homeopathic Paradigm, which explains the Masi analysis very
well.

Very inspiring,

Kind regards, Piet