Minutus

Hi Andrew

I think, seeing that you are perhaps better read than me, you should put
forward to the group the differences in view and contrast between the
writings of CC and AS.

I will then comment!

Tnx
Soroush

Hi Suroush,
by all means:

Coulter = idea of fixed constitution, the 'Phosphorus
personality.'
Bring into the analysis the fixed characteristics and temperament of the
person [non-pathological traits] as well as manifesting symptoms. Bailey's
"Homeopathic Psychology" is the fruit of this trend beginning with Tyler.
Diseases don't really exist, we treat the person not the disease.

Saine = he argues his view is true Hahnemmanian, which has been hijacked by the above idea [well, this is my interpretation]. We do treat diseases, but we treat them as they appear in the patient, with any non pathologically-related symptoms being a special pointer for their unique manifestation. We don't treat the character of the patient, this is beyond homeoapthy and belongs to psychology or religion
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When did you last read CC?

Dear Andrew

There is a part of the Art of Homoeopathy which is about the description and
understanding of remedies in all stages disease . Although certain
characteristic run through a particular remedy, nothing about them is
'fixed'. That is why a particular remedy may be applicable to a vast number
of people in various stages along the health-disease spectrum.

Certainly a phosphor in deep disease is unlike a reasonably well phosphor.

Or if we take sulphur, there are so many facets to it - although perhaps all
sharing some traits - they can be very dissimilar to each other. You can
have the dirty Sulph and you can have clean and spruced up and smartly
dressed Sulph (though colour co-ordination may be a bit off ).

And this is why when you read Catherine Coulter you can see that she tries
to portray as many as these angles about each remedy that she describes so
as to try and give the spectrum about each remedy.

The other point is that there is nothing fixed in homoeopathy as far as
constitution is concerned. One may require treatment with Arsenicum one
year and another remedy at some other stage. For example one of my
relatives was an absolute Arsenicum when a teenager and now as an adult she
is completely different to an Arsenicum.

As far as I am concerned the path to finding the similimum can be tortuous,
but one must to one's best to cover the following:

As an unprejudiced observer, take the symptoms of the patient and the
prioritise them in degrees of importance (danger to life, pain, fear etc
take precedence over a lot of other symptoms).

Take particular notice of strange, rare and peculiar symptom, concomitants,
modalities, extensions etc

Try and form a balanced case where mentals, emotionals and particular are
well noted.

Then analyse this picture with the historical input about the patient's life
history, using all the means to hand find the remedy offering the best fit.
Most of these points we have gone through before and those better read and
more knowledgeable and experienced to Homoeopathy have explained in detail -
so I do not wish to re-invent the wheel.

My view of disease is that disease is not cancer or asthma or .... any other
'collection of symptoms given a name'.

It is the central disturbance of the patient that is the disease.

I think having seen some different armies behave in different ways, we can
perhaps use them to demonstrate this to good purpose.

Let us take the army that is well disciplined and under good central command
with proper lines of communication and control.
- i.e. a professional army.

And also lets us take another army that is not well disciplined and the
orders are made as situations arise and self interest is evident. A sad
example is what has happened in Yugoslavia where for the lack properly
formed central government (which has to have its own checks and balances) we
have a dictatorial person setting a few countries ablaze and thousands die
and are injured. In contrast we then have the peace-keeping force going in
and bring the place back in to relative order from chaos. So we can say
that we are moving from dis-ease to ease. This I hope demonstrates a
'chronic' situation.

So the most effective way of bringing about change is to work on the centres
of government and bring them to order.

However, again in a military example, we will have local attacks and
ambushes etc. So we must have the ability to handle local issues as well and
this demonstrates how we handle 'acute' situations. But in the resolution
of this type of local disputes etc one would need to be aware of the
patterns of life and the local psychological issues involved and in keeping
these in view one is better to resolve these issue.

So in terms of treating acutes, although we would pay attention to the local
symptoms, especially if they are life threatening, we need to take into
account any relevant mental and emotional CHANGES that have also taken
place.

So I hope despite my inability to explain things, I have managed to do just
to this problem this time.
If I have not, I am sure you will let me know.

Good healing
Soroush

I have noted that some colleagues on this site are promoting polypharmacy and also the use of remedies that have not been proved properly.
Just because a substance has been prepared through dilution and succusion, does not make it homoeopathic - even though you may be able to purchase from a 'homoeopathic pharmacy'.

From what I understand and have been taught, a classical Hn homoeopath would prescribe only remedies that have been proved and the basis of the prescription would be as set out in the Organon/Chronic diseases.

So as not confuse those who are student homoeopaths (and I remain one) if you are deviating from this course, please make it clear that your doing so and if possible, please justify your reasons so that we may evaluate your results accordingly..

Good healing
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Surely much of our materia medica and thus repertory, are formed from information not gained in provings at all, but from poisonings and clinical experience. No one proved any remedy to the point of gross pathology, at least not in humans. Some pathological work has been done on animals. The term classical homeopathy would to my mind imply a 'golden age' of homeopathy that is to be upheld as standard of form, culture, behavious etc, much as people would say classical greece. But homeopathy has never had that, it has bene a contiuous proces of change, growth, experiementation, new remedies, new ideas, all of which get tested over time. Let us define terms, by classical do you mean Hahnemann or Kent? It seems to me much of what is touted as Classical is really derived from Kents work based upon the 5th edition of the Organon. I dislike such labels, such things belong to a defensive posture, and belongs to the rational/logical aristoltealan male dominated world view.

Maybe it would be useful if definitions could be arrived at that all could concur with. Then those that disagree can enjoin others network, or create new ones!

T White wrote:
to me much of what is touted as Classical is really derived from Kents work
based upon the 5th edition of the Organon.

Indeed. But if we're going to get all hot and bothered about mixing other
disciplines of knowledge with homeopathy, then I'm afraid Kent's out!

This is the man who completely conflated homeopathy with Swedenborgianism.
("All my teaching is founded on that of Hahnemann and of Swedenborg; their
teachings correspond perfectly.") And, having done so, went on to state that
the method which Hahnemann had used, helped develop, and pronounced
"excellent and eminently desirable", was one which "has retarded the
development of homeopathy" and which "led far away from the trend of
Hahnemann, and homeopathy is destroyed by such methods."

Dang, where have I heard those arguments before ...?

Tongue-very-firmly-in-cheek,
Wendy

So we are asked what is Classical Homoeopathy? and would Hn carried on experimenting?

It is said that no two days of one's should be the same.

Of course man must evolve and develop his techniques. Only a fool would deny this. It is of course correct that Hn was a great experimenter. But look at his method... was he jumping from one branch to another or was there a great scheme of work.

Of course had he lived on the organon might have been different. In fact if you read 'The Homoeopathic Love Story' you will see that Hn was experimenting almost to the end.

But what up sets me is that people who have never read the Organon or the Chronic Diseases are trying to tell us what Homoeopathy is all about. They then try and experiment with things they do not fully understand. My advice is try Hn's way first and exhaust it - if it still does not work, then scientifically experiment.

Many years ago I drew up this little chart for myself and I share it with you :

Principles of Classical Homoeopathy.
The modern Classical Homoeopath understands and applies the following concepts:
1. The role of Vital Force

2. Susceptibility

3. Miasms
[The above three define the individual]

4. Symptom similarity

5. Dilution & Potentisation

6. Proving

7. Prescription of a SINGLE remedy and waiting for reaction.

8. Herring's Laws of cure

That is to say, during cure the symptoms will move in the following manner:

· From more vital organs to lesser organs

· Generally from inside out (taking the least harmful and shortest route)

· Generally from head towards the toes
In applying the above, the modern Classical Homoeopath:

v Studies and re-studies the Organon, Chronic Diseases and books by Kent, Boger, Farrington, Herring and others in depth and keeps homoeopathic principles in the foreground of mind.

v Maintains / improves the standards of Homoeopathy, always questioning what is read or heard and asks without hesitation.

v Does not engage or enter into futile transcendental speculations.

v Whilst trying to recognise his or her prejudices, strives to be an unprejudiced observer, concerning both the patient and the remedy (and colleagues??).

v Understands miasms and their effects.

v Is humbled by working with the enormous power of the Vital Force and potentised remedies.

v In acute and chronic cases, takes the whole case and while prioritising on the important symptoms, prescribes on the totality of presenting symptoms covering mental, emotional, general, concomitants and rare & peculiar symptoms that often lead to the Similimum.

v REPERTORISES every time, even when a known remedy case appears to be presenting.

v In selecting a remedy, uses every tool available including the advice of colleagues.

v If in doubt does not prescribe but rechecks notes or retakes the case on another day.

v Uses only one remedy at a time, never repeating until the results and the reaction of the Vital Force have been observed. (Of course in acute cases one may have to prescribe every few minutes)

v Does not use unproven remedies.

v Selects the potency of the remedy with great care.

v Follows Hahnemann's instructions faithfully, resorting to a different technique only as a last resort.
I should be grateful for any comments on improving the above.
Good healing and may the force of enlightenment with us.

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

So we are asked what is Classical Homoeopathy? and would Hn carried on experimenting?

It is said that no two days of one's should be the same.

Of course man must evolve and develop his techniques. Only a fool would deny this. It is of course correct that Hn was a great experimenter. But look at his method... was he jumping from one branch to another or was there a great scheme of work.

Of course had he lived on the organon might have been different. In fact if you read 'The Homoeopathic Love Story' you will see that Hn was experimenting almost to the end.

But what up sets me is that people who have never read the Organon or the Chronic Diseases are trying to tell us what Homoeopathy is all about. They then try and experiment with things they do not fully understand. My advice is try Hn's way first and exhaust it - if it still does not work, then scientifically experiment.

Many years ago I drew up this little chart for myself and I share it with you :

Principles of Classical Homoeopathy.
The modern Classical Homoeopath understands and applies the following concepts:
1. The role of Vital Force

2. Susceptibility

3. Miasms
[The above three define the individual]

4. Symptom similarity

5. Dilution & Potentisation

6. Proving

7. Prescription of a SINGLE remedy and waiting for reaction.

8. Herring's Laws of cure

That is to say, during cure the symptoms will move in the following manner:

· From more vital organs to lesser organs

· Generally from inside out (taking the least harmful and shortest route)

· Generally from head towards the toes
In applying the above, the modern Classical Homoeopath:

v Studies and re-studies the Organon, Chronic Diseases and books by Kent, Boger, Farrington, Herring and others in depth and keeps homoeopathic principles in the foreground of mind.

v Maintains / improves the standards of Homoeopathy, always questioning what is read or heard and asks without hesitation.

v Does not engage or enter into futile transcendental speculations.

v Whilst trying to recognise his or her prejudices, strives to be an unprejudiced observer, concerning both the patient and the remedy (and colleagues??).

v Understands miasms and their effects.

v Is humbled by working with the enormous power of the Vital Force and potentised remedies.

v In acute and chronic cases, takes the whole case and while prioritising on the important symptoms, prescribes on the totality of presenting symptoms covering mental, emotional, general, concomitants and rare & peculiar symptoms that often lead to the Similimum.

v REPERTORISES every time, even when a known remedy case appears to be presenting.

v In selecting a remedy, uses every tool available including the advice of colleagues.

v If in doubt does not prescribe but rechecks notes or retakes the case on another day.

v Uses only one remedy at a time, never repeating until the results and the reaction of the Vital Force have been observed. (Of course in acute cases one may have to prescribe every few minutes)

v Does not use unproven remedies.

v Selects the potency of the remedy with great care.

v Follows Hahnemann's instructions faithfully, resorting to a different technique only as a last resort.
I should be grateful for any comments on improving the above.
Good healing and may the force of enlightenment with us.

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

A very open minded approach That's good. All of this was summed up several
years ago when some said to me " homeopathy is a diagnosis of symptoms,
conventional medicine is a diagnosis of disease" . Two completely different
philosophies and protocols. The concern I have with the polypharmacy is that
it takes it's basis from a diagnosis of the diseased state. That approach
can create a hybrid analysis that more times than enough shorts both
homeopathy and allopathy.

Bob