Minutus

altho, the AMA worked mightily to diminish homeopathy, it was the infighting and individualism amongst homeopaths
that prevented them from mounting a meaninful political campaign to sustain the profession. there is nothing new
about this. it is an old problem in any issue. if people are too busy bickering and pushing their own egos, they lose
sight of the big prize and can be overcome--and that is just as true for homeopathy as any other issue. it is also interesting
that the Rockefeller concerns fought homeopathy since they subscribed on a personal level.

tanya

Dear Tanya,
While this is true, there is a difference between personal, ego-motivated
bickering and genuine debate. The latter is absolutely necessary to the
evolution of knowledge, filtering the valid ideas from the less valid. In
homeopathy, which is so riven with contradiction and confusion, this is even
more essential than in other sciences.

Dave has written -
Yes, I could not agree more. I also agree with Andrew that the "dolphin"
factor has no place in homeopathy.

George A. Kaplan

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Dear Shannon and Andrew, I would like to offer a few points on this
discussion.

I kind of agree with Andrew about the problems of the word "constitutional"
and its application in Homeopathy. People have diseased states that, with
proper and careful Homeopathic practice, will respond to the simillimum. So
you could say 'remedy states' instead. There is only one simillimum for each
diseased state although other, close remedies might also do some good (or
bad) work as well.

The situation becomes clouded when, during case taking, the Homeopath can
'see' a number of remedy states. This can occur for many reasons - we don't
know enough about our Materia Medicas and cling only to a few and see those
remedies in everyone - or the homeopath might be able to see a miasmatic
influence in the background - or if it is a genuinely layered case we might
be able to recognise a number of remedy states that the client might have
needed at other times during their life - or the whole picture might be
clouded because of allopathic drugs and it is hard to see one true and clear
remedy picture.

In my opinion it is best to keep it as simple as this and I cannot see any
room for 'constitution' - although I admit to using the word myself, and I
think a great deal of work is necessary to make sure our terminology is
correct.

Much as I really like to read Catherine Coulter I think she also has
contributed greatly to the 'constitutional' dilemma. Her writings of remedy
states are very full, detailed and largely very reliable but there is a
great tendency, which I am sure is unintentional, when writing about these
totality constitutional types, to encourage people to prescribe on healthy
states and not diseased states. I don't think this helps the student of
homeopathy in learning good case taking skills.

Although it is true to say that there is a fusion between a healthy state
and a diseased state, in as much as there is often no clear dividing line.
For example, when someone becomes ill and develops a Pulsatilla remedy state
and this remedy is prescribed and they are cured, it is highly likely that
one will still be able to see traits of Pulsatilla in that person - I think
this is where many want to apply the term 'constitutional.'

I also wanted to pick up on a couple of points that Shannon made:-

she wrote...

Well, actually, one could argue that there is a 'type' of person who gets
themselves into these sort of situations - we make our own luck, good or
otherwise.

also...
This is just susceptibility and the miasmatic influences at work.

also...

sure the early guys did fine without considering

The MM's are full of "deep" case examples.

I am not sure about the word "deep" either when applied to remedies - we
either prescribe the simillimum or we do not. There might be remedies that
are described as short acting but if curable then that is 'deep' enough for
me. In my experience the simillimum will always do amazing things. Partially
correct remedies will always partially heal - completely wrong remedies,
well that's another discussion.

Best wishes, Joy

George,

I have no problem with the ideas of the discussion and accept differing opinions regardless of my positon.
What I dont accept is the disparaging type of commentary which is emotional and bickering and does nothing to foster
respect or enhance the dialogue. We have had so much of this on this list (and elsewhere). I am just plain tired of it.

tanya

Hi Andrew,

on 1/3/03 2:04 AM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:
I understand that, but my understanding has been that "disease" requires
"susceptibility", and I would think that susceptibility is a function of
(what we're calling) constitution. To use an analogy, if my kid is hanging
out with "bad influences", I might (treat the disease) tell them all to stay
away, ground her, etc. Or I might (treat the "constitution") make sure she
is mentally clear and strong enough to make (what I think are) "the right
choices", and trust that their influence will not go deep. Fact is that in
some cases constitutional treatment *does* seem to result in throwing off
disease. At least, that's been my strong impression, from my and others'
experiences.
Okay, that makes sense to me...

Oh, I certainly agree! Clearly there is *no* approach that works 100% for
every patient/circumstance. Vive la full toolchest!

since co-called classical

Yep, I agree.
Actually, thinking back on my own introductory experience, in spite of how I
loved my first remedy, it in fact didn't help the injury I'd come in with,
and I wound up taking a two-year "detour" thru various other methods (which
*did* help) before returning to homoepathy. And the reason was just as you
say, my homeopath was too "married" to the constitutional approach to accept
that it wasn't working, and take a "lesional" approach (which turned out to
be what was needed). So I *heartily* agree that "constitutional"
prescribing is not the be-all & end-all. I am only puzzled at the
assertions that it doesn't have its (substantial, from my experience)
place, too.

Shannon

Don't forget the best way to diminish a group through infighting and
individualism is to 'plant' people in a group to cause a break-up through
such means.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
Editor of Homeopathy, Suite101
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

Well George, let's hope you don't ever receive a client who needs Dolphin as
their remedy. How do you feel about unproved but nonetheless very important
and oft used remedies, e.g. some of the tissue salts. Is there no room for
these in Homeopathy?

Joy Lucas
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Hi Joy,

on 1/4/03 6:29 AM, Joy Lucas at joy.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
But to complicate the matter, there are different possible
"definitions"/boundaries of the disease state. E.g. local, larger,
miasmatic, etc. Which is why we can get useful responses from a variety of
different remedies, "aimed" at a variety of different aspects of the whole.
I do think this is the crux of the matter -- how one "defines" / sees the
"disease".
close remedies might also do some good (or

And a remedy could be "close" to various aspects -- "close" to the M/E
picture, or a local picture, or an organ picture, etc. Or (?) a
"constitutional" picture(?? still working on it...).

Would a "local picture" be considered a "layer"? I think that's yet a
different distinction, isn't it?

we might

Well, maybe my main problem is a terminology one.
But if it's not "constitution" that determine susceptibility and specific
response, then what *is* it? What word would be better to use?
Yes, but then we have to ask, if I got hit by that truck because I had run
screaming into the street (let's say I'm a stram in midst of a crisis), will
stram be the best remedy to treat my bruising and physical pain? Is it the
stramonium "susceptibility" that was challenged by the physical trauma, or
would Arnica (or other trauma rx) still be a better starting point? (And I
know that some would use the "real" constitutional, as they define it, to
treat every trauma and illness. I know that sometimes this is done
successfully [e.g. Mangialavore], and I am still rather awed and confused by
that idea...)
Then again, what causes, carries, whatever, the susceptibility, and what
determines the *expression* of the miasmatic influences, or any other
disease influence?
I know. As noted, in some cases you *will* come to the "deep" remedy thru
an avenue such as acute, local, lesional, etc. (the word "deep" here is my
own choice, but I think the meaning is clear?). And perhaps this
(change-your-life and fix-it-all "deep" response) was the norm or goal for
their prescribing, I don't know. Most of the cases don't seem to have
enough follow-up to allow for opinion, and for the most part, they do not
note peripheral symptoms (quality of life, other issues, or often even
mental state), which implies that the only symptoms of concern were the
specific disease symptoms. Maybe this is just for ease of write-up, but
that's not the impression I've been left with.
Well, I could substitute the term "true simillimum", but that is a judgment
call and it's only in retrospect that the judgment can be made!

It happens so often that a patient does "well" for some time on "pretty
good" remedies. It happens often enough that the *patient* is happy with
the results, but the prescriber is less happy, because s/he knows that more
is possible. ("Sure his CC is better and he's happier, but what about ...,
why isn't that changing?") There are different "degrees" of simillitude
possible, or, back to my term of convenience, different depths of
simillitude, and of action.

Still have to chew more on the "constitution" thing...
But I'd think that, to treat at a really central level, the level that
"runs" everything, you'd need to take constitution (/susceptibility / style
of response) into account at some point. (Or, I should say, the *remedy*
would need to address constitutional/susceptibility/style of response; how
you came to give the remedy is at that point immaterial.)

Anyway, I am interested in hearing more about all this...

Thanks!
Shannon
There might be remedies that

I think the main issue with e.g. dream provings is not "are they sometimes
valid", but other things...

On the one hand I (personally) have *lots* of qualms about meditative
provings, dream provings, seminar provings -- and I lump them together
primarily because they share the common characteristic of being, um,
"unapproved alternatives" to "real" provings. On the other hand, some of
the folks involved in these seem to be terrific folks, sincere, and
apparently producing some useful results. Bbut golly, what a lot of room
for "squishy thinking", lack of objectivity, results possibly questionable
for a whole host of possible reasons. Time (and lots of cases!) will
tell...

If I hear someone say, "I just have a feeling that horse is going to win,"
the first things I'll ask are e.g., "Does s/he have these "feelings" often?
How often are they right/wrong? How much can I afford to lose, if this time
s/he is wrong?" In other words, track record!

And if I wind up making a fortune betting "dark horses" on the basis of
someone's "feelings", I might feel okay talking about it; but if the track
record isn't there yet, I might keep the experiment to myself for a while...
Anyone know anything about the "track record" of any of the meditatively
proved remedies? (Clinical use is another subject -- I am *not* planning to
lump clinical results in with dream provings!!!)


Shannon

on 1/4/03 9:00 AM, Joy Lucas at joylucas_speaktv@hotmail.com wrote:

Shannon said:
"susceptibility", and I would think that >susceptibility is a function of
(what we're calling) constitution.
and
& end-all. I am only puzzled at the assertions that it >doesn't have its
(substantial, from my experience) place, too.

I don't think anyone has said this, certainly not me. What I have said is
that it is not from Hn, and it certainly isn't. But as long as people don't
call it Hn homeopathy they can experiment with it and develop protocols if
it works [a better name for it might be neo-classical]. And i agree it
certainly does seem to work sometimes. The problem is that these
successful cases have been used to build a whole new theory, which is way
too premature. In the meantime the tried method, most exemplified by Lippe,
Cowperthwaite, Farrington et al, has been almost thrown out.

If we use Kent's example, the businessman gets into a Nux state. The
'neo-classical' idea is that Nux personalities take up business. Maybe so,
but let's see a lot more hard evidence before we take this on board, because
the concept of a personality type which resonates with a substance is not
from Hn. it really derives its inspiration from Paracelsus. But if you
have this concept fixed in your mind you will look for it always, though
it's never been established. Hn warned against building up some kind of
metaphysical system from the 'bare' language of nature as expressed in
symptoms.

anyone is quite entitled to speculate of course, as long as they know it is
speculation and dont also fool others. The dolphin spawn are certainly
doing either one or the other or both.

andrew