Minutus

"d_barbara_hamilton" wrote:

I agree, and hope this idea gets more discussion and examples.

Carol

Sorry ANdy I see it here. Thanks. I am about to order from india.

Barbara-
I admit that I have fallen into the same generalization tendency -
sorry. ( See how these masters corrupt...

OK Let me change my statement - some of the masters do... what is so
amazing is that a Keynote prescribing ( at best) at the mental level
has become a psychological approach on its own right and suddenly we
have so many arm-chair psychologists who have started analyzing the
ultimate reason that a symptom is there and talking about polarities
and what not.... it will be so funny if not so pathetic...

My gripe is that we have a tested, "scientific" system that of late -
sounds a lot like phrenology sans the cranium...
cannot know that
too, so are you not
anyone else would
to 'sting'? Doesn't
just individually
wrote:
views
is
main
the
indisposed
37)
people)
of)
G14)
(Discouraged;
(Deeds;
(Insolent)
(Company;
is an

Shannon-

I am not against the use of snapshots for teaching purposes- may be
to hold something in mind about the remedy. After all we need new
homeopathic doctors... but to say that this IS the remedy and if a
patient does not fit this picture to question the selection is way
too much... whether we want or not - our materia medica IS a laundry
list of symptoms. If you look at Hahnemann's cases ( at least the
ones I went thru) he does not prescribe because he saw an exact
Bryonia with whatever delusion or compensation working- he was
analyzing it one physical symptom after another... would it not have
been easy for him to remember 100 remedy "essences" when he himself
had been involved in their proving?

you do not mean to say that about 25 pages worth of Sulphur symptoms
in the Materia Medica Pura are waste and a 2 paragraph personality
picture can be used in its stead...

I once prescribed Silicea for a patient who had the sensation of
walking backward when she wanted to go forward- ( without seeing the
patient) and cured her. Did not know her personality or core
delusion to do this... stay with the phenomena as far as possible

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts - whether you use
generalities or mentals or delusions or whatever- you are not going
to improve the success rate...

your approach of understanding a remedy as "the curious george" etc.
is good if it "augments " your case taking- most often it will lead
to labeling a case just on seeing and you tend to convince yourself
about how this case is so like the "curious george" you know so well
and feel comfortable with...

It is better to deal with the laundry list and be as objective as
possible than go the road of cultivating friendships with
remedies... so that we do not get married to lop-sided views of
remedies...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
into
the
or
etc.
understanding
and
been
know
George
and "essences"
the
symptom
starting
previous
these
a "typical"
Pulsatilla.
and
only
like
of
of
location
Looking
worked a
present-
etc.
to
not
attendance
ideas
over,
just
and
who
wants
which is
with
wrote:
views
sympathy is
main
the
indisposed
37)
(Disturbed)
people)
presence of)
(Haughty)
191, G14)
(Discouraged;
(Deeds;
(Insolent)
(Company;
silent,
is an
recommendation
any
the
special,
to
Terms of

Hi,

Whilst I'm enjoying your humour H2O, it could be seen as barbed' (if you'll
pardon the pun) although I don't think it is aimed at me necessarily

I think I resemble that remark (!) - "Keynote presribing (at best) at the
mental level has become a psychological approach on its own right". One
recent turnaround on a rx would not have been achieved if I hadn't used just
one defining M/E keynote, as in hindsight, there was only one physical and
one 'sensation' which matched - and they were not within the presenting
complaint, which was also M/E. Surely it is about choosing the best
methodology for each individual ? In a highly mentalised case, you v. often
have few physicals and generals anyway ... so how would you go about your
selection ?

Intrigued with your damnation of what you call "analyzing the ultimate
reason that a symptom is there and talking about polarities and what not..."
If I had not realised polarity was important, I would not have prescribed
Nux to this gentle, shy, compassionate, totally non-irritable and
unambitious individual, who had violent (with a capital V) psychic 'dreams',
which were often clairvoyant. Three years on, he is totally free of any
phenomena and has reclaimed his 'ambition'. I'm not going to give his case
here, as I want to write it up one day as I have his permission, but if I
had not understood an "ultimate reason" for that symptom being there, he
would have given up hx and probably continued suffering the nightmares, as
he was dubious of coming in the first place.

So I'm afraid I don't choose "science" over understanding there may just be
a psychological 'reason' and therefore close the door on any potential
method of understanding 'what needs to be cured'. Personally, I thought hx
was an 'art and a science', and I tend towards the former as I'm creative
and intuitive. Perhaps we should just 'beg to differ' ?

bw, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:

Barbara,
This sounds awfully intriguing, and I would love to see your write-up!!!
But can you at least tell, what on Earth led you to give nux-v?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Barbless Barbara-
Nothing of this was aimed at you... sorry if it sounded like it...

I do a lot of Key Note prescribing and so I am not against Key
Noters either. In fact I believe a lot in Keynotes. It is when you
( not you personally so do not think of getting the barbed heckles
up) take that and claim that that is the one symptom that rules them
all ( THE CORE DELUSION) that one feels there is something wrong.
I am not against Law of signatures either.But when you just take the
appearance of something and derive a whole story about that and try
to connect all the symptoms of the remedy to its appearance - it
does not sound like a system of therapeutics but like watching King
Kong...

And that is what is happening now...analogies, metaphors everything
have their place - our symptom similarity is metaphorical... as long
as we are aware of the process and its limitations...

I am not against creativity - as long as there is a method to it, is
repeatable etc. We are not talking about writing Harry Potter... we
are dealing with patients and there is a limit to generating
stories...

I am not against arm-chair psychology as well... as long as it is
the last resort and not the first approach- homeopathy is not
perfect and it can never will be as predictable as regular medicine
because it deals with human psyche...and it is not putting people
into diagnostic pigeon-holes and by saying that this is a typical
Nux vom or whatever we should not be pigeon-holing people in a
different way...we need any which way that could lead to the
correct remedy and it is better adopt a time tested method to start
with to do that than wait for creative flashes of insight...
if it is done at the end I have no problem with that -
If the "standard" materia medica fails you because it is a
highly "mentalized" case - may be this is a place you can consider
analogical extensions but still there should be a method to grow the
materia medica with the experience - not supplant the existing
materia medica and claim that the remedy essence has been
understood - and still efforts must be made to verify such symptoms
by doing classical proving wherever possible... this is a workaround-
not an unlimited license to inductively jump all over the place...

And there is so much talk about this art and science part of
homoepathy... my sense of it is - it is not art like Picasso
paintings- art for me in homeopathy is not conjuring up a remedy on
specious grounds and analysis-
-It is perfection of the "medical" science to such an extent that
the practice of it is a thing of beauty...and
we are far away from that goal and getting farther away with all
the "psychedelic" art work...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "d_barbara_hamilton"
wrote:
(if you'll
necessarily
at the
right". One
used just
physical and
presenting
best
v. often
about your
ultimate
what not..."
prescribed
psychic 'dreams',
of any
his case
but if I
there, he
nightmares, as
may just be
potential
thought hx
creative
tendency -
is so
level
suddenly we
the
polarities
late -
you
generalised
or
We

Hi Hahnemannian,
I think we are in complete agreement as to the usefulness and
importance of that "laundry list"! I am only saying that, in my
understanding and sad experience, that laundry list *by itself* is a
frustratingly incomplete tool. In investigating a remedy I look for
*all* the information I can find about it, including "essence" and
periodic table position, anything that's available.

Whether you're using the "laundry list" or any of the "newfangled"
information on remedies, there are always issues around source
reliability, and what does or doesn't apply to the case at hand...

Re "cultivating friendships with remedies", well, maybe I am not
expressing it well (tho the analogy is not mine!). For e.g. Bell is so
strongly expressive of "suddenness", that we would have to "think very
hard" about whether to give it in a case where (perhaps the two
"laundry lists" matched nicely, but) the onset was slow rather than
sudden--slow onset would be very "out-of-character" for belladonna.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon - without giving too much away, as it is a fascinating case, it was the
visions, and the 'violence' of them (in such a sweet boy), so I had an inkling that
some form of 'integration' had to be addressed. He was not going to take it to any
form of psychologist, as he was understandably fearful of consequences, so it was
all the more astounding to him that hx did the trick. I still keep in contact with
him -- and he sends me people who he's shared his story with... he's still a lovely
boy.

bw, Barbara

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:

Very well put Chris, I often relate in first aid teaching that one must
always look at the key notes of the remedy in relation to the disposition
(constitution really but hard to relate to in early Hom learnings) of the
patient. The degree of mild and yielding in a patient who needs Pulsatilla
for example may vary considerably depending on what the persons usual
temperament is - ie far more noticable in a normally irritable individual to
a person who is normally much more mild and yielding, the latter much harder
to percieve at times and in the case of Pulsatilla can show more in the
changeability of the moods or teariness rather than its mildness. Of course
the physicals would be confirmatory but the mentals are not always as cut
and dried as we often rely on in the 'key notes'. Wonderful when they are
useful but can limit our perceptions if we always follow them. eg The
Belladonna is not always red, hot and throbbing, the pale version exists
also (particularly if interferred with by paracetamol) and if we only keep
the 'key notes in our minds we will miss the cues to not so well know
versions of the remedies. Regards Pauline