Minutus

Thanks, I will try to get if available.

What bothers me with ICT, is not the concept at all but the way to get
there.
Irene has given a beautiful description of her cat Minerva which she
claims is/was Lachesis. But WHY Lachesis? why not a Phosphorus? what
leads this type of pelvis to belong to this remedy/ICT, that anatomical
presentation to that remedy/ICT?

That was never explained. Or I missed it.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

On 12/10/2015 12:01 a.m., Bob Needham bneedham@amtelecom.net [minutus]
wrote:

Fair queston.

WHen first collected the feautres of ICT types togethere I did noit know they each aligned with a remedy, I just knew they were always inherited as a specific set of traits that go together.

Only later I saw for most of them (still not all of them) that:
* There is ONE remedy that aligns woth each set of inherited traits.
* It is always a one-to-one relationship, so never two possible remedies for one set of inherited traits, always only one.
And also never two sets of inherited traits correspondiong with one rtemedy - it is one remedy, one set of traits.

Some sets of traits have taken me a long time to find their assciated remedy, but each tie I found it, the list of matching rubrics just went on an on and on, coinfirming it.

Here are some of the Lachesis rubrics that allowed me to align Minerva's inherited trait set, with Lachesis.
I have left out the ones that are also found in Phos. But they are also relevant, and Lachesis IMPLEMENTS the rubric differently than Phos does, for the ones they share.
For example boith are social but in differnet ways, and both are loquatious but in different ways and so on.

Lach without Phos examples are (Lach rubrics from Radar-10):
MIND - ABRUPT - harsh
MIND - ANGER - jealousy; with
MIND - ANIMALS - love for animals - cats
MIND - ANSWERING - dictatorial
MIND - ART - inability for
MIND - BED - aversion to, shuns bed
MIND - BOASTER
MIND - BOASTER - rich, wishes to be considered as
MIND - CHAOTIC - orderly manner; cannot perform anything in
MIND - CONTEMPTUOUS
MIND - DELIRIUM - foreign - language; talks in a
MIND - DETERMINATION
MIND - ECCENTRICITY
MIND - EGOTISM - children; in
MIND - ELEGANCE - want of elegance
MIND - GESTURES, makes
MIND - IMITATION, mimicry
MIND - INTELLIGENT - children
MIND - JEALOUSY
MIND - JEALOUSY - animal or an inanimate object; for
MIND - JEALOUSY - children - in
MIND - JEALOUSY - loquacity, with
MIND - LOQUACITY - cheerful, exuberant
MIND - LOQUACITY - children; in
MIND - LOQUACITY - excited
MIND - LOQUACITY - mental exertion, after
MIND - MANIPULATIVE - children - nurslings
MIND - MOCKING - jealousy, with
MIND - MOCKING - ridicule; passion to
MIND - MUSIC - amel.
MIND - MUTILATING his body
MIND - PLAYING - desire to play
MIND - POSITIVENESS
MIND - PROPHESYING
MIND - QUICK to act
MIND - SERIOUS
MIND - SITTING - aversion to sit
MIND - SOCIABILITY
MIND - SPEECH - extravagant
MIND - SUICIDAL disposition - pains, from
MIND - THREATENING
MIND - TRAVELLING - desire for
MIND - VIOLENT - touch, from
MIND - WEATHER - rain - trickling of the rain amel.
MIND - WILL - strong will power
GENERALS - AGILITY
GENERALS - ANALGESICS; from
GENERALS - ANTIPYRETICS; from
GENERALS - EASE, cozy, comfortable; feeling at
GENERALS - FANNED; being - desire to be
GENERALS - FANNED; being - desire to be - slowly
GENERALS - LIE DOWN - desire to - eating; after
GENERALS - MEDICINE - allopathic - oversensitive to
GENERALS - WEATHER - wet weather - amel.

There are anecdotes that apply to all of these.
Short of writing a book on it, here are a few examples:
Lach personality is a "my way or the highway" type of personality, and with great hauteur. If you cross them they will give you a warning with their piercing eyes (which seem to look right through you in a most intense and clearly warning fashion) and if the warning is not h eeded, they will be angry and may attack violently.
Examples:
Minerva (or any Lach) in a show cage, expects to be ASKED (invited as if they are royalty) to walk out of it to the judges table. A steward who turned her round to pull her out the "official way", backwards, got "the look" which she made the mistake of ignoring, and Minerva raked her arms with claws till she let go. That was the end of her show career. TIll then she was very happy to come out when asked and to perform like royalty and win the show.
..dictatorial, boaster, abrupt, harsh, violent from touch, egotism, quick to act, serious, strong will power etc all apply.
Her vet used to say, "I dunno how she does it but she always manages to look regal" She acted it and expected deference as such.

Yet the "want of elegance" also applies. She did not care how she looked in some situations, for exaple if she had kittens to feed, she sat leaning back in a corner, with lags splayed and all teats exposed so the kittens could all get on with it quickly. And that also was the favorite position to get her tummy fur blown. She loved that, but you'd get clawed for touching her tummy, she was ticklish.
What SHOULD be in the repertory but is not, is that Lach is very easily distracted. (Easily distracted is not a listed rubric for any remedy.) SO if you get "the look" from a Lach, the best is not to oppose him/her as you'd be attacked, they do not tolerate contradiction, but to distract her. Same applies in all Lach types. "chaotic, not in orderly manner" is the closest rubric here, or "concentration difficult", another LACH emphasized rubric.

I listed positive, clairvoyant, prophesying, talks in foreign language type rubrics. These are harder to explain mainly because my own brain rejects what it perceived. I also listed the serious bad reactions to analgesics, antipyretucs etc, and in fact Minerva was killed by a buprenex injection the vet had given her despite my written instruction not to use it. As I held her when she was dying, (at which time I did not know she had been given buprenex, it was omitted from her chart, so my remedy choices were incorrect) she put her head up, looked me straight in the eyes in her intense way but to get attention, not an expression of warning, and she said clearly in plain English, "Forgive them!" and then laid her head back down and died. The thing is, I somehow knew she referred not to the vet, but to my parents.

She loved playing in the rain, playing with water, playing in the shower, asked me to fil the sink around her so she could play in water. Other Lach cases also have these likes/dislikes.
BUT she hated wind, from a sm1all kitten, and no Lach wants to get cold so all the Lach cats carry a winter coat even in summer. (Oppositre of Puls who carries a summer coat in winter). They just make it heavier in winter. That way they can be outside if they wish, without getting cold.
Rubrics wet weather amel, rain trickling amel, (dislike of wind is there but shared with phos.)
Agility wise, she was amazing, and an example is here, botom of the webpage:
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/catrun.html

Here too, agility is a too general expression and different ICTs do it differently.
Lach has the kind of agility seen in the webpage above.
Cala-phos is also extremely agile, and in that agility rubric, but their agility looks like tightrope walking, and they can turn on a narrow ledge or pipe and go back the other way, as if they are just flowing along. They would never hang and go hand over hand as lach can do.

Sociability also varies between Lach and others.
Lach will take over the party, and be the entertainment, where Phos will be finding out who is doing what where and with whom. Minerva took her mouse toy to soeone visitng, and had them toss it for er to fetch, then checked out who she would honor next with her mouse to toss. SHe even had my cat hating brother playing with a toy with her, as a kitten, and I caught him at it when I got home...."manipulative children" "socializing" etc applies

Self mutilation:
She had a small unattached tumor (lipoma?) on her underside that I had decided to leave alone - till I found she had almost chewed it right off. Lach has tumors, self-mutilation.

Lach cats do fast "drive-bys" at night past the bed, expecting a quick stroke, but would not lower themselves to sleep on a bed. (Phos are happy to sleep on top of their owner). Can not find her sitting, not ever a photo of a client Lach cat sitting:-) Phos loves to sit, and they sit very pretty...

Intelligence is very high in Lach. I could write a dozen examples..
I covered a few examples, but hopefully enough to show th at the link between Lach inherited traits and the ruubrics associated with Lach, are a match and do not match any other set of iherited traits.
It is not just one anatomical feature, the Lach inherited traits determined via genetics is a very long llist of traits that go together. Just as the rubrics also are a long list. I have only mentioned a few correlations here. There are so many more.
For all ICT set matches with a remedy, I have sought out multiple examples of the ICT trait sets, as one cannot use a single example with any great certainty of the consistency of the inherited trait set.. Each feature is verified in multiple examples of that ICT. AFter a while it is fun to spot specific unique (rare and peculiar?) behavior or physical traits of an ICT, and find theor ICT relatively predictable from that indicator (always wise to check a lot of features of course).

Once documented and linked with a remedy:
Specific features are easier for specific ICTs as initial clues, AFTER the connection is made.
So if more ICTs can be documented as to their "inherited traits to remedy match", it will be easier to confirm or find a ICT type for any individual.

I initially found the connection between inherited type groups (groups of innate inherited traits) and their one remedy each - quite by accident - to my amazement at what nature had done for us. I did not start out looking for remedies.
I just knew from my genetics work that traits are inherited as sets, not as random genetic combinations from the genes of parents as the genetics theory teaches.
Finding one (and only one) remedy associated with each set, was to come later - after I learned about homeopathy - and one day the connection just stuck me in the eye.
I hope this helps?
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

Your posts on ICT's are great, thanks for this! May I ask what the ICT of the skin cancer dog was you described a few weeks ago. I think you wanted to disclose it in a separate message. I would love to know. My guess is phosphorus.

Thanks,

Jeanine
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

Great explanation, thank you.

This is similar, but not identical, to the way I get to a Core remedy.

But I seem to see a contradiction, as you wrote earlier that you are not using disease/pathological rubrics.
Mind, delirium, speaks in foreign language, seems to be one.

Where do you put the limit?

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Dear Joe,

It is true I do not consider any disease to be part of an ICT. Diseaes are not unique enough, the sae disease can occur in multiple ICTs, it therefore is not unique and cannot be an ICT feature.
But I do consider illness predispositions to be part of the ICT.
In some cases, those can be useful to initially help to connect a set of inherited traits (which include higher propensity to be susceptible to certain illnesses) to a remedy. It can be difficult to connect a trait set to a remedy without at first using illness predispositions since the repertory is full of those illness predispositions adn you need to sart with some clue as to how to connect them up. But it does not make the illnesses part of the ICT, only he predisposition to that kind of illness.

Looking deeper you find the ICT-predelictions are very specific to ICT.

For example
In Lachesis, due to their huge volume of milk made, they will be prone to getting mastitis if it is not drained off (eg if baby dies). So if I am analysing a case to find the ICT, and the individual HAS had a history of mastitis, that connects with having a great deal of milk suddenly not used (eg teats scratched by kitten claws, and cat disallows use of damaged teats due to pain) I will use mastitis as a predisposition in an analysis to find ICT leading to Lachesis.
If the mastitis is due to other causes, I will not use it as a prediposition pointing to Lach.

Two activities need to be separated:

One activitiy is my initial linking of a set of inherited traits, to a remedy. Here the illness predispositions are one of many possible links to try to connect these up, along with behavior, and other mind and generals rubrics. (There is no individual under consideration here).
Once I have a possible link between the two, I then study the entire list of rubrics (usually about 10,000 of them) for a remedy to see if I can confirm the link and validate a remedy for those inherited ICT traits. AT that point I am not using disease predispositions any more, as I want more unique links to prove the connection. I will especiually look at rubrics with very few remedies. This is similar in a way, to lookingin the MM after you have a short list from the reperotry in normal simillimum work, except that you do not expect to see contradictions. Every rubric needs to be potentiaqlly possible within the ICT - or else it is incorrectly represented/interpreted in the repertory (which happens).
SO it is a lot of work to initially link an ICT to a remedy with confidence, but the rubrics list analysis will always confirm it and then some.

The other activitity is that of finding the ICT of an individual. Here I do avoid illness predispositions, as there is nearly always enough data from the main remedy linking analysis, to confirm an ICT based on unique-to-the-ICT features.
Where I have a case that is hard to do that way, I would then consider including illness predispositions to help me reach a better short list of options for the individual.

In a worst case scenario, where I just do not have enough data (clients are not all good at filling in questionnaires or else they may not know the aninmal well), I will use a reverse approach, and decide on a few options as best I can, and write up a few paragraphs of ICT-SPECIFICS for each of the options, and ask the client to say how each description does or does not fit the animal. That will either confirm one of my educated guesses, or wil provide enough input to finish the analysis to a correect ICT. Here I will also ask for a history of medical issues, with a view to matching illness predispositions to help find the ICT.
It would be fair here to iclude such a thing as high volume milk suddenly not drained reslting in mastitis, as that is unique as a way to get mastitis, and I know of no other ICT with high volume milk. SO it is ICT-specific enough to consider.

I do not see the actual disease as part of ICT ever. The ability to get the disease is there, shared with other ICTs, not the certaity of getting it. Diseae predispostition is a non-specific clue in ICT determination, like a roadmap leading there at best, which may help limit the options I look at in seeking an answer. TO confirm an ICT I must use only sure facts that apply to all members of that ICT that are potentially possible. That can include a presispositon to a disease, as all memeebrs of the ICT have the same predispositions - but cannot include having a disease, as all members of the ICT do not have the disease. (By disease, I include all kinds, such as acute, chronic, miasms, sensitivities to chemicals, foreign invaders, nutrient issues, injuries.)

AS part of this work I do see differences between how an ICT expresses a rubric that fits them.
It makes the whole repertory more complicated but more specific to ICT.

For example the WAY mastitis is espressed in Lach versus say Platina. Platina mastitis is predisposed by large volume of breast tissue rather than large volume of milk as in Lach. But the repertory just has "Mammae- Inflammation" for this, it has no differentiation.

For example Lach and Phos are both in the rubric "loquatious". WHat is missing is that Phos chats to know what is happening where and who is doing it, and to negotiate diplomatic results in arguments, and in general to be a social butterfly.
Lach could care less who is doing what where, and has zero diplomacy, except to meet their own ends, in which case they can turn on the charm. They wish to impart knowledge and information to others and receive deference in return. Lach will tell you - with great passion to get you to act (they do everything with intensity and passion) - that you are starting to have a heart attack so DO something, or that someone came to visit while you were out and took something with them.

Both illness related, and personality related tubrics, have specific interpretations - specific to the ICT.
Knowing the differences is helpful in ICT work, but not only for ICT work.
There is SO much information about each ICT that could/should be added to the repertory, and while that would increase the volume of data in there multiple times, it would also make it easier to spot a specfic remedy match - boith for ICT work AND for simillimum work - due to the specific implementation of each rubric by an ICT type.

But I digress. In summary:
I hope I answered your question on disease - that illness predispositions are part of an ICT but no actual disease is part of an ICT - the principle being that ICT features occur in ALL members of the ICT, in order to be an ICT feature.
(So this excludes epigene switches as they do not occur the same in all members of an ICT.)

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Jeanine,

Thanks for yor interest and much appreciated feedback.

Burger, the collie with cancer, is a Sulphur ICT.
A clue from his healthy photo, is how much he loves being in the cold in the snow, even lying down in it. He has a very dense ruff and coat in general, and heavy shoulders/neck. Phos does not make a very dense coat, has very fine flyaway fur and has a long neck, all predisposing them to loss of body heat and thus to respiratory illnesses in the cold, which they avoid. If Phos had to be in the snow, they would stand or sit, but not lie in it with a smile on their face.

Burger's appearance when sick, gives no clue to his ICT which is one reason I do not use illness features in determining an ICT of an individual. He looks a little phos-like in his illness photo, with wispy fur ends and a thin coat.
But his body buid is still Sulph, though less easy to tell in the illness photo. His individual fur is not fine as it looks, superficially in that picture. My questionanire asks for body proportions/measurements, and weight/boning, how they move/walk, ad so on, to overcome this issue, plus photos/videos when healthy.

An interesting aspect of ICT is that their physical features and their likes and dislikes, all align with their illness predispositions.
Another example is that Lycopodium has very narrow hips, and has an illness predisposition to hip dysplasia, especially if their parents are both narrow-hipped.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

OK, thanks, need to digest that.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

I shall try for more clarity. I read my email and it likely missed some important points.

An ICT is and has, all the inherited characteristics to be found in every member of the ICT in every species.
If the characterisrtic is not in every member of the ICT in all species who could possibly display the feature, then it is not an ICT characteristic.

Many of those characteristics are unique to the ICT, and occur in no other ICT, and these are the ones I like to use when determining the ICT of an individual, if possible and if I happen to know them and spot them.
There are other characteristics that occur in all members of an ICT, but which may also occur in one or more other ICTs. These are still valid ICT features, but not unique ones. This includes all the illness predispositions, as I know of no illness that occurs in one ICT alone. They all can occur in multipe ICTs.
SO then - seeking an ICT for an individual, is a bit like repertorizing, as you like to know some unique features to lead you to the remedy, (strange, rare and peculiar features of an ICT) and it is easy to verify other features when you have such a potential target remedy to start with.
But it is a mistake to use CURRENT illness features here, to seek an ICT as those will actually disguise the ICT features and NOT look the way they should for the ICT. See my email to Jeanine several hours ago about the dog with cancer who looked to her like a phos (and his illness picture does look somewhat phos-ish). He is a SUlph. But that is how one goes wrong in ICT selection - looking at illness features. It is essential to exclude the ravages of illness and to use only the fixed features of an ill animal, such as bone length ratios, ribcage shape, or the features of the individual when last they were healty, or any time they were healthy. Illness features will belong to many ICTs, however many can get that illness, and have that illness predisposition, so they will HIDE the true ICT from you, and must be excluded in seeking the ICT.
(You use those features to seek a Simillimum, not to seek an ICT.)

Examples of Characteristics unique to an ICT, that help point it out:
The guy standing in line in front of you at the checkout, with his pants falling down as he has no rearend flesh to hold them up - that is uniquely an Ars characterictic. Same with the horse who has a kindof a hollow where his rump belongs.

Aside: Another way to have fun with ICTs:
If you like betting at the horse races, and spot an Ars horse, (no bum, long wiry looking limbs), do not bet on a short race for them, choose the longest race in which they are entered. Ars has strength and stamina and long-distance muscles, NOT sprint muslces (they are different kinds of muscle fibers, as seen at the molecular level).
If you want a sprinter, bet on an Ign type, and if you want a good high jumper choose a Phos horse, they practically float through the air.
A friend used to take me to the races, her dad was a racehorse trainer so we got great box seats, and access for looking at horses before the race. I spotted a horse new to the track, an Ign type, called Muffin, listed at 12 to 1. She looked so good, all enthusiastic and energetic, a picture of health. I bet on her to win, was told by my frtiend it was crazy, but she won by half a length, and looked ready to do it again.

Other specific characteristic examples:
Narrow hips, and lying on their back with the back/neck twisted far round, still comfortable, is Lyc.
Extremely long tail fur (& by long I mean something like 8 inches in a cat) & strides in a jaunty trot style, is Phos.
Pot belly at birth in a tiny baby, is Sep.
Huge ears and feet in a child is Puls.
TIny at birth but giant before teenage years start, is Plat.
Piercing eyes and passionate my-way attitude is Lach.
Flowing agile movement and eyes like deep pools, is Calc-Phos
Extreme competititveness with gut issues and compact build, is Nux.
Lack of grooming themselves (without noticing their own mess), and a tinkerer/inventor, is Sulf
Walking with short fast steps, clever, and tidying up like the clean-up police, is Sil.
.....and so on.

The specific traits can lead to a correct ICT selection very fast, just needing a check of other features to corroborrate.
BUT - you have to know them, and such specifics take time and experience to discover. Once discovered, they are great to have and use.

Discovering these clues requires that a set of inherited traits be matched to a specific remedy.
The unique ICT features above are not in the repertory, and you have to use more conventional ways of arriving at
a short list of remedy candidates for a specific set of inherited traits. The matching here is a huge rime-consuming exercise, BUT - it only needs to be done once. As soon as you know the ICT-remedy match for sure, (using multiple examples of individuals with the same set of inherited traits to define the ICT first), then the one remedy that matches those traits, ALSO will open the door to the rest of the traits for that inherited set (as they do not belong to any other inherited set) ...the ones that are not yet in the reperoty, like the unique items above.

Checking these against multiple examples of the ICT, does show this:
A CONSISTENT FINDING, IS THAT ALL THE INHERITED TRAITS OF AN ICT SET ALWAYS FIT WITH ITS MATCHING REMEDY.

For example, you will never find a cow who is Lyc, that has any teat shape but the tapered, cut off at the bottom looking teat. I admit I have not checked this teat shape out in humans, but it works for all the other species I have checked, includig a male cat I had that was Lyc So I have no doubt it will work in humans.

It has been a lot of work - and much more is needed - to develop the corroborration of these details across species. But it helps that there has yet to be an exception found.

There is a consideration to be made with species differences, for example tail fur length is hard to asess in humans, but where the structure exists, the TREND within species or breed or group, of a shape or ratio, is consistent for all memebrs of the ICT in all species. A phos human will still have fine hair, of a flyaway type, despite the lack of tail fur, and will do well in high jump at schoo compared to others with the same training. And they will still proceed along witih large strides, at a trot, never fast short steps or slow steps.
Ars humans will also be long distance runners or climbers (using those wiry muscles with stamina and strength) rather than sprinters.

I hope this adds something more to the ICT view.
Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Hi Irene,

Thanks for your detailed response which is very helpful. Your dog in a healthy state reminded me so much of my son which is why I was keen to find out the ICT. He also is a social butterfly who loves the snow, is competitive with a desire for attention. Physically he is strong with heavy bones and good muscle tone so that one is usually surprised how heavy he is when lifting him. He is tall for his age and wears clothes for 12 year olds even though he is only 8. His hair is thick and quite rough and hairdressers sometimes struggle to run their clippers through. Funny enough I had given him a fibonacci series of sulphur over the summer without having read your blogs about ICTs.

Should you decide to write a book about it, I will definitely purchase it.

Thanks again for all your great comments on this forum which I am always interested to read.

Regards

Jeanine
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

I need to ruminate this and regurgitate an answer or comments or questions later....

Mooo...

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz