Minutus

Hi Chris,
Afaik we do not choose a remedy on one symptom - no matter whether it
be a symptom from a proving or a "cured" symptom. So I do not
understand what you mean.
Your question may be relevant for homeopaths who: rep their symptoms,
then check the remedies they come up with in the MMP, the CD or
Allen's Encyclopedia to find out whether this sx occurred in a proving
nd finally disregards the symptoms that are not listed there - or at
least re-considers the remedy under this aspect.

For those who do not work that way it is irrelevant - they just do not
know whether a symptom derives from a proving, a poisoning, a proving
of the crude substance or is a "cured" symptom.

I do not know how many homeopaths belong to group one and how many to
group 2.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Sometimes you have to choose a rx on a single characteristic or SRP sx.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Hi Luise,

I was really asking what distinguishes any symptom as *characteristic* in
the sense of Aphorism 153? A cured clinical indication (with no prior
proving) can never be considered *characteristic* (explained in the post to
Irene).

Lots of people say repertorize the case, then go to the Materia Medica and
check that the remedy has those symptoms, but in reality, the complete
symptom is rarely there in the literal sense.

So what is it, that we're actually looking for in the Materia Medica if not
the literal equivalent of a patient's symptoms? How do you distinguish a
strange, rare and peculiar *characteristic* symptom in a drug proving? (Yes,
I already know the answer, what a show-off eh?)

Any takers?

Chris.

Agreed. In fact either method sows that the law of similars was at work.
There are many remedies where symptoms were never obtained in a
proving - for example production of cancers - but are known from
cures. They are most relevant and useful. So fortunately these are
valid and in use for remedy selection, it would be a shame to ignore
that which takes more than a simple proving to know regarding a
remedy's potential curative power.
Why not?
For example in the situation I listed recently, where 3300 cats in
one area in one year, had their symptoms disappear and be replaced
with health, on application of a specific remedy - would you toss
that information out because it was not "a proving" in your view?

I would agree that if you see only a single case, it might be
questionable whether the remedy or something else caused the healthy
result - same wiht a proving - if you use only one prover, maybe the
symptoms are caused by something other than the remedy:-)
However even in that situation it is worth noting what remedy was
there and what result was seen. That way future similar "coincidences
of health" can be added in till it is clear that the remedy caused
the healing, in the cases where that is the case.

Some case examples do not need a lot of cases to know the remedy is
responsible for the law of similars going into effect and resulting
in health. These are cases such as ones that are always terminal by
other methods. For example I saw this with the use of Bordetella
bronchiseptica when it was first made available earlier this century.
It was effective in two litters of newborn kittens where previously
without the remedy the death rate was 100% worldwide. That was the
first usage I knew of, but it is now in widespread use with great
confidence. Allopathy still has all-deaths.

My point is that both live cases and provings need to be looked at in
context to achieve a confidence level for a Law of Similars curative
effect. For cases there is no firm rule. For provings one can choose
something arbitrary but there is no natural law I can think of for a
cutoff of confidence there either. Sometimes a single case is very
educational, sometimes a single proving is very educational too.

All things being equal, I prefer the cure to the proving for the
reasons in my prior email, to do with independence of species.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Aph 153 does not apply to symptoms learned from cured cases, it is
part of H's description of the use of provings.
This discussion (I thought) is about the use of symptoms/rubrics
learned from cured cases.
Not explained no - I consider it the contrary - but your opinion
that this is so, is noted. My disagreement is because I see no
evidence at all for this assumption - with the proviso that both
provingsd and cured case results need to be in context.
Case results are far more powerful - we just do not go far enough
with provings (it would be unethical if not lethal) to cause all the
possible symptoms the remedy has power to cure.
Not how I do it.
I never look to see if a remedy has the symptoms repertorized.
We already KNOW the entire short list of remedies selected has the
symptoms repertorized else why repertorize.
It is the other symptoms left out of the repertorizing that need to
ALSO be there in the chosen remedy, in the MM.,
(or for animal cases in the FULL list of rubrics for that remedy ) -
or both.
For veterinary homeopathy some common sense interpretation is needed
because for example "the tail twitches only to the left while the dog
eats" is not likely to be in a human repertory or MM

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Okay Irene, let me try to clarify the issue of Aphorism 153 again. And I
reiterate from the outset that I'm restricting my answers to how the first
generation of homoeopaths had already nutted out this question and resolved
it to their satisfaction. By the way, I am very happy to state that
allopathy has its successes too, and I have no desire to diminish your
reputed successes in treating diseases in catteries with combinations in
various nosodes.

Now back to homoeopathy...

(1) The symptoms which distinguish or individualize THE PATIENT are
uncovered in the anamnesis. The more a symptom is "fleshed out" in terms of
completeness, through location, sensation, modality, and concomitants, the
more characteristic of the patient it becomes.

(2) The signs and symptoms which distinguish AN ILLNESS are pathognomic and
essential. They help us diagnose the illness, and provide general
indications such as fever, loss of appetite, earache, dropsy, tumours,
pneumonia, etc etc etc. but pathognomic symptoms don't help us individualize
the case in terms of homoeopathicity, except in a one-sided manner.

(3) The symptoms which distinguish or characterize THE REMEDY can only be
discovered by a thorough study of its proving.

Somehow, homoeopaths are expected to marry up all three above to find an
appropriate similie in each case of disease. Clearly, not all
characterizations are equal. The question I am posing relates to (3), how
can a cured symptom that was not produced apriori in a proving be considered
*characteristic of the remedy*?

Chris

Thanks I follow it rather well without assistance. The English
translations look good enough to me, and that is my home language

Your post goes in circles back to the start of our conversation -
which I answered.
If you do not wish to agree with my views, that is fine with me.
I leave you to have a great day.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Okay, you have a great day too. Maybe some time in the future we could
return to this subject since it's intrinsic to understanding how good
homoeopathic prescriptions are made.

Chris.

Your post goes in circles back to the start of our conversation -
which I answered.
If you do not wish to agree with my views, that is fine with me.
I leave you to have a great day.

Looks like you've been b-slapped. Ever been to a cat show? Strange bunch, and I don't mean just the breeders.

I have an extra wooden spoon if you'd like it. It works well but may break in dense recipes.

Possibly Rudi Vespoor and the Helikunst School has a need for tutors who practice and preach alternative to Hahnemann.

Susan

Hi Chris,

My point is that our MMis even now full of symptoms that did not show
up in any proving and that most homeopaths have been using them for a
long time -many of them not realizing that they do not derive from
provings.

Yes, it would be desirable that they are marked -but they are not.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========