Minutus

Hi Wendy,

As I'm understanding your assertion, I like it! and think it has good
application to many instances. But I don't think it explains all cases (or
perhaps every aspect of most cases). In particular I don't think it applies
to some of the diseases we see developing today -- in people, but more
particularly in wild animals and even plants. Which to my way of thinking
means that, altho yours is *one* angle, and potentially a very valuable one,
there are other aspects to consider too.

E.g., can you apply this model to explain things such as DDT poisoning, Mad
Cow Disease (and other similar ones, some of which apparently predated human
interference), a rash of two-headed amphibians in the US Midwest, illness
and deformity from polluted water and etc., or trees that die from acid rain
or pollution?

i do think there is a spectrum of energetic influence, and the different
parts of the spectrum (from "wrong thinking" at one end to "outside
influences" at the other end) sometimes interact and even masquerade, in
interesting and surprising ways.

I think my view is supported by the fact that cures -- and very nice,
multi-level ones -- can result by starting from *either* a mental/emotional/
spiritual approach *or* from a strictly physical approach, and very often
one tends to lead into the other. Which end of the "cure spectrum" serves
best as a starting point will vary from case to case, and perhaps that is
partly because *causes* vary thru their spectrum, from case to case.

Shannon
on 11/13/03 10:23 AM, Wendy Howard at wendy@rachan.worldonline.co.uk wrote:

Joy wrote:

I knew it was a mock lament Joy!! But I was trying to explain how this model
does indeed give an idea of 'how'! I can see that what I wrote hasn't
communicated it very well to you. Perhaps it's the mind-body separation
thing which inevitably creeps in when we start to subdivide the whole and
talk about bits of it? The vital force isn't something which is somehow
separate from any other aspect of our being, operating independently from
it. Our awareness has the *illusion* of being separate from it, but it's an
illusion (as is the idea that the sum total of our being is confined to our
awareness). Our vital force IS us (every bit as much as our awareness is,
although for the most part it operates outside our awareness). Consequently
it cannot do anything other than BE us.

But talking about an individual is just as artificial a separation, because
we are only *relatively* separate and distinct aspects of a larger body,
that body being not just the society we live in, but ultimately the Life
Force in its entirety. We are playing and being played to the tune of the
Life Force at any moment, whether that's locally or universally.

So I agree with what you're saying in that disease expression in any one
individual originates in the vital force, and that it is the carrier or
vehicle of dis-ease. But a carrier or vehicle isn't the driver! Hahnemann
talks about illness being a "mistunement" (verstimmung) of the vital force.
This seems an excellent choice of word, since resonance is such a
fundamental aspect of everything we observe in life (and can be used to
great effect in healing). This is exactly what I'm saying too. Dis-ease
comes from a discordant note in the vital force, an energy which is not in
tune with the rest. Discordant notes produce discomfort when you hear them.
Comfort is ease. Discomfort is dis-ease.

Now here's the crux of the matter. A discordant note in the vital force
could be seen as "deranging" the entire vital force, but is it? To continue
the tuneful analogy, all the notes being struck are just the same as they
were before, but with the addition of a discordant note. The *overall
effect* is altered to one of discord because of the presence of that note,
but all the notes that were previously satisfactory are not themselves
altered. So to my way of seeing it, dis-ease is a direct product of the
discordant note, *not* a "deranged" vital force. All we see in dis-ease is
the effects of the discordant note and its harmonics; the particular
vibrations of which resonate through the mental, emotional and physical
levels of being, literally articulating its nature.

I think this is an important, if subtle, distinction. Following the idea of
a "deranged" vital force leads to the idea of it being somehow "faulty" or
"imperfect". I don't think that's a particularly useful notion. Holding the
idea of it can set up a discordant note of its own accord. "I am faulty"
will just keep on playing out for as long as the concept remains "true" to
the person concerned. It removes all response-ability.

Discordant notes aren't necessarily good or bad. They're just discordant.
And the discomfort they produce can excite a sublime experience every bit as
much as an unpleasant one. Again, it comes down to the individual's
response-ability.

The dynamis has no concept of good/bad, right/wrong, past/future,
perfect/imperfect, etc. It inhabits the eternal Now. Its nature is to
reflect whatever energies are present within and surrounding the individual
that are resonating (in discord or in harmony) within the individual at any
one point in time.

care

It's to do with what I was saying about the relationship between the
individual and the collective. The collective is, quite simply, the sum
total of all the individuals within it, however you define its membership
(with the proviso that it remains a relative and contingent totality). If
the collective dynamic is to change, then there are essentially two
directions for that change to appear from. It can change one individual at a
time, because if the energy of any one of the individuals comprising a
collective changes, a subtle change in the composition of the collective has
therefore occured. Or it can change on a more general level, affecting
larger subsets of the collective, perhaps via publication of thoughts,
feelings, images, concepts, which resonate strongly enough with enough
people for them to "I"dentify with, individually and collectively. In
practice what seems to happen is that it starts off with a few individuals,
then a kind of critical threshhold is reached when the new energy appears to
almost explode out into the collective, usually via a select handful of
individuals who resonate with it to the highest degree of simillitude. Yet
it does only seem to happen that way when a particular direction is "in the
air" to begin with ...

I hope this makes what I was trying to communicate a bit clearer?

Regards
Wendy
http://www.smeddum.net/

Shannon wrote:
(or
applies
one,

There are a potential multitude of factors operating at a multitude of
levels in every instance of dis-ease, simply because everything is connected
with everything else. What I've given you so far are very simplistic
examples based on very keynotey concepts focused primarily on the totality
of an individual life-form. However, I do believe the principles of the
model remain valid in all circumstances, and at all levels. It's just a
matter of perceiving where they're operating. To continue the analogy I used
in reply to Joy, it's a matter of identifying the nature of the discordant
note, where it's sounding, and what it's articulating.

Mad
human
rain

Yes. These are still material expressions, ultimates, of what I don't think
any of us would have much difficulty in labelling "wrong thinking", but this
time at the collective level. Mostly the result of linear one-dimensional
logic and the mistaken assumption that man can control nature. As to the
individual who takes on some form of poisoning resulting from environmental
damage, you would need to look for resonance with those issues which might
have exerted some form of attraction between them and the poisoning event
(susceptibility in other words), and for ways of turning the discordant note
it strikes in their own lives into harmony. Accepting that a resonance
between them and the poisoning exists, rather than just being a hapless
victim of accident, again confers a greater degree of response-ability.

Being as we are all "cells" of a larger "body", it may well be that the
individual is resonating precisely in tune with a collective healing need so
that the damage the "wrong thinking" produces in the environment can be
brought into collective awareness and addressed. Many victims, or families
of victims, work tirelessly to bring these things to our notice and force
some change. Some freely admit that dealing with their situation and
bringing it to attention has been a highly fulfilling experience, so I don't
think it's necessarily appropriate to always perceive these things as "bad".
They are what we make of them.

Regards
Wendy
http://www.smeddum.net/

Suriya wrote:

Yes. The rain is a nice analogy. We tend to see material form as a priori,
ie. we are the product of our genetic code. In the model I'm describing,
it's the other way round -- our physical form, including our genes, is the
product of the various energies surrounding and *in-forming* (there's
another good word to ponder) us as we grow.

Because the dynamis inhabits the eternal Now, it simply reflects what IS
right now. We can see this operating clearly in instances of people with
multiple personalities where each personality has its own symptom complex --
eg. one personality is allergic to oranges, while another isn't. If the
allergic response was somatic in origin this would be completely impossible.

Since neither viewpoint can be readily proved or disproved and the end
results are the same, for all practical purposes it makes little difference,
*except* that the idea that we are merely a product of our genes again
restricts response-ability. We may not be able to remove the actual physical
reflection of an energy form so deeply embedded in our structure, but the
attitudes we hold towards it can make all the difference between disability
and ability. It's not necessary to be "normal" to live a rich and fulfilling
life.

I once worked with a remarkable man who's mother had taken Thalidomide. He
had no legs, no hands, just tiny little thumbs sticking out from his elbows
which he used to great effect. Yet he was in no sense a victim or disabled,
and would have been quite insulted if you'd referred to him as such or
wanted to "cure" him.

Regards
Wendy
http://www.smeddum.net/

Bob&Shannon wrote:

Hi Shannon,
I m jumping in here, Wendy probably has something different to say.The
world and what happens in it is one of cause and effect. All the
poisonings that take place and the changes influenced by external
circumstances is because the organic material of living things have
rules they work by. What we begin to realise more and more is that the
physical and the spiri tual may follow a similar rule except on
different planes. I understood this in a way from attending Sankaran's
Seminar on Plants .When explaining characteristics of the Lilliacae, he
explained the theme of feeling left out, or pushed out. On the mental
level the person had a feeling of being left out and on a physical
level, there was a sensation of the internal organs being pushed
out.And, pollution effects can be seen as a kind of epidemic as well,
the polluting agent is also a result more often than not of the
spiritual perversion on the part of the perpetrator of the pollution, a
result of a perversion on the part of those causing the pollution and
this perversion can range from a state of knowingly causing the
pollution because of monetary gain or, at the other end we have a pathy
and ignorance..all states that are dis eases on some level..which means
all of us are dis eased at some level I suppose.
What we should note is that . while the causative agent, the pollution
etc is the same, the degree to which changes occur in the plants and
animals and humans affected by the pollution is not the same and
possibly the remedy is NOT the same depending on the changes that take
place in the individual organism affected , although it is also possible
that one and the same remedy can be indicated.
Of course one can start from the physical and effect a cure, since there
is that relation of the physical to the mental and emotional, reading
the physical would lead back to the m/e.

regards

Suriya

Dear Wendy, what you wrote was very clear but I still take issue with.....
I say that the vital force has to be deranged to 'accept' the discordant
note, as you call it. Nothing is perfect in life, we move always from a
point of imperfection in my opinion and thus the deranged vital force
flourishes. In homeopathic terms this is 'taint' - this is miasmatic
influence - this is how we are able to become diseased, because we start out
as being already diseased (in a latent form or active) and diseased states
will develop according to our given susceptibility and adaptability - you
call it response-ability. Collectively or individually, I think we are
extremely responsive, have reliable response-ability in the signs and
symptoms of disease - why do you need it to be any different? If the
ultimate aim is to remove the collective taint then that is quite an
enormous task and idealises a world we have no such knowledge of.

I also need to go back to the state of cholera and your retrospective
analogy. It is very easy in hindsight to apply intellectual and poetic
analogies but how are we to use such analogies in our approach to healing
such epidemics if we are lucky? enough, as homeopaths, to be in amongst the
thick of one and have a chance to apply our healing practice? Do we ignore
the prevailing sx, whether common to the disease or particular to each
individual within the collective disease, so as to use 'delusion, have lost
everything', or 'delusion, I feel like shit' or what?

It is very important for me to be able to put theory into practice - not the
other way round.

In some ways I admire your optimism re....
Well, this has been going for since the year dot. No change there then

Probably time to change the title of these posts?

Best, Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com