Minutus

Hi Chris,
This was not the topic. The topic above was merely the name of the
"Law".

Those of us who have taken the
This seems what they said "was not so".

But since I have never believed Hering's Law except for the part of
the symptoms being liable to disappear in temporal order of their
appearing, I never took the trouble to educate myself about it. As to
Andre Saine and Kent and... I have no idea either. This has never been
any of my fields of research. I leave the English language authors and
their texts to the English-first-language community:-)

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 <==========

And I have no personal investment in trying to change the mind of
professional contrarians. I am happy to have passed on some historical
details for interested parties on both the German and English-speaking
Lists.

Best,
Chris Gillen.

Hi Chris,
I always like that kind of argumentation:

A makes a statement - B contradicts - A replies to the contradiction,
defending his/her statment....

..... then A is the contrarian:-)
I am happy to have passed on some historical
Which are supposed to be accepted without "talking back" I assume:-)

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 <==========

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your story. Lippe was lucky that he could go back to the original remedy Ars. Sometimes that doesn't work.

You said:
This experience is one of the reasons Lippe taught that so-called improvements
that do not follow the basic parameters of the direction of cure are always
suspect.

"Basic parameters" means some of the laws might be contradicted and others are followed?

Have you ever heard that there are a priorities among the laws? You do run into situations when you have to chose which law is more important. Vijayakar goes through a bunch of cases that are ambiguous. Of course he system is his solution. What other solutions are there?
Thanks,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,

Vithoulkas/Gray's "Science of Homeopathy" (I know not everyone here
appreciates Vithoulkas ) gives what I think is a nice description
of what's meant by the "levels", and "direction of cure". He notes
that the division is not strict, in that e.g. a mental
symptom--generally taken to be the deepest--is not *always* more urgent
than another level; there is overlap. E.g. a mild depression would not
(I'm not sure if this is one of his examples) be considered "deeper"
and more urgent than, say, eczema (skin level generally considered the
most "superficial") so severe as to require hospitalization.

So, by his explanation (which seems reasonable to me) you could simply
*note* whether the patient *over-all* was better off before, or better
off now; if better before the remedy, then you've suppressed. Which is
not *always* straightforward either, since when suppressed emotion is
coming out the patient may *appear* worse; you need to get a sense of
just what's happening.

This may be a pretty light-weight interpretation of "direction of cure"
but to me it's seemed generally useful, and *usually* pretty
straightforward. On a few occasions when I wasn't sure, I asked the
patient did *they* feel they are overall better, or overall worse?
(Happily, on each occasion they felt it was indeed progress.)

Shannon

Dear Shannon,

You are doing what I do. But, when I look back at what feel to me like failures, or unnecessary suffering, I have a very Sulphur belief that if only I had a better analysis, things would have gone better. At least, I keep checking back and asking myself, what were my logical processes? Patients say things to please you and then turn around and disappear or refuse to follow directions. All kinds of things happen. I just want to make sure that my construction of the situation is as close to reality and also as defensible as possible.

Even if there is a lot of overlap, I am still relieved when I someone puts out a fairly well defined construct of the healing process. I do believe as Vajayakar says, suppression with homeopathy is as powerful as it is with allopathy. You caused suffering but no one is going to catch you doing it. You have to realize it yourself. And then figure out how it happened and avoid that pitfall next time. That's why I try to stay in touch with "successful" patients too. Just to make sure.

I use Vithoulkas regularly. I especially like his graphs at the end.

Best,
Ellen

Thank-you Chris,
As usually a very thoughtful answer.
I am placing primary and secondary actions in a place in my brain close to compensation - decompensation. The initial reaction is a compensation to the stress and the secondary action is decompensation. Except, decompensation is normally a deeper reaction. The injury gets deeper. I think
Hope you are enjoying your travels.
Ellen Madono

I think compensation and decompensation are kind of different
concepts and my suggestion would be not to confuse these with
primary and secondary reactions... These are confusing on their own
without our putting all these together and confusing them even
more...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono"
wrote:
close to
compensation to
deeper. I

the
Sometimes it happens
reworking of the
remedy if the
that the
capacity to
Arsenicum.
of human
are always
and others
chosen or
should
freedom of
I've noticed
unresolved
greater
This of course
minimal. The
patient's
Hering's
laws? You do
important.
course he
the basic
that the case
palliatively, or,
maltreatment. The only
that I use
remedies,
Hahnemann,
principle of
that you
treating, and learn
to form *a
I'm going

Hi,
Do you think compensation and decompensation describe the bigger over all state of the disease while primary and secondary reaction are a specific aggravation ect to a particular stress at a single time?
I know you say they are different, but how so is an ok thing to think about.
Best,
Ellen

Even though this is something that I do not want to write about since
I feel that each of this is confusing on its own - here goes-

I would think that the secondary action is the compensation. I would
say decompensation occurs after the primary and secondary when the
system throws up its hands exhausted...

there are substances that cause a decrease in heart rate initially;
this is followed by an increase and in the long run once again the
heart rate decreases...

I would say such reactions depend on receptors involved, hormones and
other substances that are triggered and involved, composition of the
initial substance, its strength ( hence dilution), its normal half
life in the body, how it is metabolized, whether the metabolites
themselves are active or not, if active are they causing the same
symptoms or different and other such godly things

Looks like I am decompensating a little bit there...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Ellen Madono" wrote:
over all
think about.
Madono"