Minutus

Hi Irene, Others who may know,
How on earth do people do that? Or, if those constitutional types are
listed in the newer repertories - how on earth did the people writing
the reps or the people writing the MM's on which the reps are based
determine it?

Phosphorus I have researched - and I find nothing as to physical
characteristics in the provings - and as far as the mind symptoms are
concerned: there are quite a few, but none of them pointing to
loquatiousness, friendliness..... all those things held to be typical
for a phosphorus constitution. In the case of phosphorus hHahnemann
also did not say anythin in the introductory part of his MM ( he did a
bit for Puls. and I think Nux vom. - where I also do not understand
how he arrived at what he said)

Is ist experience - that people (I am only talking about people) with
those characteristics have responded specifically well to the
remedies? Is it signature?

Any info would be most appreciated - I have always been stumped by
that question!

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 Luise,
Hey, keep the quotes straight! Tho I'd *love* to take credit for
Irene's work, it somehow doesn't seem fair... (Dis-ambiguated
below)
I look forward to others' insights, but here are my thoughts.
Presumably some (most) of it simply came about by homeopaths noting
that, over time, people with particular physical features were more apt
to [also have particular other traits and to] need certain remedies.
Of course we don't prescribe on physical features alone--the needed
remedy might relate to some even of the history of circumstance, rather
than to their innate constitution.

I recall that Irene will under some circumstances prescribe, within a
fairly close time frame, *both* the remedy that is indicated by the
overall picture (which could be a result of circumstances *acting upon*
the innate constitution, giving rise to a need for a different remedy)
and also--if they are different--the one that appears to be indicated
by the build (more indicative of the innate constitution). Although
that approach has aroused some ire here.
Of course not. Provings cannot cause an already-grown patient to
re-grow into some other shape! It's got to be a clinical observation.
And that's typical only of *some* examples of the phosphorus
constitution. I recall that Boericke, for instance, gives a VERY
different M/E picture:

"Mind.
Great lowness of spirits. Easily vexed. Fearfulness, as if
something were creeping out of every corner. Clairvoyant state. Great
tendency to start. Over-sensitive to external impressions. Loss of
memory. Paralysis of the insane. Ecstasy. Dread of death when alone.
Brain feels tired. Insanity, with an exaggerated idea of one's own
importance. Excitable, produces heat all over. Restless, fidgety.
HYPO-sensitive, indifferent."

So there's the matter of what "stage" a person is in--how healthy (the
person described above is obviously not in great shape!), and etc.
And note that Boericke sites both hypersensitive and hyposensitive.

Perhaps the "friendliness" thing is also a clinical observation.
Yes.
I would certainly hope not!
So that would be my conclusion--clinical observation.
Shannon

Hi Luise,
With lots of patience and difficulty. But it can be done. I tend to
spend many hours and hours to nail a costitutional type - especially
the first time, with animals. Since I started doing it, I include
questions on constitutional type differentiation factors (that I have
gleaned over years of time just working with them) in my client
questionnaires for chronic disease. It makes the questionnaire
rather long but has two purposes - one is that knowing the type for
the sick animal can be helpful to choosing an approach with
homeopathy - and the other is that I refine and learn more about
constitutional types with each case.

Figuring out a new constitutional type that I have not come across
before is the hardest to do of course. My cat Odin for example, I
tried and tried to repertorize to figure his type as he was quite
unusual in personality. Then years after he died, I came across a
couple of rubrics that stuck me in the eye as peculiar to him. I then
looked at a list of rubrics for a remedy I suspected was right - and
sure enough there was confirmation all over the list of rubrics. One
key rubric I remember, is thinking everyone else is smaller than him
- or words to that effect (I do not have a rep with me at the moment
to get the exact rubric) and/or the room always seemed small. Well
this cat was the biggest domestic cat I ever saw in skeletal size. No
surprise everyone seemed smaller than him - or that a person of huge
size would feel like the room was small..... The huge size is NOT in
the repertory - but despite that, it was rubrics that made sense with
big size that led me to look into a specific remedy. Then of course
everything else has to fit, or it is yet another dead end. And you
have to keep trying.

AFTER I figure out a specific animal's constitutional type, then I
record the other characteristics of the individual that are not in
the repertory - how they look, how they walk, relative proportions of
body (size of feet, ratio of legs and torso, overall size, fine
versus heavy boning, fur characteristics, tail/fur length etc etc).
From there I look for more examples of that type - now more easy to
recognize than before - so that I can determine what things are
constitutional type characteritics..... it is quite amazing how much
IS consistent. For example, a cow farmer on my vethom list pointed
out that even teat shape goes by constitutional type:-) I rushed to
inspect my cats' teats and of course - voila!

So there is a HUGE volume of consistent information about
constitutional types that is not in the repertory and that has get to
be assembled and added. It's useful stuff - so long as you consider
it useful to be able to easily find the constitutional type:-) A few
pointers do not hurt to have handy.
No, this is my own work. It is not in any repertory.
It's only by chance that you find a FEW physical traits in a
repertory for a specific remedy/type.
You have to determine the type without them, then when you gather a
lot of examples of that type you see that the physical traits ARE
there, and are consistent. Only when you know those traits very well,
can you work the other way and see the physical traits first -
recognize them - - and know what remedy to look at, for confirmation.
When I have a rep nearby, I'll look up and list some of the rubrics
that show Phos traits.
It is very possible he saw enough cases to recognize the similarities
of a constitutional type.
I mean - if you lined up a whole long row of Puls types for example -
it would stick you in the eye that they are ALL:
big boned, with big feet, esp front feet/hands and deep chests with
prominent sternum, large-built in general, that they stand with feet
firmly planted (hating to have feet dangling in the air), have big
bodies, very slightly shorter legs, (quite a short tail if present)
and so forth.
You won't find one with small stature and dainty feet anywhere.
Size of Puls chest and prominent sternum is a problem in some
breeds:-) For example Puls Basset hounds develop a callus where the
chest is so low to the ground that they can not clear the steps
without scraping.
None of this is in the repertory - but it is consistent across
species and breeds - it's the same for a human, a lizard or a cat.
The repertory however will lead you to Puls by another path (Many
roads lead to Rome?)
This is not about finding a simillimum in illness!

The constitutional type of an individual is the type they are born
with - it describes what they are like, including positive and
negative predispositions, strengths, weaknesses and general
characteristics.
Whether that type is in balance or out of balance, will determine
if they need some of their constitutional remedy - BUT - when they
are ill, they always need a remedy matched to illness symptoms, not
constitutional characteristics. They MIGHT be the same - but not
necessarily.

For example:
My Puls cat Purry was pregnant when she played with horse chestnut
leaves. Well they are not only very toxic, but they were used by
Indian tribes in the area to force abortions, (until they found
something less violent.) The symptoms Purry had, were repertorized/MM-
searched and came out to a simillimum of Lycopodium - which cured
her, and even saved 3 of the kittens to go to term. Puls would have
been the wrong remedy for THAT situation.

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."

Hi Shannon - I like your term "innate constitution".
It seems to fit nicely the concept of the features we are born with
and which endure, including all predispositions, positive and
negative, and characteritics.
It so far - especially in past discussions here - it has been so
tricky to differentiate between this innate constitution and the need
for a remedt that matches the CURRENT picture - which is not
necessarily the same as the innate constitution - yet is quite often
referred to as a "constitutional remedy" - resulting in much confusion.

Maybe it would help if I adopt the "innate constitution" term for the
one that is permanent, including physical features - and refer to the
one that matches illness only as the "simillimum" (as I usually do)
and try hard to avoid "constitutional remedy" at all as it is
ambiguous as to whether it refers to innate constitution or simillimum.

Which then leads me to the next paragraph:
Corrrect.
I find that the simillimum (which is always the appropriate remedy to
use) is NOT always the same remedy as the one to match innate
constitution. So I will always use the simillimium. However in some
diseases - generally life threatening chronic one-sided diseases for
example - I'll ALSO use the innate constitutional remedy as
background support.
People are welcome to agree or disagree - but the result of doing
this is that cases considered incurable become curable.
Hahnemann himself was an excellent example of an experimenter in
homeopathy who sought "what worked". It's that goal of something that
works which always led to his experimenting more and more....see his
paris case books; he did it till his death. I'm also interested in
what works - and see this as truly homeopathic. Both the simillimum
for the illness and the innate constitutional remedy for the support
of the constitution with its weaknesses and strengths, are chosen by
their homeopathicity - the symptoms MATCH in each instance.

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."

i wonder how the study of morphology would be able to be applied to
cats to type them?
this is another system of bodytype categorization
tanya

Hi Irene,
Can you say more about that?
This body-type relationships to constitutional remedy seems very much
along the lines of Grant Bentley's work on facial features, and
associated miasms and remedies. (I read and was fascinated by is book
"Appearance and Circumstance", but sadly have not followed up from
there--sigh, it's "on my list"...)
But not necessarily the first remedy they need from birth... One can
be born in a traumatized or miasmatic state (expressing the remedy
picture of the miasm or of a nosode, I mean).
And all of that will "color" the way that the trauma or miasm
expresses; e.g. whether it creates violence or cowardliness, blaming
self or blaming others, etc. (I figure...)

Irene, ya gotta write that book!! )
Shannon

On Sep 6, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Irene de Villiers wrote:
My gift to you. )
Oh yep!!!! That pesky little multi-hued term.
I've been *trying* to change my habit of speech to call that the
"chronic remedy" instead of "constitutional remedy"--I think it was JW
who suggested that.

I found that ambiguous at first (tho i did catch on!) because I've
always understood it as simply meaning the remedy that will "turn the
key" in *whichever* part of the case you're prescribing on, acute,
traumatic or chronic. It does become clear by context, tho.
I agree, too much confusion! I like your solution.

A good result!!
Do you have count of just how many different "constitutional" remedies
you've identified--have you made a list?

Shannon

Presumably the morphological types would have remedies associated, each
remedy with its "variations on the theme"?

Does "morphology" refer to the terms (um...) choleric; phlegmatic;
bilious; sanguine (are there more of those?) hmm, those are the
"humors", right?--or is it ectomorph, endomorph... rats, just vague
memories! Can you fill in for me?

Shannon

this is not my expertise, but it was explained to me as understanding
the body and its foibles from looking at its structure and appearance.
so shape of face, position of features on the face, the ears, nose, mouth
etc. the theory is that certain body types or patterns will be subject to
a specific pattern of symptoms or diseases. and you would use these
morphological features to help diagnose a condition.

i hope this isnt so vague as to be utterly confusing

tanya
Boenninghausen repertory and method

I find that the simillimum (which is always the appropriate remedy to
use) is NOT always the same remedy as the one to match innate
constitution. So I will always use the simillimium. However in some
diseases - generally life threatening chronic one-sided diseases for
example - I'll ALSO use the innate constitutional remedy as
background support.
People are welcome to agree or disagree - but the result of doing
this is that cases considered incurable become curable.
Hahnemann himself was an excellent example of an experimenter in
homeopathy who sought "what worked". It's that goal of something that
works which always led to his experimenting more and more....see his
paris case books; he did it till his death. I'm also interested in
what works - and see this as truly homeopathic. Both the simillimum
for the illness and the innate constitutional remedy for the support
of the constitution with its weaknesses and strengths, are chosen by
their homeopathicity - the symptoms MATCH in each instance.

OK, now apply this to diabetes. Is diabetes considered a one-sided disease? Reading aph. 172-184, seems to depend at what point in life you make the evaluation. Few if any symptoms present early in life, many symptoms later in life.

Hahnemann didn't have the luxury of blood tests to show underlying symptoms years before they become physically observable. Today we do. Doesn't mean they today shouldn't be thought of as symptoms if they are outside of the norm.

If diabetes is a one-sided disease, miasmatic in nature, other than the "innate" constitutional remedy, what determines the current simillimum? For example, you reversed advanced diabetic complications (glaucoma, kidney damage, neuropathy) using diet. I'm trying to avoid those using diet. If we both diverge from our respective diets, we will exhibit the symptoms of diabetes though they will not be the same exact symptoms. Other than using acute remedies for each diabetic symptom as it occurs there is not going to be one simillimum to cover those current diabetes symptoms that one may have when their case is taken. That wouldn't seem to be a proper approach anyway, if one wants a cure.

Some homeopaths are using the term Advanced Hahnemann Methods. Not sure if they mean solely 6th ed. Organon and /or techniques like using an anti-miasmatic intercurrent or another you term experimenting. What are examples of Paris casebook cases that show cures of chronic illness or miasmatic disease using an "Advanced" or experimental technique? How can you determine when Hahnemann is experimenting or maybe deviating from his published Organon directions, like possibly using more placebos at times?

Susan
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Irene de Villiers wrote: