Minutus

"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
Niels Bohr
Interesting how questioning if LM's are the way to go has some speculating as to whether Hahnemann was using this form of dosing exclusively. For me this doesn't really matter because when I decided to move towards using the Q instead of the centesimal potencies I based my decision on the fact that it appears from his own notes (what are known as the Paris Casebooks) Hahnemann was moving in that direction in his time/career.
Note- 4th ed as far as dose/potency was taught at my school - LM's were mentioned as an aside, but not really prescribed in clinic & when used if at all they were given in dry dose! So, it is totally radical to be using LM's out of my context/in my neck of the woods - seems that few have tried correctly from what I can see in general.
I know from my own experience that when I am going to try something new I must do it in stages...ease into it, etc. Yes, H. did indeed use centesimal potencies (water dosing and olfaction method) still in the early years of being in Paris. It should be noted that by these years, his Paris period, he used 30 c and no higher, but was succussing as one would LM's in a stock bottle.
As he got more comfortable clinically with practicing the theoritical aspect of his own principle of gentle/aggravation free treatment he reduced the use of C scale remedies and moved towards the use of LM's more and more...1840 is when his case notebooks document the introduction of the LM's clinically...either in his handwriting or in Melanies...I tell ya, there's always a good woman behind every great man - that's another topic in and of itself...
Anyways, it has to be remembered the "casebooks" are just that - not anything written for teaching purposes...his Organon was for that purpose - and I believe that once he experiemented more with LM's and that if he lived longer he would have included more details for Homeopaths on how to dose with LM's. Perhaps, in the 7th edition....a dream come true (if only Hahnemann lived to be a 100!).
Hahnemann was a person that was constantly striving to improve his treatment of patients and, perhaps, after he fully exhausted LM's as a dosing method (if found inadequate to him for any reason) he may have tried something else, who knows? Maybe by applying something like the Fibonacci scale....he likely had a mathematical bent along with all his other talents!
Admittedly, this is something totally foreign to me, and so, I will wait for a step-by-step handbook on the method before I can even consider its application to homeopathy...if at all necessary.
In conclusion, I don't think it was a case of Hahnemann not being satisfied with the 6th edition of his treatise on Homeopathy in so much as he had to catch up in practice with his own theory; to become an expert - he was working towards an ideal: never to aggravate for one, but more importantly to move the patient towards cure in the complete sense of the word...in the most rapid, gentle and permanent manner possible. The Paris Casebooks show the evolution of his progress, and illustrate, in my mind, that he was a true experimenter and that these notes to himself were literally just that, notes to himself....just as we keep casenotes for our own purposes of documentation and not to prove anything to anyone else.
We must not see them as anything that he intended to put out into the public forum, but rather, as his notes to keep track of the progress/effectiveness of his casework. Granted, they would likely have been the basis of the next edition of the Organon if he didn't go and die on us!
I am impressed at the intellectual work of the Dr. Rozencwajg, but I think I will go thru a progress of using LM's as best I can for the next few years (become somewhat "expert"). After which time, I will try to judge their overall effectiveness in treating my patients. If the methods outlined in Dr. Luc de Schepper (my step-by-step dosing and posology handbook these days) fail to be satisfactory I will be the first to admit this. I will seek out the work of Dr. Rozencwajg and others that use the LM's as their jumping off point. Definitely, I know I will not go back to the 4th ed of the Organon...but continue in the forward quest of knowledge...it is totally commendable that people are continuing in ways that are about improvements for our patients/the sick...I hope that we as a community never lose site of what we are striving to do: heal the sick and be healthy, balanced human beings on this planet.
Thanx for your consideration on my entry.
Last thing, if anyone does read the De Schepper texts let me know if you are interested in a discussion/study group that would be about applying LM's in practice...I am aiming to start up a group to meet in Toronto, Canada - I am fortunate enough to have him coming to my city for the next few yrs to teach us from his lovely textbooks, but an on-line group would be great. Note- his blog: blog@homeopathysnc.org is truly helpful for getting practical advice for one's practice - LMing exclusively or not.
Peace,
Laura

A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty.
Mark Twain

oops, the blog for Dr. Luc is: http://www.homeopathysnc.org/blog.htm
also, just reread what I wrote and want to say on fibonacci system that its application to homeopathy may be necessary for others that don;t go thru trial and error of using LM's and, may instead, try this method out directly. for me, I am hoping to try and stick with LM's as there is enough material that I can understand and apply out there currently.
the proof will be in the pudding as they say...results with patients (I have only a few at this time/will keep you informed once long term results are in (couple of years yet!).
thanx,
Laura

A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty.
Mark Twain
--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Laura Coramai wrote:
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
Niels Bohr
Interesting how questioning if LM's are the way to go has some speculating as to whether Hahnemann was using this form of dosing exclusively. For me this doesn't really matter because when I decided to move towards using the Q instead of the centesimal potencies I based my decision on the fact that it appears from his own notes (what are known as the Paris Casebooks) Hahnemann was moving in that direction in his time/career.
Note- 4th ed as far as dose/potency was taught at my school - LM's were mentioned as an aside, but not really prescribed in clinic & when used if at all they were given in dry dose! So, it is totally radical to be using LM's out of my context/in my neck of the woods - seems that few have tried correctly from what I can see in general.
I know from my own experience that when I am going to try something new I must do it in stages...ease into it, etc. Yes, H. did indeed use centesimal potencies (water dosing and olfaction method) still in the early years of being in Paris. It should be noted that by these years, his Paris period, he used 30 c and no higher, but was succussing as one would LM's in a stock bottle.
As he got more comfortable clinically with practicing the theoritical aspect of his own principle of gentle/aggravation free treatment he reduced the use of C scale remedies and moved towards the use of LM's more and more...1840 is when his case notebooks document the introduction of the LM's clinically...either in his handwriting or in Melanies...I tell ya, there's always a good woman behind every great man - that's another topic in and of itself...
Anyways, it has to be remembered the "casebooks" are just that - not anything written for teaching purposes...his Organon was for that purpose - and I believe that once he experiemented more with LM's and that if he lived longer he would have included more details for Homeopaths on how to dose with LM's. Perhaps, in the 7th edition....a dream come true (if only Hahnemann lived to be a 100!).
Hahnemann was a person that was constantly striving to improve his treatment of patients and, perhaps, after he fully exhausted LM's as a dosing method (if found inadequate to him for any reason) he may have tried something else, who knows? Maybe by applying something like the Fibonacci scale....he likely had a mathematical bent along with all his other talents!
Admittedly, this is something totally foreign to me, and so, I will wait for a step-by-step handbook on the method before I can even consider its application to homeopathy...if at all necessary.
In conclusion, I don't think it was a case of Hahnemann not being satisfied with the 6th edition of his treatise on Homeopathy in so much as he had to catch up in practice with his own theory; to become an expert - he was working towards an ideal: never to aggravate for one, but more importantly to move the patient towards cure in the complete sense of the word...in the most rapid, gentle and permanent manner possible. The Paris Casebooks show the evolution of his progress, and illustrate, in my mind, that he was a true experimenter and that these notes to himself were literally just that, notes to himself....just as we keep casenotes for our own purposes of documentation and not to prove anything to anyone else.
We must not see them as anything that he intended to put out into the public forum, but rather, as his notes to keep track of the progress/effectiveness of his casework. Granted, they would likely have been the basis of the next edition of the Organon if he didn't go and die on us!
I am impressed at the intellectual work of the Dr. Rozencwajg, but I think I will go thru a progress of using LM's as best I can for the next few years (become somewhat "expert"). After which time, I will try to judge their overall effectiveness in treating my patients. If the methods outlined in Dr. Luc de Schepper (my step-by-step dosing and posology handbook these days) fail to be satisfactory I will be the first to admit this. I will seek out the work of Dr. Rozencwajg and others that use the LM's as their jumping off point. Definitely, I know I will not go back to the 4th ed of the Organon...but continue in the forward quest of knowledge...it is totally commendable that people are continuing in ways that are about improvements for our patients/the sick...I hope that we as a community never lose site of what we are striving to do: heal the sick and be healthy, balanced human beings on this planet.
Thanx for your consideration on my entry.
Last thing, if anyone does read the De Schepper texts let me know if you are interested in a discussion/study group that would be about applying LM's in practice...I am aiming to start up a group to meet in Toronto, Canada - I am fortunate enough to have him coming to my city for the next few yrs to teach us from his lovely textbooks, but an on-line group would be great. Note- his blog: blog@homeopathysnc.org is truly helpful for getting practical advice for one's practice - LMing exclusively or not.
Peace,
Laura

A discriminating irreverence is the creator and protector of human liberty.
Mark Twain

Just one remark.........they are definitely not mutually exclusive.
LMs are still about 50% of my prescriptions.........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

Hi Laura,
IMO the only reason that discussion now and then arises as to whether
or not Hahnemann continued using centesimals, is that some people
insist that LMs are best for every case, every situation, while others
insist that is not always the case--or at least, that there are
sometimes advantages to using Cs instead. Noting that Hahnemann
himself continued to use Cs does seem to give credence to that idea,
doesn't it? (And, there's also just the matter of accuracy...)

If I gather right, Dr. Luc tends to use more of c's in water rather
than LMs--but I could be mistaken on that. How wonderful that you'll
be having a course with him!! What a treat!!

Re a list specifically for LMs, are you familiar with the group Joy
Lucas started a... I think a year or so ago? It's a really good group
of people (I wish they'd chosen to stay here as well!), and
specifically re working with LMs and strict Hahnemannian approach. If
you want help finding them, someone here can probably help.

Re "proper" use of LMs--do you know David Little's work (on LMs and
other matters)? > It's chock-full of good
stuff!

Best wishes,
Shannon

I would love to hear what factors are leading you to stick with LMs for
those cases? (Have you abandoned Cs wet or dry completely--if so, I'd
love to hear about that too!)
Thanks,
Shannon

Because LMs are easy to manipulate when it comes to fine tuning: number of hits to the bottle, number of spoons from the bottle, number of dilution glasses and also number of spoons from one glass to the other, amount taken form the glass, from drops to teaspoons, rhythm of repetition.
OTOH LMs might often be too slow and not indicated in patients with enough energy to go fast and deep, then I use the F series.
And I still use Cs especially in low potencies for purely organic cases, higher when there is a financial problem getting the F series or even as test doses (30 or 200) to evaluate the reaction, then if still needed, go to a F series.
Basically, the real answer is that all methods of dosing and all forms of administration are useful, depending on the patient.
Nevertheless, not knowing exactly what the real potency of a remedy is when it is not prepared according to the strict Hahnemaniann protocol was one of the main factors causing me to try to find a different way, as I explain in the article.
There is no way anyone can demonstrate that a 1M or a 10M made by fluxion or any other method, including Korsakovian, is the equivalent of a 1000CH or 10000CH hand succussed remedy.
They are effective and working well..........but what are they exactly, that bugs me..........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

Hi Shannon
Thanx for nice response...I can be trying I know...with this
obsession within an obsessions - I see your point...it is
contensious as topic, these LM's, cause of someone like me! ha ha
But really, just learned that my Master, Dr. Luc, my modern day
Hahnemann...uses 30 c on regular basis. This from his Blog just the
other day (knew but with my obsessive/compulsive ways blind to info
in his textbooks that stipulate/outline use of split dose method of
5th ed that he uses/recommends):

LMs
Question: Dear Dr. Luc - In your book, Hahnemann Revisited, you write
about
LM potencies, specifically how Hahnemann developed them during his
last 10
years of his life to accelerate cure in his patients while minimizing
aggravations. Since this an important goal of many parents who have
children
dx'd with ASD and other challenges, why aren't homeopaths that
practice the
5th/6th edition using LMs more often with special needs children? Is
it
common to open a case with an LM? Any insight you can give us would
be
appreciated. Thank you for all of your efforts in giving challenged
children
and their families a better quality of life.

Answer: Excellent question! LMs are very penetrating and rather
gentle
working IF done as Hahnemann prescribes. I knew this 6th editioon (LM
potencies) before I learned and discovered from the organon the 5th
edition
split method. I do stil often use the LM potency but always start
(almost
always) with 30c as it is a middle road potency which when given in
liquid
doses correctly, is rather gentle on the patient's Vital Force. Once
this
30C is build up in succussions and a stronger potency is needed
because the
Vital Force is stronger, then we either go to LMs or 200c. We never
know
till we do it what the patient responds best to: the C scale or LMs
but in
my latest book i do describe much of the common sense potency choice!
LMs
to keep in mind are fast working and need to be followed up very
closely. Do
not trust anyone who tells you totake dose everyday and come back
when the
bottle is empty!
Dr luc

Posted by Dr. Luc De Schepper at 11/06/2008 04:36:00 PM

Thanx again Shannon and definitely about to start reading the Joy
Lucas site - glanced at it and seems fantastic!

Peace,
Laura
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
whether
others
idea,
rather
you'll
Joy
group
If
and
good
made
dosing
decided
I
(what
LM's
when
radical
seems
something
indeed use
the
years,
as
theoritical
he
LM's
or in
great
not
that
and
edition....a
his
as a
have
the
all
will
being
so
become
for
the
permanent
experimenter
to
the
likely
didn't go
but I
the
I will
If
dosing
be
Rozencwajg
Definitely, I
continue in
people
of
balanced
if
about
meet in
city
an
human