Minutus

Hi Jennifer,

Sorry, I have to disagree here. Part of the confusion is around the word peculiar, enshrined within the concept "rare strange and peculiar", which has us homoeopaths hunting for what is unusual in a case. Usually leaves us with unusual symptoms and no case.

The origin of the word peculiar is from latin, private property (in Merriam Webster online), and the first definition is "characteristic of only one person, group or thing". This was the usage of the word in "olden times", although the more modern usage is "odd, unusual, etc."

I've been through working in the way you describe and have found it unreliable - it was part of how I was taught and has a certain charm to it, but I've found that's about it. Worse - it tends to send you hunting after "red herrings", symptoms that may or may not be important, rubrics that only have one or two remedies in them or that don't exist at all, and you begin to wonder - if the patient has itching in his nose and ears before every sneeze, that must be important, mustn't it? all this moves us away from the focused thought that we need to determine what the disease state is, and how it differs from health in this patient. (Aphorism 6, "the unprejudiced observer ...perceives nothing in each single case of disease other than the alterations in the condition of the body and soul... which are outwardly discernible through the senses...the unprejudiced observer only perceives the DEVIATIONS FROM THE FORMER HEALTHY STATE of the now sick patient..." (capitals are mine))

But we're looking for the symptoms that are "peculiar to the patient", marked in the patient, especially when those symptoms are a change from the normal state. Very often symptoms peculiar to the patient lead us into modalities of the chief and concomitant complaints, cough better lying down or sitting up, headache worse for stooping, generally better from sleep, worse from sleep etc. When these symptoms are marked in the disease state, they are a much stronger guide to the remedy.

In addition, a valuable way to look at any symptoms that you take for repping is to think: could I swear in a court of law that this symptom is true? Many of the "uncommon" symptoms patients give us are based on subjective sensation where it's difficult to get that kind of certainty. But if someone said they had to sit up all night because every time they lay down, they went into paroxysmal coughing - that has certainty to it. It's peculiar to the patient - in the sense described above, it's a clear modality for the disease state, and the remedy has to be within that rubric. In the M/E realm you could have a patient who says that they are usually fairly happy and content, but they feel extreme sadness when they have a cold. There you have something that clearly belongs to the disease state, is clearly and unequivocally expressed, perhaps you know the patient and have noticed the movement from contentment to depression - a certain symptom that can and should be used.

Although I base myself on Boenninghausen's approach in my work today, I think this is true however you're doing case taking/remedy choice. The elements you use to guide you into the group of remedies from which you make your choice have to be as certain, verifiable as possible.

I hope this is helpful,

Vera

www.jerusalemhomeopath.com
www.materiamedicastudymethods.wordpress.com

Striking, Extraordinary, Unusual, Oddly Characteristic (SEUO)
or Strange Rare and Peculiar
In Barthel's Characteristics of Homeopathic Materia Medica we find a brief
summary of the twelve ways in which the "strange, rare, and peculiar"
symptom may be understood. All the examples are from the remedy Phosphorus.
1. The symptom is peculiar in itself: "long narrow stool."
2. The symptom is peculiar through the modality: "mania for work before menses."
3. The symptom is peculiar through its localization: "cold knees at night."
4. The symptom is peculiar through sensations: "anus feels open."
5. The symptom is peculiar through extension: "coryza extends to the chest."
6. The symptom is peculiar through beginning, progression, and end: "pain
increases and decreases with the sun."
7. The symptom is peculiar through contrary symptoms: "lack of vital heat,
but heat aggravates."
8. The symptom is peculiar through its periodicity: "headaches every 7th day."
9. The symptom is peculiar through alternating symptoms: "weeping
alternating with laughter."
10. The symptom is peculiar through sequences: "bloody vomiting following
suppressed menses."
11. The symptom is peculiar through vicarious symptoms: "vicarious epistaxis."
12. The symptom is peculiar through the absence of expected symptom:
"increased sexual desire without erections."

Lynn
-----------------
Vera Resnick wrote:
--
Imagine Peace

Hi Lynn,

You're quoting a contemporary writer - it's not clear to me what you're saying by that. My point is not that there aren't strange elements in remedies - there is much strangeness to be found in remedies and in people. However, if you have a strongly marked symptom and a weak strange symptom, which do you feel is the stronger basis for prescribing? I've found going with the strongly marked gives better results, but only when it's done with focus on what has changed.

Often people rule out remedies that are a good match because there is some peculiarity (modern usage) which we don't see in the patient or in the remedy. In itself that's a form of prejudice and limits the playing field in a way that I think is not helpful in prescribing.

Is it your opinion that Hahnemann was referring to "rare, strange and peculiar" or to "peculiar (belonging to) the patient"? Where there are symptoms that are peculiar (belonging) to the patient and remedy provings with symptoms peculiar (belonging) the the remedy - that's the connecting place we're looking for in choosing a remedy.

Vera
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick
Classical Homeopath
054-4640736
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com
www.jerusalemhomeopath.com
www.materiamedicastudymethods.wordpress.com

Hi Vera,
you said:
My point is not that there aren't strange elements in remedies - there is much strangeness to be found in remedies and in people. However, if you have a strongly marked symptom and a weak strange symptom, which do you feel is the stronger basis for prescribing?

Generalized sensations and modalities; reduce potential errors of exclusion in reportorial analysis.
The symptoms common to all diseases do not provide knowledge of disease states or their similar remedies.

I've found going with the strongly marked gives better results, but only when it's done with focus on what has changed.
Yes I agree
Often people rule out remedies that are a good match because there is some peculiarity (modern usage) which we don't see in the patient or in the remedy. In itself that's a form of prejudice and limits the playing field in a way that I think is not helpful in prescribing.
We hope to find a SRP symptom, it doesn't always happen, we need to work with the best symptom picture we can find.

Is it your opinion that Hahnemann was referring to "rare, strange and peculiar" or to "peculiar (belonging to) the patient"?

Striking, Extraordinary, Unusual, Oddly/Strange Rare Peculiar
Singular, striking, uncommon, peculiar

A homeopathic remedy has to be specific, to the individual case of disease. The person with the disease.

not to the disease name. You can't separate the disease symptoms from the person suffering the disease.

Where there are symptoms that are peculiar (belonging) to the patient and remedy provings with symptoms peculiar (belonging) the the remedy - that's the connecting place we're looking for in choosing a remedy.
Right

It is in the Comparing/differentiating of the collective symptoms of disease that we find what we are searching for.
Per Stuart Close
the use of Boenninghausen's dimensions (Who? What? Where? With Whom? Why? How? When?) is like adding one's own legs to a traditional one-legged milking stool “it is wise to always give the symptomatic milk-stool as broad a base and as many legs as possible”

It helps to use Hering’s localities, sensations, modalities, and concomitants in the process.
I think the original three legged stool analogy was Hering's.
Lynn
------------------------------------
--
Imagine Peace

I'm finding this discussion interesting from several points of view. At one point, Vera, I thought that you were using "peculiar to" to indicate "peculiar for", i.e. unusual in the patient's experience. But it now seems to me that you were using it to mean unusual in the general run of symptoms (in this kind of illness, perhaps).

It seems to me that there's a clear continuum here between unusual and utterly strange, and I don't think that what you're seeking to do is to draw a line between somewhat and extremely rare. One thing it is clear you're suggesting is that to use rare symptoms as a basis for eliminative -- let us call it subtractive -- repertorising would be a mistake (and, by the way, I agree). Another thing you're clearly saying is that marked general symptoms are harder to mistake (and again I agree).

Beyond that, though, I'm not clear on what point it is you're making about the value of peculiar, rare, strange symptoms.

Hahnemann's experience was that they were "especially" good indicators of a high degree of homoeopathicity, and probably many of us have had the strange experience of successfully foretelling a symptom or two because of its characteristic appearance concomitantly with other symptoms of the remedy that jumped out as so clearly to mimic the patient's illness as we knew of it part way through a consultation. (I'm not, of course, suggesting that such an experience should justify a shortcut in research, let alone in case-taking.)

Beyond a word of caution because rare symptoms are likely to be commoner among our medicines than we know and another word of caution because rare symptoms tend to be less reliable, you are, I think, saying something else, but it's not quite clear to me what it is. Can you help me out?

Thanks --

John

Hi John et al,

My point (not just mine) is that Hahnemann and Boeninghausen looked for symptoms that belonged especially to the patient, were marked in the patient, and that the seeking after the "peculiar" as in rare, strange and peculiar symptoms was not central to case taking. The word "peculiar" has a modern usage which fits with "rare, strange" etc., but in its original usage, its meaning was more "belonging to" - a symptom can belong to a patient but not be odd in any way.

The symptom can be marked - but is often dismissed as a common symptom and not related to in repping. I believe this is a mistake. We get situations where patients are describing their disease nicely and clearly - one-sided headache, pressure amel, worse stooping etc., and we're dismissing symptoms for repping because they are not strange. They then say they always feel this strange sensation of something crawling on their back just before going to sleep (looking for a strange example here...) and we jump on that because it's RSP, rather then examining the changes from health. That's misleading, inevitably takes us to remedies with minimal provings, and takes us away from the clear reported symptoms of the disease state.

It's more important to look for the symptoms that are marked in the patient, than to look for oddities - and in case management to follow the changes in those symptoms. If there's an odd symptom which points to one remedy, but the totality of the disease picture points strongly to another - in my view and experience, the totality of the disease picture and deviation from health will determine the prescription, not the odd symptom.

Generalities are important, but I find they are more helpful if they are modalities - agg and amel - and if they are clear changes from the health state. I'm less likely to use thermals, for example, if a person is generally cold or generally hot. I'm more likely to take that thermal (Aph 6 again) if it is a change from the health picture, if the patient says since he got sick he's cold, but he's usually warm.

It's important to remember in repping that the purpose isn't to describe the entire patient, but to look for several symptoms that are certain in the disease state that can accurately guide to the correct group of remedies, at which point the prescription should be made based on differentiating between the remedies based on MM study and matching to the case.

That's how I see it - I can say that I've worked in both ways, hunting for RSP and working as I've described above, and I find the prescribing and results more solid from focusing on disease state, marked symptoms and modalities, rather than hunting for red herrings. Every now and then, an RSP will show up, will be marked, will be clear - but I'll usually see that in the MM study of the smaller group of remedies and at that point it can be helpful to decide on one or the other.

Hope this explains more clearly how I see it!

Vera
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick
Classical Homeopath
054-4640736
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com
www.jerusalemhomeopath.com
www.materiamedicastudymethods.wordpress.com

Hi, Vera --

Yes, I think your emphasis on departures from the patient's previous state of health is important, as confusion seems rife that transforms the act of prescribing a single medicine for the patient's entire (present) state into an attempt to prescribe a single medicine for everything that the patient has ever suffered from. (And it's the frustration of attempting to do so that evidently leads to the ludicrous simultaneous prescription of a cabinet of medicines each deemed homoeopathic to some segment of an entire history of various illnesses.)

You've teased out "peculiar to" as meaning "belonging to" a patient's state of illness rather than "rare amongst patients". But what is it that makes a symptom or characteristic belong to a patient in this sense? One thing that I understand you're saying makes it belong to the patient is its markedness, which increases certainty of its relevance. Are you also placing (non-thermal) modalities amongst symptoms that belong to the patient, or are these too simply subject to the same criterion of markedness?

In other words, in this view, does "peculiar to" mean simply "marked in", or does it encompass other criteria as well?

Thanks!

John