Minutus

I took Grant's HFA course a year or so ago, and although "events" have made it impossible for me to actually work with the material *yet* (my time is coming), I can say it was a fascinating course. I found Grant's presentation of the (complex, evolving and quite captivating) material to be very satisfying, easy to grasp at its base.

The idea that chronic miasm should be reflected in structure is certainly not a new one; various homeopaths have described some such correspondences in the past (e.g. body types associated with tubercular and syphilitic miasms; morphology indicative of certain remedies; the asymmetry of syphilitic miasm, and much more). But Grant's work explores and delineates these correspondences in a very deep, broad and precise way -- and all through rigorously *testing* apparent correspondences, to make sure they are borne out in case after case. Good stuff!!

But -- I seem to have missed Keri's case. Could someone re-post it for me?

Thanks!
Shannon
________________________________

Shannon,
I watched Grant's one hour video on HFA. How does one read a face for the Tubercular miasm? He only mentions the original 3
Thank!
Susan.

I spent some time tryng Grant's method but one thing I could never understand was why there was only "one" miasm to a case. Perhaps someone here could explain it to me?

Grant's approach involves examining facial features to find the one dominant miasm and then prescribe the appropriate remedy from that miasmatic group - on the basis that this will be the curative remedy even when there is a better indicated remedy from another miasmatic group.

The bit I never understood is that if other miasms are reflected in the facial features, even if as secondary or background miasms, why do they not have an influence on health also. Why is the dominant miasm considered the only miam to be treated? If the other miasms are present enough to have altered facial shape, surely they must also have some influence on health, especially once the dominant miasm has been treated?

I know other groups treat miasms by working backwards through them as each miasmatic layer emerges. Whyd does the HFA approach consider that this doesn't happen even though there is evidence through the facial features of their influence on the body?

Can anyone give an answer to this as it is something I have wondered about for years.
Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield
________________________________

But he does have 3 mixed miasms – syco-psora, syco-syphilis and cancer which he reckons is a mixture of psora, sycosis and syphilis. Tubercular he puts between psora and syphilis. The chart is in the chapter Colour Coding the Miasms
Rochelle Marsden MSc, RSHom, MNWCH, AAMET

Registered with the Society of Homeopaths

EFT(Advanced) Practitioner

www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

https://www.facebook.com/southporthomeopathicpractice
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Sheffield
Sent: 13 August 2012 11:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: HFA was: [Minutus] Fw: Autism Recovery with Homeopathy, 5 yo boy Digest 6619 July 18
I spent some time tryng Grant's method but one thing I could never understand was why there was only "one" miasm to a case. Perhaps someone here could explain it to me?

Grant's approach involves examining facial features to find the one dominant miasm and then prescribe the appropriate remedy from that miasmatic group - on the basis that this will be the curative remedy even when there is a better indicated remedy from another miasmatic group.

The bit I never understood is that if other miasms are reflected in the facial features, even if as secondary or background miasms, why do they not have an influence on health also. Why is the dominant miasm considered the only miam to be treated? If the other miasms are present enough to have altered facial shape, surely they must also have some influence on health, especially once the dominant miasm has been treated?

I know other groups treat miasms by working backwards through them as each miasmatic layer emerges. Whyd does the HFA approach consider that this doesn't happen even though there is evidence through the facial features of their influence on the body?

Can anyone give an answer to this as it is something I have wondered about for years.
Kind Regards,
Fran Sheffield
________________________________

I understand his concept of the mixed miasms but this is where there is a balance of miasmatic features.

The bit I don't understand is that in a dominant "psoric" face, the anti-psoric remedy is expected to cure all even though a smaller percentage of the facial features show the influence of say the sycotic miasm. My question is, if the influence of a miasm is showing in the facial features, even in a small way, why is it taught that the only miasm that is having an effect and so needing treatment is the dominant one?

Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield
________________________________

In the same way that the three primary colors of light combine to form the other colors, he conceptualizes the three main miasms as combining to form others. So the main miasms' colors of yellow (psora), red (sycosis) and blue (syphilis), combine to form green (tubercular), orange (unnamed? in our traditional literature, but very thoroughly described in Grant's), purple (unnamed? -- ditto the previous), and brown (cancer).

Deciding which Color a face goes under is a process of careful examination and scoring of ratable features. Sometimes the choice is clear / easy, and occasionally it is difficult / uncertain. There's a great deal of practice, comparison and correction involved in the initial learning curve! Grant's illustrations, illustrative photos, explanations and feedback make ALL the difference, IMO.

There's more explanation and description on the HFA website. Have you explored that yet?
(I assume that miasms from other conceptual systems, e.g. Ardavan's, Scholten's, etc., would be finer divisions within the "Colors"; I assume not at all in conflict, just different approaches to the material.)

Shannon
________________________________

Stumped on that one!!!
Rochelle
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Fran Sheffield
Sent: 13 August 2012 12:48
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: HFA was: [Minutus] Fw: Autism Recovery with Homeopathy, 5 yo boy Digest 6619 July 18
I understand his concept of the mixed miasms but this is where there is a balance of miasmatic features.

The bit I don't understand is that in a dominant "psoric" face, the anti-psoric remedy is expected to cure all even though a smaller percentage of the facial features show the influence of say the sycotic miasm. My question is, if the influence of a miasm is showing in the facial features, even in a small way, why is it taught that the only miasm that is having an effect and so needing treatment is the dominant one?
Kind Regards,
Fran Sheffield
________________________________

I reviewed his new book for the Asian market recently for Hpathy.com - see http://hpathy.com/book-reviews/facial-a ... t-bentley/ and have mentioned everything in the book briefly but there is loads on Hpathy.com if you do a search.
Rochelle Marsden MSc, RSHom, MNWCH, AAMET

Registered with the Society of Homeopaths

EFT(Advanced) Practitioner

www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

https://www.facebook.com/southporthomeopathicpractice
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Nelson
Sent: 13 August 2012 13:16
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: HFA was: [Minutus] Fw: Autism Recovery with Homeopathy, 5 yo boy Digest 6619 July 18
In the same way that the three primary colors of light combine to form the other colors, he conceptualizes the three main miasms as combining to form others. So the main miasms' colors of yellow (psora), red (sycosis) and blue (syphilis), combine to form green (tubercular), orange (unnamed? in our traditional literature, but very thoroughly described in Grant's), purple (unnamed? -- ditto the previous), and brown (cancer).
Deciding which Color a face goes under is a process of careful examination and scoring of ratable features. Sometimes the choice is clear / easy, and occasionally it is difficult / uncertain. There's a great deal of practice, comparison and correction involved in the initial learning curve! Grant's illustrations, illustrative photos, explanations and feedback make ALL the difference, IMO.
There's more explanation and description on the HFA website. Have you explored that yet?
(I assume that miasms from other conceptual systems, e.g. Ardavan's, Scholten's, etc., would be finer divisions within the "Colors"; I assume not at all in conflict, just different approaches to the material.)
Shannon
Shannon,
I watched Grant's one hour video on HFA. How does one read a face for the Tubercular miasm? He only mentions the original 3
Thank!
Susan.

Hi Fran,

He spent some time explaining that, and I wish i could remember exactly the analogy he used. But the gist of it, in a very short paraphrase, is that "dominant" means dominant -- it dominates the others. Yes they are there; perhaps they have some effects, but the dominant miasm rules!

But -- more below:
I think it's important to say that "better indicated" here comes with *exactly* the same caveats that it would within the broader field of constitutional homeopathy. We do not know all of the indications for any remedy; we do not know remedies completely with thoroughness and precision, or their expressions within any given case.

The remedy pictures within the HFA system are being expanded and built upon in just the same way as had been happening within the broader field of homeoapthy.

So, all that taken into account, yes -- choose the best from among the Color group, even when there is an *apparently* better indicated remedy from another miasmatic group. Then refine from there if needed...

The acid test remains, Does it work? And which works best.
There is some influence, certainly. But it is dominated...
And so it does not change the field (Color) from which the overall, chronic remedy is chosen.

During the time that I was taking the class, Grant was still investigating to what degree *acute* remedies ought to be chosen from the person's Color group. It was appearing that there too, results are better if the acute remedy comes from their chronic Color group -- but obviously it does not *have* to; if you are treating an acute condition, you use the tools available which you have confidence in, both with regard to remedies, and to conceptual framework.

I wonder if those visible-but-dominated other Colors have influence on which acutes come up, and how they express? I would expect that to be the case, but am only speculating.
Clearly it's not the only way one *can* treat, and not the only way to get movement in a case. But apparently, similar to any other comparison between similar remedy vs simillimum, the closer the "fit" between remedy and deep / overall case, the less need there will be for changes of remedy, and the quicker, deeper and more efficient the path to cure will be.

That's what Grant and his students have been finding, that remedies chosen with the addition of this indication, act more deeply.

Again, I don't yet have benefit of experience with this, am only trying to explain what I have gathered, from Grants' and others' reports.
I would think that once the dominant miasm is *brought into balance*, it would tend to become more dominant, not less.

It's maybe worth noting that Grant's concept of what the miasms mean, and refer to, is a bit different. He is seeing them not as "disease states" (the disease is simply from *imbalance*), but rather as differing areas of intrinsic strength, weakness, and other tendencies.

So e.g. a star track runner is not a defective weightlifter, but rather a *different* range of skill and potential.

If I remember right, this is also talked about on the website, with an overview of the differing strengths and tendencies of the different Colors/miasms.

His first book, "Soul and Survival," is where it is explained in detail. It's been on my "read yesterday" list for a long time...

Shannon
________________________________

Thanks for the info, Shannon. Grant's system looks quite useful though it should be pointed out that he is redefining what a miasm means vs. Hahnemann (adaptive stress response/evolution vs pathology/devolution) and discusses these differences.
He also comments in the video that his system is not intended for inherited miasmatic diseases.
Since I have two inherited miasmatic diseases determining current "active" miasm may not be that useful.
As I'm writing about on the homeopathy mail list, I started Tuberculinum after much reading on miasmatic prescribing.. After recently discovering the constitutional antipsoric LM I've been taking, and so helpful for me, is not considered anti-sycotic, it forced me to reconsider nosodes other than Medh which had been helpful. Now taking Tub in split dose, in one week, my blood sugar has went down to all time lows, at times, in addition to feeling quite relaxed, peaceful and physically better, though certainly not yet cured of diabetes. It has allowed me to reduce, at times, injected insulin I recently begun. Also, this has been the longest I've not taken the antipsoric that "cures" bipolar and has allowed me to not take lithium after 35 years.
For those not familiar with Hahnemann's Advanced Methods, or choose to ignore them, instead of taking one dry dose, here 200C, you dissolve the dry dose in liquid, here 4 ounces water, succuss, here 6 hard bangs plus 6 shakes, and take more often, for me daily. Thus you are distributing the power of the single dry dose more evenly and often, attenuating it by succussion, as Hahnemann discovered the vital force responds much better to slight increases in potency vs. repeated dry dosing which I've experienced.
I've found 1/2 teaspoons work better than one teaspoon for a dose, thus have been taking two 1/2 teaspoons per day, experiencing good results. I've only used 1/3 of the 4 ounce botttle so have only taken 1/3 the dose of a single 200C dry dose, so far, that I would have gotten by taking it dry.
Not sure if the HFA method would have led me to Tub, since one rubric of Tub I used is secretion behind the ear, which I've had for years on and off, which would not show up on facial pictures. Now that has subsided while on Tub. Additionally, diabetes is considered primarily a tubercular miasmatic disease, from what I've read, plus Tub seems to work well in bipolar as mania/melancholy is discussed in the MM.
Possibly Tub is my simillimum regardless of its nosode status and I may switch to LM to see if it works even better and faster.
We do need more homeopaths around the world and HFA looks like a good way to attract newbies besides encouraging miasmatic prescribing vs. pathological. We can't expect all new homeopaths are going to immediately delve deeply into the original texts and writings of our Founder, his peers and great successors and learn classical homeopathy the long hard way though nothing should replace learning as much as we can from our past and basic principles. As Grant showed, he repetorized a rubric with 311 remedies and reduced it down to 11 remedies, much easier to deal with. Successful HFA cases could encourage homeopaths to further their knowledge. Like the Olympics, we can have gold, silver and bronze homeopaths and cases appropriate for each.
Susan