Page 1 of 3

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 10:56 am
by Phosphor
hence 2 or 3 separate remedies required. Not one to treat the 'whole'
organism. many woudl rather ignore this aphorism since it demolishes their
entire [illusory] edifice.

andrew

Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2002 11:49 am
by Ardavan Shahrdar
Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine
*******************************
Aphorism 42:

'Nature herself permits, as has been stated, in some
cases, the simultaneous occurrence of two (indeed, of
three) natural disease in one and the same body. This
complication, however, it must be remarked, happens
only in the case of two dissimilar disease, which
according to the eternal laws of nature do not remove,
do not annihilate and cannot cure one another, but, as
it seems, both (or all three) remain, as it were,
separate in the organism, and each takes possession of
the parts and systems peculiarly appropriate to it,
which, on account of the want of resemblance of these
maladies to each other, can very well happen without
disparagement to the unity of life.'
***********************************************
Minutus appreciates your fruitful contribution!

=====
"Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way."

Dr Ardavan Shahrdar, MD, DIHom
President of Iranian Homeopathic Association
Website: http://www.minutus.org
Email: ashahrdar@yahoo.com
Mailing list: http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2002 8:59 pm
by David Little
At 06:58 PM 6/5/2002 +1000, you wrote:
Dear Andrew and Joy,

In the Lesser Writings Hahnemann spoke of two major types of disease,
i.e. those that have mixed aetiologies that are unique and those where
specific infectious collective miasms affect a homogeneous group. In
aphorism 40 Hahnemann gives an example were a complex diseases is caused by
acquired chronic miasms i.e actual infectious disorders like infections
caused by psora and active syphilis, etc. These are infectious miasms in an
active acquired state. Hahnemann says in "these kinds of cases" one may
alternate the proper anti-miasmatic remedies at the proper times.
Sometimes, due to suppression, psora will become an obstacle to the cure
and needs to be treated first. So there is some truth in what you are
saying. Normally, we treat the strongest miasms first. Even Kent spoke of
the need to do this when there were two active acute miasms forming a
complex disease.

This, however, is not the whole story. Since Hahnemann's time we have
proved many more chronic remedies and discovered that some remedies are
multi-miasmatic. This means that they have the power to treat more than one
miasm at once if indicated by the symptoms. This is something that
Hahnemann was not aware of. This method has been confirmed by several
experienced homoeopaths including yours truly. So one must be flexible
according to the circumstances and the types of remedies indicated by the
symptoms.

There are many complex disease states that do not involve specific
acquired miasms. A person may have a complex disease with sadness, a
chronic sore throat and a digestive problem stemming from different
dissimilar causes. If all aspects of this complex disease state are
concomitants expressing a constitutional unity they may be cured by one
remedy. Homoeopaths have done this 100s of times. Many layers and complex
states can be cured by one remedy is the conditions are right. This is more
common when the complex is not made of two or more active infectious
diseases known as acquired miasms.

So when it comes to complex diseases one has to use differential
diagnosis as to the individual state. If the complex diseases is expressed
as the constitutional unity one can treat the symptoms at once. When there
is a complex disease based on layers of active infectious miasms may have
to treat the strongest miasms first. Aphorism 42 says nothing about
treating every disease with a different remedy while aphorism 40 speaks of
treating each acquire infectious miasms with different remedies. Both
situations are possible depending on circumstances.

Hahnemann also made it clear that one must include the individual
constitutional concomitants when taking a case. You can not separate the
individual patient and the disease. When speaking of choosing different
medicines for gonorrhea in the Chronic Diseases Hahnemann explains that one
must pick the remedy by the regional symptoms and "according to their [the
patient's] different constitutions and other aliments attendant to it". So
one can not forget the constitutional concomitants and other ailments
attendant to it when treating specific disease cases. This does involve the
whole organism but in the proper manner. The constitutional concomitants
often carry characteristic symptoms.

Some wish to treat the individual patient and not the disease. Others
wish to treat the disease and not the patient. This is a false dualism
because the patient and the disease come together as one. In homoeopathy,
we treat the vital force. That is the middle path.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 12:11 am
by Phosphor
Joy said:
The original point from andrew was that if more than one dis-similar disease
co-exists simultaneously then they both require different remedies
simultaneously
***
No, my point was that since two [or more] disease states can exist
simultaneously in the body, we should not mix symptoms of the one with the
symptoms of the other, thus arriving at a false hybrid 'totality.' [with due
note to exceptions of mix disease, miasms, constitutional treatment etc].
How we treat this situation is a matter of praxis not logic. most of us mere
mortals would probably prefer to give one remedy at a time since it is
easier to monitor.

David said:
Some wish to treat the individual patient and not the disease. Others wish
to treat the disease and not the patient. This is a false dualism because
the patient and the disease come together as one. In homoeopathy, we treat
the vital force. That is the middle path.
***
i disagree. first generally, something isn't right because it is a median
between two more extreme points of view, since anything could be made right
by that.

secondly, by mixing the symptoms of the disease with the signs and
modalities of the patient we come up with a hybrid that matches neither, if
they correspond with two different remedies. These are two independent
phenomena; and adding the miasms doctrine gives a third. They should not be
rolled together in analysing the case and determining which symptoms go with
which.

andrew
digest.

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
***'Online Medical Terminology Course For Homeopaths and Homeopathy
Students' Visit http://www.minutus.org/medtermhomeo.htm for info***

ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and
educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding
the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read
or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or
email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its
individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental,
special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the
subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 10:40 am
by Joy Lucas
Andrew, what do you mean by 'mixing' symptoms? We are not making cakes here.
Will you give examples please. When taking the case one takes note of the
modalities of a headache and also those of a stomach ache - how can they be
mixed?

Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 1:13 pm
by Piet Guijt
Andrew wrote:

David said:
***
Hello Andrew
You say by "mixing the symptoms of the disease with the signs and

When you see only symptoms you are right, but we treat the whole.
The vital force takes one stand against the most actual disease influences at that time (of prescription).
This posture and reaction is the most effective state to try to stop 'all active disease' at the monent.
When you select a remedy that corresponds with this effort, this is the most effective medicine, you can help the vital force with on the moment. It is no problem to find one remedy for that one state of the vital force.
Maybe after the prescription the present predominating state changes, then the next remedy which corresponds with this state is neccesary.

Kind regards, Piet
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 9:07 pm
by Phosphor
Joy said:
When taking the case one takes note of the
be

they are not mixed until we mix them, by putting them all together in order
to make an erroneous 'totality.' if there are two disease forces present,
and there is no common ground in terms of aetiology, or modalities or other
peculiar symptoms, then the two complaints are either operating in separate
parts of the economy of the organism, or on closer analysis belong to the
same chronic miasm. The more distinctive the symptoms the less likely this
would be.

andrew

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 9:09 pm
by Phosphor
Piet said:
vital force takes one stand against the most actual disease influences at
that time (of prescription). This posture and reaction is the most effective
state to try to stop 'all active disease' at the monent.

the significance of Aph 42 is to show that two or more disease energies can
indeed be present and active simultaneously, in which case we cannot
corectly put all symptoms together as a whole in order to make an analysis.

andrew

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 10:27 pm
by Joy Lucas
Andrew, if the so called totality is erroneous in any way then we will not
find the simillimum - cannot, because of the errors, and this surely would
make one look at the case more carefully. This is so however many disease
forces are present. I do not understand how anyone could proceed with a case
built on errors and attain a cure - unless of course suppression is mistaken
for cure. Where are we going with this? Joy
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

Re: Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine - Aph 42

Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2002 10:38 pm
by Phosphor
Joy said:
find the simillimum

yes...if there is no common ground between groups of symptoms - either by
aetiology, modalities, peculiarities, or miams, then it is folly to lump
them together. it is chasing a chimera.

andrew