Minutus

isali writes:

Shannon writes:
Hmm... I do think it's fair to say that miasm = susceptibility (which =
predisposition?). If there were no susceptibility (i.e. to disease, injury,
or aging), then it seems there would be no death.

On the other hand, how would there be growth or learning, either?
Both come (or are recognized) about as result of interplay between self and
non-self..
Shannon

isali writes:
Yes, an interplay, a dynamic interdependent interrelationship between the mix of the gene structure, the proteins which attach themselves to it, and the vital force.

Hn states in # 19 & # 17 that a change to a healthy state is a relief of the morbid signs and symptoms, and in #72 that the chronic morphology affects the automatic life force merely more gradually,...and with a useless resistance yields a destructive consequence.

My question is, does not the vital force 'ultimately' suffer a reflection of a destruction of the organism as a consequence of its inherent chronic miasm, which may be so inspired by an acute morphological presentation, that establishes a predisposition to manifest or to remanifest a chronic miasm?

There will no life force in the absence of a miasm.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sorry Isali, I don't understand this paragraph!

You wrote:

Does "ultimately" mean, "at or by the time of death", or ?
What do you mean by "reflection of a destruction"? Do you mean
"foreshadowing", or "an analogous process", or ??
Does the paragraph so far mean, "Doesn't the oragnism have a foretaste of
the manner of its own death in the form of the sufferings of its chronic
miasm"???
(could one say "stimulated", or "activated"?)
??? Does this mean "acute illness"? Doesn't "morphology" mean shape?

that

Sorry, I'm fascinated, but lost! What does this mean?

Do you mean, can acute illnesses cause a worsening of the preexisting
miasmic state? (Yes, it can.)
"Miasm" is still a rather vaguely applied term, IMO.
To the extent that "miasm" means "susceptibility to external influences", I
would certainly agree.
Yet I think it is also possible to live a *healthy* life, and die a healthy
death. I don't think we have to say that a perfectly healthy person would
never die... But I suppose that's debatable...

Eagerly awaiting further enlightenment as to whether my translation is
accurate!


Shannon

isali writes:
My question is, does not the vital force 'ultimately' suffer a reflection of a destruction of the organism as a consequence of its inherent chronic miasm, which may be so inspired by an acute morphological presentation, that establishes a predisposition to manifest or to remanifest a chronic miasm?

Shannon writes:
Does the paragraph so far mean, "Doesn't the oragnism have a foretaste of
the manner of its own death in the form of the sufferings of its chronic
miasm"???

YES

#72 that the chronic morphology affects the automatic life force merely more gradually,...and with a useless resistance yields a destructive consequence
.
Shannon writes:
To the extent that "miasm" means "susceptibility to external influences"....

isali writes:
I interpret susceptibility to mean the consequence of the interdependent interrelationship between the automatic life force and a miasm. This as an acute or chronic manifestation of an exogenous or endogenous nature.

Shannon writes:
I think it is also possible to live a *healthy* life, and die a healthy
death. I don't think we have to say that a perfectly healthy person would
never die...

Hn states in # 19 & # 17 that a change to a healthy state is a relief of the morbid signs and symptoms,

isali writes:
There will no life force in the absence of a miasm. They are two interdependent aspects of an organism.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]