Minutus

Dear Zaidee

You are ABSOLUTELY spot on. Thank you.

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:17:00 +0500
From: Zaidee
Subject: Re: Protocol, Message: 18, Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002
===========

Causticum is a very good example of the remedy that Hn produced - but it is
only prescribed on the basis of symptom similarity.

Where is the idea of Symptom Similarity when using a combo?

Although it is valid to swiftly change remedies as the patient's conditions
change (esp in an acute), I find it wrong to change too early. Again many
cases are spoilt by too early a change of remedy.

Kent says NEVER desert a remedy that has done good. Go to a higher potency
first to make sure that you have exhausted the action/usefulness of a remedy
before you change. (of course that the patient's condition has changed so
much that you now need to change the remedy.)

I would advise caution to changes of remedy. If you have the time, take it!

Rgds
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The way I have been taught is as follows:

One of the target a homoeopath should set himself is to find the Similimum
or the MOST similar remedy to the diseased state presenting. By definition,
MOST only refers to ONE.

If you are in two minds about a remedy or about the choice between or among
remedies, then dig deeper and select the remedy with the above target at the
forefront.

There is no room for laziness in homoeopathy.

Homoeopathy is only safe in safe well trained hands. These are hands that
still practise with care and attention and do NOT decide on shortcuts.

There are NO short cuts.

==========

We have senior homoeopaths such as Sheilagh Creasy and others who are
dealing with the same type of patients as Isali reports (also seen by the
rest of us) where all sort of pollutions are going on and several
maintaining causes. However, it seems that she and other colleagues report
successful case management with single remedies prescriptions.

If they can do it, why cannot the rest of us?

Is it that they know their MM and philosophy better?

If that is the case, then the answer is simple - again part of my training -
Do NOT prescribe until you are SURE about your remedy choice.

Be Sure, Be Safe, Cause No Harm.

Good healing & Humblely
Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

or the MOST similar remedy to the diseased >state presenting. By definition,
MOST only refers to ONE.

what needs to be clarified here is that more than one disease energy can
occupy the organism at any given time. that said, one of these is the most
pressing concern.

andrew

> >One of the target a homoeopath should set himself is to find >the
Similimum
definition,

Ah! This one again.

It seems to me that this is a matter of perspective rather than objective
fact. Andrew, if this perspective works for you and you can achieve
successful results treating according to it, then it's no less valid than
any other approach. BUT no more so either. There are an awful lot of people
who focus their treatment on the conception of a single central disturbance
which creates a myriad of different symptom expressions. They treat
according to this view and they also have successful results.

Since we can't perceive "disease energies" with any of our senses in order
to verify whether "they" are indeed separate and distinct from one another,
I think it's a moot point as to whether apparently different simultaneous
symptom expressions indicate their existence or not. Another perspective
would point out that they all occur within the *one* organism.
"Separateness" is, in any sense, only a relative and contingent description.
An individual organism is an apparently separate and distinct entity, but at
another level it's an integral part of its society (without which most
organisms don't function too successfully), and at another level yet, an
integral part of the singularity that is Life.

It's quite plain from the case records of all the diverse healing modalities
that problems of any nature within a (relatively) separate and distinct
individual can be addressed at many different levels of organisation, both
within the organism, and sometimes without (eg. family therapy). All
approaches appear to have their success stories and their failures,
indicating that all are valid and none are inherently "superior" to any
other. And while certain approaches may be more suited to certain types of
problem, there are plenty enough exceptions to show that there are no hard
and fast rules.

Please don't let's repeat the unpleasantness that accompanied the discussion
of this subject on the Lyghtforce list last time you introduced it. At this
time of year, and in these present global circumstances, peace and goodwill
is much needed.

Regards
Wendy

Hi andrew,

I *think* I understand what's meant by this (more than one disease energy at
the same time), and to check, I'd be interested in your comments (or
others') on my thoughts here:

Hahneman does talk about the "occasional" co-existence of more than one
disease state, in what he called "complex diseases". But my understanding
from the last discussion I heard re your remark below, was that the writers
(including yourself) meant it more generally than that, or felt that it was
a more common thing than Hahnemann seemed to suggest. (??)

In the absence of "complex disease", we can talk of different "levels" of
disease energy, just as there can be different "levels" of indicated remedy
-- e.g. (a) "constitutional", whose actions will lessen occurrence of (b)
acute or (c) traumatic or (d) "situational" states. And in some cases
perhaps (e) a "meta-constitutional", whose action will not only lessen
occurrence of b-d, but also treat them should they arise, and also cover all
the issues of (a). (One remedy that "does everything" for the person -- a
hypothetical beast in my mind, but intriguing idea.)

Does either of the above describe what you're referring to, or have I still
missed it?

Shannon
on 12/18/02 5:21 AM, Phosphor at phosphor@hotkey.net.au wrote:

Hi Soroush,

I do think that this ("they know their MM and philosophy better) is it. And
I would say it's easier to know the philosophy than to know the MM, so I
think that is the greatest difference between the "good" and the "great" --
they know their tools!!!

But as far as not prescriting until you are sure about your remedy choice,
that I could quibble with. In some cases that's what's necessary -- let the
picture fully develop; don't rush to prescribe until you have as full a case
as you either need, or can get.

On the other hand, there are cases where you do your best to get "the whole
case", and you do not know what do to with it. In that case, sometimes you
need to have "a learning experience". I think this can be a delicate
question.

Best,
Shannon

My dear friend Soroush, to that which you delineate below there is no
disagreement. There is absolute concurrance with each line. The expressed
thinking is correct and valid. You and other learned colleagues attest to
its veracity daily. However, the issue remains. Whether the wave theory
might adequately describe homeopathic clinical treatment. The inquiry
challenges a fundamental idea of 'the' single remedy application. As a
preface, I come to such an inquiry by pondering the question of whether the
sequential application of single remedies is distinctive from the multi
remedy protocol? The argument that ipso facto there results a disturbance
of the VF is based on the assumption that the remedies are not similia or
not complementary. The question becomes whether if complementary remedies
are mixed would they cause a disturbance to the VF. The wave theory might a
means of resolving the question and afford homeopathy a broader mechanism of
explanation, and possibly change some assumptions.

Your thoughts resound with great clarity and I look forward to your response
to the issues raised.

Good thoughts

disease state, in what he called "complex >diseases".
Hn discovered the principle of similars precisely on the observation of the
effect of dissimilar diseases on the orgamism [along with the effect of
similar disease of course]. so this phenomena forms the bedrock of
homeopathy.
there are 3 possibilites resulting in the simultaneous admission of 2 or
more dissimilar diseases:
1. they form a new, synthesized complex
2. the stronger tempoarirly suppresses the weaker one.
3. they both mingle in the parts of the body where they are wont to go.

onyl the third represents problems in prescribing, since you have to
separate symtpoms belongin to one

from symptoms belonging to the other, otherwise you will have a false
'smorgasboard' symptom set.

this is covered in [from memory] #43-47 of the Organon.

disease energy, just as there can be different >"levels" of indicated remedy

yes this too. maybe levels is sometimes an unhelpful analogy: you could say
malevolent guests in various hotel rooms.

andrew

fact. Andrew, if this perspective works for you and >you can achieve
successful results treating according to it, >then it's no less valid than
any other approach.

I suggest as homework you read the Organon and count how many times the word
'disease' is present. after this you will see thee is no possibility of
waving your metaphysical wand and see diseases vanish.

also count the numer of times the phrase 'treat the patient not the disease'
appears. [of course its zero, as Mr Hartley will eagerly point out].

andrew

> >It seems to me that this is a matter of perspective rather than
word
disease'

???????????

I think if you read my post again you'll see that nowhere am I saying that
diseases don't exist. I'll repeat the essence of it again, since you seem
have missed that entirely.

You argue for the viewpoint which perceives the simultaneous existence of
several disease states, evidenced by apparently different symptom complexes,
and you seem to be advocating (correct me if I've picked you up wrong) that
each of these separate states should be addressed separately and
individually.

Other people don't see it this way. They perceive a single disease state
producing a variety of symptom complexes, and they focus their treatment on
that perceived single disease state.

Obviously you find the former conceptualisation fits with your general
approach and outlook much better than the latter, but for other people it's
the other way round. Neither view is necessarily either proved or disproved
purely by reference to the Organon, since it's been well demonstrated for a
long time that people can interpret it any number of different ways
according to the implicit assumptions they infer in their interpretation.

The only real "proof" of either perspective is in the results obtained in
practice. *Both* can claim considerable success treating according to their
respective viewpoints and *both* have failures. (And this is no less true of
all the other healing modalities too.)

So what does that say? As far as I'm concerned, it says that *both* methods
are equally valid, so there seems little point (other than trying to satisfy
some personal ego issues) in generating a lot of hot air about it. You're
free to choose the method that works for *you*. But don't expect everybody
else to do the same. They have equal freedom of choice about the method
that's right for *them*.

Think how much more we could collectively learn about the dynamics of health
and disease if, instead of vying for the supremacy of our particular
viewpoint, we could put it all together and start to really figure out
what's going on ...

Regards
Wendy