Minutus

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

are

Most pleasant greetings Soroush. I will respond over the weekend to your
post. I clipped and pasted above the very issue which you raise & is the
casusative factor to my pondering of the question.

It is my understanding from my reading of the Organon; from what other
readings I've enjoyed on topic; from other colleagues and notably classical
homeopaths; that there is the use of sequential administration of remedies.
It is asserted that this is acceptable when one remedy has concluded its
action and a new picture emerges requiring another remedy. This may unfold
numerous times.

It raised the question that if each remedy was appropriate, and by its
action cleared some aspects of the terrain which allowed what was hidden to
manifest more clearly. To wit another remedy for administration. All on
the theory that acute issues supplant a more chronic one.

If there are numerous acute morphologies, each with its particular ability
of expression through the VF, and each with manifestation only when a lesser
one was 'cured', then is it not arguable that a combination which is
appropriate for each acute morbid picture, and one wherein there exist a
preponderance of proximal somatic reactions though from differing issues,
may not be treated with their respective singular profile of similia in
combination?

I will construct some examples over the weekend and post.

Most pleasant regards and appreciation for your patience.

Hi Isali,

You wrote:
Yes. And the classical/Hahnemannian way to proceed in this situation is to
*follow the changing symptoms*, and prescribe accordingly. Hahnemann states
specifically (sorry, can't quote the aphorism) that, even if you think you
"know" what remedy will be needed next, you should not prescribe it without
waiting to see what the first remedy accomplishes, and then choosing
accordingly. He notes (and I have seen this to be true!!!) that sometimes
*no* following remedy will be needed, and other times the remedy needed next
will surprise you.

Usually if you are "clearing" lots of little things on the way to the big
thing, it simply means that you had not taken a very comprehensive case,
and have dilly-dallied in getting down to "the real thing". Usually, if you
give a good "constitutional"/chronic remedy, that will normalizs the body's
processes very nicely, and the body doesn't *need* auxilliary help in
cleaning up every little thing. Just as with kids, you really don't need to
follow them around, giving advice about every bully, a bandaid for every
scrape, a medicine for every sniffle. If they are *strong*, they will take
care of most issues on their own, quite nicely. If they are not strong,
your better approach is to help them *become* strong, and then leave them to
find their way! (With help as needed, of course, but preferrably without
"hovering" too much!)

(This would of course not *always* be true; if the patient is very weak,
very old, very compromised, then you will want to be slower and more gentle,
and may indeed need to give a lot of auxilliary help (organ remedies,
palliatives, specific traumas, etc.) before going "deep".)

But usually this is not the case. By definition (and according to
Hahnemann), a weaker disease will not suppress a stronger one, but rather
the reverse. The weaker diseases may *distract* the casetaking, tho...
Sometimes we need to know what to ignore, in order to find what's really
needed.

then is it not arguable that a combination which is

Yeah, you could do this, but by analogy:
That's (IMO) more like, if you have a kid who's always getting into trouble,
just sending out form letter apologies ahead of time, rather than sitting
your kid down for a talk on manners, the law, consequences, whatever. Why
not go to the *source* of the trouble (weak constitution) and strengthen
that? Then let the other stuff work itself out?

Because, again, the "source of the trouble" will not be handled by the
approach you are talking about; you have to get "below" that to strengthen.

But I'll be interested to hear your examples!
Best,
Shannon