Adding my bit -
The term 'constitutional remedy', and the expression 'a
person *is* a remedy-type',
have become rarities in my vocabulary -
The fact (or should I say, the seeming fact) that some
people have tendencies to manifest, under stress and
challenge of whatever sorts, symptoms that resemble one
particular remedy, more so than any other remedy, does not,
in my view, *make* them *be* that remedy-type -
It is, of course, a simple way of describing and terming the
observation. Yet, as we can see, it also gives rise to much
mis-understanding, confusion, and endless open-ended
interpretations ....
This does show, in some way, that no-one really has any
final truth or the-only-one-and-correct way of defining the
terms -
Everyone has good arguments and valid points for their
interpretation -
Similibus Curentur is a principle observed in Nature -
no discussions about it, no personal interpretations needed
or possible -
Artificial disease - natural disease -
initial action - secondary action ...
all principles of Nature -
observable, confirmed, reproducible -
It is part of why some call homoeopathy scientific -
Whereas the concept of 'constitution' seems to be founded on
various intellectual constructs, rather than on a basic
principle in Nature -
To be clear, the concept/s of 'constitution' are quite
helpful in many ways in
regards understanding people, and connecting all sorts of
psychology and personality and body-types and even universal
symbolism, etc etc ...
However, for actual treatment choices of disease it may be a
mis-application,
a mis-placed use of the concept of 'constitutional types' -
When even 'Constitutional--believed-to-be-Icon' Kent says:
" Classification of Constitution useless in Prescribing"
(Lesser Writings)
we may realize that the whole concept is not as simple as it
sometimes is
made to seem -
When I take the case and find the person in health resembles
the image of what is known of Phosphorus-in-health, then I
may make a mental or side note on the record, for whatever
fascinating study it may be worth - but I still would wish
to find the actual disease-image and a remedy that matches
the disease - clearly most people obviously agree on this
anyway -
Actually, these days I would *deliberately not* term the
person a 'Phosphorus constitutional type' -
It is all too easy to be tempted to give Phosphorus
- when no other remedy becomes clear in *my* study of the
case (which does not mean a better homoeopath could not
possibly see a true similimum, that I missed)
- when the person is basically symptom free and
well-balanced, but to 'improve their resistance' /
'constitution' - without there being a disease-image of the
Vital Force to match -
which, as I see it, is really not much else than doing a
proving, albeit, if only one dose is given, maybe a rather
subtle proving -
( in which case I admittedly am not quite decided as to any
benefit or detriment ...
it is said that provings can leave the prover in better
health afterwards ... but I would, as of yet, still wish to
figure out how the effects of those principles of Nature
actually would manifest into a 'strengthening of what is
thought to be the 'constitution' )
Also, even if some 'affinity' between person--remedy can be
perceived, who knows, maybe giving the 'constitutional'
remedy could 'impress' that remedy-type further onto the
person .... in other words, maybe giving 'constitutional'
remedies 'forces' the Vital Force more into that
remedy-'type' .... ?!? limiting future freedom of
evolvements of other remedy-affinities/experiences .... on
whichever levels .... (after all, it is about the *healthy*
aspects of the person ! )
The concept of 'constitution' and 'constitutional types' is
fascinating study and expands for me beyond any
homoeopathic application, and threads itself through many of
the study-pursuits in my life - it benefits the
understanding of people, and for homoeopathy it benefits the
understanding of substances and Materia Medica, but *for
treatment purposes* people are too varied,
disease-expressions too variable and innumerable, and
possibilities and influences too vast to narrow them down
into classifying people into groups/'constitutions', and
remedies into 'types' -
- no matter how many arthritis cases I've seen,
each new case is a new case, as if I've never seen joint
problems before -
- no matter how many similarities we may recognize in an
individual person with
another different person or with a group of 'types',
each person is an individual never seen before
*as I see it* -
( presently ...
bestens
peter quenter