Aphorism / constitutional

[Shannon Nelson]

Thinking again about the aph. which says to be guided by "changes from the
former healthy state".

I recall someone, some time back, saying that Organon is more applicable to
treating acutes, whereas Chronic Diseases is more applicable to treatment of
chronic/miasmatic illness. Maybe that relates to this discussion re whether
Hahnemann treated "the patient" (e.g. "constitutionally") or "the disease"
(e.g. symptoms of the disease only). Suddenly struck me that this phrase
*seems* (?) to hold a clear answer. If one is treating a miasmatic illness,
present from birth without any known present-time causation, that phrase
about "former healthy state" becomes only a puzzlng bit of nonsense. But if
you are treating the results of acutes, befallments, accidents of lifestyle,
trauma, etc., etc., then it becomes quite perfectly good guidance.

Recall Hahnemann talking (CD?) about his perplexity at a point in his
practice, when patients he had thought "cured", who had gone away happy for
some months or even years, began to return with either recurrence of the
"same thing" which this time would not yield to the prior remedy, or with
new and worse ailments. It was due to these observations and his struggles
with those patients that led to the development of his theory of miasms, and
all that goes with it.

I don't assume that "treat the disease" cannot be done in context of miasms,
but I am confused about how one would do that. Can anyone comment?

Shannon