Minutus

been accustomed to calling "constitutional" >treatment, but will now
refrain) would most *certainly* not >leave him "cruel", else it was not
successful by any standards >with which I'm familiar.

I'll stick with Hn on this: if the person is naturally cruel, successful
homeopatic treatment will return him to this state. His/her cruelty is not
due to a disturbance of the VF if it belongs to their nature. read the
appropriate passage of the organon.

andrew

Hi
I have not read the previous correspondance regarding this, sorry, but is
there a person who is 'naturally cruel'? I suppose this depends upon your
stance on the nature-nurture issue. In my view if someone is cruel there is
usually a reason for it - I would certainly say so as an ex-social worker
and counsellor who has worked with quite violent and aggressive young
people.

There are rubrics that deal with Cruelty, Brutality, Hardheartedness,
Indifference to suffering, Maliciousness, Misanthropy, Unfeeling - amongst
others - so it would appear that such characteristics are not beyond
homeopathic assistance. I have found that most people who could be described
as 'cruel' have had some kind of prsonal background in bad relationships,
people who have to struggle to survive, to fight there own corner. I believe
that this kind of experience can very definitely disturb the VF, and so is
very definitely treatable..

Steve Scrutton

"Homeopathy is a safe, gentle and effective medical therapy"

In a message dated 1/24/03 1:07:12 AM Mountain Standard Time,
phosphor@hotkey.net.au writes:
I do not understand this statement. Is not cruelty a pathology that needs to
be cured? Does it not prevent an individual from freely living and achieving
his/her higher purpose. Please explain.

Thanks,

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

Cross-references:
Cut, mutilate, slit, desire to; others
Destructiveness
Harshness, rough
Joy, general; misfortune of others, at
Malicious, vindictive
Misanthropy
Moral affections; want of moral feeling
Sensitive, ... want of sensitiveness
Unfeeling, hard-hearted
Wicked disposition

MIND; CRUELTY, brutality, inhumanity; general: abrot., absin., alco., ANAC.,
androc., ars., aur., bell., bry., calc., canth., carc., chin., choc., croc.,
cur., falco-p., haliae-lc., Hep., hyos., kali-i., kali-p., kola., lach.,
lap-mar-c., med., nicc., nit-ac., nux-v., op., plat., sabad., sel., squil.,
staph., stram., sulph., tarent., verat.

This includes material from Allen, Schmidt, Scherr, Gallavardin, Kent,
Knerr, Boericke, Phatak, Jahr, and others for whom I don't recognize the
abbreviation . Evidently cruelty is considered by them to be a
"symptom", and by inference, treatable. I wonder whether they considered it
treatable, or more "consitutional", as e.g. "tall", "blonde", etc.?

I guess I see two points to be uncertain of:

How we determine what a person "naturally" is. Some people would say that
cruelty etc. is a sign of damage or pain, a wound to be healed. Other
people say that some people *are* naturally cruel, "evil", etc. While I
would dearly love to believe that the former is true, I realize that at this
point I can't *know*.
So you are saying ( that H'n was saying) that in some people, cruelty is
"incurable" (because in them it is not pathological). Seems nonsensical to
me, but who knows...

Another quibble is back to that paragraph re "the former, healthy state". I
continue to insist that that is not a meaningful or useful direction for a
miasmatic problem, where the pt was *born* with it, and has *never* known a
"healthy state". I find that this is not an uncommon situation (at least
where I am in the US) based e.g. on the fact that I have several in my own
tiny "friends and family" "practice".
Cruelty is said to be an expression of syphilitic miasm. If I were
seeking to treat (for what?) someone whom I judged to be "cruel", I would
most certainly, unquestionably, unhesitatingly, and with absolute confidence
be including this (cruelty and etc.) among my list of "symptoms", rubrics,
etc. I might begin treatment with a more "local" remedy (possibly one that
did not cover "cruelty"), e.g. to specifically address more superficial
issues, but I would absolutely not consider myself "finished", or them
"cured", unless or until there was a dawning of compassion, a loss of the
enjoyment of others' pain (which is I believe a definition of "cruelty").
Perhaps I would be wrong in this, but I would most certainly have to try.
Perhaps in some people it's really true; I'd assume that in most "cruel"
people it is not true. I am not one of the folks who assumes that
everything Hahnemann wrote is final truth, the last word. You'll notice
I've been quibbling with his "former, healthy state" line, and I'm willing
to quibble with that part, too! If it *is* true of some people, I'd have to
believe they are a very, very small minority, *not* useful for a starting
assumption!

How, in your opinion, would one recognize someone who is cruel "naturally",
for whom it is not pathological?

Shannon

to be cured?

yes but is all cure found in homeopathy? homeopathy treats the VF, not the
full range of the human organism from gross pathology and nutrition to the
subtlest intellectual and spiritual spheres.

andrew

cruelty etc. is a sign of damage or pain, a >wound to be healed.
yes all that is possible.

"incurable" (because in them it is not pathological).
it may be better to say, the cruelty in them has not been caused by the
disturbance of the VF.
I continue to insist that that is not a meaningful >or useful direction for
a miasmatic problem, where the pt was >*born* with it, and has *never* known
a "healthy state".
that is true also.

it is. but there are many other reasons. they can be like that by nature,
which Hn observed.

"cruel", I would most certainly, unquestionably, >unhesitatingly, and with
absolute confidence be including this
but you would be wrong unless it is caused by the VF disturbance.
not cover "cruelty"), e.g. to specifically address >more superficial issues,
but I would absolutely not consider >myself "finished", or them "cured",
unless or until there was a >dawning of compassion.
the homeopath can treat the VF, nothing more and nothing less.
we are not spiritual healers or moral counsellors.
final truth, the last word.
neither am I. we can add to his observations. but usually a person who sets
out to contradict his observations comes up empty handed. since Hn
developed miasmatic theory i imagine he woud take into account unhealthy
traits directly acquired from parents.
"naturally", for whom it is not pathological?
when everyhting else is cured, and he is happy with himself and reports no
distress. it could be any kind of states, eg sentimental, egoistic, dreamy,
whatever. it may seem pathological to us, but not to them.

andrew

VF, and so is very definitely treatable..

if the disturance is in the VF, yes. otherwise no. Hn says it clearly that
we don't treat the innate nature of the individual [hence the futility of
the 'constitution' idea as has been discusse at length].

here's the footnote to paragraph 210 to explain:

How often, for instance, do we not meet with a mild, soft disposition in
patients who have for years been afflicted with the most painful diseases,
so that the physician feels constrained to esteem and compassionate the
sufferer! But if he subdue the disease and restore the patient to health -
as is frequently done in homoopathic practice - he is often astonished and
horrified at the frightful alteration in his disposition. He often witnesses
the occurrence of ingratitude, cruelty, refined malice and propensities most
disgraceful and degrading to humanity, which were precisely the qualities
possessed by the patient before he grew ill.

Andrew

first, since Hn we have developed much greater understanding of human nature and pathology.
i think you need to look to accomodate this development in your thinking.

second, i wonder what problems you have with dealing the affective aspects of cases. are you
one of those practitioners who need to have everything concrete and measurable? i think you
need to assess yourself and recognize that not everyone has the same type of need when
working with people.

tanya

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for proving the paragraph. Yep, I remember it, and find it puzzling
along similar lines to the "former state of health" lines! While I guess I
have to accept the possibility that some (presumably *very* few) people are
innately evil, and to them cruelty would be "natural", I really can't see it
as a useful starting assumption for any case!

If *I* were treating this person, my next step would be to find "the next
remedy", and I would most definitely be aiming to understand the "whys" of
his "ingratitude, cruelty, refined malice" etc., and to "cure" it. P'rhaps
I'd fall flat on my face, but I would most certainly try. And *not* by
assuming there had been a prior state of health to aim for; I would assume
miasmatic (syphilitic) disturbance, and proceed accordingly.

Wouldn't you?

Shannon

accordingly.

in a chronic case i think it is folly to rely exclusively on mentals.
there has to be, or have been, some clear physicals to go on as well.
the whole issue of mental symptoms has been overblown: what to account for
is specific and observable changes that have overtaken the person in their
thoughts and emotions.

andrew