cruel people-more questions
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2003 1:02 am
In a message dated 1/25/03 12:59:17 AM Mountain Standard Time,
dave@localcomputermart.com writes:
Dave,
While I agree that a "small" one time cruel act may not be characteristic in
a case at a given time, I still believe that any act of cruelty is indeed
pathological and therefore, at some point, is something that ultimately must
be cured. It is part of the diseased state. It is part of the totality of
symptoms.
Given a case that has yielded an incredibly curative result, that is, the
individual is clear of all physical as well as mental and emotional
limitations, but still has this small element of cruelty. At this
penultimate state of health, this small symptom becomes fully characteristic
of the case.
Now come the questions, given the points raised by Andrew.
Does the footnote to 210 imply that Hahnemann truly thought this was a state
of health? Or was he just setting up the fact that while the physical
symptoms may be gone, these mental/emotional symptoms must also be included
in considering the diseased state. I must admit that reading the footnote
alone is very confusing relative to reading the main paragraphs 210-230.
Since there are no physical symptoms is this not curable by homeopathy? I am
of the belief that while there are instances where homeopathy cannot cure, it
can certainly help (palliate). Is there any situation where homeopathy
cannot be of help? Broken bones, and mangled bodies may require setting and
suturing but even in these instances homeopathy can be helpful.
Can someone be cruel without there being a disturbance of the vital force?
"Being happy" with one's state of cruelty is an inadequate answer. Hitler
was happy in his cruelty.
Any thoughts?
Jim Gregorich
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
dave@localcomputermart.com writes:
Dave,
While I agree that a "small" one time cruel act may not be characteristic in
a case at a given time, I still believe that any act of cruelty is indeed
pathological and therefore, at some point, is something that ultimately must
be cured. It is part of the diseased state. It is part of the totality of
symptoms.
Given a case that has yielded an incredibly curative result, that is, the
individual is clear of all physical as well as mental and emotional
limitations, but still has this small element of cruelty. At this
penultimate state of health, this small symptom becomes fully characteristic
of the case.
Now come the questions, given the points raised by Andrew.
Does the footnote to 210 imply that Hahnemann truly thought this was a state
of health? Or was he just setting up the fact that while the physical
symptoms may be gone, these mental/emotional symptoms must also be included
in considering the diseased state. I must admit that reading the footnote
alone is very confusing relative to reading the main paragraphs 210-230.
Since there are no physical symptoms is this not curable by homeopathy? I am
of the belief that while there are instances where homeopathy cannot cure, it
can certainly help (palliate). Is there any situation where homeopathy
cannot be of help? Broken bones, and mangled bodies may require setting and
suturing but even in these instances homeopathy can be helpful.
Can someone be cruel without there being a disturbance of the vital force?
"Being happy" with one's state of cruelty is an inadequate answer. Hitler
was happy in his cruelty.
Any thoughts?
Jim Gregorich
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]