Minutus

At 12:55 PM 5/9/2004 +0100, you wrote:

Dear Venkat,

Yes, I have also speculated on Hahnemann's use of the vital principle,
vital force, vital energy and I am glad that this has been brought up.
Hahnemann did not use his words lightly and usually there was some deeper
thoughts behind them. Dr. Stahl of Montpelier used the term vital principle
in his mono-dynamism theory where the Soul (Anima Sensitiva) itself was the
source of all vital functions. He is considered the father of modern
vitalism and the first truly systematic chemist. Later Dr. Barthez proposed
a dual-dynamism in which with the soul-spirit are linked more to
consciousness and voluntary action while the vital force was instinctive
and automatic in nature. Both of these gentleman were from the old
Hippocratic school at Montpelier, France.

Hahnemann used three terms in this series of aphorisms, the vital
principle, the vital force and the vital energy. Was Hahnemann proposing a
trio-dynamism? I wish I could ask him! I made up some notes on this in my
writing.

1. the vital principle - the immaterial being (aph. 10). Is this invisible
essence which is the source of the life and the principles by which it
functions?
2. the vital force (aph. 9), Is this the automatic, instinctive organic
power that keeps up "vital operations" and is one with the physical
organism (aph 15)?
3. the vital energy (aph 12)- Is this the pool of vitality present in the
organism that can be used for adaptation, etc.?

In the German text in aphorism 10 Hahnemann wrote "Wesen (das
Lebensprincip, die Lebenskraft)".The word Wesen means nature, essence,
being, genius etc. Hahnemann then put the words *vital principle AND vital
force* brackets after Wesen. In aphorism 11 he uses the term vital force
and then puts vital principle in brackets. Why did he put these various
terms in brackets together? Are these three different aspects of one power
or synonyms for the same single force?

Hahnemann certainly did speak in terms of the remedy causing "the vital
force to increase its energies by degrees" in some of his writings. This
shows that from this angle the vital force and vital energy express
slightly different meanings. This is a clear reference to a force and its
amount of energy. Can the Wesen be viewed as the inner essence or being and
the vital force as its functional or executive power? In some places it
appears as if Hahnemann is using these terms from different angles while in
others he seems to uses them as interchangeable terms.

I am don't think these are three different things per say. I believe
they are three different aspects of one whole that makes up human nature
and life. Perhaps the meaning is in the individual usage? Like I said - I
wish I could ask Hahnemann. Could our German colleagues comment on these
words in the German text as well as their use in German philosophy?

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Dear David,
Thanks for your response.I have some reservations on
Your notion that the trinity- principle,energy,force-
are interchangeable.Again I saw some more light.

Now to the 17 th aphorism:
Now, as in the cure effected by the removal of the whole
of the perceptible signs and symptoms of the disease
the internal alteration of the VITAL PRINCIPLE to which
the disease is due - consequently the whole of the
disease - is at the same time removed,1 it follows that
the physician has only to remove the whole of the
symptoms in order, at the same time, to abrogate and
annihilate the internal change, that is to say, the
morbid derangement of the vital force - consequently
the totality of the disease, the disease itself.2
But when the disease is annihilated the health is
restored, and this is the highest, the sole aim of
the physician who knows the true object of his mission
, which consists not in learned - sounding prating,
but in giving aid to the sick.
Here, there is an interesting observation; the disease
belongs to the vital principle. The symptoms are expressed
by the vital force.

I heard a discourse where the speaker tried to explain the
body- spirit relationship. In a house, where a member
died of disease,a friend visited. Seeing the body, he
asked, what happened ? the relative replied, "he had
cancer, then he died". The friend said, "look, my friend
is here( pointing at the body)".The relative again stressed,
"no, the diseased man has passed away".

To the man (vital principle),the disease is due. That is why,
Hahnemann, in Org. sixth edition,replaced 'force' by 'principle'
in aph 17.

But in aph 19, where he says , "the individual" this must
be the trinity you mentioned- Principle-energy-force with
the physical body and the subtle mind acting as the canvas of
expression of the disease.

You are very right when you said Hahnemann never used his
words lightly. Stuart close in his Genius of Hom.. says
somewhere that Samuel was not consistent in use of the
words when describing the vital principle, force etc. Then
I did not read Org as closely( ?) as I do now. A more close
study may reveal more stunning, deeper facts which Hn alone
knew.

Regards
Venkat
principle,
up.
deeper