Hi Miguel,
on 7/7/04 12:19 AM, Miguel F at
floresmikael@yahoo.es wrote:
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the eight (or 20?) remedies
weren't sufficient? (That wouldn't surprise me!), but what do you mean by
"none could"? *What* is real in Guadaljara? (Sorry for all the questions,
but trying to understand...)
Pictures are useful! But can be limiting if not properly understood.
Yikes, depends who you ask, and (more) on the person and circumstances...
Most would say that the picture can change with age, trauma, circumstances,
etc.
Mm, an "inexpert" prescriber (whether MD or other) often *can't*
differentiate! That is why experience and supervision are of such critical
importance. And sometimes even "experts" need more than one try to find the
needed remedy!
Well... The "picture" of the patient will certainly change due to effects
of any remedy which acts, whether well or badly. Knowing what the change
means, and knowing how to appropriately respond, is part of what takes
training, of course! Maybe you could give a specific example, and more
specific question?
Maybe, but probably not.
The picture (meaning, "the remedy needed") will appear to change frequently
*if* one prescribes on states which are only superficially similar (changes
of mood and circumstance) or based on acutes or local states (e.g. acutes,
injuries, "indispositions", organ congestion, etc.).
*But* if one is prescribing on the patient's deeper nature and broader state
of "constitutional" being, then it will change only rarely. (Which does not
mean that an acute rx etc. would never be needed.) If a person is very ill,
and the VF very unstable, then there could indeed be rapid changes at a deep
level, and these are situations that really demand expert and very timely
prescribing; but if the state of health is reasonably good, then the deep
inner state will be reasonably stable.
Are you saying that as the patient improves, new little ills will arise and
these will become excessly bothersome to the patient? Perhaps, and that's
(a small part of) why self-prescribing isn't recommended; lack of
perspective...
Miguel, I hear your frustration, and I'm not sure what to say. Yes, any
method of prescribing will be insufficient if it is superficially practiced,
or applied to a case that is not suited to it (e.g. trying to use "mental"
symptoms on a comatose pt, etc.). Any doctor who is using keynotes *in
absence of understanding of the materia medica*, cannot be getting good
results. But keynotes used *together* with good understanding of the
remedies, can be extremely valuable.
Perhaps you are indeed seeing lots of sloppy prescribing, I simply can't
tell from here. But it appears to me that there is also *good* prescribing,
and good results, happening here and there. It's something for us to
continue striving for.
Maybe it would help if you explain what you training has been so far? Have
you had formal classes, read the Organon, or ??
It is certainly both. This will happen for *anyone*, and in any field, who
practices for a long time -- one acquires an "intuition" which can make it
*look* as tho the prescribing is based on "hunches" and indefinable things,
when in fact those hunches are solidly rooted in real understanding acquired
over the years. This happens not just in homeopathy, of course.
(Who is Miguel Angel?) No, we *don't* want to try to teach beginners to
prescribe by "artistic method"! (Is this what you feel you have been
seeing?) We want to give them the *skills* to acquire the *experience* that
will enable them to achieve their own "art" over time.
By the "scientific" way, do you mean following Hahnemann's instructions --
taking the case, analyzing it, determining the "characteristic totality" and
finding a remedy which will suit it? If not, what do you mean?
Best wishes,
Shannon