Minutus

Dear all,

Clear definition of terms is a prerequisite for a
fruitful discussion. When a term is used to define
different meanings, there is no way for a systhematic
thinking or discussion.

Definition of most terms, like disease, cure,
constitution, constitutional remedy, miasm,.... are
usually vaguely formed in our mind during our
education (pre- and post-homeopathic!) gathered from
different sources with different schools of thought.

I know that unification of definition is a hard job to
be carried out, but is the result of such discussions
anything but mental and verbal fatigue and sometimes
fruitless quarrel?

Any idea regarding unification of definitions (or
ramification of terms!)?

Regards,

Ardavan
=====
Life is beautiful, if you look at it in a beautiful way.

____________________________________________________________
Nokia Game is on again.
Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
all media adventure before November 3rd.

> Any idea regarding unification of definitions (or

First thanks to claudia for her important contribution! From the
perspective of a native-English speaker, 'constitution' in terms of health
could mean..

1. fundamental energy ...as in a person who lived to a robust old age
despite many harships, poverty, war etc is said to have a 'strong
consitution'

2. the broad physical makeup..as in a 'wiry constitution' to describe a thin
but energetic and active individual

3. the psychological temperament....as in a 'fiery constitution' to describe
someone with a quick temper.

4. the morbid tendency...as in 'depressive constitution' to describe someone
who gets depressed a lot, or 'tubercular' constitution to describe someone
always getting flus, swollen glands
i gather, Claudia, that LEIBESBESCHAFFENHEIT means (2), and not any of the
others. is this correct?

Whereas, "spiritual and emotional character" means (3) and (4).

But how to take (3) and (4) into considration as Hn instructs us? My reading
of Hn is that we know these in order to have a baseline from which to
measure changes. Piet's position, i think, is that we take them as is and
include in the symptom picture.

Andrew

Andrew wrote:>
reading
Dear Andrew,

There is no contradiction between your reading and my position.
What you say is Aphorism 6, what I say (following Hn) is Aphorism 5 & 6.
Aphorism 5 forms the constitutional foundation on witch the totality of the
sign and symptoms are introduced in aphorism 6. The characteristics of
Aphorism 5 do not lead to remedies by themselves, they are part of the
overall totalitiy of the symptoms.
Don't forget in a constitutional approach health and disease are two sides
of the same coin.
This approach has it limitations, but for this Hn offers us other
strategies.

regard,

Piet

the

No, i disagee with you, for these reasons..
1. Hn never explains how to use them
2. they seem to be more part of the forensic background of the case-taking
procedure
3. your interpretation is contradicted by Aph. 6, which clearly states, as
Claudia said, that only the observable symptoms form the diagnostic
picture.
4. Claudia has explained why 'constitution' as you would like to interpret
it is inaccurate.

repeating a wrong statement doesnt make it right next time round, and merely
stating it is not an argument in support of it. Perhaps Claudia may be able
to tell us if there is anything in the original German which may shed some
light on exactly how to understand Aph 5.

Andrew