Minutus

Yes, of course it does lead to challenging that definition of psychosomatic,
but it makes people think.
Babies and animals do have psyches and somas, and we do need to look at
both. I don't know if the structure of the word from Greek necessarily
indicates causality one way or another. If it does, I'll have to give up
that line.

Theresa
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:11:45 -0000
From: "dusty1197"
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1901/psychosomatic
The problem here, as I see it, is that the term psychosomatic
suggests a conscious thought process that ultimately affects the
somatic realm, whether to create physical symptoms or resolve them.
If we describe homeopathy as psychosomatic, then we cannot explain
how it works in babies and animals.

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Theresa Partington"
wrote:
including
everything
wondering how
really
concerned
the

Actully, there's more than one scenario to consider here. Animals
and babies can develop psychogenetic illnesses just as easily as
human adults can. Many a cat, for instance, has developed diabetes
after suffering a traumatic loss of a companion or guardian. The
genesis of the illness is in the psyche, leading to somatization.
But when remedies are said to act psychosomatically, then we're
relying on an intellectual understanding relative to treatment,
something which neither babies nor animals are capable of.

So I think there's a basic difference in that in order to become
maltuned and suffer the distress of physical illness secondary to
psychic disturbance does not require any comprehension of the forces
at work, to use the mind and its power of belief to resolve illness
or relieve symptoms does.

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Theresa Partington"
wrote:
psychosomatic,
look at
necessarily
give up
only