Minutus

Dear Friends
Thanks for your sound suggestions. Most of you suggest IGN. and some suggest NAT-M. When I first visit this patient , gave her IGN. and I was confident of its action. I prescribed IGN. C30, 1 pill, dry dose. A week later she came . Nothing was changed.
IGN. repeated in 200 C potency, dry dose. Nothing was changed again. I suugested IGN. is not similar in depth of action. I gave her nat-m. c30 dry dose 2 pill. 2 weeks later NOTHING was changed. Nat-m. repeated in c200 potency. 3 weeks later : she came with same mind and same weeping, with a new symptom : anxiety, without cause .during this anxiety she had an audible palpitation. I looked at A SYSTEMIC ALPHABETIC REPERTORY OF HOMOEOPATHIC REMEDIES /CHEST/PALPITATION/AUDIBLE and find only DIG. Refering to materia medica I found DIG. the most similar remedy to may patient. more than nat-m , ign. or etc. I checked her pulse rate and found it 48/min. I gave her DIG.
Next time she came to me with no weeping, her anxiety, palpitation and an her untold knee pain was completely disapeared. She had a rapid amelioration in her mental and physical sphere. I continue with dig. for next 8 mounths.
Then I Learned that I can not judge only based on the MIND SYMPTOMS. Sometimes they are misleading.
Regards
Farbod
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Farbod

Well done on solving this case - the peculiar symptoms assists in helping
the solution.

However, if you look at Synth 7 under the same rubric
CHEST/PALPITATION/AUDIBLE there are 26 remedies!!

Regards
Soroush

Sometimes they are misleading.

Farbod,

Thanks for this example on how NOT to do it.

This is what Sankaran calls 'Picture behind picture'

The patient has sometime to play the role that the situation demands, which
is far removed from his internal state.
Yet his original state will be revealed in some involontary, unsuitable,
innappropriate and odd gestures, word or act, and they indicate the real
essence.
Sankaran gives an example of an Ingatia picture, but in reality a Stramonium
state.
'The substance of Homeopathy' page 273,274.

Sehgal also give an example:
"A house wife says: nobody likes me, no one cares for me. You give me the
medicine so that i could do something for myself. I do not want to take any
favour from anybody"
But in reality the people around her are very nice co-operative and
sympathic toward her.
Her expresion would point to Ignatia,
But taken the second in concern the remedy is Thuja.

So it's a matter of observation, it is not the method.
You have to do it the right way, just the same as selecting symtoms for the
totallity

kind regard, Piet

At 05:37 PM 11/8/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Hello Minutus,

I have a little time off this afternoon so I though I would comment on
this subject since its speaks of the essence and the mind.

I agree with the nature of the ideas that are being presenting but I
would like to expand the field of awareness if possible. The terms
Essence/Inbegriff and Totality/Gesammtheit are two halves of one whole.
Gesammtheit/totality is the visible field effect that makes up a phenomena
and the Esse understanding what that Gestalt-pattern means. The essence and
totality are interdependent aspects of the disease state. They are a
dynamic unity that cannot be separated. If we are speaking about the state
of the disposition we must observe those qualities that make up the
components of consciousness.

No disease (or dependable prescription) is made up of one symptom
alone. The root of Inbegriff/Esse is the verb,‘begreifen’, which means to
touch, handle, comprise, include, comprehend, and understand in the sense
of coming in contact with something. In aphorism 135 Hahnemann refers to
the 'Inbegriff der Krankheitselemente', which means the essential elements
of the disease. This analysis offers a view of the essence, nature, or
genius of a disease state. This is a definition of the Esse in Hahnemannian
Homoeopathy.

Some modern "essences" are the reduction essential nature of the
characteristic symptoms to one or two words or a simple concept that is
somehow suppose to express the whole. Therefore we hear that Phos is "open"
and nat-m is "closed". This does not take into account that all remedies
(and human beings) are multi polar and express different qualities at
different times and under different circumstances. If one is not careful
this type of essence work leads to stereotyping remedies by overly
simplistic unproven keynotes. In the process Hahnemann's all embracing
Esse, Totality, and Gestalt-field may be replaced by pigeon holing remedies
by self-limiting concepts. One core delusion, a single mental symptoms, or
a certain body posture may offer insights but it does not make up the state
of the mind anymore than one foot makes up a total person.

This idea of separating the "picture" (Hahnemann's portrait of the
disease) from the mental "state" is impossible. I'm not sure playing these
two words against one another describes the real situation. A picture
includes all the colors, hues, textures and patterns that make up the
recognizable state of a phenomena. A person may have a some symptoms that
are similar to Ignatia while the over all mental state (the components
consciousness) are more similar to Stramonium. The over mental picture or
portrait represents the whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.
This includes the complexes that form around the archetypes within the
unconscious that are the source of liberation and madness.
Hahnemann wrote in the Organon (aph 210) that the mental symptoms
"often tip the scales" in the selection of a homoeopathic remedy.
Homoeopathic psychology is, perhaps, the greatest innovation in medicine.
No other school of healing has a materia medica that reviews the psyche in
such depth. Although I have cured 100s of cases on mental symptoms alone
and I have also cured 100s of cases through strange rare and peculiar
symptoms in the somatic sphere. There is a tendency for some (Seghal is a
good example) to become attached to the mind to detriment to really
understanding Hahnemann's concept of the disease-Gestalt. Some of the
mentalist homoeopaths are little more than mental keynote prescriber that
only utilize on aspect of the greater Homoeopathy as introduced by Hahnemann.

The mind only school falls into the mind-body split so common to the
Cartesian thought in the opposite direction of the materialists. The
one-sided materialist only looks at the body while the one sided
spiritualist only looks at the mind. What Hahnemann proposes is going
beyond the mind body-split and viewing the psyche and soma as a unity
through the vital force. One can not see the inner Wesen of the disease but
they comprehend the mistunement of the vital force through the causes,
objective signs, coincidental befallments and the subjective symptoms of
the mind/body complex. It is the striking, extraordinary, unusual and odd
characteristics of the psyche and soma that offer an understanding the
Gestalt of the disease state.

The symptoms of the mind and body are so interrelated that they can
only be called two sides of the same coin. A concomitant like a unique
sensation as if, a descriptive discharge, an extension of a pain,
characteristic times and circumstances, modalities, etc., can be just a
valuable in finding a remedy as the mental symptoms. It is best to be open
to the entire field of potential phenomena than get stuck in a mind-body
split. In Jungian psychology the phenomena of the environment, body and the
mind do not have a clear line of demarcation as demonstrated by
synchronisms that defy linear cause and effect.

The symptoms of the psyche and soma both have their source in the
unconscious and are symbolic in nature. To understand the unconscious one
has to study the mental and physical symptoms as a unity of expression that
is pointing to a deeper reality that can not be seen or explained in
logical terms. Jungian psychology transcends split in the mind-body complex
because it acknowledges the innate role of the unconscious without denying
the strong influences of the physical environment and its dangers.

Hahnemann taught as long as human being have existed they have been
exposed both individually and collective to diseases of moral and physical
causes. Every human being is born with predispositions that come from the
unconscious and the cell memories in the body but how these archetypal
complexes are actualized is greatly influence by the environment. The human
being is a combination of nature and nurture. We can not say the mind is
the cause of all disease. Even a baby with a brilliant mental potential
becomes an idiot if they denied proper vitamins and minerals or is exposed
to certain toxins. It is essential for a homoeopath to study both
psychology and physical medicine to be a homoeopath who can work under any
conditions anywhere in the world on any type of disease.

I would suggest a serious study of Jungian psychology if one really
wants to understand psyche and soma. This takes one beyond mental keynotes,
over used cliches and new age ideas. It teaches one how to study a person's
core complexes and recognize the archetypes that lay behind mental and
physical phenomena. It teaches one how to understand the persona, shadow,
anima-animus, collective unconscious and the Self. This is the key to
really understanding and how archetypes, complexes, complementation,
compensation and projection really works. Everyone is working out their own
myth as part of the process of individuation (Self-realization).
Understanding the archetypes and complex behind that myth reveals the
deepest aspects of human nature.

The best place to start such a study is with the works of Edward
Whitmont. MD. homoeopath and Jungian Psychologist. The most important books
to get are The Symbolic Quest (his textbook on psychology), Psyche and
Substance ( a collection of his lectures on materia medica taken from
lecture between 1948-1955), Dreams, A Portal to the Source. and the Return
of the Goddess (A book about history, mythology, and modern times). These
works help give you the tools to work with delusions, fantasies, and
dreams and stages of life and actualizations. It also helps on to
understand the psychology of physical symptoms and how they also reflect
core mistunements. It is good to have a map of consciousness to guide one
through the labyrinth of psyche and soma.

Similia Minimus
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

thank you

David Little wrote:

David wrote:

to the mind to detriment to really understanding Hahnemann's concept of the
disease-Gestalt.
Some of the mentalist homoeopaths are little more than mental keynote
prescriber that
only utilize on aspect of the greater Homoeopathy as introduced by
Hahnemann.

Cartesian thought in the opposite direction of the materialists. <

Dear David,

Thank you for your contribution to 'Minutes' . I know you're a busy man, We
appreciate it very much.
Let me state first that I share your point of view, but I like to say
something to defend Dr. Sehgal.
I think he is a great men. He has really made a contribution to Homoeopathy.
He earns respect, like all the men who struggled with a frustration, why
cure was not coming as expected, and came up wih a solution (like
Hahnemann).
I'm always interested in what those kind of men have to say, so I can
integrate their methods into mine (broaden it).

The method of Sehgal as you know, is named 'Revolutionized Homoeopathy'.
RH does not actually mean prescribing on mental symptoms only, but on
PRESENT, PREDOMINATING and PERSISTING signals which present the CENTRE.

RH observes that every being is an embodiment of all types of emotions.
Every disease denotes a disorder in a particular organ and is found to be
stirred an emotion linked with it. They are PRESENT, PREDOMINATING and
PERSISTING.
Through various moods, emotion and gestures every disturbance in the body
finds expression. This implies that the present mental state is the true
representative of whatever order or disorder is going on in the body and it
can serve as an accurate dial to recognise the mental symptoms to find out
the real simillimum.

It is not Sehgal Narrow-mindedness, not to use 'Individual' (aph. 153)
symptoms, but he is convinced they can't be trusted. Actually he tried it
some years ago, but he rejected them, because he found they are not precise
enough to select the real simllimum.
He said something like: "The totallity is a jungle"
.
Dr. Sehgal is convinced his method leads to another and better simillimum.
In his Introduction to the 'Perfect Materia Medica of Mind' he writes:
"Both the ways of prescribing have two actions. The one considering both the
mental as well as physical has Primary and Secundary actions. And other with
RH, First and Second actions. The former gives aggravation in its primary
action and the later ameleration in all complaints mental as well as physics
in it first action. Likewise the former is accompianed by, relief in its
Secundary action and the later (agg.) return of all complaints for a fixed
period of time lasting over odd no. of days promising discharge of toxic
matter from any of the five natural outlets of the body in its second
action."

Sehgal considers Belladonna as a great polychrest. With this method
Psoriasis is cured with Belladonna, Bryonia and Ignatia. Asthma with
Cocculus etc.
How is this possible, although we always should have an open mind, we are
advised to use a A-grade anti-Syphilic or anti-Sycotic remedy, in this deep
multi-miasmatic diseases.???!!

So, I don't think you can say he is 'little more than mental keynote
prescriber'
But how can those differences be matched?
Thruth of healing should be universal and I don't think Sehgal is a fool.
What is your opinion David?

Kind Regards, Piet Guijt

At 09:06 PM 11/9/2001 +0100, you wrote:

Hello Piet.

There is no need to reject Seghal ideas or RH but it is better to put
it into perspective with greater homoeopathy. He has made a valuable
contribution and it is good to review his teachings. Nevertheless, their is
no need to accept all of RH and its philosophy or join the mind only
school. I prefer to use "it all" rather than accept one definition of
practice. I have cure 100s of cases by mental symptoms alone but I have
cure 100s of cases on physical symptoms alone. Most of time my cases are a
mixture of both although my emphases is often on psychology.
Seghal's definition of the strange, rare and peculiar shows that he did
not understand what these terms mean in the first place. What he writes is
in no way similar to Hahnemann's ideas of striking, extraordinary, unusual
and odd characteristics (153). I have spoken to several RH disciples and
one could see they just "didn't get it". Philosophically, the way Seghal
plays the PPPs off the SRPs is only an explanation of his own level of
understanding. He is playing his own concepts off of his own concepts.
Yes, the mental symptoms "often tips the scales in the selection of the
remedy". This has been used since Hahnemann's days. Kent spoke of it in his
hierarchy of symptoms, etc.. The "real" simillimum is one that provides a
gentle, rapid permanent cure not one chosen by mental symptoms. Cure
doesn't care how you got there. When you cure cancer with an organ remedy
it is just as good as a cancer cured by a mental symptoms.
One can easily see by Seghal's writings that he did not really
understand the Essence, Totality and Gestalt-pattern or how to judge the
characteristic value of symptoms. He did not really understand the
philosophy behind Organon's teachings. They are based on the same tradition
Germanic traditions as Goethe's and Jung's works. The jungle was in his
mind not in Hahnemann's. For me (and those we understand it) Essence and
Totality is clarity and to him it is a jungle. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder!

Sometimes one's own misunderstanding leads to great breakthroughs! That
is sometimes part of the irony of the play of life. Kent did not understand
how to correctly use the Therapeutic Pocket Book and criticized
Boenninghausen for his own misunderstandings This failure lead him to make
Kent's Repertory and explain the hierarchy of symptoms!! So I am willing to
give Sehgal credit for his insights but I would advise students and
practitioners to hypnotized by the mind-only school or to accept RH's
explanations as facts. The greater field of homoeopathic medicine is to
important to throw away for cliches like PPP vs SRP.
There is no better or worse simillimum. A simillimum is a remedy that
provides a gentle, rapid and permanent cure. Who says all cases of
psoriasis are caused by miasms? When you make miasms everything they become
nothing. One has to know when miasms are important. Some cases of psoriasis
are based on mental symptoms and are psychosomatic. Not all asthma is
sycotic - some is caused by sibling rivalries. It is best not to become
Mesmerized by anyone's absolute explanation for a phenomena.
Generalizations are nothing - Individualization is everything.

Boenninghausen listed seven different types of causations in his works.
Kent cure more cases of hip-joint disease with remedies not in the rubric
than in the rubric. It is a question of *judging the characteristic value
of symptoms*. Many of us have cured disease states not listed in rubrics
because the SRPs and non logical concomitants lead to other remedies. This
is all part of the Gestalt-view. Why reject anything when you can have it
all? One basis a case on what is most import for that individual. Sometimes
it is the mind, sometimes it is an sensation as if, sometimes it is the
miasms, sometimes this and sometimes that.
I never did say that. I said "some" people are using mental keynotes.
They use seminar notes, new essences, and keynotes of the periodic table,
etc., by mental symptoms alone. This is a hit or miss method where you
either have grand success or failure. There is little dependable middle
ground. I have seen what happens to some of these folks when they are
confronted with full medical realities in a front-line clinic and hospital.
They fall apart because they only study the mind and do not know anything
about the medical sciences.

If one wants to work in a full medical environment it is best to study
the entire field of homoeopathic medicine and bring it up to date with
modern realities. There are Indian homoeopaths who did Seghals work for
years and then left RH. The world is not always so simple. They realized
they still needed to know about causations, homoeopathic pathology, stages
and degrees, etc., to treat organic pathology. They went back to Hahnemann,
Boenninghausen, Kent, rather than to depend on any one man.
I and others have cured many cases with mind alone before we ever heard
of Sehgal. Sehgal is no fool - he is a genius. Many geniuses are very
extreme and only believe in their own work. We don't have to join the RH
group and parrot the PPP vs SRP and mind vs totality, etc.. Divide an rule
leads to half an understanding. No one is denying the psyche but some are
denying soma. That is the problem for many. I have cured many cases that
the mental types failed on by looking at the nature of a discharge or the
tongue, etc.. It is all a question of perception and going into the essence
of the case through the door is open.
My opinion is study the full range of homoeopathic medicine starting
with Hahnemann and then integrating everything. Then one will know when to
apply one aspect and when to apply another. It is a question of
individualization and knowing how to adapt to circumstances. Learn it all.

The trust of my post was to seriously study Jung's and other great
psychologist's works so one understands what constitutes a whole human
being. Sankaran and others are taking about compensation and other ideas.
It is best to go to source and learn about the psychology to treat the
mind. It is just as important to study physical medicine. To be a full
homoeopathician one has to integrate psyche and soma. That the essence of
my view.

Best, David
---------------
"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

.
David wrote:
That's also my opinion as you know, see and understand the difference in
approach and integrate it!
SRP we use to come to the constitutional remedy. In case of a strong
miasmatic layer which dominates the constitutional symptoms, we also ignore
them for our first presription,which is almost based on the disease.
Sehgal says that PPP have a direct link with the 'causing toxins', so also a
'disease based' prescription.
PPP are the signals which are often ignored as being 'normal' (not SRP!) for
a sick person.
We have to choose our strategy, Sehgal is using always the same. He is
treating everything as a layer (the disease on the surface), and when it
turns out to be the constitutional remedy, everybody is happy.
(my opinion, Piet).
Yes, some cases are non-miasmatic, thats why we always must keep an open
mind, but they are exeptions to the rule, the most are complicated with a
miasm. This does'nt explain why Belladonna, Coccules are polychrest in the
system of Sehgal. It should be investigated, to learn from.
Don't forget:

'Homoepathy' by T.P.Paschero
and
'Comparative Materia Medica' by E.F.Candegabe.

Thanks, David for your further explanation, I 'm glad you agree Sehgal is a
'genius', and I think you're right that many geniuses are very extreme and
only believe in their own work. So let's take the good parts.

Kind regards,
Piet Guijt.

At 03:33 PM 11/11/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Hello all,
Disease is a mistuning of the vital force not causative toxins. The
disease-tuned vital force is the proximate cause and its correction is that
which leads to healing. That is the vitalist view. Causative toxins is a
materia peccans. What you have written is not the proper understanding of
the Striking, Exceptional, Unusual, Odd Characteristics of the disease case
of aphorism 153 of the Organon. Hahnemann did not even uses the term
"strange, rare and peculiar". Striking, Exceptional, Unusual and Odd
characteristics of the disease case does not mean "weird, hardly every
found, and too peculiar to use often". It means that which stands out and
defines the essential nature (Gr. Inbegrif) of the disease case and
separates the characteristic symptoms from what is common to all diseases
and all patients. This method is diagnostic as well as therapeutic.

I would recommend that you try to learn Hahnemann's terminology from
the view point of the Organon not Seghal or anybody else's work. Go to the
source with an open mind. The SEUO-SRP rubrics are not only for the
"constitutional remedy". One uses the SEUO rubrics to investigate causes,
constitution, temperament, social and domestic relationships, miasms,
traumas, and acute diseases. I would suggest you read aphorism 153
carefully and begin contemplating anew with a beginners mind and the wisdom
of experience.
Your using Seghalisms to define Hahnemann's teachings. You have the
wrong view of the SEUO-SRP symptoms. Please read aphorism 153 carefully.
Hahnemann's teachings on essence, totality and the disease-Gestalt are very
important. This is the basis for case taking. Then you must judge the
characteristic value of symptoms as taught in aphorism 153. This is the key
to finding what Hahnemann called the "homoeopathic specific remedy". Vide
aphorism 153.

"In the search for a homoeopathically specific remedy, that is, in the
comparison of the complex of the natural disease's signs with the symptom
sets of the available medicines (in order to find among them an artificial
disease potence that corresponds in similarity to the malady to be cure)
the more striking, exceptional, unusual, and odd (Characteristic) signs and
symptoms of the disease case are to especially and almost solely kept in
view. These above all, must correspond to very similar ones in the symptoms
set of the medicines sought if it is to be the most fitting one for cure.
The more common and indeterminate symptoms (lack of appetite, headache,
lassitude, restless sleep, discomfort, etc.) are to be seen with almost
every disease and medicine and thus deserve little attention unless they
are more closely characterized." (Organon of the Medical Art, Hahnemann,
O’Reilly 6th Edition, Aphorism 153.)

The first term is *Striking*. Hahnemann also called these symptoms
'marked". If a symptom is striking marked it is important because it STANDS
OUT. Striking and marked would include symptoms that is present,
predominating and persistent (PPP). Exceptional means they are not found in
every patient so they lead to the true simillimum. Unusual means they are
not found in every disease state so they help you find a specific remedy.
Odd means they have a high characteristic value that overrule less
characteristic symptoms. That is SEUO characteristics.

This offers knowledge of the causation, disease state and the curative
remedy. Hahnemann even said that the symptoms "common to all diseases" can
be used if they are “more closely characterized". So Hahnemann says you can
use those symptoms which characterize the diseases state as well as those
symptoms that are common to all disease where appropriate. This is the
proper definition of SEUO-SRP. Do you understand now???
Belladonna and Coccules are polychests and commonly used remedies.
Aphorism 153 and a careful judging the characteristic value of symptoms
certainly does explain why the above happens! It is because one is able to
judge the characteristic value symptoms. I use lesser known apsoric plants
and small remedies to cure chronic diseases at times. This is done by
learning how to judge the characteristic value of symptoms!!! Sometimes a
remedy not known for the disease state (including miasms) will cure a
patient when the defining rubrics are a high grade characteristic. The best
way to do that is striking, extraordinary, unusual odd characteristic
symptoms of the psyche and soma.

True miasms are based on *prior infection* not just any long term
degenerative diathesis. Many of Hahnemann's Paris cases were acquired
infections of the skin, TB, gonorrhea and syphilis. He saw these infectious
diseases daily because they were epidemic in the 1800s. This colored his
world view. He said psora (suppressed skin infections) was the cause of
most chronic diseases. Yes, this can cause almost any chronic disease
but......we have to bring this material up to date with modern realities.
Diet, hygiene, and civic projects caused a great reduction of infectious
diseases before antibiotics and most vaccinations. In the year 2001 many
cases Western are complicated by emotional maintaining causes,
overpopulation, stress, rapid urbanization, and chemical, radiation and
toxic overload. Some also are based on chronic miasms.

How many cases of scabies, infectious gonorrhea, infectious TB and
infectious syphilis do you see daily? When the inherited or acquired active
layer is based on an inherited or acquired miasms it is important to pay
attention to it for several reasons related to case management. Miasms are
important but they are not the only causation. Boenninghausen spoke of
categories seven causations that are more in line with modern ideas. Just
to cure a chronic disease with a apsoric plant remedy and then claim the
miasms do not matter is ignorant of greater realities. Many of us have do
that but don't make strange new claims. It just homoeopathy.

Many modern homoeopaths do not believe in acute-chronic,
functional-organic pathology, or any of homoeopathic pathology. The treat
every patient the SAME by the essence, mind, etc. This is the exact
opposite of Hahnemann's teaching on individualization. They just want to
use on simple method for everything. One has to know when it is appropriate
and know when it is not appropriate by the circumstances. Sometimes the
mental symptoms or constitutional remedy points to a medicine that the
patient cannot physically tolerate. This is why Kent said, "Don't give them
(a person with heavy organic pathology) the constitutional remedy they
needed 20 years ago!" .

There was a TB patient at the hospital and a Essence prescriber decided
he could ignore Kent's warnings and give this man Lycopodium because he
believed in treating all patients the same. He did not believe in acute,
chronic, functional and pathological diseases or time and progression. The
remedy did have the patient's mentals but it killed that patient! That is
what can happen if you treat every patient the same. To be a full
homoeopathician one must study the medical sciences and be able to adapt to
circumstances.
Many who come up with a brilliant idea think their way is the "only
way" or at least the "superior path". This type of ego is really prevalent
in the mind-only school and mental keynoters. They say they are practicing
the "highest method" so they don't need to learn all that "other stuff"
like single and multiple causations, individual or collective diseases,
acute and chronic states, functional and organic pathology disorder, stages
and degrees of development, miasmatic and non miasmatic, etc..

Such persons like to have one simple method that will do everything
without learning anything else. This is a archetypal complex that plays
itself out in many ways in individuals, society, countries, religions and
homoeopaths. I call this the panacea complex. They cannot live with chaos,
the uncertainty principle, flexibility and individualization. Well - these
states are integral parts of the world of physics, psychology and
homoeopathy. Hahnemann's system is designed to deal with these factors.

Extreme mentalism is common in the West where most people do not work in
a complete medical environment or hospital. Most Asians say most Westerners
are "stuck in their heads". I have seen what happens when they come to Asia
and are confronted with typhoid, malaria, cholera, leprosy, active TB,
active VD and the most advances states of chronic organic pathology
possible. Most of these cases would be in the allopathic hospital in the
West but in the East some are on your doorstep. Many essence folks cannot
handle this situation because they do not know the full field of
homoeopathic medicine.

Seghal, Scholten, Sankaran, etc., should be studied but.....don't forget
Hahnemann and the Organon. This is what helps put all the other works into
prospective. Many are practicing a trivialized version of homoeopathy and
are not using 50% of what Hahnemann really offers. At the same time, they
always think they are doing the "cutting edge". When you question them you
find out that they actually don't know every much about homoeopathy except
their personal version.

Seghal's explanations about PPP vs SRP, mind vs totality, and using
apsoric plant remedies to cure chronic diseases, etc., are doctrines with
little practical use to anyone outside the RH group. Homoeopathy has a
better, more expanded and flexible explanation. What is important is
Seghal's REPERTORY WORK (although I advise practitioners to learn the
entire repertory not just the mind section!)

Piet, review the Organon without any old concepts. Your rendition of
the Esse, Totality, disease-Gestalt and aphorism 153 is a refection the
confusions of modern homoeopathy rather than the Organon and its
philosophical background. Learn what these terms mean in their own paradigm
and then bring them up to date for yourself. I also had all the same
misunderstandings in the beginning. It took me 10 years to see that I was
projecting all my own modern confusions and half truths on to the Organon
and Hahnemann. Then it took me another 10 years to learn how to read it and
put it into practice.

You are a lot smarter than me and I don't think it will take you 20
years to understand the real philosophy, pathology and posology of the
Organon. That is why I have given you so much time. I have said what I can
say and what I think will help you. I don't think anymore discussion about
PPP vs SRP and mind vs Totality will matter now. They are all the same
thing in the bigger picture. Please study Hahnemann's work more closely,
read about Goethe, and review Jung's work. They all come from the same
source. This will help you (and others) to understand homoeopathic view and
practice in its original paradigm. Then bring it up to date with modern
realities.

Sincerely, David Little

PS. Please go back to discoursing on homoeopathy and psychology as your
were. I had no intention of diverting the discussion. I feel, however, you
should make an occasional disclaimer that advises students to study the
full range of homoeopathy. That would be helpful to students. So many in
the West are falling into THEIR minds-only that it is having a retrograde
action on homoeopathic education.
---------------
"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