Minutus

Hello Piet,

For a persons who share similar views we might look like we are
arguing to outsiders! This, however, is not the case.
A hypothesis is a theory or educated guess not a proven fact. Where one
falls too far into speculation, over simplification, and stereotyping one
sees only one aspect of reality while missing several other possibilities.
One must be very careful not too go to far into over generalization or we
will lose the unique characteristic symptoms and the empirical, inductive
reasoning of Hahnemann, which after all, is the base of our system.
The idea behind finding characteristics for remedies and families is
based on *skillful analogy and generalizations*. This idea was introduced
by Boenninghausen who used analogy and redistribution when composing his
Therapeutic Pocketbook. Such a study should based on the most unique
characteristic symptoms rather than the common complaints. Skillful
generalizations brings out of a unique characteristics of a remedy or
family while unskillful generalization leads to the lowest common
denominator. One must also attempt to build complete symptoms with
modalities and concomitants, etc.rarer them single words like confusion,
fear, etc. There are always unique symptoms that are atypical and should
not be ignored. This are often quirk symptoms of a strange, rare and
peculiar nature. There are also unique symptoms that are atypical and stand
outside the rest that should not be ignored. These may be quirk symptoms of
a strange, rare and peculiar nature.
Just wait. Someone else will HAVE to come up with NINE LEVELS so their
system will be even higher! Will of God homeopathy!

I will explain how I look at remedies and patients in a separate post.
Sincerely, David Little

PS. Just for the record I am not one who believes in the one grand
constitutional cum ultimate, core remedy that will cure all diseases at all
once at all times under all conditions.on every patient. Clinical realities
often get in the way of such finalities. I believe that homeopathy is a
system of flexible response that must be tailored to treat a great number
of possibilities and applied on a number of levels depending on time and
circumstances. I have patients that always express the same
"constitutional" remedy but I have also seen situations where this approach
was not appropriate. I As Kent said of some advanced pathological cases,
"Don't give that constitutional remedy they needed 20 years ago!" Some
individuals need to be worked backward thought the time-line of their
disease in layers until they can support a reaction to a remedy they "did"
need 20 years earlier. In short, such monolithic absolutes don't go very
fair in the relative clinical world in a front-line practice. I know of a
patient who was killed by such methods and I have seen some made very sick.

DL

---------------
"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,
Hello David,

You know, I agree with this.
But it is useful to understand the 'extremes' of our healing art as well.
Most of our prescription will be somewhere in between.
Most important to me is that we must try as much as we can, to understand on
what level our prescription is.
I don't believe in one approach, I believe in following the intelligence of
the Vital force.
But the more we know, the more we can choose from.
For some people this may go to high, but thanks for this discussion.

Kind regards, Piet