Hi Divina,
I don't think Hans meant that Hering's Law is invalid.
This is what I got out of his post - and correct any misunderstandings, please Hans.
You are saying that if a symptom disappears in a given case, under a specific remedy, BUT, said-symptom was NOT recorded during the proving under such remedy - then one cannot assume that the symptom is a) cured according to Similia Similibus Curentur, and b) further 'curable' by said remedy according to Similia Similibus Curentur.
So if the [disappeared] symptom is in the provings - then the cure is according to Similia Similibus Curentur. And if not, then we can't call it 'cured'.
That makes sense to me actually. BUT, what about David's questions!!!!! That has occured to me many times - and I've often thought - 'wait, ask it later (keep on track with studies for now
....ahhhh, tangents!)'. But, then again - what comes to my mind - on the question that David posed:
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How then would you know if a less well-known remedy has cured, if there are precious few proving symptoms? Alot of remedies have very small symptom pictures. <hr></blockquote>
So, we need to do more provings or re-provings (I can hear a groan from Divina about now
...I appreciate it takes heaps of time, effort, resources, etc.) to better understand those remedies(?). So, do you never use the 'less well-known' remedies, Hans? I ask because of the points David made.
Then you go on to say: Since the symptom disappeared under said remedy and since it was not listed in the provings under that remedy it must have been suppressed or palliated. And, you make the point that palliation equals temporary suppression (interesting - I hadn't heard it put that way before).
Couldn't it be - esp in the case of a less well-known remedy(!) that said symptom might appear if the remedy were proven again? Okay, I take your point that we must methodically call cure 'cure' ONLY according to what Hahnemann laid out regarding cure and Similia Similibus Curentur....so you're being pedantic
. (Fair enough - as it is a slippery slope if we allow these laws to fade to the back of our minds.)
Then you go on to say that palliation and suppression have nothing to do with Hering's Law (??). How so? (e.g. wouldn't you use Hering's Law to manage an acute - esp a serious one?)
Then you go on to point out that Hering's Law is really for managing the whole case (the 'complete disease') - the totality of symptoms prescribed on(yes?).
I'm a bit fuzzy on what your point is about Hering and the influence of Swedenbourg? What is the problem there?? Please explain.
What if other symptoms improve (ones which you didn't prescribe on as part of the totality of the disease picture, but nevertheless were bothersome) which are NOT in the proving but the whole case is going according to the law of cure? This is where I am fuzzy - case-managment...the miasms cropping up....
Are you simply saying that those particular symptoms (in above paragraph) are simply not termed as cured under Similia Similibus Curentur?
But, what about many many clincal cases where symptoms have been painstakingly tracked/recorded (please don't ask me for an example...David?? maybe you could offer up a common one?)- but weren't in the provings (say - in one of the lesser well-known or well-proved remedies?????)? Is this information of no value?
Or has it a place of value - and if so, how do you think it should be utilised?
Divina, maybe this is elementary to you
, but it was a good little exercise for me to think about. And your participation helps too! I didn't get the impression Hans had any sinister intentions
. Egads, am I missing something here?
Right...back to this assignment I was supposed to finish up today (almost there
)......
Lisa