Hello Shirley,

Yes Kent may have had a philosophical view that M/E symptoms underlay physical pathology.
But in practice he only used M/E characteristic symptoms when they were strongly featured in the case. Kent based the case according to whichever characteristics that were strongly featured, if they were physical general symptoms - according to his hierarchy - they were chosen. The M/E aspects then confirmed his selection, as they did for Hahnemann.
This is quite different from turning every case into a core psychological essence prescription - which is a NEO-Kentian practice. Just wanted to make that distinction.

Thanks,
Chris