Hello Hans,
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication for lack of mutually clear definitions of terms - e.g. 'constitutional remedy'. When you talk about constitution, or constitutional remedy you mean one thing (thank you for clarifying what you mean) - and when someone else talks about it they mean something completely different.
Quote:
|
Now, where does that leave us when Kent and Boger proclaimed the existence of such a constitutional simillimum, and even tell us, they know how to select it, but showed in their casework, that they repeatedly changed the remedies going along with a chronic case --??
|
My understanding is that Kent changed remedies whenever a new remedy was clearly indicated; that is to say, only after the previous remedy stopped working and new symptoms clearly pointed to a new remedy.
He also advised not to repeat too quickly and not to change remedies too quickly (or risk spoiling the case), etc.... I do not think Kent meant that there is only ever ONE consitutional remedy for a patient.
It's contrary to his Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy and I can't recall reading anything like that in his Lesser Writings either.
Putting terms (e.g. constitutional) aside, how does this particular point about Kent differ with what's in the Organon? ref §171, 221....
Perhaps Kent's use of the term constitution means the same thing as when you refer to chronic-disease (remedy), Hans?
Looking at what Boger wrote is interesting -
Quote:
C.M. Boger wrote 1909:
It is the nature of every human being to be extremely sensitive to the constitutional simillimum, and although it may not always be easy to detect the signs which call for it; when once found, a single dose of a very high potency will act over a long period of time. Because they do not know how to manage reaction and are not thoroughly conversant with the materia medica, some prescribers avoid such prescriptions. With a little more knowledge of the Organon and care in handling the complementaries, particularly, particularly the nosodes, they will be able to accomplish much more than they do now. [ C.M. Boger: Collected writings page: 121]
|
I think Boger might have meant chronic-remedy when he used the term 'constitutional simillimum', because, later in the quote he hints that a series of remedies would be needed to successfully treat cases (knowing about complimentary remedies, a better knowledge of the Organon and how to manage a case...).
Would this not show Boger understands that it takes a series of remedies to treat chronic [miasmatic] disease?
That's the impression I got when I read it.
Rather, I did not see it as a contradiction (e.g. saying there is only one true constitutional simillimum, yet claiming a series of remedies are needed) when understanding that Boger's definition of 'constitutional simillimum' very likely differed to that of your understanding of the term.
It's an interesting thread. Good food for thought.