otherhealth.com - View Single Post

#9 (**permalink**) 1st December 2004, 11:55 AM

Dear Luise,

I understand how it is to be busy and I really appreciate what you wrote about aphorism fn 284 as I want to clear up the matter if possible. I also can only post on the list on occasions due to a heavy workload. I certainly will not repeat the statement that Hahnemann mentions inheritance or heredity "twice" in his own handwriting until the matter is clarified one way or the other. He only mentioned it once, which is found in fn 78, where he speaks of psora being engendered by "infection or heredity".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

There are 3 references to inheritance of psora in the 6th Organon. Two of them are rather lengthy and make up the footnote to aphor 284. None of them is in Hahnemann's handwriting. The first is by an unknown writer. There is no clue as to whether Hahnemann has ever read it (to this see my other post - the reply to your "errata"). The second is in Haehl's handwriting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

The only other reference to inheritance of psora is in H. own handwriting, but consists of only one word "Erbschaft - inheritance".

What you have written is a little unclear. You say there are 3 references to inheritance in the 6th Organon. 2 are in fn 284. theh you say "none of them is written in Hahnemann's handwriting'. I think you mean neither of these 2 are in H's writing. The first one in the first part you say is written by an unknown hand and the second is by Haehl. The 3rd reference to inheritance is in fn to aphorism 78, which speaks of psora being engendered by "infection or heredity".

This must be what you mean as Schmidt did not contest the footnote to aphorism 78. He says it was written by Samuel Hahnemann on a separate piece of paper in italics and place in the Organon. That means 1 reference is written in Hahnemann's handwriting, which says that psora may be ngendered
by "infection or heredity".

Quote:

Since to-day I was at the library, I did some research. And it seems that at Hahnemann's time it was taken for granted by all and sundry that disease could be inherited.

The Frenchman, J. B. P. A. de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829), formulated the first modern theory of biological inheritance and published his finding in 1809 and 1815-22. Lamarckism was based on the idea that species developed through the effort of organisms to adapt to new conditions. The Lamarckian concept that characteristics acquired in this manner could be passed on by inheritance was discussed enthusiastically in educational, political and progressive medical circles in the 1820s. It was natural that Hahnemann and his students would be discussing the ideas of diseases being passed by inheritance. The idea is not new as Hippocrates spoke of it in the 5th century BC.!

Hahnemann would not have made any statements about heredity if he did not believe in inheritance. That would be out of character. If he did not believe in it he would not have included it in the Organon or the Chronic Diseases. The first in the case of he stated that psora could be transmitted by "infection or heredity" and the second he was speaking of "hereditary dispositions".

You are quite correct to think that psora has to start somewhere, and in the inherited version of the miasm, the eruption must have been suppressed in an ancestor and the negative affects passed onward. I believe he included the idea of inherited psora to explain those cases which did not seem to ever have suffered suppression of skin eruption. As I can not talk to Samuel I can not ask him *how* important it was to him but it has become very important in modern science and contemporary Homoeopathy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

I agree that H. considered the *disposition* to be hereditary.

I was pointing out that Hahnemann taught hereditary disposition had a large role to play in the conditioning of symptoms suffered by an individual. This is very important and quite ground breaking in the 1820s. In fact, the inherited constitution plays a role in condition an individual symptoms in all states of disease. Inheritance (nature) seems to be number 1 with environment (nurture) a close second. This statement is very
insightful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

So, by referring to the "inheritance" in aphor 78 he may have meant this disposition. Or it may just have meant: "by whatever means" - just as we use this phrase to-day and mean to say: "for the purpose of what I am saying here it makes no difference how it came about." Seeing that everyone around seemed to believe in the inheritance of disease this could very well be the case

Hahnemann never uses his words lightly. He clearly says that psora can be a engendered by "infection or heredity". He would not have made this statement unless he meant it just as it is written. He says absolutely nothing about inherited dispositions in this passage or anything that implies for "by whatever means" or "makes no difference how it came about". It simply says psora may be engendered by "infection or inheritance" in black and white. His statement in the Chronic Disease is clearly about the hereditary disposition conditioning the symptoms of psora. This means he discussed to two aspects of inheritance, i.e. heredity psora and hereditary dispositions. This is really quite profound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

Exactly! It would then be "Beschaffenheit der (Konstitution)" or whatever constitution was used for in the context. We could e.g. say: "seine Konstitution ist so "beschaffen..." which would be translatable as: "his constitution is such...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise

In your quotes you can see for yourself that, when Hahnemann means "constitution" in the braod sense, he uses the word "Konstitution" - this covers the other part of the English word "constitution"

According to the Turner Dictionary published in Lipseg in the 1830s Beschaffenheit means "nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance". First of all we must look exactly at the usage in the Organon, which is a medical text. Medical terms are used differently than the words of a lay person on the street. When using constitution as a medical term in English it does means the nature, quality, condition or disposition of the body or mind or both as a unit. You seem to think it means something quite different in English? This IS using the word constitution in the sense of "the way something is (here the human organism)".

According to the English-German dictionary of 1830 Beschaffenhiet may simply mean constitution, disposition or temper in English. In aphorism five Hahnemann says to take into account the details of the "Leibes-Bechsaffenheit", which has been translated into English as the "body constitution". Here the bodily constitution simply means the *condition or nature of the body*. It does mean "the way the body is" in English and agrees with what you are saying. Are they fat, thin, weak, shrivelled up, bilious, etc. You seem to think constitution means something else in English? When speaking medically the physical constitution means the bodily nature, quality, condition, disposition, etc.. This all seems to agree with your definition.

By the way, my information was presented to me by German colleagues. So not all Germans think the same way you do? As there is a disagreement among what Germans think it is not just my lack of understanding of German or your lack of understanding of English. I am willing to change my opinion if our German colleagues decide what I have said can not to be true under any circumstances. So....what do the other Germans out there on the list think. I will retract my statements if I am wrong! OK?
..
Sincerely, David Little