Leela; German speaking homeopaths have an advantage in terms of the founding literature. To construe this as anything other than a simple advantage, is pointless.

On the subject of 'dogma' Chris, I don't think that homeopaths who take Hahnemann's request to 'copy this, but copy it exactly' can be considered dogmatic for taking this seriously. I'd be interested on your views on this statement of his.

bwv said:

Until one finds the person's simillimum, these deep-seated symptoms will continue to appear because the disease state has not yet been homeopathically covered as a quasi-mirror match of syptoms required of the Law of Similars.

[ 08. January 2004, 23:11: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Divina I was going to let this go, but you last mail makes me realise a stand has to be taken. I chose to quote that part of your comment, because that is the part I object to, but let me try to be even more specific.
Regardless of the context, either of the substantiation request, or of the overall topic of constitution, to call into question the ‘scholarship’ of this person, is what I object to.
You do not know this person, and your comments are completely untrue, and derogatory.
I, on the other hand, do know this member, and he is anything but ‘intellectually lazy’.
Once again for luck, my stand is to do with the issue of respect between our selves, on how this group of homeopaths here treat each other.
Certainly there have been numerous instances of untrue and ugly allegations of a personal nature made against other members too, and I’ve spoken against these on occasion.
I’m barking up this particular tree at the moment, because I know for a fact your comments are not based on any truth whatsoever.
I would urge all members, for the sake of the health of the discussions that we have, to make their objections to such deviations heard, even if the offending comment happens to be made by someone who shares the same outlook on homeopathy as they do. Passions get roused, surely. But there is no harm in reminding people that personal slurs on a member’s character cause offence to the whole profession. .

As for the Jazzbutts, Stirbuns, Fatpants and MRC Hans’ of this world, I am categorically not interested in discussing the politics of homeopathy and modern ‘science’ here, as I have already demonstrated by largely abstaining from previous dialogues involving you (plural) and them. But if you, Divina, want to donate even more power to their elbows by factoring them into our internal politics, go right ahead. On the alleged ‘stripping raw’, sorry, but the fact is that some of you people have been tearing lumps out of each other for years, without my help, and that’s no secret. I have absolutely nothing further to say to you on that score.

I am already awake & certainly do not see myself as part of an ‘elite’ practice. In fact you have no idea who & what I encourage, nurture, look after, study, foster. I ask you to do me the courtesy of steering your assumptions clear of me in future.

Since I’m sure there are readers saying to themselves ‘I’d wish they’d all shut up so we can learn something’, that’s what I’m going to do now.

albert -

thank you so much for your tantalizing response to my question about constitutional side symptoms - i hate to seem the ingrate, but your response was "tantalizing" because it missed the first part of the question, namely, what are "constitutional side symptoms?" once i know that, your answer will be even more satisfying! if you can clarify further, it will of course be greatly appreciated.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Does a constiutional side symptom have anything to do with what hans was talking about on the other homeopathy board....like about the kid who has stomach aches under stress or the kid who gets a cold whenever its damp...but these are not configured into actively occuring disease symptoms, by the vital force being clunked..unless they are also present at the same time?


And if the above is true..and even if the examples are not side symptoms...but that it is true they are not to be considered unless active at the time...is this where kentians and boenninghausen's case taking would differ? Or one of the things? That the kentians would try to find a remedy that does include the stomach aches from stress, etc?

[ 09. January 2004, 03:09: Message edited by: carolorr ]

The following was written by Hans in august..on the thread.."similimum is just one symptom". I see that this has all been brought up before. It was very interesting going back and reading that whole thread...I withdraw my questions for the time being so I can figure out what I already know as opposed to what I still need to learn.


Dear Members
Generally there are many things that can go wrong when treating homoeopathically.
Some can be avoided by following the rules and principles. So?we can minimize the failure-rate but still will encounter the odd case where for undetectable reasons the selected remedy does not act according our predictions.

Back to the set of questions:
1. What is the most successful hierarchy of symptoms that is followed in remedy selection.
2. What is the difference between a characteristic symptom and a keynote.
3. What are the symptoms to be considered for remedy selection, only those which began with the onset of disease or even those which have been there even before the disease began.

No one raises the question: what different hierarchies are there.
To explain those would take me approximately 50 to 80 pages.
No two:
First it has to be looked into the different understandings of the term symptom.
This lecture takes up about a day to three?depending on, or approximately 40 pages.
Then the definition of characteristic based on the understanding of what a Symptom is would take up another day, as it is important to know, how characteristics are established from the provings.
Then the term keynote has to be defined, which is a bit of a historical exercise. To show that would take about another days teaching.
Question no 3 can only be attacked once no one and two are elaborated on and understood.
There has to be also elaborated on what is disease, and what is to be cured on disease.

Over and all, these are the basic questions of homeopathy, which have occupied us for almost two years one weekend a month in my last homeopathy course.

From my experience, there are no quick answers, but all is simple if taught methodically.

thanks for the reminder about that thread, carol - i remember it and will look it up.

but i'd still like a brief (or lengthy, if anyone feels like it) definition or discussion of what is a "constitutional side symptom." links or references also appreciated.

even textbooks have a thing called a 'glossary.' and even an intensive seminar either introduces, or assumes knowledge of, basic terminology and concept. but i don't see why the impossibility of pursuing an intensive workshop experience on a public bb precludes more cursory coverage ... i suspect most of us here know that a 2-sentence comment can be expanded upon ....

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Hi Bach,

Would you imagine I sat 1.5 hours answering your questions on page 1 this afternoon and I was correcting my numerous typos when my computer froze!! I'll have to find that time again to answer you.

Just by the way, "constitutional side symptoms" is not an expression I'm familiar with as far as the concept of "consitutional" as we undertand the term, is concerned. It does not make sense.

So - in hope of finding another 1.5 hours from my non - German ( ) thesis on your questions - I'll be back.

regards,
doctorleela

[ 09. January 2004, 14:15: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Once again, Louise, you miss the point.

"Factoring in" jackasses into our "argument" is besides the point, as well.

All I object to, and all I've ever objected to, is this tendency in some people to declare themselves better than others because of how they choose to interpret literature in homeopathy. I have stated, over and over and over again and right now I'll do it again "for luck" since the very reason I've been repeating it is actually playing itself out here on this BB just as I said it would...was that creating divisions between homeopaths in trying to assert this elitist mentality will be the downfall of homeopathy.

That is what I said in the past and I'm saying it again and I'm saying it to you because you refuse to even see it, despite the fact that its obviously taking place.

Intellectual laziness. That's right--that's what focusing on irrelevant picayune details instead of the whole picture will lead people to believe. Arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin may be fun for the few who kill time with the endeavor...but it is monotonous as hell for everyone else who is eager to know something a little more useful and engrossing.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Doctorleela -

1.5 hours?! Geeesh!

And then your computer froze up?! Double geeesh!!


At least I hope you plan to publish it … !

Bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.