Hans,

Could the scarcity of the Mental/emotional symptoms vis a vis the physical/general/particular symptoms in a given remedy not be a result of the fact that the mental/emotional symptoms would be more indicative of the respective remedies? We all know that many, many remedies have almost identical symptoms in their physical generals--hence the large number of them, say, in the remedy you mention (arsenicum); but we don't see this variety of mental/emotional symptoms in the remedy because those symptoms, though more limited, are much more specific to the substances which cause them. As a result, are they not likely to be better confirmatory symptoms? More precise tools with which to differentiate among remedies? Seems to me to be the case--and, in saying that, I'd like to stipulate once again that I'm no big fan of Kent!

Just something many, many homeopaths have noted in practice...

Also, please keep in mind that just because one writes about cases, or parts of their cases, to illustrate a symptom picture, it doesn't mean one hasn't thoroughly factored in every other important symptom in the case. Sankaran writes 9/10 of his material about the mental and emotional state of the patient to illustrate the "pattern" of the symptoms in each particular remedy he describes: but, rest assured, he and his students have taken thorough accounts of his patients' physical symptoms, in far greater detail than most of my colleagues (I saw Sadna Thakkar's intake forms, which she collects from each patient. It is over 24 pages in length!! My intake form is just over 4 pages long, and my patients claim to be exhausted filling it out). Now, if I were to write a book and try to make it engaging in any way, I'd make some pertinent connections between the given states of any remedy, and not go into endless detail about physical symptoms.
Any remedy can address any physical symptom, if it is chosen to address the totality of the case.

Here is the quote from which I got my information re aphorism 17: footnote 1:

1. A warning dream, a superstitious fancy, or a solemn prediction that death would occur at a certain day or at a certain hour, has not unfrequently produced all the signs of commencing and increasing disease, of approaching death and death itself at the hour announced, which could not happen without the simultaneous production of the inward change (corresponding to the state observed internally); and hence in such cases all the morbid signs indicative of approaching death have frequently been dissipated by an identical cause, by some cunning deception or persuasion to a belief in the contrary, and health suddenly restored, which could not have happened without the removal, by means of this mortal remedy, of the internal and external morbid change that threatened death.

Sixth edition Organon, Stephen Decker trans.
For convenience's sake, I have cut and paste this quote from Homeopathyhome.com's Resource library links.

I understand this to be an example of a mental/emotional state being indicative (as well as causative, as Hahnemann says, according to this translator) of a morbid change occuring in the organism. The footnote is actually a further discussion of the application of the law of similars, but it does seem clear that Hahnemann connects the mental/emotional state to the physical state here, and addresses it as an important indicator of the pathology which is present.

Perhaps I am reading the words of an inept translator, and perhaps we are simply differing on points of view but agreeing on the same thing. As for Kent, I do agree we all have to take his writing with a grain of salt--as it was tainted by his own philosophy, which may have appealed to others of his time and made him more efficacious as a teacher. But I do think an open mind is necessary where people like Sankaran, Vithoulkas, and Scholten are discussed. They are serving their purpose, and they are not the threat some people would like to dismiss them for being. In fact, just a year or so ago, Vithoulkas (Mr. "Essences") gave an interview in which he basically castigated all the homeopaths you mentioned in your letter for exactly the same practices you criticise! I imagine he would be quite incensed to know that someone, somewhere, has lumped him together in his demonized group of mental/emotion-symptom-promulgating "pseudohomeopaths".

What does this infighting achieve, in the end? Nothing but wasted energy and dissension.

Conventional medical practitioners and institutions love that--they don't have to lift a finger to "stamp us out" again, like they did a hundred years ago...not when we're doing such an efficient job of slandering each other in the way we now do.

Just as each prescription must be individualised in homeopathy, each homeopath will bring to the task his or her own experiences, frame of observation of information, and point of view. No two homeopaths will ever practice alike...but yet there are many who benefit from the work we do.


Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

A bit bewildered at how you end your last post Divina, which is a strong and interesting argument; then to talk of slander & infighting; people are entitled to their hold & discuss their proffesional differences. If homeopathy can't cope with that, well...
What are people supposed to do; grin, nod & agree through gritted teeth?
Lets stick to facts; nobody is fighting with anyone. We are discussing traditional & modern homeopathy & how 'cause' is percieved.
Sweetmotherofgodgiveusstrength,(as they say.)
Yours,
Louise.

Hallo divina
We can say maybe this--, maybe that, but this does not replace facts.
As you quoted in your last post, the footnote has nothing to do with what you said two posts ago:

Hahnemann talks of the mental/emotional symptoms as being important parts of the TOTALITY of the case or disease. First mention he makes of this is in the footnote to aphorism 17, where he writes that the mental state of the patient can alert you to the dynamic mistunement even before any "physical" symptoms or changes have taken place.

All what I can say is: GO THERE ,AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

I acknowledge , that if we say HOMEOPATHY, we mean the method detailed out in hahnemann’s Organon and chronic disease.
If we don’t take this as the basis of our discussion, the whole conversation becomes meaningless and rather a waist of time.

Having said so, new ideas if they are called homeopathic, run the test of conformity , and if they are within the principals and rules set out, I give them a try.
I am well aware, that there had been many efforts to improve, expand, modernize, comment, change, on the principals, and if we accept all of them now forming part of homeopathy, we as homeopaths could not talk about it , as everything has different meanings.
And as much as many wish, the Organon has not changed for the last 150 years.

So-- I did with sankarans new par365 (he calls it). Unfortunately 211 and 153 do not add up to 365, and I also failed to find the delusions listed in the Synthetic Repertory in the proving symptoms.
With Scholten’s Homeopathy and Minerals I found , that the whole idea of synthesizing remedy pictures by combining two minerals into one and taking this as a basis for treatment opposes par 144 in the Organon. So therefore I found it unsafe, because I would feel awfully guilty if I would prolong the suffering of my patients by insecure prescriptions.
It is not my intention to blackmail anyone. I think it important to show discrepancies on forums like this, and to be precise about it, so that the student can make up the mind to either follow true homeopathic principles or not.
Greetings from Ireland, hans

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Blackmail? Slander? Here?

Please--all I said was that there is a great deal of infighting in the homeopathic community about people who have published their approaches to practice--and in fact, Vithoulkas caused quite an uproar with his interview in Links Journal by expressing his contempt of people like Sankaran and Scholten. I'm NOT SAYING IT IS HAPPENING HERE, and Hans, I am not accusing you of blackmailing anyone or having any kind of contempt for anyone--but I do see precisely the same argument you've made here over and over again in our community. Though we think we are merely expressing our opinions about things, we have to be aware that even this has negative consequences for us as practitioners, on a larger scale. It is true, however, than many of us are not "just expressing our opinions"--not without a modicum of contempt for some of the ideas put forth by people we call "trailblazers" (sarcastically or otherwise) in our field. In reality, any and all of the approaches may be suitable for any given case--but, once again, individualization is required, as well as keeping an open mind.

Just this morning, I read this exerpt from Gerhard Koehler's Handbook of Homeopathy. Here it is:

&lt;&lt;The processing of material obtained through good quality case-taking presents a problem which has been the subject of considerable debate ever since Hahnemann's day. Every school of homeopathy has its favourite method. V. Boenninghausen, Kent, Allen, Voisin (France), Dorcsi (Vienna), Eichelberger (Munich), Ortega, Paschero (South America)--the list of names illustrates the variety of methods. (To bring this all back to Louise's original discussion).

Different methods have been developed because human nature varies--patients as well as doctors. Individual cases are many and varied--physicians are many and varied. Different materials call for different tools. Once we are aware of this it is obvious that no school can claim to have the only valid method. Any one mthod may be the right one in a particular case. What is important is that it gives reliable and rapid results. I am not in favour of generalization or of onesidedness. Keep an open mind, learn to use a number of different methods.

Cases show such a wide variation and physicians have such a wide range of different gifts that the field of potential action opens out wide in all directions. There is plenty of scope for both the synthetic and the analytical approach. Intuition, art and solid craftsmanship have their potential and their limits. It is one of the joys of homeopathy that its "fullness" (to use Dorcsi's term) and depth are so great; there is room for apprentices, journeymen, and masters, and all can do good work. Differences between clinical homeopathy, pure symptomatology, analytical repertorization, interpretation of "mind" symptoms on the basis of depth psychology (Ortega, Paschero), a synthetic constitutional approach (Dorcsi) are irrevelant. Every route is equally valid. The route which in the individual case leads to rapid and sure success, ie to finding the simile, depends entirely on the quality of the material obtained on case-taking and also on the inclination and nature of the physician, and his or her knowledge of materia medica. Our efforts to become masters are most likely to succeed if we follow the guidelines given in the Organon:

--Individualization of every single case of illness (parag. 83)
--Determining the totality of symptoms (parag. 7)
--Selecting the really important symptoms according to the criteria given in parag. 153.

This provides a secure basis for drug diagnosis. These basic requirements for any form of homeopathic practice have never been in dispute. The differences between schools relate mainly to the way in which these requirements may be met. Many doctors and students have taught themselves, reading homeopathic literature of different periods, written by different authors, representing different schools...this rich variety of views and suggestions will often make them unsure. Variety indicates the rich potential of a method. If, however, we develop differences of opinion on this basis we merely show ourselves to be narrow minded and bigoted. Then...it is a good idea to go back to the source...source studies yield more valuable information than secondary literature.&gt;&gt;

So, Hans, you are correct in pointing out that Hahnemann's writing is the real authority here, and I will say you are much better positioned as a scholar of his works in their original language. But Koehler makes a very good point; and his idea about the matter eliminates the need for the fashionable and destructive activity of Celebrity-Homeopath-Bashing that I see taking place around me, every day. Pay attention to the fundamentals, use what works for you, and disregard the rest.

Divina

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Divina ]

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Compare & contrast.
How did this process of comparing methods end in Hans being slated for reviling other homeopaths?
On reflection, I am not happy about it Divina.
How can we find what works best for us, if there is to be no comparison between the different schools of homeopathy?

Louise.

Louise,
I too ponder the causes & mentals. What of those who have no knowledge of what caused the original injury? Perhaps suppressed memory, perhaps just too young to remember, unconsciousness.
Just as modern language has it's difficulties in being understood in different cultural contexts, I think we have a new perspective on the understanding of the mental states.
I grew up with grandparents who believed that the children should be seen & not heard - no matter what incident befell them. It was also an era of "stiff upper lip" - "one just got on with it" and there was no de-briefing after traumatic events. No counsellors for the miscarriages, still births & shootings.
We are allowed to express our every emotion today and encouraged to do so, in order to be "truthful". But what is truthful to one person can be very hurtful for another.
We need to ask if Hahnemann might understand OUR thought processes, OUR mentals! I don't think he would.
So the importance on Mentals should be taken in the context in which he operated. Culturally and for the age in which he wrote.
If our American cousins tell an Aussie "they are rooting for us", are they aware of the cultural difference of language usage? They may be expressing support for us in the USA, but DownUnder, we may contrue this as a ribald comment, meaning something far more intimate!!! Maybe an extreme example, but the comment has been made on the BB ( in all innocence, I'm sure), & probably got a few chuckles in this part of the world.
So it's important to go back & think about the context in which a work was written. Each subsequent homeopathic scholar has put his/her thoughts down and their interpretation is a reflection of that era. This is why we have the morality of Kent, the interpretive mentals of Bailey etc.
I'm sure an explanation could be found for others too, if we understand their socio-cultural backgrounds.
Many have gone in & out of fashion. Some who were well known in Kent's time, have slipped into oblivion and the same will happen to some of our modern thinkers.

Well Divina the circles you move in are evidently more fasionable than mine as I don't see much 'Celebrity-Homeopath-Bashing' going on.

You end your post on this rather 'political' note, (which is not where I would prefere it to go), but lets all take a minute to examine our hearts signs of contempt for successful contempory homeopaths................(1 min. later)...no, sorry, none there....er..should I have some contempt? Is there a remedy for my lack of contempt?
Ok I'll stop it now; just being silly.

I honestly don't think the views being put forth here are evidence of narrow mindedness or bigotry towards the rich variety of writing from different periods, authors, methods.

On the contrary, the more differences explored, the more questions asked & answered, the richer the field grows.

Confusion; yes I hasve been confused & no doubt will be again.. I mentioned on another thread that I was concerned by how confusing the mental & emotional aspect is, (with so much importance & time given over to it), to quite a few of my fellow students, mainly younger people, sometimes with no prior accedemic background, it's not good for general confidence to be challenged with such intellectualism which contemporary homeopaths have obviously had many years to 'grow into.' And I don't think it's particulary fair of modern homeopathy to hobble the young & keen thus. Well these are just my views & feelings.

Also I think for the newer practicioner,(also the younger practicioner), if using the mental/emotional as the center of the case, the potential for mistakes & misunderstandings is greater. As David K said at the beginning of this thread: 'Cause can be tricky. I see people put emphasis on certain aspects of a person's life because they feel it must have been important.' With consideration to this statement, life experience plays a central role in dealing with emotional experiences & people are often not furnished with a great deal of that at 20 something.

Antony Burgess in 'The Art of Seeing'...'draw what you see, not what you think you see'...advice for the visual artist & a very difficult disipline; no less so for the homeopath working with invisible thoughts & emotions.

Well I checked all references to Organon here in context with the discussion & I don't see where it's said that mental symptoms are the most revealing, so my job is to look elsewhere now for reasons why this aspect appears to be in the limelight of modern homeopathy. (Variety for variety's sake? History, the 'times'days we live in?
The books about endless physical symptoms aren't interesting & don't sell point may be one factor.)

However on my most recent reading I found this beautiful, beautiful....footnote (17b)

'God, the sustainer of humanity, reveals his wisdom & goodness by opening setting forth for the medical art practictioner what has to be taken away in the diseases that befall humanity here below, in order to annihilate them & so to establish health. What would we think of His wisdom & goodness if He shrouded in a mystical darkness that which is to be cured in diseases (as is asserted by the hitherto school of medicine, that affected to have a divinatory insight into the inner wesen of things) and shut it up in the interior, thus making it impossible for humanity to distinctly discern the malady, consequently making it impossible to cure?'


Ah..he asks the best questions of all.

Thankyou very, very much to all members for your time & contributions.

With good faith,
Louise.

Ozzie, it's a fine bunch of points you make about how society has changed, cultural differences, semanics...etc..of which we have ever growing awareness. People have definately changed.

But the cause of disease cannot surely have altered so drasticly in only 200 yrs.
We are dealing with the same morbid mistunement today as then.
Is it not a lasting gift, the system of miasms, cause of disease, with no bias moraly, socialy, culturaly, racialy or towards any one part of the organism...that it should be replaced by a trend for psyhcology with it's many pitfalls & inevitable predjudices.

Are we treating people or diseases? I suppose thats fundamental to how we see cause too.

I would like to know about Sankaran's new par 365, if anyone has time/inclination to explian what that is.

I think it's important that we can talk about changes, methods, differences without fear that we will implode beneth our passions, whatever they may be. As for history repeating itself, as in the annilation of homeopathy, I don't think we have as much power over those events as we like to think, learning from the past being one of humanity's famous weak spots. Stop questioning & talking, bearing in mind that conflict has it's purpose too, then the fish is dead in the water anyway.

Principles I need; for my work & in my life.

With thanks,
Louise.