Dear Members

There seems to be a misapprehension about Homeopathy that crops up every so often:
It is the belief, that homeopathy treats the person as a whole, taking each and everything into account for the selection of the ‘’constitutional simillimum’’ which then is numerically the best match to the symptom and sign conglomeration elicited by interrogation.

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]

Boger expresses some of the dilemma himself – instead of actually giving indications for this elusive constitutional simillimum, he tells us, that it is only due to our own ignorance of what is written in the Organon, that we cannot see these things.

So—lets study the Organon.
Much to our surprise, Hahnemann always refers to disease as what is curable and not the entire person—according the Organon, it is the disease by its symptoms which calls for its remedial measures,--. Even though it might be a longstanding disease,-- it still is a condition different to the previous healthy state.
Also in having a closer look into the more chronic conditions, Hahnemann states, that it’s rarely by one single remedy alone a chronic ailment is eradicated. [org.:171, 221} Particularly if the present situation is based on 2-3 miasms, the treatment has to be geared against one of those at the time, which means inevitably, that there is the need for different remedies at different times to further the recovery.
This in return makes it very clear, that the indications for the NOW useful remedy can only lie in the PRESENT condition. If the condition has changed and the remedy previously prescribed does not suit anymore, a new one, has to be selected.
The predicament of ,,constitutional prescribers'', in this situation arises, that the constitutional remedy which is supposed to cure the entire disease is a different one, than the ONE now indicated by the symptoms. Which remedy to give in this situation?
Further more, if the previously determined remedy is the true constitutional simillimum, how comes, that it has not cured these symptoms?

There are two answers:
1) The constitutional simillimum was not the right ONE [try again]
2) There is no such thing as a true constitutional simillimum.

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 --??

IMO: The former does not go together with the latter – But what were the reasons for such a mystery?
I found, that it’s rooted in the religious believes of the time, the turn of the century New school, which was, placed on a fairly moralistic foundation, a mixture of mysticism and Christianity.

One of their fundamental beliefs was, that all human suffering is based on sin, which equals constitution in the heads of the contemporaries. If this sin is not eradicated, there is no hope for salvation. The result of the sin is chronic disease – if people would have got writ of sin by themselves, then they would not suffer the effects of sin in the form of chronic disease.
But despite of best behaviour, they still suffer these diseases.
So the early American homeopaths deducted:

>>It is not given to humans to writ themselves from sin by themselves – the only way to do this is through homeopathy. And as the sinful pattern that causes all the misery is static, it expresses itself in the constitution. Therefore, then there has to be that ONE constitutional remedy, which will eradicate the pattern. Once this pattern is gone, all chronic disease disappears and all sin is gone, as there is no more reason for sin and these so cleansed individuals will go to heaven.<<

This send the homeopaths on a mission – the mission to conquer sin and suffering with Constitutional treatment. And they have a great advantage to other missionaries – the remedy will do all the change necessary for salvation no other effort necessary.
If they would have read Hahnemann, or would have evaluated their results unbiased, they would have realised soon enough:

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Congratulations on the construction of an intellectual maze that left me baffled- I am a very simple person.
For me the essence of homeopathy is matching the remedy to the person- to the character and possibly the appearance of the person .
I have used Ars Alb to cure blood in urine [ as an option to the specialists recommended op to remove the bladder!] and also to cure a bad case of angina. In both cases the person was a neat supertidy type , for who order was most important [ control freaks , fall into this class]
I have also , after seeing a Pulsatilla type Blonde,pale etc , walk into my room -spent an hour making certain that my 1st impression was correct.
I once amused myself telling a waitress about her past health - correctly - she was a Pulsatilla, but she gave me a very queer look.
For me this is what a constitutional remedy is , but I could be using the wrong word.

Hello HansW,

Have homeopathy named & defined specific constitutions, as few miasms are named & defined? I doubt it is proper to relate constitutions with several differant remedies. These should be just few, three to five.

When talking about religious terms in homeopathic or in scientific sense--do we understand their homeopathic or scientific meaning? If not then, how can we know about the "SIN", ANTOMYN OF SIN ( not entered in english dictonary), SALVATION, KARMA etc.?

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

an excellent and thought provoking discussion.

leaving aside the question of original sin, which is silliness, imo the problem we encounter in these discussions, often, trying to determine "constitution," is that consistution really needs to be considered from two perspectives: the innately given, and the experientially derived.

the innately given constitution can, i think with fairness, be defined in terms of a fixed range or potentials. this paradoxical definition implies that an individual is in fact possessed of specific characteristics, for example, the capacity for laguage, and a broad range of possible expressions, for example, english, french .... same with height: under varying environmental conditions, including obviously dietary regime of one's culture, a particular individual may grow to be 5' tall or 6' tall, while another may have the potential, in the same cultures, of growing to 5'4" to 6'3". Personality characteristics obviously also fall within this range: simply put, characteristics may be enhanced, exaggerated, or inhibited by experience.

this is essentially the concept of genotype vs the concept of phenotype.

the emphasis on "that which can be cured," is appreciated, and seems to be an important focus. but i'm not sure it is easy to define this. even "neurotic" symptoms may transform over time into useful, adaptive personality features. perhaps it is indeed the process of case taking that differentiates? in this view, something that is a symptom today, may not be a symptom tomorrow, or vice versa, or a prominent symptom today is not problematic tomorrow: that is, the changing profile as treatment progresses, determines "that which can be cured" and how characteristic it is, how it is to be graded in the moment.

now ... about studying the mm by color coding to the rep ...

__________________
"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.

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.

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 -
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.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Dear Members
A good and hopefully prosperous discussion.

In the shortness of time, I am only able to comment on one point made in the previous posts.
Lisa Annan writes the following:

>>I think Boger might have meant chronic-remedy when he used the term 'constitutional simillimum', because, later in the quote<<

Here I want to ask Lisa: Where and when did Boger say that he relates to chronic remedy in his works automatically whenever he writes of ‘’constitutional simillimum’’?

The question ultimately is:

Did Kent , Boger actually practise what they taught, or maybe, it was the fashion of the time to stay within the Swedenborgian terminology, just to show to be up- to- date but otherwise follow sound homeopathic principles.
An indication might be the following citing from Kent:

Kent: Classification of Constitutions Useless in Prescribing [HPc 1/1912]
>>Why should we attempt to classify constitutions as an aid in prescribing? Every individual is an constitution and no two individuals can be classified as of the same class as to the satisfaction of any clear, observing and thinking homeopathist. It is a fatal error to classify constitutions, as no two are sufficient similar, when observed by the genuine homeopathician to form even a common class. Human beings are a thousand times more complex than the chess-board in the hands of most skilful players.<<

Kent: Temperaments:
The true basis of a homeopathic remedy is the collection of signs and symptoms, and these must be morbid, has been the teaching of Hahnemann, and his ablest followers. And such teaching is the only teaching that conforms to law.

Kent: correspondent of Organs:
Through familiarity with Swedenbourg, I have found the correspondences wrought out from the world of God harmonious with all I have learned in the past thirty years. Familiarity with them aids in determining the effects of prescriptions. A man sick in his mind does not appreciate how sick he is, and is not able to judge of his condition. He thinks he is worse when liver symptoms appear; he says he is worse. That is the course from within out; be not deceived. The threatened condition of the liver will pass away with the remedy selected for the mental disorder.

Kent: the trend of thought –
But, in time of such hurry, when a large number of patients must be visited in a day, the physician knowing the constitution of his patrons, much time might be gained in selecting for each sick person, from this group, the remedy needs. In a large proportion of cases, the remedy will be found in this group.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

I have no idea if Boger wrote this anywhere in his works.

Please read my post again -- I said maybe he meant chronic-remedy when he writes 'constitutional simillimum', because of what the rest of the quote said...which led me to believe he did indeed use a series of remedies to treat chronic diseases.

Maybe it was. I've wondered about this, myself.

Time is very limited for me at the moment - so I'll have to read and ponder it again later when I have more time. Sounds like a potentially, very good discussion, though!

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

I may have a possible solution to the conundrum of Kent's statements. My teacher's father was a friend of Kent's and he overheard many of their conversation. Because constitution plays a roll in how intensely or easily one responds to a remedy during the provings, if there are several remedies under consideration, if one is of a constitution that showed a marked repsonse to the remedy during the provings, there is a greater chance that that remedy would evoke a curative response. This presuposes that the remedies under consideration all fit the case.

For example, if the person had a tendency toward haemorrhage, was chilly, nauseated after eating, had anxiety over his health, and the problems started after a grief and also flared up when he was anger, and during the flareup, he was frightened, both Nux-v and Phos fit the case. If you can't elicit anything more distinguishing in the case, you could look to the constitution to determine which remedy has a better chance of acting.

In this case, if the person were wiry and dark haired, one would pick Nux-v. Whereas if the person were taller and red haired, one would pick Phos.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Do we have some details somewhat like 'pathological' aspects of constitutions'? Can we understand this concept, pathologically? If yes, can you please mention some details or give some referances to this effect?

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

yES,in Homoeopathy,treatment is given to PERSON as whole rather than to individual organ.
After reading all Masters I understand CONSTITUTIONAL MEDICINE means it is only medicine which is selected on basis of totality of symptoms at that time .If indicated remedy is Lycopodium, it is Lycopodium.If it is Calcarea ,constitutional medicine is calcaria carb etc.Even it may be Belladonna ,aconite etc also
Generally for me constitutional medicine is Main complaint ie symptoms of disease (name of disease) and patients Mental and Phisical buildup, Modalities ,concommitants ,causation which represents his constitution ie person as whole .Priscription made on this CONSTITUTIONAL basis never fails
There are no fixed, designated constitutions.Constitutonal Simillium is not numerically matched one ,rather it is very difficult to find single remedy to match his numerical totallity.It is remedy which represents him in his important sphere.

Ramachandra,
Hyderabad ,INDIA