Hi Luise,

I knew something like this would be coming! :-)
It's true that there are many things about the idea of "true health" that can be open to interpretation, at least initially. Whether a suicide bomber is "truly healthy" because their higher purpose is to kill lots of "enemies", that I don't really want to get into. If I were *treating* a prospective suicide bomber, I would base my assessment of their health, and their "what needs to be cured", not on that single thing--I would *never* base any case analysis on a single symptom, no matter how compelling I might find it!--but instead on (ta-da) "the rest of the case".

Do I think that most suicide bombers are really healthy people, and that this represents the pinnacle of their existence, what they were truly born for? Oh my, certainly not!

Can I entertain the possibility that this *could* occur in an individual, that they could be a strong, peaceful, loving, effective, purposeful person; someone having "admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both feelings and functions," and have decided that their "higher calling" demands that they blow themselves up in order to kill anonymous others? Well, I'll admit it as a theoretical possibility, but highly doubt that it will be the case!

What do you think?

Below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Do you mean like e.g. the people who commit suicide attacks? - to them also it is definitely "serving the higher purpose of their life. Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon Kent echos this when he talks about "conflict between the will and the understanding." To them there is no such conflict.

I did not say that "conflict between the will and the understanding" is the final or only definition of health! A comatose person also has no such conflict. I only said that where you *do* see such conflict--as for e.g. in the state of mind from the Swan proving--then you *do* have something "to be cured".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon (Tho I'm afraid the phrase stuck with me more than the context, other than "something to be cured"...) Could it still be "cured"?

Depends what "it" is, and why "it" is there.
If it is an ingrained and deep belief, in someone who is truly healthy (based on "the rest of the case"), then no, it is nothing a remedy could remove. Hahnemann does talk about ailments (I forget what word he uses) that cannot be removed by remedies alone, and he includes such things as errors (I forget if that is the word he used) of upbringing and etc. I realize that in this context "error" would be a judgment call; my point is that no, if the belief is not part of the dynamic illness, it will not be removed by a remedy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise If so *why*? Because it conflicts with *our* idea of higher purpose?

Nope. Wouldn't it be nice, tho? :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise If so: whose idea? The specific therapist's?

Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance. This is an often-enough cause of wrong (i.e. ineffective) remedy prescriptions, where the prescriber is making mistaken assumptions about what the patient *needs*, where the imbalance *is*, and so prescribes remedies that are trying to cure what is not curable, and/or failing to address what needs to be addressed. And it definitely can happen both ways.

Main point is, the remedy that *works* will be the one that addresses the patient's *imbalance*, not the prescriber's opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I could easily imagine that a lot of homeopaths might think that looking for some means to "lift a person above all dirt and debasement" would be a reasonable quest - and why not try and find it in romantic love? That at least seems to be a human universal.

Sure, but I'm betting a dose of the remedy will "lift" them better than continuing that search.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise You see what *I* mean?

Not yet! :-) Are you saying you still think that those emotional qualities portrayed in the swan proving are consistent with health, that the mindset being described is not likely to benefit from the remedy? I'm curious about that.

Shannon

Hi Shannon,

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:

> Can I entertain the possibility that this *could* occur in an individual, that they could be a strong, peaceful, loving, effective, purposeful person; someone having "admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both feelings and functions," and have decided that their "higher calling" demands that they blow themselves up in order to kill anonymous others? Well, I'll admit it as a theoretical possibility, but highly doubt that it will be the case! What do you think? <

All soldiers (unless drafted) are sick then?

[snip]

> >> To me this means that the person is not only free from physical pain, but also that their mental/emotional sphere is in a harmony, and that the focus of their life is something a bit "higher" than finding that lost and perfect love, who will lift me above all the dirt and debasement--do you see what I mean?<< >

> > Do you mean like e.g. the people who commit suicide attacks? - to them also it is definitely "serving the higher purpose of their life.< <

> >> Kent echos this when he talks about "conflict between the will and the understanding."< <<

> > To them there is no such conflict.< <

> I did not say that "conflict between the will and the understanding" is the final or only definition of health! A comatose person also has no such conflict. I only said that where you *do* see such conflict--as for e.g. in the state of mind from the Swan proving--then you *do* have something "to be cured".<

> >> (Tho I'm afraid the phrase stuck with me more than the context, other than "something to be cured"...)<< <

> > Could it still be "cured"?< <

> Depends what "it" is, and why "it" is there. If it is an ingrained and deep belief, in someone who is truly healthy (based on "the rest of the case"), then no, it is nothing a remedy could remove. Hahnemann does talk about ailments (I forget what word he uses) that cannot be removed by remedies alone, and he includes such things as errors (I forget if that is the word he used) of upbringing and etc. I realize that in this context "error" would be a judgment call; my point is that no, if the belief is not part of the dynamic illness, it will not be removed by a remedy.<

ok. That answers my question:-))


> Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance.<

I have been wondering how and where the idea of resonance ever got into the picture.

[snip]

> > You see what *I* mean?< <

> Not yet! :-) Are you saying you still think that those emotional qualities portrayed in the swan proving are consistent with health, that the mindset being described is not likely to benefit from the remedy? I'm curious about that.<

Yes - I consider it very unlikely.

It seems to me something like the mindset of John Livingston Seagull (if I remember rightly that what I remember. And there I would wonder who needs a remedy, John L. or the other seagulls:-)

However,I do think it reasonable to suppose that a person of the above mind-set might be cured of sx of the provings of swan (say asthma) better than a different kind of personality.

This is, IMO, the usefulness of such descriptions. (Although someone on this list once said that one of the best cures she had was with Pulsatilla for a 6-foot football player:-)

Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

Below:

on 11/22/04 3:54 PM, Luise wrote:

....
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:

>> Can I entertain the possibility that this *could* occur in an individual, that they could be a strong, peaceful, loving, effective, purposeful person; someone having "admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both feelings and functions," and have decided that their "higher calling" demands that they blow themselves up in order to kill anonymous others? Well, I'll admit it as a theoretical possibility, but highly doubt that it will be the case! What do you think?<<
> All soldiers (unless drafted) are sick then?<

Nope. Obeying the instructions of one's "superiors" is certainly within the range of "normal" for human behavior!

I think suicide bomber is somewhat different, but it would be pretty pointless for me to speculate about that. Maybe in some cases it isn't different at all, but what do I know about it... *As always* I would make my judgment (and yes, it's a "judgment", opinion) on the basis of context, and "the rest of the case". Which IMO is the *only* meaningful way to treat *any* single symptom, no matter how flashy.

[snip]

>> Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance.<<

> I have been wondering how and where the idea of resonance ever got into the picture.<

??? Why is it a problem? How about, "Remedy won't work unless it addresses the patient's imbalance." I'm flexible! :-)

[snip]
> Shannon asked:
>> Are you saying you still think that those emotional qualities portrayed in the swan proving are consistent with health, that the mindset being described is not likely to benefit from the remedy? I'm curious about that.<<

> Yes - I consider it very unlikely.<

Luise, have you had formal training in constitutional prescribing, or are you mostly self-taught? I ask this for context, to try to understand your thinking about this. Have you read similar "snapshots" of other remedies, and do you feel the same about them? I'm trying to understand what it is about this portrait that you are viewing as "incurable" or "healthy even tho it's painful and gets in the way of living".

Are you familiar with, let's say, an Ignatia mental picture, and do you feel that to be "curable" by the remedy, or ??


> It seems to me something like the mindset of John Livingston Seagull (if I remember rightly that what I remember. And there I would wonder who needs a remedy, John L. or the other seagulls:-)<

It's a long time since I read that book. Remind me how it is similar to the Swan picture.

I assume that the seagull population portrayed was similar to a human population. So I would imagine that yes, the other guys needed remedies too. :-))

> However,I do think it reasonable to suppose that a person of the above mind-set might be cured of sx of the provings of swan (say asthma) better than a different kind of personality.<

Yes, but if I treated such a person and saw the asthma improve but *not* the mentals, I would be worried! If you improve peripheral symptoms but do not improve the "core" of the case, the deeper disturbance, then you have only palliated (or even suppressed), and they (the symptoms) will be back!

Best,
Shannon

Hi Shannon,

Shannon wrote:


> Below:<

[snip]

> >> Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance.<< <

> > I have been wondering how and where the idea of resonance ever got into the picture.< <

> ??? Why is it a problem? How about, "Remedy won't work unless it addresses the patient's imbalance." I'm flexible! :-) <

No problem:-) I understood quite well. The "resonance" has occurred in several posts by various people. So this was more or less just an aside - just idle wondering.


> > [snip]

> > Shannon asked:
> >> Are you saying you still think that those emotional qualities portrayed in the swan proving are consistent with health, that the mindset being described is not likely to benefit from the remedy? I'm curious about that.<< <

> > Yes - I consider it very unlikely.< <

> Luise, have you had formal training in constitutional prescribing, or are you mostly self-taught?<

I had about 200 classroom-hours of "Classical Homeopathy" as part of the curriculum at Naturopathic School. "Constitutional presecribing" was probably part of of the course - I don't remember that the term itself was ever used.

> I ask this for context, to try to understand your thinking about this. Have you read similar "snapshots" of other remedies,<

yes


> and do you feel the same about them? <

Yes

I'm trying to understand what it is about this portrait that you are viewing as "incurable" or "healthy even tho it's painful and gets in the way of living".
>
Let me demonstrate what I mean on a more tangible example of feelings that might be painful and get in the way of living: let's take a woman who is bound to her husband by the forces of religion, culture, economics,her children .. his used to be common in our own history and is still common in many parts of the world to-day. This woman gets beaten and is humiliated by her husband all the time. If those women get resentful or fearful - would these feelings be unhealthy or curable because they are painful and get in the way of living? (I am not relating this to the "swam" - just to the criterium of feelings that are painful etc.)


> Are you familiar with, let's say, an Ignatia mental picture, and do you feel that to be "curable" by the remedy, or ?? <

It depends whether they are "morbid" states. I concur with Hahnemann when he states in the MM Pura:

"The emotional disposition of patients for whom Ignatia is serviceable .....[it is suitable for those] who are subject to rapid alternations of gaiety and disposition to weep...."

He does not say we can cure them of these characteristics.

They are personality traits and as such part of the normal, healthy makeup of the person. Only where they get morbid they are curable. Or when they accompany a state of illness - where in normal health the patient had been different (look at H's statements on Pulsatilla for reference).

> > It seems to me something like the mindset of John Livingston Seagull (if I remember rightly that what I remember. And there I would wonder who needs a remedy, John L. or the other seagulls:-) < <

> It's a long time since I read that book. Remind me how it is similar to the Swan picture. I assume that the seagull population portrayed was similar to a human population. So I would imagine that yes, the other guys needed remedies too. :-)) <

No - not exactly fair. The others were content and happy - the higher purpose of their life being that they catch as many fish as possible. Jonathan was dissatisfied with that life, felt there was something else to strive for: lightness and freedom, soaring into the sky.

Now: a homeopath-seagull would have given "swan" to Jonathan, hoping to cure him of his feelings, which were very inappropriate in the seagull society and got him into a lot of trouble. Jonathan, had he taken up homeopathy after he gained his freedom, might have tried to look for a remedy to cure the others from their way of feeling, which he probably considered unworthy of seagulls'potential. Before he gained his freedom, he might have looked for a rx to cure the others from their inability to understand him.


> > However,I do think it reasonable to suppose that a person of the above mind-set might be cured of sx of the provings of swan (say asthma) better than a different kind of personality. < <

> Yes, but if I treated such a person and saw the asthma improve but *not* the mentals, I would be worried! <

I definitely disagree!

> If you improve peripheral symptoms but do not improve the "core" of the case, the deeper disturbance, then you have only palliated (or even suppressed), and they (the symptoms) will be back! <

Yes - but a disturbance will always manifest as *morbid* symptoms, be they physical or mental.

Here we are back to our judgement, our idea of what is morbid and what is not. One cannot get away from it. It is a matter of interpretation and as such very much dependent on the therapist's own ideas.

Regards

Luise

Hi Luise,

on 11/24/04 3:49 PM, Luise wrote:

>>>> Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance.
>>> I have been wondering how and where the idea of resonance ever got into the picture.

>> ??? Why is it a problem? How about, "Remedy won't work unless it addresses the patient's imbalance." I'm flexible! :-)

> No problem:-) I understood quite well. The "resonance" has occurred in several posts by various people. So this was more or less just an aside - just idle wondering.

By timely coincidence, I think I just read the answer! In David Little's rendition of the history of homeopathy he gives some of Hahnemann's music-analogy quotes, and notes that "The musical terms used in homeopathy have their origin in the Pythagorea music of the spheres." (I'd quote more, but can't take the time right now... That seems to be the gist of it, tho!)


>>> snip
>>> Shannon asked:
>>>> Are you saying you still think that those emotional qualities portrayed in the swan proving are consistent with health, that the mindset being described is not likely to benefit from the remedy? I'm curious about that.

>>> Yes - I consider it very unlikely.
>> (snip)
> ... Have you read similar "snapshots" of other remedies,
> yes
>> and do you feel the same about them?
> Yes
> I'm trying to understand what it is about this portrait that you are viewing as "incurable" or "healthy even tho it's painful and gets in the way of living".

> Let me demonstrate what I mean on a more tangible example of feelings that might be painful and get in the way of living: let's take a woman who is bound to her husband by the forces of religion, culture, economics,her children .. his used to be common in our own history and ist still common in many parts of the world to-day. This woman gets beaten and is humiliated by her husband all the time. If those women get resentful or fearful - would these feelings be unhealthy or curable because they are painful and get in the way of living? (I am not relating this to the "swam" - just to the criterium of feelings that are painful etc.)

She's dealing with a powerful "maintaining cause", and whether or not she's able to heal or remove this maintaining cause would depend on lots of things e.g. surrounding culture, personal resources, family support or etc., and lots of other etc.!). So long as the maintaining cause is maintained, her ability to truly heal will be limited.

One possible healing outcome might be that she realizes a way of escape, takes her children, and leaves him behind. (In some situations this will be feasible, and in others it won't.)

Another possible healing outcome is that she realizes that if she does not *accept* her husband's abuse, he will stop delivering it. (Again, in some situations this will work, and in others not--I don't want to play the "generalizing" game with this one!!!!)

There are many other possibilities. There may be some situations where, whether due to her limitations, or to those of the homeopath, or to those of her support system (or lack of it) or the culture or whatever, no escape is possible (or acceptable). In that situation the best the homeopath can offer is palliation.

But I don't know whether this answers your question or not...



>> Are you familiar with, let's say, an Ignatia mental picture, and do you feel that to be "curable" by the remedy, or ??
> It depends whether they are "morbid" states. I concur with Hahnemann when he states in the MM Pura:
> quote
> The emotional disposition of patients for whom Ignatia is serviceabel ....[it is suitable for those] who are subject to rapid alternations of gaiety and disposition to weep...."
> unquote
>
> He does not say we can cure them of these characteristics.
>
> They are personality traits and as such part of the normal, healthy makeup of the person. Only where they get morbid they are curable.

The Ignatia state is definitely a "morbid" and curable one!!! But I take your point--remedies will never turn a quick and reactive phos-type, for e.g., into a leisurely and laid-back calc-type. But to determine what's curable, one needs first to have a good grasp of what "health" means. Rather than debating that point, you'll do better to just "look and see" what others are accomplishing, then try to understand how and why! (*Do* look more into it if you want a better grasp of the possibilities!)


> Or when they accompany a state of illness - where in normal health the patient had been different (look at H's statements on Pulsatilla for reference).

Luise, I think your best way to look more into this question would be to read lots of cases! E.g. the IFH Case Conference books, or maybe sign on for some of the taped case studies at Whole Health Now (they look *terrific*!). Or sit in with a good homeopath (that would be the best of all!). We could discuss the "what-ifs" until the cows come home, but so long as it's all theoretical, it's not really going to get us far. My own understanding of "curable" and what constitute "prescribing symptoms" as far as mental states, comes from lots of classroom time, lots of seminars, lots of reading cases and--by far the most significant learning tool!--lots of years as a patient, taking (and giving) lots of remedies that have and haven't worked, and *seeing* what constitutes a "healthy" state.

Have you tried just reading up on lots of cases? (If you can get hold of those IFH casebooks, they are the *best* for reading cases, in my experience! Includes wonderful audience discussion and detailed analysis, as well as detailed follow-ups.)

Best wishes,
Shannon

Hi Shannon,


> >>>> Remedy won't work unless it resonates with the patient's imbalance.
> >>> I have been wondering how and where the idea of resonance ever got into the picture.
> >> ??? Why is it a problem? How about, "Remedy won't work unless it addresses the patient's imbalance." I'm flexible! :-)
> > No problem:-) I understood quite well. The "resonance" has occurred in several posts by various people. So this was more or less just an aside - just idle wondering.
> By timely coincidence, I think I just read the answer! In David Little's rendition of the history of homeopathy he gives some of Hahnemann's music-analogy quotes, and notes that "The musical terms used in homeopathy have their origin in the Pythagorea music of the spheres." (I'd quote more, but can't take the time right now... That seems to be the gist of it, tho!)

Oh, I see:-)

Just as a further aside: at Hahnemann's time the German word for "distunement" (Verstimmung) which he used in his "distunement of the life force) as a medical term meant "disturbance". Even now we have the term stomach distunement" for English "stomach upset". At Sam's time there was "distuned throat" for "sore throat" etc. (Ref: Grimm's German-German Dictionary, published around 1848.)


> > Let me demonstrate what I mean on a more tangible example of feelings that might be painful and get in the way of living: let's take a woman who is bound to her husband by the forces of religion, culture, economics,her children .. his used to be common in our own history and ist still common in many parts of the world to-day. This woman gets beaten and is humiliated by her husband all the time. If those women get resentful or fearful - would these feelings be unhealthy or curable because they are painful and get in the way of living? (I am not relating this to the "swam" - just to the criterium of feelings that are painful etc.)

> She's dealing with a powerful "maintaining cause",

Exactly - and so is the swan picture.

snip

> .. Rather than debating that point, you'll do better to just "look and see" what others are accomplishing, then try to understand how and why! (*Do* look more into it if you want a better grasp of the possibilities!)
> > Or when they accompany a state of illness - where in normal health the patient had been different (look at H's statements on Pulsatilla for reference).
> Luise, I think your best way to look more into this question would be to read lots of cases! E.g. the IFH Case Conference books, or maybe sign on for some of the taped case studies at Whole Health Now (they look *terrific*!). Or sit in with a good homeopath (that would be the best of all!). We could discuss the "what-ifs" until the cows come home, but so long as it's all theoretical, it's not really going to get us far. My own understanding of "curable" and what constitute "prescribing symptoms" as far as mental states, comes from lots of classroom time, lots of seminars, lots of reading cases and--by far the most significant learning tool!--lots of years as a patient, taking (and giving) lots of remedies that have and haven't worked, and *seeing* what constitutes a "healthy" state.
> Have you tried just reading up on lots of cases?

Yes - and prescribed on quite a few (I graduated from Naturopathic school in 1984).

It is not that I have no understanding of the matter or that I have no stand on it - mine ist merely different from yours -- especially my ideas on what constitutes a "healthy" state:-)

Regards

Luise

as a complete aside, my physics friend says that everything is resonance (or words to that effect - he's not here so I can't check)

From the little I know of physics - he is probably right.

As I keep saying: the next important step in homeopathy will not come from the homeopaths but from physicists.

Regards

Luise

.....and possibly a spiritualist or two?

;^)
Sati

As a 'spiritualist' I can tell you that resonance is certainly everything!

Everything *vibrates* with energy, all eminating from the original sound (Aum, Om).

Sati