Thanks Luise!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Leibesbeschaffenheit just does not mean constitution in the meaning that word can have in English. It is much narrower than "constitution". A Leibesbeschaffenheit-Mittel would mean a remedy chosen solely by the way the body is made, the physique, the part of it which is showing. The state of your liver, your lungs for instance would not be part of it. You will agree that this is a far cry from what "constitutional remedy" means, by any interpretation of the latter.

This is the sort of specific detail that I think could be extremely useful, and should be footnoted, where simple translation might leave it ambiguous. Is this the term he used in (so far as you remember) *every* place where our copies refer to "constitutional" remedy (but come to think, is that term even used in the Organon, or is that in CD, if you recall?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise "Geistartig" just does not mean "spiritual". Hahnemann himself spells out exactly what he means by it by paralleling it to the magnetic force and gravitation, right in the same aphorism. I do not know whether anyone would consider gravitation and magnetism as being spiritual.

And some translations use the term "spirit-like", simply meaning (as I understood it) immaterial. I agree, "spiritual" is a term that can definitely be misleading, especially these days.

If you think of more examples, please send them on (again)!

Shannon

Hi Shannon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon This is the sort of specific detail that I think could be extremely useful, and should be footnoted, where simple translation might leave it ambiguous.

Yes, at some time some years ago I was thinking of re-translating the to me relevant parts of the Organon, doing just that. I was thinking of a two-column translation: one column just about literal, the other a "normal" translation (which always is an interpretation - there is no way out of that). I would have added the relevant footnotes on why I chose a certain translation of a word in preference to other possibilities. This way everyone who reads it could decide for him/herself whther they thought I was right.

But then I figured that no-one would want to read that kind of thing, anyway and I trashed the idea:-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon Is this the term he used in (so far as you remember) *every* place where our copies refer to "constitutional" remedy (but come to think, is that term even used in the Organon, or is that in CD, if you recall?).

No - he uses the German word "Konstitution" 1 one or 2 places. With quite different meaning as "Leibeseschaffenheit"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon And some translations use the term "spirit-like", simply meaning (as I understood it) immaterial. I agree, "spiritual" is a term that can definitely be misleading, especially these days.

I may be able to find the posts - I am a "computer-squirrel".

Regards

Luise

Hi Andy,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Dear Luise, Sorry I missed earlier comments. What was SH referring to with this word Geistartig? "Spiritual" is not magnetic per se, nor gravitational per se. But Dudgeon if I am correct, has used the translation of "spirit-like"

Spirit-like would probably be the best translation, it is sort of non-committal the same way the German "geist-artig"is. Since H. adds in parenthesis (dynamis) and gives a long explanation of what he means by it, (i.e. forces like magnetism - electro-magnetism had not been conceived yet - and gravitation) it becomes quite clear what he meant: IMO "some force, non-material, of which we do not know what it is.

While to-day we have some model at least of what magnetism may be, we still do not know more about gravitation than Hahnemann did. The same holds true about the life-force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy to refer to Hahnemann's description of what we do refer

As long as we can agree that this is not a description of "reality" but a "model" - (in German the word is "Denkmodell" - "thoughtmodel", which is more descriptive) I should think it is a probably model. But do not restrict it to humans - anything alive is alive by the life force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Spirit-like fits the description of a usually invisible force field. Magnetic fields are an invisible force field, as is gravitation, as is the life force which organizes and animates matter. The parallel is apt. How would you translate Geistartig?

Either spirit-like or dynamic (the latter because H. had added in parenthesis "dynamis"). But probably I would not use "dynamic", although it sounds so much better than the constructed English "spirit-like". Before using dynamic I would first find out from a Greek dictionary what exacty is the extent of meaning of "dynamis" - i.e. whether it would be exactly what H. defines in his footnote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Mainstream "science" today STILL does not have a handle or definition on the life force field, though it was described (for example) in detail by people like Besant and Leadbeater

:-) Well - much as I like the two, esp. Annie, do not forget that Krishnamurti could not accept a lot of what they had presented. So I should take their revelations with quite a few grains of salt

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy over 100 years ago, and Kirlian photographic techniques seem to demonstrate its presence.

What Kirlian photography shows definitely is electro-magnetic field - which again definitely does *also* play a part in our body make-up. I personally do not thing that this is the life force - I think that it is one of the phenomena generated by the life force.

Since we are speculating:-) - I see more levels of "forces"

spiritual force

mental force life force
or may be
life force mental force

electromagnetic force.

In between there should be some "force of communication", i.e. exchanging information, which may-be where the remedies aim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Nonmainstream science understands it pretty well. Chinese medicine has the most in-depth understanding, perhaps.

No, no - they do have a very deep understanding, but it is an altogether different "thought-model". Modern Chinese Med. and a lot of us European acupuncturists have tried to parallel the 3 - i.e. the "scientific", the TC and the homeopathic.

IMO it does not work well.

When one practices both classical homeopathy and traditional chinese acupuncture, as I did, one has to be very careful to stay within the appropriate model when thinking out a case.

Of course one can also combine the 2 - but then it is no longer "classical" homeopathy nor "tradition2l" chinese medicine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Us homeopaths discuss it without defining it at all well, or with much understanding of it.

There agin - it is a model. We really have no idea yet of how the remedies work.

Neither do we know how acupuncture works - although there has been a study just recently that seems to show that it makes some changes in certain areas of the brain.

I suppose there will be more research on this - in Germany the powers that be quite urgently want acupuncture to be proved effective and scientificall proved, in order to be able to have the public health insurance companies pay for it - and once they have been successful in identifying the areas of the brain that are influenced by acupuncture, they may find the same holds true for homeopathy.

There might be a tie-up to Hamer, mightn't it? Although Hamer thinks that homoeopathy is placebo treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy These patterns are nevertheless quantifiable by spectrophotometric methods, and if I am correct, also NMR spectroscopy; among other types of investigation.

No idea - I am not up in that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy What word did (Dudgeon?) translate "spirit-like" from, if I may ask? Was it Geistartig?

Yes.

Regards

Luise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth Well, if this bogus "translation" is in fact the "worst that could be made" and in turn it is used to "justify" an equally ersatz "system," why wouldn't you share in condemning the latter?

The "justication for a system" does not touch the system itself.

Otherwise the opinion of regular medicine - i.e. that higly potentized remedies cannot work - would be correct. No one has so far given a satisfactory explanation on why they should work. Yet they do.

Modern "classical" homeopathy to a great degree is also not based on Hahnemann.

Neither are many other ways of doing homeopathy.

I do agree that Heilkunst is not "classical" nor based on Hahnemann.

So, the same way that I do not condemn Kentian homeopathy or Sehgal etc. I do not condemn Heilkunst.

Regards

Luise

Hi Shannon,

I just happened to think of another example:

"Krankheit" translated as "disease".

Disease is too narrow and makes for misunderstandings.

The translation should be "illness" - which really is synonymous (I should think fully synonymous) to "Krankheit".

For example:

H. says that the real "Krankheit" is the derangement of the life-force, which then manifests as symptoms.

I feel strange in saying that disease is the derangement of the life-force.

I think it would be correct to say that disease is one of the symptoms of the derangement of the life-force. The life force is ill, then it manifests as disease, e.g. inflammations (of tonsils, liver ...)

Also I should intuitiveley hesitate to call asthma or allergy a disease (but perhaps my intuition of the English language is wrong in this case) while it definitely is an illness. Or depression - a disease? Low resistance to infection - a disease? I should consider it an illness that leads to various diseases.

What do you think?

Regards

Luise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: Mainstream "science" today STILL does not have a handle or definition on the life force field, though it was described (for example) in detail by people like Besant and Leadbeater :-) Well - much as I like the two, esp. Annie, do not forget that Krishnamurti could not accept a lot of what they had presented. So I should take their revelations with quite a few grains of salt

Hi, Luise, --Well, Besant and Leadbeater DID accurately describe the structure of molecules AND subatomic particles by clairvoyance some decades before mainstream accepted "science" did! This I find most impressive, and so did British physicist S. Phillips in his confirmation of their success in his book" Extrasensory Perception of Quarks". So while I do not take what they present hook line and sinker by any means, they have at least SOME proven track record...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: over 100 years ago, and Kirlian photographic techniques seem to demonstrate its presence. What Kirlian photography shows definitely is electro-magnetic field - which again definitely does *also* play a part in our body make-up. I personally do not thing that this is the life force - I think that it is one of the phenomena generated by the life force.

The EM field has been postulated by many to be a SPECIAL CASE of the etheric. For example, a magnet is a permanent fixer of the etheric into a magnetic field by its (Ferrum magneticum) geometry. From the magnet we obtain virtually all the human-generated electricity on earth by co-rotating these magnetic forces which come from "nowhere" and are basically limitless.. Thus we use the etheric all the time to run the industries of the world and our homes. The etheric is required to solve Maxwell's and other electrodynamics equations. The etheric is why homeopathy, TCM, ESP, non-local treatment, telekinesis, and universal communication works. An explanation of the etheric is (this is old knowledge for you, but others may not be aware of it)---

===
'Zero-Point Energy' (ZPE) (Etheric--addition mine) is known as an energy that fills the fabric of all space. Technically the ZPE results from an electric flux that flows orthogonally to our perceived dimension or reality.. The mass equivalence of this energy has been calculated by physicists to be on the order of 10 to the 93d power gms/cm3.
====

In the same way, the kirlian photo (obtained by placing the living being having a biofield into a high voltage (eg. 50 kV) EM field (a general description of the method) --elucidates a luminous and DYNAMIC (changing) white biofield aura which resembles the "etheric double" described by Besant and Leadbeater which is what Hahnemann is talking about as the "automatic vital force--since the etheric double is a mirror of the physical body according to Besant and Leadbeater, and thus animates it automatically. The higher bodies thus have a chance to pursue the "higher aims of volitive use of the body and mind as Hahnemann says so eloquently:

Paragraph 9:
In the healthy condition of man, the spiritual vital force (autocracy), the dynamis that animates the material body (organism), rules with unbounded sway, and retains all the parts of the organism in admirable, harmonious, vital operation, as regards both sensations and functions, so that our indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purpose of our existence.

The light of Kirlian photography will likely be EM ions as you say, but what UNDERLIES and CREATES them is likely etheric (which is not of course measurable on a garden variety EM meter). It is unlikely that the body could create an EM field that behaves like a kirlian field--the field does not have typical lines of force of EM field--more likely that the Kirlian images/videos are an ionic EM artifact of the etheric. So again this would be a special case of the etheric because the etheric does have interaction with the electromagnetic dimension.

It is to be noted that acupuncturist researchers in LA note changes in meridian terminations in the fingers when a certain meridian is "sick". So the TCM conception of etheric force (chi of some 14 or more types/"frequencies" flowing in unique channels) is supported by the pattern of kirlian data.

So, the Kirlian IMO is probably an EM echo of the spirit-like health aura (which is the automatic etheric double which makes up the automatic portion of the vital force of Hahnemann that he discusses) viz

Organon introduction:

=====
For should our vital force have its integrity impaired by injurious influences from without, then this force strives instinctively and

>>>>>>>>>>>automatically to free itself from the adventitious derangement
(disease) by revolutionary processes, but these very efforts are themselves disease; they are a second different malady substituted for the original one. The vital force, I say, produces, in accordance with the laws of the constitution of the organism to which it is subject, a disease of a different sort, intended to expel the disease by which it was attacked, which it strives to accomplish by pain, metastases and so forth, but mainly by evacuations and the sacrifice of much of the fluid and solid constituents of the body, with difficult, often dubious, injurious, frequently even disastrous results.
=====

IN paragraph 11, and 11 footnote 1, 2 sixth edition
Dudgeon/boericke--Hahnemann discusses to some extent the topic we are discussing here:

====
When a person falls ill, it is only this

>>>>>>>>>spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in
his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make
itself known. 2

1 Materia peccans!

2 What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever,to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible,conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there liesinvisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?

==========
paragraph § 63 --response of the automatic vital force to an artificial disease, which provokes an automatic healing response not previously present:

====
Every agent that acts upon the vitality, every medicine, deranges more or less the vital force, and causes a certain alteration in the health of the individual for a longer or a shorter period. This is termed primary action. Although a product of the medicinal and vital powers conjointly, it is principally due to the former power. To its action our vital force endeavors to oppose its own energy. This resistant action is a property, is indeed an

>>>>>>>>>automatic action of our life-preserving power, which goes by the name
of secondary action or counteraction.
====

paragraph 72--the automatic vital force in miasmatic disease:

§ 72
=====
With respect to the first point, the following will serve as a general preliminary view. The disease to which man is liable are either rapid morbid processes of the abnormally deranged vital force, which have a tendency to finish their course more or less quickly, but always in a moderate time - these are termed acute diseases; - or they are diseases of such a character that, with small, often imperceptible beginnings, dynamically derange the living organism, each in its own peculiar manner, and cause it gradually to deviate from the healthy condition, in such a way that the

>>>>>>automatic life energy, called vital force, whose office is to preserve the
health, only opposes to them at the commencement and during their progress imperfect, unsuitable, useless resistance, but is unable of itself to extinguish them, but must helplessly suffer (them to spread and) itself to be ever more and more abnormally deranged, until at length the organism is destroyed; these are termed chronic diseases. They are caused by infection with a chronic miasm.
=====

paragraph 148--the host automatic vital force opposes the spirit-like (etheric) living miasm which is a parasite upon it and is the source of all disease susceptibility:

======
§ 148 Sixth Edition

The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere within the interior or exterior of man (§ 11-13)

>>>>>>but as one produced by an inimical spirit-like (conceptual) agency which,
like a kind of infection (note to § 11) disturbs in its instinctive existence of the spirit-like (conceptual) principle of life within the organism torturing it as an evil spirit and compelling it to produce certain ailments and disorders in the regular course of its life.

These are known as symptoms (disease). If, now, the influence of this inimical agency that not only caused but strives to continue this disorder, be taken away as is done when the physician administers an artificial potency, capable of altering the life principle in the most similar manner (a homeopathic medicine) which exceeds in energy even in the smallest dose the similar natural disease (§§ 33, 279), then the influence of the original noxious morbid agent on the life principle is lost during the action of this stronger similar artificial disease. Thence the evil no longer exists for the life principle - it is destroyed. If, as has been said, the selected homeopathic remedy is administered properly, then the acute natural disease which is to be overruled if recently developed, will disappear imperceptibly in a few hours.

An older, more chronic disease will yield somewhat later together with all traces of discomfort, by the use of several doses of the same more highly potentized remedy or after careful selection1 of one or another more similar hom¦opathic medicine. Health, recovery, follow in imperceptible, often rapid transitions. The life principle is freed again and capable of resuming the life of the organism in health as before and strength returns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Since we are speculating:-) - I see more levels of "forces"

Interesting idea--i.e. what force is COMMON to both matter diluted and succussed--- and spirit-like vital force in each of its levels of rarification? Whatever that commonality is, it is what comes into co-resonance by "similitude in concept" (symptom) between human response to medicine and human with disease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: Nonmainstream science understands it pretty well. Chinese medicine has the most in-depth understanding, perhaps. No, no - they do have a very deep understanding, but it is an altogether different "thought-model". Modern Chinese Med. and a lot of us European acupuncturists have tried to parallel the 3 - i.e. the "scientific", the TC and the homeopathic.

Kirlian videography was used by LA acupuncturists in research, and that is an interesting modus to get at the problem IMO. Conjunction of models---and experimental work to elucidate any one of the models and find their commonality by inference IS a trick--- but that is true science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise When one practices both classical homeopathy and traditional chinese acupuncture, as I did, one has to be very careful to stay within the appropriate model when thinking out a case.

IMO we are informed by all models. As you say, we act congruent with the method we are using--and TCM indications are frequently only marginally helpful for us as homeopaths (organ weaknesses, indicators of changes in health after being given an rx). But the TCM model is essential IMO to understanding WHAT it is we are treating (viz the "spirit-like" automatic vital force and what was posited by theosophy to be dimensionally higher in "frequency" (the astral body, mental body, causal body, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: Us homeopaths discuss it without defining it at all well, or with much understanding of it.

Well, there is absolute knowing and there is inferential knowing. And most of what passes for "knowledge" in the world is in the realm of a working hypothesis or "model", is it not? And quite a bit of it is incomplete, though "science" perpetuates it anyway--eg Big Bang theory, Relativity). Absolute knowledge is rare if impossible (eg Heisenberg).

So I see no reason to denigrate a "model" as if "we" will find the absolute truth, thus saying "We really have no idea yet of how the remedies work." How many books are out on this topic? Beaucoup. I am not an authority on these books, but Dr. J in NZ is, and could probably judge how good the understanding of mechanism is; and Brian C. in Massachusetts has written an article on the medicinal side of homeopathy from a physical chemistry standpoint. So there is tons of info and some pretty good models.

I dont find it useful to say "we dont have any idea" about phenomena--seems defeatist. We humans really don't "know" much at all. Who defines knowledge as "definitive"? Don't make the mistake of using mainstream "scientific" peer review as a bellwether (I don't assume you do, just find that there is much more to knowledge than what a mainstream group accepts).

Hahnemann is of course hip to the limitations of human systems of "knowing".. He discusses this (this a repeat of part of para 11 footnote 2 above)

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?

=====
Hahnemann equates the difference between a living and a dead corpse with a "conceptual dynamic energy". Inherent in the human biofield are "thought forms" which have MEANING content, and this content can be MIMICKED by a medicine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Neither do we know how acupuncture works - although there has been a study just recently that seems to show that it makes some changes in certain areas of the brain.

The whole question boils down to being able to measure or view the etheric components which we effect in both TCM and Homeopathy, and which are the automatic operator of the physical vehicle and the consciousness in all its components. That ability to measure is kept limited because conventional scientists dont even consider LOOKING at it and thus do not make the instruments. (SO--at least in mainstream circles--then we say we "dont know". ) A real cop-out.

Besant and Leadbeater had advanced "instruments"--unparalleled clairvoyance.. At least some of their work was confirmed by mainstream "science" quite a bit later. Many have the same ability, but do not harness it in practice toward the same end.

Why does a magnet not "run out"? Ask a physicist that---the whole electric industry is based on magnets. Yet the basis for permanent magnetism and virtually all electricity is as much (mainstream at least) clouded as the nature of the animating spiritual being.

We have to use the TCM information and try to prove it--it is likely true in most or all relative respects. Evidence for acupuncture meridians, for example, was independently found using a radioactive tracer method. Kirlian videography can be used to watch meridian patterns of health. A sick meridian is absent from the kirlian video or photo. Very nice evidence for us, TCM, and Sam's spirit-like automatic vital force, and Besant and Leadbeater's "etheric double".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I suppose there will be more research on this - in Germany the powers that be quite urgently want acupuncture to be proved effective and scientificall proved, in order to be able to have the public health insurance companies pay for it - and once they have been successful in identifying the areas of the brain that are influenced by acupuncture, they may find the same holds true for homeopathy.

Well, they may come up with an explanation that fits the chemoelectric model, but it will not be worth much IMO as actual knowledge--because the electric comes from the etheric--not the other way around. But I hope it allows health insurance!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Although Hamer thinks that homoeopathy is placebo treatment.

No kidding. For a materialist scientist, he did some good work :-) Yes, a conjunction of miasmatic theory and Hamer is a wonderful marriage, for they are big pieces to the puzzle with the 3 germ layers in common. A conjunction of Hamer's etiological forcing functions and circuit connections-- with susceptibilty forcing functions (Miasmatic theory--I mean the cutting edge of it, which I consider Sankaran to be at least on the right track)-- provides a more or less complete understanding of mechanism of disease. For its resolution, Hamer uses reframing or "return to the scene" of the etiology. In homeopathy we need the resonant remedy.


Best,
Andy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I just quote again the most obvious instances: Leibesbeschaffenheit just does not mean constitution in the meaning that word can have in English. It is much narrower than "constitution". A Leibesbeschaffenheit-Mittel would mean a remedy chosen solely by the way the body is made, the physique, the part of it which is showing. The state of your liver, your lungs for instance would not be part of it. You will agree that this is a far cry from what "constitutional remedy" means, by any interpretation of the latter.

Hello Luise et al,

I was recently visited by a German MD who graduated from medical school. I asked him to translate aphorism 5 of my German Organon and when he came to the words Lebies Beschaffenheit he spoke of the physique, structure, habit, make up and other aspect related to the body or physical constitution. He did not agree with the idea that in this context erkennbare Lebies-Beschaffenheit has nothing to do with the physical constitution. In his opinion, as a medically trained person, this statement includes all the observable signs related to inherited and acquired conditions that affect the physical body. This, he said, in a medical sense, cannot be separated from observations related to the physical constitution.

The observable physical constitution of aphorism 5 does refer to the way the body is made, the physique, etc. Now the real important issue here is what symptoms are to be collected as the context of aphorism 5? Chamber's English Dictionary defines constitution as "the natural condition of the body or mind". The physique IS an integral part of the observable physical constitution as is the structure or condition of the skin, hair, eyes, face, hands, etc. These symptoms include everything you can SEE about the patient's make up, body, physique, physical habit, etc.

When Hahnemann uses the term Lebies Beschaffenheit he is referring to the make up and condition of the physical body, which according to the German MD, this includes objective signs related to the physical constitution. It was his medical opinion that this would include recognizable diathetic constitutions like "scrofulous" as well as it associated physical signs like scruffy, dirty, filthy looking body and skin. In this reference it includes any physical condition one can observe or categorize. It was his medical opinion that symptoms related to an observable physical constitution (scrofulous) could not be separated from associated observable signs (scruffy dirty looking skin, thinness, weak, shabby appearance of the body, etc). This is the way the physical body looks. All of these rubrics would be included as signs one can observe about the condition or make up of the physical body.

1. W.Turner's German-English Dictionary, published in Leipzig in the 1830s, defines Beschaffenheit as nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition and circumstances.

2. Lagneschyeidts Taschemnworterbuch Latein, defines the latin root "constitutio" as (physischer] physical-DL] Zunstand [state-DL]; Bechaffenhiet [nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition, circumstances -Turner]

The above historical dictionary from Samuel Hahnemann's time shows a link between the German word, Bechaffenhiet, and the English words; condition, nature, constitution and disposition. The Latin German dictionary show a link between the Latin roots "constitutio" and the German words physischer, Zustand and Bechanaffhiet (physical, state, and constitution). These definitions show that there is a relationship between the German term, Bechaffenhiet and the Latin root of the English word constitution. Tuner's Dictionary also demonstrates the usage during Hahnemann's time, which may include constitution. temper, disposition as well as condition, nature, quality or circumstances.

What is written in aphorism 5 relates to taking the case, especially in chronic diseases. According to this German MD all of the above English words could be related to term Beschaffenheit depending on the circumstances. This means that the symptoms observed in aphorism 5 may include any condition affecting the observable physical body, which includes all observable signs related the physical structure as well as physical constitution. So we can see that not all Germans agree on what the word covers in terms of symptoms in homeopathic case taking and aphorism 5. This is the specific usage I am discussing.

It is quite clear that when Hahnemann used the word Konstitution (Organon, aphorism 81 and the Chronic Diseases).he was referring specifically of the inherited physical constitution and its predispositions. He is explaining how the inherited constitution and predispositions condition the symptoms of chronic miasms. In this specific context this word to refers to only to the congenital constitution. This is a very narrow usage of the word which is not related to the ideas modern homeopaths associate with the "constitutional remedy". Kent's usage of the constitutional remedy is based on the totality of the chronic symptoms and has nothing to do with giving a remedy only by the inherited constitution and dispositions. Hahnemann usage of Leibes Beschaffenheit in aphorism 5 and Konstitution in aphorism 81 has nothing to do with what modern homeopaths call the constitutional remedy. We are trying to figure out what symptoms should be recorded in aphorism 5 under the title "erkennbare Lebies-Beschaffenheit". That is the main point here.

Now this said, I *do agree* that always translating Beschaffenheit as constitution in every situation is not correct and the word is over used in English. It could just as well mean any condition or circumstances related that to which it is referring which could be almost anything. Nevertheless, by the context in which it is used in aphorism 5 this word includes the physique, make up and any visible condition affecting the physical body including the observable signs related to the physical constitution. A reference specifically to the "physical constitution" is different than the general usage of the word "constitution" which could mean the make up of the entire mind/body complex, its psychological and physiological predisposition, resistance, adaptation, vitality, etc. Hahnemann's use of "erkennbare Lebies-Beschaffenheit" is a clear reference all the observable objective signs that one can see related to physical body when taking a case, which includes the observable condition of the physical constitution.

I didn't bring this up to add to your "stress level" or with any expectations of proving a point, etc. I am merely sharing the latest input from a German MD homeopath about Hahnemann usage of the term erkennbare Lebies-Beschaffenheit in in aphorism 5 and the objective signs of the body that are to be collected. Not all German agree on this subject so it is not just a mistake made by English speaking homeopaths.
..
Sincerely, David Little

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan You might want to look at the principles and philosophy of Heilkunst. Please refer to

Whatever the merits or demerits of the Heilkunst system it has nothing to with the 6th Organon or the LM potency. It is a off shoot of Dr. Elgimer's Sequential Therapy (ST) which used combinations of homeopathic remedies in C potency not the single remedy method of Samuel Hahnemann. To advertise this as the true art of science of Doctor Hahnemann is a grand misnomer. If ST cum Heilkunst has any real value it should stand on its own two feet without trying to use Hahnemann and the 6th Organon as a cover.

Sincerely, David Little

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan The last Heel lecture that I attended (on chronic diseases) made reference to the notion that Classical homeopathy follows the 5th (and earlier) edition of the Organon, while the 6th edition references multiple remedies at a given time, and can be in fast succession.

The use of polypharmacy terms like "multiple remedies" to describe the teachings of the 6th Organon (c. 1842) is totally incorrect and misleading. You can not find one quote to support this allegation. Hahnemann did not suggest the use of multiple remedies in fast succession in the 4th, 5th or 6th Organon. He stated in all these addition that the changing of the remedy was always guided by a change of symptoms. He sometimes did use alternations on occasions but this was introduced in the 1st Organon in 1810! Please read the 6th Organon before you quote the ideas of groups like Heel who profess combination remedies. If you seek the truth then don't depend in second hand sources that have their own agendas. Study the 6th Organon for yourself firsthand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan Rima Handley in her book "In Search of the Later Hahnemann" went through Hahnemann's case notes in his later life (the Paris years) and found that he sometimes gave a remedy multiple times in a short time span. This seems to contradict what he stated about waiting until the remedy has finished its action. Or does that mean that the action is finished in a very short time? I would like to hold true to Hahnemann's genius, and find the way that is most beneficial and expedient to and for the patient.

This again is a perfect example of dis-information used by those who wish to use combinations in the name of the Hahnemann and 6th Organon. I have the microfiches of Hahnemann's Paris casebooks and I have reviews many cases from the 6th Organon Epoch where Hahnemann used both the C and LM potency in medicinal solution. These case show that Hahnemann used single doses (usually by olfaction) and 1 week of placebo or a short series of 3 to 7 doses over a period of one week. Then he would have the patient return for a follow up appointment.

If there was a strong medical actions Hahnemann would then give the patient placebo for another week or so and have them come back. He constantly alternated periods of administering active remedies with periods of giving placebos and waiting and watching. Hahnemann gave almost as much placebos as remedies in many cases. Hahnemann's method was a perfect balance of administering doses and waiting and watching. At least get your facts straight. If you would like to hold true to Hahnemann's genius than don't depend on Heel and ST for your information.

Hahnemann first taught in the footnote to aphorism 246 of the 5th Organon in 1833 that it was not necessary to wait for the duration of the previous dose to cease under certain conditions only. This was already a method of traditional homeopathy long BEFORE Hahnemann went to Paris! The last time he stated it was always necessary to wait for the action of the previous dose to cease was in 1829. This was all in the public domain and has nothing to do with revelations from the Paris casebooks.

Now here are the specific conditions for waiting and watching the repeating the dose. Hahnemann taught in the 5th (1833) and 6th Organon (c. 1842) that anytime in there is a *notably progressive and strikingly increasing amelioration* on a single dose the remedy should not be repeated as long as this state lasts. In cases in which there is only a *slow improvement * that could take up from 30 to100 days to show significant improvement he suggested repeating the remedy at suitable intervals to speed the cure.

In the footnote to aphorism 246 Hahnemann mentions that the remedy my be repeated daily to speed the cure IF NECESSARY. this is only in cases that slow improve on single or infrequent doses.. In aphorism 248 Hahnemann says that the remedy may be repeated daily or every other day in "protracted diseases". Protracted diseases means an illness that is "long and drawn out or prolonged over time" and refers to cases where there is only a slow response to a single dose or infrequent doses.

All of the statements about the daily and alternate days dose are conditioned by the difference between a strikingly increasing amelioration and a slow improvement in protracted cases . Hahnemann also makes it very clear that only one remedy should be administered at a time in a small dose in medical solution succussed before each dose.. This is Hahnemann's true genius and what is taught in the 6th Organon. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan I do not understand why Heilkunst is so reviled and pushes so many buttons on this list.

This list is far too well educated in the methods of all the editions of the Organon to be fooled by the propaganda of those who try to use combination remedies in the name of Samuel Hahnemann. If you wish to follow the teachings of Lutze, Elgimer and Veespoor your welcome to them but using false propaganda is disingenuous and counter productive in the long run. If ST cum Heilkunst and Heel have any benefit than let them stand on their own two feet without misusing the name of the Founder of Homeopathy and the teachings of the 6th Organon.

Sincerely, David Little

I find the claims so odd (e.g. that Hahnemann advocated multiple remedies) that IMO it could have been fascinating to have an actual discussion about how the heck they defend those claims...

But it won't happen this time around either, as Susan has already left the list. She was here for information and discussion, not trying to prostlytize, as Dave H always assumes...

Much as I appreciate *certain* of Dave H's contributions, I find this censorship really disgusting and annoying. David Little--I would have *LOVED* to hear you and Susan "duke it out" :-) (my thoughts are entirely in line with yours), but Susan had no interest in staying around for more personal attacks.

Shannon
(flounces off-stage)