|
Post by Admin - Joy Lucas on Sept 6, 2021 6:27:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by becksnyc on Sept 11, 2021 15:05:51 GMT
This is an amazing article, so much to digest!
The two paragraphs below, taken from the article, make me ask, why should miasms be limited: "only from certain virulent diseases that have especially strong essence or power to cause disease," when we know that humans are unique in their disease experience? When a relatively limited number of persons may be powerfully affected by a known symptom pattern (named disease)?
I grasp that miasms are a way of framing and categorizing disease states, of organizing something that is somewhat intangible. But if, for example (discussed in another thread), a known sub-group of humans and animals (horses) have a strong predisposition to Tetanus, why is it not valuable to see it as their "miasm?" Is it less valuable because fewer remedies/patients are in the proposed miasms? Or less valuable in some other way? (me, trying to grasp, not being critical of the statement about diminished value in increasing number of miasms)
From article:
Discussion
A miasm is clearly an internalised change in the essence of the person, their vital force. Such a change is acquired as an internal relic or shadow only from certain virulent diseases that have especially strong essence or power to cause disease. Classically, these include Syphilis, Gonorrhoea and Psora [suppressed skin eruptions]. Some homeopaths would go even further than this and add Cancer, TB and Influenza to the list as sub-miasms or even recent miasms in their own right. Others would also add Diphtheria, Polio, Tetanus, Typhoid and Smallpox as minor miasms and also Birth Pill and vaccine damage as taints and blockages, which again are internalised imprints of disease that comprise changes in the vital force capable of preventing remedies working right [blockages] or acting as sources of symptoms in the person's ill-health. Such taints and blockages can be removed with the appropriate nosode and each miasm represents a symptom-causing element acquired into the fabric of the vital force. A miasm can be seen as a hardened portion of the psychophysical network, rather like a fixated proving, a rigidified section of the life force, and an aspect of contagion that has become too solidly internalised.
The miasm is the internalised shadow of a big disease; with its own strong essence such a disease has imprinted itself upon the vital force. The shadow it leaves behind is therefore a shadow in the vital force. This concept of the miasm as merely a damaged or deranged vital force [= essence] is very clearly the view of Hahnemann, Close, Kent and Boger, who repeatedly state that contagion and cure are the same - i.e. reversible changes in the vital force - and nothing more or less than that. Therefore cure is but the reversal of the process of contagion - the reversal of a change in the vital force - by which symptoms once caused are then brought to a halt [subdued] by the neutralisation of the change in essence that first elicited the original disease. Neutralisation proceeds by similars - what causes can cure.
|
|
|
Post by Admin - Joy Lucas on Sept 11, 2021 15:27:23 GMT
I quite like what he says. It mirrors my own oscillating thoughts on all the potential new miasms. Sometimes these sub divisions help, other times hinder and it’s so easy to get it wrong. All this is so much harder these days because of the taints and probably mixed miasmatic influence in most of us ( you rarely see a purely syphilitic case?)
Miasms should be limited as it is those limits that define them and we can assign specific remedies to them. But defining a mixed miasmatic case sx by sx will be too perplexing. But if a case is strongly tetanic the next step is to know the rx in that group and that is where mistakes can happen and the methodology falls short.
Another criticism of too many miasms is that it sort of encourages a miasm for every disease state which isn’t helpful IMO
|
|
|
Post by becksnyc on Sept 12, 2021 1:35:11 GMT
Thank you, well explained.
|
|