Creating Waves of Awareness
Miasms - Three or more?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on -
Dear members, dear Louise
I read your contribution with great interest.
There are some things I want to comment on.
Your husband Grant Bently defined the term miasm in his own unique way. (IMO adding to the confusion already exists. – Not a good idea.)
You seem to relate to Sulphur being the psoric miasm, which it is not.
Sulphur never created Psora in its proving. In fact with time, Hahnemann realized, that psora has a by far greater variety of symptoms -- so much greater, that he had to extend the group of anti psoric remedies from initially 12 to 48 at the end of his live. (IMO by now we could have well over 200 remedies)
The same applies to mercury and Thuja.
You are quite right to point out, that the selection of homeopathic remedies is not based on signature. But is using facial expression using signature for the determination of the remedy?
>> It is inherited because it is with us from birth until death - this miasm or survival instinct.
This is not so.
This would mean, that individuals without miasmatic disease have no survival instinct.
In another tread, I gave the exact definition of miasm the way it was introduce to homeopathy by hahnemann. Part of it is that it is acquired. So – we are NOT born miasmatic.
You seem to relate here to CONSTITUTION rather than MIASM.
Constitution is not disease, as it is not a dynamic affection of the live force.
Facial expression is not in every situation an expression of disease either. It is an incorrect deduction:
>> the match is between their facial structure - the face which shows the directional force within them combined with the totality of symptoms which determines which polychrest within that miasm is most similar).
For the following reasons:
This presumes, that every disease changes the facial expression in a very definite in every case, which is not so.
This presumes that every remedy proven has brought out a definite change of facial expression, which is not so.
Hahnemann was quite clear what forms the basis for the selection of the correct remedy: (par.: 144)
From such a materia medica everything that is conjectural, all that is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded; everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and honestly interrogated.
If we fully understand Hahnemann, we see disease as a combination of symptoms --expression of a dynamic disturbance of the live force--, which temporarily express itself by disease signs and symptoms.
If we see Grant Bentlys work as what it is – yet another system of disease classification we may remind ourselves what Hahnemann wrote about such systems:
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Louise Barton on -
Hello Hans
(From Grant Bentley - research developer of HFA and author of 3 books on the subject)
Usually I stay out of this sort of critical discussion as experience has told me they are pointless and generally coming from minds made up. You may be quite different. However if you are going to pass comment on my work you need to have your facts right first.
Your comment - ‘Your husband Grant Bently defined the term miasm in his own unique way. (IMO adding to the confusion already exists. – Not a good idea.)’
Reply – Why is it not a good idea? I think it’s the responsibility of every homeopath to understand the system they use in the best most useable way for them. If other people don’t agree with my personal interpretation they are free to ignore it, but to suggest I have no right to analyse or assess, only to follow what is already written is against the spirit of homeopathy. We are not a fundamentalist religion - here to accept only what Hahnemann dictates; we are a progressive thinking and ever adapting social and medical science. Not even Hahnemann followed Hahnemann without question or modification which is why there are six editions of the Organon. Not a good idea? Absolute rubbish!! Exercising the human right to think and construct, adapt and re-learn is the best idea any human being can have. If HFA doesn’t stand the test of the clinic or time then so be it. If my ideas are shown over time to have flaws or are deemed unsuccessful by those who have given the method a reasonable try then the truth is what will remain will make homoeopathy stronger and better for it. The ‘because Hahnemann said so’ approach is stagnant and unhelpful.
Your comment - ‘You seem to relate to Sulphur being the psoric miasm, which it is not….Sulphur never created Psora in its proving’
My reply – Louise did not imply this nor have I ever said it. Sulphur has psoric properties
Your comment - ‘This would mean, that individuals without miasmatic disease have no survival instinct’
My reply – Disease and survival instinct are two different things and it is a misunderstanding of the Homoeopathic Facial Analysis - Soul & Survival theory to write a comment like this.
Your comment – ‘In another tread, I gave the exact definition of miasm the way it was introduce to homeopathy by Hahnemann. Part of it is that it is acquired. So – we are NOT born miasmatic.
My reply – New ideas are new because they are different to what preceded them. Hahnemann states that psora can be both congenital and acquired but I am taking it one step further, hence why Soul & Survival and Homoeopathic Facial Analysis are new ideas. I believe that for facial features to be involved and linked to the miasm as Allen and Roberts suggest, genes and inheritance must be involved. Notice I am saying Allen and Roberts not Hahnemann.
Your comment – ‘Facial expression is not in every situation an expression of disease either. It is an incorrect deduction:’
My reply – No one is making that deduction. This statement is wrong.
Your comment – ‘ Louise wrote >> the match is between their facial structure - the face which shows the directional force within them combined with the totality of symptoms which determines which polychrest within that miasm is most similar).
To which you wrote This presumes, that every disease changes the facial expression in a very definite in every case, which is not so.
This presumes that every remedy proven has brought out a definite change of facial expression, which is not so.
My reply – This statement is wrong. This is not what is being said at all. Louise is saying that facial features can tell a practitioner about a patient’s protective internal energy – the way this person fights stress and disease. When this knowledge is combined with the generals of the case a remedy can be selected that is a true totality. What is also wrong is your terminology. Facial features and facial expression are two entirely different things.
Your comment – ‘This presumes that every remedy proven has brought out a definite change of facial expression, which is not so’
My reply – Nothing could be more incorrect to the Homoeopathic Facial Analysis system than this comment. The fact that remedies do NOT change facial structure is why I believe that while our internal force is linked to our genes, homoeopathic remedies DO NOT change DNA like some authors believe. Your comment is completely back to front and bears no relationship to my HFA or Soul & Survival concepts.
Your comment – ‘From such a materia medica everything that is conjectural, all that is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded; everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and honestly interrogated.
If we fully understand Hahnemann, we see disease as a combination of symptoms --expression of a dynamic disturbance of the live force--, which temporarily express itself by disease signs and symptoms.
My reply – If you had read any of my books you would know that I agree with this statement and that improving our understanding of the language of nature is exactly what I am trying to do.
Your comment – ‘If we see Grant Bentlys work as what it is – yet another system of disease classification we may remind ourselves what Hahnemann wrote about such systems:’
Reply – For a closing statement this is just downright rude. There are so many mistakes in your conclusions even down to the incorrect way you keep spelling my name that I suggest you read the books before passing further comment. If you know Hahnemann then stick to Hahnemann but that does not include passing judgement on concepts to which you clearly do not understand. I know as I said in the beginning that these replies are generally useless because they are directed at minds already made up. However for other people reading these comments it is important they understand the following.
• Homoeopathic Facial Analysis is a system that states that the outward motion of psora the circular motion of sycosis and inward motion are syphilis are energies we draw on to defend ourselves against stress and disease – NOT diseases themselves. This IS different to what Hahnemann expressed which is why Homoeopathic Facial Analysis is new.
• Homoeopathic Facial Analysis believes that miasms are terms for the different ways human beings defend themselves. As a result in my latest book ‘Soul & Survival’ the term miasm has been dropped altogether in preference for the term survival instinct that best describes our continuing fight for survival and brings homeopathy and evolution together in the one model.
• In the survival instinct model remedies for chronic disease can be understood as having a matching energy to the defense response of the patient. If a patient through facial features can be seen to be psoric or in our language be dominant in outward motion, it means their immune and defense system will try and repel stress and disease to the surface where it can do the least harm. By knowing the energy of the patient through facial features we can then match that to the dominant force of the remedy. There is no use giving a patient whose defense system is trying to push disease outward, a remedy like Thuja whose energy is to encapsulate and contain.
In closing I just want to state that while I am open to questions and ideas, I don’t think its right that enquiring minds should be brought back into line as if they have no right to question. If Hahnemann is right then his concepts will remain but they shouldn’t remain just because he said so. By questioning and experimenting and being prepared to challenge ideas without making them dogma, I believe we are truly following Hahnemann’s lead by learning how to think and not just to follow.
Grant Bentley 15 January 2010 -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on
-
Dear Louise Barton, dear members
I invite your husband to become a member of the HWC. I feel there could be a lot of fruitful discussions.
From your reply:
>>Your comment - ‘Your husband Grant Bently defined the term miasm in his own unique way. (IMO adding to the confusion already exists. – Not a good idea.)’
Reply – Why is it not a good idea?
IMO: because the more definitions we have for MIASM the more confusing it gets and a lot of misunderstanding arises only because participants in discussions talk about the same but mean different things.
I think Grant feels the same when he replaces the term miasm with survival instinct.
>> I think it’s the responsibility of every homeopath to understand the system they use in the best most useable way for them. If other people don’t agree with my personal interpretation they are free to ignore it, but to suggest I have no right to analyse or assess, only to follow what is already written is against the spirit of homeopathy.
The spirit of homeopathy is unity, and in the spirit unity we need definitions, which are accepted by homeopaths. Of course, nobody will tell you how to define things for yourself, but if you want to be part of the homeopathic community, then you will need to use their definitions for their terminology.
>> Your comment - ‘You seem to relate to Sulphur being the psoric miasm, which it is not….Sulphur never created Psora in its proving’
My reply – Louise did not imply this nor have I ever said it. Sulphur has psoric properties
Accepted, that’s my observation too.
>> >> It is inherited because it is with us from birth until death - this miasm or survival instinct.
>> This is not so.
This would mean, that individuals without miasmatic disease have no survival instinct.
My reply – Disease and survival instinct are two different things and it is a misunderstanding of the Homoeopathic Facial Analysis - Soul & Survival theory to write a comment like this.
Further down, you wrote:
• Homoeopathic Facial Analysis believes that miasms are terms for the different ways human beings defend themselves. As a result in my latest book ‘Soul & Survival’ the term miasm has been dropped altogether in preference for the term survival instinct that best describes our continuing fight for survival and brings homeopathy and evolution together in the one model.
Thanks for clarifying this. (Actually you confirm what I say, as you want to replace the one term with we other)
You got to be clear -- is it the same or is it not, -- it can't be both.
>> My reply – New ideas are new because they are different to what preceded them. Hahnemann states that psora can be both congenital and acquired but I am taking it one step further, hence why Soul & Survival and Homoeopathic Facial Analysis are new ideas. I believe that for facial features to be involved and linked to the miasm as Allen and Roberts suggest, genes and inheritance must be involved. Notice I am saying Allen and Roberts not Hahnemann.
The miasm definition,( which you seem unaware of??), and which is used by Hahnemann and contemporaries, and which forms the basis of this discussion includes, that miasmatic diseases are transferred from human to human via infection. For your information here is the exact definition:
The physician Boissiere de Sauvage (1707 – 1767) was an opponent of theory and follower of simple experience.
Boissiere wrote the following (in “Nosologie methodique“):
Miasmatic diseases are those diseases, which are caused by miasmatic matter. Miasmatic matter is an evaporation which contains invisible destructive particles.”
Boisiere classes as “Viral diseases”: syphilis, scabies, lepra, finn and tetters. They are created in the body and are transferred directly.
Hahnemann was familiar with his work: “Nosologie methodique“, which he used at the time of his own dissertation.
In the interest of clarity i use this definition.
>> Your comment – ‘Facial expression is not in every situation an expression of disease either. It is an incorrect deduction:’
My reply – No one is making that deduction. This statement is wrong.
OK: my statement is: ‘Facial expression is not in every situation an expression of disease either.
>> Your comment – ‘ Louise wrote >> the match is between their facial structure - the face which shows the directional force within them combined with the totality of symptoms which determines which polychrest within that miasm is most similar).
To which you wrote This presumes, that every disease changes the facial expression in a very definite in every case, which is not so.
This presumes that every remedy proven has brought out a definite change of facial expression, which is not so.
My reply – This statement is wrong. This is not what is being said at all. Louise is saying that facial features can tell a practitioner about a patient’s protective internal energy – the way this person fights stress and disease. When this knowledge is combined with the generals of the case a remedy can be selected that is a true totality. What is also wrong is your terminology. Facial features and facial expression are two entirely different things.
My statement is right within itself in the context of homeopathy, and that is what we are talking here.
What may be the case, is that Louise meant something different.
Are ways we fight part of disease? – Are survival mechanisms part of disease? Because only if they are part of disease would they form indications for remedies, otherwise they are just personal ways of dealing.
Your comment – ‘This presumes that every remedy proven has brought out a definite change of facial expression, which is not so’
My reply – Nothing could be more incorrect to the Homoeopathic Facial Analysis system than this comment. The fact that remedies do NOT change facial structure is why I believe that while our internal force is linked to our genes, homoeopathic remedies DO NOT change DNA like some authors believe. Your comment is completely back to front and bears no relationship to my HFA or Soul & Survival concepts.
I get the feeling here, that we are talking two different languages.
I am talking here in the context of homeopathy and not in the context of Grant Bently’s new ideas. And if your ideas want to form part of homeopathy, then they need to be looked at from a homeopathic standpoint.
>> My reply – If you had read any of my books you would know that I agree with this statement and that improving our understanding of the language of nature is exactly what I am trying to do.
We are talking about your wife’s contribution to this discussion, and not about your books. But i will have a read, as it’s interesting stuff.
Your comment – ‘If we see Grant Bentlys work as what it is – yet another system of disease classification we may remind ourselves what Hahnemann wrote about such systems:’
Reply – For a closing statement this is just downright rude. There are so many mistakes in your conclusions even down to the incorrect way you keep spelling my name that I suggest you read the books before passing further comment. If you know Hahnemann then stick to Hahnemann but that does not include passing judgement on concepts to which you clearly do not understand. I know as I said in the beginning that these replies are generally useless because they are directed at minds already made up. However for other people reading these comments it is important they understand the following.
Its’s a pity that you seem to feel the need to personally attack me, and assume something about my mind and understanding, instead of staying factual and professional.
You are invited to discuss any idea, -- we may agree to disagree--, yet we can widen our horizons.
We may determine first, if we discuss on homeopathy grounds or on the grounds of Grant Bentely's facial analysis system or others. -
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Rajiv Chopra on -
I still do not understand why we want to add more miams to the System of Homeopathy. This would create more confusion. As of today, practically all the disease can be classified under the three main miasms. Or there may be those with a mixed miasm. [ Tubercular and Cancer ] But to have a miasm for every new disease would be difficult to accept.
These days it is rare to find someone with a single miasmatic problem, hence to classify each and every one under a new miasm we will have as many miasm as there are diseases; like we have new disease being "labelled" every day by the modern allopathic system. So we should not try to modify the original theory of Dr. Hahnemann
...Dr. Rajiv Chopra -
-
Permalink Reply by Hans Weitbrecht on
-
Dear Dr. Ravij Chopra
Your right, and everyone who read the introduction to the CD will agree. Psora was defined in some way as non-sycosis and non-syphilitic, but infectuous and chronic and not caused by medication and drugs. -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2013 Created by Debby Bruck.
