No announcement yet.

law of direction of cure priority

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • law of direction of cure priority

    if the law of cure is top to bottom, most important to least, last appearance to first, inside out then, what if a person has a mental/emotional illness AND a non life-threatening physical illness at the "bottom" of the body which was the "last to appear", and also has another physical illness on the "top". Which rule is priority? the concept of most important to least would tell us it's the mental/emotional but then last appearance to first tells us it's the physical illness at the lower part of the body, and then however, top to bottom tells us it's the other physical illness at the 'top', so which one really goes first? Thx
    Last edited by sufferer; 20th March 2007, 02:11 AM.

  • #2
    The last one to appear. Chronological developmentor resolution is always more important.
    IT takes some homeopaths at least 4 years to fully understand this - so maybe you need to study this concept of disease development and cure for at least 4 years?

    if law of cure is top to bottom, most important to least important, last appearance to first appearance, inside out then, what if a person has a mental, emotional problem And a non life-threatening physical problem at the "bottom" of the body which was the "last to appear", and also has another physical problem on the "top" of the body. Which rule is priority? Which one goes 1st? most important to least important would tell us mental,emotional goes first, But then last appearance to 1st appearance tells us the physical problem at the 'bottom' of the body will go first. And then but top to bottom tells us it's the other physical problem at the 'top' of the body that goes first? Which one really goes first??


    • #3
      There is no law of cure

      Dear Members

      What if all the symptoms disapere simultaniously, is this a cure?
      Or, if the skin gets better with the emotional stuff, but the skin problem is older?

      What I want to express here is, that above is by no means a law-- it never was intended to be one, and nature does not obey by it either; It may be at best a certain pattern which has been observed in cases heading towards cure. But over cases were cured in not following these ''laws''.

      IMO, its the signs and symptoms alone, which speak the language of the diseased liveforce. It is the independant improvement-signs which can be observed, if present, that hint, that the remedy selection was acurate, and the case is momentarily on the path of recovery.
      Hans Weitbrecht


      • #4
        A law that is observed in the breach

        is often useful.

        Always the indications of Hering are useful in understanding what is happening inside the case!.

        The minute study of a law is as ridiculous as the case I came across , where the signs of a single dose of Silica 6c were still being noted and studied 2 YEARS later!.

        Homeopathy is an ART.


        • #5
          not Hahnemanns law

          Just wanted to thank Hans for the comments. It was never Herings intention to define a law was it? But his own obseravtions. Would you say this adhering to this so called law is dogmatic? Do homeopaths really witness the "law" in action?


          • #6
            Hahnemanns "Law" is the law of similars a natural law. Drleela summerized Hahnemann words. Regarding chronic diseases he said "Symptoms recently developed are the first to yield. Older symptom disappear later" The reverse order of appearance. Hering was somewhat adimate about the "above downwards" and Hahnemann didnt say this . With this exeption Hering did not say anything that Hahnemann had not already indicated. Rather it was Kent who years after Hering was around unwittingly coined the term "Law of direction of Cure". And here we are today trying to work within the laws that should probably be refered to as rules.

            MHill HD(RHom.)


            • #7
              rule or law

              in this issue Dr. Andrue Sanne disscuss a lot. any one interested on this subject that is 'law of cure' or 'rule of cure' read his new books. and it is very interesting.


              • #8
                Is the drift from 1st principles perceptible?

                Hering's Law was considered by the great homeopaths , such as Prof kent , to be a given.

                In his lecture on Nat Mur he states-

                "'The only cure known to man is from above down, from within out, and in the reverse order of coming.

                When it is otherwise , there is only improvement , not cure.

                When the symptoms return there is hope - that is the road to cure and there is no other.""


                • #9
                  Dear Passkey
                  Just to recall the words of the great prof. kent when he writes in the introduction to the third edition of his repertory:

                  >> I have verified every symptom in the book<<

                  Would you belief?
                  I have my problems-- I claculated taking the amount of 5 minutes the minimum to verfy each symptom and came to an aprox. timespan of 40 working years. (40 hour week/ 50 weeks per year).
                  But if he was so busy, how could he have done up to 15000 cases a year as he claims?

                  Hering never postulated these observations as laws. It was Kent who did so, following his Swedenborgian belief where these dirrections are universal laws.

                  It is unclear whether Hering actually observed these rules, or being a Swedenborgian too -- incorporated them in his teachings.
                  There is no mentioning in Hahnemann's works regards dirrectio from inside out or from top to buttom. These dirrections are found in Swedenbourgs teachings.

                  Hahnemann mentioned in the CD. that he observed, that in chronic cases often the newer symptoms vanish first, and the older ones later,
                  BUT not in every case is it so, and studying his casework, I rarely find a cse where his observation can be confirmed. (study of DF2 and DF5).

                  He also mentiones in the Organon, that in mental disease, which is often the result of left to itself physical disease (ie. onesided disease). if the patient recieves the right remedy the mental disease improves and simultaniously the physical previous symptoms re=apere.

                  Anyway-- there could be a lot more siad about this topic. Kent was certainly wrong to say, that if you cannot speak of a cured case if you cannot observe the Herings law in it. His own cases are the living proof of it.
                  Hans Weitbrecht
                  HOMEOPATH / IRELAND


                  • #10
                    " Hering Law " or " Hering Observations " or " Law of Cure " or ".............. " is to understand Hahnemann's system , the idea is that of systematic dominating from centre to circumference , which is related with correspondence of organs & direction of cure , without understanding this relation the cure is impossible , where as suppression is easily manageble with the dynamic power of a homeopathic medicine .

                    Man is affected in the internals & in every cell, every cell has all the planes , every cell is what man is as a whole !


                    • #11

                      Here are my thoughts:

                      We're dealing with dynamic expression (of disease) when dealing with a case. To see it in a linear way ignores the very nature of dynamic expression.

                      Hering's observations
                      are a guideline -- but not a linear one.

                      We limit our power of observation and understanding of a case if we reduce Hering's observations to a simplistic linear mode. Because we're then left wondering what's going on when certain symptoms crop up that don't fall within the linear-understanding/assumption of Hering's observations/guidelines.

                      We see portions of the miasms (aph 103) which keep on appearing throughout life.. from start to finish – like a hologram…it’s in perpetual motion – fluctuating, and changing - and that’s our life.

                      Patient's are not linear (nor is the expression of disease, or the process of cure) - they are dynamic beings.

                      Dynamic hologram; nothing is set in a timeline in a chronological order.

                      Forgive me for not putting this very well -- but those are my thoughts. Hope it makes sense to someone!
                      "The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
                      Carroll Dunham


                      • #12
                        Good one Lisa

                        Life itself is dynamic , ever changing , we ignore this at our peril.

                        This is the problem with vaccines - the attenuated virus that is used is , effectively , frozen in time - as it was at the time of production.

                        In the meantime the ""free"" virus is mutating like mad - which is why vaccines are pretty useless.

                        In the same way that if you administer a remedy you probably do not take into account the changes that would occur in the person due to non homeopathic influences.

                        Is it even possible to sort the two out?


                        • #13
                          Hi Lisa,

                          I posted something and then re-read your post and found I did not interpret what you said correctly.

                          So I think, yes, simplistic a understanding and simplistic application will result in simplistic rejection of HErings "Law of Cure".

                          One needs to have a clinical understnading that moves beyond simplistic thinking and then it begins to make sense!

                          dr. leela


                          • #14
                            Dear Drleela, dear members

                            I do agree with Drleela, because yoghurt has no bones. In its own way we understand that, and its logic-- yoghurt has no bones,--any objections?

                            Any deduction is thinkable and can make sense, as much as I can reason everything to the ultimate point of: yoghurt has no bones !! And therefore its right; actually I am in the right and anyone else is sim[plicistic who has (or cannot) come to the same conclusion; it must be because of lack of experience or so.

                            But what we tend to forget by doing so is, that deductions are guesswork and lead to guessopathy, are methaphysical speculations, and exactly these methaphysical speculations used and still in use by medicine were the reason for Hahnemann to reject therapies derived by as allopathic.

                            So -- Hahnemann left the deductive reasoning behind and resorted to inductive exploration; Kent was unable to follow that and re-introduced deductive reasoning, only to contradict with his casework his own conclusions.

                            Ps.: Will post something later on metaphysical speculations.
                            Hans Weitbrecht
                            HOMEOPATH / IRELAND


                            • #15
                              Thanks Passkey.
                              In the same way that if you administer a remedy you probably do not take into account the changes that would occur in the person due to non homeopathic influences.

                              Is it even possible to sort the two out?
                              Is it possible to sort what out? The changes that would occur in the person due to non homeopathic influences?

                              Hi Leela,
                              My emphasis was on 'linear' - not simplistic understanding. Who has a simplistic understanding of, therefore simplistically dismisses Hering's "Law"? Not sure what you were getting at....

                              I think André Sainé's article on this topic is really good.

                              I find it difficult to express the abstract at times. Perhaps I wasn't clear - though Passkey and Hans seemed to understand me - I think (lol). Anyway, it's a good discussion.

                              Hans, I agree we need to get to grips with the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning -- and how it applies to homeopathy (or should be applied). It's a pity that it's not taught in schools. It would save a lot of hassle and misunderstanding if we could learn this when starting out. Why we need to learn it is just as important as learning it, in my estimation.

                              Regards, Lisa
                              "The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
                              Carroll Dunham