Development Part 2
It is interesting that Ortega quotes some of same basic passages from Hahnemann that Dimitrialis does to example that Hahnemann was talking about diathesis in disease potential (Ortega, p. 28-30). Hahnemann was speaking how even when some minor event occurred, there would arise a violent internal reaction to it that would reveal a “psoric diathesis, the fundamental and most common cause of chronic disease”. Therefore, for practical purposes the distinction between the miasmatic infection and subsequent chronic miasmatic disease does establish a diathesis or disposition to subsequent illness. The main distinction is that the person who has experienced a primary infection with a miasm is at the mercy of an active disease state whose mechanism is one of continuing internalization and overall health deterioration. This factor, Dimitrialis explores and makes the distinction between this dynamic and the more “static” susceptibility of those who’ve inherited certain predispositions to illness based on these primary infectious diseases. However as Dimitrialis mentions, Hahnemann was influenced in his development of these ideas by observing the effects of Syphilis on people, from which he modeled his theory of psora (Dimitrialis p. 29). He observed the inexorable decline in syphilitic cases and from this made similar conclusions about the nature of all chronic disease, the most prevalent of which he connected to the “itch”, to psora.
Ortega focuses predominantly on the miasmatic disease state, not the immediate consequences of miasmatic infection. His interest is in the terrain, the diathesis and susceptibility that has been influenced by the miasm. Ortega examples this approach by a case example in which he felt a patient needed Calcarea carbonica as a “constitutional” remedy, as apposed to Mercury, which seemed to superficially fit the symptoms. Here is one example of what many of us take for granted in practicing homeopathy today. We always look for a “constitutional” based remedy, that is, a remedy indicated for the whole person as much as possible. That is why it is baffling when studying some of the old books of the 19th century, including much of the therapeutics, where any individual characteristics of the person are not included, much of the information justifying a remedy being based on certain physical characteristics only.
Ortega and his quoting of other famous South American homeopaths, including T
homas P. Paschero, making the categorizations of Hahnemann’s miasms of Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis into broader diatheses and dyscrasias, is based on a level of experience that Hahnemann couldn’t have. They had a much deeper understanding of the significance of the sycotic and syphilitic miasm, which as mentioned earlier, Hahnemann didn’t have, not using the nosodes Medorrhinum and Syphilinum, and were able to identify in the 3 miasms, unique dynamics consistent with each, which reflected a broader universality of structure and function. Furthermore, one of the main ideas of miasmatic influence is that it weaves its way into the constitutional pattern, giving an extra broad dimension or expression to the constitution. One of the key aspects of homeopathic prescribing is being able to identify constitutional patterns and any general miasmatic influence. Some cases will present a clear miasmatic pattern while others will not. The miasmatic influence will not lead to an individual remedy, unless a nosode is clearly indicated but it will help orientate the direction of search for an appropriate remedy. It is but one tool that we use, more important in some cases than others.
The contribution that Ortega defined in his descriptions of miasmatic themes, based on work by Paschero and others, was that the three “big” miasms reflected certain fundamental alterations of normal cellular function, which were classified as Deficiency (Psora), Excess (Sycosis) and Perversion (Syphilis). He is stating that the original miasmatic diseases that Hahnemann explored can be seen as representative of 3 fundamental expressions of imbalance which are intrinsic possibilities of dis-ease expression. These are inbuilt possibilities or diatheses of a constitution, the degree and intensity of each depending on the inherited influence that all of us are influenced by. He is not describing, as Dimitrialis points out, the expressions of the miasmatic infectious disease, manifesting in Syphilis, Gonorrhea or Psora, that Hahnemann spoke of. However, within those diseases lies the kernel to the broader miasmatic expression. But as the influence of these diseases pass through generations, their influence and expression is diluted, modified and broadened and become wedded to normal and abnormal constitutional function. Another contribution of Ortega is identifying 3 primary colors to each miasm, blue for psora, yellow for sycosis and red for syphilis. To accept this analysis, one has to accept the idea of a miasm as a theme, gestalt or pattern. If one moves in this direction, then other more archetypal qualities can similarly be categorized.
0 comments:
Post a Comment