Characteristic, peculiar, and flying pigs

After a recent discussion with a colleague about the meaning of the concept “characteristic” in fitting the remedy to the disease, I trawled through the Organon in search of enlightenment.

Here are some of my findings:

First, when applying “characteristic” to the disease picture presented by the patient, in order to be considered characteristic a symptom must be CERTAIN.  This is a basic essential in case-taking – to focus first and foremost on the absolute certainties in the case.

Second – a “characteristic” must be MARKED, noticeable.  Clearly observable mental disposition is included in this category, becoming crucial when it is part of what has changed in the patient.

flying pigs over the Lake District - definitely peculiar

flying pigs over the Lake District – definitely peculiar

Third – a “characteristic” symptom must be PECULIAR TO THE PATIENT.  It’s essential to remember that the word “peculiar” must be understood according to the meaning of the time – “specially connected to, typical of”.  E..g.
– “Rain, mist and fog in any season is a climate peculiar to the Lake District” – older usage of the word.
– “The Lake District is experiencing a peculiar heavy rain of flying pigs” – newer usage of the word.

Or to be more pertinent to our subject:
If a patient always perspires with anxiety, it is a symptom peculiar to the patient.  It is not by any means a peculiar symptom.  And if peculiar to the patient, absolutely certain, marked and not commonly seen within the disease picture, it may be essential in the case.

When can a lesser, accessory symptom constitute a characteristic of the patient’s disease picture?  When it is certain, marked, peculiar to the patient, and especially when it is not common to the chief complaint.

The issue of the older meaning of “peculiar” cannot be sufficiently stressed in this context.  Out of a total of six definitions of the word presented in the Merriam-Webster thesaurus on the internet , three clearly relate to the older meaning of the word, and a fourth is very borderline.

For your edification:

Definition 3:  noticeably different from what is generally found or experienced .  (in our context, this definition can be seen to relate to symptoms that are not common to the disease, but not necessarily odd symptoms in themselves – vr)
Definition 4:  of, relating to, or belonging to a single person – e.g. “his peculiar way of talking”
Definition 5: serving to identify as belonging to an individual or group – e.g. the koala is peculiar to Australia
Definition 6: of a particular or exact sort – e.g. a psychopathic killer who took peculiar delight in torturing his victims

You’ll find aphorisms relating to understanding the concept of “characteristic” below.  I recommend pulling out your copy of the Organon, dusting it off carefully, dislodging cobwebs, spiders, and fossilized creatures, and reading these aphorisms in context.

Aphorism 67 (footnote)
Characteristic = stronger, well-marked

Aphorism 95
Characteristic = the most minute peculiarities
Characteristic = lesser accessory symptoms, which are often very pregnant with meaning

Aphorism 102 (in epidemics)
Characteristic = more signicant, not spun out and verbose
Characteristic = of this malady, more marked and special symptoms which are peculiar to but few diseases and of rarer occurrence, at last in the same combination

Aphorism 133 (proving)
Characteristic = determined especially by modalities

Aphorism 153
Characteristic = striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar

Aphorism 164
Characteristic = peculiarly distinctive (of the disease)

Aphorism 165
Characteristic = distinctive

Aphorism 199 (after surgical/corrosive removal of local symptoms)
Uncharacteristic = too indefinite

Aphorism 211
Example of a decidedly characteristic symptom – the state of the disposition of the patient
(an aphorism that forms the foundation of immense empires in the sky...vr)

Advertisements

2 responses to “Characteristic, peculiar, and flying pigs

  1. Is the meaning of Characteristic the same in the. Proving of. a remedy and in the Symptoms. of the. Patient ?

    Thanks

    P. Luigi

    • Vera Resnick IHM DHom Med (Lic)

      Thanks for your comment. The question is a good one – but if you think about it you can find the answer through common sense. Think of how the remedy is to be applied, what you need to know in order to apply it. Think of how the remedy is matched to the disease through the Law of Similars. Move firmly away from the allopathic concepts of drugs for named diseases.

      Vera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.