A note from a reader - seeming contradictions in a case, part 3; the case for and against dual remedies
In real life cases, we sometimes have very strong indications for one remedy (say, Pulsatilla) but several keynotes or Strange-Rare-Peculiars of some other remedy (say, Nux vomica) -- sometimes keynotes of more than one remedy. In such cases, how do we decide on which remedy to go with? For instance, if we have the mental/emotional picture of Pulsatilla but multiple Nux vomica keynotes, what do we do?
…
You may have a mental emotional state that looks like Tarentula or Coffea or Sulphuric acid and then suddenly the person will mention other things that, if you prioritize them, will lead you to Lycopodium or Palladium. Or we could have someone with what seems like a Pulsatilla mental/emotional state but mixed in with a Calcarea or Phosphorus mental emotional state.
One proposed solution has been to give two remedies in combination or in rapid routine alternation, each addressing its own “aspect” of the Totality. Note that this approach assumes the Totality to be fundamentally a collection of “parts” that can meaningfully be divvied up and treated independently, rather an Inbegriff, in which the Whole is primary and its “parts” are only perceived by us as such due to our limited ability to appreciate the completeness of a complex phenomenon. I’m reminded of the biblical story of the Judgement of Solomon, ordering that the living child be cut in two, with half given to each woman. There is no such thing as half of an Inbegriff, any more than a half a baby might be a viable entity. Even with systems far less complex than the living organism, if you’re given the choice to fly on one of two halves of a Boeing airliner, which would you choose?
