Book preface: Milks in Homeopathic Medicine
I met Massimo Mangialavori in 1988. He had just returned from a long stay in Latin America, where he had been in close contact with some highly respected Andean masters and had deeply absorbed the knowledge of that culture. At that time, I was teaching homeopathy, continuing the studies of Dr. Masi Elizalde, although I was beginning to distance myself from the Argentine master’s model, which I found somewhat rigid, and was working with my colleagues at CIMI on a broader clinical approach that sought to integrate both physical and emotional experiences into the treatment of patients.
No sooner had he stepped off the plane than Massimo joined the course, full of enthusiasm!
It didn’t take me long to realise that the very young Mangialavori had remarkable qualities: a highly intuitive intelligence and, at the same time, a great ability to organise himself rationally, a freedom of thought that allowed him to cultivate a deep interest in traditional cultures and to be equally open to all scientific discoveries. I was struck by how comfortable he was both deciphering ancient wisdom texts and making the best use of the most modern technological and IT tools, always up to date in the field.
Furthermore, something I consider very important, which I have learned to appreciate about him over time, is that if Massimo is not an expert on a subject, he researches it, studies it and, above all, seeks the input of those who know more. I have seen him grow over the years and master subjects he was not previously familiar with, thanks to his great desire to learn and his humility in recognising what he did not know.
Our friendship was based on a shared understanding in many areas, and we shared significant travels, knowledge and experiences, not only in homeopathy. His contribution has always been very generous, and his presence at some critical moments in my life has been truly important.
I remember that when we first met, the enthusiasm with which he had decided not to pursue a brilliant career as a heart surgeon but to devote himself entirely to Homeopathic Medicine brought us together immediately. He showed me a copy of the computerised repertory extractions he had printed out – a stack of photocopies that took a whole briefcase to carry around and weighed a ton! – and I realised that every symptom, in every rubric and every section, was underlined several times: he was on his third reading of tens of thousands of symptoms, the cross and delight of our profession as unicist homeopaths. What I was laboriously trying to do with the symptoms in Mind, he had already done for the entire repertory! And it wasn’t just an exercise in translation and memory: he already had the idea of organising the myriad symptoms into something more concise and coherent, so as to facilitate the accuracy of the prescription.
In line with the search for coherent images of our remedies, a collaboration began that continues to this day. He affectionately calls me “maestro”, but I must publicly acknowledge that he is the maestro.
And I say this with good reason, because he has helped me many times, both in my knowledge of remedies, after years of attending his seminars on materia medica, and in the practice of Homeopathic Medicine. I usually gain a good understanding of the patient during the first consultation: years of empathetic listening, psychological preparation and meditation help me to delve deeper into even intimate and painful issues. But how can I translate what emerges from the relationship into a good remedy? That’s where I “bang my head”, as I often say, when I can’t find the analogy between the person’s experiences and the remedies I know. Then the repertory symptom added by Massimo helps me to reflect on substances that are unfamiliar to me. I go and read about the remedies in the Materia Medica, but above all I read his cases, where the symptom is contextualised in a coherent story, and very often I find the effective prescription I was hoping for.
Rereading the various cases reported in the book, can you imagine how many times we have prescribed Staphysagria in a case of Lac asinum or Silicea in a case of Lac felinum, making ourselves and homeopathy look like a medicine that works poorly or not at all?
And Lac Lupinum? Would we have given Thuya for mediumship? Nitric remedies for hypochondria? Well, we would have gone from similar to similar with little or no effect!
I would therefore like to acknowledge Mangialavori’s great contribution to the knowledge of Materia Medica: the homeopathic observation material that Massimo has collected over the last 30 years, through an impressive clinical case history, gathered with meticulous attention, constitutes such a wealth of information that – I speak with authority – it will be a subject of study for generations of homeopaths. There are hundreds of remedies, I believe more than seven hundred by now, which Massimo knows thoroughly, both in their essential aspects and in their details, both in their personality profile and in their general and local characteristics.
I hope they will soon be published, as was the case with this very interesting book on milks: the first of his “enterprise” to compile his Clinical Materia Medica.
Mangialavori’s idea of studying remedies “in vivo”, i.e. from the reports of people who have demonstrated over the years that they respond well to a given remedy, has provided living, up-to-date images of the remedies and validated well-conducted provings.
The result is an important contribution, evident from reading the cases, in terms of mind-body unity. Think of the emphasis given today to the intimate relationship between psyche and soma, from the first stirrings of Alexander to the more substantial studies of PNEI (psycho-neuro-endocrine-immunology) and numerous other models that seek to integrate bodily experiences with those of the soul. Well, compared to current psycho-somatic knowledge, Mangialavori’s cases provide us with much richer and clearer paradigms of psycho-somatic relationships than those usually considered. These are stories of authentic and personalised suffering, which do not invoke generic and overused “stress” as their sole motive, but bring out the relationship between inner experiences and physical and relational events in a much more profound and articulated way. They therefore constitute excellent material for study and research, which I hope will be used by students and colleagues, not only homeopaths.
Homeopathy has always been a psychosomatic medicine par excellence, given that our brilliant founder Hahnemann carried out his provings by noting symptoms ranging from the mind to the tips of the toes, recording precise observations of localised and general symptoms, as well as emotional and behavioural elements.
Hahnemann knew well that the anthropos is a complex system. If his research into tackling the problem of disease had focused exclusively on physio-pathological data, it would have been reductionist: it would have excluded a priori a series of highly significant experiences and the very purpose of homeopathic therapy.
It was no coincidence that Hahnemann felt the need to “treat differently” his patients, aware of the correlations between physical pain and suffering, between illness and living conditions, between identity and somatic integrity. This idea is as old as medicine itself but, unfortunately, due to the positivist origins of modern medicine, it has been partially eclipsed. The positivist epistemological background has led to the prevalence of a model defined as bio-mechanical (a re-edition of the Cartesian body-machine), based on a rigorous determinism based on the principle of linear causality (Alberto Panza).
Well, I believe that Homeopathic Medicine can open important doors in this area, and I hope that it will emerge from the enclave in which it has placed itself in recent years and engage, on the one hand, with the world of conventional science and medicine and, on the other, with psychiatrists, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts and those who take a systemic approach to health. In this way, Homeopathy will re-establish its valuable role in the scientific field, thanks to its specific expertise, “in the integration of knowledge”.
To this end, I hope that the publication of all the remedies known to Mangialavori will take place in the near future. However, I am well aware of the amount of work involved in publishing a book on materia medica such as this: firstly, because it is not a copy of copies of traditional materia medica; the material is, in fact, completely new; secondly, thanks to the author’s clinical experience, Mangialavori has not limited himself to simply reporting the cases treated, but has extrapolated the themes necessary for the identification of the “homeopathic family” in general and of the individual components in particular, offering a broad psychic and somatic perspective.
In some ways, this is a pioneering work still in progress, but in other ways, it is already at an excellent level of development, providing us with material that is easy to understand for those who “study” and have a “desire for research”.
I expressly use the words “studying” and “research” because the limitation of Mangialavori’s message is not in what he proposes, but in what does not reach the reader due to a lack of familiarity with some basic premises. Without a personal course of study and research on the part of the doctor or student of homeopathic medicine, Mangialavori’s message – which is one of integration of experiences – risks not being understood in its entirety but fragmented, as usual, into the various symptoms that compose it.
Fragmentation is the cross to bear in homeopathic prescription, the cause of all attempts that come to nothing in the vain search for the simillimum remedy. It must be made absolutely clear that symptoms do not have a single meaning; they must be modelled and contextualised in order to understand their specificity and actual dynamics. “Paratactic” repertorisations, those carried out using the conjunction “and”, i.e. those of patients who present this symptom and then that symptom and then another, almost never lead to a coherent picture: neither of the person, nor of the remedy that could represent them. On the other hand, the identification of fundamental, general and characteristic symptoms that give a clear idea of how the “complex system” we are working on is organised – be it the remedy or an organism to be treated – is the key to a correct prescription.
This is a very important point in the Method of Complexity in Homeopathic Medicine, discussed at length in the first volume of Mangialavori’s Praxis and documented theoretically and clinically in the second volume, which Massimo asked me to collaborate on.
Another aspect that I would like to highlight in Mangialavori’s work is the study of the substances that give rise to remedies. Massimo, mindful of his Andean studies and his background in traditional medicine, has always based his study of remedies on knowledge of the basic substance of the remedy, whether mineral, vegetable, animal, fungal, bacterial, imponderable, human or other. Knowledge of a substance can be “mediated”, i.e. derived from scientific reports or traditional knowledge, or “direct”, in the sense of observation, empathetic contact with the substance itself, seeking to understand its internal organisation and its own way of being in the world.
This is not phenomenological knowledge, but structural knowledge. It is a matter of understanding how a given “individual of nature” – as alchemists would call it – or “system” – as systemic science would call it – organises or structures itself in order to exist: what characteristic fragilities and vulnerabilities it has, what its strengths and resources are, along which lines it becomes unbalanced. In a word, its resilience.
Every individual in nature is a complex system, characterised above all by the process that brings it into being and interacts with an environment that is equally complex. According to the perspective of two broad-minded researchers, Maturana and Varela, every biological system is autopoietic: informationally closed and autonomous, and possesses the capacity to reorganise itself. Its behaviour is produced by the relationship between the different components of the system, which reacts when disturbed by environmental stimuli (Maturana and Varela, 1987).
This complexity is unique to each individual.
In light of this systemic view, the work suggested by Mangialavori is very interesting because it connects direct or mediated knowledge of the “system-substance”, its provings and clinical experience “in the living body”, organising a set of symptoms, which are in themselves very varied and apparently unrelated, into coherent pictures.
If we talk specifically about the Milks, we see that there are – as can be seen from the cases in this book – constant patterns that apply to the whole group of Milks in general and others that apply to each Milk in particular: undoubtedly, the starting substance recalls in some way certain characteristics deriving from the ethology of the species to which it belongs. The similarities strike us because they show an analogy with animal behaviours that are familiar to us: easily identifiable, as they are mammals, which are species very close to the human race. It can sometimes be more difficult to grasp such analogies with more distant worlds such as minerals, plants, fungi and others … even though they are also very significant.
Personally, in the case of Milks, rather than “phenomenal” analogies, I would emphasise a much more “structural” and fundamental “signature”, which originates from the feeding methods inherent in breastfeeding in mammals: a process that involves a relationship with the mother that lasts for months, if not years, and develops a mother-child “symbiosis” that is fundamental for the first months of life. Physiologically – or at least this is how it should be – the new individual “weans” itself to become increasingly autonomous in life, to complete what Jung called the process of “individuation”, i.e. a continuous transformation of one’s individuality that characterises all existence. In his book Psychological Types, Jung writes, among many interesting observations: ‘… Individuation is always more or less in conflict with collective norms, since it is separation and differentiation from the general and the development of the particular; not, however, of a sought-after particularity, but of a particularity already a priori founded in the natural disposition’.
Well, in infants, the “particularity based on their natural disposition” is eclipsed by the need for loyalty to their mother and family context, albeit with the sometimes very clear awareness of the castrating bond that is created. At the same time, there is a strong desire to break free, which generates intense inner conflict. This results in a form of emotional dependence that leads to strong neurotic inhibitions, painful inner conflict and equally painful aggression. In some cases, especially where the context is based on factors that are (at least apparently) highly emotional, marked aspects of self-effacement emerge. If we were to use the language of neuroendocrine mediators, I would define these behaviours as “prolactinic” and “oxytocinic”: that is, we find an excessive commitment to “taking care” of others, children, family, friends and patients, to the detriment of one’s own personal needs. In other cases, elements of aggression prevail, which are all the more repressed the stronger the insecurity, abandonment and self-castration. The self-sacrificing attitude clearly plays a compensatory role, but in the end it is not very adaptive, because it is based on blocking the process of individuation.
On the other hand, I would like to make a small digression in terms of neuroendocrine profiles: the type oriented towards the pleasure of “living physically in the body” and self-protection is mediated above all by serotonin, the most important neurotransmitter that allows us to feel pleasure in the physical body, such as food, sleep, sex and physical activity. If we consider that 90% of serotonin is produced in the intestine and that it is one of the main causes of headaches, the general picture of Milks finds some very interesting somatic correlates.
There are many aspects I would like to highlight, the result of hours and hours of meetings and exchanges with many colleagues who have formed a wonderful study group around Massimo. I will limit myself to one last observation that I consider fundamental and that emerges constantly from Mangialavori’s cases: the “pathway”.
The aim of our homeopathic therapy is not limited to symptomatic and localised improvements: in the case of a good simillimum, the “process” begins whereby people, albeit at the cost of inner crises, resume their life journey.
I would like to thank Massimo Mangialavori for his contributions to the homeopathic community and to medicine as a whole.
Giovanni Marotta
Rome, 31 August 2016