Homeopathy Papers

Music and its Affinity to Homeopathy: A Beautiful, Synchronistic Relationship

Homeopath Gill Graham explores the common grounds of music and homeopathy.

“Music directly imitates the passions or states of the soul…when one listens to music that imitates a certain passion, he becomes imbued with the same passion; and if over a long time he habitually listens to music that rouses ignoble passions, his whole character will be shaped to an ignoble form.”-    Aristotle



The intention of this short article is to link the subtle yet almost tangible relationship between music and homeopathy. The definition of music is: ‘‘Vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion’ (Oxford English Dictionary). Thus, similarities in terms used by both arts are analysed and justified according to homeopathic dictates.



As a classical homeopath and a lover of music, I have always been fascinated by the ability of both to penetrate the mind and soul and subsequently affect the entire body. A correctly selected remedy, according to the first universal law of homeopathy “similia similibus curentur,” works initially on the characteristic mental and emotional symptoms. Hahnemann states: ‘Therefore one will never cure according to nature-that is, homoeopathically-unless one considers the mental and emotional changes..’ (Hahnemann, S: 2003:152) Aphorism 213. Similarly, music has the ability to affect and encourage change in moods and temperaments. If the remedy is as close as possible to the similimum, it can bring the body into a state of equilibrium. Likewise, we have all experienced the power of music to lift our spirits and deeply resonate with us.



There are many musical terms used in the Organon that justify and exemplify this relationship. ‘In the state of health the spirit like vital force (dynamis) animating the material organism reigns in supreme sovereignty. It maintains the sensations and activities of all the parts of the living organism in a harmony that obliges wonderment. (Hahnemann, S, 2003:14), Aphorism 9.

Hahnemann refers to the ‘pathological untunement’ of the vital force ‘The physician has only to eliminate the totality of symptoms in order to remove simultaneously the inner alteration, the pathological untunement of the vital principle, thereby entirely removing and annihilating the disease itself’(Hahnemann, S, 2003:21), Aphorism 21, suggesting harmony needs to be restored to the organism to achieve a perfect balance. There are many other references to musical terms, which further serves to demonstrate this wondrous undeniable link, not least the mainstay of homeopathic prescribing; the search for keynotes in a patients. This ultimately leads to finding the simillimum and prescription of the correct remedy, thereby balancing the pathological untunement, restoring harmony and equilibrium to the body. The musical definition of ‘keynote’ is: ‘the first and harmonically fundamental tone of a scale’. (Merriam Webster Dictionary.)

To further clarify this relationship, Kent recognised that “just as there are octaves of musical tones, so there are octaves in the simple substance, through which severally it is possible to correspond with the various planes of the interior organism of the animal cells. These planes correspond to the similar remedy in 30th, 200th, 1M 10M 50M, CM, DM, and MM potencies. He found that when the action of the 30th is completed the patient needs the 200th potency, but when the action of 200th potency is exhausted, the patient requires the 1M potency; and so on till the same remedy in higher and highest potencies cures permanently.’ (Kent, JT: Lesser Writings, cited by Seror, R)

Music is seen here as vibration by Kent, similar to when a remedy is succused. By doing so, the potency, energy and vibration are increased. The molecules in a remedy are never static. Both music and homeopathy have the ability to activate the vital force through stimulation of our inherent energy fields, tuning us into a frequency that resonates with our healthy constitution. This is all part of ‘The Doctrine of Series of Degrees’ introduced by Kent for the treatment of chronic disease; where the potency of a remedy was raised to effect cure, should the lower potency have failed to ‘vibrate and resonate’ at the correct level to ensure curative action. The musical term ‘Octave’ is defined as follows:‘A series of eight notes occupying the interval between (and including) two notes, one having twice or half the frequency of vibration of the other.’(Oxford English Dictionary). By comparing potency to octaves, we are able to imagine an almost visual and certainly audible understanding of the proposed resonance of varying potencies as they change by degree to gently encourage harmony.

The relationship between homeopathy and music has been taken a step further by Dr. Rajan Sankaran who has applied homeopathic principles to music. Sankaran recognised that music had an unquestionable effect on the body as a whole and was keen to explore and expand upon the healing mechanism so many of us have experienced. Hindustani classical music has a system of notes called ‘Raga’ in the minor and major scale. Many different pieces of music can be composed within each raga. Every raga is unique and is invariably played at an appropriate time to evoke a series of emotions. Sankaran saw the parallel between music and its intention and homeopathic remedies, where each remedy, unique in its essence has a specific mental and emotional profile. In short, several different Ragas were played to audiences throughout the world, their feelings were noted and documented. The result was astounding in that the majority of ‘provers’ experienced the same emotions for specific pieces of music.

‘The music provings teach us that the situational Materia Medica and the mental pictures we get of our remedies are nothing but the application of the basic idea which is common to mind and body, and can be correlated to the original source, the substance from which the remedy is prepared.’ (Sankaran,R :2005:300)

Often, in practice, the Raga’s correspond to particular remedies, (generally the polychrests) and are used in conjunction with these remedies, where the mental and emotional picture resonates. Clearly there is a lot more research to be undertaken in this field but the initial findings are fascinating. Sankaran states: ‘I feel I have a scientific basis for healing with music although I have not used it on a large scale in treating patients. To do this, we must know the specific effects of various ragas, especially the more common ones (which are like our polychrests.) I feel that when the patient is made to listen to a raga on the basis of proving symptoms, it will heal according to the homeopathic law.’ (Sankaran, R: 2005: 310)



It is clear with this brief account of the relationship between homeopathy and music that there are many parallels and similarities, seen not least in the application of similar vocabulary, with words such as ‘harmony’, ‘tuning’, keynotes and octaves appearing frequently and relevantly throughout homeopathic academic literature. Here are two great arts, both having fundamental classical roots. The definition of ‘classical is as follows: ‘‘representing an exemplary standard within a traditional and long-established form or style.’ The origin is late 16th century (in the sense ‘outstanding of its kind’): from Latin, classicus ‘belonging to a class’. (Oxford English Dictionary.)

I can confidently assert that both classical homeopathy and classical music are indeed worthy of this description, therefore it is of no surprise to see an established and irrefutable link, which has been strongly validated.




Hahnemann, S (2003) The Organon of Medicine, London: Orion (New translation Kunzli, Naude and Pendleton)

Kent, JT, Lesser Writings,43- Series in degree, presented by Dr Robert Seror [online] available at :http://homeoint.org/books3/kentwrit/writ43.htm

Sankaran, R (2005b) The Substance of Homeopathy, India: Homeopathic Medical Publishers

About the author

Gill Graham

Gill Graham

Gill Graham BSc (Hons), BA (Hons), DHMHS, RSHom lives and practices, for most of the time in rural North Buckinghamshire, England. The rest of the time she lives in Toronto, Canada. She graduated from Purton House School of Homeopathy (University of West London) in 2009. She went on to do a 'Special Advanced Graduate Program' at The Ontario College of Homeopathic Medicine. Over the last seventeen years she has qualified in, and practiced many other holistic therapies and is constantly updating her knowledge in the field of complimentary medicine. She has a passion for writing, both professionally, and creatively. She is a member of the Advisory Board for the Applied Research in Homeopathy Foundation of Canada (www.ARHFC.ca).

Leave a Comment


  • I am sorry to say, but speaking both as a homoeopath and a musician, I found the examples used in this article stretched credibility somewhat.

    Yes, Hahnemann used a musical metaphor in order to describe sickness and the idea of ‘distunement’ is a very apt metaphor, but when it comes to Kent’s ‘octaves’, since Kent died several years before the publication of the sixth edition of the Organon, and therefore totally oblivious to Hahnemann’s later thinking, I would question both the accuracy of Kent’s use of the term ‘octave’ and its relevance in any case to what Hahnemann taught.. Thankfully many homoeopaths have called into question this particular distortion of Hahnemann’s teachings by such practicalities as the use of liquid doses administered ‘plussed’ every day and often in low centesmal potencies and not just as LMs. Where do such developments leave Kent’s octaves? I would suggest that rather than having any relevance to the musical use of the term, Kent’s use of the word octave is merely arbitrary.

    As for Sankaran’s ideas that music, particularly the ragas of Indian classical music by representing emotional ideas and feelings could be used curatively, well yes, but then again was it not Kent himself who suggested that anyone suffering from nerves and easily woken by noise could be cured by spending time amongst the noise of a shipyard? It is an idea rather older than Sankaran or even Hahnemann that music can ‘soothe the troubled breast’ but is it not also consonant with homoeopathic philosophy that anything- even carcophony- when carefully chosen as simillimum can lead to cure?

    As for the definition of the word, ‘classical’ in the article, its rather cursory nature leaves me in some doubt as to its relevance as an explanation either of music or of homoeopathy, although I suspect it is perhaps closer as a musical definition than as a meaningful definition of homoeopathy.

    For there was a time when anyone who practised in the manner Kent taught would have been described as a classical homoeopath. I believe the UK Society of Homoeopaths has enshrined some of these ‘classical’ ideas such as ‘single remedy and wait’ but thankfully, and with a renewed interest in how Hahnemann actually practised, many ideas taken for too long as gospel are being rethought as merely dissonance propagated by figures such as Kent, who by an accident of history was unable to know what Hahnemann was doing towards the end of his life. Which of course leaves a very large question:

    Just who are the real ‘classical’ homoeopaths now?

  • Kevin Morris. You are entitled to your opinions, however, I disagree with most of what you have said.


    1) The use of octaves in Kent’s writings is ‘arbitrary.’ In the quote cited, he specifically likens the octaves in music to the action in remedies. He did not use another word, he used ‘octaves.’ I fail to see why he would do this if he didn’t mean it.

    2) To further support the comparison of potencies to musical scales, in ‘Kent’s New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts (1992), Kent states: ‘ the homeopath, when dealing with a case, must not jump from the first to the last in the series, as they would not preserve ‘the chord.’ His advice was to move in thirds and fifths as with the musical chord.

    3) As one can see, he is strongly suggesting an indisputable link, not just once, but at least twice, between both music and homeopathy. Arbitrary? I think not. The meaning of the word ‘arbitrary’, for clarification is: ‘Based on random choice, personal whim, rather than any reason or system.’ (Oxford English Dictionary.)

    4) Kent was a Master homeopath in his own right and was here expressing his own views. It is therefore an irrelevance when the final edition of Organon was published and when Kent died.

    5) Re: The ‘Ragas’. This was Sankaran’s research, which I was merely reporting on and which most homeopaths would find of interest and certainly worthy of consideration, particularly in the light of this paper. If you would like further insight, I suggest you contact the author.

    6) ‘Definition’ by definition is intended to explain something succinctly and to the point. The definition of ‘Classical’ here is more than adequate and precise.

    7) Who are the Classical homeopaths now? George Vithoulkas, Andre Saine, Farokh Master, all of whom are greatly respected and have huge international followings. The list is endless..

  • It is perfectly reasonable to use a musical metaphor to describe a certain aspect of homoeopathy. I couldn’t find a better metaphor than Hahnemann’s use of the word ‘distunement’ and I made it plain in my comments that I felt that way. The word presents a profound image of what sickness is. The problem with the essay seemed to be that because it tried to justify ‘a beautiful and synchronistic relationship’ between homoeopathy and music it was in danger of becoming little more than a conceit- entertaining in its own way but illuminating little

    I am perfectly aware of Sankaran’s tentative use of ragas in order to treat certain conditions and have no problem whatsoever with the idea. However, in homoeopathy as in most things there is more than one way to skin a cat, providing of course that the principles are followed. Any remedy is only homoeopathic by virtue of its similar nature to the symptoms to be treated. My issue was that in stretching the metaphor to fit a conceit, ideas also within homoeopathy such as the use of noise and cacophony are ignored. As Hahnemann demonstrated, the idea of creating harmony within a sick individual is a very useful metaphor but by trying to force the whole of homoeopathy into a simple metaphor there was real danger of oversimplifying the subject.

    As for Kent, it is an accident of history that led him to being seen as pre-eminent expositor of Hahnemannian doctrine. When homoeopathy began its burgeoning growth here in the UK in the seventies and eighties, Kent’s teachings were central to homoepathy. The real difficulty was that much of what Kent taught was in ignorance of the later refinement of homoeopathic practice by its founder.

    Since the eighties a growing interest in how Hahnemann actually practised has led many to scrutinise many of Kent’s claims and to question the influence that Kent’s followers imposed upon successive generations of practitioners. As for Kent’s octaves, papers have been written in recent years on why 200c tends more often than other potencies to create aggravations. Octaves in music follow a precise mathematical sequence and are pleasing, but. Kent’s sequence of potencies isn’t. Whatever your views on Kent as a ‘master homoeopath’, the sequence he proposed of 30c, 200c, 1m etc has little to do with the musical idea of octaves and the problem of aggravations at 200c rather proves that. Because the potency of 200c adds a dischordant note to the sequence, Kent’s idea of octaves fails even as a simple metaphor. In view of recent developments such as low potencies, often in water or LM prescribing Kent’s idea ooks increasingly out of place.

    As for my final question, it was rhetorical. We all of us have own personal views. I would simply suggest that whilst there have been many new developments in homoeopathy since the 1980s, there has also been a growing interest in learning how the early masters practised. It could be that by including Saine in your list of ‘classical homoeopaths that you might well have reached a similar conclusion. Whether or not that is the case, the idea of what comprises ‘classical’ homoeopathy has changed drastically over the past 35 years.

  • Thanks for this interesting and educational article. It is infinitely easier to contradict than to investigate. With our egoistic limited brain, we have no permission to confine the capabilities of true medicine; to do so we would just sound like a fool. As Hahnemann said: “I believe in the illimitable possibilities of medicine”.

  • ‘With our egoistic limited brain, we have no permission to confine the capabilities of true medicine; to do so we would sound like a fool’

    Wise words, but to those who are ill disciplined words that could easily be taken as meaning ‘anything goes’. As students of homoeopathy we should all know full well that anything most certainly doesn’t!

    Here in the UK a debate has quietly raged for years as to whether by attempting to teach students every new development within homoeopathy, many are being short-changed in terms of the means actually to treat their patients. Here is not the place for that debate, but another related issue is how some homoeopaths have uncritically fused new age ideas with homoeopathy and how principles are being jettisoned in favour of an ‘anything goes’ approach. We all of us deplore the activities of ‘big pharma’ but I sometimes wonder whether some of our actions and our pronouncements are responsible for our becoming the butt of scorn and ridicule, not just amongst skeptics but amongst the general public who might be rather more open to homoeopathy.

    As for our ‘egoistic limited brain’, unfortunately that and the promptings of our consciences are very much all we have but they were good enough for successive generations of homoeopaths who wished to heal the sick. They did so by study and by the application of clearly enunciated principles.

    A conceit, that is ‘an ingenious or fanciful comparison or metaphor’, might entertain but it is in danger of confusing by simplifying. I would argue that there is rather enough confusion about in homoeopathy at the moment.

  • Mr. Kevin Morris – hello from Canada. I hear you loud and clear, and I do share some of your concerns in respect to “anything goes”. As Hahnemann said: “should any false doctrines be taught under the honorable name of Homeopathy, deserves to be avoided and branded. Their want of Homeopathic knowledge could not be the measure whereby the power of pure Homeopathy could be judged.” He also said: “Never take anything for granted, nor receive anything in any science as a truth, until you have investigated it for yourself.”

    There are individuals who are ill disciplined with an ‘anything-goes’ mentality that even suggest making remedies from black-holes.

    However, certainly I didn’t find this article to be a conceit with “ill disciplined words” as you claim. There is usually a deep-rooted hurt that is beneath anger, and that emanates from the tone of your assertion. Your aprioristic reasoning has very little to do with the point of this article.

    You mentioned that “there have been many new developments in homoeopathy since the 1980s”. Actually, I have to tell you that there have been many new developments in homeopathy since 1796, because medicine is evolving. Thus if you are determined to keep your mental-rooms clean of dust of the real world, then you are after an unobtainable perfection.

  • Hello Iman. When I use the term conceit, it wasn’t implying that the person writing the article is conceited. Rather my use of the word was one of a specific term in literary criticism which refers to the use of a piece of writing that consists of an extended metaphor. It takes considerable discipline to create a conceit but there is an implication that a conceit might well be more about portraying a picture that is pleasing for its own sake rather than an attempt to inform. There is real danger in such a literary form that truth might be sacrificed for the sake of creating an effect.

    As for changes since the 1980s, change is inevitable and one that I welcome has been the move away from homoeopathy as taught by Kent to looking more closely at how early masters practised. I find it truly tragic that whilst a German speaking homoeopath may easily discover the latest scholarship on Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook, English speakers are deprived of those means unless they are quite wealthy. In the meantime, German speaking homoeopaths such as Heiner Frei show us how it is possible to gain success with difficult cases using little other than the limited number of remedies that had been proved by the time Hahnemann died.

    Just under sixteen years ago I had a major cancer operation and four months later, following a scan I was told I was terminally ill. I had been seeing a homoeopath, a member of the Guild of Homoeopaths as my condition had deteriorated over the twelve months that led to the conventional diagnosis of a very large tumour. I had been subjected to a weird and wonderful ragbag of remedies but nothing alleviated my rapidly worsening condition until I suggested that we try mercury, a remedy that I later discovered is often helpful in cachexias. After my operation his first prescription was Berlin Wall to be followed by Sol Britannia. I remember him telling me something about how I should be helped to ‘let the sun in’ I took the remedies but changed my homoeopath to one who has a strong track record in the successful treatment of cancer. Almost all of the remedies that brought me back to the land of the living were in Materia Medica Pura and the Chronic Diseases.

    No, I don’t mind change, but it should always come with clear reference to what has already been tried and tested., otherwise there is real danger that many practitioners become confused and the public see us merely as a bunch of cranks. In the meantime, and with a reiteration of the apology to Gill Graham that were a preamble to my initial comments about her article, it should come as no surprise that my own experiences have given me a strong and sensitive nose both for the twee and for bullshitters.

    • Thank you for your apology Kevin. I have said all I needed to say with reference to your original comments about this article.

  • Hello Gill. As I have just pointed out, my apology came before the words I used to comment upon your zarticle- words to which, perhaps understandably, you took such great exception. Both my apology and my words of criticism were well meant. As a conceit your writing was excellent, but all conceits oversimplify in order to gain their effect. Myself, I have always tended towards the views of Lao Tsu that:

    ‘Words of truth are not beautiful; beautiful words are not true’

    I often see attempts to portray everything in the homoeopathic garden as being rosy and I do fear the increasing number of new age words that seem to be creeping into our discipline. You will understand that I have more reason than most to know that things are not quite as some in the UK have us believe. Whilst personal animosities and jealousies are going to thrive in homoeopathy just as in every other field of human endeavour, it does concern me that some people, and often for the finest of motives, may wish to gloss over certain issues that deserve rather more careful consideration.

    In a world where bogey man terms such as ‘big pharma’ lead many to become both defensive and as a reflex, impervious to any suggestion that homoeopathy might not have every answer for suffering mankind, there is a real danger that a lack of honest self scrutiny might lead to a situation where intellectual rigour no longer prevails.

    We all of us need to beware of that

  • Hello Kevin. You mentioned that you ‘have always tended towards the views of Lao Tsu’, then you should know that in the same statement that you quoted from Lao Tsu, he continued to say that: “Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good.” Hence, your persuasive words are not serving you well here. It is evident that Gill Graham’s article rocked your boat and she poked your mind generously well. Avoid believing in homoeopathy because it is not a religion. Homeopathy has been abused, sugar-coated and misused by many, it is unfortunate but this sadly happens in all medical profession.

    Don’t get me wrong, any well disciplined homeopath will share your concerns about bullshitters and also suffering of mankind. However, the issue here is your ill-mannered unjust approach towards the writer, whom I know very well professionally. I respect your bitter experience and frustration but I don’t appreciate your criticism here as it has very little to do with the point of this article. You mentioned that your experiences have given you ‘a strong and sensitive nose’; well actually it is making you do futile heavy-breathing in your mind.
    Lao Tsu said: “Music in the soul can be heard by the universe.” Hahnemann said: “music is the best thing for cheering the human soul.” If you find these two statements to be a conceit too, then you should reflect back on the point of this article.

    • Thank you for your wonderful support here Iman, in every sense. I am also happy that you understand the totality of what I was presenting in this paper.

  • Iman, it is clear that you fail to understand the literary term ‘conceit’ because neither of your quotations above, the one by Lao Tsu, the other by Hahnemann is a conceit. I would argue that Hahnemann’s words were in the nature of homely good advice based upon his own experiences, whilst much of Lao Tsu is about using language in order to express that which is unknowable through logic. In a sense your quotations are arbitrary also, selected seemingly to make a point, but the only thing that really links them is the use of the word ‘music’. The purpose and the language used in the two statements are very different. If one wishes to write an essay on the references to music in homoeopathy in general, all well and good, but then to extrapolate to a beautiful and synchronistic relationship between homoeopathy and music might well prove dangerous because it could create misleading ideas about homoeopathy in people who are not grounded in homoeopathic principles.

    You clearly enjoyed Gill Graham’s conceit and it is to your credit that you wish to support a friend and colleague, although it was clear from the start that your loyalty to her made you unwilling or unable to understand the points I made. The examples used seemed arbitrary and in any case I don’t support Ms Graham’s claim that there is a beautiful and a synchronistic relationship between music and homoeopathy. My concern was essentially that in order to create a literary conceit it was necessary to gloss over matters of import. As I stated, modern scholarship has tended to call into question several of the pronouncements Kent made. His use of the term octaves to describe a sequence homoeopathic potencies is one small example.

    As for ill mannered, it is clear to me that whilst I disagreed with several of the examples chosen in the conceit (although I also expressed admiration for one of them), you chose to infer things about my reasons for so doing. As I have demonstrated I have real reasons for concern at the growth of woolly thinking in homoeopathy. Homoeopaths tend to be very nice, caring people and for most of them, myself included, criticism in any public forum cannot come lightly. One of the concerns that I have alluded to above and elsewhere in the past is the real concern that owing to the criticism homoeopathy encounters from skeptics, homoeopaths might see any form of criticism from other homoeopaths simply as bad form. A dangerous corollary is that many homoeopaths demonise allopaths whilst glossing over our own failings or sharing concerns amongst close colleagues privately.

    I see real dangers for us in that tendency. There must always be room for disagreement honestly stated.

  • Mark, it is clear that you fail to understand my point. In last paragraph of my previous comment regarding Hahnemann’s and Lao Tsu’s quote, I said *if* you find these two statements to be a conceit too. Well of course they are not a conceit.

    Homeopaths, like any other health professions, need unbiased criticism and gap-analysis, so they can improve. As a fellow homeopath, I highly appreciate your honest disagreement; and you do have valid concern regarding the growth of woolly thinking in homoeopathy. However, in regards to this article, I’m trying to inform you that you are barking up the wrong tree by pursuing a mistaken line of thought. I invite you to read the article thoroughly, not by selective extraction of points in order to refute while ignoring its totality.

    I hope you get the point. Take it easy.

  • No problem regarding the name mistake, Iman, and I hope you take it easy too. However I cannot ignore you main point regarding my comments about the article because it is disingenuous.

    I didn’t selectively extract point in order to ignore the totality. Rather I took every point in turn, agreeing with Hahnemann’s use of the word ‘distunement’ as being a very apt metaphor, agreed on Sankaran’s use of music in healing, but argued that a contrary to the example made was also valid. For the rest the author failed to convince me and still doesn’t whatever your comments about barking up the wrong tree. I was reluctant to criticise the article and I did begin my comments with the words, ‘I’m sorry but…’ I couldn’t though ignore a conceit that was based upon fallacious arguments and I say that whilst refuting fully your claim that I was selective in my comments. I am left with the feeling that the response of you and the author was to wonder ‘What right has this unknown guy to criticise this beautiful article?’ There clearly is little evidence that either of you spent any time considering what I said, and your claim, Iman, that I was selective in my comments when I considered every one in turn simply proves that.

    I find it significant that neither you nor the author chose to accept the view a homoeopath who happens to be a musician. Frankly, Kent’s use of the word octave is arbitrary whether or not he was a ‘master homoeopath’ and whether or not you accept the fact You and the author know full well that Kent was strongly influenced by his Swedenborgian beliefs and tried to incorporate them into his teachings on homoeopathy which are scattered with ideas and terminologies that have little relation to anything that came before. As I said, the fact that many homoeopaths have rejected in full Kent’s ideas on potency and sequences of potencies suggest that Kent’s ideas were not grounded in any mathematical ‘truth’ but simply a matter of semantics and with respect to the musical concept, arbitrary. In music octaves of the same note bear a very clear mathematical relationship with each other. Kent was clearly trying to claim some sort of special, perhaps preordained relationship between the successive potencies he proposed. His claim is fallacious and I am clearly not the only homoeopath who refutes it.

    As for definitions of the word ‘classical’ the author herself made the point that definitions must by nature leave out far more than they present. Since even the term ‘classical’ has changed in its relationship with homoeopathy owing to recent scholarship on pre Kentian homoeopathic ideas, I question any relevance in attempts to draw out meaningful parallels between the word ‘classical’ as it relates to homoeopathy and how it relates to music.

    Music is an important part of my life, as is homoeopathy. I recognise music’s importance throughout much of and possibly all of human existence. It is totally appropriate that Hahnemann should have used a musical metaphor to describe sickness. Music clearly has an important place in homoeopathy but it isn’t because of any synergy but because all human life is there.

    All the best,

  • Iman:

    I thank you for your relevant, astute and articulate comments here which support my original analysis and justifications in this article.


    I saw no reason to further comment after my original response to you, which categorically demonstrated why I disagreed with your opinion of the views set out in this article. There is certainly no evidence to show I took ‘great exception’ to your comment, indeed I welcomed a different perspective, albeit, wrong, in my opinion, the reasons for which were outlined with precision.

    As a homeopath and relatively frequent writer, I am used to being challenged, from all directions and my response is always concise, factual and to the point.

    I think we have reached the end of this particular discussion. Clearly we are not going to agree and there seems little point in repeating what has already been said. It appears, however, that the balance of the argument does not lie in your favour. I do however, thank you for your interesting input, and wish you well.

  • Gill, as always a thought proking piece, which allows us all with an open mind to hear the tune! However it comes to us! Well done