| I am writing
to ask Rudi some questions following his excellent contributions
over the last 4 months concerning the true meaning of Hahnemann’s
terminology. I hope that some readers will share at least a few
of my questions, as Rudi’s ideas are challenging and I found that
I needed to read the articles a number of times. I felt very comfortable
with much of what Rudi said, but some concepts raised questions.
Further, I am not the scholar that Rudi is, and prefer/need to use
the simplest terminology possible.
My understanding is that Rudi,
through an improved understanding of Hahnemann’s actual language,
has said the following:
- The term vital force
has been misunderstood through poor translations. Hahnemann used
the term wesen or Dynamis, meaning
the inner essence, nature or genius of something, the animating
principle; the dynamic aspect of a thing that has the power to
affect other wesen. The life force is
the executive function of this dynamic principle or power. The
life force has more or less life energy.
- Hahnemann mentioned two
aspects of the life force, namely (i) the sustentive
power (erhaltungskraft): that aspect of the Dynamis/life force that
maintains and restores homeostasis in the face of stressors and
disease agents. It cannot remove disease, but only restores balance
after the disease is gone or has been destroyed by the curative
medicine. (ii) the generative power (erzeugenskraft): that aspect of the Dynamis/life force that
generates new life (cell division, progeny), and that is involved
in (a) the creation by a disease wesen of a disease in
the human wesen, or (b) the curative action of the medicinal
wesen (artificial disease).
- The term homoeopathy
has been misused to mean the whole of Hahnemann’s healing system.
Hahnemann used the word heilkunst to describe his
entire system, which is comprised of the German terms "heil"
(whole) and "kunst" (art). The term "heil"
has a physical and spiritual dimension. The term "kunst"
means more the deeper science of mind that is able to get at truth
and the inner meaning of things. Hahnemann used homoeopathy
to mean the selection of a medicine according to the match of
symptoms of a disease in a sick person against the similar symptom
pattern of the remedy as produced in one or more healthy persons
(provers).
- Disease occurs in two stages: (i) The generative power of an inimical
wesen impregnates the generative power of a susceptible
human wesen, causing a new disease inside the human wesen,
and further weakening its generative power. Hahnemann defines
this as the initial action (eerstwirkung)
of the disease. (ii) The sustentive power
of the life force then rallies to try to drive the disease out,
and this produces the disease expression (or symptoms) that we
often term the disease. Hahnemann calls this the counter
action.
- Diseases may be divided
into primary (constant nature) which require a fixed medicine,
and secondary (variable nature) which require individualised
medicines.
- There is a two stage process
of remediation or relief (heilen). (i) Cure
results when the initial action of a medicinal wesen chosen
using the Law of Similars, which Hahnemann termed an artificial
disease (arzneikrankheit), acts on the corrupted generative
power of the human wesen and annihilates the disease wesen, allowing the re-strengthening
of the generative power of the human wesen. (ii) Healing
refers to the restoration of health by eliminating waste and repairing
damage caused by a disease. The act of healing is undertaken by
the sustentive power of the life force, and gives us the counter
action or in the case of remediation, the healing reaction.
- A medicine has the power
to penetrate the generative power at all times in all individuals,
whereas the disease has only the power to engender where there
is a predisposition.
- The dual nature of the
Dynamis, of the disease, and of the remedial process means that
there is a distinction between disease and an imbalance. A disturbance
of the sustentive power does not necessarily affect the generative
power. In such cases, there is no disease, but only an imbalance. The
law of similars should not be used except in disease; the other
law of nature, the law of opposites must be used where there is
no disease, but only an imbalance. For example, a deficiency of
Vitamin C must be corrected with the addition of Vitamin C to
the regimen. Thus, it is important that all the symptoms of the
patient are related to the proper underlying cause. Symptoms due
to deficiency cannot be corrected by medicine, and symptoms due
to disease cannot be corrected using regimenal measures.
A very brief summary of
the process of disease and healing (parts 4 and 6 are my inclusion):
- The disease wesen impregnates
the generative power of the susceptible human wesen.
- The sustentive power of
human wesen tries to drive out disease wesen (producing symptoms).
- The medicinal wesen of
a similar artificial disease eliminates disease wesen.
- The medicinal wesen then
weakens, allowing sustentive power of human wesen to eliminate
it.
- The generative power of
the human wesen is then able to work freely.
- The sustentive power and
the generative power of the human wesen, together with good nutrition,
lifestyle etc to correct imbalances, will permit the restoration
of health.
Questions for Rudi:
- Have I made any errors
in the above summaries? If so please correct them.
- What is the real purpose
of differentiating between the Dynamis, wesen and the life
force, rather than just use one word. You appear to use them
interchangeably at times.
- It is appropriate to talk
of a two stage disease process, but is it correct to say that
the disease has a dual nature (you were talking about the initial
and counter actions, not primary and secondary diseases)? The
counter action, as you say, is not actually an action of the disease,
but a reaction by the sustentive power of the Dynamis.
- You say that “the efforts
of the sustentive power allow for the restoration of homeostasis
as both the natural and artificial disease have been destroyed
in the initial action”. My understanding is that the first
action of the artificial disease is to annihilate the natural
disease, but then the patient is under the influence of the artificial
disease for a period of time, which then naturally weakens (because
it is artificial) allowing the sustentive power to eventually
work. This is different to what you say in the quote.
- You use the term the law
of opposites, and give the use of Vitamin C when there is
a deficiency of Vitamin C as an example. To my understanding,
the law of opposites applies when, for example, a laxative is
given to cure constipation. This is totally different from simple
nutrition providing necessary physical building blocks, otherwise
we would see all food as working according to the law of opposites.
The law of opposites creates suppression, but simple nutrition
does not.
- You talk about disease,
cure and health. Can you describe health in your terminology,
i.e. where a person is exposed to the generative power of a disease
wesen, and is not susceptible, and does not become unwell
(the old explanation is that either the person is too sick, or
too well). Can it simply be the case that the sustentive power
of the human wesen is stronger than the disease wesen,
or is it the generative power that needs to be stronger, or both?
- When talking about primary
and secondary diseases you say for example, all patients with
measles should receive the specific medicine for measles, Morbillinum.
However, if this is not done, then the measles disease will give
rise to a secondary, variable nature disease that is not predictable
in a given case, but needs to be determined by waiting for the
symptom picture, the image of the disease, to emerge in each case.
In one chickenpox case the symptom picture might point to Antimonium
crudum, and in another case, to Pulsatilla. I would appreciate
more explanation here. This is suggesting that all constant-nature
diseases are best treated by the nosode. Is this correct? If it
is, does this imply that GV’s suggestion of early treatment is
incorrect, given that Hahnemann did not have nosodes?
- Can you help distinguish
further between the nature and the actions of the sustentive power
and the generative power of the Dynamis.
Once again, I would like to
thank Rudi for his great contributions. I look forward to learning
more. It would be wonderful if a single, internationally acceptable,
set of terms could be developed. I feel that Rudi will need to show
some flexibility to accommodate existing terminology. For example,
(a) the use of constant nature and variable nature
would be less confusing than primary and secondary
when referring to types of disease due to alternative uses of these
words, (b) an alternative to heilkunst for English-only speakers
would be worth considering (although I know that Rudi would prefer
heilkunst). I would appreciate the opportunity to do further work
on this.
|
Forums
Courses
Shop
Diseases
Articles
Journal
Directory
