Homoeopathy us par excellence the science of psychology as applied to the proper understanding of the disorders of mankind and their rational treatment. In thus having a back-ground of psychology Homoeopathy has no doubt taken an intelligent lead in the correct diagnosis of psychological ills which “human flesh is heir to.” But if Homoeopathy is to maintain and strengthen its hold as a superior therapeutic science the time has come when it must revise some of its conclusions and adapt them to the growing researches in the scientific world.
We Homoeopaths should not adopt “the philosophy of ostrich” and refuse to put an eye to the telescope for fear of the seeing things that had no “official” right to exist. The researches in the domain of Applied Psychology during the first half of twentieth century has shed light on the hitherto hidden recesses of the human mind and solved to some extent the intricacies of its abnormal manifestation and development. In the light of the above we must boldly face the facts, examine them critically and search out the truth and incorporate them in our own science.
Master Hahnemann, has put down in his Organon certain rules of investigation which a physician should follow in order to learn the factors “which have tended to increase his (patients) malady or in how far they may favour or hinder the treatment.” Amongst them the state of disposition and mind is one of the most important and it must be attended to, to learn whether that presents any obstacle to the treatment or requires to be directed, encouraged or modified. This is the most important part of the whole statement and we must discuss and illucidate it in the light of modern psychical researches.
We have been rightly taught that a spiritual vital force animates our material body and retains all its component units in harmonious co-operation with a view to enable the mind to work this healthy instrument for some higher and nobler purpose of life. Our personality is thus not merely a synthesis and integration of diverse functions but there is also implied in it a higher unity of the self which is conative and purposive.
But “it is a unity”, as Dr. T. W. Mitchell asserts, “which is not given in the structure of the mind but is something that the self can aspire to and it may by struggle attain.” In the struggle towards this ideal, character is formed, and when such unity as may have been attained is disrupted, the resulting change in personality will reveal itself as a change in character and conduct–“Medical Psychology and Psychical Research.” In order to fully comprehend the real significance of this most remarkable statement of Dr. Mitchell and of Hahnemannian conception of life we must have a clear view of what human nature and character essentially is.
At the back of human nature there are no doubt certain organic appetites and instinct-emotions. But mans character is not, for all practical purposes, essentially instinctive. In the gradual evolution of society and morals from the dark ages to the present time man has learnt to clothe his instincts in various forms and garbs. By training, experience, and reasoning, modern man has acquired diverse methods of expressing his want and trying to satisfy it.
Thus, if a modern man is angry with another, instead of making an instinctive physical attack upon him like his savage ancestor he may take to other subtle ways of injuring him: he may spread scandal about him, he may put obstacles in his business life or he may do other things which are likely to injure his career. [Cf. A.E. Manders “Psychology For Everyman”, p. 11.–Editor.]. Through such experiences, reasoning and training the instinctive impulses become confirmed in certain directions, become fixed upon certain subjects and in certain modes of seeking their goals; or in this way the great sentiments of love, hate, liking, disliking are formed.
But if an unitary personality is to be achieved the various sentiments must be brought into one system within which their impulses shall be harmonised in such a way by a great master, sentiment, that the reason-gifted mind works the healthy instrument for some higher and nobler purpose. Necessarily it then follows as a corollary that when the human mind goes out of gear it becomes the unceasing battle-ground of these instincts and sentiments which overthrows the supremacy of the reason- gifted mind and carry those internecine warfares perpetually amongst themselves to the detriment to the whole organism.
“The crude sex-impulse may be in conflict with romantic idealism or ideas of morality: the egoistic desire for success and prosperity in this world may come into conflict with the social impulses of altruism; the lack of outlet for a moral sex-instinct may warp the old maid or the old bachelor.” In war the instinct of fear and the desire for safety and comfort is in conflict in the mind of soldiers with their ideas of honour, civic sense and sense of patriotic duty and the result shows itself in the development of a vast number of war neurosis.
In order to make my position clear I shall quote several instances from different authors Dr. Gordon in his book “The Neurotic Personality” quotes a case of a youngman who came back to England after the war with paralysis of one hand; the fingers were held stiffly out and he could not work-a fact which gave him the greatest anxiety. He had been a prisoner in Germany and the paralysis dated from a day when a heavy piece of iron fell on his hand. Five minutes explanation and suggestion cured him.
The explanation was as follows: “The man was reacting against his work in the prisoners camp, consciously; he hated working for the enemies of his country and the work itself was hard and unpleasant and there was the unconscious desire of putting up some false pretext for stopping the work: and this pretext showed itself in paralysis.”.
The second case is from Mac.Dougalls “Outline of Abnormal Psychology.”–“A Canadian farmer from the far west who had proved his mettle by volunteering for war service, was sent to the hospital with a peculiar kind of amnesia or loss of memory. He could tell nothing about Canada except that he had been told that it takes three days to go there.
He said that he lived on a farm but can not describe it or explain what a farm is, except to say that it is where there are not many houses; he could not describe a plough; shown a picture of a donkey he calls it a horse; of fox, says it is like a dog but different; of a lion, like a dog also, etc. Tells me that he can not look at war picture in Newspaper”. But this amnesia did not affect experiences: as that of a love matter with a woman with whom he came in contact when he was in a hospital in London. Dr. Mac.Dougall tried hypnosis but it did not prove satisfactory. He then explained to him that the reason he could not recover memory was that his horror of what he has seen prevented him from remembering and that it was absolutely necessary to remember those things.
“You must face them” impressed the Dr. upon him “or you will never be well and the sooner, the better.” A few minutes after this conversation the patient came up excitedly to the Dr. and said “Did I tell you about the machine-gun man?” And he described vividly with gestures a scene in the trenches. With a little encouragement the scene developed and he described freely a long train of exciting incidents for about 15 minutes. Then the Dr. stopped him and said, “Now tell me about your home.”
For about 30 seconds the soldier hesitated; evidently there was an inward acute conflict going on. Then he poured out a flood of recollections of his home life in Canada. It then appeared that the amnesia set in shortly after an incident during a prolonged heavy bombardment in which his chum was wounded. The horror of the trenches was potent cause of repression in the mind of the soldier and there was a second cause and that was domestic complications.
The third case is from Dr. E. Bagbys–“The Etiology of Phobias”. A man of 55 years had suffered since early boyhood a fear of being seized from behind. When on the street he was impelled frequently to look back over his shoulder; and when indoors he preferred to sit with his back against a wall. In his 55th year he returned to the town of his childhood and incidentally paid a visit to the neighbour who had kept the same grocery shop since the patients childhood.
In the course of conversation on early experiences the grocer said “you used to go by this store in errands and when you passed you often took a handful of peanuts from the stand in front. One day I saw you coming and hid behind a barrel. Just as you put your hand in the pile of peanuts I jumped out and grabbed you from behind. You screamed and fell fainting on the side wall.” The incident, we are told, was then recollected by the patient, and the phobia after a period of readjustment disappeared.
Dr. Rivers also cites a case of claustrophobia, i.e. fear of closed spaces, in a Doctor which he traced to some early experiences of the Doctor in his childhood. Singular that from the moment of recollection the irrational fear of closed spaces became less and his general conditions improved. The forgotten experience of rather I must say repressed experience of childhood was the cause of the troubles of later years in both cases.
