As it was at the beginning of the 20th Century, homeopathy is again at a cross roads. Students and practitioners of homeopathy are dealing with allopathically biased studies while at the same time their exposure to new homeopathic approaches that are not always based on homeopathy’s laws and principles is ever increasing. Divergent opinions can exist for the sake of progress. However, a truly objective person takes account of objections to his opinions and decides how he proposes to meet them; he discusses rival views and shows why he cannot accept them. Hahnemann was such man. Unfortunately such a person is then often viewed as egotistic, threatening and dogmatic. These days in homeopathic circles, to live and let live without criticism is much more comfortable. There are always new techniques in homeopathy, and neo gurus promising an easier way to the simillimum, although not only are most of their squiggles near the zero base (not adding anything), but they add up to noise that drowns out the music and insight and impedes the true progress of classical homeopathy. Too many homeopaths fall into the process of transference, a blend of love, admiration and attachment, as they hear what they want to hear and fail to have critical thinking. Such neo-gurus make deliberate and conscious use of the very real human tendency for transference in which he becomes the object of love and dependency and achieves great success by doing so.
Erudition is extensive knowledge acquired chiefly from books. Scholarship involves intellectual self-discipline, which consists of the scrupulous consideration of objections and alternatives. Both are needed in any scientific exploration. But dogmatism is always a threat to such exploration because it blocks the objections and alternatives to any new theory! A truth that has been merely learned adheres at most like transplanted skin, but a truth won by independent thinking can truly be owned. It is my goal through my books to make a scholar out of the reader as well as a critical thinker, one who constructs his opinion by collecting the opinions of others after in depth analysis while laboriously thinking for himself. To develop the skill to achieve the level needed to succeed in these challenging circumstances, the ideal practitioner should be courageous yet cautious; and they should be inquisitive–born adventurers and discoverers.
The Organon should be the most cherished book of homeopaths. Our first duty is not to the patient but to the truth, which when loyally served, best enables us to do the greatest good to the sick. Our need is not to prove anything to other people. Our job is to do the work and apply the principles so that the proof can be seen by all. The time has come that our schools must enforce a closer study of the Organon. I never saw a practitioner who had thoroughly acquainted himself with the Organon become lost as to what to do and how to move in an emergency, and whosoever denies this, knows not the length and breadth of this wonderful book. Many claim to know the Organon but when pushed for answers they are blind. The rules that are in the Organon will lead any man to a pure, successful homeopathic practice and such man will retain forever the enthusiasm of the true student.
Books can be divided into meteors, moving stars and fixed stars. The first kind, meteors, produce a momentary effect: you gaze up, cry: “Look!” and then it vanishes forever. The second kind, moving stars, endure somewhat longer, but soon they must vacate their place as they shine only on borrowed light, and their sphere of influence is limited to their own fellow travelers or contemporaries. But the third kind, fixed stars, to which the Organon belongs, is unchanging, and shines by their own light, influencing all ages equally, as they belong to the Universe and mankind. But it is precisely because they are so high that their light usually takes so many years to reach the eyes of man on earth. The Organon reached such height simply because it was written, not for gain, but for what Hahnemann in his wisdom had to say to provide humankind with a true natural healing method that united the body and mind.
the years I heard the proclamation: “I tried classical homeopathy, but it does not work. But now I try this “advanced” method, this esoteric approach and I have great success. Times have changed and so did diseases.” Since when? Does such homeopath forget that homeopathy is based on laws of nature and do these laws change over time? Would such person claim that because of the last fifty years of study research and practice, the law of gravity has changed and now an apple could be made to fall faster? We have studied more remedies than before and our verifications are more complete, but the law, has and never will change! Watered down and antipathic versions of Hahnemann’s instructions for case taking and management, as the homeopathic world over the last years has been bombarded with, do nothing but damage to our sacred homeopathic principles and to the patients depending on a more accurate application to regain their health. Since the 6th edition of the Organon, not one thing of value has been added that warrants a 7th edition and I challenge anyone in the homeopathic world to show me an aphorism that should be replaced.
What about the neo-gurus in homeopathy? They are always busy to introduce a “new” theory expressed by a single “new” (not invented by them though) word in order to step backwards towards the more Hahnemannian classical homeopathy, albeit without giving up the esoteric, based on the same squiggles, and then pronouncing this again as the “advanced and only method” to succeed in practice. After having misled the homeopathic community for a long time, leading to therapeutical failures and homeopaths abandoning the field in droves while still mesmerizing the simple souls, backpedaling is the only resource left and the new theory has to be wrapped in a new inflated packing in order to obtain a new impetus to maintain their name and to set themselves up on their little thrones. With the homeopathic science on firm footing thanks to Hahnemann, all esoteric teaching should be pushed aside and the secret power of gaining power through fancy words is only an expression of profound ignorance.
In order to help students and practicing physicians in gaining more knowledge to be successful in practice, there needs to be a tremendous change in how cases are presented in schools and seminars. Almost every time, cases that are presented, are reported to have an amazing result with just a single one dose prescription, making all the mental, emotional and physical symptoms disappear miraculously! To my amazement, I find myself in this 21st Century surrounded by practitioners who far succeed what Hahnemann himself could do. Has anyone of those “geniuses” read Hahnemann’s Paris case diaries and A246 of the Organon: “as long as there is marked improvement, no more medicine is needed…For one thing, this is rarely the case in chronic diseases (Emphasis by author)…and A247, “It is inadmissible to repeat, even once, exactly the same dose of medicine without modifying it, let alone many times…It would be even more useful if the same patient could be seen (in schools for instance) on a monthly basis to see what real progress was made, not the usual, “I gave this remedy and 6 months later the patient was cured!” This does not correspond to the real practice and only discourages students and honest practitioners thinking that they are not as smart as these pretenders! I and others want to hear “what happened during these 6 months!” All too often real knowledge and proper practice management are confused with fantasies, assumptions, fairy tales and projections with disastrous results! If homeopathy wants to survive (I always believe it will) and prove that it is the superior kind of medicine in the world, than it is time to stop undermining homeopathy with pure fantasies and follow Hahnemann’s teachings without making a diluted version of them.
Luc De Schepper – www.drluc.com
Dr. Luc, what a coincidence! I wrote an article last month called “Organo-phobia (Fear of Reading the Organon)” and I talked about you, and a lot of your fans showed up in the comments section to sing your praises! https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/tidbits-24-organo-phobia-fear-of-reading-the-organon/
Amen! Now go and read it: http://www.legatum.sk/en:hahnemann:organon:start
Dr Luc, thank you for speaking the truth! If we “dare to know” as Hahnemann challenged, we will read and study the Organon, and we must, to imitate him well, as he also challenged.
The Organon is inexhaustible, our most trustworthy and enduring light.
Thanks for all you do and teach in adherence to it, to Hahnemann– and for encouraging us to keep studying and thinking!
Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon has been the standard basic work of homeopathy since its very beginning. During Hahnemann’s life (1755 – 1843) five editions of his Organon were published. His final and most refined edition came into print in 1922. It served as a reference work for generations of homeopaths.
An “Organon” is an instruction on how to acquire a specific certain knowledge. It is an instrument of thought and especially a means of reasoning based on a system of logic.
Samuel Hahnemann used this term in the title of his work: “Organon of the healing art” which is referred to as Hahnemann’s “Organon”. Hahnemann’s Organon is organized in aphorisms. These aphorisms contain a lot of contemporary medical views, expressions and terminology. From today’s perspective these medical inclusions are outdated and only serve as a historical background.
Outdated too are the many criticisms contained in Hahnemann’s Organon. Overshadowed by anger with the so-called medical profession, Hahnemann’s Organon became a political pamphlet, relentlessly attacking the medical profession of the time, a purpose I would argue we don’t need any longer in the 21st century.
However, what made Hahnemann’s Organon a milestone in medicine, was Hahnemann’s realisation that the true potential of medicines cannot be found by physics, chemistry or by testing on sick patients. This true potential of medicines can only be experienced by testing them on healthy humans.
For most of his live Hahnemann believed in the importance of his theory on chronic disease, which provided him with reasons why one medicine did not always cure the whole malady. This theory enabled him to classify medicines which he hoped would simplify the selection process. Yet the results of his treatment of chronic disease were disappointing.
Only at the end of his life did he realise, that remedy selection based on classification violates the basic principle of homeopathy “Cure by symptom similitude”. A medicine does not initiate a curative process because it belongs to a certain group of medicines associated with a disease; it cures because of its symptom similitude to the individual case of disease.
Hahnemann’s complex writing style proved to be an almost insurmountable obstacle when trying to decipher the meaning of the Aphorisms. Even for a person with a knowledge of Latin and good linguistic skills, understanding some of these Aphorisms is difficult and tedious. The English translation is no more accessible and perhaps even more difficult to unravel. All of this makes Hahnemann’s Organon a difficult book to study and understand.
For many years, I have been writing commentaries and explanations on the Aphorisms, in an effort to help others gain a basic understanding of homeopathy. In 2013, I realized that a new “Organon of Homeopathy” (Orgh) would be the ideal solution.
Taking Hahnemann’s Organon, I set out to:
1) Remove contemporary medical references/ jargon
2) Omit the theory of chronic diseases
3) Remove provocative polarising remarks
4) Eliminate all remarks concerning what a “homeopath” is. (– homeopathy is a method and does not personalize itself)-.
5) Eliminate all claims that homeopathy is the only true therapy which cures-.
6) Omit Hahnemann’s introduction
After completing this first phase, I continued by:
1) Examining the remaining aphorisms, removing what was mere repetition within each aphorism.
2) Separating some aphorisms for easier understanding
3) Constructing simple straight forward sentences
4) Adding new paragraphs where needed-.
Having finished the second step, I was left with very clear aphorisms albeit disorganized and in some cases duplicated. I continued with the following steps:
1) Removing duplicated aphorisms
2) Arranging the aphorisms in a logical order
The final result is a concise, easy to understand, Organon of Homeopathy (OrGH)
We all know what (and who) you mean Luc… It is so true that only real Hahnemannian homeopathy will be able to survive. The Organon is out most stable back-up; everything you need to know has been written down by Hanhemann, only after extensive inquiry. Modern research confirms a lot of his ideas and will confirm even more in the future!
Who are these neb-gurus then Luc?
And is not saying so limiting your ability for objectivity and discussion?
A lot of more contemporary homeopathic methodology has been driven by the Mumbai (Sankaran et al) group or Jan Schoulten, or Louis Klein, and what they’ve contributed to homeopathy, (one recent article here about Schoulten comments on this) has in my practice facilitated more consistent, broad and deeper results light years ahead of what I was able to accomplish relying solely on pre-existing classical means: how/what I was originally taught. Is this the kind of statement you don’t like to hear? Marc V-W said we know who you mean; I can only assume it is the above practitioners you’re referring to. Please correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m right then I’m not so impressed with your ability to be a critical and objective thinker, although you can expertly write about it. The bottom line in homeopathy is results, the kind we know we can get.
Hahnemann was on this same page. He wanted a principle for medicine that would bring consistency in healing.
None of the serious contemporaries disregard Hahnemann’s work or his Organon. They use it, they teach it and are adept in grasping the truths and gems therein and applying them to our practices.
Progress maintains what has worked, what still works and can be applied, then brings in something else that brings us forward. Nobody has said forget all you know, all that has been before this. More said is to integrate the new with the old. Critical thinking applies to the old and the new if its truly going to improve our results, our consistency, and meet the healing potential we have, giving homeopathy its place in modern healthcare.
lively discussion and good points!
@ Marty B. Did you check such innovations as Drug personalities, Kingdoms, Constitutions, elements with the principles of homoeopathy, ie. those laid down in Org.: 6ed. ??
You may consider the following paragraphs and then come back to us telling us if you still think that such innovations are an addition to homoeopathy or maybe– after studying the Organon you may come to the realisation, that those innovations are an reintroduction of allopathic methodology.
par.: 144
From such a materia medica everything that is conjectural, all that is mere assertion or imaginary should be strictly excluded; everything should be the pure language of nature carefully and honestly interrogated.
also par.: 54, 55. 285/1.
At this point I frequently hear in defence of new methods, that Hahnemann if he would have lived longer would have introduced all these innovations.
– Besides being hypothetical, it is unlikely that Hahnemann would have introduced something into the Organon which is contradictory to Homoeopathy’s basic principles, which remained unaltered throughout all editions of the Organon.
Personally I think, that if someone feels strong enough about new discoveries and methods of prescribing, this person should go ahead with it, put their own name under it and then see — some homoeopaths of the past had character enough to do this, such as Schuessler, or Bach.
But nowadays, these self-proclaimed masters are too scared to put their own name under their methods. They still feel the need to stay on the band wagon.
@Hans
With regard to your comment that “self-proclaimed masters are too scared to put their own name under their methods”, I don’t understand such a comment given that firstly, of the newer methods I’ve utilized, I haven’t really witnessed a self-proclaimation of mastery. Certainly not from an egotistic stance. Maybe from an intention/ambition of achieving mastery – what we all want right? Secondly I’ve not seen a withholding of name.
And I’m in a position where I would know. Secondly, pgh. 144 is fundamental and important for us all to grasp and apply. In the contemporary methods that I have found indispensable, a maintenance of the utmost scrutiny for conjecture has always been a part of the teachings. Even more so, recently, in response to that risk for upcoming homeopaths. I think its very important to teach them (as is done) how to read provings, and within any method, how to understand, perceive, and distinguish between what is reliable and what is imaginary. A large part of this has to do with perceptual skills. Lou Klein has taught me I have to be ‘flexibly exact’. If we aren’t we are limiting ourselves.
Homeopaths can have trouble making distinctions for such a paradoxical principle especially those that are more left brained and logical. But the brain is plastic and the right brain can be developed. The prerequisite is to be open to it. I’m not saying our intuition is to be relied on in a major way, but we need to give permission for its use. Its extremely important, as is the inference for groups with commonalities. Nature’s voice – the symptomatic expression of a remedy – is very complex. Relying on a “pile” of rubrics, even if S,R, and P., is not always enough. Neither is relying on the repertory. There are so many remedies not there. Its still an excellent tool, but riddled with problems. It lends itself to bias as well. Claiming that polycrests cover most cases I would say is an imaginary position. Fortunately nature’s voice – in its complexity – is organized in its expression, emergence, and evolution. This is why we can trust inferential groupings (which still need testing clinically and in provings) Jan Schoulten has capitalized on this. This is new and beyond what Hahnemann has taught as far as I know. But no breaking-ground clinicians I know give up fundamental Hahnemannian principles, and there are always prior-known ideas applied to progressive approaches. BTW, I object to your removing of the theory of chronic diseases. Why would you do that? I’m sorry, but this makes your organon project sound a little hypocritical.
@Hans
I realized I’ve more indirectly addressed your comments above. Let me be a bit more directly responsive, because I think you’re way off.
This comment especially: “you may come to the realisation, that those innovations are an reintroduction of allopathic methodology”
Hahnemann’s context is historical (and please leave the history alone in your bold remaking of the organon)
And his verve for the groundlessness of allopathic methods was very proportional to the allopathy of the times.
The defence for newer methods that I’ve heard the most does not have to do with Hahnemann probably introducing these innovations if he’d lived longer. Notwithstanding the absurdity of the projection of history after its already passed, the most pertinent point is that Hahnemann was himself innovative. After all, his free of prejudice aphorism lends itself to that. He was humble enough to know he hadn’t brought homeopathy to the point of curing all chronic disease. So in the spirit of looking for the patterns of nature, like we do in modern methods, he came up with his miasms, still very useful now, and built on for a more holistic and applicable understanding of chronic disease. I actually think remedy “personalities” can be misleading. But it had its day, and has pushed our evolution toward mastery further. George Vitoulkas, a staunch classicist, would take offence to your categorizations of constitutions as something allopathic, since it was him that introduced that approach. He had his place as well in evolving homeopathy, but then he hung onto some of the same biases you have.
Dear Readers dear Marty B.
Without entering a detailed organon debate it remains my view based on my personal research, that Hahnemann is not Homeopathy.
Hahnemann failed to recognize when introducing miasmatic prescribing as a means of selecting a homoeopathic remedy, that miasmatic prescribing is allopathic procedure (as it is prescribing by disease name arrived by diagnosing).
It cannot be, that on the one side the individual symptoms of disease alone determine a homeopathic medicine, and on the other side, a misas is “diagnosed” so, that a medicine is selected from associated remedies, excluding all not associated medicines.
The same applies to constitutional prescribing, prescribing by elements, kingdoms, personalities etc.
Towards the end of his life Hahnemann realised this falacity and did not diagnose miasms any more as we can see in his own case work. Miasmatic diagnoses played NO role any more for his selections.
To solve the problems with chronic ailments he sought and found solutions elsewhere, mainly in the mode of preparation and application of medicines.
The result of this is reflected in Org.: 6: there is no reference to C-potencies.
This is only one but very central point of misunderstanding of homeopathy which I identified.
As for myself, I studied Hahnemann’s works and journals in the originals. My findings are all I like to pass on and leave it up to the learned reader to make up his / her own mind.
My references are:
Hahnemann S.: Organon der Heilkunst / Textkritische Ausgabe der 6. Auflage / Josef M. Schmidt
Hahnemann S. : Krankenjournale DF5 und DF3.
Hahnemann, S.: Reine Arzneimittellehre, band 1 – 6, Dresden und Leipzig 1825 – 1833
Hahnemkann S.: Chronische Krankheiten, band 1 – 5 Dresden und Leipzig 1835 – 1839
ET. Al.
@Hans W. I think you see some things wrong here… I don’t believe a miasm is ‘diagnosed’, especially not after diagnosing a disease name! The miasm is showing itself by the type of symptoms. However, one cannot exclude certain groups of remedies because of a miasmatic typing of these remedies since most remedies have the tree miasms intrinsically, depending on the phase of life or phase of illness of the patient.
The physician Boissiere de Sauvage (1707 – 1767) was an opponent of theory and follower of simple experience.
Boissiere wrote the following (in “Nosologie methodique“):
Miasmatic diseases are those diseases, which are caused by miasmatic matter. Miasmatic matter is an evaporation which contains invisible destructive particles.”
Boisiere classes as “Viral diseases”: syphilis, scabies, lepra, finn and tetters. They are created in the body and are transferred directly.
Hahnemann was familiar with his work: “Nosologie methodique“, which he used at the time of his own dissertation.
According Hahnemann (CK, ORG.) a miasm is !diagnosed! = identified by a combination of symptoms and assumed to be present.
This is done in exactly the same way like any other disease name.
There are acute miasmatic diseases and chronic miasmatic diseases (ORG).
Acute one’s would be : measles, –mumps, — chicken pox.
Chronic Ones: Syphilis, Sycosis , Psora
You got to familiarize yourself with CK part One, where Hahnemann gives the indicative symptoms for all 3 Chronic miasmatic diseases, active and latent and change your current view which is WRONG.
Hans
Thanks for consolidating your thinking.
I see what you’re saying, – I think.
Is there a reference that demonstrates Hahnemann rejected his miasmatic theory entirely as he went on
explore potencies variations? One thing I’m sure he never abandoned was the law of similars, hopefully our unyielding common ground!
I’m also wondering whats behind your ambition to tear apart the Organon.
You know, there’s practice and theory. How’s your theoretical framework working out in practice?
If you want to make good prescriptions, then take what you can from the organon to that ends.
Then a whole new book can be written!
This is what contemporary and progressive homeopaths do. We test theory in practice. This is what Hahnemann was doing in his work at his time.
He gave us some amazing guidelines. Now we use them and we share with each other whats worked for us from what Hahnemann wrote, and whats worked from what we ourselves may have developed. We hilight for each other the wisdom in his Organon that APPLIES to our practices NOW.
The use of miasms have been extremely valuable in my practice, and fascinating. And when I see a nosode work for someone – Wow! The depth of cure is awesome! How about for you and your practice? Oh, it hasn’t? Maybe because you’re excluding modern interpretations from your thinking.
Take a look at Sankaran and Klein’s work on them. Do yourself a favour and don’t exclude them entirely.
I like that you mentioned “…excluding all not associated medicines” (The rest before that doesn’t make sense) This is very ‘Boenninghausen’
He was inclusive in his technique. Homeopaths need to be this way in general; in the community, in themselves, and I think in their approach.
Finding remedies to cure chronic disease using homeopathy starts with being non-exclusionary, but then one has to narrow the totality down to understanding nature’s expression distinctly. This is not allopathic reductionism. This is working with nature’s complex individualities and the dynamics that lie there in. This is homeopathy.
Working with miasms is one very practical way of helping with this. We need all the help we can get. Using homeopathy well is not easy. Working with miasms gives form, life and an evolutionary basis to the expression of chronic disease. We need this – we need to perceive the genius and a lot of the form of the totality accurately to use homeopathy. Sankaran has hilighted the frequency and intensity aspect of miasm; this gives form, helps perception. Klein (see his Miasms and Nosodes book)has understood the microorganism’s purpose relative to our patients and their connection to larger, more global motivations. Hahnemann got this ball rolling on this!
Honor that!!!
Anything that brings us to those practical ends is good man! Ultimately the evidence for what to give our time, energy, and focus to, is how well your patients do. We need to cure the sick, dude, don’t forget that or leave that out of the revised Organon!!
Whatever us homeopaths are going to bring to the table, this needs to be the test. We need to say I’ve used this and its working. Sure we can have our theoretical musings as to why, but we shouldn’t get ungrounded in these. Nor is it useful to get stuck in history, or stuck on some personal premise for prescribing. Sure we all have our styles and affinities to what we can use best, but lets be inviting of any honest and experienced homeopath teachings/methods, see if they work for us and others; then if it good, adapt them if we can integrate them into our own ways. Embrace the science and the art!
An” Organon” with deletions and additions?! The Organon Hahnemann gave us is genius in its totality, timeless in it’s concepts (the intro! etc). It works for me in principle & in practice. I think you’re doing a disservice to the book and to its brilliant, passionate author.
Lot of questions —
Hahnemann never completely revoked the miasm theory in public, but in practise did so. He realised that with his initial 12! remedies he was unable to cure psora, then with 42 he still had the same problem, and then moved on.
I don’t deny the fascination of miasms and whatever theory is put up, only, — they are NOT useful for the selection of a now needed medicine.
As homoeopaths we should be first and foremost concerned to get our patients cured the quickest and most gentle way.
I don’t belief in name bashing, but would like to draw the attention on those gentlemen who claim to be classical prescribers and continue to use C -potencies in a one shot fashion. This does not add-up. Some of them even declared to me that: It’s all in the Organon belief me!!
I asked for references, — well nothing came back, and — there are no C-potenies in the last Organon (6).
I am not against innovations, but first all what is already established has to be utilized to its full. I wonder if anyone who has done that and continues using Q-potencies to their full capacity, relying on the original provings will ever feel the need to innovate homoeopathy?
Why would we need a synthetically created remedy picture of Calc-Sulph, if we already have a good proving of Hep-s?
Why is there that compulsory need for more and more remedies, if the already well proven remedies aren’t even utilized to their full extent? Boenninghausen had 250 remedies at his disposal, but used only 130, — because the rest did not bring any advantage. –and at the end of his life with growing knowledge of the remedies used about 20 remedies to do 85% of his cases. We got to economize in order to remain competitive.
@Organon: The way I went about it is already outlined above.
Now, — what percentage of you’s is capable to read and understand the Organon in German? BIG PROBLEM — all English versions are inaccurate one way or another. And even so, how would you’s know that your interpretation of content is correct? Only by bouncing the aphorisms off Hahnemann’s case work. Yeah– easier said then done! Very few English transcriptions available, which would not be sufficient for a definite interpretation.
So Here I went, — from around 2000 on back and forth to the archives in Stuttgart, — where the originals are kept. Luckily DF5 and DF” are transcribed into German.
Every new thing I discovered was clinically tested, and only after a lot of experience adopted or rejected. After about 10 years and more than 15tsd LM-cases, I came to a point where nothing entirely new emerged. I gave it another 4 years of thorough testing to be convinced beyond any doubt, that I got it right. At this point end of 2013 after considering all different avenues, I decided to create this:
ORGANON OF HOMEOPATHY.
This forms central part of my book: RATIONAL HOMEOPATHY. A preview was published here a moth ago.
This article conflates appropriate criticism of the prevailing poor educational standards in homeopathy with fundamentalism that has no place in the modern age. Let me explain:
1) The concern with practitioners of homeopathy leaping to advanced methods that promise simple results is spot-on. So-called Hahnemannian homeopathy is an excellent and essential foundation for exploring more advanced, sometimes speculative techniques. The lack of infrastructure for primary education in homeopathy needs to be addressed directly at the political level: in its absence popular seminars are attended by inadequately trained students and clinicians. Yet it doesn’t follow that such techniques are faulty as such, only that they are utilized by improperly trained clinicians.
2) The descent into Hahnemannian fundamentalism is both reactive and reflective of an Aristotelian attitude toward science: natural philosophers (what later came to be know as physicists) prior to Galileo and Newton were preoccupied with studying, commenting on, and refining Aristotle’s physics for 2000 years – during which time elaborating on, but not overruling his word was permissible – with minimal results. The scientific Enlightenment that followed was characterized by a turn away from reliance on authority in both science and religion and toward attention to the world.
3) It is true that homeopathy relies on observation and is at best highly scientific in its clinical methodology, but the prevailing world view of most homeopaths remains Aristotelian, and Hahnemann’s work is continued to be debated as if it had more relevance than the reality of homeopathy as a clinical tool. Can you imagine if we still debated Newton’s works (which were mostly mystical and theological rather than scientific) and sought to emulate his (misanthropic) character? Where would physics be today?
In order to survive and flourish we must move beyond the tug-of-war between the cultish fundamentalism of this article and the sometimes irresponsible inventiveness which it criticizes. This will only possible by recognizing that homeopathy is a science that must not confined to Hahnemann’s last word, even as it acknowledges its gigantic debt to him, and yet must respect the basic tenets of critical thinking that characterize the scientific spirit. Otherwise homeopathy’s fate will remain to rise and fall with the changing fashions of the world, instead of growing and instituting itself permanently in the fabric of future civilization.
Hans, my friend…
So really – Hahnemann never specifically revoked the miasmatic theory; he just moved forward to dealing with potencies. Isn’t then it hard to say where he stood with miasms or if even he, in fact, still utilized them?
How can you say newer miasmatic theories are not useful “of a now needed medicine” (not sure what you mean by this; I guess you mean present day), – if you – yourself – have not used them.
You sound very convinced that what you’ve researched in your scholarly efforts with Hahnemann is all we need for practice, and more specifically only the Q potency approach. If you’ve had 15000 cured LM cases, that IS very impressive, and I can see why you’re so adamate. What do you mean by “nothing new emerged” ??
I’d love to see a few examples of those cured cases to see how broad and deep the cure is. Maybe I can simply ask you how they fair in that respect? By the breadth I mean to what extent there’s an eradication of all presenting complaints reported/not reported from the first visit you’ve accomplished with the patient, and by the depth I mean how things don’t return, with a preventative effect of other symptoms/conditions; as well as how much of an overall change in the patients themselves relative to their main individual challenge or their dynamic source of pathology. i.e.. how much they’ve come to thrive in themselves relative to their environment.
Long term follow up would also be necessary to assess this. You could rate these 2 parameters on a scale of 1-10, and your cases as a percentage of those values. Of course, it’d be a rough idea for the sake of not having to reread all those cases. Can you do that for me?
I’ve heard from other practitioners utilizing Q potencies that they weren’t so impressed at the difference between using LMs and using CH. That in fact they get still got big aggravations from the LMs. I use CH and am generally satisfied. I’ve had the impression that the remedy selection is most important, but there are those that are happy with LMs and low CH potencies. And in recent research of electromagnetic field changes I’ve heard demonstrate that potency matters.
Oh, by the way, you’re talking about your cases right? Not Hahnemann’s right?
If you have seen Hahnemann’s cases, I’d be curious as to how deep and broad they are as well!
Good discussion
@Marty – The analysis of Hahnemanns case journals gives a definite answer how he determined his remedies. Throughout DF5 and Df2 psora was not mentioned once. There is no hint in his repertorisations.
@use of new miasmatic theories: I don’t deny, that any theory any system of determining a remedy will bring as a result a remedy which looks to suit the case as seen through its glasses.
But this is not what homeopathy is about. Hahnemann set out to do away with preoccupation, preselection when he uses the term “unprejudiced observer”. He clearly speaks out against any theoretical “system” etc. in par.: 1 footnote.
Personally ,I find it unethical to perform medical experiments on the sick and suffering, and therefore avoid them.
@casework, — Q-potencies are of advantage in somehow chronic cases, but the proper selection of the medicine is even more important. This is only possible on a properly established individualized disease-symptom-picture, which is drawn out of a disease-symptom-picture. Now, — this is – as I see it frequently – the biggest problem: lack of clarity what is disease- what is normality, –.
Without a firm grip, you lose the case. With Kent’s approach, which sees every symptom as a pathological change and important for the selection of the now needed medicine, you lose the case!
For Kent it’s the entire person to be cured, for Hahnemann it is the disease to be cured! And those are two fundamentally different things.
I studies Boenninghausen’s cases, I was overwhelmed !! There are more than 60 000 cases in his journals with a very high cure rate! He treated far more cases than Hahnemann. – And I figured out how he did it–.
I published 10 sample cases as part of my book. I would not have time to edit every case – it’s simply not possible.