Tag Archives: Aphorisms


……………………………………………………….When old ideas which are antithetical to Homeopathy (as defined by its founder) are promoted as the latest developments in the art, leaders may well feel obliged to speak up. and wonder, “…rather should we experiment and test what is true and effective in Homeopathy today?” I can’t resist responding to this question with another question: has something about disease and healing so fundamentally changed that today’s Homeopathy must be different from that of previous eras? What was this event, when did the change occur, and how must Homeopathy therefore change?

He asks, “how do we ‘know’ the medicinal action of homeopathic drugs?” and whether the Organon’s principles remain verifiably true. Many seem to be unclear about the


meaning and importance of Hahnemann’s inductive logic, relative to “other ways of knowledge.” The implication is that these principles are simply one man’s ideas, to be tested and improved in the course of time, along with the ideas of many other theorists and thinkers.

I would respectfully suggest that these concerns show a failure to grasp the true stature of this man and his work, and the extent to which recorded experience has long since verified his teachings.

Inductive logic makes Homeopathy unique

Inductive methods are indeed valued over others in Homeopathy, due to Hahnemann’s awareness of the long history of false hopes and dead ends in medical approaches which relied on other sources of knowledge such as deduction and intuition. The very relentlessness that makes his chastisements sound so harsh also drove him to painstakingly work out an inductive approach to healing which differs in logical type from any other before or since.

This fundamental distinction is the basis of its superiority over the standard medicine of his day (and of our own), and the reason that repeated attempts to amend it, lacking the inductive foundation, have never been acceptable as extensions of his work. Some ask whether “…we must reject and denounce the premises of Electroacupuncture by Voll, radionics, medical psychics, Jung, Whitmont, shamans, and Rife as folly and quackery?” I think the best response here is to quote Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them.” Many traditions and individuals have touched on certain aspects of the territory, and of course conventional medicine has accumulated masses of fragmentary data.

Homeopathy, however, offers us something qualitatively unique: a comprehensive map including a system of principles that illuminates the energetic basis of disease and health, sets out an effective method of removing illness, provides a way to understand the process, and applies to every curable case.

200 years after Hahnemann’s discoveries, persistent and skillful application of homeopathic principles will still lead to genuine cures. If we know and understand the value of this system, if our work is Homeopathy, we are ethically obliged to rely on the principles, and on trustworthy information derived from them, rather than on intuition or hypothesis. Judges are bound to follow the law and the principles of justice, navigators must use the compass and map, and homeopaths must apply the truths of the Organon

The “advances” and “innovations” in question do not build on the principles, but ignore and contradict them. Hahnemann was well-acquainted with the medical hypotheses of his day, which included the doctrine of signatures and the use of compound chemical medicines chosen for the presumed activity of their constituents. He clearly repudiated both of these ideas as clinically unreliable and logically inconsistent with the empirical foundations of Homeopathy. This is not string theory, nor rocket science—it is more like trying to use mud and thatch to build a new wing onto a structure made of marble and granite.

“…in many published cases as demonstrated by Scholten and Sankaran, successful prescriptions were made of a combination salt such as Natrum arsenicum based on the indications of its constituent elements, rather than its recorded provings. How is this not inductive reasoning similar to that of Hahnemann?” This is an example, rather, of deduction—attempting to deduce the properties an unknown remedy from those of two others which have been proven, rather than building step by step on observation, from the ground up, as required by the inductive method Hahnemann taught. For instance, Calcarea sulphuricum and Hepar sulph. are both remedies containing sulphur and calcium; we know about their respective medicinal properties only through provings. “Synthetic prescribing” was unsound


when Kent proposed it 100 years ago, and it is still an instance of putting the theoretical cart before the empirical horse. “Hahnemann indeed provided us a true compass to find our way in healing humanity.

Though the principles of Homeopathy he expounded are not broken and are still reliable, it isappropriate to question their immutability and infallibility.” This passage strikes me as contradictory. Either the principles are reliable and fully proven, or not. How does one see it—“broke,” or “don’t need fixing”? Does the compass need to be verified again at each use, or can we count on it tomorrow, as we did yesterday?

The lure of novelty

Why has Homeopathy’s history been so marked by recurring conflicts between strict Hahnemannians and those who wish to redefine and transform the discipline? I suspect that there are three major factors which motivate the advocates of transformation: the search for short cuts, the creative urge, and self-promotion. None of these motivations are evil or unusual, but each puts “the physician’s high and only mission” at grave risk. Better education for homeopaths, grounded in the principles and promoting critical thinking and high standards, is urgently needed to act as a restraining influence on these natural tendencies. As a culture, we are entranced with newness. We confuse novelty with significance, knowledge and cleverness with understanding. We expect constant updates and revisions, the periodic appearance of revolutionary new paradigms replacing all that came before. The impact of this obsession is at least as problematic for Homeopathy as for other areas of science, technology, and the arts. While the data of Homeopathy will continue to be updated and revised, its foundation ofessential principles is deeply rooted in the bedrock of Creation. The law of similars, proving of medicines, potentization, single remedy, minimum dose, hierarchy of symptoms, miasmatic basis of disease—there’s very little need to revisit these points. We can count on them.

Evaluating Symptoms

It rained in Palma Mallorca yesterday. I took a long walk in it to remind me of what Im heading back to.

The rain gave me time to think about how to explain Hahnemanns methodology in ascertaining prescribing symptoms through his instructions in the Organon. It is very clear in each section (aphorism) but it is not until ALL the instructions are put together and looked at collectively, does it become absolutely clear for each case.

What needs to be clarified is the true meaning of aphorism 153:

“In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.”

Only by keeping this in mind whilst looking at the other instructions given in the Organon can we see what we are looking for in selecting symptoms for prescribing. When I got back from my walk in the rain, I spent a couple of hours putting together a lecture for the Seville Seminar in October explaining this…..

Members of the I.H.M. in the main use the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen, The reason for this is because Boenninghausen managed to create the perfect tool to facilitate Hahnemanns methodology in case taking. This again will be explained in detail at the seminar.

Thoughts on aphorism 5

§ 5
Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

In acute disorders which have appeared, take a look at what possibly could have triggered it. (A change in diet, a food stuff, a cold, a wetting, stress, a blow, weather etc etc.. you get the idea). Also following this suggestion, when looking at a chronic disorder, look back through the health history and see if there are trigger points or indicators for the onset or reason for the current state, and usually when this is done, an infection or resultant disease state from infection (or inherited) can be pinpointed. Dont forget to take a look at the lifestyle, what his employment is,(does anything in that cause a health problem) how he looks after his health in his habits, how he gets on with others to get an idea of his temperament, both in health and in sickness. Compare pre sickness and how he displays everything now during his diseased state.

Homoeopathy the therapy, is suffering from poor teaching in the schools. What is necessary is to teach medicine without political, spiritual or religious overlays.

Dr Hahnemann gives clear advice as to how to ascertain what is wrong with the patient, and how to get that information. He pays more attention to forming an individual and unique picture of how a patient is affected, rather than rely on generalised symptoms of a named disease.