Dogmatism is the extreme form of conservatism. The extreme form of progress is unreliability.
The editors of “Homeopathy for Everyone” asked me for a statement in the current debate about new developments in homeopathy. The reason for this request is my theory of the elements, as I described it in my book “Homeopathy and the Elements”, which has become part of the controversial discourse.
I hesitated for a long time before acceding to the request because I cannot comprehend the need for the dispute. The question of whether my considerations are permissible or not never arose for me. The theory of the elements works. For more than ten years it has proven itself in my practice and that of many colleagues. In fact
so many patients have benefited from it that I cannot say how many there are. A colleague once said to me: “The theory of the elements is the only thing in homeopathy that I really master with confidence. Everything else is vague and hard to grasp.” I can only agree with him. The theory of the elements is the most scientific concept within homeopathy. A good scientific theory convinces not only by the truth of its statements but also by elegance. The theory of the elements meets this requirement: it is elegant because it gives the homeopath a deep understanding of the subject matter, and it is true because it is reliable. The theory can be applied by all homeopaths. You can see that simply from the many publications that confirm the concept. The majority of the articles in Homeopathic Links support my theory. Some aspects are already presented as generally valid, for example the connection between mother and Muriaticum or father and Carbonicum. So why this discussion?
The discussion concerns the definition of homeopathy: what characterises this therapy? What belongs to it and what does not? First I will illustrate with some examples that it is not so simple to draw sharp and clear boundaries. Then I will consider the term ‘definition’ from three different viewpoints and examine the linguistic, social and scientific aspects. Finally I will exemplify the use of unproven medicines.
Example: Let us suppose that in the year 1200 a woman was treated by a physician for breast cancer with Conium. And let us assume that the cancer was cured. Can one speak of homeopathy in this case? At that time Conium had not yet been proved as a homeopathic remedy. Many homeopaths would say that the treatment was by no means homeopathic. On the other hand one could reasonably argue that the treatment was carried out according to homeopathic principles, because the patient was cured and therefore Conium must have been the simillimum. Let us also suppose that the physician prescribed his remedy according to the principle of similars, which was already known at that time. Hippocrates formulated it. Would that be homeopathic in that case? Or perhaps the opposite applies: the physician prescribed the remedy based on a doctrine of signatures which states that “the mammary glands in the breast branch in a similar way to the flowers of the spotted hemlock”. Can that already be called homeopathic? What if the physician administered a dilution but not in potentiated form? Homeopathic?
Another example: A general practitioner prescribes salicylic acid for a patient suffering from rheumatic complaints. The medicine helps but only brings temporary relief. A homeopath prescribes the same substance according to homeopathic principles in a high potency and the patient is permanently cured. Was the GP practising homeopathy? After all, he prescribed the simillimum, which was later confirmed when the patient was cured by the administration of a high potency. Or did he not act homeopathically because he did not administer the medicine in potentiated form? Or was it perhaps not homeopathic because the GP does not believe in homeopathy?
From these considerations it becomes clear that it is not easy to define homeopathy adequately. Homeopathy is individual and therefore the definition must also be individual. It is a question of culture. There are many different interpretations of homeopathic doctrine. We also speak of different approaches in homeopathy, such as classical homeopathy, clinical homeopathy and complex homeopathy.
If we scrutinise these different definitions, a whole series of statements can be identified:
Homeopathy
- is a scientific art of healing,
- is based on the principle of similars,
- prescribes according to the principle of similars,
- prescribes substances that have undergone drug provings,
- prescribes potentiated starting substances,
- is what Hahnemann formulated,
- assesses a cure according to Hering's Rule,
- prescribes single remedies,
- prescribes constitutional remedies,
- prescribes the same remedy for life,
- prescribes according to the rules of repertorisation.
The problem is that many aspects of homeopathy are only vaguely formulated. The term ‘classical homeopathy’, for example, is used very frequently without one knowing what is actually meant by it. Is it the homeopathy as practised by Hahnemann? That would mean that no “new” remedies may be prescribed at all. Or does the term mean that one must “repertorise” a case? Or is a unified homeopathy meant? Or the prescription of high potencies?
Without clear definitions the discourse becomes difficult and leads to controversial disputes because the topics blur. But with the term ‘definition’ there is another problem, because it is difficult to find a single universally valid definition. There are many definitions and for that reason alone there will be no solution.
Behind the whole discussion there is often a social and cultural problem. People – including homeopaths – want to belong to a social group that corresponds to their ideas and expectations. But people are always very different and for that reason alone the group can never be homogeneous. An important polarity is conservatism and progress. These two opposites play a major role in homeopathy. The conservatives want to protect and preserve handed-down traditions and the old knowledge in order to create a solid foundation. Essentially this is a very good thing. But when the desire for solid foundations takes on extreme forms, it leads to exaggerated scepticism towards new developments, which can go so far that all new insights are simply rejected. In the worst case this leads to 
dogmatism. One can compare it to people who are always at home and never look outside. This tendency is strongly represented in homeopathy. This has partly to do with Hahnemann himself, who attacked anyone who departed from his own concepts. Another reason for this attitude is the repression in which homeopathy finds itself in large parts of the world. Repression inevitably leads to conservatism: the accompanying fear can be better handled if one clings to things that provide security.
Conservative homeopaths tend to define homeopathy exclusively according to the concepts of the past, i.e. in the sense of Hahnemannian homeopathy. The problem with this kind of definition lies in the rigidity; the science of homeopathy comes to a standstill and development becomes impossible. I would like to illustrate this problem with an example. Conservative homeopaths usually hold the view that one should rely exclusively on homeopathic drug provings. One might therefore assume that they carry out many provings. From my experience I have found that exactly the opposite is true. It is usually the progressive homeopaths who test new substances.
Progress, the desire to discover new worlds and to explore the unknown, stands at the other end of the spectrum. Here there is the danger that development proceeds too quickly and that propositions raised are prematurely treated as “laws”. In this case knowledge can be distorted and theories become unreliable. In the extreme this leads to nebulous, blurred and constantly changing patterns of thought. Every thought, every idea is regarded as a universal theory and every intuition as a gift from God. And every day a new remedy is prescribed.
One can also illuminate homeopathy from a scientific perspective and interpret it according to the homeopathic laws.
A possible definition would therefore be:
Homeopathy is a scientific therapy,
- which is based on the Law of Similars (the simillimum is prescribed),
- which administers medicines in highly diluted and potentiated form (homeopathic potencies), and
- in which the course of healing is assessed by the reactions in the organism (Hering's Rule).
The advantage of such a definition is that it can be formulated independently of social and cultural conventions.
An issue that has been highly controversial in recent years is still the homeopathic prescription according to classifications. There are not a few homeopaths who firmly reject this type of prescription. Classifications, however, are a fundamental part of scientific work; one can even say that science would not exist without classification. It would be strange and unscientific if we did not apply this concept in homeopathy. I would even go so far as to claim that classification as a methodological tool in homeopathy goes back to the old homeopaths. I make this claim reluctantly because I consider it scientifically irrelevant. But Hahnemann himself used classification when he assigned the remedies to three classes: Psora, Sykosis and Syphilis. Hering wrote a very nice article on this subject in which he sets out why the future of homeopathy lies in classification and why this is a necessary step.
But I cannot give a final answer on this subject. This is largely because homeopathy is in development. However, I hope that this article can provide a few impulses for thought.
*******************************************
Source:
Original article
Hering Constantine, ‘On the Study of Homeopathic Materia Medica’ (from “Effects of Snake Venom”, Allentown and Leipzig, by C. Kummer), 1837, British Journal Of Homeopathy.
Scholten, Jan ‘Homeopathy and the Elements’, 2010, Narayana Verlag.
Scholten, Jan, ‘Dogmatism in Homeopathy’, Homeopathic Links, Issue 15, Spring 2002.
Scholten Jan, ‘Homeopathy as Information Science’, Interhomeopathy, October 2006
*******************************************
Jan Scholten
Jan Scholten is a pioneer who has explored the periodic table of the elements for homeopathy and published numerous books on the subject, among them ‘Homeopathy and Minerals’, ‘Homeopathy and the Elements’, and ‘Secret Lanthanides’. He is the founder of Stichting Alonnissos, a foundation that promotes homeopathy and supports many publications, seminars, research projects and clinics.
He lives and works in the Netherlands, where in 1988 he founded the ‘Homeopathisch Artsencentrum Utrecht’ together with Maria Davits and Rienk Stuut. Jan is a sought-after lecturer worldwide. His books ‘Homeopathy and Minerals’ and ‘Homeopathy and the Elements’ have led to a deeper understanding of the mineral remedies in homeopathy. His work has had a lasting impact on homeopathy.
*******************************************
Photos: Narayana-Verlag, Fotolia_34701557_XXL_© Thomas Francois - Fotolia.com_globuli
