Having seen recent postings, I wanted to say the following. First of all, I believe that being or seeming scientific is not the be-all and end-all of homeopathic philosophy or practice. This is because the expression *scientific* implies a purely objective reality - something that both scientific failures and quantum physicists have been quietly undermining for decades. The holy *scientific* brainwashing has a lot in common with the allopathic brainwashing (he who doth not vaccinate sins). Neither allopathic doctors nor scientists have the ownership of truth - at best they (and we) are all seekers, at worst they (and we...) are closed minded and unable to use simple subjective observation to understand what is going on around them.
At the other end of the scale - dream provings etc. imply that giving fuller structure to investigation is unnecessary, that the most important thing is to meld with the cosmos and go with the flow. However, many ideas within new age are actually very ancient and have often proved themselves, incredible though it may seem. And there are those who would say - is there really much difference between the belief that rubies can help women giving birth and the belief that if you take a substance, dilute it to nothingness, shake the hell out of it, and hey presto, a medicine is born?
Hahnemann's most important discovery, in my opinion, is that homeopathy works. Without this minor detail all the homeopathic philosophy would have gone the way of many other theories and philosophies before and since. The suffering patient is not interested in whether he is psoric, tuberculinic or connected to the planet Saturn - he wants to go to a doctor who will give him something to take away his suffering and restore him to health. By the same token, the most important question facing homeopaths today is why did it work better then and why is the track record poorer now? Some would say - we're not scientific enough, we need clearer methods. Others would say - it's all these dream provings and meditative prescribing.
Kent states somewhere that the only way to avoid prejudice is to study materia medica as extensively as possible. It seems that the best combination is to bring to treatment of the patient both an intensive background in materia medica and knowledge of disease, together with our own simple subjective abilities of observation and, yes, intuition in understanding who the patient sitting opposite us really is. Both the scientific (and to some extent apologist) extremes, and the new age extremes are in themselves a form of prejudice and pull us away from the matter in hand: here is the patient. He is sick. Heal him.
Vera
_____________________________________________________________
Free email on the Net's premier homeopathy site ---> http://www.homeopathyhome.net
homeopathy, science and new age
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: homeopathy, science and new age
Thanks Vera-
Simple observation and intuition etc. are good and they are needed
for everyone - not just healers. This includes any self respecting
shoe sales man. There is the science of Homeopathy and the art and
practice of homeopathy. There are people who think that the art of
homeopathy is learnt. My contention is that if you follow proper
principles and practice the science of homeopathy this practice
becomes an art by itself. Art of Homeopathy is not developed it
appears...
When the masters of homeopathy wanted to popularize it in US and
elsewhere they started Medical Colleges - not Meditation camps.They
did not light the 13th candle or open the third eye and sit around a
Mandala awakening the Serpent power.
I am not trashing any of these. I believe in Astrology, Kundalini,
Karma, Five Elements, Chakras... just that they have no role in
Homeopathy.
From my limited experience with different systems of alternative
medicines Homeopathy is the best holisitic alternative to Allopathy
because it carries less theoretical baggage.. Let us not make it into
another Mystic cult and lose the advantage we have...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Vera Resnick wrote:
of all, I believe that being or seeming scientific is not the be-all
and end-all of homeopathic philosophy or practice. This is because
the expression *scientific* implies a purely objective reality -
something that both scientific failures and quantum physicists have
been quietly undermining for decades. The holy *scientific*
brainwashing has a lot in common with the allopathic brainwashing (he
who doth not vaccinate sins). Neither allopathic doctors nor
scientists have the ownership of truth - at best they (and we) are
all seekers, at worst they (and we...) are closed minded and unable
to use simple subjective observation to understand what is going on
around them.
giving fuller structure to investigation is unnecessary, that the
most important thing is to meld with the cosmos and go with the
flow. However, many ideas within new age are actually very ancient
and have often proved themselves, incredible though it may seem. And
there are those who would say - is there really much difference
between the belief that rubies can help women giving birth and the
belief that if you take a substance, dilute it to nothingness, shake
the hell out of it, and hey presto, a medicine is born?
homeopathy works. Without this minor detail all the homeopathic
philosophy would have gone the way of many other theories and
philosophies before and since. The suffering patient is not
interested in whether he is psoric, tuberculinic or connected to the
planet Saturn - he wants to go to a doctor who will give him
something to take away his suffering and restore him to health. By
the same token, the most important question facing homeopaths today
is why did it work better then and why is the track record poorer
now? Some would say - we're not scientific enough, we need clearer
methods. Others would say - it's all these dream provings and
meditative prescribing.
study materia medica as extensively as possible. It seems that the
best combination is to bring to treatment of the patient both an
intensive background in materia medica and knowledge of disease,
together with our own simple subjective abilities of observation and,
yes, intuition in understanding who the patient sitting opposite us
really is. Both the scientific (and to some extent apologist)
extremes, and the new age extremes are in themselves a form of
prejudice and pull us away from the matter in hand: here is the
patient. He is sick. Heal him.
http://www.homeopathyhome.net
Simple observation and intuition etc. are good and they are needed
for everyone - not just healers. This includes any self respecting
shoe sales man. There is the science of Homeopathy and the art and
practice of homeopathy. There are people who think that the art of
homeopathy is learnt. My contention is that if you follow proper
principles and practice the science of homeopathy this practice
becomes an art by itself. Art of Homeopathy is not developed it
appears...
When the masters of homeopathy wanted to popularize it in US and
elsewhere they started Medical Colleges - not Meditation camps.They
did not light the 13th candle or open the third eye and sit around a
Mandala awakening the Serpent power.
I am not trashing any of these. I believe in Astrology, Kundalini,
Karma, Five Elements, Chakras... just that they have no role in
Homeopathy.
From my limited experience with different systems of alternative
medicines Homeopathy is the best holisitic alternative to Allopathy
because it carries less theoretical baggage.. Let us not make it into
another Mystic cult and lose the advantage we have...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Vera Resnick wrote:
of all, I believe that being or seeming scientific is not the be-all
and end-all of homeopathic philosophy or practice. This is because
the expression *scientific* implies a purely objective reality -
something that both scientific failures and quantum physicists have
been quietly undermining for decades. The holy *scientific*
brainwashing has a lot in common with the allopathic brainwashing (he
who doth not vaccinate sins). Neither allopathic doctors nor
scientists have the ownership of truth - at best they (and we) are
all seekers, at worst they (and we...) are closed minded and unable
to use simple subjective observation to understand what is going on
around them.
giving fuller structure to investigation is unnecessary, that the
most important thing is to meld with the cosmos and go with the
flow. However, many ideas within new age are actually very ancient
and have often proved themselves, incredible though it may seem. And
there are those who would say - is there really much difference
between the belief that rubies can help women giving birth and the
belief that if you take a substance, dilute it to nothingness, shake
the hell out of it, and hey presto, a medicine is born?
homeopathy works. Without this minor detail all the homeopathic
philosophy would have gone the way of many other theories and
philosophies before and since. The suffering patient is not
interested in whether he is psoric, tuberculinic or connected to the
planet Saturn - he wants to go to a doctor who will give him
something to take away his suffering and restore him to health. By
the same token, the most important question facing homeopaths today
is why did it work better then and why is the track record poorer
now? Some would say - we're not scientific enough, we need clearer
methods. Others would say - it's all these dream provings and
meditative prescribing.
study materia medica as extensively as possible. It seems that the
best combination is to bring to treatment of the patient both an
intensive background in materia medica and knowledge of disease,
together with our own simple subjective abilities of observation and,
yes, intuition in understanding who the patient sitting opposite us
really is. Both the scientific (and to some extent apologist)
extremes, and the new age extremes are in themselves a form of
prejudice and pull us away from the matter in hand: here is the
patient. He is sick. Heal him.
http://www.homeopathyhome.net