classical homeopathy / Hahnemann and magnets

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

A school that was founded with Sheilagh Creasey's direct guidance and input exists in San Francisco. It's called "Institute of Classical Homeopathy." They have once monthly weekend classes and also clinics for third and fourth year students. I think they split off from Sheilagh several years after their founding because they thought she was not strictly classical enough (that tells you something important about them). They simply ignore anything that's happened in homeopathy after Kent, including the Sixth Edition of the Organon (they are very Kentian, by the way), and their students and graduates learn and practice homeopathy as if we were living in the 1890s -- a real time machine. Obviously, they see and teach homeopathy as if it were a dead language rather than a living science, and all speculation or exploration is discouraged. They do thoroughly ground their students in the classic homeopathic texts. The school enrolls 20 or so students each year, and continues to hold its niche in the marketplace.

People have a wide range in how much and what kind of structure they need, and those who prefer to work within a very stable system do well at ICH. The student testimonial on the ICH home page speaks eloquently to their approach: "When I'm being taught here, I feel the masters are right in the room. It's their words that are being imparted to us. Why settle for less?" The Institute's founders are extremely devoted to what they do. Their website is www.classicalhomoeopathy.org

Rosemary

[Shannon Nelson]

Thankyou, Rosemary!

I am *fascinated* to hear that they felt she was not "classical enough"!
Because from the seminars I've seen her in, she seemed just about as
"classical" as the Pope is "Catholic"! Very interesting; do you happen to
know the work of any students, and have any observations as to how that
"time capsule" approach to the material winds up working out in practice?
(After all, there's a great deal that really *hasn't* changed, and I've been
curious about whether the changes are as significant as some folks feel, or
as trivial as others feel. Do you have observations?)

Shannon

on 4/26/04 11:31 AM, Rosemary C Hyde PhD at rosemarychyde@mindspring.com
wrote:

[matthiaswaeger]

Dear colleagues,
I like your arguments and find them very exciting, but what about including
a more anti-realist perspective?
I think it will be very difficult, actually impossible to prove the reality
of any phenomenon, just because reality is a very problematic concept. On the
other hand, I think it is fairly obvious that many things, irrespective of
their ‘reality’ can be applied quite meaningfully in certain contexts.
The problem with your arguments is that they come from a point of such
certainty, which is, within reason, beyond reach - with the help of any amount of
evidence, produced by any amount of research. Hence the suspicion, that such
certainty can only be a defense against one’s own doubts, which then can be
squashed projected into the brains of others (Takes one to know one, J!),
because ‘not knowing’ is just such a difficult place to be.
Perhaps it’s not that much about the truth, but just about doing what we can
with what we have, because everything is already ok?
Then, we can rest from saving the world, converting the infidels and
fighting against dragons and are truly available to those who still do.
What about that?
Matthias
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]