what is classical?
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 1:33 am
Dear all,
Sheri wrote in context of another thread-
find that classical.
DISCLAIMER: Now, Sheri, please don't take this email amiss. Your sentence triggered the following commentary, which, I want you to know, I am NOT directing to, or criticizing, you. It's just that your comment made me want to spout out my opinions.
-----------
Classical dance Classical Greek art Classical music- are all defined by timeframes and style. Everything from Bach to Vivaldi is lumped into "classical".
Now, this word "classical" in homeopathy has always stumped me. What is classical? Is it a dateline limit in history? Where do we draw the line between "classical" and..... other (neo?, non? anti-? what?) Are homeopaths of, eg, pre-1850 "classical" and post 1930 "neo classic"?
Swan, a direct disciple of Hahnemann discovered nosodes. Does that make him "classical" or "non-classical"?
Hahnemann used naturopathy, magnets, mezmerism, diet in his treatment. So are these things included or excluded in "classical"?
Bohninghausen came up with CLAMS and one often can prescribe easily and effectively using that alone on the phys-gens. Is it "classical?"
Does "classical" mean Kent who never read the 6th edition?
Or is "classical" solely using the LM's?
and what about the rest of us using 30's and 200's- "pre-classical"?
And what about high potencies?
Not to mention the French and their D series?
Reading "The Prescriber", Clarke often gave "minimum doses" of MT, grains, drams, minums of substances. He also gave naturopathic advice at times. Was he not "classical"?
Must it be "constitutional" to be "classical"?
----------
To me: simillium, minimum and simple is "classic"; and "rapid, gentle and permanent" remain the guiding principle.
So, if strep nosode fits the bill, why not?
----------- ...here goes---
At Abha Light, in the past, we've had some very unfortunate incidents where so-called "classical" volunteers gave so-called "classical" prescriptions for acute diseases. The outcomes were damaging to say the least.
What I'm trying to say on this Most Very Classical of mailing lists, is that I think too many homeopaths confuse "classical" with "constitutional" and I think there are many who believe "constitutional prescribing" is the only Truth Way and Light of "real" homeopathy.
My opinion: it is not. I think there's a lot of good homeopathy NOT being taught in the name of protecting "classical".
It seems to me that a true "classicist" should treat and acute disease acutely. Had the *so-called* "classical" vol. homeopaths correctly taken into account the virulent infectious nature of the disease, the outcomes would have been different.
-------
Sorry, everyone, if my perspective is tilted - in Kenya, we often don't -for various reasons -go into "classical" (sic) treatment. We find a similium on the physical-generals and take it from there.....
A large part of our (collective ALF) practice is still dealing, basically, with various acute, subacute infections and supressed infections.
And when needed, effective CLAMS-style helps us treat 50-100 patients a day on a mobile clinic.
And yes, no doubt too, we do treat constitutionally those constitiutional/chronic diseases. But still fortunately for Africans, allopathic iatrogenic diseases are around since only 1 generation, not like the industrialised countries where iatrogenesis has polluted for generations. Many of these chronic cases are relatively easier to treat.
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira
Director, Abha Light
visit: www.abhalight.org
tel: +254 20 445-0181 / cells: 0733-895466 / 0723-869133
Sheri wrote in context of another thread-
find that classical.
DISCLAIMER: Now, Sheri, please don't take this email amiss. Your sentence triggered the following commentary, which, I want you to know, I am NOT directing to, or criticizing, you. It's just that your comment made me want to spout out my opinions.
-----------
Classical dance Classical Greek art Classical music- are all defined by timeframes and style. Everything from Bach to Vivaldi is lumped into "classical".
Now, this word "classical" in homeopathy has always stumped me. What is classical? Is it a dateline limit in history? Where do we draw the line between "classical" and..... other (neo?, non? anti-? what?) Are homeopaths of, eg, pre-1850 "classical" and post 1930 "neo classic"?
Swan, a direct disciple of Hahnemann discovered nosodes. Does that make him "classical" or "non-classical"?
Hahnemann used naturopathy, magnets, mezmerism, diet in his treatment. So are these things included or excluded in "classical"?
Bohninghausen came up with CLAMS and one often can prescribe easily and effectively using that alone on the phys-gens. Is it "classical?"
Does "classical" mean Kent who never read the 6th edition?
Or is "classical" solely using the LM's?
and what about the rest of us using 30's and 200's- "pre-classical"?
And what about high potencies?
Not to mention the French and their D series?
Reading "The Prescriber", Clarke often gave "minimum doses" of MT, grains, drams, minums of substances. He also gave naturopathic advice at times. Was he not "classical"?
Must it be "constitutional" to be "classical"?
----------
To me: simillium, minimum and simple is "classic"; and "rapid, gentle and permanent" remain the guiding principle.
So, if strep nosode fits the bill, why not?
----------- ...here goes---
At Abha Light, in the past, we've had some very unfortunate incidents where so-called "classical" volunteers gave so-called "classical" prescriptions for acute diseases. The outcomes were damaging to say the least.
What I'm trying to say on this Most Very Classical of mailing lists, is that I think too many homeopaths confuse "classical" with "constitutional" and I think there are many who believe "constitutional prescribing" is the only Truth Way and Light of "real" homeopathy.
My opinion: it is not. I think there's a lot of good homeopathy NOT being taught in the name of protecting "classical".
It seems to me that a true "classicist" should treat and acute disease acutely. Had the *so-called* "classical" vol. homeopaths correctly taken into account the virulent infectious nature of the disease, the outcomes would have been different.
-------
Sorry, everyone, if my perspective is tilted - in Kenya, we often don't -for various reasons -go into "classical" (sic) treatment. We find a similium on the physical-generals and take it from there.....
A large part of our (collective ALF) practice is still dealing, basically, with various acute, subacute infections and supressed infections.
And when needed, effective CLAMS-style helps us treat 50-100 patients a day on a mobile clinic.
And yes, no doubt too, we do treat constitutionally those constitiutional/chronic diseases. But still fortunately for Africans, allopathic iatrogenic diseases are around since only 1 generation, not like the industrialised countries where iatrogenesis has polluted for generations. Many of these chronic cases are relatively easier to treat.
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira
Director, Abha Light
visit: www.abhalight.org
tel: +254 20 445-0181 / cells: 0733-895466 / 0723-869133