I think your analogy is worth going into. Western Classical Music is broken
down into Early music (pre 9thc) Medieval (9-14th c)Renaissance (15-16thc),
Baroque (1600-1750), Classical (1750-1820), Romantic (1820 -1910), Modern
(1910 -).
i.e. the Classical period is a subset of Classical music! This doesn't seem
to make much sense except that we all know that the Rolling Stones, Eminem
and Bob Dylan aren't classical. We are using the term to mean two different
things and while the Classical period and style is easy to define, the
overall term Classical is most easily defined by what it isn't.
The term classical homeopathy as often used by members of this list and in
colleges is actually equivalent to the narrower definition that, in my view
dates from Kent and had its most influential modern exponent in Vithoulkas.
Routine detox's, don't have much of a role here perhaps. The definitions are
probably quite clear and the rules precise. The larger definition of
classical includes Hahnemann, Boenninghausen and Burnett and many others who
do not fit the narrower definition. They are not all Hahnemannian
prescribers, either. Any repetition excludes that. They do not all use
potentised remedies all the time - or Hahnemann would be excluded.
They do not all use remedies based on provings or Burnett, would go and
Boericke and Clarke would cease to be sources for classical homeopaths.
Scholten and Sankharan do not meet with Vithoulkhas approval especially when
remedies are used based on family indications rather than on their provings.
So you can describe someone as a Boenninghausen Prescriber or an Eizeyaga
prescriber or refer to a Scholten prescription and still fit in with this
larger definition, but not the smaller one. Are there any boundaries,
though, and if so what are they?
You could say that prescribers have to be following a logical and consistent
method, a method that is teachable and reproduceable and which takes an
holistic overview of the patient, even if the current prescription is based
on a view of what needs to be cured that is immediate and limited (ie
acute).
This definition would also include practitioners of Complex Homeopathy,
where particular complexes are used at particular times for specific results
and the whole thing is researched and taught as a system. Definitely not
Hahnemannian, but not folk or pop either. In the same way the work
Schoenberg and Philip Glass would no doubt be shocking to Beethoven and no
doubt people have denied that they are classical music at all at various
times but you won't hear them on Radio 1.
As with homeopathy, boundaries get blurred - Gershwin is classical music
apparently.
Perhaps, as with music, it is easier to know what isn't classical in the
larger sense. Personally I would exclude prescriptions based on a passing
remark from a lecturer that this remedy is 'good' for that disease (no
holistic overview of patient), I would exclude random combinations given on
same basis (for same reason) or on basis of combining several different
methodologies at once (inconsistent, unteachable) . I would exclude the use
of remedies that the practitioner is giving 'blind' or on the basis of
intuition only. I would label the use of radionics and bits of paper under
glasses of water etc as 'healing' rather than homeopathy.
I am sure everyone's list would vary!
To return to the music analogy again, I have a high regard for some rock and
jazz musicians and can see poetry in folk and pop music but it isn't
classical by any definition. This is where the analogy breaks down a bit for
me. I feel that professional homeopaths *should* be 'classical' in the
broader sense whereas Paul MaCartney, bless his beleaguered cotton socks,
was not at his best writing symphonies!
Thanks for bringing this up, Didi.
BW
Theresa
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
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message 22
From: "hahnemannian2002" hahnemannian2002@yahoo.com
Date: Mon May 29, 2006 7:42pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: what is "classical"?
Thanks Didi Ananda for sharing your approach and experience.
I guess for classical people non-classical is Neanderthal
I agree with your approach wholeheartedly. I have also worked in
practices where we need to say 50, 60 patients a day. Key notes and
sometimes minor repertorization would help us. NBWS was one of the
main aetiological pointer to a prescription as was what triggered
something. Clinical therapeutics and general modalities of a remedy
helped us. It is when something keeps recurring and takes a while to
go, that we give more time and have a separate case taking for that.
Common medicines were probably less than 100 medicines and we could
tackle most of the cases with that...
and as you mentioned acutes are treated with acute
prescriptions.When a patient had an acute pain we were not trying to
get the mother's core delusion ....
What is your experience with infections? Why don't you write about
some of the ones that you saw and treated and what guidelines helped
you with them? Should be interesting to note...