Predictive Homeopathy and 'Hering's Law'

[Minervabks]

I am worried to see the assumption that Hering's 'Law' is a long-standing.
traditional tenet of homoeopathic philosophy. It is not! The phrase 'Hering's
Law' does not appear in any of Kent's writings. He does mention Hering's
'rule' at one point - That is all. 'Hering's Law' as we know it is a MODERN
invention. It is a concept drawn up be scholars rather than healers. I am
sceptical of any writers who centre their philosophy around 'Hering's Law'.
If anybody is interested I will dig up the references to back up my
statement. The most thorough critique that I have read on 'Hering's Law' is
by Andre Saine in his book 'The Method - Lectures on Pure Classical
Philosophy' - He rips it to shreds.
Stewart McOwan

Stewart McOwan MARH
Minerva Homoeopathic Centre
173 Fulham Palace Road
Hammersmith
London W6 8QT
Tel 020 7385 3512
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Jeff Feinman]

[Piet Guijt]

Stewart wrote:

'Hering's
MODERN
Law'.
is

Hi Stewart,

Maybe you noticed, I also used 'Rule' and not 'Law'.
But the term 'Herings law' is common used.
You say: "I am sceptical of any writers who centre their philosophy around
'Hering's Law'.
Why do you say that? It is a part of it, but why the centre?
I don't think it is Dr. Vijayakar's intention to say is is a LAW, in that
way, and therefore al those 6 rules will follow in cure at the same time,
but to say there is a precise direction in cure.
It is a LAW that cure must take the patient to the right direction, and a
LAW that the other opposite direction means suppression of disease.
Dr. Vijayakar's offers us tools to see this more clearly, that should be no
problem?

Kind regards, Piet

[Minervabks]

Hi Piet,
Thanks for your reply. My contention is that it is essential to be critical
and avoid unnecessary dogmatism regarding cure. I HIGHLY recommend reading
the article on www.homeopathy.ca/articles/heriing_law.html (note the
unfortunate error in Hering's spelling).
My experience is that as a general rule, MOST symptoms improve after a good
remedy. Yes, old symptoms will reveal themselves too but this is not
necessary. It tends to be more common where there has been SUPPRESSION.
Certainly, more recent symptoms TEND to recede first but there may often be
good reasons why they may not. Present life circumstances may prevent this eg
a recent drama may continue to unfold and prevent tidy resolution for the
dogmatic homoeopath, there may be unavoidable maintaining causes.
Many diseases in addition do not follow the neat unfolding expected by
Hering's Law. eg arthritis may appear first and then psoriasis may be later
added to the picture.
Much serious pathology may seem to appear suddenly - Perhaps as a material
manifestation of a subtle level build-up with little physical warning. Many
tumours grow with the patient initially experiencing few physical symptoms.
The unfolding of disease is a complicated business and does not always fit
into tidy theories. Students tend to crave abstract models but I will argue
that there is far more to Heaven and Earth than can possibly be dreamt of in
our philosophies. Illness is essentially a result of a spiritual decay,
unless it is crude poisoning, and healing is essentially a reconnection with
meaning. Subtle bodies are very complicated and every patient will be in a
different state. How many of us can pull out a case which shows every single
set of symptoms neatly unravelled in EXACT temporal order, with all SIX
conditions fulfilled, and with symptoms marching obediently to the fingers
and toes?
Naturally, I agree that symptoms should be pushed out to less important
organs etc and I must say it is wonderful when there is a clear 'Hering's Law
type of unfolding. I don't think it is necessary though.
The main thing that annoys me is calling it a Law. The dogmatic style plays
into the hands of sceptics and they sometimes have every right to see us as
somewhat wacky.
I would urge anybody interested to read Andre Saine's article - He is a
highly experienced homoeopath and his words should be respected.
Best,
Stewart

Stewart McOwan MARH
Minerva Homoeopathic Centre
173 Fulham Palace Road
Hammersmith
London W6 8QT
Tel 020 7385 3512
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tanya Marquette]

Jeff

thanks for the reference. very interesting article.

when i was taking courses during the 1990's, Hering's Law was still being taught as a tenet. I wonder how many on this list hold to that.

tanya

[Dr. R. Swift]

I spoke to one of the Predictive School's faculty members about Andre Saine
and he said he had heard him speak and that he doesn't have the
understanding of Hering's "rule" that Dr. Vijayakar has worked out based on
embryology and physiology. I have read Andre's comments on the topic (or at
least a portion of them) and it is clear to me that he does not see it as
Dr. V. does.

Scientists are all about looking for the rules by which the universe runs.
If homeopathy is a science as I (and Hahnemann) think it is then there MUST
be principles which guide EVERTHING that happens including the direction of
cure of disease.

What is particularly challenging about this idea is that many of us may find
that we are not curing cases that we think we are and that always makes us
as practitioners very uncomfortable.

If Hering's rule/law is inaccurate, then I hope someone comes up with a
better one, soon.

be well

russell swift, dvm

[Mark Young]

Dear stewart

i found what you said helpful and perhaps many 'laws' in homoeopathy
might usefully be termed principles. there has been some discussion of
homoeopathy and oriental medicine. it is a feature of much chinese
medicine that ideas and principles are elastic, relative and very much
dependant on context for interpretation.

this statement below and particularly the first part is often
criticised quite strongly by some of my patients who are ill, or is
taken on board by others and gives rise to what i often consider as
questionable beliefs about cause and effect with regard to their illness
I understand that your statement is a generalisation and that you cite
one exception, nevertheless it is a powerful statement and i wonder if
you might say more to clarify why you believe it to be so (from a
homoeopathic or any other context). Also whether there might be many
other exceptions than the one you cite ?

what do you mean by 'spiritual decay' ?
best wishes
mark
--
Mark Young