Minutus

Dear Friends

I am writing to you as current editor of SIMILLIMUM: The Journal of
the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians.

SIMILLIMUM is a journal of homeopathic practice for the entire
homeopathic
profession. The journal is sponsored by the HANP which is an
association of
licensed naturopathic physicians who specialize in homeopathy. Journal
content is specific to the homeopathic profession having no special
relationship whatsoever to the naturopathic aspect. SIMILLIMUM has been
in publication for thirteen years and at present is sent to about six
hundred regular subscribers.

I accepted the editorial position in the late summer of 2002 and have
overseen the Fall and Winter 2002 issues. This letter is among various
efforts to increase our readership and also to communicate changes in
our editorial policy to past subscribers.

In the last few years the journal had become a masthead for extremely
conservative opinion in the field. In my view this was out of step with
the
majority of our own readers and HANP diplomates, most of whom appreciate
and benefit from some of the fine modern thinkers such as Jeremy Sherr,
Rajan Sankaran, Divya Chhabra, Massimo, etc.

My effort has been to maintain a very high standard for publication,
while
opening the doors again to the best of contemporary "classical"
homeopathic
thinking.

The current issue, Winter 2002, includes a phenomenal and lengthy
interview with Divya Chhabra, a detailed review of her recent seminar
in Vancouver, an extremely interesting and well illustrated article on
a scientific model for the nature of homeopathic remedies, their
stability in different media, etc., a case of Sol-t-ae, a case of
Coralliium rubrum and reviews of the new Syphilis volume by Sherr and
the vast new double volumes by Sankaran, An Insight Into Plants.

We warmly invite your subscription as well as your contributions.
Journal articles are reviewed by both editor and committee. Cases
should have at least one year of follow-up and full discussion of your
reasoning, differential diagnosis, rubrics, etc.

The journal is $50US per year/ $55 for Canada/ $65 US outside North
America. Inquiry can be made to
Simillimum
1412 W. Washington St.,
Boise, Idaho
83703

or write to Brent Mathieu

Articles, cases, reviews can be sent to ntessler@telus.net

Kind Regards

Neil Tessler

Oops, I should have put a note -- *I'm* not the editor!!! I just forwarded
it for Neil Tessler.
:-*
Shannon

on 1/25/03 8:03 AM, Robert&Shannon Nelson at shannonnelson@tds.net wrote:

Here's another post of Neil's, including his editorial in the last
Simillimum. It addresses some of the topics that keep coming up here, so I
thought you guys might like to consider it.

Shannon

* * *
From Neil:
I have heard this [re lapsed subscription because of misgivings over
content] from a long stream of people at conferences, etc.
Unfortunately, when I came into the position, I found that we had lost over
a quarter of our readership. I hope these same people will re-initiate
their subscriptions at the earliest possible, which will be a great help in
carrying the journal forward in a positive way.

Perhaps it it worth saying that I feel a very strong affinity to
foundational homeopathic principles and authors. However, life is
evolutionary. Hahnemann penned six editions of the Organon and I surely
believe that we'd be at fifty-six by now. I have gained enormously from
studies with Rajan Sankaran in particular. In case after case, there has
been tremendous gains from his insights into materia medica, kingdoms and
miasms.

Just today I had a wonderful follow-up in a case that had suffered various
failed prescriptions where I gave Actea spicata almost entirely on the basis
of plant family theme and miasm, perfectly supported by the discussion of
the remedy found in Sankaran's new book, An Insight Into Plants.

The intense criticism that have been levelled at some of the brilliant
modern practitioners, loses all meaning in the face of excellent clinical
results.

The following is my editorial from the Fall issue, which articulates my
position fairly well.

A Question of Balance

Neil Tessler ND, DHANP

I have often noticed that great songwriters were enthusiastic fans and
emulators of some prior musical tradition. One of my personal favorites,
Bob Dylan, was steeped in many of the classic forms of American folk music
and even today his songs reference to these sources. When Dylan went
electric there was a great hue and cry among those who had looked up to him
as the captain of an acoustic folk revival. He was literally booed across
America. Yet, when we look back, we find it hard to understand this
misapprehension of Dylan's musical evolution.
In some talented individuals, the intensity of their natural genius moves
them to develop their own creative voice on the foundation of what has come
before. As students and practitioners of homeopathy, why demonize or recoil
from the new insights of brilliant thinkers in our field? We may at first
react skeptically; be critical, discerning, and cautious. We might choose
to stick to the methods with which we are comfortable. However, new
knowledge in homeopathy will continue to arise and must be allowed to prove
itself.
It is one thing to cleave close to the principles that define homeopathy,
quite another to turn homeopathy into a closed revelation. Hahnemann's
development of homeopathy occurred by following a kind of natural logic that
revealed itself purely through observation and subsequent reflection. He
did not have to construct homeopathy, as much as to simply see it. The
meaning of Hering's statement on the continuing importance of inductive
logic for homeopathy is that only in this way, through observation and
reflection, can the clarity and integrity of homeopathic science be
sustained. This is at the root of the vigor with which the defense of "pure
Hahnemannian" homeopathy is prosecuted.
On the other hand, the incessant use of the term "science" by the most
conservative homeopaths, as if it is their exclusive province, suggests that
purity casts a shadow. To emphasize the scientific aspect of Hahnemannian
homeopathy is grounding and right for any number of reasons, however to
appropriate it to an exclusivist point of view, surely invites allegations
of dogmatism. Homeopathy, while built upon fixed principles, is an evolving
science.
Also, there is more to homeopathy than its scientific aspect. Homeopathy
lends itself to diverse insights of a philosophical nature, leading to new
perspectives on practice and on life. It is unfortunate when the promotion
of the scientific is accompanied by suppression of the creative, artistic
and philosophical. I would think most homeopaths discover that working with
a system encompassing the person as a whole, leads to an awareness of
relationships spreading out in many directions. Besides a healing system,
homeopathy leads to a healing perspective, where boundaries blur between
science, art and philosophy. Thinking homeopathically, a unitary,
accommodating view of life is gained.
While some homeopathic conservatives resent the occasional
characterization of their arguments as `theological', it is hard to escape
consideration of the metaphor. The very use of the term "pure" reinforces
the impression of an elite wishing to preserve homeopathy against heresy
practiced in its name. While we can appreciate that this is a valuable
role, the tone of arguments has suggested close parallels to the perennial
struggles between priest and prophet; the keepers of cherished tradition
versus those available to fresh revelation.
Drs. Sheppherd and Saine, have asserted that ordering systems such as
kingdoms are theoretical structures, rather then pure observations of
nature. In part this is true, yet it is also true that these theories are
insights derived from erudite reflection on verified materia medica,
supported by careful study of the repertory. Moreover, as Sankaran has
pointed out, classification systems are a means to an end. Having
formulated a hypothesis that the study of materia medica by kingdom might
reveal patterns useful in the homeopathic process, Sankaran continues to
offer practical information many have found of great clinical value.
Scholten, Mangialavori, Morrison, Kellerstein, Shore, Herrick and Hershoff,
to name those I am aware of, have all done valuable, sometimes remarkable
work in this area of growing interest.
While some trends may have practical, clinical value, there are others
that play on the edges of the homeopathic paradigm, without adding anything
substantive to the profession. Group provings that include persons not
taking remedies, remedy-under-the-pillow dream provings, the introduction of
remedies such as "Berlin Wall", are sure to create sweaty palms for those
who long for some kind of rapprochement between homeopathy, and western
medicine and science.
How is the practitioner to regard materia medica derived in this way or
from these sources? Are "Great Wall of China", or "Wailing Wall", or
"Stonehenge" to be next? Will every object with symbolic character become a
medicine? Are supposed symptoms from individuals who never actually took a
proving dose to enter the materia medica?
Its very hard to see how such things advance the profession and rather
easy to imagine how they may do damage. However, there is little point in
hoping that such notions will not continue to arise or that they should not
arise. The extremes and the center are a fixture of existence. It may also
be true that there are diverse values to be found among differing attitudes
and explorations.
Simillimum and the HANP represent practitioners with various influences
and methods. Our journal should shepherd discussion in an atmosphere
respectful of these differences. Over the last several years, the
Simillimum masthead, "dedicated to the practice of homeopathy as formulated
by Samuel Hahnemann in the Organon of Medicine", was used to justify the
assumption of the intellectual property of the journal by highly
conservative opinion. It was this situation that I wished to address when
initiating discussion with the membership in the spring of this year.
As an organ for the homeopathic profession, sponsored by a fairly small
fraternity of practitioners, many of long experience; having gone through
the rigors of university, naturopathic college, and clinical practice, we
have a collective expectation for a homeopathic journal of high standard.
Specifically, this means a journal offering good learning, stimulating
thought, practical insights, founded in thorough clinical work, well
considered, grounded and presented.
However, to achieve these goals, I hold steadfastly to the view that a
generally more open approach, rather than a more closed one, better serves
the homeopathic profession in several specific ways.
First it creates an atmosphere where homeopathic practitioners feel
welcome to share their experiences on a common platform. We should strive
for a results and reflection based conversation across disputed philosophic
waters. In this way, all practitioners can find interest and benefit from
the differing points of view.
Second, a more open policy reflects the choices that are already being
made by a significant percentage of homeopathic practitioners. Many report
that they are having valuable successes with new materia medica and
methodologies. I often feel that their voice of experience has not been
heard.
There seems to be an assumption that majority tastes are not to be trusted.
I prefer to respect the integrity of the many hard working homeopaths, not
as doctrinaire as some, but committed and growing in knowledge and
experience.
Finally, a more open position is more balanced, and dynamic balance is
health. Vithoulkas nourished all of us when he defined health as "freedom".
This brought the idea of `resilience' as a core trait of the healthy
organism.
Long ago, Dunham used the term "elasticity" to express the same idea. We
can cultivate a dynamic balance between innovative methods and traditional
homeopathic values in an open-minded journal striving for a high standard of
presentation.
The tension from the dialogue of the spring, culminated in a succession of
resignations from the board and of the Simillimum editors. There is no
doubt this was very hard on the group and the people involved. With falling
subscriptions and faltering confidence in our purpose as an organization,
there was a wisp of fatal doubt in the wind.
Personally, I regarded these occurrences as an opportunity for renewal,
revitalization of the organization and its organs, and bridge mending with
many good individuals who had previously felt alienated. Indeed, the signs
of renewed vigor are quite evident. Where there was growing ennui, there is
a reconnection with our purpose and putting our shoulders to the common
wheel.
As a vocal recent critic of the direction Simillimum had taken, I felt
obliged to offer my services to help carry the journal forward during the
interim. Through engaging the process, my perspective has changed and I
find myself excited by the challenge of working with future issues. I would
like to thank Peter Wright for his helpful cooperation in smoothing the
transition. I would also like to thank the board, the review panel, and the
HANP/Simillimum staff for
working together with me towards our common goals.
We extend a warm invitation to our readers to submit cases that offer a
learning opportunity, to send your letters and your essays for
consideration.
Communicate your experiences.
The theme of this issue is the balance of foundational principles and
methods of homeopathy, with the developing modern insights that have
grown from this base. We are fortunate to have a majority of articles that
shed light on this subject.
I wish to thank a local friend, my technical collaborator, Jason McMillan,
for his fine work on design and layout of the journal. As a young and
contemporary musician and artist, he brought a modern taste to the graphic
development.
On behalf of the board and the journal, I would like to extend our
gratitude to our readers as well as our advertisers for their perseverance
through this difficult period. I sincerely hope you continue to find
Simillimum an enjoyable, practical and thought provoking addition to your
homeopathic reading.

I had been under the impression that one had to be a naturopath to subscribe
or contribute to Simillimum. Am I correct in interpreting this e-mail to
say that is not the case and that Simillimum now targets the whole
homeopathic community?

Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D.

Hi Rosemary,

Simillimum is definitely available to all. Looking thru an old issue, only
a few contributors show naturapathy related degrees. So yes, I'd say they
are targetting the whole h'c community!

Shannon
on 1/25/03 11:47 AM, Rosemary Hyde at rosemaryhyde@mindspring.com wrote:

Hi,

Simillimum has always been a journal for the entire homeopathic community.
Other then the fact of the sponsoring organization, it is purely a journal of
homeopathy.

Neil Tessler
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:
subscribe
been
appreciate
Homoeopathy
this
Homoeopathy and
the
email
punitive

i have subscribed to simillimum for several years now and am neither a naturopath or a
md. i did find some attitude of surprise on their part that i would find the journal interesting
or useful. so hopefully they are truly expanding their inclusiveness

tanya