Many friends raise the question: “Why Dialectical Homeopathy? Are you trying to build a new ‘system’ of your own? Already we had enough ‘systems’, ‘brands’ and ‘gurus’. Are you trying to create a new one?”
My answer is an emphatic “NO”. I am totally against ‘system building’ in homeopathy. Actually I use the word ‘dialectical’ to make it clear that this is not a new system. Some thing ‘dialectical’ cannot be a ‘system’. A ‘system’ is always a closed one with its own ‘dogmas’, ‘priniciples’, ‘laws’ and ‘methods’. Where as ‘dialectical’ indicates ‘openness’, ‘amenable to change’, constant ‘growth’. ‘Dialectiacal’ is just opposite to ‘dogmatic’.
‘Dialectical’ only indicates an approach. Science is always ‘dialectical’. Science never tolerates ‘dogmas’ and ‘systems’.
The word ‘dialectical’ comes from latin word ‘dialego’, which originally means ‘dialogue’ or ‘ideological interaction’. Dialogue is not argument. Dialogue is always creative. The dialogue between ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’ results in ‘synthesis’, which is a higher stage of knowledge totally different from both ‘thesis’ and ‘antithesis’. That is the way human knowledge advances towards more and more perfection. Scientific method is always ‘dialectical’. There is no ‘immutable’, ‘eternal’ principles in science. Every laws, every principles, every theories change and become more and more perfect through an evolutionary process of human knowledge, experience and collective thought.
By ‘dialectical homeopathy’, I only mean that this scientific method of constant rejuvenation and advancement should be brought into homeopathy. That is the only way of making homeopathy scientific. Scientific homeopathy means ‘dialectical homeopathy’. It is an approach towards homeopathy.
Originally, homeopathy was also ‘dialectical’. Hahnemann was most ‘scientific’ and ‘dialectical’ in his approach. He questioned existing medical ‘system’ through his dialectical approach. He did not accept any ‘dogma’, ‘principle’ or ‘beliefs’ that cannot withstand rational experimentation, logical thinking, and verification with the available scientific knowledge. Actually, homeopathy is the result of his ‘dialectical’ rebellion against existing ‘medical system’.
Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was ‘dialectical’ in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing ‘science’- a medical science. Not a ‘closed system’. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.
After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.
After the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and ‘dogmatized’. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed ‘system’. For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative ‘dialogue’ with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this ‘closed’ system as ‘classical homeopathy’. ‘Purity’ was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of ‘original’ dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an ‘anti-scientific’ outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of ‘pure homeopathy’
I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.
We have to explain each and every ‘principles’ and ‘laws’ of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.
By ‘Dialectical Homeopathy’, I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is ‘science’, not a ‘system of immutable dogmas’.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 