CONVENTIONAL HOMEOPATHS approach modern SCIENCE from the standpoint of ORGANON, where as SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHS learn ORGANON from the standpoint of modern SCIENCE. It makes all the difference in their approaches, perspectives, paradigms and methods of practice.
According to CONVENTIONAL homeopaths, anything you say about homeopathy should be FITTING to the ‘aphorisms’ of ORGANON. Otherwise, you will not be a ‘true’ homeopath!
There are many things in ORGANON that does not agree with modern scientific knowledge. There are many things that are totally UNSCIENTIFIC. As such, you cannot talk SCIENTIFIC HOMEOPATHY in a way ‘fitting’ to the ‘aphorisms’ of ORGANON. You cannot make homeopathy a MEDICAL SCIENCE if you are not ready to abandon those unscientific things we were so far taught as part of ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.
I am not talking about ‘aphorisms’ or ‘beliefs’. I am talking about my rational interpretations of similia similibus curentur, based on modern scientific knowledge of life, disease, drugs and cure.
Please note, nothing is said in organon about MOLECULAR IMPRINTING also.
If you think we should talk about homeopathy only in terms of ‘aphorisms’ written 200 years ago when scientific knowledge was in its primitive state, you cannot even think about ‘molecular imprints’ active factors of potentized drugs. You cannot talk about genetics, enzymes, ligand-receptor kinetics, antibodies , molecular pathology or anything like that. According to you ‘true’ homeopathy should be mere repeating of aphorisms in organon! You will feel ‘very very very sorry’ when somebody says something that do not fit to ‘aphorisms’.
Many homeopaths believe POTENTIZATION is a process of ‘dividing’ drug substance into smaller fractions, ultimately ‘converting’ them into ‘energy’, and transferring the ‘dynamic energy’ so released into sugar of milk or rectified spirit. Nobody so far taught them to think about potentization in terms of MOLECULAR IMPRINTING.
Exactly, what is the ‘fundamental principle’of homeopathy? A principle that forms the essential basis of homeopathic therapeutic system? I think there is a lot of confusion over the subject of ‘fundamental principles of homeopathy’, not only among homeopaths, but even our ‘theoreticians’.
In my opinion, the therapeutic principle of ‘similia similibus curentur’ is the only ‘essential’ fundamental principle of homeopathy. ‘Potentization’ is not a fundamental principle, but a practical way of preparing homeopathic drugs. Other ‘theories’ are only philosophical explanations, conjectures, interpretations, opinions and empirical conclusion based on personal experiences of ‘stalwarts’ and ‘masters’. They are not ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy.
Some people consider each and every word uttered by our ‘master’ as ‘fundamental principles’ of homeopathy. They would profusely quote his words from ORGANON whenever some body raises any hard questions. Some others would even include the words of other ‘stalwarts’ like Kent, Herring and the like also in the category of ‘fundamental’ principles. They would declare that whatever ‘master’ and other ‘stalwarts’ said 200 years ago were “most scientific” and should not be changed. They would not tolerate any attempt of re-reading those ‘theories’ in the light of scientific knowledge humanity has amassed during last two centuries after Hahnemann lived on this earth.
Even though Hanemann was indeed a great genius and visionary, it is impossible for anybody to proceed with his intellectual quest without drawing resources from the treasures of knowledge amassed by previous generations. Obviously, no genius can totally overcome the objective limitations imposed upon him by the space-time context of his life and activities.
We should never forget the objective historical context of 18th century Germany, where Samuel Hahnemann lived and developed his novel therapeutic system. Hahnemann had developed his ideas depending upon the existing knowledge about the universe available to him. It is not to be seen as a sin to say that his thoughts and words were more or less confined by the limitations imposed by the infantile level of science and technology then existed there. Even though the essence of the therapeutic principle he developed is capable of transcending the boundaries of centuries to come, it would be unfair to try to evaluate his achievements and contributions detached from his objective time-space framework.
Had Hahnemann happened to live in this world 200 years later, the towering genius of Hahnemann would have presented to humanity a therapeutic system totally different, and much more advanced and scientific than what we now call Homeopathy. He would have definitely rewritten completely what we preach and practice in the name of Homeopathy today.
Whenever we try to learn the teachings of Hahnemann, we should be on the look out to understand what he would have said about those subjects, if he were elaborating them in the modern context. We should not take his written words as if they were ultimate immutable truth, unquestionable and beyond any scope of further revisions and improvements. We should honor the great master by following his teachings as valuable guide to tread forward, and not as lifeless dogmas.
If Samuel Hahnemann happened to live among us now, he would have mastered all the latest scientific knowledge available. He would be the greatest scientist of our era. He would explain “similia similibus curentur” on the basis of quantum theory, modern biochemistry and the latest understanding of molecular dynamics of disease and therapeutics. He would have explained “potentization” on the basis of modern ‘molecular imprinting’, and would have devised a more sophisticated and scientific method of molecular imprinting to replace the present process of potentization.
REDEFINING HOMEOPATHY 