A Diagramatic Representation of the
Homœopathic World
After much debate with others as to "what is homeopathy and
what is not homeopathy" I began to build a visual model of my
thinking.
What is homeopathy? How do we define it? How can we
understand its borders? Can we build a model?
The word "homeopathy" describes the system that Samuel
Hahnemann developed. It has to do with "similar suffering"—
that we know what a substance can be used for curatively,
because we have seen what symptoms that substance can
produce in a healthy person. The full system is described in
his work, The Organon of the Healing Art. This is the core of
homeopathy. Around the core are the other parts which make
up the whole: the principles by which we operate, the
necessity of the proving, the exactness of case taking, the
need for accurate symptom matching, the importance of
giving the single remedy, and the pharmacy process needed to
create that remedy.
Each of these parts has been expanded upon throughout the
history of homeopathy. The question of "is it homeopathy or is
it not?" depends on the extent and the direction in which these
parts have been expanded.
In my visual construct, the outside edge that constrains
homeopathy is seen as a dotted line surrounding the above
parts. It is dotted because it is not quite fixed— it is slightly
moveable and often blurry.
While constructing this visual model I also realized that those
parts which support a deviation from "homeopathy" fall into
two basic areas: those that are "Left-brained" where the
emphasis is on rational thinking and mechanistic models, and
those that are "right brained" and work from an intuitive and
relational base.
The "deviations" can take place very close to the edge, or very
far from it. As an example, we can look at pharmacy. Samuel
Swan, MD, in the 1880s, created a series of nosodes
(remedies made from diseased product)— Medorrhinum (from
gonorrhea), Tuberculinum (from tubercular tissue), and
Syphilinum (from the syphilitic chancre). These substance
then underwent provings thus bringing them into the
homeopathic circle. They were used, and their use was
reported in the literature. Now, 120 years later, is the use of
them "homeopathic"?
The answer is, "well, that depends..." If they are used
according to the proving symptoms they elicited, yes. If one
gives Medorrhinum only because there might be a history of
gonorrhea in the family, and does not prescribe upon the
exact similitude, well... we are looking at it through some
possible clinical verification but we are a bit outside the ring.
If one prescribes it routinely based on the idea that "all
westerners have gonorrhea in their past" (something I once
heard a homeopath say in justification for his prescription)
then we are way outside the ring.
So... where outside the ring does the action fall? Please
understand that I am looking at this diagram for definition
purposes only. I am not saying that those things outside of
the ring are not useful in practice and/or they might not be
curative. I am simply trying to locate it all in relation to the
grounded material that IS homeopathy. An unsupervised
proving might establish quality information about an unknown
remedy. As such it can be seen as close to the outside edge.
Whereas a seminar proving where a dose is given to all at a
seminar, and all the participant (whether they took the remedy
or not) are asked to write about what they felt during the two
days... such a proving is way outside the grounded circle.
Perhaps we can all use the visual construct to place ourselves
within the context of homeopathy, and to note what our
deviations are and when.