Page 20 - Summer 13

Continued from page 16
because they are a collection of real symptoms but in the end, the decision of what symptoms are grouped under one miasm is the result of a construct of the mind.
Two concepts
To go forward we have to decide, which one out of these two propositions is most likely right:
• Can an individual patient suffer with more than one disease? This in the sense that there is more than one completely individ- ual/separate dynamic present in the patient driving the patient’s suffering and the devel- opment of symptoms, each dynamic result- ing in its own disease (or Miasm) present in the patient.
Note: A central dynamic is why and how the deregulation or imbalance of the homeosta- sis will affect the patient; what external influ- ences the patient will be sensitive to and how the response of this sensitivity will manifest itself. If there is more than one individual dynamic, they would run separately within the patient leading to the whole patient picture.
• Or is it rather that there is one central dynamic in each individual patient that is made up from (or can be subdivided in) a (wide) number of sub-dynamics/themes? These sub-dynamics/themes will not all have the same value or intensity, some will be easier to recognise than others (depend- ing on the patient and the sensitivity of the homeopath), because some will be more associated with ‘illness’ than others.
Note: The matching of a remedy to the patient is based on matching the dynamic of the rem- edy to the dynamic of the patient. Many who make modern remedy studies seek for the cen- tral dynamic of the remedy. This central dynam- ic has to be able to give sense to the whole of the materia medica of the remedy: explain how the symptoms in its materia medica make sense and can be brought together. The central dynamic is often discovered (proposed) by clas- sifying the symptoms of the materia medica in groups of common themes (like themes of heat, cold, time, confusion, fertility, etc). The essence of the central dynamic gives a sense to how/why these subthemes are linked together in the remedy: it gives a sense to why the prov- ing of the remedy produced the symptoms that are present in its materia medica. When a rem- edy matches with the patient in a number of sub-themes (dynamics,) this remedy will help the patient to a certain degree, depending of the importance of the themes it covers. If there is a ‘perfect’ match between the central theme of the remedy and the patient, the response of the patient is going to be most profound.
If one concludes that answer two is right, then the Miasms are collections of a number of themes that can be recognised in a patient, all being part of the central theme of the patient. If
we put a stamp on the kind of sub-themes we put together to call it one or another Miasm, the Miasms are a construct of our mind.
If we agree with the former and we can recognise individual diseases that infect(ed) the patient and run through the patient coming from the past and or the patient’s experience(s), then it is possible there is one disease which belongs to the individual patient and one or more diseases that are completely alien to the patient. They each have their own suffering and symptoms of their own and together result in the patient’s picture. To make an accurate pre- scription we have to be able to clearly tell where the line lies between the various dynamics, whether belonging to the patient or belonging to some external dynamic infecting the patient. I suspect that in this case, patients can only be treated by a number of successive remedies.
If we say that it is possible to make one pre- scription that covers the totality of the patient are we then not saying that answer two is the right one?
The latter model explains very nicely how more than one remedy can help a patient: If you can ‘smooth-out’ one or a number of sub- themes which cause the suffering in a patient, you will help the patient even though you did not touch ‘completely’ on the central theme (the patient’s individuality). That is why I always say that a patient can benefit from a number of remedies rather than that a patient needs a cer- tain remedy. Of course the closer the remedy has an affinity to the main central theme of the patient the deeper and longer its action.
Most of the time in my cases where patients have responded to a number of differ- ent remedies (even from different kingdoms etc) these remedies usually have a number of sensitivities (themes) in common.
Conceptualisation versus technique
In this discussion we have to make a clear dif- ference whether we talk about the conceptual- isation of health and disease and how we appreciate improvements (real cure, palliation, suppression etc) versus the technique we use to decide on our prescriptions; the remedy selection technique we use to try and achieve the goal we define in the conceptualisation of health and disease. We have to make the differ- ence between the understanding of health and dis- ease and the technique used to help the patient.
If we want to adapt our prescription tech- nique to the conceptualisation proposed in answer two, we have to progress vastly in our knowledge of remedies and the way in which we select the/a remedy for the patient. This puts pressure on those wanting to study and progress in homeopathic prescribing. This pressure should not be a stop to avoid choosing answer two, even if this makes life more diffi- cult for us.
Cancer?
A short discussion on Miasms started after an
exchange on the BAHVS forum around the Indian cancer protocols. There were ponderings whether the cancer-specific treatments are compatible with ‘classical’ homeopathy.
In the cases of cancer (real cancer) I can see that there is room for deciding/agreeing on the concept that there is an alien dynamic pres- ent in the patient. This brings in the difficulty that we then have to decide, at what point this alien entity needs to be treated separately and when not; when the patient’s dynamic is still solely in ‘control’ and when not. I suppose it is somewhat similar to the mother-baby situation but then the other way round: initially mother and baby often benefit from the same remedy until the baby develops its own disease expression.
Alternatively we can decide that Individualistic homeopathy cannot cure cancer and that there is another way (not pure individ- ualistic) of using diluted and dynamised (home- opathically prepared) remedies to treat these very serious cases.
Why bother?
Do we have to have these discussions? Yes, absolutely and that for 2 reasons: new trainee homeopaths need to understand clearly the motivations behind our remedy decision-mak- ing. We also need a clear model, we can explain to non-homeopaths. Such models should make it possible for the conventional world to accept, there is a place for homeopathy without it being a ‘threat’ and open the possibility for both tech- niques to exist along each other. To explain things to ‘the others’ we have to use a language everybody can understand.
Much of the arcane wording and expres- sions used by homeopaths are difficult to understand by outsiders and sometimes/often interpreted differently by different homeopaths. We have to move away from this.
How to explain homeopathy?
To illustrate the difference between homeopa- thy and conventional medicine I now tell people that if living beings were computers, conven- tional medicine (surgery and chemical medi- cines) works on the hardware (cells, nerves, chemical reactions etc) and homeopathy works on the software, the software being, what makes each of us an individual. We home- opaths work a bit like computer geeks trying to find software patches to make each individual’s grand overall software (the individual life force?) to function more efficiently. We practice infor- mation technology and not energetic medicine. There is very little physical energy in our reme- dies, but there is a lot of info. (The seemingly delivery of energy to the patient comes from the fact that a good prescription will liberate energy in the patient from pathologic pathways to life enhancing pathways.)
I hope this short article leads to a debate, in which we can make progress on these matters.
18