Creating Waves of Awareness
nothing to discuss
Replies are closed for this discussion.
True. The Organon is written in obsolete language. Anyone who reads it carefully will note some inconsistencies. We ought think of it as a work in progress. It does need to be updated. My own personal copy has excellent notes that clarify some of the original German terms.
Perhaps the real reason that a completely rewritten version does not exist is the fear that in translation and interpretation that unintended meanings will be introduced that may obscure or completely hide some originally intended meaning.
It is my personal opinion that in order for homeopathy to move forward with a theoretical basis that is enlarged from what the Organon and Chronic Diseases presents, we need two things:
1. A good unifying theory of the fundamental action of homeopathy. (Sadly, this does not seem to be immediately forthcoming.)
2. A consensus of practice methodologies that make remedy choices easier. The single greatest problem with the science of homeopathy is the difficulty arriving at a correct remedy choice. I don't think my own mind is flexible enough to memorize and digest enough Materia Medica detail to hold five-hundred for quick recall and use.
There are obviously patterns and a fundamental order in the physical universe. This is seen in Chemistry in the Periodic Table, electron energy patterns, and such. There are patterns around which remedies may be organized and studied, but in my opinion the hour has not yet come when we know enough to place an optimum organizational structure around our science. It almost seems as though every homeopath must take the Organon, hold it tightly in his hand and forge his own path through the forest of clinical practice (particularly dosing and patient management) until by the accumulation of errors, he understand enough to practice well.
It will take more than a re-write of the Organon to fix this issue--it will take a unifying theory of homeopathic action. Perhaps the greatest single reason that this theory is not in existence presently is that homeopathy sees organism as a unity (body, soul, spirit) in a way that includes the mental disposition which in itself is somewhat intangible. It is as though homeopathic principles operate on the boundary between the physical and spiritual realm of man where experimentation is difficult at best.
Agreed: we need an updated base text and theory.
Dr. Harimann please explains the exact meaning of following line.
But, if you are going
Through the manuscript with a scientific attitude, in context of present scenario, it
Shall be hard to digest.
I am reading organon of medicine and I nothing found, which is hard to digest for me.
Of course, because of the things
That he described in his inscriptions are not present now; and whatever is present
Now, had not been touched by him in his ‘Organon’
Please tell me what is the thing that he described and not present now, and whatever is present now, which is not touched by him in our organon of medicine. Its mean you think that the study of Organon of medicine in present time is useless and it has no practical utility.
He reestablished a way
Wherein using things that have produced a most similar pathology is used to
Ameliorate pathological conditions in concerning individual entity.
It is very funny, please tell me who is the person established homoeopathic system previously Hahnemann, yes I have two more question regarding this quotation, please tell me in which aphorism Hahnemann mention that, the true homoeopathic prescription must be based on pathological conditions. (Please don’t mind I am just asking this question to enhance my knowledge.)
That produces certain phenotypes of the diseases and effects of the medicinal
Stimulation that have produced a most similar phenotype, led him to application of
Corresponding element in the utmost similar phenotypic condition.
Dr. Harimann in one sentence please tell me what do you mean by phenotype? I think it is genetically term and use for morphological difference of two animal or species for same genotype for example, two son of same parents have same genotype but different phenotype both son are different in their nature, color, figure, behavior, and development. Phenotype is birthright property it can’t produce and can’t remove.
In his time, he only
Conceived tissue affinity of the drugsAt that time he observed only, the certain
drugs operate onto the certain tissues. Consequently, he devised them to use in the
corresponding individual entity having same tissue affections
What are you saying? Dr. Hahnemann never discussed about tissue and any material thing, he always discussed about dynamic derangement of vital force
Out standing, it is so far from the original theme of the organon of medicine, because according to my knowledge “Material body is not the subject of treatments in homoeopathy” and material body is made by tissue. This statement is also supported by Dr. J.T kent, who says that, it is internal man who is always the subject of treatment, which made up by will, memory, and intelligence. Dr. Harrimann, are you wanted to say that, the internal man (the sick) is made by tissue. Ha, ha, it’s very funny.
I don’t want to discussed on more topic, please study Hahnemann’s Organon in the light of kent’s philosophy, because medical science is more developed during kent time, and dr. kent never deny Hahnemann’s fact regarding organon of medicine. According to me, Hahnemann’s Organon is so far developed, so advanced, it take of 500 years more to understand our Organon in the light of presence science which is based on material concept and gradually become energy based science.
It is useless to discuss about Hormone, Metabolism, Organ, tissue, etc, material thing because Hahnemann deal only with energy, he discussed only about dynamic effect, not about material.
I recommended you, please read and study the original text of the Great Organon of medicine not Ashok kumar das commentary.
Please don’t pollute homoeopathy
Dr. Habib khan (B.Sc. B.H.M.S )
It is well birth for you to read this quotation from lesser writing, by Dr, J.T kent. Pg. N. 235
“ Hahnemann’s Organon is a strong, rich source of knowledge, but it is in long sentences, and very condensed, and difficult for many to understand. When one has fully comprehended the principles, he then reads Hahnemann’s ORGANON with the deepest satisfaction. The subject is so deep, so difficult to comprehend. A most scholarly, deep thinking man said to me, I have read your philosophy five times and am still reading it, and now I begin to understand Hahnemann’s ORGANON when this known it may not be a surprise that so many fail to comprehend our principles.
Hahnemann’s ORGANON is still useful nowadays, I use it in my daily practice.
Dear Dr. Khan,
Thank you for your suggestions.
you raised a lot of questions.If you are looking for answers, it's the Organon 6th, edition in apposition to the paris casebooks df1 - df14 you would need to look to.
The organon makes sense in the context of his actual work and many answers evolve by studying these cases. You may then share the view of the experts like myself, that there is no need to rewrite the Organon.
Dear Brent w Reed
I share your concerns about finding the correct remedy. If Materia medica is not studied in advance to treating patients, we have to study all the remedy provings of such remedies which bear similitude to the symptoms every time we want to make an informed selection.
This proves impossible, so the sensible thing to do is to study MMP in advance. Boenninghausen, Jahr and Hering already highlighted this need and gave some hints. For my own students I recommend the following method: http://www.facebook.com/groups/302151859854069/doc/364671543602100/
Dear Dr. Hans Weitbrecht,
Thank you for your suggestions.
I agree with dr. Hans.
My dear all colleagues,
Any comment before apprehending whole things would be premature.