Editorial
by Richard Pitt & Premananda Childs
There is always tension in any living system. This tension is created by the momentum of change implicit in any situation in which change is inevitable. As all things are connected and therefore everything affects everything else (is there much dispute here outside the corridors of 19th century reductionism!!), all theories, systems and people are subject to these forces. This is found in all philosophical, scientific, social, cultural and political systems. In order to try and get a handle on this complex dynamic there is a constant effort to understand what is going on, to attempt to create order from apparent chaos (a hopeless yet important task in figuring out what it’s all about). The amount of energy given to this endeavor found in many “systems of thinking” throughout human history is extraordinary. Homeopathy is but one system, applying a law of cure and a knowledge of nature’s healing power as a model of healing. In so doing, it is seeking to understand enough about the human condition in order to find a “simile” in nature that can help create greater adaptability and health.
It can be said that the fundamentals of human consciousness have not changed for thousands of years, perhaps up to 100 thousand years ago. We are basically concerned with the same things that we always have been. However, it can also be said that the influences that affect our lives are profoundly different than they were even 100 years ago. Correspondingly, developments in all walks of life have been extraordinary and have impacted our lives in unimaginable ways to people living even 50 years ago. For many ‘evolutionary’ thinkers, the appearance of time speeding up is not just an appearance, it’s a fact. We are actually experiencing a ‘warp drive’ in the space-time continuum. Homeopaths and homeopathy as a whole are not removed from these changes and it is therefore interesting to explore how homeopathy is adapting and changing as a result of these influences.
Homeopathy has always been challenged in its definition and methodology. This is perhaps inevitable as it embraces a much more complex and subjective interpretation of human health than the tenets of reductionistic science. Embracing this complexity though creates challenges in establishing a “system” which can be identified as homeopathy. As we continue to explore the boundaries of this system, inevitable tensions arise between the strains of thinking and philosophical understanding of our art and the definitions we apply. In this, homeopathy is no different than any other living system. However, it can be said that we are still at quite an early stage of development and as a result, there arises significant differences in our methodologies and interpretations. Therefore, the challenge to continue to modify and clarify exactly what is homeopathy is one that we all face. The philosophical tension that this brings up, seen in the relationship to the historical underpinnings of homeopathy as laid down by Hahnemann and others and the application of the law of similars in the 21st century is an ongoing one; however, from this tension, ideally a more coherent understanding of the human condition and of homeopathy can arise. In this process, homeopathy has been able to use the knowledge of nature as seen through provings and clinical experience as a prism into the human condition. There is perhaps no other healing system that studies the complexity of nature in such a radical and insightful way. But even with all that we share in common, there is much dispute about the validity of information we get from nature and the process in which this knowledge is used.
In attempting to define a “system” or specific methodology in which to define the homeopathic method, there is also a tendency to make absolute judgements about the right way. This is homeopathy and this is not. Or this is now the best and most effective way to practice homeopathy. It can seem that either there is an emphasis on the past and that new ways of thinking beyond what Hahnemann and the other ‘Masters’ stated are not acceptable or that this particular ‘new’ way of thinking is the real thing at the exclusion of what has preceded it. Computer programs are even created to model a particular system or an individual’s methodology. Perhaps the biggest thing to pay attention to is not to get stuck in any one way or specific approach, that there are many different ways to the simillimum, as there are different ways to God.
This edition of the journal is dedicated to this topic, ideally creating a framework in which the tensions within our system can be explored in an open and experiential way, respecting the individual experiences and perspectives that each of us brings to the practice of homeopathy and at the same time seeking the common ground that defines us as homeopaths. We hope that each of the contributions helps you in your own journey of greater understanding of what it is that we do and aids you in your own evolution as student and practitioner of homeopathy.
Richard Pitt
Premananda Childs
