Ways of Seeing

by Richard Pitt

Editorial

Ways of Seeing is a title of a famous book by the author John Berger in which he states that our views of things are influenced and conditioned by our culture and beliefs. In particular he explores the relationship to the attitudes toward women as represented in art and the book has made a seminal contribution to the understanding of art criticism and the broader debate on objectivity and value as presented in any culture.

I entitled my essay in the journal, “Ways of Seeing”, as I wanted to explore the ways in which we approach the study of materia medica and case analysis and the challenges of exploring this body of information. As I mention in the article, Hahnemann in Aphorism 3 of the Organon stated that a physician needs to have knowledge of the healing power of medicine and knowledge of disease and how to match one to the other. Knowledge of medicines comes from the study of provings and the curative capacity of our medicines, as well as it does from the knowledge of the medicinal substance itself. However, as explored by Frans Vermeulen in both articles presented in this journal, this knowledge has been fraught with inaccuracies, assumptions and flawed provings, making our work even more difficult. Vermeulen is doing sterling work in clarifying many of these mistakes, even made by some of the masters of old, including Hahnemann, T.F. Allen and C. Hering. 

However, in thinking about “Ways of Seeing”, I also explore how even the way we begin to study materia medica and analyzing cases can require a shift of perspective. If we always approach a case in the same way, with the same “knowledge” and use the same tools – materia medica and repertory – it will tend to bring up the same results. As more possible remedies have been included in our materia medica it is forcing us to think outside our normal framework if we want to consider these remedies. Some of these remedies have not been formally proven and so therefore the knowledge used to justify their use is more general and “archetypal” and less specific to keynotes and/or a comprehensive psychological profile that is mostly known with polycrest remedies. Again, Vermeulen’s contribution to this challenge has been very important as he not only has clarified well the limits and mistakes of some of the old knowledge and flawed proving methodologies, but he has also sought to explore a more objective framework of knowledge of substances by looking at the very nature of the substance itself and “how it behaves” in it natural form. Although this could be said to be applying the Doctrine of Signatures, which has been widely debated and even condemned by Hahnemann, in fact, it is much more than this as it is seeking a more objective knowledge base of the fundamental building blocks of substances. This knowledge can be used to complement proving data and clinical verification.

Also, as Berger explored in his book, by understanding the shifting cultural belief systems and myths of society, it changes the way we perceive and the values we give to everything, including art, which Vermeulen mentions in describing homeopathy as both an art and science. For homeopathy, still very much influenced by the attitudes and perspective of the 19th century, our materia medica is laced with much that is either redundant today or which simply has found another way of expressing itself in modern society. Therefore an analysis of both the accuracy and relevance of some of the materia medica knowledge is appropriate. Also, if we want to include “new” remedies into our materia medica we have to first study them and begin to “see” them inside of ourselves. We have to create the space and find a “Way of Seeing”. I explore that to some extent in my essay when looking at remedies to compare with Aurum metallicum, including the possibility of Lanthanides and Gem remedies. Also, with “new” remedies, it requires a shift in language at times as both new provings and other information on new remedies reflects modern society and the cultural shifts which have changed in the past century. This shift of context has challenged us as homeopaths in order to incorporate new remedies and ideas and also to reinterpret some of the old information from 19th and early 20th century homeopathy.

Peter Fraser also takes this discussion to another level when comparing remedies based on what Realm they come from: Sky, Earth, Underworld, Sea and Beyond, in his essay, Differentials in the Sky. Fraser, like Vermeulen has done some seminal work over the years in classifying material and finding original ways of exploring the dense forest of materia medica. In this article he does this by discussing bird remedies – a relatively new group of remedies in our materia medica – and how easily they can be overprescribed now, as much as they were obviously omitted before, because we didn’t know anything about them. Fraser’s comparision of bird, insect, gas and mammals is really a unique contribution to our study of materia medica. 

On another subject, but very much within the concept of Ways of Seeing, I explore the ongoing drama of AIDS in Africa, and in particular look at the miasmatic dynamic of the disease, especially as it is seen in Africa. As Berger was exploring the relativity of the impact of cultural beliefs onto perception and reality, I wanted to explore the broader dynamics around AIDS in Africa, including the social, political and cultural dynamics of the disease and to put it into the framework of miasmatic theory. The fact that AIDS has manifested very differently in Africa than in developed countries bring many questions for us as homeopaths and in this essay I explore this question, using miasms as a way of understanding what may be happening.

Finally, Deborah Gordon writes about her ideas around nutrition and why she uses certain approaches to nutrition with her patients and how it is pertinent to Hahnemann’s original writings on “obstacles to cure”. Another subject that also evokes much debate – and one explored before in the journal – it fits well into the concept of “Ways of Seeing.”

We hope you enjoy this issue of the journal as we approach 2015 and I want to acknowledge all the work of everybody who has contributed articles to the journal over the last seven years, since we resurrected the name of the journal from its original editors, Dr William Boericke and Dr William Dewey, who produced the original California Homeopath from 1882-1892. I want to acknowledge my colleague and original co-editor Premananda Childs who worked hard on the journal in the first 3 years, the California Homeopathic Medical Society that has sponsored the journal throughout the last 7 years and also my friend and colleague Marci Mearns who has done all the background technical and design work since we went online 4 years ago and has worked side by side with me in producing each edition of the journal. My thanks to one and all and all the best for 2015. 

Editorial Part Two

After seven years of being editor of the California Homeopath, my colleague Marci Mearns and I have been exploring the possibilities for the future of the journal. We feel that the journal has offered a unique and in depth view on topics pertinent to homeopathy and our vision has always been to have a journal that extends the boundaries of conventional homeopathic writing and encompass a broader investigation into health and the contribution homeopathy can make.

We feel that homeopathy has evolved tremendously over the years but also that there has  still a dearth of good homeopathic journals and literature in general in North America. Hence the need in the 21st century for an online journal which has allowed us to offer longer and more broad articles on subjects relevant to homeopathy. We have been really happy with the quality of articles presented and the subjects covered and that we have been able to use the title California Homeopath in honor of the tradition of homeopathy in California.

Also we have been very happy with how the online journal has evolved and for that I am very grateful to the work of Marci Mearns, in helping design and structure the journal in such a fine way. 

However, in order to allow the journal to continually evolve and also to help be part of the ongoing dialog into the future of homeopathy, we would like to change the structure of how we produce the journal. To this end, we want to invite regular guest editors – to have an editorial team – who will take turns to produce an edition of the journal. We will aim to produce three editions a year and the guest editor will coordinate the edition with Marci and both will take responsibility for the production of the journal. My role will be more as an advisor and consulting editor, to help finesse articles and direction for the journal, but to have a less direct responsibility for its production. In this way, we hope that the active contribution of more homeopathic thinkers/writers will add to the journal and allow it to evolve to a new level.

We hope you continue to support the journal, to submit articles and feedback to us and to help us make the journal a vital part of the homeopathic community.  

Best wishes Richard Pitt