Saturday 9 April 2011

Research of Homeopathy by Hahnemann Part 3

Part 3

One of the most significant points Dimitrialis makes in his book is then discussed in the next chapter “Itch” (p. 15) when he quotes Hahnemann in Chronic Diseases referring to a history of an “itch” of some kind in chronic non-venereal disease, and that this itch was due to a former infection. Dimitrialis emphasizes that the infectious nature of chronic disease, including “itch” is central to Hahnemann’s understanding of miasms and that of psora, but that Hahnemann defined the word infection in a broad sense, meaning an affection from an external stimulus and that it is the vital force that is primarily affected by this external stimulus. The revelation that Hahnemann had though was that he could begin to identify numerous disease states and symptoms as being simply part of psora, connected to a primary itch eruption. However, most of the disease states he was seeing were classified as secondary symptoms, not primary, a distinction that he made over many pages in Chronic Diseases. The fact that Hahnemann attributed so many chronic disease conditions to that of psora led to criticism of his miasmatic theory and was one reason why many homeopaths did not take up his thinking in a serious way. The other major point revealed here by Dimitrialis pertains to the concept of original causation, and he quotes Hahnemann as follows - “ailments which if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases are but part of the ancient miasma of leprosy and itch; i.e., merely descendants of one and the same original malady (italics mine), the almost innumerable symptoms of which form but one whole and are to be regarded as the parts of one and the same disease in the same way as the great epidemic of typhus fever.” Here, Hahnemann is seeking to understand the true root of most, if not all non-venereal chronic disease.

Dimitrialis again emphasizes an important point in Hahenmann’s own definition of a miasm, that it is indeed an infectious agent and he used that term to mean any infectious substance dangerous to health. (Dimitrialis p. 18), including acute diseases such as Cholera. He then quotes Hahnemann from his Lesser Writings in which Hahnemann explains clearly how gradually, immunity to certain acute diseases can be developed by exposure to the infectious miasm which over time allows people in a community not to become too seriously sick. His observations in such matters again show the clarity of his mind and power of observation in looking at the dynamics of disease expression. The most important observation though, one often quoted, is that Hahnemann when referring to infectious agents was talking about parasites, bacteria or viruses, observations which preceded a bacterial knowledge of many diseases by as much as 50 years. One of the main points being emphasized by Dimitrialis is that the miasm is not the disease but merely the infectious agent, and he quotes B.K. Sarkar in his Essays on Homeopathy, that Kent’s writings on the matter confused the two states. The miasm is not the disease. The internal psoric disease is different than the psoric miasm, which is the infectious agent.

Dimitrialis states that any tendency to use the word miasm to describe a dyscrasia, diathesis, taint or tendency to disease is wrong. It is only to mean the infectious agent causing a disease, mainly an internal psoric condition. While it is important to understand this fact in terms of defining what Hahnemann meant, the distinction may seem to be an academic one as Dimitrialis then continues to describe how infection with a miasm leading to internal psora can create a greater tendency to get many other diseases. This fact is representative of how miasmatic theory has developed since Hahnemann’s time when a miasmatic influence, often originating in the actual miasmatic disease perhaps generations ago leads to the predisposition to many diseases, some chronic, some acute, some sporadic. This concept of susceptibility, not explored by Hahnemann in this way, as apparent in the way Dimitrialis describes Hahnemann’s own evolution in thinking, is exactly how many homeopaths practically use an understanding of miasms to seek a deeper totality and roots of disease. Therefore, many people would feel the distinction is mainly one of the definitions of the word miasm. All the consequent effects of an infection and disease states and subsequent susceptibility to other disease states conform to most homeopaths ideas of a “miasmatic influence.” However, it does make a clear distinction between how Hahnemann originally used the word miasm and how it has been used by homeopaths since then, some of whose ideas will be discussed later. It also reveals how far from Hahemann’s original thinking many more modern interpretations have gone. This is not a bad thing as much information and experience has been achieved and one of the most important shifts has been that, instead of seeing miasms as merely negative disease states, infections or influence, we can now appreciate that miasmatic influence expresses itself in broader, thematic ways, including even in positive, more evolutionary expressions. This is far from where Hahnemann was in his own exploration, naturally focusing on the fundamental causes of suffering.

0 comments:

Post a Comment