Development Part 1
As has been discussed, Hahnemann made a vital and significant contribution to our understanding of the contagious nature of diseases, to the unifying principles of seeking common threads of symptoms in complex disease states, to the idea of suppression and to that of inherited influences of certain diseases. Although, as mentioned, Hahnemann didn’t mention the word inherited when it came to understanding the influence of his miasmatic diseases, by default, his own conclusions led future generations of homeopaths to consider this one of the most important parts of miasmatic theory. It also led them to create remedies from other disease states and through the clinical use of nosodes has allowed us to understand much more about the picture of the broader miasmatic influence. As mentioned earlier, Hahnemann did not use Medorrhinum, Syphilinum, Tuberculinum or Carcinosin and therefore only had a very limited knowledge of the unique image of the influence of these miasmatic diseases.
As the thinking of miasms developed, some new ideas developed based on the ideas of miasms not only as specific diseases based on infectious agents, but also as archetypal potential, that impacted both p
hysical and mental symptoms and also behavioral dynamics and more categorical themes of human conditioning. The development of seeing miasmatic influence pass on through generations allowed homeopaths to develop and broaden their knowledge of the pictures of various miasms and their study and use of nosodes of different miasms further developed their uniqueness in homeopathic prescribing. While some homeopaths would question the need to create new miasms or the type of generalized classifications of miasmatic influence, they are worth exploring to understand the potential significance for prescribing.
One of the modern interpretations of miasmatic theory has been that of Proceso Sanchez Ortega, in his book “Notes on Miasms”. The main thread of what Ortega meditated on and wrote about is the predispositions to disease that a miasmatic influence gave and the patterns of expression that each of the three “big” miasms created, revealing, according to Ortega, universal expressions of form and function. He felt that Hahnemann had (inadvertently) revealed a new schema of biological function that could be used to understand health and disease and which could be compared with other “systemic” orders and methodologies. Dimitrialis questions this jump in theoretical speculation and makes it clear that this is not what Hahnemann was implying at all. He furthermore critiques certain assumptions made about each of the miasms, that Psora = functional disease, that Sycosis = overgrowth (proliferative) disease (tumors, warts etc) and that Syphilis = Destructive disease (necrosis, ulcerations) etc. He states that in Hahnemann’s descriptions of secondary psora, there are many examples of proliferative and destructive diseases. However, one of the retorts to this is that it is very difficult to define what is truly secondary psora and much easier to do it with sycosis and syphilis which have a clearer symptom picture and specific infectious factor to them. Also, it is often understood that the earlier in life that proliferative and destructive conditions arise, the more likely it is to be due to a sycotic or syphilitic miasm, or a combination of more than one miasm.
The question still remains whether the listed categorizations above have some validity or not and whether it is of practical use to make such distinctions, as also whether it is useful to speculate about the true underlying causes of disease. As homeopaths tend to be philosophical types and because, thanks to Hahnemann, we have embraced a complex system, requiring precise individuation of every case, often of a dizzying array of symptoms, sensations and stories, any system that allows us to categorize and link certain phenomenon together may be of use. Here Ortega pays homage to other theorists who have sought to understand the function of the human organism in similar ways, by ordaining certain diatheses and other intrinsic qualities to the function and form of human health and disease. The fact that Ortega veers much further a field than Hahnemann was inclined to go does not invalidate it even if he presumes Hahnemann meant more than he actually did in his own work. Even if Ortega was not accurate in his analysis of what Hahnemann meant by miasm, what he and many other homeopathic and non-homeopathic writers did was to attempt to understand the complex influences, including hereditary/genetic ones that predisposed people to illness and that could be seen in physical and mental disease, body typology, normal characteristics of personality and social and cultural dynamics that reflect the “dynamic” influence of the chronic miasms.
0 comments:
Post a Comment