Voir version anglaise sur interhomeopathy.org
2009 Mars
Editorial March 2009
The remedy doesn't care how it is found
Regularly people ask me about the "Scholten school". I have always found that an amazing question. Similar kinds of questions are what is difference in school of the classical ones, that of Sankaran, or Masi, or Paschero. Those questions made me amazed. I have never seen "schools" and I see what I discover as just homeopathy. I don't even recognize a school. Remedies have their picture and that picture is independent of any kind of "School". That doesn't mean that are many points of view described in our literature, but I see those points of view as complimentary and not contradictory. When aspects are contradictory that can only be the case when there are incorrect aspects described, which is of course possible. Different views can also look contradictory without being so, as an expression of the paradoxical quality of nature and our remedies.
Thus arises the statement: The remedy doesn't care how it is found. Otherwise said, the effect of a remedy is independent of the way how it was found and this can only be logical, otherwise homeopathy would have a very big problem in explaining itself. That doesn't mean that the way a remedy was found doesn't also have an effect. Case taking is a process that is always influential in itself. The effect of case taking can range from from very superficial to very deep.
An analogy may make the above statement more clear. It would be very strange if there would be different schools in relativity theory or in quantum mechanics, or Newtonian mechanics. It would be regarded as not only strange, but also a sign of weakness of the theory. It would not be consistent. In new developments though there are often different directions that are tested and put forward. In the end one of them is chosen or they might turn out to be all correct, just different expressions of the same thing. A nice example is in sting theory; at a certain moment there where about 6 different forms and there was much debate about which was the correct one. Till it was found out that all 6 were just different expressions of a more general form, which was called M-theory.
From the above it will be obvious that our journal will promote any form of homeopathy. We won't promote just one " school", favor one over another. The only criterion is that the articles must be scientifically valid. So everyone is invited to send in their articles.
We wish you a good and enjoying your time reading this issue of Interhomeopathy.
Regularly people ask me about the "Scholten school". I have always found that an amazing question. Similar kinds of questions are what is difference in school of the classical ones, that of Sankaran, or Masi, or Paschero. Those questions made me amazed. I have never seen "schools" and I see what I discover as just homeopathy. I don't even recognize a school. Remedies have their picture and that picture is independent of any kind of "School". That doesn't mean that are many points of view described in our literature, but I see those points of view as complimentary and not contradictory. When aspects are contradictory that can only be the case when there are incorrect aspects described, which is of course possible. Different views can also look contradictory without being so, as an expression of the paradoxical quality of nature and our remedies.
Thus arises the statement: The remedy doesn't care how it is found. Otherwise said, the effect of a remedy is independent of the way how it was found and this can only be logical, otherwise homeopathy would have a very big problem in explaining itself. That doesn't mean that the way a remedy was found doesn't also have an effect. Case taking is a process that is always influential in itself. The effect of case taking can range from from very superficial to very deep.
An analogy may make the above statement more clear. It would be very strange if there would be different schools in relativity theory or in quantum mechanics, or Newtonian mechanics. It would be regarded as not only strange, but also a sign of weakness of the theory. It would not be consistent. In new developments though there are often different directions that are tested and put forward. In the end one of them is chosen or they might turn out to be all correct, just different expressions of the same thing. A nice example is in sting theory; at a certain moment there where about 6 different forms and there was much debate about which was the correct one. Till it was found out that all 6 were just different expressions of a more general form, which was called M-theory.
From the above it will be obvious that our journal will promote any form of homeopathy. We won't promote just one " school", favor one over another. The only criterion is that the articles must be scientifically valid. So everyone is invited to send in their articles.
We wish you a good and enjoying your time reading this issue of Interhomeopathy.
Catégories: Editoriaux
Mots clés:
Remèdes:
Envoyer un commentaire