In 2007 LINKS had its 20th anniversary and we organized a conference in Heidelberg
to celebrate this. When meeting colleagues I'm still regularly reminded of that amazing
meeting, and expressions like ‘the best conference I've ever attended’ sum up the
general impression it left behind in the memory of many.
And I agree. It was a wonderful meeting where we celebrated homeopathy, its latest
advances and above all shared a deep feeling of genuine friendship and community.
The atmosphere was fantastic and the presentations were of high quality.
One thing I had hoped the conference would bring and was even designed to generate
was debate. Rajan Sankaran, Massimo Mangialavori and Jan Scholten have each made immense contributions to the development of homeopathy, preparing
it as it were for the new millennium. As key speakers they had the platform to evaluate
what they had developed, and to project into the future where their ongoing quest
might lead them. The other speakers were all excellent homeopaths in their own right
and in their practice had also integrated the work of one, two or all of the key speakers.
The scientific debate we intended to let take place largely didn't happen. Apparently
the time was not ripe for it and we as a community not ready for it. Completely new
developments within any science will logically have to mature, and in that process
ideas become further refined, tuned and improved. Innovative thinkers like Jan, Rajan,
Massimo and many others not only deserve to be heard but also need their ideas to
be tested in debate with colleagues. They deserve more feedback than our applause;
they deserve to hear our experience in testing out their hypotheses, especially where
our cases do not seem to fit these. Each science advances most from seriously studying
those observations (in homeopathy those cases) that do not fit the current general
understanding of an adhered theory.
The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability
to play from either position with equal ease. This, I'm afraid is not the level at
which we generally dare to investigate the theory and practice of homeopathy. Can
you imagine how our art and science would blossom if we could do this, attack our
own beliefs, defend someone else's point of view? What freedom such an openness of
mind would render, with what strength the resulting openness of heart would empower
us!
A journal is less equipped for debate, which needs an arena with live audience, and
serves better as a platform for discussion. But also an open discussion of the fascinating
developments in homeopathy is not really taking place, as fixed positions pro or con
any idea, whether old or new, do not really stimulate our science to progress, but
rather hamper it.
This editorial is intended as an invitation to bring more open discussion to the pages
of LINKS. An open invitation for an open discussion with an open mind and an open
heart. I'm inviting you to share the observations you make in your practice using
any method of case taking, case analysis and case treatment currently available to
us. Where do you feel any of these could be improved? E. g. how do you feel a sensation
of a specific plant family would be better described, or which miasm would better
fit a species of it; how do you feel the muriaticums, the actinides or a stage or series of the periodic table might be better described; what more precisely
is the survival mechanism of a specific animal and how does that translate to humans;
where do you feel the current beliefs considering posology need to be adjusted; how
can layers in a case or levels of health be better understood or translated into more
effective treatment; etcetera.
I'm inviting you to keep your contribution to this open discussion restricted to 300
words, and to refrain from closed opinions and instead come with open suggestions
based on your observations. You may include in your writing an open question or suggestion.
In case this concerns anyone in particular we will pass this on and ask for a response.
Let's create a regular column in which we together improve our theory and practice.
We could call this rubric LINK & LEARN. Suggestions for another name are welcome.
I truly hope to hear from you,
Harry van der Zee
