He does not split verbally and elementalistically the reactions of humans into separate body, mind, emotion, intellect, intuition, etc., but studies them under a new angle: the organism-as-a-whole in its external as well as internal environment. This new definition of man, which is neither zoological nor mythological, but functional and extensional, requires a complete revision of what we know about humans.
I apologize for what elaborating and giving you practical examples for these various postulates. Korzybski needed some 800 pages to do it. I can only refer you to Science and Sanity to study them, and it will be well worth your while.
Hahnemanns synthetic and dynamic theories conform to modern general semantics.
Static and analytic medicine follows the Aristotelian logic by considering the elementalistic, theoretical disease entity first, and the patient after. It wrongly fits the latter to the former. It considers that the first duty of the physician is to make a diagnosis. It was conceived to apply drugs mostly to the animal in man–to separate organs, on the physiological level. The genius of Hahnemann, anticipating the functional non- Aristotelian system, asserts in paragraph one of the Organon that: “The physicians highest and only calling is to cure the sick”, –thereby not confusing the aim of medicine with the means (diagnosis). Hahnemann proclaimed Homoeopathy as an essentially human medicine.
He took into consideration first, the object–that is, the patient. He emphasized the fundamental importance of considering the sick as an individuality, or organism-as-a-whole in its external, as well as its internal, environment. He did not fail to integrate the mental and psychic features of the patient and to evaluate them logically, thereby anticipating psychosomatic medicine. In the study of the patient, Hahnemann and his followers advocated a close and orderly scrutiny of the symptoms, an hierarchical evaluation of what comes first and what comes last, what is common and what is peculiar.
For example: a patient needs a homoeopathic remedy for cough; it is impossible for the homoeopathic physician to prescribe on that symptom alone. To obtain a homoeopathic prescription the physician has to investigate the various modalities of that particular cough, but he might miss the target unless he also incorporates in the physio-pathologic picture the generalities and whatever mental disturbances that might be present. General semantics does with words, terms and language what homoeopathy does with symptoms: it individualizes.
By introducing his consciousness of abstraction, Korzybski explores, explains and expands this all-important process.
Hahnemann stressed the necessity of proving drugs on humans in order to determine the curative specificity of drugs on humans.
Long before the discovery of the microscope and the atom, Hahnemann perceived the dynamic action of drugs in sub- microscopical dilutions on sub-microscopical levels.
These various, synthetic, functional, revolutionary theories fit perfectly with Korzybskis non-Aristotelian system and new concept of man.
There is, among many others, a pregnant chapter in Science and Sanity of the “infinitesimal” and “cause and effect” that is worth studying and applying to the whole problem of high potencies.
Conclusion:
Says Korzybski: “Mathematics is entirely a product of higher abstractions created by definitions of undefined terms … it appears as a very limited, but the only, language in existence in the main similar in structure to the world around us and the nervous system”.
Homoeopathy has to be modernized and re-formulated with an adequate language in the light of 1949 knowledge. It has to be integrated into its right place in medicine. Its basic principles and theories are in harmony with the new general semantics, which has permitted the tremendous modern advance in science. Such a gigantic task will require the cooperation of physicians, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, biologists and philologists.
The above considerations barely touch and fringe of the subject of general semantics. They are intended to stimulate the curiosity and bring about an awareness of new angles in these old and confusing problems.
DISCUSSION.
DR. W.H. WOLFRAM [Cincinnati, Ohio]: Mr. President and Members: I think Dr. Schmidts paper on semantics in relationship to Homoeopathy has been of great interest to us all though some of it is over our heads, I am afraid. We should like to hear more from Dr. Schmidt.
When I was first starting in practice, I was confused by the term “physical therapy” and I know one confusion was that it was more psychical than it was physical, and when I got into the etymology of the word “medicine” and the word “doctor” and the word “psychical” and the word “physical” I found that etymology was not a very satisfactory subject. It just led on and on and on.
Later, in the University of Vienna, I went to Professor Paul Phade, the correlator for Sigmund Freud, and he turned me over the Wilhelm Schteckel for a psychoanalysis. Well, it ended up that I became an addict to psychoanalysis and stayed on beyond the seven weeks that I had intended to stay there in 1933. I stayed for a year and received my certificate in psychoanalysis. I have never put it on my walls nor have I ever told a patient in Cincinnati about it. I have enough trouble here being a homoeopath and with the homoeopaths I have too much trouble being an eclectic and with the chiropractors I have an awful lot of trouble being an M.D. And I am not trying to be funny about it. I find that there is a confusion of meanings.
These words that I have used have, as Dr. Schmidt has pointed out, different connotations to different people. I am sure the word “bull” means entirely differing things to Dr. Schmidt than it does to me, because he is a gentleman. (Laughter) And I am sure too that is a paucity of information on the subject of semantics. DR. HARVEY FARRINGTON [Chicago, Illinois]: I have only a word to say regarding this excellent paper, and I think it forebodes a step in the right direction, not only in science and philosophy but in homoeopathic thinking.
Words are only the expressions of thoughts and the words are accurate only so long as they express the thought truly. I can foresee along this line that not only have we begun to build the bridge between those two in our own profession, but also to clarify our conceptions and our thoughts within the homoeopathic school with the result of more unity in thinking and the doing away with a lot of the differences, the correcting of the opinions of those who are still thinking materialistically and not willing to give the high potencies any credit for conception and results.
I think we ought to be thankful to the doctor for this paper and as time goes on, as meeting occur, undoubtedly we will get more.
DR. MARION B. ROOD [Lapeer, Michigan]: I thank Dr. Schmidt for this paper. Physicists are always trying to get beyond words to the entity which the words describe and in physics we see they have expressed it this way, in one branch of physics– “Given a medium on which light falls, some is absorbed, some is reflected, and some is scattered. For perfect absorption, the light must have a frequency characteristic that is identical with the frequency which the absorbing medium has, and we call it resonance.
Such light might be totally absorbed and energy disappears and matter appears. What light the medium is capable of absorbing, it is also capable of emitting, characteristically,, and after all, we might have the disappearance of matter and the appearance of energy which has given rise to some of the phenomena of this age called atomic energy and the marvelous discoveries of Einstein”.
But on the whole, some energy is absorbed, some reflected, and some scattered, meaning there is not perfect resonance between the energy frequency and the characteristic frequency periodic to the absorbing medium. When we get our ideas all mixed up, then I believe the psychologists talk about split personalities. They dont know what to do. Their energy is scattered and they react as split personalities.
When we have perfect confidence in ourselves, we emit an energy characteristic of us. We have perfectly assimilated it and now re-emit energy. We have perfect understanding, I believe.
But seldom do we get a 100 per cent understanding, and I believe that is the aim of this semantics and I wish to thank Dr. Schmidt and I am looking forward to time to study that paper more carefully.
DR. EDWARD C. WHITMONT [New York City]: Inasmuch as some of the blame was put on me, I have to stand up. I have read Dr. Schmidts paper, though I just came in and did not hear it.
One thing has struck me during the last few years more and more, namely that apparently something like a new era of thinking is arising for the first time during the last two thousand years. What I might call the inflexibility of thinking, placing things in black or white, mutually exclusive–if one is true, the other cannot be true–is changing. What Dr. Schmidt calls the Aristotelian method of thinking is gradually drawing to an end. It probably came into existence because it was a necessary school for man to learn this kin of thinking. However, it is not adequate to the phenomena of nature.
