It is of quite some interest what, for instance, we now learn from Jungs work. They have shown, too, that this “either. any phenomena of the unconscious, of the human soul –that things never are black or white or light or shadowy, but that the opposites do not only not exclude but rather require and include each other.
This is something that is very tough to us. This is something that we have to learn to realize. It is something that does away with what we considered logical until now.
I believe that the subject of semantics tries in some way to tackle this difficulty at its roots, namely, doing away with the erroneous expression of language. After all, our language expresses our thinking and as our thinking so will be our language. What does this do? Does this have any practical import? I think it does.
For instance, to give one example, you are in the habit of seeing your Belladonna patient as flushed, red-faced, and so forth, but outstanding Belladonna indications are patients with a pale face; because Belladonna is flushed, for this very reason Belladonna is also pale.
This is because for every force that has a certain direction of action, we always will find a complementary force having the opposite direction of action. It is what Hahnemann calls the primary and secondary drug effect which, however, we continuously meet with not only in the instance of the crude substance against the potency, but even in the reactions to the same potency of different patients but even of the same patients.
Another example is the 4 to 8 p.m. aggravation; just as often, nearly, you will find a 4 to 8 a.m. aggravation in Lycopodium, or even perhaps an outstanding improvement at 4 to 8 p.m. As long as our thinking is strictly to the one line, seeing only the point but never is complementary opposite, we often are floored by these prescribing problems.
The same flexibility of polar entities as part of one unit applies to homoeopathic thinking, and I believe is an essential part of a homoeopathic thinking is strictly to the one line, seeing only the point but never its complementary opposite, we often are floored by these prescribing problems.
The same flexibility of polar entities as part of one unit applies to homoeopathic thinking, and I believe is an essential part of homoeopathic thinking. And I would thank you very much, DR. Schmidt, for bringing up this crucial point.
DR. SCHMIDT [Closing]: I want to thank all the good doctors who have commented so kindly on my paper. I feel very well rewarded for my efforts. Also, I hope to have aroused your curiosity; and maybe some of you would like to dig into these very fundamental basic things, such as semantics; they found an appropriate expression, in Korzybskis book “Science and Sanity,” which you can no doubt easily obtain from your library.
Lets hope next year, and in the years to come, others will tackle the subject from their particular angles, and help to integrate Homoeopathy in its rightful place in medicine and science.
