AV: I had lost track of that for a moment. We go back to our anthropocentric perspective: every patient is different and would therefore need a different remedy, but because this is not feasible and homeopathy nevertheless works, we conclude that close enough is sufficient. But what does ‘close enough’ mean?
G: Enough to cause resonance, we agreed on that, didn’t we?
AV: Don’t a lot of resources do that? We talked about it when we talked about the One and the Many: the One that is the similimum at level 5 and the Many that resonate on the other levels.
G: But on those other levels, you have signs and symptoms…
AV:… that come from level five! With these other remedies you take away the ‘signs and symptoms’….
G: … what all healing methods do, allopathic, naturopathic, homeopathic. That’s what the patients are asking: take away my symptoms.
Has your question been answered?
AV: I think so: what’s close enough? The remedy has to cause resonance, and that happens when it comes close enough to the actual disturbing pattern. For instance: a plant from the Asteraceae family with more than 20,000 relatives will be able to do just that if we are close enough. The subdivisions made by various homeopaths help us with this: miasmas, stages and so forth. Resonance is possible on different levels, which is why many substances also have an effect: namely the disappearance of the symptoms.
G: If we return to our analogy of the orchestra: sometimes the conductor is ill, sometimes the harp is out of tune. The remedy chosen must therefore be targeted at the level where the problem is located. It won’t help if you give the conductor, who is not the cause of the harp sounding out of tune, a remedy to feel better. In other words, the symptoms don’t all come from level five, so not every prescription should be based on that.
AV: We also must find out in the two hours that an intake interview lasts.
G: Another reason why a quick fix is a vain hope.
AV: We’re talking about “sufficient resonance” but how do we know? What is enough?
G: Doesn’t that become clear in the follow ups?
AV: In hindsight, yes. Can’t we know that in advance?
G: It’s difficult or almost impossible to prescribe remedies you don’t know, and it’s impossible to know all the phenomena remedies can be made of. You have done a good job of creating an overview of what is available. If you start to go into more detail, you risk ending up with the problem you wanted to solve: namely, too much information that blurs the essentials and dilutes the features.
AV: Thank you. I had actually hoped that you would tell me something that I did not already know.
G: We started by exploring what you already know and then we’ll see what’s left.
Av: Because we must guess at the remedy that is close enough to the similimum – which by definition should be different for everyone – we don’t really know how close the chosen one is, except afterwards. There seems to be no way to prescribe with greater precision. If, for example, I want to give a patient an ‘Insect’ and finally have sufficient indications that it must be a beetle, I still have the choice between 20,000 species (that are only found in Europe!). According to Wikipedia, the number of beetle species worldwide is estimated to be between 850,000 and 4,000,000. That’s insane. Why such a complex system? Who would come up with such a thing?!!
G: Well…
AV: OK, of course we do. But in … uh Gods sake: why?!
G: That’s because you’ve taken the principle of similarity to its extremes. This may not be necessary. As mentioned earlier, you can circle a finite area in an infinite reality. For the time being, that encircled space is different for different homeopaths. Homeopaths who work with 30 remedies have a smaller area encircled than homeopaths who work with 250 remedies. Their field of work and differentiation is smaller than homeopaths who work with 1000 remedies or with the 8500 in the catalog or, like you, with everything that exists, in the minds of the people. There you are. You can’t go back. Expansion can no longer be contained. The question becomes: how to keep such a large area manageable? Well: point 1: you know the remedies that people need. Point 2: you give the homeopathic world tools.
AV: But this is not about me, but about homeopathy, the theory, the philosophy and an effective unambiguous system of application.
G: Oh. I thought I had heard a question from a certain AV who wanted to discuss some unresolved issues.
AV: But am I not speaking on behalf of homeopathy? As you said: for me the problem of finding the remedy does not even arise. I can continue to practice happily, marvel at the accuracy of the precognition, try to understand things and keep my mouth shut, right?
G: (laughs) Could you really do that?
AV: It would be difficult for me to just prescribe remedies for the patients who consult me and keep the information I get from the cases to myself. I think it would be unfair. And irresponsible, as if my talent or my gift had been wasted on me.
G: Plus, you also want everyone to know that you have precognition and know the legitimacy of the people.
AV: That saves me from having to give explanations that I don’t have. So often I prescribe remedies that I hardly know or don’t know at all, that are incorrectly or incompletely described in homeopathic literature. How, then, could I justify my prescriptions? All those years before I became aware of my gift, I did live cases that I analyzed together with the homeopaths present. It would have been false and implausible not to confess the discovery of my “gift” and to hide behind some obscure sentences that turned out to be wonderfully applicable in a rarely consulted book. That situation occurred: I read what could be found about a little-known remedy days before I was to take the case in public. So I was able to pick out the ones that suited the patient after the consultation, but the chance that someone without precognition would have ended up with those few lines in that book after the anamnesis was almost nil.
G: I see. But if you have no problem finding the remedy, what was the question?
AV: For all those homeopaths, who don’t have that talent yet, there must be a method to get to the remedy. With the information I obtain from the cases from the point of view of the outcome, I have indeed been able to make a lot of reliable simplifications. But can’t it be easier, faster, clearer, more accurate?
G: You can.
AV: Can you help with that?
G: I can.
AV: Will you help me with that then? And other homeopaths who contribute to the system.
G: I do, I do. Trust me.
