LETTER TO HOMEOPATHIC LINKS 2/02 DISCUSSING THE DOMAINS OF INTENTION & HOMEOPATHY

by Charles Wansbrough piublished in Homeopathic Links 2/02

 I was prompted to write this article, after reading a recent letter published by Homeopathic Links 4/01 by Dr Amir Cassam. In essence he returns to the ‘Vithoulkas debacle’ which brought about such a vehement response from so many homeopaths. He argues elegantly and persuasively, against the contention ‘that homeopathic healing was comparable to magical healing ritual triggering a synchronistic healing event’. He then proceeds to point out that both John Boulderstone [i] and Eileen Nauman, are totally at odds with the homeopathic ideology that believes ‘that there is a direct connection between giving the remedy that fits the patient’s symptoms and the resulting healing when it occurs. It is not synchronistic but causal. It is not magic as practised by Boulderstone and Nauman but based on the strict Hahnemannian principles of classical homeopathy’. He then goes on to agree with G.Vithoulkas in withdrawing from any further discussions, if the ‘discussion’ is dragged to the level of these two proponents of the magical form of healing and then insisting in homeopathic journals that they were practising homeopathy’. His argument in essence condemns the ‘conflation’ that occurs when certain practitioners substitute the ‘workings of intention’ with the well defined classical homeopathic methodology that Hahnemann laid down in his Organon.

After reading this letter again, I returned to the older copies of Homeopathic Links and reread the many responses of outrage which the original Vithoulkas interview had given rise to and realised that, apart from the personal comments which were inexcusable, few including Vithoulkas were able to make a clear distinction between the domains of ‘intention’ and those of ‘homeopathy’. In fact, I believe that Dr Cassam and others that uphold ‘classical homeopathy and its tenets’ miss the point completely, by banishing the ‘workings of intention’ to the magical realm entirely. The problem with definitions is just not that simple, that we can choose ‘homeopathic principles’ and ignore ‘intention’ as guidelines to activity and functional efficacy!!! It is not an either/or scenario but both aspects that affect the patient and that is the problem. It is not that I do not agree, in principle, with Dr Cassam’s definition of what purports to be ‘classical homeopathy’, but to carve it out in stone, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It is simply unscientific, and a feeble excuse for the dogmatic homeopath, to ignore the effects of ‘intention’ in a therapeutic encounter. What we can say about the criticisms levelled against the ‘so called’ magical realms of homeopathy, is that such criticisms are invalid not because they do not come under the auspices of homeopathy, but because the criticisms are confusing categories or domains of activity. The domain we call the ‘classical model of homeopathy’ with its incumbent modus operandi, assumes the practitioner to be ‘unprejudiced’ and objective in his administration of the correct homeopathic remedy. Yet how can we seriously entertain ‘a classic model’ that ignores the role of the observer and refuses to acknowledge the ‘entangled nature of the practitioner and patient’. It is acceptable to define the parameters of ‘classical homeopathy’ but totally at odds with reality to banish the effects of the ‘observer’ under the banner of ‘the unprejudiced’, failing to acknowledge that the ‘domain of intention’ is still part and parcel of the  ‘homeopathic therapeutic process’.

For a hundred years, ‘New Physics’ has wrestled with the problems associated with ‘the observer’ and his role in the collapse of the wave function in quantum theory. For a century now, quantum theory pertaining to the laws of the subatomic world, has passed every single test with flying colours, with some predictions vindicated to 10 places of decimals. Not surprisingly, physicists claim quantum theory as one of their greatest triumphs. Yet this has not stopped endless discussions as to the role of the observer, and his place in this universe of quantum effects. Physicists have even agreed that behind their boasts lies a guilty secret: they haven't the slightest idea why the laws work, or where they come from. All their vaunted equations are just mathematical lash‑ups, made out of bits and pieces from other parts of physics whose main justification is that they seem to work. Yet through the ‘scientific endeavour’ they continually seek to refine and explore ever more abstruse theories in the quest for a final answer.

Is this scientific tapestry of rich explorations which has vaulted us into some of the greatest technological feats  of this century, paradoxical and totally at odds with common sense, to be completely ignored by those purporting to hold down and revere the ‘tenets of classical homeopathy’??

Can we evolve an acceptable model that might include the two domains of ‘intention’ and the ‘homeopathic model’?

Perhaps this would bring to an end the tedious debates about what purports to be or not to be ‘classical homeopathy’. Quantum theory is full of paradoxes yet still survives as one of the most elegant theories ever to be constructed, so why can’t the homeopathic community bury the rhetoric and accept that in any therapeutic encounter, the role of the observer  plays an essential part in the healing process. The two domains intention/classical model, are not polarities apart but remain an entangled whole that can only truly be divided by theoretical constructs that  hope to study the effects that occur in a healing encounter. I will explain further :

THE INTENTIONAL DOMAIN

It is difficult to define with exactness or clarity, the limits or exact content of this domain. Yet with examples I can hope to unravel the antagonism and confusion that arises  from the endless debates about the ‘nonsense’ attributed to this domain. I will discuss a number of aspects that can all be placed under this domain.

1.THE PLACEBO EFFECT

Much has been written on this subject, and it covers a wide range of exploratory ideas and mechanisms that have been advanced to explain its effects. But in principle, we can advocate that it falls under the ‘intentional domain’ because of the nature of this phenomenon. One point that I made in an article on this subject [ii] , was its relevance both to the orthodox as well as the homeopathic model of medicine. We as homeopaths, could not, simply ignore its relevance to the whole therapeutic process, just because it did not suit our homeopathic model. Recent evidence, for example, has shown that placebos cause measurable changes in the electrical activity of the brain, though only in patients that actually get some benefit from the placebo. In other words, it proves that the effects of placebo can actually shown to be real with some physiological effects [iii] . Equally invalid was Vithoulkas’s strange accusation at certain practises that it was ‘just placebo’. This is arguably a great display of double standards since for much of homeopathic history, ‘just placebo’ has been a major accusation of orthodox medicine about most of  our homeopathic methodology. In the words of one elegant observer, ‘if the placebo effect could be understood and harnessed, why would we need any form of medicine’? It is not my point to make out that homeopathy is only placebo but touch on the troubling phenomenon that if we knew how to enhance its therapeutic effects it might lead to even better results. Neither is it valid for some of the more dogmatic members of the community to use it as a form of ‘insult’ just because certain methods do not suit that particular member!!

2. INTENTION  AS A MAGICAL PHENOMENON

Dr Cassam takes umbrage at the fact that a Journal purporting to uphold ‘classical principles’ should even contemplate publishing material about ‘the effects of intention and its magical connotations’. I think he misses the point entirely, surely at the very heart of ‘case taking’ lies the engine of intention, the way we focus in taking a case, the perspectives we elicit from our patients, the projections we impart to our analysis, and the way we unconsciously prejudice our cases. Intention, focus and analysis are all part of the ‘intentional domain’ and cannot be ignored just because ‘the homeopath is expected to be unprejudiced’. Surely we need to investigate further and even bring into the ‘classical model’ the psychology and effects of prejudice, and the important effect that certain ‘outlooks’ have on the ‘case taking process’. Two different issues have to be investigated here in respect to the ‘intentional domain’. The first as mentioned above, is to do with the cognitive and psychological aspects of ‘case taking’, and secondly ‘the so called magical effects of intention’.

This second aspect of ‘intention’  is the most problematic to engage with since it is not addressed properly within the present ‘classical model’, though the evidence for its existence is now so overwhelming.

For example

1. One example of the extraordinary ability for the domain of  ‘magical’ intention was Dr Peoch’s experiments.

Dr Rene Peoch is a parapsychologist working at the Foundation ODIER at Nantes who has spent the last 15 years studying animal psychokinesis and telepathy using chickens and rabbits. At a recent conference in Portugal he reported several experiments derived from 8 years of work.

The first experiment reported demonstrated the psychokinetic ability of young chickens. A mechanical robot was programmed to receive a code from a random number generator inside it, which instructed it to make random movements. It was put in an experimental area in which chickens were about to hatch. On hatching the chicks imprinted on the robot and treated it as their mother following it in its random walk. After three days of living with the randomly moving robot the chicks were taken away and in their absence the movements of the robot were recalibrated to show that it was still moving randomly. A chick was then reintroduced to the experimental area in a cage so that it was able to see the robot, but not to follow it. It was observed that the movements of the robot became less random: it spent more time close to the chick than it did elsewhere in the area. It seemed that the chick was able to influence directly the random number generator of the robot so that the robot moved nearer to it—ie the sequence of numbers generated was no longer random [iv] . The question of cheating, always held up to disqualify parapsychology, is irrelevant here, chickens do not cheat. Instead it demonstrates some form of ‘intention’ generated through the empathic connection that occurs between mother and baby chicks.

2. Another piece of evidence on the effects of intention that is equally overwhelming was Professor Robert Jahn’s work at PEAR, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research facility. The PEAR Lab was founded by Robert Jahn, Dean of Engineering [v] . In the 1970’s a former graduate student proposed a research study to examine whether or not an individual might be able to affect the functions and directions of sensitive electronic instruments. Though Jahn was sceptical, he agreed, and to his amazement the experiment worked. Through further research PEAR was established, and researchers for the past two decades performed millions of trials in which individuals try and influence some physical phenomenon at a distance. The evidence is overwhelming from this research facility, that the mind can influence electronic instruments, and the highest scores occurred when two people of opposite sex, who were emotionally bonded tried to influence the electronic instruments together.

The point is that a vast amount of evidence has accumulated that demonstrates the effect of ‘intention’ on the environment in different ways, though the most important aspect of this entire process, I suspect to be empathy. This is probably one of the  key ingredients in how the homeopath retains a level of ‘unprejudice’ yet remains in a state of active listening.

TWO DOMAINS ENTANGLED

In the process of teaching and training homeopathic students in the ‘classical model’ ,  we seem to have become fixated on a methodology that has evolved from Hahnemanns’ guide lines, yet surely with the huge  changes in all domains of science, we can at least evolve to encompass and even study in more depths the domain of  ‘intention’, instead of allowing dogma to banish its shadow. To reiterate again, it may not be ‘classical homeopathy’ but it is still a crucial ingredient in the homeopathic process.

For example, in listing certain features of both domains, disturbing similarities conspire towards conflation.

1.Both the Intentional and Homeopathic Domains are dominated by a need to focus attention effectively.

 2.Both the Intentional and Homeopathic Domains are dominated by a need to use empathy and understanding.

 3.Both domains must actively seek some form of ‘resonance’ or ‘coherence’ in the process to elicit changes in the patient’s health.

4.Both domains still lie outside the purview of a clear explanatory scientific model.

 5.Both domains are actively engaged in processing changes in the psycho-physical aspects of  consciousness.

 6.Both domains fall into the areas that are designated subtle.

My main criticism in this article, has centred around the errors that arise when one confuses the ‘domains of activity’ that arise in the homeopathic process. We need to move forward and clearly delineate a model that encompasses both. I respect Naumann and Boulderstone for bringing into the discussions aspects of the homeopathic process, which are actively shunned as playing no part in the healing process.  Yet ironically, my main criticism of their methodology is not whether they are actively practising ‘classical homeopathy’ nor the fact that they are unable to distinguish clearly the domains of activity they engage in, but the fact that in the process of ‘active intention’ it has been shown that clinically through  much accumulated evidence that it is difficult to produce consistent results without some prior training or ‘special ability’. In other words, it is far easier to practise ‘classical homeopathy’ as trained and taught than to actively engage in ‘focused healing’ that we all have as abilities but some have far greater ability to put into action.

It is not for me at present to engage on a radical hypothesis that might expand the present ‘classical model’. Yet it might help if we began by accepting that both domains  that are so actively entangled, are aspects of one conscious whole, homeopathy actively potentizes  ingredients of nature that carry  ‘drops of consciousness’ that can transform entire ‘psycho-physical domains of a patient, while ‘the intentional domain’ plays an active ingredient in ‘focusing’  consciousness to bring about this transformation.