A conversation about Heilkunst (part 2 of 4)

The following conversation occurred by email with a reader of these blog posts, Steven Ings. I asked for Steven’s permission to publish these conversations, as they include many questions and illuminations of the principles I’ve been discussing in my recent series on the Genotypes and Phenotypes. In order to create an actual conversation-like flow, I’ve cut and paste the sequences to be more natural to the conversation we would have had in person, if we weren’t going back and forth on different points in our email sequence. I’ve retained Steven’s text in a plain font, and put all of my responses in italics, in order to differentiate who is the speaker at any given point. Due to the total length, I’ve broken the conversation up into four pieces to be published on four subsequent days. This is part 2:


Four questions:

1)  Under which genotype would you classify Sepia and Medorrhinum?

Neither of these states of mind are Genotypes, of which there are only six outlined in my recent blogs.  Sepia is a phenotype which I’ll be publishing a blog post on in the next couple of days, and Medorrhinum is the primary remedy for the constant disease of the chronic miasm of Sycosis. A genotype represents paramaters of our state of health, while the two remedies above are not states of health, but representations of particular disease states. Health and disease does not fall along 2 ends of the same spectrum.

Ah, the challenges of writing and asking questions.  I did know that Sepia and Medorrhinum were not genotypes.  I was attempting to ask, “When Sepia or Medorrhinum returns to a state of health, would there be a specific genotype that might manifest?”

There’s no single pattern of which disease tends to emerge from each specific genotype – it comes down to a proper diagnosis in every case, which will never lead astray. 

2)  Just as Carl Jung studied the astrological patterns of his clients, do you know of any homeopaths who are attempting to find cross-correspondences between homeopathic and astrological portraits?

There may be superficial resemblances between various types and remedies, but astrological signs and the genotypes are operating at two very different levels of our being. The astrological sign is related to our astral body, while the genotype is related to our physical body. These are 2 of the types that are useful to get to know the complete typological picture of a patient.

3)  Among homeopathic veterinarians, Ledum has been extraordinarily effective in the treatment of tick-borne illnesses.  With “better from cold” as one of the descriptors for Ledum, under which genotype would you classify this member of the Rhododendron family?

Same as Sepia and Medorrhinum, Ledum is not a genotype, but a remedy related to a state of disease. Again, the critical concept here is to understand the very profound difference between health and disease as two very different states.

As above, I miscommunicated.  When Ledum returns to a state of health, to which of the six genotypes might it return?

Same as above – no pattern. 

4)  What are your thoughts and feelings about Rajan Sankaran’s “sensations?”

I haven’t yet explored Sankaran’s “sensations” extensively, although I have found tremendous value in his concept of “the Physician’s Reaction”, which is a very powerful method for diagnosing the patient’s core delusion. Being able to access “the objective feeling” (Das Gefühl, as Hahnemann called it) of the case, instead of the ever-changing “subjective feeling” of the patient is a tremendous breakthrough in sound methodology. The “highest diseases”, as Dr. Hahnemann referred to them, represent the “final frontier” of Heilkunst treatment, where most of our research has been focussed of recent years, and Sankaran has provided one of the keys for entering into this domain with a sound epistemological method.

If Siddharta Gautama is correct, then incarnation itself may be “the highest disease.”

Yes and no — that applies to the cosmic reality of life and death, but not to the higher pleromic realm, which opens a whole new spectrum of the ideogenic realm to be unfolded.

As for physicality, I relate to a statement attributed to Siddharta Gautama:  “The cause of death is birth.”

Two corollaries might follow:

(1) the cause of illness is birth;

(2) the cause of life is death.

2 thoughts on “A conversation about Heilkunst (part 2 of 4)

  1. I ve been reading your posts again and again, from the beginning to the end and wait for the next two parts , please permit me to ask some questions, I would gladly consult you in your clinic but I happen to live at the other end of the globe and homeopathic care in my country is no different than allopathic, I assure you! ( two years of taking prescriptions for lycopodium have me end in a theatre with a cut appendix and a ton of antibiotics).
    First, is it possible to have two phenotypes? Or do they change with time? And second in a case of a 54 year old woman, who apparently is a calc carb genotype, a sepia phenotype, and develops arthritis which is a sycotic miasm manifestation would you prescribe medorrhinum for the miasm or the other two? I understand that in practice a homeopath will have different options as to what to do with a patient , I am just asking if there is any direction of thought that would help a practitioner make any decision. Thank you for your time and all these incredibly enlightening posts.

  2. HI George,

    Thanks for your comments and your questions.

    When I review all of your response above, I get the impression that you have suffered from a number of the areas of mis-information which has been perpetrated by “Classical Homeopathy”, including the lack of distinction between health and disease, and the supposed rule of only giving “one remedy a time”.

    The amazing thing, is that a careful study of Hahnemann’s writings reveals a very different picture of how remedies are to be given which doesn’t look at all like Classical Homeopathy. Hahnemann was not an empiricist, but a very accurately observing scientist whose life work revealed a number of principles which can be applied consistently, and effectively every time.

    To get to your questions : Yes, it may appear possible to have more than one phenotype, although there is a fine line between a “state of disease” and a “phenotype”, and what may appear like two phenotypes would actually be one single phenotype, but with an additional layer of disease, which also happens to be in the class of phenotypes. The phenotype, in the sense I’m talking about them in these articles, is a relatively dense pattern which tends not to change in the absence of being treated with the correct remedies (1 remedy for the phenotype, and other remedies for the genotype, and also for any other disease states in the patient).

    As far as your case question about the 54 year old woman, it is possible to start with the remedies you say, but it would be necessary to understand the case in its full extent to know exactly which remedies she needed, and in which potency, and in which sequence (the realm of medicine). It also would be necessary to address any issues related to her arthritic condition as originated in the other two jurisdictions of Heilkunst, regimen and education (see my blog series about the three jurisdictions of Heilkunst : http://arcanum.ca/faq/what-is-heilkunst/the-three-jurisdictions-of-medical-heilkunst/ ).

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean be a homeopath having “different options as to what to do with a patient”, which may be true from a subjective point of view, but is not true when you understand the principles of medicine in an objective way, and the faculties of diagnosis are intact. That’s the beautiful thing about Dr. Hahnemann’s Heilkunst, which is that it is based on timeless principles, rather than on the shifting sands of empiricism, which most alternative and natural medicine tends to fall into, including most homeopathic practices.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *