Jan Scholten interview (3/4): Scientific Development of Homeopathy

Jan Scholten interview (3/4): Scientific Development of Homeopathy

So far we’ve spoken of homeopathy as a science,
and even your speculative approach is still based on a scientific rationale. But there are also people in our profession that go beyond what I might call “modern homeopathy” to what
I might call “post-modern homeopathy”, for instance using unorthodox approaches such as
paper remedies or PC resonances. And the idea there, is that such remedies are produced
by projecting a person’s consciousness onto the water, rather than as traditionally prepared,
through a reproducible method. So I’m interested in knowing whether you’ve
used such remedies at all yourself? No, I don’t use those remedies. I keep myself to real, basic homeopathic remedies. So I’m curious: How come? There are also people, for instance, who use radionics,
things like that. And sometimes it would be easy for me because
I want to prescribe sometimes remedies that I cannot get, and then with radionics you can make that. But I decided not to do that, because…
two reasons for it: First, is that I will lose some credibility for
a lot of people, and now I can say: You know, this is really a
homeopathic remedy that we tried, there’s no question about what it is. And with radionics, and also this paper remedies, there’s the question what are you really prescribing. So… I think it’s one step too far ahead. So I don’t have experience with it, but I know
from quite a lot of homeopaths who say that it works and they have good
experience with it. So is science, or is it shamanism?
Where do you place…? Good shamanism is science. (Sure. And yet you don’t practice that.) So that’s what I’m trying to understand what
makes you ultimately stick with…? The whole thing is that you cannot split
consciousness from life. And that’s even the case in physics, where the consciousness of the experimenter
influences the experiment. So the whole idea that it shouldn’t be
possible is unscientific. OK, so you believe it’s possible but yet…? But I don’t do it, because I’m busy with the
scientific development, and it would interfere with that. And it could very well be that it works, but I don’t know
for the moment from my own experience. So it may be something that you perhaps might
be open to exploring at a later stage of development of homeopathy as a science? Could be. Or, for instance, when I’m desperate, and a case where a patient dying and I want
to have a remedy, maybe I could do it. You know, you don’t want to wait two months
when you die tomorrow. But the other thing is that it won’t develop
our science further. Ahm. And that’s a very interesting point. Because then you prescribe it, but you never know
what you have done. The whole idea of classification: When I would have
done that with paper remedies, what would people have said? And you’re not grounded enough: you have to have a
good grounding to become more subtle. You don’t start with subtle, you know,
your basis has to be firm. And then the upper part of your building can
be very light; but not the lower part of it. OK, and you’re still building the foundations. Yeah. Now, despite what you’ve just said, you still dance on
the edge of the avant-garde through your sense provings. So could you describe, first of all, what it is,
and then how do you justify it as compared to more elaborate provings – whether they be
full provings or partial, conventional provings? Sense proving, how I do it, is I do it mostly with plants. I think you can also do it with animals,
but I’m not busy with that. And you take just the plant with you, and the name,
and you start looking at it, smelling it, tasting it… getting as much impressions
from the plant as you can get. And then meditate on it and see what
impresses you about it. And that’s how it’s done. And you can do it in half an hour or an hour. You can do it as a group, you can do it alone…
there are different forms. I started doing it when I was in Bali once on a retreat, and then there was a story of an old herbologist
who was a doctor there, and he was, I think, a century ago or something.
He was not content with what he was doing. So he almost skipped [quit]. But then someone said
“No, no, you cannot skip, you have to continue! And when you don’t know what it is, ask the
plants themselves what they do.” So he started talking to the plants. And of course when you hear about talking to the plants
people say it’s nonsense because plants don’t talk. But talking to the plants for those people is a more
extensive way of communicating with the plant. And when you taste the plant you get a kind
of impression of it. When you eat a pepper, you know whether you
have a pepper. It’s a kind of communication. Right. And that’s where you enter into your own
shamanism, I guess, that you say is part of, a legitimate part, of science. It’s the actual direct connection with nature. Yeah, but it’s… When you eat a pepper,
is that shamanism? What’s the boundary? There is none! It’s impressions, and you never know what they mean. So you have to confirm all those symptoms of
provings later on. So I see my sense provings as just speculation. Just the beginning and entry point to
using the remedy? Yeah, it’s an entry point: that’s a good way
of expressing it. Because when you don’t have any idea, you don’t know
where to start. But when you have an idea you can try it in a case
where it’s the same kind of state. And when it’s really, then, curing, then you know:
OK, this is what it is. And then you learn more because the patient
will have more than the proving has, and the more, bigger background. And then when you have another of that family
you can generalize again, and then it starts growing. So you’re big on clinical data and generalization,
rather than provings, which you’ve mentioned before that they have their
own issues even when they’re comprehensive. Yeah, and also the comprehensive ones, they
are not completely reliable. In fact, every proving can have several levels,
and many provings, they get stuck in the expression phase. Right. When you go one level deeper in a proving,
then you come to the problem phase, where you understand where all those symptoms
are coming from, what the meaning of them… what those symptoms are. You can also say when you understand a remedy from
the proving, then you have the problem. When you don’t understand a remedy from the proving,
you have just expressions. It’s another way of expressing it. It’s about understanding. When you have an essence, the whole thing
makes sense. And that’s where you should want to be,
that’s where you should want to go, because that is much more important than
all those expressions. You lose yourself in all those expressions,
like in the materia medica. So a lot of the old provings, they are just
expression phase, they never came to the source, to the essence. For instance, you feel betrayed:
of course you are angry. Being betrayed is more essential, and being
angry is an expression. So then you understand: OK, it’s logical
that he is angry, I understand that. When I would be betrayed, that’s one of
the ways how you can react. You can also give up, of course, and that’s another thing: then you have someone who’s giving up,
and someone who’s angry. But that’s not available from provings as such? It is fairly difficult, because when you don’t
have that theme of betrayal, you don’t know where the two are coming from:
you have to go to the problem phase. I think that my way of looking at our materia medica
from the beginning already was that… … it’s not logical the way it is. We should be able to understand the materia medica. Of course it takes an effort: it takes a kind of
background how to classify it to be able to do that. So the point with classification is that you expand
your whole field of materia medica. The amount of remedies that I’m using now
is hugely expanded, and that gives much more precise cure in more cases. For instance, before I found the Lanthanides, it was
difficult to help people with autoimmune disease, and it was not only my experience, it was the
experience of all the homeopaths. And with the Lanthanides that suddenly changed. Now we have… I won’t say we cure everyone,
but we can do a lot for those patients, and many of them, they don’t have complaints
anymore after a while. So that’s a bit shift. So my idea is that the more remedies you know,
the more people you can cure. So currently homeopathy seems… even though it’s
dealing with a very advanced form of energy, in a sense it’s a young science – it’s much like, say, the science of electricity was in the beginning
of the nineteenth century, where they were still tinkering with phenomena
and making generalizations, but not yet having Maxwell’s equations, for example,
to make sense of the underlying mathematical order. And what you’re trying to do is to come up
with those equations, and ultimately figure out what’s the underlying
structure of homeopathy. That’s basically what we need. But maybe we need another form of mathematics for it. Because… Measurements are not easy in the internal world. So maybe we need something like a topology instead
of a metric science, a metric mathematics – if that makes any sense for you. Yeah, I can imagine if mathematicians actually got
exploring what sort of math would match homeopathy, it would be a very interesting marriage of sciences. But that’s still too far away… We’re not at that level yet. What sort of direction would you like to see
homeopathy head in the next decade or two? We have two levels of development: one is
sociologically and one is scientifically. (I think with…) We spoke about the scientific part. … the scientific – it’s, I think, obvious where I want to go:
more understanding, more classification, more even trying to go to a level deeper, of
really understanding, making a mathematical formula that you
understand what you do. Sociologically I would like to have it
become mainstream, that it’s just a university study, and that’s
what it should be. And that it should be incorporated in
mainstream medicine as a specialty. My idea is that the best way to do homeopathy is not as
in the past when they had homeopathic hospitals, but that you have hospitals where homeopaths
work in parallel with normal doctors. You know, as a homeopath when you can treat
someone well, the normal doctors have to do less. When you cannot treat them well they can
prevent things happening. And that’s why it’s very good to work
in parallel and not to mix the two. Oh, right, OK.
(That’s my vision of how it should be.) Like integrative medicine but done with different
specialists who respect each other? Yeah. So what can we homeopaths do to raise the
academic level of homeopathy, even while homeopathy is still outside the universities, and there’s very little leisure time for people to
practice theoretical homeopathy? Just cure as many people as you can. Because the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the more we can treat and cure real, severe
diseases, the more it cannot be denied anymore. That’s what it is about:
become better homeopaths. But I think the scientific development is
a very important issue. And with classifications and getting more remedies then we have much more possibilities to cure cases. So do you have a vision or at least an inkling of a vision
of the future, based on your homeopathic work? I don’t know where it will go. You know, homeopathy, when it’s really true,
it will survive, and it will become mainstream, somewhere, somehow. I don’t know if it will be in one year, two years,
two-hundred years, two thousand, or two-hundred-thousand years…
I don’t know. But it has to be, because the truth will always prevail. It cannot be stopped… only temporarily.

One Reply to “Jan Scholten interview (3/4): Scientific Development of Homeopathy”

  1. This short episode is so enlightening. Both the interviewer and the interviewee are brilliant, which takes the discussion to great heights. May Jan's optimistic vision for the glorious future of homeopathy come true in our lifetimes.

Add a Comment

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