Thanks for writing this excellent explanation of the history and methodology of Homeopathy.
I read with interest that the term "biofield" was defined by the committee of the CAM, who coined it as: “a massless field, not necessarily electromagnetic, that surrounds and permeates living bodies and affects the body.”
Although this is a step on from a medical system that refuses to accept the existence of the life force, or whatever we choose to call it, this definition is a long way short of Vital Force, or what James Tyler Kents called Simple Substance, and described the attributes of so thoroughly in his Lectures of Homeopathic Philosophy in 1899.
In the ancient world, The Vital Force was key to our cosmological understanding of everything. Our ancestors perceived it as a spiritual force, intimately aligned with consciousness, intention, and the expression of divine will.
Of course, these days we are squeamish about affiliations with these overtly spiritual concepts, so we have dumbed down or done away with references to the soul or the spirit.
I wonder though Sarah, and I am asking this rhetorically, that in our determination to have a seat at the science table, are we at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Thanks for writing this excellent explanation of the history and methodology of Homeopathy.
I read with interest that the term "biofield" was defined by the committee of the CAM, who coined it as: “a massless field, not necessarily electromagnetic, that surrounds and permeates living bodies and affects the body.”
Although this is a step on from a medical system that refuses to accept the existence of the life force, or whatever we choose to call it, this definition is a long way short of Vital Force, or what James Tyler Kents called Simple Substance, and described the attributes of so thoroughly in his Lectures of Homeopathic Philosophy in 1899.
In the ancient world, The Vital Force was key to our cosmological understanding of everything. Our ancestors perceived it as a spiritual force, intimately aligned with consciousness, intention, and the expression of divine will.
Of course, these days we are squeamish about affiliations with these overtly spiritual concepts, so we have dumbed down or done away with references to the soul or the spirit.
I wonder though Sarah, and I am asking this rhetorically, that in our determination to have a seat at the science table, are we at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?