Jeremy Sherr (bio) has published provings of Scorpion,
Chocolate, and Hydrogen that are appreciated as
valuable additions to our homeopathic literature.
Through his Dynamis School he offers superior education in homeopathy.
AH - You are the faculty at your school?
I'm it, and I run it as a democratic dictatorship. And it works! That means I listen to what everybody says, and make the decision. That works just fine.
Growing bigger would mean needing a big organization, and then you have a committee. The moment you've got a committee, that's the beginning of the end. They say a camel is a horse designed by committee!
AH - What's changed for you in the past five years?
If I look back at six, seven years ago, I was more dogmatic then, more rigid. I've learned to loosen up a lot. I have my system that works for the majority of cases, but for other cases I have to use other approaches.
We have to know how to use a bit of right brain and a bit of intuition on top of a logical structure. "Dynamic" means okay, you've thought of a remedy, fine, but don't hold on to it, be flexible, let it go. You take the case, and at the end of the case, maybe you've got a remedy in your mind, but be able to let it go.
Like when you meditate. You should be able to meditate, and a thought will come into your head - it's not that you should have no thoughts in your head, but you should let the thoughts go through.
If you've got the concept of "as if one person", you've got everything, because that's what holistic medicine works on. That works for understanding one case, it works for understanding epidemics, it works for understanding rubrics, it works for understanding miasms.
Another problem is that a lot of homeopaths base all their prescriptions all on the mind these days. The mind is the most wonderful, interesting part in the human being, the most fascinating part, but also the trickiest part - I often say, "the mind is a minefield".
That's where people go wrong, especially students, because they want to do the fancy footwork, but it's difficult. One has to play scales for many years before the jam session. You take envy and it might be jealousy, you take selfish, it might be egotistic, you take indifference to children, it might be aversion to the family.
If you look at the Mind section of the repertory, or the delusion section, you don't even find all the remedies there, not a quarter of them. So you're immediately at a disadvantage.
Kent started most of his lectures on materia medica with the generals; then he went to the mentals. When you start in on the generals, you know you're on firm footing. Every student should know how to work the Boenninghausen method.
Today, with computers, it's much easier to work this method. That means you take five good generals, and you bake a cake.
You put in the eggs, you put in the butter, you put in the flour, you put in the sugar, you add fruits and nuts, and you've got your cake. Only then do you go for the fancy icing, keynotes, delusions and other SRP's.
AH - Didn't Boenninghausen make some creative leaps as well?
Boenninghausen was very creative. He had a very broad vision.
For instance, in saying, "If the person has burning pain in the knee, they can have burning pain anywhere," he was seeing a bigger picture and in a way I believe he was right.
Kent spoke against it very strongly, and Kent was also right. They can both be right, why not? That's part of being dynamic.
So sometimes you work the Boeninghausen method, and sometimes you work the Kent method. And sometimes you work the Phatak way, which is a different approach. And sometimes you just go straight in with intuition. You utilise everything you've got.
I believe Boenninghausen had the biggest totality, in many ways, because he generalised. The person who generalised the most had the biggest totality.
Knerr had the smallest perspective, because a practitioner would take a precise symptom and put in anxiety from seeing a dog in the street while walking to school in the morning. You had to get exactly the right combination, or it wasn't the right rubric. There are times when this approach is equally valid.
AH - What else influences your case-taking?
Hopefully nothing. I Just try to see what's happening. Each case is uniquely different, so it's best just to be empty inside so that the patient has room to enter.
Hahnemann says that during case taking we should keep silent. It took me some time to understand that he meant silent internally. So that case taking is like a meditation with full concentration but in a relaxed way.
It is essential to finish by asking for every detail of the whole person, from head to toe. Never assume we know it all- we must ask! You may set your mind on some wonderful essence, but if asking reveals blue saliva then our mind may quickly change.
It's essential to get the big picture. This is paragraph five in the Organon. You have to see the full size of totality.
If you are prescribing for the person who comes with a spot of eczema, and you prescribe a remedy for the spot of eczema, you don't see the totality of the case. You suppress the eczema, driving it deeper within the person.
If you have a person that's in an acute or near-death situation, or with heavy pathology, and you start asking them about how their potty-training was as a child, then you're just wasting time.
Some homeopaths are stuck on big totalities only. They say, "you give one remedy for the whole life, and you wait two years. And if nothing happens, don't touch it."
Some homeopaths say, "you give a remedy for anything that moves. they breathe in, you give Carbo-veg, if they breathe out, you give Ignatia, if they laugh, you give them Hyoscyamus. Anything that moves you shoot at, and you wait about ten minutes."
So these are two extremes - now, which should we get stuck on? The best is the "dynamic extreme" in between. Any kind of rigidity means a static vital force. Stasis equals pathology. A person who is stuck will break like an old tree. A person who is flexible, but with roots, will bend, as in Tai Chi.