This section of the site contains essays on subjects that go well beyond homeopathy in their scope, though most of them were informed by homeopathic provings. A lot of them (well there will be a lot of them once I get more of them written) revolve around issues of health and healthcare, since that's my primary focus, but will attempt to place it in the context of a philosophy and model of existence that breaks out of the materialism (in all senses) of the biomedical model, encompassing recent developments in many different areas of enquiry as well as older, traditional world views, cosmologies and philosophies.
And some won't. Time for a Change of Heart? is straightforward pretty uncontroversial mainstream science. It doesn't need to go beyond that to make its point – which is that the underlying proximal cause of cardiovascular disease is staring us in the face. There are, of course, dimensions to the issue beyond mainstream science which I hope to cover in another essay at some point. (This article is also published at the Complementary Health Information Service, CHIS-UK.)
Article of the Moment
The Rights of the Land
by Robin Kimmerer
Going beyond my own work, fresh perspectives which offer a glimpse into the changes taking place in our understanding of the world – or just plain fascinating stories – are featured in the Article of the Moment which will be updated every time I find something interesting to feature. The current article was linked on December 09 2008. (See the Archive left for all previous articles.)
In Search of the Whole Elephant
There are two principal assumptions in the work that follows (and all my work, come to that).
The first is that any description of reality that has ever been produced is just that. A description, a map, or a model of it. It is not reality itself (even though we tend to live our lives for most of the time as if that's the case). Though it might appear to be splitting hairs, this is an important distinction. All too often the map gets mistaken for the territory, or worse, is given precedence over it.
The second is that any half-way decent attempt to construct a robust model of the nature of existence needs to accommodate the full range of human experience and knowledge in every field through all times, rather than flitting from one limited subset of it to another and relying on dismissing the remainder as somehow irrelevant or inadmissible in order to continue to support its conclusions. It's the old story of the blind men and the elephant. Every view contains truth within its limited context, but each, in believing it encompasses the entirety, is mistaken.
So nobody's completely right and nobody's completely wrong. Everyone has a bit of truth and everyone has some things back to front and inside out (especially inside out) about it as well. This is a premise most people can accept. It's a level playing field on which that oppositional pantomime ("oh yes it is!" "oh no it isn't!") can be dispensed with right away ... which, in any case, frequently has far more to do with emotional attachment to a particular perspective (see Unscientific Attachment below) than any "real" truth in the matter ... and rather than becoming bogged down in a dualistic impasse over which polarity of a particular issue carries more weight, it offers the prospect of making some genuine progress.
A completely impartial view of the evidence would seem to suggest that reality itself doesn't appear to favour any one view over any other. It cheerfully supports diametrically opposing viewpoints on all sorts of things to do with it, and obligingly offers up proof after proof to their proponents that enables them all to lay claim to validity and consequently take the pantomime into yet another sell-out season. (In other words, our thought systems generate their own proof. See Holed in One for more on this concept).