VITAL FORCE AND MIASMS - Homeopathy


KENT'S METAPHYSICAL LEGACY: VITAL FORCE & MIASMS
by Peter Morrell


"..beware of the opinion of men of science. Hahnemann has given us
principles, which we can study and advance upon. It is law which
governs the world and not matters of opinion or
hypothesis." [Lectures, p.18]



Preamble

This essay attempts first, to identify and disentangle the central
themes of Kent's philosophy of homeopathy; second, to place these
themes into a more modern context and comment upon them; third, to
defend Kent against those modern homeopaths who adopt an essentially
allopathic view of the miasm theory, contending that miasms are little
more than bacteria and that the vital force is a totally redundant
concept in homeopathy, no longer applicable and which can be dispensed
with.

We can summarise the three central questions that Kent repeatedly
addresses in all his writings. Firstly, what force powers the
organism? Secondly, what is disease cause? Thirdly, what is a
potentised remedy? As we shall see, though his ideas weave this way
and that, his philosophy always returns to these central themes and
attempts to bring all three points together within the same circle. He
always places them all in a spiritual framework or schema. Repeatedly,
he returns to these three fundamental aspects of homeopathy, and he
never tires of explaining and defending them. These issues have not
gone away, they are still with us. They are still central and dominant
aspects of homeopathy. Nor have they been resolved or integrated into
modern ideas of physiology. Kent provides one possible model, one all-
embracing and consistent model to explain them all. It may not suit
everyone, but it is still a sound and interesting model.

This essay does not address any aspect of Kent's technique. It merely
considers his ideas. The practical application of his philosophy and
its effectiveness, or otherwise, must comprise an entirely separate
subject of study. Nor do we address Kent's third theme: the nature of
potentised remedies.



Introduction

Homeopathy is always changing and new ideas are being introduced today
which would have appeared unthinkable a generation ago. C'est la vie.
Recently, I was asked to comment upon the ideas of Sarkar, Choudhury,
Kanjilal and Dimitriadis, who see the miasms as little more than
bacteria and infectious agents. Some examples of this essentially
allopathic view are as follows:

"Whatever the dictionary meaning of the term 'miasm' may be, Hahnemann
clearly specified the meaning as "parasites", "germs", "viruses" and
"minute living bodies", etc. in different chapters in his epoch making
books "Chronic Diseases" and "Lesser Writings"." Elsewhere Choudhury
says..."It is evident that Hahnemann's miasms are nothing but bacteria
and other micro-organisms according to modern
terminology." [Choudhury, pp.5-8]

"True natural Chronic Diseases are those which owe their origin to a
chronic parasitic miasm or germ" i.e. a parasitic micro-organism in
our terms..." [Tyler, p.2]

"Thus we come to the inevitable conclusion that psora is not a
predisposition to disease (as many still assert) but the diseased
condition itself..." [Sarkar, pp.507]

"Thus miasm has never meant a disease or predisposition to disease;
however, a miasmatic disease can produce an increased susceptibility
to other disease producing stimuli."[Dimitriadis, pp.15-16]

"Hahnemann repeatedly speaks of the psora disease as being acquired
through infection with the miasm. His whole model revolves around the
infectious nature of external disease producing stimuli, and their
effects on the human organism. He never suggests that (internal)
psora, the disease is hereditary."[Dimitriadis, p.41]

"... the child born of parents who have suffered psora (or any other
disease) will be influenced in some way, even if it were only
behaviourally, since the child will be affected by the parent's
behaviour, circumstance, habits (all of which will be modified by
their state of health or disease) etc., especially during its early
development." [Dimitriadis, p.43]

When I first read these views I was puzzled how anyone could regard
them as a sound account of the Miasm theory. I thus set about looking
at this subject again and trying to trace my own views on this topic,
and where I had obtained them. I disagree pretty fundamentally with
the view expounded above about miasms. I do not believe it is a sound
account of this matter at all, but a bowdlerised, allopathic version:
a fake, an impostor.

I started out as an avowed Kentian and have always been a vitalist in
my beliefs about biology. In more recent years, I have expounded
against Kent as a dogmatist and a person opposed to change and
experiment. I still stand against that aspect of him. However, I have
recently been able to see more of his positive side once again. His
religious views have never offended me, and though I do not agree with
them, it is clear that he spent a lot of time thinking deeply on
matters homeopathic and formed many conceptual bridges connecting his
religious views with his homeopathic views.

The Lectures, which he published in 1900, and his Aphorisms both stand
as living testament to that deep thinking he did. It is still a very
rich source of ideas for modern homeopaths, and it is doubtful if
anyone has truly digested them, sorted them out, or placed them into
any kind of modern conceptuality. They also desperately need
integrating into some kind of more modern framework and placing into
the right context with modern ideas about physiology. Thus, I have
started a process of re-examining this aspect of homeopathy.

'Homeopathic medical science views the facts of the universe...from a
vitalistic...standpoint...which regards all things and forces, including
life and mind, as substantial entities...' [Close, p.88]

Having very thoroughly absorbed the fundamental ideas of homeopathy,
Kent then re-framed them, both in relation to the medicine of his day,
and against his own personal religious beliefs. Thus, what we find in
Kent, are parts of the 5th Organon viewed through a religious lens,
and also viewed against a background of the main issues of medicine c.
1900. Yet surprisingly, none of the issues he addresses have been
resolved, and thus what is interesting about Kent is that much that he
says is still highly relevant and exceptionally profound -
philosophically and physiologically.



Vital Force

'The vital force is that which sleeps in the mineral, dreams in the
plant, awakens in the animal and becomes fully conscious in
Man.' [Anon]

While Kent can seem to be way off-mark in certain respects, possibly
due to his religion, but he is also very often 'spot-on' about the
precise and fundamental nature of what a miasm must intrinsically be
in the organism. In addition, maybe his religion led him to where he
ended up. His strong religious beliefs had clearly forced him into a
certain position where he was duty-bound to think more deeply of all
aspects of homeopathy and to try to build conceptual bridges between
it and Swedenborg. That in essence is what his Lectures are. They stem
from that bridge-building process, and very profound thinking. He uses
the one [Swedenborg] to inform, enhance, deepen and fertilise his
understanding of the other [homeopathy].

Like Hahnemann before him, Kent was clearly first and foremost a
vitalist:

That which we call disease, is but a change in the Vital Force
expressed by the totality of the symptoms.

We do not take disease through our bodies but through the Vital Force;
likewise with a true cure.

He loved the concept of the vital force; it fitted his hand perfectly
like a warm and comfortable glove. He adored this concept with an
unparalleled and touching devotion. For Kent, it was the great secret,
the very touchstone, which enabled him to make sense of the whole of
homeopathy, and without which he would probably have seen little sense
in it. For him, the vital force drew tightly together all the main
threads of the subject. The potentised remedy, spirituality, disease
causation and the action of the remedy. Thus, these threads which form
the very warp and weft of Kentism [and indeed, of homeopathy itself],
are founded upon and rooted in the concept of the vital force. It is
one of his most oft-repeated themes and runs like a red line through
all his writings and was apparently his homeopathic map and compass.
Whenever he is unsure, confused or in doubt, he goes back to the vital
force to seek help and guidance for a new direction. He does it
repeatedly.

Kent thus has very clear ideas on what the vital force is and what its
functions, properties, powers and qualities are too:

"The Vital Force dominates, rules and co-ordinates the human body.

The Vital Force holds all in harmony, keeps everything in order when
in health; just as Electricity in its own natural state is a bond of
order.

"There is no cell in man that does not have its will and
understanding, its soul-stuff, limbus or simple Substance."

We must remember that Vital Force is Simple Substance, and that which
cures must be Simple Substance.

''All matter is capable of reduction to its radiant or primitive form.

Simple Substance is continuously endowed with intelligence from first
to last, mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms.

We do not take disease through our bodies but through the Vital Force;
likewise with a true cure.

The real holding together of the things in this world is by Simple
Substance.

The Simple Substance is the means of identification in nature. The
mineral, the oak, the wheat, are all identified by their Primitive
Substance, and exist, only, because of their Primitive Substance,
which makes them what they are.

This Primitive Substance abides in everything that forms, grows,
feeds, or has individuality, or identity, it is that which intimates
an exterior form similar to its own existence. That causes the Aconite
plant to be Aconite, and nothing else to the end of the world.

What things can we predicate of the Simple Substance? It cannot be
found by Chemistry, nor seen with the eye, nor felt with the fingers.
It must have a medium of operation, in order that it may become
manifest to the Sensations.

Weight cannot be predicated of the Simple Substance, neither time, nor
space.

No power known to man exists in the concrete substance, but all power
exists in the Primitive Substance.

The Primitive Substance, or Radiant form of matter is just as much
matter as matter in its aggregate form.

Everywhere this Simple Substance is a bond of order. 'The Vital Force
like Electricity, is a bond of order. It builds in accordance with its
necessities because of that which was prior to it.

It is unthinkable to speak of Motion or Force without a simple,
primitive substance. Force, or action of a nothing is unthinkable.

It is insubstantial, immaterial, it cannot be seen, touched or
weighed, but it is that force which powers the organism and maintains
its integrity and healthy functioning in the face of continuous change
and the forces of disorder.

'...the vital body is the vehicle that builds, maintains and repairs the
physical body...' [Miles, 1992, p.26]

'Throughout life the vital body builds and restores the dense form,
counteracting the abuse to which the dense body is subject. Without
this the dense body would quickly fall into decay. During sleep...the
vital vehicle or part of it remains, restoring the physical body ready
for the next day's activity.' [Miles, 1992, p.143]

It is manifestly present and active in the living organism but quite
absent from the corpse.

All motion, harmony and order are due to Simple Substance. It not only
operates all things, but is the cause of operation of all substances
that are material. The very Sounds of the forest have harmony and
cooperation.

Primitive substance abides in everything that forms, grows, feeds or
has Individuality or identity, It is that which ultimates an exterior
form suitable to its own existence; what causes the Aconite plant to
he Aconite and nothing else to the end of the world.

There is no cell or tissue so small that it does not keep its soul and
life force within it.

It is from this primitive Substance that man is created, his intellect
made, his life formed.

In this quote, Kent clearly suggests a transcendence of the vital
force even over the dynamic structures of the organism and thus
presumably over genetic mechanisms too. This is also of interest as
Kent elsewhere refers to homeopathic cures of Diabetes, Cancer and
Haemophilia, what are all-but universally regarded as genetic, or semi-
genetic disorders. He also declares a form of vital force universally
present in and powering all living things. The vital force makes sense
of disease causation and Kent uses it to make sense of miasms and
physiology too. It was his most often-used weapon to defend homeopathy
against the encroaching ideas of allopathy.

Dynamic wrongs are corrected from the Interior by dynamic agencies.

Man cannot be made sick or be cured except by some substance as
ethereal in quality as the Vital Force.

An inflamed liver is not the disease. The liver is not the cause of
itself. It is under the control of the Vital Force and it becomes what
the Vital Force makes of it.

There is nothing in the world, which does not exist by something prior
to itself. With the grossest materialistic ideas, man can demonstrate
this.

Here he responds to the materialist diktat of 1900 medicine by denying
their ideas and by reasserting homeopathic dogma regarding the vital
force.

The Idea that an organ like the liver, which is under the control of
the Vital Force, is able to set up a disease itself and thereby make
the patient sick is preposterous.

I feel in these quotations great sense, great beauty and a serene
spiritual form of majesty. That is the sensation I had upon first
reading them twenty years ago. Kent was talking from the heart, from
his deep sense of direct realisation, as well as from conviction and
understanding; a conviction and understanding borne from many years of
useful practice and deep reflection upon the central themes of the
Organon.



Disease Cause & Subtle Physiology

'Hahnemann...refers all the phenomena of health and disease...under two
names: 'the dynamis' and 'the life force'. This is Hahnemann's
greatest discovery, and the absolute bedrock of his system.' [Close, p.
32]

Like Hahnemann before him, Kent avers that the organism is controlled
by a subtle Dynamis, or vital force, or simple substance, what today
is often called the 'matrix', defence mechanism, or bio-electric
field, and what was in ancient times called the 'Vis medicatrix
naturae', or healing power of nature. It probably also links to the
meridians of acupuncture, the polygraph lie detector and Kirlian
photography.

'In its original form acupuncture was based on the principles of
traditional Chinese medicine. According to these, the workings of the
human body are controlled by a vital force or energy called
"Qi" (pronounced "chee"), which circulates between the organs along
channels called meridians...Qi energy must flow in the correct strength
and quality through each of these meridians and organs for health to
be maintained.' [Vickers & Zollman, pp.973-976]

As a vitalist, I agree wholeheartedly with this concept. Thus miasms,
as agents of disease cause, must be resident within the vital force
itself, a part of its subtle being [what I have called 'a mist in the
being' and what Ploog calls 'invisible stigmata'] and thus on this
basis I fail to see how it can be truly regarded as a physical entity
or as infectious agents, like bacteria and viruses.

'The vital body may suffer damage much like the physical. It is
weakened by chronic disease and by drug suppression which it holds
like a shadow in its structure...it is the vital body and its link with
the physical, via the nervous system, that determines the health of
the immune system. It is through direct contact with the nervous
system that the vital body acts on the physical. The dynamic substance
of the homeopathic remedy is absorbed into the nervous system, usually
sub-lingually.' [Miles, 1992, p.28]

Kent had much to say about bacteria, which sheds a flood of light on
our current understanding, and it relates to miasms too. Kent had so
much to say on this subject because at that time it was being greeted
by allopaths as the saviour of medicine: the Germ Theory of Disease.
It was regarded as THE realm of disease causation. Because Kent was a
thoroughgoing vitalist, he vehemently rejected the Germ Theory and
castigated all those who adhered to it. He rejected this materialistic
notion of disease causation as a thinly veiled direct assault on his
own religious beliefs and upon the fundamental conceptual fabric of
homeopathy. Thus, he regarded it as a vile and deceptive evil, which
had the potential to trick homeopaths into becoming allopaths.

The following quotes from Kent's 'New Remedies, Clinical Cases,
Aphorisms and Precepts' convey very clearly his rather disparaging
view of the alleged importance of bacteria in medicine:

"The tendency for the human mind to run after the visible, that can be
felt with the fingers, leads one to adopt foolish theories like the
Bacteria doctrine and the molecular theory. [p.649]

"Most doctors have gone crazy over the vicious Microbe as being the
cause of disease, and think the little fellows are exceedingly
dangerous. As a matter of fact they are scavengers. Shortly after
death, a prick with a scalpel is a serious matter, but when the
cadaver has become green and is filled with bacteria, it is
comparatively harmless. [p.663]

"The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried
away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should
correct the Vital Force. [p.663]

"It is not from external things that man becomes sick, not from
bacteria nor environment, but from causes within himself.

"Save the life of the patient first and don't worry about the
bacteria. They are senseless things. [p.663]

"The Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries disease he
carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant
would." [p.663]

There is a state of insanity in the Sciences of the present day. They
put all laws aside, in order to accept, for instance, the Molecular
theory, because they want something that in its aggregate will be
large enough to be felt with the fingers. [p.643]

Here again we see Kent taking up and responding to the ideas prevalent
in 1900 medicine and dismissing such materialist ideas of disease
causation as nonsensical, when viewed through the lens of his profound
knowledge of homeopathic principles.

Every body has its atmosphere, just as the earth has its atmosphere.
It is not the Smallpox crust that is so dangerous; it is the Aura,
which emanates from it.

The microscopist has failed to show that there is no Vital Force, no
Simple Substance, no Dynamis in drugs seen, and how can we expect him
to foretell when the substance cannot be seen?

It is not from external things that man becomes sick, not from
bacteria nor environment, but from causes within himself.

When a microscopist can examine a grain of wheat, and tell whether it
will grow if planted in favorable soil, he may be of use to
Homoeopathy. When he can examine a smallpox crust and tell whether it
is still contagious, or whether its power has been destroyed by heat,
then he may be of use. When he can examine the Aconite root and tell
how it will affect man, we can do away with provings, but we have to
enter by a different door.

Whenever a man settles all things by his eyes, and fingers, pseudo-
science and theories, he reasons from lasts to firsts; in other words,
from himself, and is insane.

Here again we see the important implication being underscored by Kent
time and again that 'disease cause' is internal not external, and is
invested in the vital force itself, not in external or infectious
agents like 'germs'.

That which we call disease, is but a change in the Vital Force
expressed by the totality of the symptoms.

We do not take disease through our bodies but through the Vital Force;
likewise with a true cure.

Disease is clearly and emphatically portrayed as a derangement in the
vital force itself [and true cure as a correction of the vital force]
and even external causes are portrayed merely as 'exciting causes'
that trigger already internal predispositions [miasms].

So long as man relies upon the senses to settle what is scientific and
what is not, and does not use his understanding, so long will he be in
confusion, and sciences will oppose each other.

The finest visible objects are but the results of things still finer,
so that the causes rest within.

Every feature what can be seen, that can be observed with the aid of
the finest instrument is but the result of disease; but the cause of
disease is a million times more subtle than these and cannot be seen
by the human eye.

Here he again returns to his favourite theme, a clear advocation of a
subtle and ethereal 'realm of disease causation' which is internal,
inherent to the vital force and the organism, and which lies just
behind the physical. It is always noumenal, and never physical in
character. How could this realm be reached by anything other than a
potentised remedy? And the higher the potency, the deeper it reaches
into this realm of disease causation?

Higher means interior in quality.

The lower potency corresponds to a series of outer degrees, less fine
and less interior than the higher.

The physician who thinks in quantities only has such a crude mind that
he cannot realize the true homeopathy.

If we have material ideas of disease we will have material ideas of
the means of cure.

The rational mind can go far beyond the idea of a molecule.

The physician is not called upon to cure the results of disease, but
the disease itself; all pathological changes must be regarded as the
results of disease since all disease is dynamic.

The above quotes illustrate very firmly the way in which Kent
responded to the ideas of the medicine of his day, dismissing and
reframing them all in the light of his deeper understanding of
homeopathy; and his repeated rejection of the physical and material in
favour of the subtle and ethereal.

'Hahnemann at first apparently had the distinction between power and
force pretty clearly in mind in his use, in the Organon, of the two
terms: 'dynamis', the life power, the substance, the thing itself,
objectively considered; and 'life-force', the action of the power; but
he failed to maintain the distinction uniformly in his subsequent use
of the words.' [Close, p.34]

In modern terms, there seems to be some evidence that the vital force
might be congruent with the 'unconscious mind', and which in turn
controls, via the brainstem [medulla], the autonomic nervous system,
and thus all the subconscious processes of the organism. This is my
conception of what the vital force is.

"The Simple Substance is again dominated by still another higher
substance which is the Soul."

"This Primitive Substance abides in everything that grows, or has
individuality or identity. It is the vice-regent of the Soul.

It is also of interest that Kent calls the vital force the 'vice-
regent of the soul'. This is a very interesting point and illustrates
very clearly that he was regarding it as a mental entity, a conceptual
abstraction or mind rather than anything remotely physical.

'Samuel Hahnemann spoke of the 'vital force' and how it exerted power
and influence over the physical body...the homeopathic remedy appears to
act directly on this vital force, which ultimately brings about
changes in the physical body...it is the manifestation of life energy,
and without it the physical vehicle has no animation or sensation. It
is the vehicle of disease and disorder, expressing them through the
physical body by means of morbid disease symptoms.' [Miles, 1992, p.
25]

If the vital force is the vice-regent of the soul, as Kent suggests,
then it follows that it is a kind of soul or mind, and has a grip on
the body's functioning through the DNA, RNA, and a battery of enzymes,
to control the cellular processes. Moreover, all these processes cease
at the point of death:

"It is the imperfect machine that causes death. The vital force is of
the Soul and cannot be destroyed or weakened. It can be disordered but
it is all there.

When you have discovered that this Life Force resides in a simple
substance you see at once that death is not an entity. The body has no
life of its own and therefore it cannot die.

Therefore, there is no death, but we do observe and perceive that
there is a separation, of one that is alive from another that never
was alive; a disjunction of that which lives from that which never
lived.

It stands between mind and matter and is clearly an 'immaterial
entity'. It can thus be regarded as the 'director of metabolism' and
is what I termed the "invisible finger" which moves the molecules of
all life processes:

"The doctrine of the Vital Force is not admitted by the teachers of
physiology, yet without the vital force, without simple substance,
without the internal as well as the external, there can be no cause
and no relation between cause and effect."



Miasms

"Hahnemann talked of this pandemia (psora) and it was easy for me to
accept. Then I read Kent and I could not share his religious point of
view, the miasms as the first sin." [Christoph Ploog, 1999]

Once again, and in modern parlance, we can say that the vital force is
in control of the processes of cell division, of embryo development,
detoxification, cellular regeneration, organ formation, tissue
maintenance and all bodily processes, which are directed through
hormones and enzymes. I think this very vividly conveys how we can use
these concepts of Kent to get right to the heart of this matter and
place them into a modern context. In addition, of course, it reveals
the essentially vitalistic nature of homeopathy. Nowadays, arguments
even break out about Hahnemann and whether he was a vitalist. However,
here we can clearly see that he must have had some vitalist leanings
to have even conceived of a vital force or Dynamis in the first place.
This suggests that he preferred vitalistic ideas to physical ones.

For example, I agree with him that the miasm is an invisible force
retained by the organism [like a hidden stain] from the original [and
infectious] disease, but subtly capable of diverting the vital force's
control of the chemical machinery of the organism. This seems to me to
be the crux of the matter. The miasms thus disturb the pure or smooth
functioning of the vital force. They impede its smooth action or
control and this leads to symptoms of disease.

Thus, the miasms can be seen as an "unwanted accessory" [or negative
component] of the vital force [what Miles so aptly calls a 'shadow'],
which deviates or inhibits or restricts its pure control [over the
organism] and hence creates disease symptoms where there should be
none. In addition, it follows that only potentised remedies can delete
these 'engrams' we call miasms from the vital force and thus restore
to pure function the vital force and its control of the organism. We
might therefore even see miasms as negative 'racial memories' or
archetypes. Only potentised remedies are "raised to the same degree of
subtlety" as that of the vital force itself. Kent himself says exactly
this:

Man cannot be made sick or be cured except by some substance as
ethereal in quality as the Vital Force.

"Low potencies can cure acute diseases because acute diseases act upon
the outermost degree of the Simple Substance and the body. In chronic
disease the trouble is deeper seated, and the degrees are finer, hence
the remedy must be reduced to finer or higher degrees so as to be
similar to The degrees of chronic disease.

We potentise our medicines so as to render them simple enough to
directly influence the Vital Force itself, to he drawn in, so to speak
by its influx.

Higher means interior in quality.

When the third potency cures there is something higher in it. No
substance permeates the Vital Force when it is coarse enough to be
seen.

The lower potency corresponds to a series of outer degrees, less fine
and less interior than the higher."

That which we call disease, is but a change in the Vital Force
expressed by the totality of the symptoms.

We do not take disease through our bodies but through the Vital Force;
likewise with a true cure.

Most certainly it was his religion that led Dr Kent, 'bull by nose',
in the direction of these ideas, and without which he might never have
dreamed of his hierarchies and octaves. We certainly have Swedenborg
to thank for that. It also follows that only certain remedies can do
the deleting spoken of above. These are the miasmic remedies and
certain nosodes. No other remedies are apparently capable of doing
this.

I would happily walk even further down this road with Dr Kent in also
saying that the miasms can therefore be seen as mental or archetypal
rather than physical. They are disorders of the vital force, not of
the cells and tissues per se. That seems to me to be the crux of this
matter. How can they be material entities or infectious agents, when
it is the vital force that controls all the cellular processes and is
the 'director of metabolism'? Thus, stated plainly, if you believe in
vital force then you must accept the immaterial nature of the miasms.
The one comes in with the other; they form inter-connected parts of
the same territory.

Bacteria and viruses can still be accepted as real disease causes, but
more subordinate to the subtle internal 'real causes'.. More as
external stimuli, that switch on or trigger the internal acute miasms.

"This is something hidden in the mist of mankind...I indeed think we
have invisibly carried stigmata that resulted from the chronic miasms
and I think too that we get a miasmatic touch from our parents, I
don't think that your 'fog in the being' and the bacteria theory
exclude each other." [Christoph Ploog, 1999]

Well, it does seem difficult to be a materialist AND a vitalist at the
same sitting! The key point here seems to be 'invisibly carried
stigmata' and also 'an hereditary aspect in the miasms'. I agree. Yet,
they seem to stand on the very borderline of what is truly physical
and cellular and what is abstract and conceptual i.e. residing within
the vital force or matrix? Personally, I prefer to regard them NOT as
physical entities but as essentially mental/vital - as part of the
matrix. The child is touched by the miasm of the parents, as said
above.

What is still left unanswered at this point is why the two venereal
and one skin disease should be the causes of the three miasms. In
other words, what is it about these particular diseases, which makes
them able to imprint themselves so deeply and powerfully upon the
vital force and its mode of functioning? And thus generate such deep-
seated and insidious miasms. What is it then about the VF which caused
it to suffer a 'collapse of power' sufficient for the formation of
these miasms? They clearly represent a loss of control on the part of
the VF. This is quite clearly also a question that troubled Dr Kent,
and, after thinking it over deeply, he opted for the moral and
religious answer typical of his times:

"You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down
from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural" [p.641]

"A man who cannot believe in God cannot become a homeopath." [p.671]

'The body became corrupt because man's interior will became
corrupt.' [ibid., p.681]

'Man...becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil, through thinking
wrong...' [ibid., p.664]

'Psora is the evolution of the state of man's will, the ultimates of
sin.' [ibid., p.654]

'This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil
willing, is Psora.' [ibid., p.654]

'Thinking, willing and doing are the 3 things in life from which
finally proceed the chronic miasms.' [ibid., p.654]

'..had Psora never been established as a miasm upon the human
race...susceptibility to acute diseases would have been
impossible...it is the foundation of all sickness.' [Lectures, p.126]

'Psora...is a state of susceptibility to disease from willing
evils.' [ibid., p.135]

'The human race today walking the face of the earth, is but little
better than a moral leper. Such is the state of the human mind at the
present day. To put it another way everyone is Psoric.' [ibid., p.135]

'Psora...would not exist in a perfectly healthy race.' [ibid., p.133]

'As long as man continued to think that which was true and held that
which was good to the neighbour, that which was uprightness and
justice, so long man remained free from disease, because that was the
state in which he was created.' [ibid., p.134]

'The internal state of man is prior to that which surrounds him;
therefore, the environment is not the cause...' [ibid., p.136]

'Diseases correspond to man's affections, and the diseases upon the
human race today are but the outward expression of man's
interiors...man hates his neighbour, he is willing to violate every
commandment; such is the state of man today. This state is represented
in man's diseases.' [ibid., p.136]

'The Itch is looked upon as a disgraceful affair; so is everything
that has a similar correspondence; because the Itch in itself has a
correspondence with adultery...' [ibid., p.137]

'How long can this thing go on before the human race is swept from the
earth with the results of the suppression of Psora?' [ibid., pp.137-8]

'Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness...is the underlying
cause and is the primitive or primary disorder of the human
race.' [ibid., p.126]

'...for it goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the
very first sickness of the human race that is the spiritual
sickness...which in turn laid the foundation for other diseases.
[ibid., p.126]

Thus, man is what he wills. As his love is, so is his life. When man
thinks about the neighbor, he wills one of two things, he wills good
to his neighbor or the opposite.

The Soul, which is the most interior of man, cannot be affected by
drugs. This can only be affected by man's own will.

This outgrowth, which has come upon man from living a life of evil
willing, is Psora, is the life of Psora. [Aphorisms, p.654]

Now in proportion as a man falsifies truth or mixes or perverts truth;
in proportion as he mixes willing well with willing evil, so does he
adulterate his interiors until that state is present.

When Psora had become a complete, ultimation of causes, it became
contagious.

It is a law that if man does not think from firsts to lasts, he
becomes disposed to sickness by doing evil through thinking wrong.
This state precedes susceptibility." [Aphorisms]

Unfamiliar, perhaps, and old-fashioned as these ideas now sound, I
think it is wrong to dismiss them too lightly. Rather than dismiss
them outright as dogmas, it is perhaps preferable in fact to keep them
in mind as a possible model of explanation. The fact remains that no-
one can with certainty state why these particular diseases were so
important and affective to the vital force.

An interesting question has always been whether other infectious
diseases do not also create chronic miasms. Modern writers have
contended that Tuberculosis and Cancer have a similar power to create
new miasms. In which case it might be the scourge-like nature of all
these diseases that has led them to create miasms. Maybe it is an
aspect of their great vigour, their powerfulness and their
persistence.

'The next step consisted in [Hahnemann] collecting into a class all
the phenomena known to be due to those ancient, widespread and
malignant scourges of mankind, the venereal diseases.' [Close, p.90]

In which case one imagines that Plague and Leprosy in ancient times,
must also have been deep, miasmatic disorders. Similarly
Elephantiasis. In addition, in this century, possibly Influenza too.
Cholera and Typhus [1800s], Diphtheria [1930s] and Tonsillitis [1950s]
might also be regarded as suitable candidates for miasm status. Maybe
it is the sheer life-threatening power of such diseases to overwhelm
the vital force that leads them to attain their status as miasms?
Leprosy would clearly stand close to Psora, while Influenza and Plague
seem closer to Tuberculosis - though all four are fundamentally Psoric
conditions. Thus, Psora clearly still forms the basis for all other
miasms, as Kent says.

I still return to my basic Kentian notion that a miasm, though
originally derived from an actual infectious disease, is essentially a
derangement of the life force, a component of the living entity which
controls the organism and moves molecules in the biochemical
processes.

'...Hahnemann invariably uses the term, vital principle instead of vital
force, even speaking in one place of 'the force of the vital
principle', thus making it clear that he holds...that life is a
substantial, objective entity, a primary originating power or
principle and not a mere condition or mode of motion. From this
conception arises the dynamical theory of disease...that disease is
always primarily a morbid dynamical or functional disturbance of the
vital principle; and upon which is reared the entire edifice of
therapeutic medication, governed by the Similia principle...' [Close, p.
88]

It is thus immaterial and spiritual in character, like the vital
force. Could not a miasm be some kind of zeitgeist which the whole
race absorbs at the time of the epidemic, regardless of actual
infection or not? Thus it might be seen as an episode in human
evolution resulting from pandemics passing through in different
historical epochs. If the miasms are essentially more mental than
physical, then Kent is right in one important respect, that they
represent a point of interface between homeopathy and psychotherapy.
Then the question arises how they can be removed by psychotherapy as
well as by potentised remedies?

That which we call disease is but a change in the Vital Force
expressed by the totality of the symptoms.

We do not take disease through our bodies but through the Vital Force;
likewise with a true cure.

The miasm is also very often distanced in time from that original
infection and also usually passed down to descendants. In a certain
sense, therefore, it is abstracted from physicality and must therefore
be fundamentally mental in structure and form. Well, some people
regard it as genetic. I also return to my idea that it is an 'innate
predisposition' and a vestige of an ancient disease which has
imprinted itself very powerfully and deeply upon the 'matrix', and
left a stain [like a bruise or deep hurt, an engram] which is carried
forward not in the cells and tissues [or genetically] but through that
part of the matrix which is passed down the cellular line to progeny.

Kent also argues here that ONLY through the vital force do we become
sick and become cured. To modern eyes, this is a very curious point,
as it completely ignores material factors in health like poisons,
radiation, physical injury, heat, bacteria and viruses, and overtly
genetic factors, which most certainly do have a health impact. To some
degree they damage the physical fabric of the organism and thus cause
symptoms. But to a strict vitalist, like Kent, they cannot be allowed
as true causes and must carry with them a subtle, ethereal cause as
well, which impacts directly upon the subtle vital force and hence
elicits disease symptoms. Most modern clinicians would find such an
idea perversely unacceptable, provocatively vitalist and manifesting
an unnecessarily anti-materialist position.

'The vital body may suffer damage much like the physical. It is
weakened by chronic disease and by drug suppression which it holds
like a shadow in its structure...' [Miles, 1992, p.28, my emphasis]

Thus, in this important sense, a miasm has to be regarded as a part of
the fabric of the vital force itself, pure and simple.

To deny that the miasms are dyscrasias or predispositions towards
certain types of patterned disease states seems to deny the theory in
its entirety. We only have to consider the characteristics of the
three miasms themselves that run down in families. Sycosis people are
pale, cachetic, marasmic, waxy, with a strong tendency [=
predisposition] towards mucus and pus problems, cystitis, warts,
infertility and asthma, worse for damp weather. Syphilitic families
quite clearly manifest examples of alcoholism, blindness, deafness,
insanity, bone and brain disorders, cleft palate, necrotic and
destructive, etc. Psoric families tend to manifest allergies,
circulation disorders, haemorrhoids, and skin complaints, functional
disorders of every description. To deny that these observations
constitute innate predispositions to certain predictable patterned
disease states derived from vestiges of ancient family illnesses seems
to completely demolish the theory itself and all the countless
observations Hahnemann himself had meticulously compiled, and which
led him to formulate the theory of Chronic Diseases in the first
place.

'The next step consisted in collecting into a class all the phenomena
known to be due to those ancient, widespread and malignant scourges of
mankind, the venereal diseases.' [Close, p.90]

If we accept, and the evidence seems overwhelmingly strong, that the
organism is controlled by a vital force, then the miasms must be seen
as derangements in it; they are blockages, taints or stains which are
carried invisibly within it as part and parcel of it. They drain its
energy and impede its smooth action, and hence generate symptoms of
disease.

'...that disease is always primarily a morbid dynamical or functional
disturbance of the vital principle; and upon which is reared the
entire edifice of therapeutic medication, governed by the Similia
principle...' [Close, p.88]

Thus Kent conceived the important viewpoint that a perfectly clean and
healthy person is a person completely cured of their miasms; mentally
and physically pure and free; a spiritual being who is no longer
susceptible to disease because they have had erased within them the
root causes of disease which the miasms are. In this sense, Kent also
conceived that the miasms are the foundation of all sickness and all
possible sickness.

"There are two worlds, the world of thought, of immaterial substance,
and the world of matter or material substance.[p.648, also in
Lectures, p.69, p.75 and p.85-6]

"There is an innermost to everything that is, or else the outermost
could not be [Aphorisms, p.645].

All disease causes are in Simple Substance. We must enter the realm of
causes in order to see the nature of disease.

We potentize so as to render the remedy simple enough to be drawn in
by influx by the Vital Force.

The dynamic plane is more interior or above the nutritive plane; it
presides over it and commands it. This is the plane of provings.

There are degrees of fineness of the Vital Force. We may think of
internal man as possessing infinite degrees and of external man as
possessing finite degrees.

The interior man is superior to the external man. Through this outer
instrument everything is reflected or rather conducted.

The external man is but an outward expression of the internal, so the
results of disease (i.e. symptoms) are but the outward expression of
the internal sickness.

Arsenic, for example is capable of identification from its outermost
to its innermost. In the external form the degrees are limited. When
it has passed to simple substance, the Radiant form of matter, it has
infinite degrees. To express the degrees from the Outermost to the
Innermost, we might say a grain of Silica is the Outermost; the
Innermost is The Creator.

One who thinks from the material, thinks disease is drawn in from
without, but it is drawn out from within.

And we can also point to Kent's wonderful assertions about 'the realm
of causation' and the 'internal man' which again amplify this idea
that miasms and vital force are united and dwell together in 'mystical
union' within a spiritual realm of causality which sits just behind
the physical and which touches it only through the hierarchies of
biochemical processes.

'The administration of the homeopathic remedy stimulates the vital
force to perform its work, on itself and its physical counterpart...here
is revealed the true nature of the potentised homeopathic remedy - it
is itself vital not physical...vital, or etheric, and by its very nature
acts directly on the vital body. The energy of the remedy...is unleashed
on the vital force and this is transmitted to its physical
vehicle.' [Miles, 1992, p.27]

Thus, my point of the vital force being the finger that moves the
molecules fits hand-in-glove with Kent's ideas.

Adopting a more modern chemical basis, we can say that the defence
mechanism or vital force, can be identified a little more 'physically'
than in Kent's day as the immune system, composed of antibodies,
phagocytes, immunoglobulins, recognition molecules and lymphatic
cells. But if Kent himself were alive today he would still dismiss
even this as still not nebulous enough by half! He would still assert
a finer more ultimate level of causation residing in a non-physical
vital force, along these lines:

"The outer world is the world of results. The inner world (of causes)
is not discoverable by the senses but by the understanding. [p. 657]

The Outermost has all within into the infinite in degree.

'Radiant substances have degrees within degrees, in series too
numerous for the finite mind to grasp.

The signs are visible, yet the inner Essence is invisible.

In this way, therefore, Kent would still re-affirm the fundamentally
numinous, ethereal and invisible nature of the three central
components of homeopathy: vital force, disease cause and potentised
remedies.

'The energy of the homeopathic remedy is made available for the vital
body via the nervous system, and by return the vital force acts upon
the physical body, using the nervous system as a means of
transmission.' [Miles, 1992, p.28]

Each in their way therefore, are metaphysical and cannot be discerned
in the physical realm even with the most powerful microscope we could
conceive of.

The finest visible objects are but the results of things still finer,
so that the causes rest within.

And as soon as we talk of the immune system, we link up with another
subject Kent was keen to expound upon at length: susceptibility. But
that can wait for another time.



Sources:
[All quotations in the text are to Kent's Aphorisms, unless otherwise
stated]
Allen, J. H., 1910, The Chronic Miasms- Psora, Pseudo-Psora And
Sycosis [In 2 Parts]
Assilem, M., 1991, Folliculinum: Mist Or Miasm?, The Homeopath, Vol.
11/1, p.5
Banerjea, S.K, 1991, Miasmatic Diagnosis
Choudhury, H., 1988, Indications of Miasm, 1st Edition, 1988, B. Jain
Close, Stuart, 1924, The Genius of Homeopathy, Lectures and Essays On
Homeopathic Philosophy, Indian Reprint (1988) Ed., B. Jain Publishers,
N. Delhi
Cohen, H, 1997, Medorrhinum, Miasms And Morality In Homoeopathy, The
Homeopath, Vol. 65, Jan 1997, pp.698-703
Cook, S., 1997, Mercurius, The Syphilitic Miasm And Spiritual
Awakening, The Homeopath, Vol. 66, p.755
Danciger, Elizabeth, 1993, Letter re Vital Force, The Homeopath, 50,
pp.92-4
Dimitriadis, G., 1992, The Theory of Chronic Diseases According to
Hahnemann, Hahnemann Institute of Homoeopathy, Sydney.
Green, Julia M, 1982, Development Of Miasms In Family Groups, The
Homeopath 3/1, 1982
Grimmer, A H, 1995, Miasms And Remedies, Homeopathic Heritage 20, pp.
415-16
Haehl, Richard, 1922, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. 1
Hahnemann, Samuel, 1828, The Chronic Diseases, Jain reprint
Hahnemann, Samuel, The Mode and Propagation of Asiatic Cholera
Jain Pub, c.1970, Chronic Diseases And The Theory Of Miasms, Jain, New
Delhi
Kanjilal, J. N., 1977, Writings on Homoeopathy, Dr. Abinash Ch. Das
Publishers, Calcutta, Vol. 2.
Kent, James T, New Remedies, Clinical Cases, Aphorisms and Precepts
Kent, James T, 1900, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy
Miles, Martin, 1992, Homeopathy and Human Evolution, Winter Press,
London
Miles, Martin, 1995, Homoeopathy In The 21st Century, Prometheus
Unbound 2:1, Autumn 1995, pp.35-37
Morrell, Peter, 1983, On The Nature Of Life, The Homoeopath 3:3,
London
Morrell, Peter, 1984, Homoeopathic Health Revolution, The Homoeopath
4:3, London
Morrell, Peter, 1987, Psorinum, The Homoeopath, 6:4, London
Morrell, Peter, 1998, From Cooper Club to Flower Essences, Homeopathy
Online #6, August 1998
Norland, Misha, 1991, The Roots of Suffering: Buddhism and the Miasms,
The Homoeopath 11:3, Sept. 1991, pp.77-82
Ortega, P.S., 1983, Chronic Miasms, BHJ 72:1, [Jan 1983, pp.8-19]
Paterson, J, & E.M Paterson, 1935, The Chronic Miasms In Prescribing
[1935],
Ploog, Chistoph, 1999, Email to P Morrell re Miasms, Dec 1999
Sarkar, B.K., 1968, Essays on Homoeopathy, Hapco, Calcutta.
Seror, Robert, 1999, Kent's Aphorisms Online, <www.homeoint.org>
Shemmer, Yair, 1993, Vital Force: A View To The Future, The Homoeopath
13:2, June 1993, pp.66-70
Singh, S P, & J G Roy, 1996, Hahnemann's Miasm, Homeopathic Heritage
21, pp.465-72
Speight, P., 1948, A Comparison Of The Chronic Miasms, C. W. Daniel
Co, Saffron Walden, UK
Twentyman, L. R., 1952, Miasms And Archetypes, BHJ, 41:4, pp.130-139
Tyler, M. L., c.1940, Hahnemann's Conception of Chronic Disease as
Caused by Parasitic Micro-Organisms, B. Jain Publishers, N. Delhi.
Vickers, Andrew and Zollman, Catherine, 1999, ABC of Complementary
Medicine: Acupuncture, BMJ 1999; 319:973-976, 9 October 1999
Whitney, Jerome, 1995, The Source Of The Miasms, The Homeopath 57,
April 1995, p.398

Homeopathe International
.