The self arising consequence from finding the statistical remedy and its specific mental dynamic tendencies, arising from this conceptual classification, the result that indicates them as a necessary presence, thus become incontestable proofs for the presence of the collective subconscious.10 It is a simple, logical and objective demonstration of first of all it’s existence, and secondly its presence, in any one of its various forms. It demonstrates the dynamic constitutional mental characteristics of a statistical disease, which is more at the level of possibility, and matches the mental characteristics of the miasmtic remedy that is self-arising from the statistical model.
Homeopathy is an independent system of Medicine and a science.1,2,5,8,9 With the help of a statistical model deriving from its own concepts, it proves in a simple and objective way the presence of what used to be and maybe still is for many, “a controversial concept”. It’s general meanings are present in many psychological or philosophical systems, but just as postulated general concepts without a specific clear standard, and without a proven existence as independent reality of the so much debated and also valued Collective Subconscious.11
If we have a perceptible organic symptom belonging to the statistical disease, can we go further below that to find more about it or about the disease? The symptom in itself is a cumulative qualitative measure that as we will further see, does expand itself below in an imaginary conical shape.
On the other side, the presence of any of the organic symptoms is also an indication for the statistical remedy.
Inside, at the functional level we have a defined constitution for a specific disease tendency (seemingly spherical in its shape), which is impossible to measure in its quantity, due to our tendency to use inductive statistical tests starting from individuals who express only a part of the same visible tendency.
These results also show that the disease is extending for the same reason as we created it, using a statistical correlative function showing things are accumulative and not disseminative.
The chi square test itself is indicating an individual level of well-defined possibilities that we can see only at the collective level at the moment we have used it. Virtually, at the level of a spherical three-dimensional possibility, each individual patient can have in time all the symptoms, an indication that if not treated perfectly at the level of possibility, things are advancing towards accumulation in the proximal descriptive visible reality. Therefore they are not a protective mechanism avoiding the functional collapse as may be considered by mistake.
At the same time, the functional constitution differs in its three dimensional characteristics in different people belonging to a population, and we may also find that not all people belong to a specific statistical disease tendency in a defined population.
This is a complete “genetic” model of the statistical functional disease tendency, having at the base a precise functional memory, also indicating its correct treatment, a dynamic, functional treatment matching perfectly the statistical spherical level of development for the specific miasm.
The model also shows that the disease could start within the susceptible individuals anytime at any point from the surface within a spherical shape of possible functional developments, and that level is as a consequence, a functional memory.
Then how are we going to calibrate the current view of the genetic model on such a development? I believe it is currently impossible, and the first idea arising from here is that we may need to accept another level of memory that is functional, and although supposedly past DNA it may well be included at the DNA level as a defined independent functional entity. This would be impossible to measure although it seems that at the individual level it can be fully described by using inductive functions. That is a reality that we could not see without inductive statistical functions and at the same time it is impossible to calibrate at the molecular level. The functional memory may be logically speaking contained at the DNA level, but it will be impossible to calibrate, and it shows that the genetic model is incomplete in its description. We can accept the functional level of memory at the DNA level, but it is impossible to measure it with the tools we currently have.
The remedy and the statistical disease indicate the presence of the functional constitution that is either post DNA, or at its level, and the cumulative cone is with the base inside and the top outside at the level of perceptible symptoms.
The statistical disease is an objective fact. It also shows that the accumulation comes from inside the organic level, and makes a full picture past the level of perceptible symptoms, and is imaginary outside the individual body. The mathematical model in fact indicates an internal functional predisposition. Although it is evidently expressing parts of the disease at the body level, that level is already too low yet at the same time is a maximum limited by the perceptible symptoms, without any chance to show it in its full development.
If that would happen, we are at an end, which is very close and easy to see by everybody.
And as the above is logically correct, the following implication is that searching for the statistical disease below the perceptible symptoms backwards towards the DNA will show the same pattern, but a hundred times more complicated in its individual variations.
The organic and well-defined microscopic world changes below the level of perceptible symptoms. It extends and varies a thousand times more than the statistically perceptible movements of the heads of the monster.
That is another incontestable proof of the philosophical level reaching the heights of the absolute on which the Organon was created, showing that investigation inside the body will be impossible to follow at the level of present possibilities and has no logical reasons, as it will not find a measurable answer that will describe the disease as a totality. For an organic symptom to be perceptible by the patient and consequently by the practitioner, it requires combinations impossible to calibrate and follow deep inside at the molecular level. The world of qualitative changes is showing to extend inside as a cumulative imaginary cone with the top at the level of perceptible symptoms and the base inside at a precise functional level.
Based on the above facts it is not logical to consider that the organic symptoms are different at the organic level. They constitute the statistical disease, which shows that although we are on a maximum we are on an inadequate level of reality if we take as a standard the expressed organic individual level. Below them we can reconstitute that disease if we search towards DNA, as we do in searching the particular characteristics of the statistical disease at the psychological level. It shows that the reverse way towards DNA will not find that measurable disease tendency at the genetic level, as we imagine it today. It is at another level of reality, which is impossible to show without a mathematical function in any of the individuals that belong to the same miasm. The only way to see the full disease in an individual is when the possible disease has already become organic and is no longer inductive.
The above is in total concordance with the idea we find inside the books of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann,1,2 that the truth we need for the cure is not inside the molecular universe of the body more than it is on the skin (at the perceptible level of symptoms). When we have cured the visible symptoms we have treated the disease in its complexity as stated in the Organon of the medical art:
“As little as we mortals can see into the process in the household of healthy life – which must remain hidden from us creatures just as certainly as this process is exposed to the eye of the all-seeing Creator and Sustainer of his creatures – just as little can we see into the internal process of disturbed life in diseases. The inner process in diseases becomes known to us only through perceptible alterations, ailments and symptoms; this is the only way our life gives utterance to the inner disturbances.” (1; p. 27, n. 21)
As an example, the nature itself shows that the dynamic flow inside the patient requires time to be expressed in perceptible symptoms from the moment of infection for example to the moment of perceptible expression. And what does that show more than certifying once again that the perceptible symptoms are a result of an accumulation that comes from inside outside, towards the perceptible symptoms in a conical shape with the top at the surface and the base at a level of functional possibilities within a well defined memory?
“Does it not take three, four or five days after vaccination is effected, before the vaccinated spot becomes inflamed? Does not the sort of fever developed – the signs of the completion of the disease – appear even later, when the protecting pock has been fully formed; i.e. on the seventh or eight day?” (2; I:33n)
The organic, perceptible symptoms are on an imaginary projection in between the molecular functional level that is the base of a cone shape with the top at the level of the statistical disease. They are also at the same time a maximum of what can be expressed, the top of a smaller cone (the individual cone) with the same base, the molecular functional level.
That shows nothing more than that we need to postulate again the evidence of a different level of memory, a multidimensional (non dimensional) memory which although it may be at the DNA level, needs to be there by itself as a separate functional entity. Moreover it appears independent and spherical in its representation. If the inherited functional level were transmitted through DNA, the only place where we have an expressed validation of the DNA characteristic would be at the psychological level, as a perceptible function that is the result of smaller levels of the same way of expression.13
The fact that the above dissociation at the organic level does not follow the same rule at the psychological level is also a logical consequence arising from the general major differences in properties between the psychological characteristics and the organic ways of expression. It is also a consequence of the radically different functional level on which the world of ideas is organized, buffered from chemical processes by immeasurable layers of functional activities separated by Ether, in comparison with the organic individual level, which has as an expression a measurable entity. However, it is also logical that all the functions will express perceptibly lower levels of imperceptible functional activities. However, the psychological level is unique in its language.10
It appears that the mind is the only function that can visibly expand itself in a complex way at the perceptible collective level, a tendency that we find for the organic symptoms only at the mathematical imperceptible level. The presence of the symptoms inside the statistical remedy has no visible correspondent at the organic level, apart from when things are processed statistically. But again statistically, the result indicates that the same remedy is inside the unique features of the psychological function, and we find it through method in reality as well as shown by homeopaths in practice.
It is a necessary and demonstrated reality to accept that the psychological characteristics are only able to be present at a perceptible level between individual and collective levels, as there are no better objective demonstrations other than the ones arising from mathematical deductions. We need to add signs and symptoms derived from the statistical disease to the organic universe at the individual level, but we do not need to do the same at the psychological level, for the fact that the result shows they must be there and nowhere else.
If we look at the incapacity of the organic symptoms to show the head of the monster, which we can see through mathematics, at the individual level; that is nothing else but the image of the already known DNA function to manufacture the individual body and its molecules, without either necessarily containing the specific tendency in itself, or just because it is exactly what is missing from the model itself. If we have a cumulative cone with the top at the surface and the base inside then that is in opposition to the model we have today where the top of the cone must be at the DNA level as the starting point. It just shows that the functional level of memory is spherical and the starting point can be anywhere at the level of possibility as mentioned above.
Based on the above I would also like to further discuss this extension. Some would maybe still say that the same information is contained in the DNA and may just be a protective mechanism. I will further consider again that idea as well.
We need to start from the point where we could see the impossibility of calibrating the genetic model on such a development if we don’t postulate an independent functional memory.
The above is not a viable idea. We must look at the scattered perceptible organic symptoms, as they express themselves in an individual, and are the first proof that can lead to such an idea. They cannot reach the statistical disease, they are a part of it and they correlate with each other, showing accumulation and not dissipation.
At the molecular level as we know, it is a microscopically organic-functional universe below the perceptible level, and a dynamic movement is shown that is coming from inside towards outside in a cumulative cone with the top at the level of the symptom.
If we take the symptoms of the statistical disease and search for them at the genetic level as we see it today what would we probably find? Maybe individual small proofs for the perceptible individual segments of the statistical disease as the statistical model shows it in an objective way, after counting the perceptible signs and symptoms, and in any way not a descriptive proof for the total disease as a possibility.
The only place where DNA can be validated as a result of a postulated functional memory level on an individual basis, and which contains the data for the statistical disease as a dynamic inherited memory, is again the psychological level. In this way things are in a reverse logical order and they start from top to bottom, from function to organic. How can a perceptible functional level that is the magnified expression of smaller levels of functionality, validate the manufacturing process if it is not an independent entity that validates and expresses just itself, and nothing in a mechanical way, and which starts with manufacturing the first molecule?
In this way, homeopathy is shown to be a place where we can find an explanation of a very specific possible functional validation for what we know as the molecule of life, the original point where any individual living universe has its physical starting point. But a specific mathematically proven functional level, created after the molecule that is at its origins- just using the molecular combinational level post the manufacturing process- cannot validate the function of the molecule and be at the same time a creation of it unless it is actually included as a separate entity at that level. That is not possible without accepting that the functional specific dynamic three-dimensional tendency is contained within the functional tendency in itself at any level we want to start.
In applying the above model, I believe it is more practical that when we process signs and symptoms to validate their statistical connections, we do not necessarily need to use mental characteristics even if they are well defined by a remedy. It may be almost impossible from the beginning to standardize inside such a function, as these mental characteristics may not necessarily be self-arising for everybody, the psychological level being an informational universe by itself. It can be the Universe itself. In that way we would introduce further unwanted qualitative descriptive errors, considering the limits of describing in an absolute way such a situation. In such a way, the mental symptoms can actually shorten the length of the full miasm, sharing associated symptoms with the organic.
Based on the above deductions, it is probably better if we develop the miasm by only using at the beginning the organic symptoms. The organic level is actually the one that has perceptible limits in reaching its level, and is easier to standardize for qualitative variables. Then to further validate its presence and prescribe safely we just need to add the calculated mental characteristics of the discovered miasmtic remedy, and search for them inside the thinking of the individual patient and prescribe safely.
All the above have a connection with the idea that shows how Homeopathy reaches the limits of the absolute, and is a possible answer to the question on how can we treat a disease that we discovered using statistics. It is evident that if the disease can be represented as a sphere, using the disease itself in its artificial dynamic form is the most simple and logical answer, if not the only one. It is difficult to imagine an example that would be in contradiction conceptually with such a conclusion.
Based on the above facts, we can say that with the current ways of treating chronic diseases, if we cure the symptoms and signs and we do not see them anymore, then the statistical disease will disappear, it does not exist anymore.
But, based on current medical research, can we use anti asthmatics on people that have chronic cirrhosis (if for example we know that chronic cirrhosis in a population is associated with asthma) along with the liver treatment, if we discover it is the best at a certain point, in an attempt to cure the signs of the statistical three-dimensional inductive disease in particular individuals?
That will never happen to be a practical valid approach, as the different drugs are very independent, organ related and functional related in one plane in their conception and in the end there is no specific miasmtic statistical connection between each of them at the level of the statistical disease, at the level of a functional possibility.
Also, it shows the side effects of current drugs we have, apart from the fact that they are not “in line” even with the specific problem they are designed to treat, as they are derived from investigating the molecular universe, for which only contraria contrarii is the supreme truth. It would be impossible to further think that logically they can join together in healing such a three-dimensional disease level.1,2
The only place that is an expression of how much a drug can affect the statistical disease is the placebo effect that we detect in common trials, and today we describe it as an error in trials for therapeutics. Placebo does not exist as an error. Placebo is exactly the measurable course of the healing process in a multidimensional (non dimensional) plan. Placebo does present itself as an error if we consider that the psychological processes do not contribute/belong in any way to the disease. In such a way we actually produce the biggest error in accord with the already demonstrated facts.
This is another proof that they have not been chosen homeopathically even at the short molecular functional level, with the collateral consequences on treatment results that we can see.
However, I would say that the above deductions are actually valid as they were made inside one system as a need to calibrate it’s reality to the reality of the remedies in homeopathy.
I find that such an idea is not a correct one, as the application of statistics in revealing the statistical disease is independent of homeopathy although it is indicated by its principles. It cannot be contested in any way in its validation, which precedes discussion on individual systems or methods.
Building the homeopathic remedy on such a model is actually an indication of the superior level at which Homeopathy was created, and is a practical answer for the treatment of the functional level of the disease which we can only see through mathematics, and which extends itself as if into another dimension.
Moreover, releasing the concept of disease into the hands of correct logical thinking and mathematics, and not into concepts that follow only individual developments- in fact not even thinking of such threats- is beneficial for any medical philosophy and in particular for Homeopathy This is actually the only system of medicine to date, able to offer a practical standardized logical solution to the three-dimensional expansion of the chronic diseases, the discovery that Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, himself the creator of Homeopathy, made starting at the experimental level and which today we express through a statistical function.1,2
In consequence, if we do not treat correctly the statistical patient in a homeopathic way (in line with the functional development of the disease) with the help of statistics, such a level of development can spread at the invisible functional level in impossible to measure ways and continuously threaten humanity at the level of the “invisible” patient.
Objectively speaking, as urgently as possible homeopathy needs to be considered as a superior alternative- at least at the conceptual level- to the current conception of treatment in chronic diseases. The conclusion is self-arising as an independent idea without any subjective connections, and I believe everybody can see that such data speaks more than personal opinions. In the end I believe we all can go past personal affinity to a certain model of thinking (as I did myself), in the name of our Master, the Patient and his sufferings, praying to the Universe for help. We treat the individual, but what do we offer to the statistical patient we have found through a powerful tool, the statistics? A living giant, the size of this Earth inside individuals, that shows one more time how the truth is extending from the individual level to his sufferings, and we need to treat him, as we want to be treated for our sufferings.
To fully comment on the proven facts, we also need to emphasize again the logical idea that the lack of expression of the symptoms at the organic level and also their correlative tendency is actually an indication of accumulation at the invisible statistical level and at some point all the patients will actually show the signs of the same disease at the organic level when the miasm has reached its full power.
But starting exactly from the individual organic symptoms we created the statistical disease and things are ascending and not descending, otherwise such a disease could not exist.
We would not have such a statistical disease if the lack of expression to the organic perceptible level would be a protection as said.
We cannot even think of making such a conclusion by relying on supposed protective errors in this proven specific collective tendency. Homeopathy is the only possible practical hope of an up to date way to fight such diseases, both at the conceptual level and as a standardized practical method, and which addresses the treatment at the appropriate level of development of the disease itself.
To offer just a few modern examples: cancer has reached unprecedented epidemic levels, old infectious diseases are striking back with great power as the bacteria became stronger after using antibiotics, AIDS is rising with little hope for a classical cure in the near future. These are just a few examples, which indicate we must start actually searching for the heads of the monster at their visible end. We must start with diseases, which are observable without using inductive statistics.15
I do not believe these are necessarily the result of increasing life expectancy, as we may think. They are the diseases that are already threatening humanity in the indefinite but immediate future.5,8,9
Within the specific system of Homeopathy, these facts first of all indicate in a precise way the level at which the treatment of chronic diseases should start, first of all with the proof they belong to a well-known miasm. The demonstration shows that at the psychological level we will find the statistical remedy by using personally perceptible tendencies that belong to a miasmtic remedy. And the first practical use of such a fact, is the possibility of preventing organic pathology at the moment where the patient, who already has a certain psychological constitution which belongs to a calculated tendency, senses a different intensity in his thinking or feelings. We can then match such a development to a known remedy without even knowing if it is a statistical remedy or not. Even better, if we know that it is actually a statistical remedy, we will have a well-defined standard and concept to prevent further pathological developments.
The model has practical use. As an example, if we have a patient with a one sided organic chronic disease, then with experience it is very possible that at the psychological level we can reach the statistical remedy, even though it will be impossible to create it at the individual level based on the organic findings. The standard must be the psychological characteristics of the remedies. If we know that the organic symptom belongs to a statistical remedy, then we have a narrow set, a well-standardised tendency to follow at the psychological level, and certify in a mathematical way the level at which we prescribe, having as a reason the shortest time to heal a patient. And that is the one step cure as desired by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann.1,2
Another idea concerns the level of common statistical trials, where currently the results are not accurate or easily observable. As we have shown here, without treating the miasmtic level it can be impossible to have a total healing process.
Consequently, the disease shows itself as a unitary spherical entity, an informational spherical storm inside the patient, first of all a consequence of the simple logical and practical fact that The Vital Force cannot split itself inside its own unity as shown by the cure itself (we would not have any cure if the Vital Force were able to answer in multiple ways). Any logical attempts to combine remedies in order to match the exact disease are not in line with the theoretical model as indicated first by Samuel Hahnemann and are not following its logical meaning, or its mathematical and objective validity as proven here. It may be possible furthermore that different remedies even logically chosen, will act at different levels inside the spherical model of the functional memory and they may not be complementary in any way in their actions.
Several smaller spheres will not fit inside another one without gaps. One sphere will fit inside another one or will include it. On the other hand, if we have two bigger spheres than the one we want to cover, thinking they can cover the disease by their infinite number of dynamic points inside; if we consider the mathematically proven disease as a functional process, they will never be in line in their movement (best described by spinning around their own axis. They will match each other in all ways of movement but again will not be in line with the dynamic movement inside the disease. The sphere represented by the disease will be covered, but its dynamic movement will not be covered as expressed by the Law of similars, which best describes that process. In consequence, any modification of the original concepts stated by the Organon are actually in conflict with the Law of Similars as proven here.1