You asked:
Quote:
|
if he [Kent] produced cures, why is this a problem?
|
Because people who've been researching this,
in depth, for some years (i.e. the results of their research is based on evidence AND experience), have found some major discrepancies in Kent's writings, including his Repertory. Swedenborgianism is
partly to do with it. And, as I said above, this doesn't mean that Kent never affected cures.
Why is it that people reel at finding out that Kent did things like inserting symptoms from desktop provings in the repertory (he was called on it!! and he stopped it!! or are people now going to say this is an okay way of including symptoms in the repertory?)? It certainly makes me sit up and think about all this! Doesn't it concern anyone else?
If you already know all this (and the rest which is too long to state here) - then why bother asking? I thought the title of your thread was to open all this up for discussion? I can't begin to know what the boundaries of your knowledge is, you know
, so I put my two-pence in. Is it any less valid because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs?
Quote:
|
my choice of the word religion was based on the fact that it appears that some in homeopathy defend their own choice in method of practice based on a'beleif' that it is 'the only' true method... not on experience or evidence that other methods don't go to cure...
|
Are we to assume that all people who use Boenninghausen all think it is THE ONLY way to practise? I should hope not! I don't.
I for one am grateful for the opportunity to learn from the people who've studied all this in depth! I may not agree or draw the same exact conclusions as them - after researching (and checking their references), but it certainly is worthy of looking in to, isn't it?
How do we know the information put forth was not based on experience or evidence?? How can anyone say that? Unless one is prepared to name names, how can anyone honestly say that?
How about - let's be open-minded to ALL possibilities (either way!). I suspect that the reason that people get so upset over this topic is because their own bank of knowledge is called into question sometimes. It upsets the apple-cart, if someone finds out that what they are being taught is faulty in any way. Same thing happens when someone is making the switch between allopathy and homeopathy. It's happened to me many times.
Why not research the material and see what all the fuss is about, from people who actually have more experience and HAVE critically looked all this for years?
If someone discovered that a particular method strayed from the principles of cure - should they dogmatically stick with it? Dunno - maybe it delves into other areas of treatment besides homeopathy (if it strays from the principles of homeopathy, that is...)
Ever tried explaining homeopathy to someone - only to have them argue back based on the allopathic paradigm? Frustrating ain't it? Then, at some point - you just give up because you know you are not 'playing on the same field' at all and only find yourself talking at cross-purposes.
It's easy to call others dogmatic or say people stick to a 'belief' when one only has a vague idea where the other person is coming from. (general statement - not meant toward anyone in particular) Reason I say this is because it becomes apparent at some point just what people are talking about. And, that word is bandied about a lot these days.
[ 13 June 2002, 18:04: Message edited by: Artemis ]