Hi!

I don't like to think of these as theories. I like to think of them as perspectives on Hahnemann's observations.

Also, I don't think they are all "in the same league". Bailey, for example, is simply bringing his experience as a psychologist (which basically just provides us with an understanding of the "pathology" of emotional states, as opposed to the pathology of physiological states) to bear on materia medica interpretations. Scholten, on the other hand, is like a cartographer; he's trying to streamline and solidify the science behind remedies and their effects on the body, considering the knowledge we have about them through the existing sciences, like chemistry and physics. These are totally different efforts--and they can't really be considered new "theories".

[ 26. August 2002, 14:11: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung