Well Chris, like yourself, I can’t accept everything that happens in the name of ‘homeopathy’.
A school advertises itself as a ‘Homeopathic training course’, offers bush flowers & various means of ‘understanding energy’, yet there is no sign of Hahnemann’s ‘Chronic Diseases’.
To anyone who knows about the subject, that is obviously not a homeopathic training course.

Is there a difference between saying the above, and calling the course organizer a muckotherapist?

Yes. The former is less personal, (to him and to me) therefore more diplomatic, (even though the latter may also be true.)

In terms of discussing homeopathy with other homeopaths, diplomacy has a different value to different people. It may be of high value when a member is seeking common ground with the opposition, in terms of the homeopathic issues, or in a political sense.

Diplomacy is only really the art of non-offence. A participant may feel his/her truth, as being more valuable than diplomacy, because finding a common ground would mean a compromise, with which neither side is actually happy. For example I’m not interested in such a compromise that a ‘homeopathic’ course excludes Hahnemann’s ‘Chronic Diseases’.

Yes to your question, I consider essence prescribing, life cycle theory, core delusions, periodic table theory and meditative provings, to name a few ideas, as belonging to the realms of imagination, & not homeopathic.
Dishing out allopathy with one hand and remedies with the other is also unacceptable.

To be uncompromising about homeopathy is not in itself fundamentalism.
Agreeing to disagree on the homeopathic issues is in fact, diplomacy.
As is refraining from a debate sometimes.

In practice what we ourselves consider to be unsound homeopathy, after some trial, we may simply exclude.
Politics have nothing to do with understanding the homeopathic issues.
However, in this arena, they play a part in creating the space for the exchange of information, and that would be my diplomatic interest.

Re the possible criteria for using one approach or the other; can I ask, if you think a case of disease would need to be actually taken differently in the first instance, with a certain approach in mind from the outset?
For example is it possible to find the ‘core delusion’ in a case, which has been taken by a Hahnemanian homeopath?
In my experience the approach of the homeopath affects the nature of the information sought.

Yes of course there are differences.
I'm not sure why you're asking me if a "core delusion" can be found in a case taken by a "Hahnemannian homoeopath". As I said above, I don't look for core delusions, and I'm not in a position to answer because I haven't studied that material in any depth.
I haven't felt the need to study it in any depth.
I can say that I followed up on a case in which Anti-matter 10M had been prescribed by another practitioner based on a core delusion that the patient felt "ungrounded" and which unfortunately left the patient quite out of sorts for some time with no signs of improvement. The Vital Force was regularized with three simple doses of Phos 30C in medicinal solution in a 100ml bottle, 5 succussions, one teaspoon from first cup, over 3 days, without a lot of hullabaloo. So I'm always left shaking my head when I hear statements like..."the polychrests don't work anymore, we need new remedies" or "we need to burn those 200 year old books and bring this science of ours into the 21st Century" which was said to me on the phone several months ago during a very-short-conversation. Breathtakingly ignorant imo, and the main reason I haven't attended an AHA seminar in years, as everything is geared towards presenting something new, and for me, the *new* factor is always found in some passage I never understood as clearly in the *old*.
I realize this probably hasn't answered your questions in the way you are seeking. I don't disagree when you say, it's a matter of discarding those methods which you personally consider unsound, but to me, this will always be a judgement call based on one's personal experience, as is - what comprises the main complaint in a given case, the Esse, the Wesen of the disease to be cured, and the characteristic value of symptoms.
While I obviously recognize the need for clear definitions, I'm averse to black and white applications of principles insofar as they negate, deny or dismiss real advancements in homoeopathy. Kent, for instance, in failing to completely understand Boenninghausen's methodology wrote an impressive Repertory of his own. <smiling diplomatically and I hope you are too>
I also think that it is a mistake to base one's opinion about a method if it has not been taught adequately in the first place. For instance, in the DL classroom we had the opportunity to briefly see how Ed Broussalian moved fluidly <I may have split an infinitive somewhere there> between rubrics in Kent's Repertory picking out redline characteristics, and explaining some finer points about how rubrics became Generals, and what the significance of a remedy being placed in particular rubric had in relation to it not being present in the General rubric, and at that point I knew for sure, that my comprehension of Kent's method was not, erm, as good as it can be. And I intend to improve on that.

Dear Chris, dear Members

You wrote:
>>While I obviously recognize the need for clear definitions, I'm averse to black and white applications of principles insofar as they negate, deny or dismiss real advancements in homoeopathy.<<

I fully agree. But what is a real advancement in homeopathy?
IMO, the way forward is not to praying after what other people say such as:

>>Kent, for instance, in failing to completely understand Boenninghausen's methodology wrote an impressive Repertory of his own.<<

Here an indebt study of the sources of Kent may help you to correct your views. Kent did not create this repertory all by himself. He simply synthesized what was already available on the market. It is rather unbelievable when he wrote at the publisher preface to the third edition: --I have verified every symptom in the book --. Provided, that the verification of each symptom would take about 5 minutes, it would have taken him at least 40 years!! to verify each symptom in the book.

I was unable to identify a clear methodology Kent used in his casework, even though he advocated a classification that is widely known. On the contrary, he selected his remedies in his earlier days according the guidelines of the org.: 5th ed. And again—claims of having done 15000+ cases a year are doubtful—where are the casebooks.

I am thankful to Anna Bryant who clearly brought out the twists in David Little’s thinking and teachings.

Also, I am pleased with the respectful way my former students conducted this discussion—others have to learn I suppose, that using rough and insulting language does not replace factuality.
Finally, I want to state quite clearly, that David Little when writing his earlier post quoting my mail in support of his views, ignored:
1. My comment that " It seems to stay bi-valent with the ,,inheritance ''
issue."
2. that I put "inherited" in quotation marks in my translation of the
letter, and did so advisedly.
3. My opinion: "I think, that Hahnemann just had that problem, that in
many cases he could not find in the history any trace of scabies infection
or anything similar-- so he was still looking for possibilities.
DL wrote also: >>Hans has been a good sport and withdrawn his statement in lieu of Dr. Schmidt's
work.<<
Here I want to state conclusively, that I withdrew my opinion that par 78 footnote was not written by Hahnemann; I did not withdraw any other statement or position which David Little appears to have assumed that I did.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath
homeopathy study guide: http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity....hy-study-guide

That's okay Hans. I understand you need to feel you're doing the best you can.

All the best with your studies and practice.
Chris