Hello Everyone,

I decided to start a new thread to discuss people's thoughts about the new theories in homeopathy. There are several threads where this has come up, most noteably regarding The Similimum's editorial staff.

I'd like to know what people think about Sankaran, Scholten, Vespoor, Bailey, Vega, etc.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

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

I don't know much about Vespoor or Bailey or Vega.

BUt i agree with Chacha.
I don't think Scholton or Sankaran deviate at any point in their attempt to find the consitutional similimum, and a single remedy to match the individual portrait presented by the patient.
Basically both their attempts to do so may be new or unconventional, and I think very interesting, if one is ready to keep an open mind and undertand what they are really trying to say.

I think Sankaran's "modern interpretations" of remedy characteristics, especially the mental picture is brilliant and have helped me understand difficult remedies tremendously. One still needs to match physicals though to know that one is on the right track.
I think his latest ideas focus on an indepth understanding of the chief complaint (LSMC) which matches beautifully with the patients state of mind. Also a sort of expansion on the Miasms which I feel would need a lot of solid development, but the ideas are phenomenal.

Scholton on the other hand is a scientist and chemist. His interests lie with the understanding mainly of the wonderful secrets in the Periodic Table, as each element differs from the one next to it in the last electron in the outermost orbit. How that bit of differing energy produces gradually developing differences in the chemical and physical properties as well as "energy" properties of the element. We understand the meaning of this "energy" property better in Homeopathy as we know what are the effects of proving a remedy. ITs BRILLIANT. NOthing less than genius insight.

OF course traditional provings will finally need to support that to satisfy the sceptical critics - but I'm sure it will in time. What is more important, is that the attempt here is STILL to find the similimum to match the patients symptom picture, though with a different tool of analysis.

Its always a caution to every student however, to learn their homeopathic Materia MEdica and Organon philosopy the traditional way, know the basics - to have a sound foundation. Studying Sankaran and Scholton are for postgraduate level, in my opinion, after one has had working knowledge of the materia medica and one is ready for new tools to enhance ones prescribing abilities and case taking.

Jumping the gun is going to lead to failure, which many poeple have faced - which has unfortunately resulted in unnecessary criticism and controversy over both these brilliant people.

regards,
doctorleela

[ 26. August 2002, 17:31: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Dear Shirley, cha-cha heels, dr. leela

Before diving deeply into opinions about ideas, I want to dwell a bit on the question itself. The theme is: ‘’New theories in homeopathy’’

Homeopathy is defined by Hahnemann in his Organon, where he explicitly excludes theories from it. This is done in a lengthy footnote to paragraph 1.

Theory remains opinion, as it is arrived by analogy, thought, reasoning, phantasy, and not by unprejudiced observation.

I cannot talk about Sankaran, Scholten, Vespoor, Bailey, Vega.
None of those I know personally. All of them have published different ideas.

Let someone come forward and present exactly those ideas, and then lets have a look at them, let practitioners come forward and present their experiences, let us look where they come to stand in the context of homeopathy. Let us stay away from the polarity: Homeopathy=good, everything else=bad.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Hi Shirley

I had some words of wisdom regarding Sankaran - but Dr Leela said it all so much better than I. I agree with her comments on SHolton as well - from my limited knowledge of Sholten. Sankaran I enjoy very much and have had some success in using his remedy descriptions for choosing correct remedies.

Baily...What is it about Bailey? I don't even have an answer - I just do not like his work - call it intuition, call it insanity, just
a bad vibe - hows that for scientific?

See ya at the party later - my place this time - all invited, dress up please as it is formal - gpm, wear your fancy overalls - and of course Floyd is alwasy welcome. Bach - you can come too if you promise to play piano for us, Leela, this is your official invite okay. Snoopy feel free to bring your Snoopy - he can play with my beloved Rocky. Maybe Divina will change her haircolor again.

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

Alice in Wonderland, and Snoopy hasn;t even arrived yet!

__________________
Shirley Reischman

BArb,
I'll be there, thank you very much!
And this time I won't wear GPM's frumpy dress - though I defintely come formal. So at least Shirley will recognize me this time.

HAns - I don't agree with "New Theories" in homeopathy, just like Chacha said. So finally we agree on something.
Regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Theory explains the course of action of law. First we should have to decide which law we want to discuss. Obviously, Law of nature i.e. Homeopathy. Hahnemann after discovering this law presented his theory in the form of ORGANON. Now rest of all the so called theories are actually not theories but rather an interpretation of theories sub classes.

__________________
<b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>

There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states: matter is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy . In its most compact form, it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created nor destroyed.

In 1907, Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc (2) and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy: the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.

Albert Eienstein discovered the formula E=MC(2). But Albert Eienstein performed an experiment in U tube practically demonstrated that during the interaction of two chemicals energy releases into the environment. When the energy will release, obviously matter will be utilized. He practically proved the previous statement wrong and created a new law.

Hence, if all above (Sankaran, Scholten, Vespoor, Bailey, Vega, etc.) had practically proved a new thing then it will form a new law and will not be included in running traditional homeopathic law. We recently seen the drop scene of Scholten method in diarrhea title. These methods are not popular except that these methods raised some true and logical questions based on hypothetical experimentations. These method will remain interpretation / theories just like Darwin theory of evolution which was not accepted by many scientists. As the theory failed to give true results after experiments.

[ 27. August 2002, 11:24: Message edited by: M Iqbal ]

__________________
<b>Dr. M Iqbal (Classical Homeopath)<br />Iqbal Poly Clinic, Main Market, Kharian<br />Phone Clinic: 05771-511337, Residence: 05771-533737 </b>

"We recently seen the drop scene of Scholten method in diarrhea title."

On what basis is this judgement made that the prescription was based on Scholton's method? This is completely inaccurate.

Either you do not understand Scholton, or you do not understand the prescription or the case.(Still!)

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com