Help about International Groups

[Miguel F]

Help!
I'm lost in the very great quantity of hom groups all round the world. And each page show me how it's owner is the "New Great Teacher" or "New Real Hom Organization". How it works? Who gives authority? Who validates whom?

Thanks very much any help.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Julian Winston]

At 12:35 AM -0600 7/14/04, Miguel F wrote:
Completely randomly
No one except those posting the page
No one, other than the feedback within the homeopathic community to
say: "THIS is really valuable and THAT is a crock of garbage."

JW

[Shannon Nelson]

Yet another reason why it's *sooooo* useful to get solid grounding in a
well-organized, well-taught formal class based on Organon and "the old guys"
-- before exploring the bywaters and "the latest"!

Miguel, would you like to talk about what your training has been thus far?
I don't know whether you've had formal classwork or not?

Shannon
on 7/14/04 2:42 PM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

[Miguel F]

Dear Shannon:

I've got some formal classwork. I'm not a Allopathic Doctor. I started study hom when I was 23 (ten years ago), alone; started with Kent, then Patak, and anyone that don't remember Vannier. Then I've got into "Alianza Homeopatica" translating into spanish some works, the last one was "materia medica pura" - Hahnemann (not B. Jain). I got into "instituto Vithoulkas". But I couldn't stand ilogic thought (or to pay for it).

I feel marked preference for Kent and his school (1 remedy, 1 doses); but I think hom needs more research and advanced tools. Almost anyone is based in Bonninghausen's or Kent's repertory; but both are redundant, repetitive, unchained, and erroneus in some parts (1). Our MM are too "picturicals" or too "symptomticals", and except some (Kent, Lathoud, Vithoulkas, Morrison, Vermulen).

These are good tools, but every one claims for betters!
I'm thinking in start a school in a couple of years. But I don't want a usual one. There are too much science to be trapped in fuzzy logic (it works, but not for sure), that is why I'm looking for international organizations I could contact (Sorry for the misleading Julian, when I used the word "groups" I wasn't thinking in 'news' groups).
My judge is simple:
"Words are words, but facts are the only valid thing"
Anyone will be juiced on basic principles:

Are those teachers health enough? Apparently some of them are, but then you get into his mental symptoms and ¡There! Now, if mind is affected... "Doctor, cure yourself".

In others, lets they talk, then listen "I give Sep to mind, Ars to body" or "Cancer is incurable".

Then, on philosophy: What's a health people? Which parameters will we use to measure it? Some doctors thing that curing acute illness is enough; and about chronic, there is onion thinking... but health is not measured in anyway; and so you could find people "health" 'cos there is no visible illness.

How valid is to add to Repertory symptoms "cured" when there aren't parameters to judge it really has been cured (as almost all repertories do now)? Has been a real one, or simple a deep illness going worse?
Well, too much for this mail. Thanks anyone who want advice me!
Pax vobiscum!
********* NOTES

(1) Medicines in special rubrics that aren't in general rubric; repetition in generals that are in particular; more importance in general rubric than in particular... When there are Kent's followers, I found inconsistency in Repertory managed. It not a surprise since Kent himself couldn't explain really how he used it, as we found in his Lesser Writings "Use of the repertory"; "How to use the repertory" in the repertory itself; and in "Hom Philosophy".

It not mean it isn't good but that it needs correction, and this explain why doctors see it useless or why they use a "keynote" or "picture" or "intuition" or anything else to find out a remedy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]