Dear Colleagues
From Shannon (re Minerals)
"Someone asked whether Scholten's system was verified or speculative?
I have only what's in the book, but there he emphasizes that it is
speculative, at this point."
Could someone please explain why there are so many people to happy to follow
Scholten's theorising and are reluctant to accept Peter Chappell's work
which has been proved in the field?
Or is it that the people who reject Peter's work also reject Scholten
theories because they are not based on provings?
I would be most interested to understand the psychology of what is going on
here.
Rgds
Soroush
Scholten v Peter Chappell
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Scholten v Peter Chappell
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Finrod" wrote:
to follow
work
Hi Soroush
Maybe we can just look at the periodic table as something of its own.
And then take only the remedy's that are accepted, then maybe there
has to be no contraversion.
But it could be a systematic way to learn and exchange knowledge of
remedy's.
Annemieke
to follow
work
Hi Soroush
Maybe we can just look at the periodic table as something of its own.
And then take only the remedy's that are accepted, then maybe there
has to be no contraversion.
But it could be a systematic way to learn and exchange knowledge of
remedy's.
Annemieke
-
Liz Hennel
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Scholten v Peter Chappell
Personally, I am as cautious about Scholten's work as I am about the PC remedies - and for similar reasons.
Liz
Finrod wrote:
Dear Colleagues
From Shannon (re Minerals)
"Someone asked whether Scholten's system was verified or speculative?
I have only what's in the book, but there he emphasizes that it is
speculative, at this point."
Could someone please explain why there are so many people to happy to follow
Scholten's theorising and are reluctant to accept Peter Chappell's work
which has been proved in the field?
Or is it that the people who reject Peter's work also reject Scholten
theories because they are not based on provings?
I would be most interested to understand the psychology of what is going on
here.
Rgds
Soroush
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Liz
Finrod wrote:
Dear Colleagues
From Shannon (re Minerals)
"Someone asked whether Scholten's system was verified or speculative?
I have only what's in the book, but there he emphasizes that it is
speculative, at this point."
Could someone please explain why there are so many people to happy to follow
Scholten's theorising and are reluctant to accept Peter Chappell's work
which has been proved in the field?
Or is it that the people who reject Peter's work also reject Scholten
theories because they are not based on provings?
I would be most interested to understand the psychology of what is going on
here.
Rgds
Soroush
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Feras Hakkak
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Scholten v Peter Chappell
Dear Soroush,
One great difference between Scholten and Chappell is that you can clearly understand why and how Scholten is speculating. And also you see that much of his opinions fit your knowledge about well-known remedies. Dr Chappell's work is not like this.
Second is that Scholten's work is very systematic thinking and to some people it sounds 'logical'. Then what they need is to check these ideas to find out about their correctness.
Third is that Chappell's use of PC remedies for AIDS patients is not individualistic (I know about the genus epidemicus concept in chronic diseases). Many homeopaths do not believe in Hahnemann's concept of chronic diseases and so they would not accept Chappell's approach.
Fourth, the number of people who are using and spreading Scholten's (and also Sankaran's) ideas is much more than those who believe in Chappell's ideas. Many people tend to accept what is more common and advertised more.
Fifth, These elegant ideas of Scholten's are really interesting and stimulate the curiosity of many of us!
Reminder: There are some master homeopaths (like Vithoulkas) who do not believe in or support these speculative efforts in the field of homeopathy, being Scholten, Sankaran, Chappel, or anybody else. I wrote about those who tend to use these speculative ideas in their practice.
Best regards,
Feras
Finrod wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Could someone please explain why there are so many people to happy to follow Scholten's theorising and are reluctant to accept Peter Chappell's work which has been proved in the field?
Or is it that the people who reject Peter's work also reject Scholten theories because they are not based on provings?
I would be most interested to understand the psychology of what is going on here.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
One great difference between Scholten and Chappell is that you can clearly understand why and how Scholten is speculating. And also you see that much of his opinions fit your knowledge about well-known remedies. Dr Chappell's work is not like this.
Second is that Scholten's work is very systematic thinking and to some people it sounds 'logical'. Then what they need is to check these ideas to find out about their correctness.
Third is that Chappell's use of PC remedies for AIDS patients is not individualistic (I know about the genus epidemicus concept in chronic diseases). Many homeopaths do not believe in Hahnemann's concept of chronic diseases and so they would not accept Chappell's approach.
Fourth, the number of people who are using and spreading Scholten's (and also Sankaran's) ideas is much more than those who believe in Chappell's ideas. Many people tend to accept what is more common and advertised more.
Fifth, These elegant ideas of Scholten's are really interesting and stimulate the curiosity of many of us!
Reminder: There are some master homeopaths (like Vithoulkas) who do not believe in or support these speculative efforts in the field of homeopathy, being Scholten, Sankaran, Chappel, or anybody else. I wrote about those who tend to use these speculative ideas in their practice.
Best regards,
Feras
Finrod wrote:
Dear Colleagues
Could someone please explain why there are so many people to happy to follow Scholten's theorising and are reluctant to accept Peter Chappell's work which has been proved in the field?
Or is it that the people who reject Peter's work also reject Scholten theories because they are not based on provings?
I would be most interested to understand the psychology of what is going on here.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
teresamoore1
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: Scholten v Peter Chappell
Forgive me if you all already know this.....
When I first heard Scholten speak about the periodic table I found it
very elegant and it just made sense to me. Later I found out why. A
Russian chemist Mendeleyev is largely responsible for the layout we
commonly use. He wrote the elements down in order of atomic weight and
noticed that the properties of the elements repeated themselves at
intervals. He arranged those with similar chemical properties beneath
each other (apparently after falling asleep over a card game of
Patience with a very similar layout!)
He then predicted that elements would be discovered to fill the gaps
and also predicted the properties of these elements, with a high degree
of success. What Scholten has done is transfer this natural pattern
over into the homeopathic remedy world. So for me the question would be
more like `why would it be any other way?'
I noticed that stage 15 has Bismuth Ars Ant Phos in, all remedies which
appear in the 'clinging' rubrics, all proved independently. I was
convinced!
I am definitely interested in this research and have some cases with
curative remedies I would not have found any other way. And I am going
Scholten's Lanthanides seminar in May in Edinbirgh. Anyone else going?
Regards
Teresa
When I first heard Scholten speak about the periodic table I found it
very elegant and it just made sense to me. Later I found out why. A
Russian chemist Mendeleyev is largely responsible for the layout we
commonly use. He wrote the elements down in order of atomic weight and
noticed that the properties of the elements repeated themselves at
intervals. He arranged those with similar chemical properties beneath
each other (apparently after falling asleep over a card game of
Patience with a very similar layout!)
He then predicted that elements would be discovered to fill the gaps
and also predicted the properties of these elements, with a high degree
of success. What Scholten has done is transfer this natural pattern
over into the homeopathic remedy world. So for me the question would be
more like `why would it be any other way?'
I noticed that stage 15 has Bismuth Ars Ant Phos in, all remedies which
appear in the 'clinging' rubrics, all proved independently. I was
convinced!
I am definitely interested in this research and have some cases with
curative remedies I would not have found any other way. And I am going
Scholten's Lanthanides seminar in May in Edinbirgh. Anyone else going?
Regards
Teresa