Minutus

Dave wrote:

Yer of course... desire for light
Yah-sure-you-betcha

Rubrics

INCITING
CONTEMPTUOUS
Overlayed with CONTRADICTION INTOLERANT OF
RUDENESS
HUAGHTY
Interesting how the state is never far from the surface!
Lisa Barrett

Lisa,

I'm trying to see something useful in your "method" -but this is yet another
display of the tendency to form snap decisions as to rubrics you will base
your case on in a totally subjective manner.

Will Taylor thought that perhaps you WERE "seeing something" in the "state"
of the client who presented to you in person which "reasonably" could've led
to your ...uh... unique application of "creative" "imaginative"
re-interpretation of rubrics (when perfectly serviceable rubrics which
would've required considerably less mangling could likely have been found by
another..)

You say "Interesting how the state is never far from the surface!"
as you point fingers.. but from where I sit, there is one finger pointing at
me & three others at you If you imagine that you don't seem
Platina-ish, Expounding your Doctrine From On High.. well...

Perhaps your ..uh... insights could be taught in person, but reading now
just the exact same "desire for light" in your writings as you exposed a
couple of years ago on lyghtforce, it is abundantly clear that your method
is incommunicable in this medium.

It also seems to me that all of the examples you've given CONTRAVENE
Seghal's own scorn for the pseudo-constitutional prescribers, in that they
trivially pigeonhole a "state" which you decide is of sufficient weight on
which to base a case... perhaps your examples weren't well thought out, but
they certainly seem silly & trivial, NO WAY of ascribing any of the rubrics
(as you had) from such simple everyday questions/responses.
Dave Hartley
http://www.localcomputermart.com
Santa Cruz, CA (831)423-4284

Tri-Cities Computer (TN) |Asheville Computer (NC)
423-952-0983 or 877-245-3362 |(828)285-0240
$9.95 internet http://www.federalisp.com/?page=ispsignup

Dave,

I think it is quite clear to all of us you don't see something usefull in
this Sehgal method.
You can choose what you like, that your right.
With the abortion discussion you were the one who asked with 4 or 5 mails to
stop it, because everything what had to be said was said.
I ask you now to stop, trying to repeat the same discussion you already had
on Minutus and now I hear also on Lyghtforce.
When someone makes a contribution on Materia Medica, have some dicipline and
leave it to the other members, who maybe are interested.

Kind regards, Piet

Piet,

You have also made your support for this "method" quite clear, and also used
Lisa's device of "pointing fingers" by making coy online "diagnoses" and
therefore you are hardly in a position of neutral observer.

Lisa's introduction of the topic on Lyghtforce 2+ years ago and subsequent
discussion revealed exactly the same appearance of trivial and capricious
use of Repertory, with the modification that she now admits (where she
previously denied) that the Repertory is the INDEX to the Materia Medica.
So, we are making some slow progress- eventually it may be possible to draw
Lisa into the conceptual linkage which would obviate creative interpretation
of an index.

SO.. with (or without) your permission, I'll continue to search for
coherence within Lisa's presentations... or point out the lack. You may have
noted some others who seem to have noticed some of the same superficial and
artificial appearance of this "method" as presented, including the sort of
trite "amateur psychologist" questioning of a person's motives in asking
COMMON (and quite appropriate) questions about homeopathy & prospective
treatment.

If we are going to drop these discussions altogether, I think that would be
marvellous- or if you choose not to participate.. that is YOUR right.

regards,
Dave Hartley
http://www.localcomputermart.com
Santa Cruz, CA (831)423-4284

Tri-Cities Computer (TN) |Asheville Computer (NC)
423-952-0983 or 877-245-3362 |(828)285-0240
$9.95 internet http://www.federalisp.com/?page=ispsignup