ART (and homoeopahty)
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2002 11:46 am
Dear Minutusists,
from two very good friends of mine, who are both Kinesiology teachers,
I've learnt the muscle test and many other related methods.
And we did a series of experiments which were very interesting. I had my
homoeopathic perscriptions tested by them on the patient itself through
muscle test, by other people on each other, but the most interesting
thing was the blind prooving. That's to say serveral remedies we written
on identical pieces of paper folded in the identical way. Two people did
the testing on each other; the one being tested holding the folded
papers in his hand and having the muscle test done on his other arm,
while saying: "This is the right remedy." The result was that even in
the double blind prooving the results I myself was sure of did turn out
to be the right ones.
Of course we tested other things open, blind, and double blind with
different people, the one group not knowing the results of the others.
What we found out was that the double blind method was the most
reliable, when the persons involved did not know what they were testing
and what was written on the papers they had to hold in ther hands or to
test, while saying: "This statement is true.".
There is one simple truth about this: the more ego-ridden a person is
the more he/she influences the technique. Especially fears and anxieties
interfere with the procedure.
The other truth is the more critical the people are the more doubtful
are their results, or they have so many doubts that they block. (Might
be the case with some of you.)
And above all we all are human and our mind and emotions've got the
tendency to cloud our perception as well as our testing.
Thus I would recommend that anybody who wants to try that method should
try it in a double blind setting as well that's the empirical method,
the best proof to a homoeopath. With this objective method you can
overcome your doubt and try this method in an unprejudiced way without
being blocked.
As far as homoeopathy is concerned I found out that when I'm sure about
a remedy, all the muscle test can do is to confirm what I've known to be
correct. On the other hand it enhanced other people's trust in
homoeopathy.
If I haven't got any clue at all, the muscle test can't help me for it
is impossible to test 1500 homoeopathic remedies. (The arm will fall off
after the 50th.) Thus, there is no other way than to learn the MM. On
the other hand, I can imagine that it might help if practioners aren't
sure whether it is the one or the other of two closely related remedies.
In such cases I personally perfer to ask some more questions or to wait
until the picture of the disease has cleared up.
By the way the question whether one can be hypnotized or not doesn't
play any part, neither for the tester nor for the tested. Kinesiology
has nothing to do with hypnosis, even if you treat people on inner
conflicts, even if you go back with them into childhood memories, and
even if you go back to their ancestor's conflicts or to former
incarnations, the patient is never supposed to loose her/his
consciousness.
I think Kinesiology is a good tool when you work in mental healing,
trying to treat possessed people, or in cases handed down family
conficts, which the patients have no knowledge of, or conflicts having
their origin in former incarnations. Here I get into the disputed field
of clairvoyance, so I better stop.
Kind regards
Claudia
___________________________________________
and many more ...
from two very good friends of mine, who are both Kinesiology teachers,
I've learnt the muscle test and many other related methods.
And we did a series of experiments which were very interesting. I had my
homoeopathic perscriptions tested by them on the patient itself through
muscle test, by other people on each other, but the most interesting
thing was the blind prooving. That's to say serveral remedies we written
on identical pieces of paper folded in the identical way. Two people did
the testing on each other; the one being tested holding the folded
papers in his hand and having the muscle test done on his other arm,
while saying: "This is the right remedy." The result was that even in
the double blind prooving the results I myself was sure of did turn out
to be the right ones.
Of course we tested other things open, blind, and double blind with
different people, the one group not knowing the results of the others.
What we found out was that the double blind method was the most
reliable, when the persons involved did not know what they were testing
and what was written on the papers they had to hold in ther hands or to
test, while saying: "This statement is true.".
There is one simple truth about this: the more ego-ridden a person is
the more he/she influences the technique. Especially fears and anxieties
interfere with the procedure.
The other truth is the more critical the people are the more doubtful
are their results, or they have so many doubts that they block. (Might
be the case with some of you.)
And above all we all are human and our mind and emotions've got the
tendency to cloud our perception as well as our testing.
Thus I would recommend that anybody who wants to try that method should
try it in a double blind setting as well that's the empirical method,
the best proof to a homoeopath. With this objective method you can
overcome your doubt and try this method in an unprejudiced way without
being blocked.
As far as homoeopathy is concerned I found out that when I'm sure about
a remedy, all the muscle test can do is to confirm what I've known to be
correct. On the other hand it enhanced other people's trust in
homoeopathy.
If I haven't got any clue at all, the muscle test can't help me for it
is impossible to test 1500 homoeopathic remedies. (The arm will fall off
after the 50th.) Thus, there is no other way than to learn the MM. On
the other hand, I can imagine that it might help if practioners aren't
sure whether it is the one or the other of two closely related remedies.
In such cases I personally perfer to ask some more questions or to wait
until the picture of the disease has cleared up.
By the way the question whether one can be hypnotized or not doesn't
play any part, neither for the tester nor for the tested. Kinesiology
has nothing to do with hypnosis, even if you treat people on inner
conflicts, even if you go back with them into childhood memories, and
even if you go back to their ancestor's conflicts or to former
incarnations, the patient is never supposed to loose her/his
consciousness.
I think Kinesiology is a good tool when you work in mental healing,
trying to treat possessed people, or in cases handed down family
conficts, which the patients have no knowledge of, or conflicts having
their origin in former incarnations. Here I get into the disputed field
of clairvoyance, so I better stop.
Kind regards
Claudia
___________________________________________
and many more ...