Vermuelin. original provings
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 12:25 pm
Dear Michele and Chris,
I was at the same Vermeulen seminar. Frans is very, very thorough in his
work and decided to go back to all the original works on which to base his
work, rather than compound errors the way some have. What he observed
throughout the provings was that one particular prover (although I expect a
number of Hn's provers were grumpy old men at times, it was Langhammer,
Chris, who was 'apparently' a serious, reserved, suspicious hermit-type)
exhibited the same set of symptoms over six different provings (he was
involved in 42 overall) and was the only one to exhibit these. Things like
"delusion, friends against him", fear of the future, duty and suffering all
day. He produced 135 mind symptoms which were 6% of the whole mind section.
Mrs H produced 194 symptoms which was 20%, and H himself produced 888 mind
symptoms or 40% of the mind section. They conducted app 4 provings a year
for 25 years. 350 of the 1900 symptoms were to do with vexation, anger etc.
55 were anxiety symptoms of Hn. Are these symptomatic of the era and of
Langhammer's and Hn's personalities?
Nenning conducted a proving of Borax using his seamstress wife and daughters
and all the hired help. Borax now has a rubric, "mark of scissors on
finger".
The points I took away were that whilst Hn was amazing, brilliant, a pioneer
etc. perhaps not everything he did was exactly correct but a beginning for
us to work from. Hn never wrote down his methodology, although Hartmann
describes it in Hale's 2 vols on Hn. If a prover had no symptoms after 3
days, they were allowed to begin another proving. When you hear things like
"they were the most reliable ever done" (referring to Hn's provings),
sometimes you have to cast a questioning/critical eye over the information
to verify it for yourself. Perhaps provings are the beginning and cures are
the end (to paraphrase Scholten).
BUT, it was still an amazing start and you work with what you have. Many
homeopaths continue to look for ways to improve on the whole system - and
why not? Hahnemann's beginning was just that - not the gospel that must not
be questioned (although Hn would undoubtedly cast me out for saying so).
There were varied reactions to the seminar, some jaw-droppingly gob-smacked,
some delighted at the new knowledge, people stared at their repertories
before them with looks from suspicion to disgust. For me it clarified some
difficulties I had with all repertories, which is good because I go
searching more deeply after using it initially for leads, without trusting
it too much - I stay more open to other possibilities.
However we still have a system of medicine with philosophies and
methodologies that have worked consistently for over 200 years - a wonderful
start I'd say.
Cheers, Elizabeth
PS Frans Vermeulen will be in Australia again in November, let me know if
you want dates etc.
email: chat@similibooks.com
I was at the same Vermeulen seminar. Frans is very, very thorough in his
work and decided to go back to all the original works on which to base his
work, rather than compound errors the way some have. What he observed
throughout the provings was that one particular prover (although I expect a
number of Hn's provers were grumpy old men at times, it was Langhammer,
Chris, who was 'apparently' a serious, reserved, suspicious hermit-type)
exhibited the same set of symptoms over six different provings (he was
involved in 42 overall) and was the only one to exhibit these. Things like
"delusion, friends against him", fear of the future, duty and suffering all
day. He produced 135 mind symptoms which were 6% of the whole mind section.
Mrs H produced 194 symptoms which was 20%, and H himself produced 888 mind
symptoms or 40% of the mind section. They conducted app 4 provings a year
for 25 years. 350 of the 1900 symptoms were to do with vexation, anger etc.
55 were anxiety symptoms of Hn. Are these symptomatic of the era and of
Langhammer's and Hn's personalities?
Nenning conducted a proving of Borax using his seamstress wife and daughters
and all the hired help. Borax now has a rubric, "mark of scissors on
finger".
The points I took away were that whilst Hn was amazing, brilliant, a pioneer
etc. perhaps not everything he did was exactly correct but a beginning for
us to work from. Hn never wrote down his methodology, although Hartmann
describes it in Hale's 2 vols on Hn. If a prover had no symptoms after 3
days, they were allowed to begin another proving. When you hear things like
"they were the most reliable ever done" (referring to Hn's provings),
sometimes you have to cast a questioning/critical eye over the information
to verify it for yourself. Perhaps provings are the beginning and cures are
the end (to paraphrase Scholten).
BUT, it was still an amazing start and you work with what you have. Many
homeopaths continue to look for ways to improve on the whole system - and
why not? Hahnemann's beginning was just that - not the gospel that must not
be questioned (although Hn would undoubtedly cast me out for saying so).
There were varied reactions to the seminar, some jaw-droppingly gob-smacked,
some delighted at the new knowledge, people stared at their repertories
before them with looks from suspicion to disgust. For me it clarified some
difficulties I had with all repertories, which is good because I go
searching more deeply after using it initially for leads, without trusting
it too much - I stay more open to other possibilities.
However we still have a system of medicine with philosophies and
methodologies that have worked consistently for over 200 years - a wonderful
start I'd say.
Cheers, Elizabeth
PS Frans Vermeulen will be in Australia again in November, let me know if
you want dates etc.
email: chat@similibooks.com