Hugh I have not suggested my preps are better. I said they were different in my experience. Much more research into comparability is needed before such a statement could be made. cheers GA
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hugh Lovel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Chromas and humus Was Electronic homeopathy for plants. > James Hedley writes: > > > >Dear Glen, > >What was the qualitative difference between the radionically potentised > >preparations and the hand succussing? It would be hard to put it up as a > >valid test if both doses were not derived from the same substance. > >One batch of preps could vary very markedly from those prepared at a > >different time. > >Were the symptom pictures the same at both times? > >You may be right that your manually potentised preps are better than > >radionically prepared preps, but somehow it is important to compare apples > >with apples and that it is the same parameters that are being tested. > >An agronomist friend of mine claims that before you can visually see a > >difference in a pasture there would have to be at least 25% difference to be > >able to see it. . . . . > > >Kind regards > >James > > > Dear Glen, James, et. al., > > I think it was generous of James to say that Glen may be right that his > manually potentized preps are better then radionically prepared preps. > Which is not to suggest that James's radionically potentized preps are > better either. > > But I might remind both that in Steiner's agriculture course he remarks how > the enthusiasm of the practitioner for his method enters into his remedies, > and it counts for a lot. So it seems to me that both Glen and James might > make remedies with great enthusiasm. A couple years ago James' story about > the Portugese milipedes in Gulgong and how he got rid of them with his > radionic instrument and spraying was a great example of enthusiasm and its > effectiveness. > > Personally I once shared Glen's view that manually potentized preps simply > had to be better. But I found myself having to be very fussy about > measurments and once in a while I caught myself making mistakes in one > fashion or another. My enthusiasm suffered, and I tried a few radionic > potentizations of water. My results were good, so my enthusiasm for making > radionic potencies grew a bit. Harvey Lisle criticized and could generally > tell by dowsing which were radionic and which were manually diluted and > succussed. After all, that information is there in the ethers. But instead > of considering the results he simply dismissed the radionic potencies as > "dead." This was an opinion he and I had shared to a few years earlier at > a radionic conference when we had first seen radionic BD preps made with a > hieronymus instrument and a double dial "rate" setting. I felt the > enthusiasm that went into my radionic preps (which were prepared by > Lorraine Cahill with her Malcolm Rae instrument) was definitely not dead > and that he was mixing dowsing with prejudice--always a bad combination. I > must admit to a contrary streak and this had the effect of hardening my > resolve to investigate radionic potencies, and I'm not at all sorry I have. > In the process I've found that radionics is quick, clean, precise and sure. > All of these add fire to my enthusiasm for radionics. > > I don't think radionics is any end all or be all. I think we each > potentially have the power to make potencies without any equipment--just > our own bodies and spirits, our minds, hearts and wills. I think that way > will grow in peoples' enthusiasms and will become the method of preference > for the folks of tomorrow, as it was for that guy back a couple thousand > years ago in Palestine. Right now people are crawling, or they are walking > on crutches. That's okay. It just isn't the wave of the future is all. > > Best, > Hugh Lovel > Visit our website at: www.unionag.org > >
