Creating Waves of Awareness
Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann. There should be a reassessment in light of the contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann.
Please comment your valued views regarding this statement.
There is a sincere request not to mis-understand this idea of reassessment. We are very small to say about these great stalwarts. But understanding these stalwarts are necessary. They were also human beings as we are.
Kent differed in philosophical outlook and also in his idea that the patient stand central, while Hahnemann stressed the diseased state. However, it is the person who is diseased. Hahnemann may have inadvertently caused some misunderstanding, in his desire to be "scientific" and leave the personal out.
Ket's lectures on the philosophy discussed the 5th edition of the Organon and thus it may appear he spoke differently, while the context in which he spoke must be taken into consideration. Von Boenninghausen made Hahnemann aware there is no limit to dilution and succussion - hence Hanemann's notion that "the dose can never be small enough" and his development of the LM potencies.
Sir, you may have missed my point, I also said about the characteritic symptoms i.e. in aph 153which lead to the similimum.
Until and unless we know the common symptoms of diseases, how will we know the uncommon, characteristic , peculiar symptoms?
The problem arises from the observation, that Kent was teaching a different homeopathy than he was practicing. Alos in his earlier years he held opinions which were opposed to his later publications. then from thos contradictions later homeopths made up their own mind and published their ideas as being Kentian. Virtoulkas being on prominent contributor.
In order to do justice to Kent, we need to return to his original publications and follow his time-line. Gypsers editionof Kents minor writings is a comprehensive and complete compilation.
Kents day-to-day case notes were destroyed in a fire, so we have to rely on the few published cases in periodicals.
it is a worth while exercise to take those cases and use his repertory, to see how reliable it is -- an eye opener to me when I did that almost 20 years ago. (there was a 10% chance to even get close to the remedy he used)
So -- is there a need to discuss Kent?
IMO.: Not really, as it is clear nowadays, that Kent's repertory is lacking reliability,and his ideas of selecting the remedy and applying it are outdated, when knowing homeopathy .
@Hans & Sajjad.
I like to know how Kent was apparently such a good homoeopath, if you both claim that his method gave you different results from his. It is maybe not so much due to his method, but our failure to grasp it that we come to such different results.
I like to know what you think was Kent's method?