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
