An interview with Jan Scholten An interview with Jan Scholten (R.

Jackson) Jan Scholten, the Dutch Homeopath, came to San Francisco in May o !""# as part o a lecture tour ollowin$ pu%lication o his %ook, Homoeopathy an& the 'lements. (his interview took place )ust prior to the seminar. He has a %eauti ul, liltin$, Dutch accent, so i you can ima$ine it, try rea&in$ it that way. AH* How &i& you come to write the %ook+ How lon$ &i& it take you to write it+ Scholten* (wo years was the whole pro)ect. From the irst, it is &i icult to tell. (here was a lot o %ack$roun& work. , $ot the %asic i&ea o the spiral, especially the risin$ up an& the all, three years, ive months a$o, then it took me a lon$ time to &o all the work, test all those reme&ies. ,t was &i icult to re ine it, to make $oo& &i erential &ia$noses %etween all the sta$es, %ecause at the %e$innin$ , ha& only the %asic i&ea, %ut not e-actly what were the &i erentials, the thin$s %etween all the sta$es. , %e$an writin$ two years a$o, writin$ every &ay or our an& a hal months. , woul& see patients in the mornin$ an& in the a ternoon an& evenin$ , woul& write, every &ay, even on weeken&s. AH* How was the process &i erent rom writin$ Homoeopathy an& Minerals+ Di& you have the element %ook in min& then+ Scholten* (he irst %ook was &i erent, it was easy. , irst starte& thinkin$ , ha& to write some articles an& then , reali/e& that it was way too much, to e-plain the %asic i&ea, so , thou$ht to make a %ook o it. At that time , &i&n0t have the aintest i&ea o Homoeopathy an& the 'lements. AH* Are you amiliar with Men&eleyev+ Scholten* 1es, , stu&ie& chemistry or two years. AH* So you know how he structure& the perio&ic ta%le, leavin$ %lanks to %e ille& in later as new elements woul& %e &iscovere&. Di& you have that in your min& as a mo&el in some way+ Scholten* 2ot consciously, %ut it0s in the %ack$roun&. 3hat , was thinkin$4 many o the reme&ies in the earth must have a picture, even i we &on0t know it, so or me it was 5uite clear that all those elements in the perio&ic ta%le ha& to have a picture. (he only thin$ was that we &i&n0t know them. 6y $uessin$ the reme&ies or a ew o the sta$es , an& &oin$ provin$s or a ew o the reme&ies it came alon$. (he provin$s on 7irconium an& (un$sten $ave us clues. 'specially the provin$ o 7irconium. ,t helpe& me un&erstan& the point a%out the %e$innin$, illin$ in the $aps, an& i someone is urther on than that sta$e, )ust try the ne-t one. Most o what , learne& was rom patients, what they were sayin$, or %oth %ooks, then, $enerali/in$, o course. 3hen 8hromium has a thin$, one patient who ha& %ene ite& very well rom 8hromium, sai& that she ha& to prove hersel , then (un$sten sai& it too, %ut in a &i erent way. At irst , &i&n0t un&erstan& it, %ut then you $o on rom one to the other an& then with Moly%&enum, , $ot a provin$ rom (ominello in Australia, it was the link. (here was a &ream that clari ie& the &arin$, challen$in$ part o it. A man was throwin$ a woman in the air an& catchin$ her a$ain. AH* 9ivin$ $reater wei$ht to the 5uestion one woul& ask a patient, :3hat0s the matter+: How &i& you come to the i&ea o the sta$es+ Scholten* ,t was a lash o insi$ht. ,t was an inspiration. ,t $ave me a kin& o euphoria or two &ays %ecause , elt it ha& to %e that. (hen it took two an& a hal years, $ivin$ the

reme&ies to patients an& seein$ that they worke&, like Scan&ium. 3e ha& no in ormation a%out Scan&ium at all, it was inspiration. AH* 3hat is your %ack$roun&+ Scholten* , have a lot o %ack$roun&s. My stu&ies o me&icine were 5uite unevent ul, , )ust stu&ie& it. , saw what they &i& in hospital an& &i&n0t like it so much, an& ha& a eelin$ that at least hal o those patients were %etter o not %ein$ there. 6ut then , &i&n0t know much a%out homeopathy. , knew it e-iste& %ut at that time , was more involve& with her%olo$y an& naturopathy. (hen , inten&e& to $o to work as a psychiatrist %ut ha& to wait ive years to $et into the pro$ram, so , %ecame a $eneral practitioner. , still ha& to wait a year to enter that pro$ram, which is when , %e$an to stu&y acupuncture an& homeopathy, thinkin$ , coul& &o more than )ust $ive anti%iotics. 3hen , starte& stu&yin$ homeopathy an& hear& those stories a%out people eelin$ re)uvenate&, like their ol& sel a$ain, ree, that kin& o thin$, , ha& a eelin$ that this was real curin$4 so , went on with it. ,t took me at that point. AH* 3ho has in luence& you most+ Scholten* At the %e$innin$ , stu&ie& at the school in Hollan& that was very much in luence& %y Hahnemann, ;ent an& ;un/li, an& , also went to seminars $iven %y ;un/li on a small islan& o the coast o 9ermany. , worke& with that or a while, %ut it &i&n0t hol& or me. ,t was too limitin$, especially the amount o reme&ies was too limitin$, as well as the way he was workin$ with the reme&ies. , then hear&, or the irst time, 9eor$e <ithoulkas, an& he0s the one who has in luence& me most, especially or our to ive years, especially the way he worke& with the essences an& $oin$ into the min&. (hat was the main point , wante& to un&erstan&, not )ust workin$ with the symptoms. , wante& to know what each symptom meant, why they were there in some patients an& what the patient was e-pressin$ with them. He wasn0t )ust talkin$ a%out symptoms, %ut makin$ a livin$ picture o it , more or less. (hat0s one o the main points that helpe& me as a homeopath. So, or many years , went to his seminars. 6ut the last time in 8elle he &i&n0t teach me any more, an& it was inishe& then, more or less. He coul&n0t teach me anymore. 1ou know, at a seminar, you see a patient an& you $o, :=h, that0s that one, now , un&erstan& when you have that kin& o eelin$, that the seminars are worthwhile, , ha& that at all his seminars at the %e$innin$, %ut at the last seminar in 8elle, it &i&n0t help me that much. , learne& a lot rom pupils o 9eor$e like Ro$er Morrison, Alphonse 9eukens, <assilis 9he$as, %ut these people were teachin$ , more or less, the same thin$s that 9eor$e was an& , coul&n0t learn more. , still ha& patients with lots o pro%lems. =ne other man who in luence& me was Ra)an Sankaran, especially with his i&ea o the %asic &elusion, situational materia me&ica, that you can un&erstan& the reme&y the %est when you can in& the situation where the action o the reme&y is like a talent to act in that situation, an& that $ives un&erstan&in$, like $estalt therapy. 1ou have a $estalt, not )ust a symptom here an& there %ut a whole picture, an& rom that picture you can un&erstan& all o the symptoms, an& rom there reme&ies are easy to learn. Really un&erstan& that picture, that $estalt an& %e 5uite precise rom it. He $ives me a lot o pictures. (he picture o 9raphites that 9eor$e tau$ht is 5uite a ri$i& one. Sankaran $ives the opposite, a very unsta%le one. So you see a more ull picture o a reme&y. Also, 3hitmont &i& the same or me, in un&erstan&in$ the Ma$nesium0s in his %ook, >syche an& Su%stance, there was a whole $oo& thin$ a%out the Ma$nesium0s. He tau$ht me a lot.

9eor$e ha& only one si&e o it, the paci ist si&e, %ut the a$$ressive si&e is much more stresse& in >syche an& Su%stance there are two parts to the same thin$. AH* Are you sayin$ that one homeopath ten&s to $ive only one si&e o a reme&y+ Scholten* 1ou &on0t know, it0s a &evelopmental thin$. (he uture can only tell. 1ou &on0t know i it0s inishe&, the uture can only tell. (hat0s also the same with my %ooks. AH* ,s there a spiritual path or tra&ition that you ollow+ Scholten* A lot, %ut not special. 1ou know in a way, when Ra)an talks a%out a %asic &elusion, in a way it0s like 6u&&hism, it0s all connecte&. 3hen you talk a%out Milton 'rickson an& his psychotherapy, it0s the same as 6u&&hism. Someone has a kin& o picture, you show him a picture an& he says it0s a &elusion. AH* Di& 'rickson in luence you with the sta$es+ Scholten* 2o, not with the sta$es, %ut the %asic i&ea o what he &oes. ,n homeopathy, you $ive the same thin$ %ack. Do it an& &o it more. (hey call it para&o-ical therapy, %ut it0s the same as homeopathy. He &oesn0t &o it with reme&ies %ut with interaction. AH* Do you see a relationship %etween your work with the ta%les an& alchemy+ Scholten* (lau$hs) (he whole o homeopathy is alchemy. 1ou know the whole way o makin$ potencies is like alchemy. 3hen you rea& the ol& stories a%out alchemy, you &o it over an& over a$ain, you puri y it more an& more an& more, it0s like potenti/ation. 3hat0s also a connection is that you use su%stances, %ut the real &evelopment is in the min&. ,t0s the same in homeopathy. An& the %o&y ollows. ,t0s all the same. AH* 1ou are makin$ a system, 9ur&)ie ha& a system where hy&ro$en was the principle component o the universe, an& , was tol& that he an& Men&eleyev were han$in$ out to$ether in Moscow at the same time. Scholten* (hey ha& a connection. AH* An& 9ur&)ie ha& the i&ea that hy&ro$en was the su%stance that was hol&in$ the universe to$ether an& %ase& a theory o evolution aroun& it. Do you have a theory a%out your system re lectin$ the evolution o humanity+ Scholten* More or less. , was rea&in$ a %ook o Davi& Foster, , or$et the title, an& he says that evolution is the &evelopment o the $rowin$ consciousness, that it %roa&ens, an& , think that0s ri$ht. AH* ?ike the poem %y ( .S. 'lliot, returnin$ rom where we %e$an an& knowin$ it or the irst time. Scholten* 1es, %ut in a &i erent way4 we take with us the e-periences we learne&. AH* Do you in& that &evelopment $oes on in an or&erly manner, like rom sta$e !@ to !A, or woul& it $o rom !@ to !!+ Scholten* 2ormally it $oes or&erly in the sense that in human li e you in& all the &evelopment normally4 %ut someone $ets stuck somewhere an& he takes that %ein$ stuck with him all the time. So he can have phases when he can %e stuck everywhere, %ut the system o &evelopment ten&s to %e or&erly. 6ut then you $o with the ne-t lesson when you &i&n0t really inish with the irst lesson, when you &i&n0t completely solve it, you only partially solve& it. AH* Do you have any eelin$s a%out reincarnation+ Scholten* For me it is the only thin$ that can %e true. (?au$hin$) ,t0s stupi& to think that it coul& not %e true. ,t0s also the case that in 8hristianity, that &urin$ the time o 8hrist it was normal, all over the worl&, like in ,n&ia, it0s normal, there0s har&ly anyone who thinks &i erently. Also with 8hristianity it0s normal, %ut in the Bth century there was a council

that &eci&e& that reincarnation wasn0t $oo&, so they took it o the %ooks. ,t ha& to &o with the ear, you know, live a $oo& li e now so you won0t $o to hell. (he church woul& lose its power, it0s more a power thin$, an& politics, more than %ein$ in contact with it. AH* So, let0s say, hypothetically, you have a patient who is an Arsenicum at sta$e !@. 1ou treat them success ully, &o they %ecome a Sulphur+ Scholten* 2o, you cannot tell. All the elements are pro)ections o possi%ilities, o talents an& pro%lems. , think that all the humans have all the possi%ilities in them, an& those talents. 6ut you can $et stuck with that talent an& so it can %e that someone $ets stuck in an Arsenicum kin& o a pro%lem, or make a pro%lem o it. 6ut the Sulphur is not a pro%lem at all. So the ne-t sta$e coul& %e anywhere, coul& %e Hy&ro$en a$ain. 3hat you see o ten is that you start with the latest pro%lem, when they are in their a&ulthoo& or ol& a$e an& they have a :&irector: pro%lem. So you start with the 9ol& series an& you see many times they $o up to the Silver series or the ,ron series. 1ou solve that an& they $o to the 8ar%on series. ,t0s like the laws o Herin$, you $o %ack to your youth. (hat0s what , see happenin$ 5uite o ten, %ut you cannot tell or sure. (here are times when you have to $ive the Aurum or whatever. 1ou always have to look at what0s happenin$. For$et a%out all the theories an& look at what0s happenin$. AH* 1ou talk a%out &isease as creator. Scholten* (he i&ea is that you create or yoursel a lesson to teach yoursel somethin$, an& or you, that nee&s a pro%lem, otherwise there is nothin$ to learn. So you can compare it with a play in a theater. 3hen you look at it rom the point o view o the actor, he0s really involve& in it. 3hen you look at it rom the point o view o the &irector, or him, it0s a creation. AH* 1ou ha& sai& in Homoeopathy an& Minerals, when you were talkin$ a%out :meta levels,: that a%straction makes it possi%le to pre&ict the picture o unknown reme&ies. 6y %asin$ your reme&ies on the position o the elements in the chart, as well as its sta$es, are you %ein$ as care ul as you woul& %e in prescri%in$ a reme&y or someone as you woul& %e prescri%in$ a reme&y that has ha& a ullC%lown provin$+ Scholten* For me that is not a 5uestion. (he point is that , $et a patient with a picture. (hen there are a ew possi%ilities4 , know the picture, =;, so that0s not a pro%lem, , can prescri%e it. =r, , &on0t know the picture, an& then , have to look at some point to $et a clue or it, look or some stran$e keynotes. 6ut in a case where you &on0t in& any clues, or some cases where you try some reme&ies %ut they &on0t seem to it, an& you &on0t have the eelin$ :that0s it:, you have to in& some other way. , have my way o analy/in$ in Homeopathy an& the 'lements an& i it $ives a reme&y that its completely, so why shoul&n0t , try it+ AH* (o help the patient. Scholten* '-actly, to help the patient. (his is the irst rule. , have ten statements in my %ook. (he irst is, in an unknown picture you have to $ive an unknown reme&y. ,t0s the ?aw o Similars. So when you try a known reme&y like Sulphur, in a case you &on0t un&erstan&, you have to ail, otherwise Homeopathy woul& %e cra/y. AH* Hahnemann elt that an important cornerstone or the practice o Homeopathy was the reliance only on me&icines whose reactions ha& %een &etermine& %y care ul provin$s. , %elieve he wrote in the =r$anon that speculation on the action o me&icines %y usin$ them on patients, without irst knowin$ their true action, was unethical. How &o you

respon& to the criticism o your %ook, %y some, that it is promotin$ speculative, curative properties o unproven su%stances+ Scholten* (here is a lot happenin$ there. , must $o throu$h it one %y one. Hahnemann &i&n0t say that knowin$ the reme&y %y &oin$ the provin$ was the only way o knowin$ the reme&y. ,t coul& %e that he sai& that provin$s were a $oo& way o in&in$ a reme&y picture, an& that is true, they are a $oo& way o in&in$ a reme&y picture, %ut not the only way. 'very science starts with pure empirical ways o thinkin$4 )ust look at it an& write it &own, &on0t think a%out it, )ust look at it an& write &own all you see. (hat0s what Hahnemann sai&, %ecause in his time there was only speculation. 2o one was really lookin$ at what was $oin$ on, so he was ri$ht, in that sense, %ut he coul& have meant only provin$s. (hen, , &on0t a$ree with him, there he0s alse. Hahnemann is alse in many ways in his =r$anon. ,t0s like a reli$ious type o thinkin$ that Hahnemann was the %e$innin$ one so he must %e correct in everythin$. that0s cra/y. He trie& his %est an& ma&e many mistakes. ,t0s not true that you cannot repeat a the same reme&y twice, it0s cra/y, it0s not true, everyone &oes it. (here are many points like that in the whole =r$anon. ,t &oesn0t mean , &on0t respect Hahnemann, %ut it0s &i icult to ollow him %lin&ly like a $uru an& note it all &own e-actly what he sai&, an& never $o away rom it %y a little point. (hat0s not science, that0s reli$ion. Don0t think you are respect ul to Hahnemann i you ollow him that way %ecause he was a researcher. He wante& to &evelop homeopathy %ecause he elt it was a stron$ way o healin$. A ter the sta$e o empirical science, look at what happens. 8lassi ication, makin$ cate$ories, makin$ classi ication, )ust as Men&eleyev &i& with his perio&ic ta%le. ,t was a classi ication o all the known 5ualities o those elements, even the &iscovery that they were elements was, in a sense, a classi ication. (here is a whole lot o knowle&$e or$ani/e& in the perio&ic ta%le, it0s a classi ication o all those thin$s. (he thir& sta$e o science $oes to theory, which is &i erent rom theori/ation an& speculation, which is what Hahnemann warne& us a%out. (he &i erence is that in theories, you &o a speculation an& then you test it. 1ou look to see i it0s true, an& i it hol&s, how lon$ it hol&s, how many cases, an& i you can in& cases where it won0t hol&, an& then look at it an& see why it won0t hol& in that case. (hat0s theory. ,t0s &i erent rom speculation %ecause speculation an& theori/in$ is a%out makin$ up antasies an& not %otherin$ a%out them anymore, not really lookin$ in reality to see i it0s true or not. (hat0s the &i erence %etween the two. AH* An& you eel you have enou$h &ata+ Scholten* , have teste& them an& teste& the pre&ictions with my system with reme&ies like Scan&ium an& Moly%&enum, $iven them to my patients an& they worke& with my pre&iction, so it0s real science. AH* Does it sometimes not work+ Scholten* = course, that0s when , $ive Sulphur, an& no one woul& o%)ect to that. AH* Apropos o that, can you $enerali/e a%out the Homeopaths who critici/e your work an& those who applau& it+ Scholten* 3hat , see in $eneral is that the Homeopaths who are newer to the iel& love it an& the ones who are ol& in the iel& o%)ect to it, not all o them, %ut the ones who have a lot o e-perience with the ol& ways o trainin$, they have &i iculties acceptin$ this new way o thinkin$. (he criticism is also mostly rom people who haven0t trie& the system. (he proo is in the pu&&in$. 1ou have to try it yoursel %e ore you critici/e.

AH* So the para&i$m theory &e ine& %y ;uhn its here, in that the ol& $uar& may %e re)ectin$ a chan$e occurrin$ in somewhat esta%lishe& practices+ Scholten* (hat coul& %e the case. ,t coul& %e that , am wron$ too (lau$hter), only time will tell. AH* 3hat percenta$e o cases that come to you are element cases+ Scholten* , can0t say i they are, (lau$hs) %ut , prescri%e a%out BDE minerals. >ro%a%ly BDE are mineral cases. AH* Do you think they come to you on :automatic sort: %ecause you0re known as the :mineral man:+ Scholten* 2o, most o my patients &on0t know, it0s only the other homeopaths that &o. Most o my patients come to me %ecause one o their amily mem%ers was helpe& very well an& now they want to come. (hey &on0t know a%out the %ook an& they &on0t %other a%out it. , $ive a lot o plants, FDCFAE, it was also the same in the past, in the ol& repertories an& materia me&icas most o the pa$es are minerals. AH* =ur environment is &eterioratin$. How is that impactin$ the prescription o reme&ies+ Scholten* , &on0t know. , &o know that we now have to use a lot o reme&ies that have &eterioration in them, DD(, penicillin, a lot o the me&icines. ,t was the same in Hahnemann0s &ay. A lot o the reme&ies that Hahnemann &evelope& were reme&ies we know rom into-ication, an& they were very much nee&e& %ecause a lot o people were into-icate& then. ,0ve seen many patients who have nee&e& penicillin, an& you $ive the reme&y an& they are one level urther. 1ou nee& those reme&ies too. So, the pro%lem is the more reme&ies there are, the more stu there is in the worl& that can into-icate someone, the more pictures we have to know a%out those kin&s o thin$s. AH* 3hat is happenin$ in 'urope with Homeopathy, provin$s+ Scholten* ,t0s &evelopin$ very ast, %ut , think we are only at the %e$innin$. AH* 8an you ela%orate+ Scholten* 3hat ,0ve written &own is )ust the %e$innin$ o the mineral kin$&om, you can make all those com%inations an& even more than what is in my %ook. (hey nee& more cases, more provin$s. 3e nee& to &evelop keynotes o them, an& then we have to sort out all those reme&ies, even the ol& ones. (here are lots o symptoms that &on0t even %elon$ to some o the reme&ies. So, we have to reCevaluate an& si t it out. Still to %e &one. An& then $o to the plant kin$&om. (here are twoChun&re& an& i ty thousan& plant species. , am also lookin$ at the plants, my pre erence $oes to the plants, not the minerals. 'veryone thinks ,0m the mineral man. ,t0s not true. AH* 1ou0re not wearin$ a $reen )acket or nothin$. How &o 'uropean homeopaths view Homeopathy in America+ Scholten* 2othin$ speci ic. (hey eel mostly that it0s one community. 'veryone has some o%)ection to one teacher or another, %ut it0s not an issue o America an& 'urope. (he issue &oesn0t live as ar as , see it. AH* ,s there a $reater acceptance o Homeopathy %y national me&ical $overnin$ %oar&s in 'urope+ Scholten* ,t0s startin$, more or less. ,n 2orway they will pro%a%ly $et it into law. (here was a %i$ con erence in 6erlin an& one Gn&erCMinister o Health sai& that we have to chan$e our policy an& look at it more as a system o values. ,t0s &i icult to tell what comes out o it. (here are a ew hints. Also, the 'uropean >arliament is $oin$ more

towar& alternative me&icine than most $overnments, %ut you never know how it $oes. (here is also a lot o resistance %y re$ular &octors. AH* (here is so much resistance in this country. Scholten* (hat is why , &on0t think you have to i$ht them, )ust cure all the patients you $et. (hat0s the %est way to &o it. 8ure ADE o all the cancer patients we $et, ima$ine, can we %e le t out+ ,t woul& %e impossi%le. (hey woul&n0t &o it or one, two, three years, an& then it woul& turn aroun&. (he patients woul&n0t take it anymore. (hey will come to us. So, we &on0t have to %lame them, )ust &o the )o% %etter. AH* ,n America there is a lot o the use o com%ination reme&ies. How &o you view them in li$ht o your com%inin$ elements that have never %een com%ine& %e ore+ Scholten* (he pro%lem is that we har&ly know what we are &oin$. So, what a mess when you prescri%e a comple- reme&y, you never know which su%stance is &oin$ what. (he &i erence is when , $ive 8o%altum Flouratum, it0s a salt, with its own 5ualities. 1ou can make it, you &on0t $o out an& in& it somewhere. ,0ve never seen Sulphur outsi&e the la%oratory. 1ou &on0t $o out walkin$ in nature an& say :=h, there0s some Sulphur,: an& no one has any o%)ection to it4 so why o%)ect to 8o%altum Flouratum %ecause it0s only in the la%oratory. 8omple- reme&ies are )ust a mi-ture, it0s not a com%ination like a salt. 2atrum Muriaticum is a salt. 2o one woul& say :that0s a comple- reme&y, you cannot $ive it.: So these su%stances all e-ist in nature. (here are a lot o what we use that are manCma&e. Mercurius ,o&atus Flavus is manCma&e, it0s all manCma&e, ;ali Sulphuricum, , &on0t think you can in& in nature. 1ou can make it an& $ive it to someone. it0s the same with >lutonium. ,t &i&n0t e-ist AD years a$o, &oes that mean that you can0t $ive it+ AH* 3hy are there so many ru%rics containin$ Sulphur+ 3as it possi%ly that li e %e$an on metallic sul i&es+ Scholten* Hahnemann was an alchemist, an& in Alchemy you have three %asic su%stances, Sulphur, Salt an& Mercury. (hose are the most known reme&ies, an& when you rea& Materia Me&ica >ura, an& 8hronic Diseases o Hahnemann, those reme&ies have the most symptoms. Hahnemann &oesn0t state it so o%viously, %ut he was an Alchemist. =r, he was very much, not in the sense that he was only an Alchemist, %ut he ha& a lot o thin$s $oin$ on there. (hose three su%stances are )ust sym%olic, as su%stances in themselves, they aren0t more prominent than another one. 3hen you look at it really, the most %asic su%stance or li e is 9raphites, or any kin& o 8ar%on, %ut not Sulphur. ,t0s the same with the metals. ,n astrolo$y you have the seven ol& metals, they com%ine them with the seven planets. (hey still try to &o it. 1ou can0t &o it, it &oesn0t make sense, it takes you to the wron$ &irection. (here are a ew connections here an& there, %ut irst leave it, an& may%e later look at it. ,t $ives you %etter clues than $oin$ &irectly to it. , rea& an Anthroposophic %ook a%out healin$ with metals. , le t it out %ecause it0s ru%%ish. (here are thin$s that are there that it our pictures, they took it rom our pictures, %ut a lot o the thin$s there are speculation, not lookin$ to see i it0s true or not. Always $o %ack to the patient. 9o %ack to the e-perience. (hat0s what , always &o. , speculate a lot more than , have written. AH* 3hen were you %orn+ Scholten* ,0m a 8apricorn. , was %orn in !"A!. AH* So, you hit the Si-ties.

Scholten* , think the BD0s were a $reat in luence in the worl&, a $reat li%eration o all the ri$i& ways o thinkin$. 3e %ene ite& a little %it an& it was very nee&e&. ,t0s nee&e& even more now. Sometimes when ,0m here in America it astonishes me, a little thin$ happens an& it0s in the newspaper or weeks. , rea& where an Air Force woman may have to %e in )ail or years %ecause she slept with someone4 that0s ri&iculous. (here seems to %e more ri$i&ity now. 6ut then, it comes in waves. (here is nothin$ in ri$i&ity, it0s empty, it &oesn0t lea& you to the ne-t evolution, so the chil&ren aren0t e&ucate& to think or themselves %ut only %y the rules. >eople are a rai& that i people are ree, the worl& will $o cra/y. (hat0s simply not true. (he more &i erent people are, the more ree you have to %e to live to$ether, that0s how a city works. ,n a sense, every city is li%eratin$ an& every countrysi&e is restrictive. AH* So, to $o %ack to the ol& mo&el o the evolution o civili/ations4 amily, %an&, tri%e, city, country... Scholten* Gniverse. So, then you are completely ree. AH* So that motion rom a very small, restrictin$ situation like a amily, to a lar$e, cosmopolitan one, like a city, re5uires the chan$es in consciousness to traverse it. Scholten* 1es, an& that is the &evelopment everyone has to &o, either in this li e or another one.