Originally Posted by Aubergine68
You are right - I wrote hastily and didn't say exactly what I'd understood. What I understood is, wild plants are by far the best, a garden plant in the perfect circumstances is second best but still acceptable, never use plants growing near a highway because of toxins. I can't find the exact quote quickly but that is the sense of what I read.
so, just so i'm clear-- do you disagree with that? i dont want to confuse things, but i dont want to misunderstand either.... i feel like you're saying you dont agree that garden would be "second best" and wilder "preferable."
One of my apple trees is pretty crabapple-y. ...... The genetics are the same, but the signature maybe a little different?
ok, to my mind, and i've not read all there is to read, for certain, and "form and function" really resonated with me, so i may be biased, BUT....
*from the doc of sigs, a certain plant FE is going to have xy&z effects (multitudes, not just three, but ykwim).
*various things affect the "gesture"of the plant (which demonstrates its signature, yes? i *think* that's correct, please, if it's not, panserbjorn, clarify?)... including its location, for various reasons. barnard mentions this-- the character of agrimony is different if it's in chalky soil, or some other kind....
*these differences in "gesture" will have some impact on the ... specific qualities/effects (xyz, etc) of the FE made from the plant.
*that's not, imo, to say one would be better than the other, just different. barnard is vague on it. he says just to be mindful of it, that it will be different. i'd be interested to know how MUCH the changes in gesture of the plant would change the character of the FE..... i guess the wild rose is a good example.
I feel in reading about how to make essences a hint of the thought that there is a Platonic ideal of each plant that is the only right plant to take an essence from, and I resist that implication. Maybe I'm resisting it because the English landscape and even the Californian one are so inaccessible to me.
i'm not sure i'm understanding this.... when you say the landscapes are inaccessible, are you implying that your lack of connection to the location would inhibit your ability to use the essence? or.... again, your local rose would be somehow more likely to help you?
what i was trying to get at before, with my "personal associations" comment was asking if you were thinking that your connection to a plant, regardless of the "gesture" of the plant (and therefore the xyz qualities of the essence) would have abc effects on *you*. does that make sense? if fred feels joy when he's around a pansy, because he used to plant them with his grandmother before his birthday parties, which made him happy..... pansy FE is not going to make him feel joyful unless that happens to be part of the gesture of the plant........... that's what i was trying to get at. mind you-- i'm not saying that's true, just my sense from what i've read.
Is the essence of the orchid that grows in a hothouse *really* different/inferior to the essence of the orchid that grows on the side of a waterfall? I can understand why you would prefer the latter, but if you didn't know which flower the essence was made from, would it make a difference in its efficacy?
well, this may be the heart of it. i'm a contextualist, so i absolutely believe that it would. not "inferior" but different. and maybe not even "efficacy" per say, but... "flavor" of effect, if you will. as above, what barnard said. it's a different setting, it's going to have an impact on the gesture of the plant (imo, and, i believe his as well-- again, if i'm wrong, please correct me.).
I was actually reading from the only book my library has on essences, Chancellor's Illustrated Handbook of the Bach Flower Remedies. A chapter on each essence, but the rose one did not inspire me, no.
So where do you find good discussions of the FES remedies, beyond the online blurbs?
honestly, i havent read much that inspires. (barnard's "Form and Function" i loved, obviously) there isnt much on the FES "north american" FEs (i'm assuming that's what you mean when you say "the FES remedies"). on the FES site there are some "case studies" and some articles, and there are some nice in depth things about *some* of the NAs, but not much.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems I've read that the essences are vibrational....if that is so, would there really be a difference? Wouldn't the attitude, memories and intention of the maker of the essences affect the product? .... I've read of procedures like this in harvesting wild herbs for tinctures and teas, too - you have to have the right frame of mind to harvest them or you won't get all the virtue of the plants.
this goes back to what i was saying above.... of course the energy of the person making it will impact, bach is very clear on the maker not allowing his mood to alter the process. but i was getting the sense that you were thinking that by making an essence from a plant you love you would transfer something to the FE that is not demonstrated in the gesture of the plant.... that's what i'm questioning. i am not saying it's not possible, i'm just questioning if that's what you mean. i'd be curious to know how those who have made essences feel about that.