TPB- (was Newer remedies, requesting article- Roberts)

[David Little]

Dear Minutus,

Boenninghausen broke up the symptoms of the provings, redacted them
and redistributed them by analogy in the various sections of his work.
Hering (among others) did not like the idea of breaking up the words of the
provers so universally and taking apart symptoms that including a number of
facets such as sensations, modalities and concomitants. Hering was more in
favor of keeping the words of the provers kept in tack and keeping the
symptoms together. This is what makes Boenninghausen's TPB and Knerr's
Repertory of the Guiding Symptoms complementary opposites. Kent Repertory
comes out someplace in the middle. He included most of Boenninghausen's
generalizations in his general symptoms section and as rubrics in general
in the regions of the body from Mind to Extremities, etc. At the same time,
he included characteristic particulars in sub-rubrics in all the sections.
Like Knerr he included a good number of mental symptoms.

I love the Therapeutic Pocketbook. It has a flexibility in the logic
and symptoms that is not found in any other repertory. On\e can create
rubrics that are completely unique and customized them to the patient's
exact state. Nevertheless, the biggest limitations of the Therapeutic
Pocketbook is too few remedies, lack of ample mental symptoms, and dearth
of characteristic particulars and sub-rubrics with defining conditions in
the words of provers. Too few remedies can lead to missing the on
simillimum on occasions and giving too many partial simillimums that lead
to "zigzag prescribing". That is why in the early days Hahnemann and
Boenninghausen used quite a few remedies to cure their cases. Too few
mental symptoms, of course, make it hard to deal with psychologically
complex cases (all to common today). Too few particular symptoms in
sub-rubrics make it hard to use well proven characteristics that are often
redlined uncommon symptoms.

This said, I know one can do very good work with the basic 150 remedies
when they are given on good symptoms. I learned this in my volume village
practice, where due to the pressure of time and circumstances, I tend to
stay with the best proven remedies that I know almost by heart. Under these
conditions one just says very focused on the locations, sensation,
modifications and outstanding concomitants. Polychrest prescribing on
characteristic symptoms works well if you use the strange, rare and
peculiar symptoms of these remedies. If you give them on common symptoms
and stereotypical portraits and essences - they often fail. Nevertheless,
even when I am doing this type of work, I see cases that need other
remedies, and act accordingly. In my private practice I have much more time
to take symptoms and repertorize, and of course, find myself using more
lesser known and small remedies.

I believe that the TPB needs to be brought up date rather than
homoeopaths returning to the same materia medica as 1846. If one
understands the method of the TPB it can be applied to other repertories
including (believe it or not!) Kent''s. Kent included almost all of
Boenninghausen's generalizations in his general section. Nevertheless, the
logic and design of the TPB is unique. I do wish careful additions were
made to this work by some competent homoeopath. Such a task, however, is
not easy and would take an experience person or team. It is not, however,
impossible.

My own mental version of the method of the therapeutic pocketbook is
the key to my success in many cases. I literally use analogy to break up
and redistribute the symptoms in of the MM in my head when necessary. At
this point, I know more about some of the remedies than what is in the
books. I have learned how to piece together various facets of differing
symptoms because I know the remedy has the potential to cover such rubrics
in a new combination. Sometimes I take part of a symptom from here and put
it with part of a symptoms from there and come up with a third symptom. I
am constantly combining symptoms to make new rubrics and concomitants. For
this I own a thanks to Boenninghausen because one can not always find what
one needs in the exact words of the provers or clinical confirmations.

One the other hand the Therapeutic Pocketbook is not really that useful
when one comes across many redline characteristic symptoms found in the
materia medica. Some of these more complete symptoms are golden and have
been confirmed many, many times. These symptoms are MUCH better represent
in the materia medica than any repertory! Sometimes, we become so obsessed
with repertories we forget that the MM has the most complete symptoms. They
have not suffered the fate of abbreviation, separation, and indexing like
the rubrics of a repertory. That is why T. F. Allen's Handbook, H.C.
Allen's Keynotes, Lippe's Keynotes are so valuable as well as the grand MMs
like Hering Guiding Symptoms, Allen's Encyclopaedia, and Clarke' s
Dictionary. Vermuleun's Concordance is a good modern work. With searchable
works like Reference Works and EH we can use the entire materia medica like
one giant symptoms dictionary! Hahnemann would have loved our computers!

Boger's Boenninghausen is also a unique creation. It includes many
aspects of the TPB but Boger reintroduced the particular symptoms and more
sub-rubrics. This was because he was sensitive to the criticisms of Hering
and Kent. It a fusion of the concepts of using analogy and generalization
and specific characteristic particulars. There are some TPB purist,
however, consider it a mongrel repertory and criticize it quite strongly.
Nevertheless, this work has been used by a number of senior homeopaths and
found very effective in the clinic. Sometimes I feel there is too much
exclusive thought and criticism and not enough integrative thinking. There
just is no way that it the best at all times and under every circumstances.

Roger Zandvoort's (the author of the Complete Repertory) new repertory
is called the Repertorium Universale. The Complete Repertory (and the
Synthesis) is baesd on Kent's Repertory and its methods. Roger's new
repertory is constructed in such a manner that can be used by
Boenninghausen's method including the Therapeutic Pocketbook and connects
with his A Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, part
1, Embracing the Antipsoric, Antisycotic and Antisyphilitic Remedies and A
Systematic Alphabetic Repertory of Homoeopathic Remedies, part 2, the
Remedies that are Not Antipsoric. It is also integrated with Boger's
Boenninghausen Repertory and Characteristics.

At the same time, Roger has linked his repertory with Kent and his
method. He has constructed this work in such a manner that it can be used
either by Boenninghausen's or Kent's methods as well as others. This is a
noble endeavor, Like Boger did with his Boenninghausen's Repertory he has
made his repertory accessible through both the generalization method as
well as use of characteristic particulars. One should be able to make up
symptoms from locations + sensations + modifications + concomitants, etc.
as well as look up unique characteristic particulars from the provings and
clinical confirmations in sub-rubrics. These unbroken characteristic
particular are lacking in the TPB.

The RU is a very large work with a great number of symptoms and
remedies. Of course, the mental rubrics are vast. So, I am looking forward
to testing this work closely in the clinic. I have a beta version and I
found it really interesting and I am waiting to get my copy of the finished
RU on my computer. Then I will put it through its paces. Anybody out there
using the RU yet? Any comments???

Sincerely, David Little

[Rochelle]

Hi David ,
I am also using RU on the beta version in ISIS but I am finding that there are so many Rx for some of the rubrics I look up that I go back to other reps!I will also be happier when the bugs which cause it to crash on me are cleared up!!

Regards
Rochelle
www.rochellemarsden.co.uk

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Robyn]

<

[Rosemary C Hyde PhD]

Actually this thread intersects the one on Boenninghausen, as Roger van
Zaandwoort laid out the RU using the Boenninghausen organization, and
incorporated The Pocket Book into his work. There are more remedies in some
rubrics because he's using a wider representation of well-regarded sources.

Using the Boenninghausen method of repertorization and RU is giving me
fantastic results, and helping to clear up decisively some previously
unclear cases. I highly recommend it.

Rosemary

[David Little]

At 05:42 PM 5/20/2004 +1000, you wrote:
Hello all,

I want to say that even with its limitations H. A. Roberts version has
cured a great number of cases in the USA and India. As I understand it they
did a pretty job on this work. Yes, there are mistakes, but no work is
perfect. It has been used very effectively by many senior homoeopaths in
India. I have also found it quite effective at times. Nevertheless, there
is always room for improvement and George D. has done his best to do that!
It is normal for revisionist to be a bit critical as long as it is not
carried too far. (Some the comments I hear on Hering and Kent are
borderline at best.) I think that one major reason for the decline of the
TPB was decline of traditional homoeopaths in Germany and the,predominance
of Kent's Repertory in the USA. Dr. Roberts generation was the last to
really use it in the USA, and as time passed, the essence of the method was
more or less forgotten. It has been used in India but the new generation
does not seem to understand it as well as the older.

Sincerely, David
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000