Synthesizing rubrics - David Little

[Toni-Ann Trevino]

Hi David,
Would you mind talking a little further on your quote below? Is it possible
to incorporate this method into almost any of the reps? I did a few
exercises the other day, playing around with combining rubrics, whereby, all
of the remedies in each are combined, with all represented only once; and
intersecting rubrics, whereby, only remedies common to both rubrics are
considered for repertorial analysis. In addition, I took same or similar
rubrics from Boericke, Kent, Boenninghausen and Synthesis and combined them,
making one comprehensive rubric, in order to overlook nothing, though I
suspect Synthesis contained all and more. For example, I combined Kent's
STOMACH, Nausea, before breakfast; Boericke's STOMACH, Nausea, before
breakfast; Boenninghausen's NAUSEA AND VOMITING, Aggravation, before
breakfast; and Synthesis' STOMACH, nausea before breakfast. Then I took the
General rubric Before Breakfast agg. from each rep, where it could be found,
and combined it with the rubric I had just synthesized. I even toyed with
going further and combining STOMACH, nausea, from fasting.
Where rubrics as I wanted them did not exist, I compiled them by taking the
local symptom and combining it with a general modality, even if the modality
really only applied to the local complaint. But I did this with all of the
reps, not just Boenninghausen. For example, from Boericke: STOMACH,
Symptoms and Conditions, regurgitation of food, combined with Synthesis'
STOMACH, Eructations of food, to form one rubric, and then intersected with
GENERALS, Motion agg., from Synthesis, so that only remedies present in both
rubrics were represented in the final synthesized rubric, which was STOMACH,
Regurgitation of food, agg. from motion.
So my questions are: Does such an exercise risk skewing the meaning of the
rubrics and producing incorrect remedy choices? And does including the
general rubric risk introducing remedies that do not apply to localities?
As I see it, even a particular discomfort affects the whole person
generally. An aching head can make a person irritable and diminish his/her
appetite. A mere broken toe can make a person physically restless and
whiny. I don't see that any particular complaint does not have a general
impact on the entire being. But I would appreciate your input on all of
this.
Toni

[Julian Winston]

At 4:18 PM -0500 5/25/04, Toni-Ann Trevino wrote:

[snip]

What is being missed here is that Boenninghausen did not just
"synthesize rubrics"-- he CREATED them based on his knowledge of the
provings.
One of the reasons Boenninghausen's book is so reliable is that the
remedies that are represented in the rubrics have been completely
understood.
His use of different typefaces does *have a meaning* unlike the
gradings in Kent which are a mish-mash of information and often do
not even follow the guidelines that Kent himself set out.

So when you try to synthesize a new rubric from several others that
are similar, the question arises, "are the REMEDIES used in the
rubric reliable?"
There is no question, in my mind, that the rubrics in Boenninghausen
are reliable because the remedies were completely understood. I do
not have this confidence in doing the same with the Kent work-- or at
least relying completely on rubrics synthesized from that source.

JUW

[David Little]

At 04:18 PM 5/25/2004 -0500, you wrote:

Dear Toni,

In a sense we are always synthesizing rubrics to one degree or
another when using the repertory. That is what makes the Rep different than
the MM. When one makes up a totality that is a synthesis of various
elements of the patient's symptoms from various areas of the repertory.
Repertorisation is a composite view. We are just becoming more conscious of
the process and grouping the symptoms more accurately. On top of this we
might have to stretch the limits of such a method when we can not find an
exactly corresponding rubrics. If one remedy shows up through such a new
composite may cure if the remedy has to potential to do this in the MM.

Such a method is only as reliable as the rubrics that are used to
construct the synthesized symptom. This is always true no matter how you
use the rubrics. You have to use the repertory in concordance with materia
medica and get as close to the source of the symptoms as possible. All
repertories suffer from abbreviation and redaction and some rubrics have
been transformed in such a manner that they hardly reflect the proving
symptoms they were taken from. We have to use the materia medica to confirm
at least the "possibility" that the remedy could produce the symptoms under
review and act according to experience.

It is good to have some idea which repertories link most directly with
which materia medicas. If one is looking in the wrong repertories and MMs
for confirmations one may not find the symptoms for which they are looking.
For example, the Therapeutic Pocketbook links with the Materia Medica Pura,
the Chronic Diseases, and Boenninghausen's Characteristics. This is also
true of Boger's Boenninghausen's. Jahr's Repertory links with the MM in his
Manual, the MMP and CD. Knerr's Repertory links directly with Hering's
Guiding Symptoms and Kent's Lectures on MM, which is based mostly on H. G.
S. Allen's Symptom Register links directly with his Encyclopedia of MM and
Handbook of MM. Clarke's repertories links to Clarke's Dictionary which is
linked with Hering's Guiding Symptoms and Knerr's Repertory as well as the
works of Burnett, Cooper, Skinner, etc. Phatak's Repertory links to
Phatak's MM as well as Boenninghausen's and Boger's works.

Kent's Repertory is one of the first real synthetic repertories and is
based on Boenninghausen's, Jahr's and Lippe's repertories as draws heavily
on MMP, CD, Hering G. S, as well as T. F Allen's Symptoms Register and
Encyclopedia. The Synthesis and Complete are based on Kent's and draw from
a vast number of sources. Repertorium Universale is a synthesis like the
Complete but its construction leans toward Boenninghausen although is still
accessible by Kent's methods. One can trace the authors of the remedies in
these synthetic repertories and then revert to both the particular
repertories and MMs they reflect. That is why it is good to have an idea of
the origins of remedies, rubrics and symptoms. These are just some thoughts
off the top of my head to give the main idea. This subject deserves a
deeper study.

Boenninghausen used generalized modalities with regional and local
symptoms constantly. He was criticized for this but he also pointed out the
materia medica is the final court of judgement. Kent also spoke about using
the general rubrics that include remedies that might not be in the more
limited particular rubrics in the regions. Kent gave instructions on how to
use generalizations in his repertory much like the Therapeutic Pocketbook.
In essence, one should not OVER depend on repertories. One must balance the
repertory with the materia medica and then use your experience on top of
the results to see a bigger picture when necessary.

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