Wow Ellen, you amaze me with all the knowledge you have ingested. I attended Scholten’s seminar on his plant system recently and really gave up on that one!! I just use the system that I feel goes with the case , find a remedy and check it out in my favourite old fashioned Clarke’s MM (on my Vision software though rather than the cumbersome volumes!!) I rep using Vision and check if remedies suit from that. I have recently been using Ton Jansen’s HDT and dare I mention it the Narayani remedies but only as a support with a constitutional.
All the best
Rochelle
From:
minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 22 July 2018 00:08
To:
minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: NESH Countdown: Week #1
Hi Rochelle,
That would frustrate me too. I would like to get the same answer as Paul and he says most people do, but I am not so hung up on being perfect. I am not sure getting the same answer is the gold standard of understanding. I am probably not so different from you in that I have spent a long time studying him. I have not had the luxury of attending a seminar taught by Dr. Herscu, but I have use C&S since about 2005 and have read everything he has written as well as doing his letter's program and the WHN seminar that he taught for 6 weeks.
I use the software that comes with Radar. Always the software brings up a priority list of remedies that is much shorter than typical analysis. I just feel that the C&S list is also better than a single dimension list. In simple repertorization, the logical relationship between rubrics is unclear.
I have done a lot of study of the 5 elements, 8 branches of the Mappa Mundie. What happens is the relationship between physical symptoms and the metaphysical become clearer, or I have a better imagination. I am working on the Enneagram now hoping for similar results but because of the lack of relationship between the physical and the metaphysical, I am getting the feeling that I am doing something very different with the Enneagram.
Jeremy Sherr suggests that we should always do Pre-analysis. I am very faithful to his pre-analysis procedure. I try to make those physical and metaphysical relationships. Also, the time or causal relationships between symptom groups is essential. (the essence of Herscu's Cycles and Segments.) Because of the way I took the case (a lack of necessary detail), I don't necessarily get a full Herscu cycle, but I do get relationships between groups of symptoms, and even if I am dissatisfied with the clarity of my pre-analysis, it is better than no pre-analysis.
Jeremy says you can even use a 3 element system. Sometimes three groups are the most that I can manage to get out of a case.
According to Jeremy, pre-analysis is the messy paper and colored pencils stage. I am not so artistic and I just scribble. (I also have a program for laying out tiles called Tinderbox, but it is expensive and only an analysis nut like me would care to invest.)
So, when I clearly have a cycle, then I use the cycles and segment software of Radar. If not, I just group symptoms. Just grouping symptoms is not nearly as accurate as a clear S&C logic. But, as I say, pre-analysis in any form is better than no analysis.
This is all a long way of saying that Paul helps us to understand the best form of pre-analysis. If you can't get there, try to get at least half way.
It has taken me years to think this way, but when I read about a remedy in the MM or provings, I am also doing the pre-analysis routine (either formally or in my head). Paul lays out the reason behind the coherence between Remedy description, Proving and Case. This makes the logic of homeopathy so much simpler.
Best,
Ellen