Repertory

[dusty1197]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen"
wrote:

*** No, you're not
(same). -

*** I agree.

devotees, meant
to
Gross used
describing

*** Julian has expressed that the case is *not* an example of
homeopathy and wasn't meant to be. So there really is no clear
interpretation here, as often happens, but I don't see that that's a
problem. My point is that sometimes the lines are blurred and it
does no one -- and certainly not homeopathy as a clinical science --
any good to reject all possibilities on the sole basis that it does
not look like homeopathy or can't be found in the Organon;
therefore, it is automatically despicable or dangerous. This is but
one example where intelligent and capable practitioners can't even
agree on whether a case was treated homeopathically.
homoeopathic, not
are an

*** You make excellent points, Chris, and I agree. Yet don't forget
that Never Well Since, the basis of the Electricitas rx in the case
under discussion, did not present symptoms that led the doctor to
Elecricitas, but rather the symptoms led him to Arn and Nat-s, yet
they did not cure. So even though Electricitas is a potentized
remedy, the law upon which it was prescribed is not strictly
homeopathic (similar suffering), but it cured nonetheless.

Toni

[dusty1197]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Julian Winston
wrote:

sort
just

*** My position exactly: A **wider** view. For if we instead
enforce some of the narrower sentiments recently voiced, the
Electricitas example: 1) Does not belong on the Minutus list, 2)
Might be considered as masquerading as homeopathy, 3) Could
exemplify the ineptness of the prescriber, and 4) Might even be
called dangerous since it does not strictly fit into the classical
definition of homeopathy. But that would be a shame, because it
presented a good example of the *wider* view and provided an avenue
for intelligent discussion and exchange of ideas and experience, in
addition to its value as a clinical example to practitioners. Thank
you for reply, Julian.

Toni

[dusty1197]

Symptom similarity was used. The symptoms represented the trauma
from the falls, yet homeopathic (in the strictest sense) prescribing
did not cure. Don't misunderstand, I use the basis of symptom
similarity as a matter of course, but sometimes Never Well Since
does not present that way. In addition, it could be said that the
man was 1) Never well since an electrical shock, and also 2) Never
well since the fall.

My interpretation of the case is that, although probably not
intentional, at least three separate remedies were used for one
totality. And they worked because there were three separate
exciting causes: An electrical shock and two physical injuries, the
latter based on the Arn and Nat-s selections. And why not? A
bruise does not an electrical shock make.

Toni

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, J Lucas wrote:
then it has
(same). -
law of
basis) it is
substance

[dusty1197]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Bob&Shannon
wrote:
because they
is "good
symptom-

*** I use both, as I've consistently seen the benefits of each.
Detracting from one to inflate the other is unnecessary as each has
its own merits.
one learns

*** Yes, excellent point. As with the plumbers and the mechanics
and the other fields Julian mentioned, I suggest that different
approaches in the field of "homeopathic" science are not metaphoric
of a painter attempting to masquerade as an electrician, as Julian
suggests, but rather that each approach represents a different and
uniquely useful tool among the various implements that comprise the
overall set of tools consistent with the trade. A wrench may not be
awl, but both exist within the framework of the larger picture and
have a relationship to one another in that they are both included in
the toolbox that represents the necessary items pertinent to the
occupation. Both provide useful, and distinct, aid when applied
properly to the same project at hand.

Toni

[Liz Hennel]

Having worked with students in other countries, whose mother tongue is not my own, I have really come to appreciate the need for the precise use/understanding of language in the selection of rubrics. Murphy, whilst having produced a truly wonderful piece of work in modern US English, has nonetheless often lost meaning in the process. This renders a rubric unreliable, and his cause is not helped by the lack of information about his sources for the work.
More recently I have been looking more closely at von Boenninghausen's Repertory, edited by Boger, finding it surprisingly "modern" in terms of its applicability in our work today. This surely must be the mark of a classical text - it has not needed to be modernized. It has now been fully integrated into Synthesis 9.1 - which is a real gem. Schroyens and his team at Archibel have laboured long and with immense precision to ensure that they have maintained accuracy, minimized errors - and modernized without losing meaning.
I would also like to remind folk that the grading of a remedy within a rubric refers to the number of provers of that remedy who expressed this particular symptom, nothing more. It does not imply that this remedy is of more value in treating this individual symptom - you still have to understand the Totality of your patient.
Liz
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

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

[Gaby Rottler]

Hi Liz, all,
remedy grade does NOT refer to the number of provers.

Even in the early beginnings this was not easy to distinguish, as even
G.H.G. Jahr and von Boenninghausen slightly differed in the grades in
their repertories.
In the modern reps a differentiation between symptoms proved by one
prover, proved by more provers, symptom gained from clinical experience,
symptom gained from proving + clinical experience is not possible.

Best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~