Minutus

Hi fellow students,

I have been working with a DVD seminar (http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopath ... usive.html) that has been helpful to get out of dependence on guru-type training. Presumably, professional homeopaths do not have the problems that I am describing below. This is for the struggling student.

During the past several years, I have been reading people like Sankaran and Mangialavori and other modern authors who describe the mind of remedies. At first, this kind of reading was a must because I certainly was having a hard time staying awake to read the classics, including the Organon. ;(( Similarly, classical cases from the vast literature tended to depend on scarce physical symptoms and left me with very little impression of the remedy. I kept reading them hoping that somehow my mind would improve. Actually, there are ways to bring those reading alive. Furthermore, the problem with the above modern system makers is not just what is claimed but more important right now, they do not teach how to evaluate their claims. My schooling is supposed to teach me that, but I still feel very lame. So what is missing?

The argument made by Joseph Kellerstein and Kim Elia (and I am sure any well trained classical homeopath as well) is we all need to know how to access the classics so we are not reliant on the gurus. I haven't read more than Chronic Disease and the Organon, and that's a shallow reading. I don't go back to the classics because I can rep a case and even get ok/miracle results because I can use the rudimentary tools of my software package. Actually, that software has the tools to do much more, but I was ignorant of them. But, I don't feel so great about my fumbling ways and so I resort to reading modern guru texts. I fall in love with systems (botanical families, periodical tables...). What I really want is a solid way to evaluate my practice.

I don't suppose it matters much which good program you have. I have Radar and the EH. The DVD presentations by Kellerstein and Elia are great because they show me how to research remedies using the more advanced features of the program. At the same time, they present the argument that we have all the tools necessary to read the classics and understand them. They use those classical cases and for example show how to find the rubrics used in such a case when you know the curative remedy. There are tools to compare remedies under a specific rubric, and so on. Step by step, they show you how to use those tools. I think these kinds of tools are available in any good software package. So the point is really the application of those tools.

As important, They also point out mistakes that you could be making in repping a case, or analyzing a remedy. Because it is on a DVD, when they present a case, you can stop the DVD and work out the case yourself. Then compare your solution to theirs. I know there are many ways to rep a case, but it is always useful to find other approaches. Even if I find the right remedy, for example, my way is generally awkward compared to theirs.

I can't travel much because of family responsibilities so this kind of DVD is really useful. Does anyone know about similar types of seminar recordings? I think I am weak at repping cases (analysis) and reading classical texts. With the above DVDs, I probably have enough training on Radar. The next step is 1.) to get better at repping strategies 2.) to be quick at evaluating claims made by guru types 3.) to gain facility in reading the classical texts.

For that third goal, Joseph Kellerstein will have a 3 CD set on Homeopathy by the Book fairly soon. It is a modern scholarly interpretation of the Organon with discussion and illustrations. That may be helpful too. http://www.wholehealthnow.com/organon-course-2007.html
The bottom line is we need to know how to research remedies for ourselves and how to base our understanding on the classics. Potentially, through computer technology we have all the tools to do this. If we do not do use our resources, we are vulnerable to simple believe in this and that guru. That's where my mistake has been. The attraction of homeopathy is not just miracle cures. The attraction is that there is a scientific and historical foundation for our practice.

Best,
Ellen Madono

Hi Ellen,

I agree with what you say below, exept:

What does it have to dowith computer software?

All you have said one can do, probably even better, using books.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Luise,

I didn't know how to use the computer to bring up for example all the skin rubrics of sepia and then to go check on one of those rubrics in the literature. It's fast and I don't have many of those books. I don't have space for such a large library.
Here are some more examples:
1.) I could look for the skin rubrics of sepia in any MM, but they don't have the coverage that the computer provides.
2.) If I am looking at an old case with the typical few physical symptoms and no mental symptoms, being a beginner, I would have a hard time guessing what rubrics were used to find the curative remedy. With the computer I could put in the name of the curative remedy. Bring up large categories such as skin eruptions/sepia. Then look down a list several pages long to find the rubric that was in my case. If I was a bit smarter, I would get a shorter list because I would put in a more limiting symptom. You can go into an MM and find some of those symptoms, but you won't find exact rubric or where the original source was. If you already know, no problem. But usually I don't know.
3.) If I want to differentiate between the remedies under a specific type of pathology or an interesting rubric, I can easily pull up all instances of that rubric in the literature. I have to be a bit crafty because I won't find much under a small rubric such as MIND, Busy - Fruitless. I will find plenty under MIND Busy and looking at the discussion of Busy throughout the literature, I can see how different rubrics are busy and why.

A guru will tell you that sort of thing, but I would prefer to be able to find it myself. At my level I will just end up reading a guru book. I won't check up on him because it is too much work and I think I can't. Now I know I can. Furthermore, sometimes it is more interesting than guru reading. This is a way to bring dry reading alive and enrich it. Of course, you can research your cases the same way. But I am seeing it takes practice. It is slow for me now, but it should get faster. Slow in the computer age, not in the book age.

I agree, I like books too. They physically feel more comfortable than a computer screen.

Blessings,
Ellen

Hi Ellen,

I agree that, if you use computer software for finding your remedy
etc, it is good to know how to use it to get the most benefit from it.

I do not agree that you need computer software to do all you listed
below.

This, for some people, is quite a relevant difference, since computer
software is expensive, even more so if you want to have all the
modules you need for doing what you have mentioned.

For those who ccan ill afford this expense it is important to know
that the software is not required.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

This is only an opinion of course, but I've been reading what has been said on this subject and a thought occurs to me about 'modern' homeopaths...is it possible that some use the software so that they do not have to actually learn the discipline in any great depth?
And doesn't that mean that there could be 'dangerous' homeopaths practising, as they have no way of checking the results and simply prescribe by programme, which then simply makes the programmes the guru?
I have no guru fixation in me...I believe that all and any of us, no matter what our qualifications and experience, has the ability to be wrong and that's the human condition, what we all need to do is develop a judgement of our own through reading and studying absolutely everything we can lay our hands on, use our logic and reasoning to sort the wheat from the chaff, and accept that it is not possible for ANYONE to know everything.
I use no software and wouldn't be comfortable doing so, until I felt that I really had the judgement that my learning would give me.
There is art and talent and judgement and a great deal of reading and studying all involved in the prescribing, and I suspect that no software/computer programme in the world has the ability to be those.
It could, I suspect, encourage some to be lazy, some to start prescribing before they are capable, if one has difficulty in the learning, should they be taking such a short cut?
And such short cuts could lead to many a mistake in prescribing, the whole thing just feels wrong to me.
A well trained homeopath using software doesn't worry me at all, they already have a good solid education, but a student?
This isn't directed AT anyone, I just worry that the element of mechanics can lead to problems for the patient and for homeopathy in general, it seems a long way from holisticism.
One could say that if you are looking for short-cuts, then perhaps being a homeopath is not for you? After all if you haven't learnt your subject how can you possibly claim to be expert in it?
As for not having all the books, there are so many available free, in particular on homeoint.org...to keep the expense down for myself, I buy a lot of books published in India, and buy as many second-hand as I can, but only those I cannot get for free...this means that overall I have a very large collection for very little outlay.
I have no interest in buying software at all, does this make me odd?
mary

Luise Kunkle wrote:
________________________________

Not happy with your email address?
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo!

Good points, Luise and Mary. I remember years ago, when I was a student, getting one of the first versions of Radar, and realizing ater my first computer repertorization that the old computerese slogan "GIGO" (garbage in garbage out) is really true. The computer program did not fix my ignorance of how to repertorize well.
The main advantage of the computer programs, in my experience, is to find rubrics simultaneously from different parts of the repertory that contain the key terms, and to speed up the process of repertorization. It also facilitates comparing a repertorization using different views, Computer programs also facilitate studying Materia medica because of their superior finding and sorting abilities.
The primary disadvantage is that it makes it harder to do an eliminative repertorization. There have been times when a clear remedy choice is not emerging, that I've turned off the computer, and done a remedy elimination repertorization on a yellow pad, manually, because it would help to clarify choices -- partially because it requires me, at least (I don't know about other people) to think more seriously about what rubrics to select. One has to be very sure of the rubrics one selects in order to properly eliminate remedies from consideration because they don't appear in a single symptom.
In short, the computer programs are a tool, one of many. The skill of the practitioner is the source of success or lack thereof. The skill is essential, the programs are not.
Rosemary

I guess that's mostly my point...a skilled homeopath using the tool appropriately to speed up their process is one thing, a half or poorly educated person thinking it's a short cut is another.
When I first started to use homeopathy seriously, I tried a couple of on-line programmes and frankly they were rubbish...I guess that's what I'm basing my personal opinion on, not having ever tried a reliable system.
Admittedly, as I only work on a few cases at a time, not being a practising homeopath with many patients to care for, I can spare the time to take care on the long route, and I actually enjoy the process and find it a perfect way to aid my learning, in particular of the materia medicas and keynotes, and I find it helps my organisation skills too.
I also find the process reassuring?!...I feel sure I would always be thinking that perhaps the software had it wrong, or I'd missed something, so having it written and knowing I've done the work, builds my confidence.
It may be an age thing, but I do like a book!
mary

"Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D." wrote:
________________________________

>

It's certainly possible yes.
This is what I advise my students who want to know whether to invest in
homeopathy software;

It would be a mistake to get software early in the learning of
repertorizing process in my opinion. [But a good idea to put a
monthly sum of funds away for it later]. There are many reasons, all
to do with the quality of your repertorizing skills, which after
all will determine how good a homeopath you can be.

The less well you understand and have a FEEL for remedies, and for
how often they occur in rubrics, and what things call them up in a
case, the less effective you will be at interpreting results on
software. So the longer you repertorize by hand, the more familiar
you will be, even in your subconscious thinking, with what remedies
come up in what situations.

An example may illustrate:
Let's say you are using software to rep a case where someone wakes up
in the middle of the night fearful that their head will burst,
and with a lot of other symptoms (not listed to make this shorter).
So you get out the software and enter the ten or so key symptoms of
the case and up comes a list of a few hundred or thousand remedies.
Perhaps you grab the top ten and go look them up in the materia medica.
Sounds okay right?
No, you will miss the right remedy that way!

However if you had been hand repping a long time, you would not just
look at the top ten remedies - you would run your eye along the
remedies, seeing lots of polycrests, and then you'd spot an unusual
remedy much higher up the list than it usually is, perhaps at number
40 or so. You will know from hand-repping that this remedy hardly if
ever shows up on the lists of remedies you write when hand repping -
so it will stick you in the eye when it shows up higher than usual.
So you will take the top 9 rems on the list - PLUS this one that
you recognized JUST because of hand repping experience, and your
personal knowledge and feel for remedies and how often they show up.
Indeed you will see on reading the MM that the oddball remedy in
item 40 or so, Asterias rubens, is an excellent fit and will cure
the case.

So why was it only number 40? Why was it not in the top ten?
The answer is also the reason you need to do a lot of hand repping
before using software:
The remedies in the repertory are UNequally represented. Asterias
rubens has a few hundred rubrics known for it only.
The other remedies in the top ten list have 8000 or so listed
rubrics. So it is really hard to hit on a rubric in your selection
to suit the client, that actually coincides with a less well
represented remedy like Asterias rubens.
Yet every remedy has equal power to heal in its own area. The
polycrests are not more powerful remedies - just ones whose
symptom options are better known and better represented in the
repertory.

YOUR feel for remedies has to make up the difference, and hand repping
is excellent at teaching you when to have little red flags go off in
your head on behalf of a client.

The software does also have a "rare remedy" button which then tries
to help in this presentation of matches using less well documented
remedies - but because these remedies can vary from 30 rubrics to
800 rubrics or more, you will likely still miss the right one -
unless your personal knowledge triggers a red flag among the options.
So basically, using software is to some extent repping with blinders
on UNLESS you also know from hand repping experience how often
specific remedies are likely to show up in a case.

The opposite also applies:
Hand repping tells you what remedies to give LESS credence to because
they almost always pop up - Nux vom or Sulphur for example. IF they
are in the top few, it is not automatic that they are good choices.
They may be there just because they have such a plethora of known
symptoms. They may actually be a bad match despite the high selection
position. If you had never hand-repped, how would you know this?
But with a lot of hand repping, this essential aspect of remedy
selection WILL become part of your skill set, and a MOST important
one in helping you to find a truly correctly matched remedy!

I know no other good way to accommodate the fact well enough - that
some remedies have only a handful of rubrics known and other
remedies have 10,000 rubrics known - and they are and can be
anywhere in-between.

Hand rep a LOT - get as much practice as you can with it - it can
determine how good a homeopath you become.
Later when you have that background, THEN go to software and add it
to the essential FEEL you got for remedies from hand repping, to
speed and fine tune your work. At THAT point, software can be
indispensibly useful - well almost:-)
Computers fall over. You need to do the odd hand repping now and then
to keep your hand in as it is a different technique from software
repping, and there is always something new to learn from it and to
apply in the software interpretation area so as to keep increasing
your skill at repping.

That's how I see it:-)
Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

I'm finding this thread rather troubling. First, Ellen puts two very different homeopaths, Sankaran and Mangialavori, in the same boat of guruhood. Sankaran has come up with a system of case-taking and analysis that is very successful for some folks, but a disaster for those who don't really understand it. Mangialavori doesn't have a "system" in that sense; what he does offer is incredibly deep understanding of materia medica.
I have not studied with Sankaran, but after some years with Mangialavori I have the deepest respect for his approach with patients and his results. Arriving at "small" remedies for difficult cases is rarely the result of repertorization, IMHO; you simply have to know your materia medica. You can play with rubrics and rep strategies all you want, but you'll still come up with possibilities that are more outrageous than plausible. No program is a guru, and no "expert system" is infallible.
Mangialavori does have us play with the computer sometimes, to illustrate, for example, how different remedies in the Solanaceae family concentrate their symptoms in different parts of the body. It's a tool to finer discrimination amongst them, but it's not a substitute for understanding what's going on with your patient and why this particular problem is manifesting this particular way in this particular person.
Peace,
Dale
________________________________

Hi all

Dale, sorry to have apparently attacked your favorite. I have gotten to that rare remedy through his group relationships and I agree that is one way. I generally back up my argument with with several other approaches to repping as well. Just taking someone else's system (that I don't completely grasp) is dangerous. I agree, Mary. I can see myself becoming dependent on that kind of association and not having a good classically based argument for my choice. It is successful so often that it is easy to take down your guard. Mangialavorie does not seem to stay very close to the sources of rubrics. Dale, I really think we need to check up on him and see if he is making classical sense. Or to what extent. That's what troubles me. Sankaran is clearer but still he is looking for a way to get around the classical sources. In the future, I will rep out their surprising conclusions before I blindly follow a case result.

Irene, Luise, Rosemary, what I am saying is the computer is not just for repping. You know which are the small remedies just because you read the MM. Through people like Sankaran and Mangialavorie, I have used the 40th remedy on the list in possibly 1 out to 10 cases. So using the computer for repping is not the point. I am saying that the computer has other uses. I am not going to repeat my examples, but I don't think I gave any that were repping examples. As I said, I did not realize how much the computer could do. I too was fixated on repping. If you have a program, that's a big mistake. For the investigation of rubrics, comparison of remedies, or finding original sources the computer is great. I brought up the issue of locating classical sources because it is a step that I rarely take. That's also much easier with the computer. I personally don't think study is all that easy in any case. Books, computer, ... Use what you have. If you don't have an expensive program, no doubt you are swift with your books. That's great. This is not a competition between the haves and have nots. It is a discussion of resources.

Mary, I lucked out and from the beginning I had a professional homeopath guiding through my first two years of cases. He used the computer, but he also paged through Herring for difficult cases. Garbage in, garbage out. I did all that. In the beginning, I would do the same with or without a computer. garbage flourishes because of a lack of analysis. or flimsy analysis. or flimsy case taking.....I did (do??) all that. No one can save me from my own foolishness.

There is awkward unsure repping, and there is sure clear repping. When the case is easy, both work. But in a difficult case, you need some really strong strategy or a good analysis. There are many strategies. I usually try several strategies in a difficult case. Usually it is best to organize my data before repping. As I get wiser, I realize that repping is only one small step. Sometimes not the most important. Figuring out what is central in a complex or suppressed case is much more important and no computer will help with that. How do you get good at that? Once I start repping, I argue with myself and then wish that I were clearer. Or I had more modalities etc. Often the case is not clear or it will take time for the relationship with the patient to open up. But, I certainly think that I could do better in my strategies and could be surer of my arguments. That's a matter of experience, but I think education is also part of it.

I personally am always on the look out for holes and weaknesses in my education. That's why I shared this. Apparently, I am the only one with weaknesses. Thank god for small blessings.

Best,
Ellen
________________________________