Minutus

One of the great things about Murphy's Repertory is that it is in alphabetical order and when you get used to it it is so much easier than Kent. It is so logical.
Furthermore, the vocabulary has been brought into this century which, again, makes life easier. We need to bring homeopathy into the 21st century.
The repertory is only a guide to what the patient may need and not the definitive answer - we have to use other skills and aids too. Certainly Kent is not perfect and presumably none of the other repertories. Where did Kent's rubrics come from?
My Kent has languished on the shelf since 1993 when I bought my Murphy.
Homeopathy is difficult enough - why not use whatever we can to make life easier but without detracting from the quality of the service we give. Murphy's rep helps to do just that for me.
Annie

Julian Winston wrote:
At 8:18 AM +0100 5/10/04, annie summers wrote:

I would stay away from the Murphy rep.
Its alphabetical nature leads you away from understanding the
construction of the repertory (Kent) and, therefore, when one moves
to a fuller repertory which are Kent based (Complete/ Synthesis) you
can get really lost.
Furthermore, by re-naming rubrics into newer disease names (i.e.,
Depression, instead of sadness) the user can get easily sucked into
using an inappropriate rubric-- leading to a mistaken choice of
remedy.
AND... there are no annotations as ton where any of the additions
came from. I want to know WHO added that remedy to that rubric. Not
ALL additions are equally valuable.
I would approach the Murphy repertory with great hesitancy, although
I like his MM.

JW
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Annie Summers LCH
Homeopath

So neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul

Plato
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

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

At 8:03 AM +0100 5/11/04, annie summers wrote:

And for BOTH of those reasons, should be avoided-- in my opinion.
The way in which Kent is laid out gets you to understand the priority
of the symptoms.
AND... since all the others (Synthesis/Complete) are based on the
logical Kent layout, people who get used to Murphy's hit the better
reps and have no idea how to use them.
Find Hering's essay as to why ordering things alphabetically is a
death knell for serious thinking.

Bringing the vocabulary into the 21st century is not always a bonus.
"Depression" is not the same as "Sadness." By naming the conditions
in the way the book does it eliminates the need to look further into
the case. "I'm depressed" from the patient, lead to using the rubric
"depression."

fMurphy'sis not supported at our school, and it is not on the NZQA
unit standards as a repertory to begin with. I have asked many other
schools, and many of them feel the same.
Once you know what you are looking for it might be useful. But to use
it from the get-go will not, I firmly believe, lead into good habits
of repertorization.

Furthermore, there are no annotations to the additions. I don't trust
anyone-- Roger, Robin, Frederick. I want to know WHERE the additions
to Kent came from and make up my own mind if the source can be
trusted. The first and last do so. The middle doesn't.
JW

Also a few years back there was a big flap about Murphy having shared the
mistakes of the first edition of Complete Rep, but not having had the
benefit of Roger's extensive corrections to Complete. i wonder whether this
has been rectified -- anyone know?

I'd also like to echo Julian's thoughts, and add that too much reliance on
things which are "easier" sometimes leaves us unprepared to tackle some of
what we need to.

Going from Kent to Murphy no doubt *is* an improvement; but substituting
either Complete or Synthesis, with Murphy for back-up to double-check for
difficult rubrics, that might be a more effective move yet.

Cheers,
Shannon
on 5/11/04 2:03 AM, annie summers at lammasmoon@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Can we trust Kent even? I don't and that is why I say the repertory does not give the answer - it guides. The remainder depends upon other resources and our skill as homeopaths. Our patients should be the major influence in helping to decide what the priorities of the symptoms are - not a particular layout.
When teaching new students of homeopathy you have to begin somewhere but the more experienced homeopath will learn that the 'rules', 'layouts' and 'hierarchies' do not always fit into 'real life'. It is the px that will guide you....................and that is who we are there for
Annie

Julian Winston wrote:
At 8:03 AM +0100 5/11/04, annie summers wrote:

And for BOTH of those reasons, should be avoided-- in my opinion.
The way in which Kent is laid out gets you to understand the priority
of the symptoms.
AND... since all the others (Synthesis/Complete) are based on the
logical Kent layout, people who get used to Murphy's hit the better
reps and have no idea how to use them.
Find Hering's essay as to why ordering things alphabetically is a
death knell for serious thinking.

Bringing the vocabulary into the 21st century is not always a bonus.
"Depression" is not the same as "Sadness." By naming the conditions
in the way the book does it eliminates the need to look further into
the case. "I'm depressed" from the patient, lead to using the rubric
"depression."

fMurphy'sis not supported at our school, and it is not on the NZQA
unit standards as a repertory to begin with. I have asked many other
schools, and many of them feel the same.
Once you know what you are looking for it might be useful. But to use
it from the get-go will not, I firmly believe, lead into good habits
of repertorization.

Furthermore, there are no annotations to the additions. I don't trust
anyone-- Roger, Robin, Frederick. I want to know WHERE the additions
to Kent came from and make up my own mind if the source can be
trusted. The first and last do so. The middle doesn't.
JW
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
Annie Summers LCH
Homeopath

So neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul

Plato
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now

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

Dear Annie,

I agree that there are times when Murphy's Repertory seems to make things a lot easier, especially when a patient appears who has an allopathic diagnosis, but doesn't have any notable symptoms that one can repertorize easily.

On the other hand, it's not unusual for Murphy to be the only source that mentions a particular remedy in a specific context. When that happens, one does wonder how reliable that reference is. I tend to take those entries "with a grain of salt."

You're also right that Kent's Repertory contains many errors -- mostly errors of omission.

If your budget will allow, why don't you invest in one of the newer Repertories -- Synthesis or Complete? I'm familiar with Synthesis in book form (someone else may wish to address the Complete). It's based on Kent's Repertory in its layout, as Julian said. It also addresses the omissions of Kent and -- a tremendous gift to users -- adds many cross-references to help the searcher find an appropriate rubric. It also gives the source for each remedy it includes in every rubric -- an amazing piece of scholarship.

For instance, if you looked up "sick feeling" in the Mind section, you would not find remedies there, since it's not a rubric, despite the fact that a patient is likely to say that. However, you do find a reference to the appropriate rubric: "delusions- sick- being." You might also find Karen Allen's workbook on repertory rubrics and finding them a helpful tool for gaining more facility using these Kentian repertories. For translating MIND symptoms into rubrics, David Sault's little book "A Modern Guide and Index to the Mental Rubrics of Kent's Repertory" is often helpful, as is Dr. Farokh Master's "Perceiving Rubrics of the Mind." Ahmad Currim also has published an interesting small book that includes some information on interpreting mental rubrics, "Guide to Kent's Repertory."

Rosemary

Thanks Rosemary - I do have several other repertories and I mainly use MacRep - because it makes life easier. However, my favourite repertory is Murphy.
Annie

Rosemary C Hyde PhD wrote:
Dear Annie,

I agree that there are times when Murphy's Repertory seems to make things a lot easier, especially when a patient appears who has an allopathic diagnosis, but doesn't have any notable symptoms that one can repertorize easily.

On the other hand, it's not unusual for Murphy to be the only source that mentions a particular remedy in a specific context. When that happens, one does wonder how reliable that reference is. I tend to take those entries "with a grain of salt."

You're also right that Kent's Repertory contains many errors -- mostly errors of omission.

If your budget will allow, why don't you invest in one of the newer Repertories -- Synthesis or Complete? I'm familiar with Synthesis in book form (someone else may wish to address the Complete). It's based on Kent's Repertory in its layout, as Julian said. It also addresses the omissions of Kent and -- a tremendous gift to users -- adds many cross-references to help the searcher find an appropriate rubric. It also gives the source for each remedy it includes in every rubric -- an amazing piece of scholarship.

For instance, if you looked up "sick feeling" in the Mind section, you would not find remedies there, since it's not a rubric, despite the fact that a patient is likely to say that. However, you do find a reference to the appropriate rubric: "delusions- sick- being." You might also find Karen Allen's workbook on repertory rubrics and finding them a helpful tool for gaining more facility using these Kentian repertories. For translating MIND symptoms into rubrics, David Sault's little book "A Modern Guide and Index to the Mental Rubrics of Kent's Repertory" is often helpful, as is Dr. Farokh Master's "Perceiving Rubrics of the Mind." Ahmad Currim also has published an interesting small book that includes some information on interpreting mental rubrics, "Guide to Kent's Repertory."

Rosemary

At 1:42 PM +0100 5/11/04, annie summers wrote:

In that it was been in general use for over 100 years, yes. If it had
any really major errors, it would have been abandoned long ago.
And... many of the errors within it (mistakes in transcription) have
been corrected in the newer works, and much material that was left
out (most of Allen's symptom Register, for example) has been brought
back in.
Dumping on Kent, as many are wont to do, just doesn't cut it for me.
If it was that poorly conceived, people would have noticed that it
was useless in practice and would have abandoned it long ago.
Absolutely. But for some, the teaching of how to use it is
inadequate, and when faced with a book that purports to make it
easier, those people do not understand how to use it adequately, and
the whole case-taking and rubic selection suffers.
I know a number of people who love the Murphy book, but they were all
exceptional prescribers BEFORE they got the got the book, and they
like it because it is fairly complete and easy to carry. Faced with a
case, they KNOW the rubric they want-- because they have Kent and/or
the others burned in their minds. They are not looking at the book to
find the rubric-- they KNOW the rubric and just need to refresh
themselves.

And, in all this, we haven't even touched on the most reliable book
of them all-- the Boenninghausen Pocket Book. But that is another
story.

JW

Julian,

In your opinion what's the best source for learning the "tricks" of using the Boenninghausen Pocket Book?

Rosemary