Hi felix,

A properly taken case in the traditional method has an inbuilt safety feature which protects against suppressions, partial simillimums and dissimilar remedies.

Instead of one word psychological theme keynotes combined with an essence, the classical characteristics are accompanied by qualifying descriptions or concomitants. In this way, classical keynotes cannot be used in a case unless the modalities and general symptoms of the constitution are in agreement. When the totality of symptoms are employed no one or two symptoms, by themselves, can completely dominate the choice of a remedy. The chosen remedy therefore reflects the disease-gestalt and all the checks and balances are in place.

A worthwhile review to read is found at:
http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlel...wscholten.html

Many homoeopaths are expressing concerns (see the lyghtforce or minutus lists) about the route taken by the modern mentalist approach. Remedies derived from meditative and seminar provings are being intergrated into everyday homoeopathic use. This is NOT homoeopathy. I wouldn't envisage adopting these kinds of remedies into my practice of homoepathy.

The new methods are being studied before a sound knowledge of the original classical material is put into practice. The art of case-taking is being lost. Homoeopaths find it enormously difficult to find rubrics in our repertories that match what the person contemporarily expresses. Criticisms that the polychrests don't work, Sulphur was only good for the 19th Century, we need modern meditative provings that reflect the new age (!) etc, IMO reflect the inadequacies of our current focus in homoeopathic education rather than any inadequacy of classical homoeopathiy.

One word keynotes don't exist in the traditional Materia Medicas, next thing is practitioners stop studying them because they favour the new 'easy reads', and an entire WEALTH of homoeopathic knowledge falls into disuse.