Kkrista,
We all study the fundamentals. At least we're all taught to do so.
Whether we all study like Hans explained is a different thing.
Also I don't think the debate should be that Homeopathy needs to ne modernized. And also that does not mean one should not explore the boundaries of percieving the similimum.
I do appreciate HAns explaining his method of study of the MAteria Medica. It is useful and often important to be guided by stong characteristic physicals of a remedy when making the decision on a remedy. I have to wonder which homeopath does not do that?
And for animals its even more important to be able to recognize these PQRS sympotms to prescribe.
The bulk of good Indian homeopaths give importance to physical chracteristics to make their prescriptions, single remedy often just a few doses. Then the next remedy, when the next lot of characteristics come up. I've never heard it termed the "Boger Boenninghausan" or "Hahnemannian" approach though.
Study of remedies by the "modern" thinkers should come only after that, as the interpretations many times are partial and do not cover the whole dimension of the remedy or presentation of the patients that can require that remedy. Rg. Every patient needing Sulphur will not appear like a "Ragged Philosopher".
As Opium stated, modern approaches of study and prescription add to the fun of the study of the Materia Medica, but need not be SOLELY relied on for prescription. This depends on the individual case.
doctorleela
[ 17. March 2003, 11:54: Message edited by: doctorleela ]
|