Hi Irene,

You're missing my point!
I am not saying to *repertorize* symptoms that aren't there; not at all.
But I'm drawing a distinction between *symptoms* that *are* there, and
*should* be repertorized--possibly including "absence of urging" (of
course if one decides there's no "urging" because the person is going
just fine without it :-) , then no symptom, not to rep; same as with
any other characteristic); and possibly including "phlegmatic"--which
I see cross-referenced to terms such as "inifference" and
"lethargy". Those are not simple absence of the symptom
"irritability"--they are different symptoms in their own right.

I'm making a distinction between simple *absence* of a symptom, versus
the *presence* of a symptom which is not within the remedy picture.

I think that does go nicely back to your point farther on, that we
have to know the *case*, and find the remedy that fits it entirely.
If part of the *case* is a "phlegmatic" disposition, then (at least
from my read of Hahnemann's quote) Nux-v will not suit, because Nux-v
does not cover "phlegmatic", aka indifference, indolence, etc.

As far as "remedy fits", well, we talk about a *shoe* fitting a foot,
with no expectation that we'll modify the foot if needed to fit the
shoe :-) so I'm going to take this as a semantic quibble that I
don't want to pursue. "It takes two to tango", and it also takes two
to "fit"! :-)

Shannon


On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:14 AM, Irene de Villiers wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
>
>> Okay, this is a point I often get stuck on...
>> I do understand that if a remedy "doesn't fit"
>
> Whoa.
> It is NEVER appropriate to know if a remedy fits.
> You need to know if the client's symptoms fit. That is all.
> :-)
>
>> a part of the case
>> which is arguably not-a-symptom (e.g. patient is not irritable),
>
> If the patient is not purple-skinned, you would not repertorize "not
> purple-skinned"
> You'd repertorize "patient has green skin" or whatever he DOES have.
> If you focus on what the patient looks like in illness, THAT alone
> will tell you the remedy to use.
> It is wise to choose your rubrics from the presenting symptoms,
> BEFORE you head for the repertory to see what remedies contain those
> symptoms.
>
> Unfortunately most homeopathy courses do things backwards, they do
> not teach us to study the case. Yet if we do not study the case
> (instead of the remedy), we can not expect to find what remedy
> "holds" that *case* on its shelves.
> Cases only have a dozen or two symptoms. When we look for the remedy
> for the case - for those presenting dozen or two symptoms and NO
> other symptoms, then knowing some long list of rubrics for any remedy
> is not useful. It's the case that needs to be studied, to find the
> remedy - You can not start with a remedy to find a case:-)
>
> Patient symptoms will first lead you to a short list of possible
> rems, then when you look in the MM, it is only to (hopefully) find
> the other symptoms of the patient that you left out of the
> repertorizing, or any that DO fit the patient. It is NOT to see "if
> the remedy fits" but "if the client fits into the remedy".
>
> Think of a remedy like Nux as a gigantic zigsaw puzzle with 11924
> pieces (the number of rubrics for Nux in Radar 9).
> Then you have a patient with maybe 30 symptoms of which you choose
> say 7 to 10 most relevant and representative ones that represent the
> disease condition, for repertorizing.
> SO you have these 10 jigsaw pieces (patient sx) and need to find what
> picture (remedy) they will fit *into*. What else the jigsaw has is
> totally irrelevant. You are only concerned with your patient's
> picture, not the jigsaw picture. SO maybe you find 3 remedies where 6
> to 9 of the patient's main ten zigsaw pieces do fit. So you look in
> the MM at these rems and there you spot that in one of the remedies
> on the short, another 12 of the patient's jigsaw pieces (symptoms
> not in your 10 chosen for repertorizing, but which were there in the
> 30 total symptoms you saw). THIS is then the confirmed remedy to use.
> We'll call it Nux-v.
>
> What else is in the jigsaw puzzle for the Nux remedy is completely
> irrelevant. ONLY your case and its symptoms are relevant and to be
> seen.
>
> Another analogy:
> See your patient as a book you need to read.
> Now you need to go find a library (remedy) that has this book in its
> inventory.
> What other books it has, are only of interest to other cases that
> need those books. They are irrelevant to your case who only has one
> book needed.
> SO you just need a library IN WHICH YOU CAN FIND your client book.
> Never mind what else it has.
> There is no rule that a library can only carry YOUR book (for your
> patient) if it also carries the full works of Shakespeare and the
> banned poems of a nutcase in 1820.
> :-)
>
>> But OTOH something like "absence of urging"
>
> "Absence of urging" can have different casues, ONE of which is
> constipation.
> Another is inactivity of muscles involved, which can be due to
> pathology.
>
> You would only use any of those rubrics IF they were key issues in
> the case to be repertorized.
> So if you start with the top ten symptoms (not rubrics) that describe
> your case, and lack of urging is a strongly relevabnt pathology, then
> indeed you may use it as a symptom and convert it to a rubric
> relevant to the case.
>
> But always look at the case to see what is there.
> If absence of urging is a major case feature - fine, use it. If not,
> why are you even considering it?
>
>> I would take to mean *constipation* with absence of urging--which
>> would definitely be a symptom.
>
> I do not look to see "if something is a symptom".
> I start with the case and look for its most critical issue.
> Plus the next most critical issue.
> Include mind and generals, make it balanced and ensure it gives a
> "Complete case picture" - basically a desription of the book you need
> to find in some library or other.
> THEN and only then, do yo see what rubrics would work to use for
> those symptoms.
>
>> If it's a strong symptom in the case
>
> Then I'd use it to seek the "book" of the client.
>
>> *and* the remedy under consideration is a well proved one with ample
>> clinical history, then wouldn't you hesitate?
>
> Hesitate about what?
> Nux has over 11 thousand rubrics - will you hesitate more for one
> than another of the 11 thousand rubrics?
> You will go nuts looking at 11 thousand rubrics and expecting any
> clients to have all 11 thousand:-) It's not gonna happen even if you
> memeorize all 11 thousand for each remedy.
> There is no one rubric that "works" more or less than another rubric
> within any remedy. If the rubric is there, it works IF the rest fits
> too. So - It only matters if your client is covered - properly. Not
> if ten thousand prior recorded clients were covered by a ten-rubric
> set within the remedy of 11000 rubric options.
> Why does it matter what book the library rents out the most often?
> YOUR client is the book that matters now :-)
> Sometimes you will keep needing to read "works of Shakespeare" and it
> will be called popular but maybe this client needs a different group
> of ten rubrics within the 11000 for Nux.
>
>> After all, you *do*
>> want the remedy to cover those *symptoms* which are important to the
>> case...
>
> If you START with the things that are important to the case - then
> THOSE will lead you to the best remedy containing them.
> It's just important not to then go backwards and expect the remedy to
> provide more matches than the client has symptoms.
> Remedies will always have huge libraries of rubrics when all you need
> is one little book - the RIGHT little book from among that huge
> library of them. It does NOT need to be the most poplar book.
>
>> That was my understanding of what a "contra-indication" might be
>
> I truly think a contra-indication is an evil theoretical invention
> that cannot fit homeopathy in any valid way.
> It's like banning several books in the library that are good books,
> but "not read often enough".
>
>> in
>> this situation--a *symptom* which is definitely not (or at least in
>> the author's experience definitely not) part of the remedy's symptom
>> picture.
>
> IMO... No remedy has "one" picture. I think it is a mistake that
> leads to more mistakes, to teach that it does:-)
> You can not put as many as 11 thousand rubrics into ONE picture. Ten
> is plenty for a picture.
> So a remedy with 12,000 rubrics where ANY ten can be a picture, has
> almost an infinite number of possible pictures in its library. What
> you need is the client picture, regardless what remedy has it best
> represented in its picture set - and regardless what other
> uncountable number pictures the remedy can help..
>
>> The situation could be more difficult in the case of a remedy which
>> isn't fully proven, or where the symptom is maybe not so definite in
>> the case.
>
> Well the process does not change - you still are looking for the
> "book of the client".
> It is harder to find a specific book in a small library.
>
> I used one very recently - Beryl.
> Only one very specific symptom led me to the remedy - cat had
> granulomas in the lungs. It is the only remedy listed for lung
> granuloma though I know of others that have fixed lung granulomas.
> However other aspects of beryl covered significant case symptoms
> including an inverted globulin/albumin ratio in lab findings. SO
> while few symptoms of the client were there in Beryl, (or anywhere
> else) the two most relevant ones were there in Beryl and not in
> other rems. So as long as I did not clutter the repertorizing with
> too many rubrics, and I stuck to the case-critical ones, the right
> little-used remedy did show up. I did not look at what else Beryl
> helps or whether it has "key" symptoms. I only cared about THIS cat
> while doing this case. Beryl had all kinds of critical symptoms of
> the client represented well.
>
> Later I did get curious. Beryl has 334 rubrics compared to over ten
> thousand for a polycrest.
> Mind has only two symptoms - delusions he would faint, and that
> everything seems unreal.
> The cat in question was unable to walk without falling over and her
> head was lolling about if she tried to lift it. In this case I just
> accepted that the mentals of the cat were not known exactly but....
> I liked that they were not inconsistent, as I strongly believe in
> matching mind sx as well as the rest [where possible anyhow!]
>
> 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."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>