Arden,
My interpretation of Boenninghausen does not include an "assignment of numbers" at all. He does say 'descending order' which to me means order of declining importance .He says 'essential ones in the first division'....he is not assignining a number, he clearly assigns a 'type'.'the fifth place'comes closest to implying a number assignment,but, when the whole is read I don't interpret that as his intent. The 'type' in later editions was changed and explained in the Preface of later editions, I'm sure because technology made it possible to use 'type' that was more striking in its difference and therefore easier to differintiate as you work. Number assignment is a further extension of this....in my interpretation. Denise

Hallo Arden
Boenninghausen has a grading with 5 grades form part of his book. If dimitriadis and others including Kent proclaim there are only 4 in use they don’t do justice to the author and subsequently use this book outside its plan layed out in the introduction.

The grading between: 1-5 (one=lowest, 5=highest) has been adopted from the numerological point of view, where 5 relates to a greater, higher amount than 1. this view has been adopted here in terms of characteristicness, importance, as well as on kalendaric reasons, where a symptom is first entered at a earlier date, and then at a later date (numerically higher!) transferred in another class containing the earmarks of the previous (class/ classes) and the new ones.
This in Numeric terms is best reflected in the ascending scale, where the bigger number contains the smaller, and not the opposite.

Therefore your idea of relating the highest grade to number 1 and then procede, is thinkable, but nonsensical.

And furthermore Boenninghausen speaks in his introduction of the scale of UNIMPORTANCE and attributes 5 to the highest grade (of unimportance).
We here talk in the scale of IMPORTANCE .

Dr. Mass
Thanks for letting us in where you live and about all the languages you speak. You are in a great position to help so many different people in very uncertain times for Pakistan. My thoughts go out to you.

Hans Weitbrecht
Homeopath

__________________
cure by symptom similarity!<br /><a href="http://www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/" target="_blank">www.Boger-Boenninghausen.com/</a>

Arden thanks for answering the query & I'm glad it has been cleared up. It seems a pity that the new edition of this brilliant book has been changed at all. Working here from the 1846 edition & the results are far sharper than what was happening with Synthesis, Kent and Murphy. It's great.

In Chronic Diseases Hahnemann says we should never be satisfied with any of the existing repetories, for these books are only intended to give light hints as to one or the other remedy that might be selected, but they can never dispense him from making the research at the first fountain heads. And Beonninghausen also states this in the introduction of TT, adding his comments about the constricts of time for most homeopaths that prevent fully comprhensive knowledge of MM, time being what stops us having equal success with MM perscribing..BUT I now see Denise, you said equal sucess in finding A similimum..so you aren't talking generaly. I was wrong on that point. (Now can we turn over a new leaf? I won't be cheeky & you can take away that box you keep trying to put me in. Thanks. )

Also Boe's TT has enabled us to make more effective the study of MM by cross reference of the two, as described by him in the introduction; and by opening 'the wide fields of combinations' has given us the means to successfully treat any disease, regardless if it has been seen before or not. And that is surely the baby (not bathwater.) Amazing flexibility of inummerable combinations! Furthermore the correct application of concordances make possible the prediction of a series of remedies for chronic diseases, giving the practicioner complete control in bringing cure rapidly.

There is reference to analogy in the introduction but not 'analogy by aggreement' and I would be interested to know what that means & where it comes from, as I understand characteristics can be considered as analogy (of a sort).

Louise.

Dear Louise,

Hahnemann wrote of using analogy in agreement with experience in the 'Chronic Diseases'. It is my understanding that the Baron applied the 'analogy' principle to his study of the provings and the construction of his repertory. How do you ascertain he constructed a generalized rubric from fragmentary provings? Do you have a different understanding?

The layout of Kent's Repertory is based on the structure of Boenninghausen's Repertory of Anti-Psorics (1832) and many of the rubrics come directly from the TPB (1845). Kent's Repertory is a merger of the 2 schools of repertorization represented by Knerr's Repertory of Hering's Guiding Symptoms and Boenninghausen's TPB. Most of Boenninghausen's rubrics are included in Kent's Repertory if you know how to access them.

I realize you were using the term 'missing arms and torsos' metaphorically. I returned the metaphor in a literal way to highlight my aversion to the polarization of homoeopathic concepts, that is, the literal Vs the interpretative. You have stated previously elsewhere that there is no middle road for you. There is for me, I use it daily in all areas of life.

In the spirit of recommending valued texts I would like to add:

The Collected Works of
Arthur Hill Grimmer, M.D.

Edited by Ahmed N. Currim M.D., Ph.D.

Dr. Grimmer practiced from 1906 to 1963 in Chicago. For many years, he
shared his office with Dr. James Tyler Kent and undoubtedly learned a
great
deal from this well-known master whose books and Repertory have been used
by
the profession since 1897.

Child prodigy in Homeopathy
Shared offices with Kent
Studied under Kent 1902 to 1906
Taught Kent's clinics and classes
The only authentic collection of Dr. Grimmers writings:
Taken from his original handwritten manuscripts (many of them never
published before)
All the available articles in the homeopathic journals
Meticulously collected
It includes:
Materia Medica (of many unusual remedies of great importance in the world
today).
Homeopathic Prophylaxis
Homeopathic Philosophy
Special diseases
Clinical Cases (many of cured malignancies)
Cancer
Essays
Electronic Reactions
Repertory (prepared by the Editor)

This is a work that will serve everyone from the beginner to the most
sophisticated homeopathic prescriber.

AND

Guide to Kent's Repertory
by Ahmed N. Currim, PhD, MD

While all of us use Kent's Repertory, few know of its origins, it's manner
of construction or its logic.

This tool is meant to be a guide to explain Kent's original concepts and
ideals
Learn to use any Repertory (Kent, Synthesis, Kunzli, Complete) with the
aid
of this guide
Arrive quickly at the Similimum
Organizes anatomy-many diagrams
Organizes PAIN sections, makes search for various pains painless
Chapters on case taking
Cross References and more
Learn

Construction, logic and arrangement of Repertory that Kent himself made
with
his original papers.
How Repertory is in harmony with Hahnemann's teachings
Why Repertory is immortal yet capable of expansion

This book will help the student and even seasoned homeopathic
practitioners
to find their way through the great Repertory of Kent, in much the same
way
as Michelin's famous guides for various cities help travellers find their
way and eventually know the city so well that they can find any place
quickly.

256 pages. Many anatomical diagrams desined specially for the
repertory(Kent,Synthesis, or Complete Repertory).

Dear Hans, Louise and others,

I think Dimitriadis' system is actually a '4-level plus the lowest level' and it doesn't do injustice to Bonninghausen original intent. He kept the lowest grade remedies ('the dubious remedies') in bracket, e.g. '(Puls)', as in Bonninghausen's original TPB. The confusion comes in only when Dimitriadis didn't count this grade when he assigned the numbers to the grades. Basically I agree to use a 5-grade assignment of number to convenience the communication here.

Hans: I read in Aude Sapere Online that you'll be giving a seminar on "Discovering Hahnemann's Homeopathik" (at http://home.no.net/audeonl/Kurs/Weitbrecht.htm). I really like to learn more from you on topics you mentioned there. Unfortunately, I've just finished my studies in Sydney and shall be returning to Hong Kong to set up a practice there, and it's financially and geographically difficult for me to go to attend your seminar. If you don't mind, could you give us some idea about what's in Jahr's MM - why it is special? May be we can start a new thread on this?

Louise:
Regarding Dimitriadis's new edition of the TPB, from my acquitance with him since his seminar this May and some discussions with him afterwards, I can assure you that this new edition is a very faithful edition to Bonn's original ideas. The main things that Dimitridis did was correcting the typos by verifying EVERY single remedy under EACH rubric by going back to the provings and Bonn's other writings, adding annotations (called endnotes in the book) to EACH rubric by studying the provings and the dictionary of his time, rearranging the structure of the repertory to make it more logical (e.g. put 'coryza' under 'respiratory system' rathan than 'nose', giving an index to the rubrics by modern and old medical symptoms (e.g. patient with multiple 'allergies' may use the rubric of 'excessive reactivity', 'infertility' may use the rubric 'sexual ability- insufficient', etc.), etc.
Actually I got Allen's edition of TPB two years ago and I read that Allen's intro. It was awful. He used more than 20 rubrics for a case analysis in the example in the intro. At the same time, there was no table of contents. I simply didn't know how to use it for practical reasons.
By the way, you can read Dimitriadis's introduction at: http://home.no.net/audeonl/Kurs/tpb.htm and the book review by Julian Winston at www.minimum.com

Thanks for everyone's input and I've learned a lot in the discussion here.

Arden, you know I had a look at that introduction you mentioned and it was wierd. Is Roberts not the one who writes the forward? I'm using the 1846 German edition. Thanks very much for that link, I will read it too, and the best of luck with the new practice.

Louise

Hello Chris.

My understanding is that characteristics can be considered as analogy, but included only on the basis of observation, and not on the basis of cognition.

We have already seen examples of changes Kent made in the repetory based on his 'concepts and ideals' back in delusions thread.

The missing arm is also someones else's metaphor, you are familiar with it, for abandonment of the delusional approach. But factual discussion is ultimately more useful.

Having tried the various approaches, (not just studied them,) we are justified in laying aside certain tools in favour for what we have found to have superior practical effectivness in curing disease, in accordance with Organon & Chronic Diseases. We can accept at this stage, I hope, that our choices of 'roads' is different, and continue discussing the facts despite that.

The 'polarization of homeopathic concepts' which you are adverse to, is prehaps more of a political matter than a practical one? Please talk of this further as I would like to understand exactly what you mean.

Thanks again for the information on reading material, all of which I note, and will eventualy examine.

Yours,
Louise.

Hi everybody
i shall n't add any my opinion because nearly all aspects have been brought .pleasego through the book "use of repertory ,how to study repertory by j t kent a small book published byRoy publishing house calcutta I have 72 edition
it has mentioned everything

__________________
Dr.P.K.Sinha

This is the book which have all the answers and references of this loom by hans.

ENCYLOPAEDIA OF REPERTOREIS
BY
DR. J. BENEDICT D' CASTRO, D.H.S
PRINTED AT
B-JAIN PUBLISHER (P) LTD
INDIA


Please read with special ref to the following pages. 62-71