Sep 24, 2017
Repertory with Roger is back, with case #311 from his Clinical Case Comparison Project.
I open the episode with a snippet of the conversation with Roger where he responds to my comment that there seems to be a bit of magic in this whole process.
Doesn’t homeopathy reek of magic? Especially when you see a Master at work. Like becoming musician or a martial artist, there are years that go into learning fundamentals before you begin to click into another gear and all of your fundamentals fuel a kind of intuitive ease and knowing that you simply cannot access without having put in that time.
The case we’re going to go over is:
Homoeopathic Recorder 1939, vol. 9., p. 32. Julia M. Green: Cases helped by unusual remedies
A slender, graceful woman of 35 years, unmarried, skin soft and smooth, has extremely poor inheritance. She seems to have both venereal miasms and psora mixed; never strong, always ailing. Some of the marked, recurrent symptoms: Swelling of eyelids, upper and lower. Itching edges of lids. Injection of conjunctivae. Aching eyeballs with photophobia, sensation of cold air blowing in them. Skin so dry must grease it; on face as if thick and tightly drawn. Throat: pulsations. Itching all over after shower bath. Spells of great nervousness in the night, as if she would lose her mind, shrieking, tossing arms about, could not control them, sensation as if she would fly to pieces. Back, upper dorsal: sensation of great weakness; aching, must support it with hands when sitting and in bed. Full of mucus; some in eyes, much in throat, stomach; leucorrhoea profuse. Hungry all the time but abdomen distended easily after eating. Swelling ankles, hands, as well as eyes and face. Taste bad; breath offensive.
xxxxx, given on symptoms of face and the hysterical symptoms at night, created a marked general improvement.
As always, I like to share some of the key take-aways for me that you can listen for throughout the conversation.
The first point springs off of a common point that comes up in these repertory conversations, the difference between using clinical vs. descriptive rubrics.
In this case, it was more knowing the *meaning* between what the rubric is saying and what is true to your case. It can be easy to go to the clinical rubric, but it may not be accurate to your patient.
We talked about my use of a rubric for ‘chorea’ vs. what Roger chose, ‘involuntary action.’
It’s about the importance of knowing the meaning of the words and the correct application to the case and patient.
One way to ensure this is to stay true to the descriptive approach, and away from clinical rubrics.
Another example is the use of a rubric to address the descriptor ‘drawn’ as applied to the skin …
This was again about details. I used a ‘Face- drawn’ rubric, but in fact, that ‘drawn’ aspect of the patient was in the skin.
Clarify exactly what part of the body, what aspect is being described.
We also touched on rubric size. With really small rubrics, Roger reminded us to think about how specific they really are, and think about how specific they are to the case. Match specificity… we must use rubrics with similar care and intention to those aspects we are pulling out of the case.
There’s another level of knowledge, use and understanding of the repertory beyond the ‘rules’ of using the repertory, which I referred to as a kind of magic :)
Roger says even before we get to the repertory and rules of the reperotry, there is what is going on in the case? - Which has nothing to do with the Repertory.
Knowledge- intuition- practical experience all play off each other.
Knowing what is happening in a case is our approach to analysis, and the kind of cases I’ve been doing with Roger are quite straightforward. We’re not talking about any kind of specialized analysis approach like periodic table, a sensation etc.
With these older cases, the write ups lack the kind of detailed mental / emotional, and life situation story that we are used to hearing. It may feel like- what are we basing the analysis on?
Part of what draws me to doing these cases is that they are ‘stripped down’ in a sense
though they provide enough information to work up the case.
If we are to be effective homeopaths, we must be able to shift and hone in on what’s essential in a variety of different cases, regardless of how they are presented. Provided they aren’t one-sided cases, the essential skills that we have to develop are the ability to pull out relevant information, and also discern a totality with that information.
These cases are hard for me- I’ll put that right out there. I’m used to the cases that I take, the types of cases that I take, and the abundance of information I use to analyze and figure out the totality.
I also dont’ rely only on the repertory to choose a remedy. I repertorize all my cases, usually a few different ways. The repertory provides a springboard, from which I consult MM; I might see a plant that leads me to look at others in the family… I might consult the periodic table in a more systemic way.
None of this is easily done with these cases… they lend themselves toward straight up repertorization only, and *knowing* that is a completely viable and reliable way to find remedies- big small and/or rare- is what brings me back to these exercises, to hone my own skills and continually push the edges of what i know and am capable of as a homeopath at this point.
Our connection was disrupted for a bit towards the end and we had to end and reconnect the call. When Roger returned, I asked him to read out the rubrics he chose for the case-
In another point, Roger suggested that herbs that have been used for medicinal purposes should always be considered for provings, rather than the ‘interesting’ ones that people tend to want to do
This opinion also expressed by Frans Vermeulen, who we’ll hear from next month- and it was interesting to hear that opinion in both of these contexts.
I always recommend taking the time to try and work up the case yourself and see how you did. You can find a screenshot of Roger’s repertorization at this link to his Facebook page:
As I’ve said, next month I’ll be back with my interview with Frans Vermeulen- very excited to bring that to you all.
If you have a few moments, I’d love it if you took a moment to write a review for the podcast on iTunes, to help others find the podcast and decide if it’s something worth listening to.
As always, thanks for listening and sharing with your friends. Until next time, be well and stay observant!!