conceptualizing the layers of a case

Aurum better suits the idea of being 'good for nothing'. It is a more peculiar aspect of the mental state of Aurum (delusion they are a failure, delusion never succeeds, delusion all his friends have lost confidence in him etc).

I doubt very much he made a prescription on those few lines though, on those few words. There would have been more of a case there. The whole states of Aurum and Ant-tart are different. Prescribing on a few symptoms, or using vague general expressions (like depression or mucous in chest) will undoubtedly cause confusion about which remedy to choice.

But if you look at the totality, then you can see the personality of the remedies stand out. This personality may not necessarily show itself in the mentals or emotionals however. It can be evident in the generals eg. the intense sleepiness of Ant-tart during respiratory conditions, almost like a coma.

We know our remedies through their peculiar quirks, just like we know our friends and family. We cannot recognize them through common generalised symptoms. A homoeopath with some experience may even recognise the remedy by simply observing the patient.

You might want to study Boenninghausen, and that way of looking at a case.

http://homeopathy.inbaltimore.org/boenninghausen.html

Boenninghausen says that if the remedy does not Match the modalities, it is
not going to be a good choice.

You need to understand what is peculiar, what is rare, what is strange, to be able to sort out what symptoms matter for purposes of analysing and prescribing. Mucous on the chest or coughing would be completely irrelevant for prescribing purposes, as it is a common symptom found in any remedy. We do not use such common symptoms when determining the totality, and the do not lead us anywhere important.

A homoeopath must screen out all the common, undifferentiated symptoms and focus only on the peculiar and individual ones, to be able to find a curative remedy.

While mentals are important, they can also be common and undifferentiated, so may be of no use in deciding on a remedy. Any symptom, no matter where it is, must have some qualifying features to distinguish it.

No they wouldn't. It is actually the other way around. They can support the choice of remedy, but they would not be used to decide on which remedies you are looking at. In fact you are more likely to be looking at the wrong remedies that way, or to miss the best one at least.

It has often been the observation of homoeopaths that the common symptoms do NOT have to be covered by a remedy that suits the peculiars, for it to cure those common symptoms. Focussing on them can actually lead you away from the remedy the patient needs.

Yes, the repertory is a hodge-podge of ideas, observations, theories, and even misconceptions. It has been added to be homoeopaths, naturopaths, orthodox medical doctors, herbalists - all sorts of people many of whom have little understand of homoeopathic principles. You cannot learn philosophy through the repertory. It is a tool, and a pretty flawed one at times. You have to know what you are looking for and be able to distinguish what is valuable to the homeopath from all the other information that is still (unfortunately) populating it.

The Organon of Medicine states (aph 153):

'In the search for a homoeopathically specific remedy ... the more striking, exceptional, unusual and odd (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the disease case are to be especially and solely kept in view. These above all must correspond to the very similar ones in the symptom set of the medicine sought if it is the be the most fitting one for cure. The more common and indeterminate ones (lack of appetite, headache, lassitude, restless sleep, discomfort etc.) are to be seen with almost every disease and medicine and thus deserve little attention unless they are more closely characterized'

And in aph. 165, it states:

'But if:
1. there is nothing among the symptoms of the selected medicine that is exact similarity to the distinguishing (characteristic) exceptional, uncommon symptoms of the disease case
2. the medicine only corresponds to the disease in question in general, indeterminate states (eg. nausea, lassitude, headache etc.) and not in more closely designated ones, and
3. among the known medicines there is no more homoeopathically fitting one to be found,

then the medical-art practitioner has no directly advantageous result to promise himself from the employment of his unhomoeopathic medicine.'

The great master Dr. Kent said in his Lectures on Materia Medica:

'Many times you will cure patients of these 'local diseases' if you select remedies for the PATIENTS (my emphasis), when the local symptoms would never had lead you to the remedy ... you are astonished to see how the organs are turned to order after the constitution of the patient has been made orderly ... You should treat the patient and not bother about such trifling pains (symptoms). Leave it out if you want to, but get a remedy for the patient. If that pain (symptom) is in the remedy, well and good, but if not do not bother about it. Do not bother about the little symptoms.'

From my own experience in clinic over the years, those common symptoms are of almost no value at all, and a remedy that covers the peculiar things, especially the mental and emotional state (not just individual symptoms mind you, but the whole state), will cure everything regardless of whether the remedy is in the repertory for those symptoms.

Yes qualifying features of an otherwise common expression are very valuable. In fact without those, you will be lost. Those qualifying features are even more important if they are found in a variety of places (ie. Better for open air applies to Irritability, Asthma, and Restlessness).

Allen's advice is actually not very helpful. Looking at 200 remedies is not going to make your job easier, it makes it harder. If the smaller rubric matches what the patient is saying, it is far more important than those big rubrics, and as long as you are confident you have taken the case properly, that rubric should give you a great deal more direction.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Allen did not have to deal with the number of medicines we now need to deal with. There are thousands, possibly over 10,000 now. Those large rubrics are much larger than he had to deal with. Being able to narrow your choice down is even more necessary than it was in the past.

However, you should never be looking at only one symptom anyway when deciding on a remedy. You are looking at a selection of peculiar symptoms (rubrics), and considering a number of remedies based on how many of those they appear in. This allows for the right remedy to not appear in a specific rubric but still be visible to you.

Once it is visible, then you consider what you know of the state of the remedy, and see if it matches the state of the patient. The state is more than just the combination of symptoms, it is a larger picture that arises from the interplay of the peculiar symptoms.

I have very often cured cases with remedies based on Single Symptom rubrics. These rubrics often directly represent the core state of the remedy. The symptom/rubric must of course represent the core state of the patient too, and if it does you can provoke profound curative responses.
[message edited by Evocationer on Mon, 26 May 2014 05:44:59 BST]

No the majority of those have provings, although they may be small provings (or even just descriptions of poisonings, which are a kind of proving for us). There are thousands of provings now. I use many remedies outside of that small well-known group, and have cured people it would have been difficult, if not impossible to cure without them.

In I have found some of those new remedies to be as prevalent in my practice as polycrests - Peregrine Falcon, Chocolate, Hydrogen, Lion's Milk to name a few. Often that core state only becomes apparent out of cured cases, and that only happens when someone tries to use the remedy. I am sure there are many uncured patients out there who need remedies people are ignorant of or too afraid to try.

To understand Core State, I would probably direct you to Dr. Rajan Sankaran's book 'The Spirit of Homoeopathy'. That book literally changed the way I practice (for the better).
[message edited by Evocationer on Mon, 26 May 2014 07:31:08 BST]