“The proof is in the pudding—use it. Repertorize with it. Pick the right individual rubrics, and mark what was helpful.” Evaluate!
It reflects a practical, clinical attitude toward The Complete Repertory (or any repertory): it isn’t about theoretical arguments, but real-world usefulness.
🔍 What It Implies in Repertory Practice:
-
Clinical validity over opinion: The ultimate test of a repertory is not how much data it contains, but how often it leads to successful prescriptions.
-
Selective rubric use: Choosing the correct rubric is more critical than choosing many. Precision wins over volume.
-
User participation: The repertory is a tool. It becomes valuable when the homeopath actively engages through judgment, observation, and feedback.
-
Feedback loop: Practitioners are encouraged to note which rubrics and remedy selections consistently help in real cases, contributing to the continuous refinement of practice and repertory data.
🛠 How This Relates to Complete Repertory Specifically:
-
The CR contains a massive amount of rubrics and remedies, sourced from classical literature, provings, and clinical cases.
-
It can only be as effective as the practitioner’s ability to navigate it judiciously.
-
Marking what helped in real cases aligns with the grading principles in CR, where clinical confirmations (grades 3 and 4) arise from verified usefulness—not speculation.
Thousands of pages of clinical cases, used for the "complete comparison project" can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Completedynamics/files/files
greetings, Roger van Zandvoort
Add comment
Comments