Perceiving The Rubrics of Mind
Language
English
Type
Paperback
Publisher
B. Jain
Out of stock
$14.95
Share on social media
The meaning, cross references, associated diseases & remedies for mental rubrics.
Perceiving Rubrics of the MIND includes 1182 rubrics. In the last decade, two new repertories came into existance, viz., SYNTHESIS by Frederik Schroyens and The Complete Repertory by Roger van Zandvoort. Missing rubrics have been thoroughly scrutinized from the above repertories and have been included in this edition.
One thing, which confused right from the start, is the interpretation of the rubrics mentioned in the section of the mind. The only way left is to refer voluminous dictionaries to find the meaning. At that time this book is the solution for the profession wherein rubrics are mentioned from A to Z with their meanings and explanations. The source of the rubrics is Kent's Repertory, Boenninghausen's Repertory, Synthetic Repertory & Vithoulkas Repertory. Cross References are mentioned wherever applicable. It should be seen from that repertory whose code letter is indicated adjacent to the rubric. Wherever necessary, meaning as well as explanation of the rubric is mentioned.
No efforts have been spared to make the book up-to-date and it is hoped that it will be useful to those practitioners who may wish to make themselves familiar with the rubrics of the mind.
| ISBN | 9788131902462 |
|---|---|
| Author | Farokh Jamshed Master |
| Type | Paperback |
| Language | English |
| Publication date | 2002-02 |
| Pages | 505 |
| Publisher | B. Jain |
| Review | This book review is reprinted from the British Homoeopathic Journal Volume 79, Number 3, July 1990, with permission from Peter Fisher, Editor. Among the fascinations and frustrations of the various repertories available to us is the correct interpretation of the rubrics. Their language is often archaic, ambiguous or vague and therefore difficult to apply to our patients' own description of their symptoms. The most skilled and sensitive casetaking will be frustrated if we cannot confidently and accurately represent the meaning of the patient with the meaning of the text in the repertory, or for that matter the materia medica, when we need to. Dr Master's book sets out to remedy this problem. It provides a comprehensive list of rubrics from the repertories of Kent, Boenninghausen, Barthel (synthetic repertory) and Vithoulkas, with cross references to other comparable rubrics, a definition of the meaning of the rubric, an explanation or interpretation of this, a list of clinical syndromes to which it is relevant, and of the chief drugs associated with the rubric. The intention is admirable, and such a book could be extremely useful. Unfortunately the author fails in the attempt, and I really cannot recommend the book except for its collection of cross references. These do call to mind other rubrics which may express the patient's meaning better and should be considered. This is a useful practical aid and an aid to better knowledge of the repertory, but this virtue alone would not justify buying the book because the central discussion of the meaning of rubrics is very poor. The meanings and explanations, which tend to be paraphrases of one another, are in the main either obvious, incorrect, incomplete, or subjective. I am afraid that British readers, and our European colleagues whose interpretation and accuracy in the use of English often puts us to shame, will even find many of them comical. The psychiatric diagnoses given in association with each rubric are all obvious and add nothing to our understanding of them. The book bears no comparison with Kent's Comparative Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica (Dockx and Kokelenberg; Homeoden Book Service, Belgium). This excellent study, which also integrates data from other authors, draws out the sense of rubrics by a perceptive analysis of the meaning represented by the medicines in the rubric. It promises to be a contemporary classic in the homoeopathic literature, and it is this book that I would recommend to fulfil the purpose that Dr Master sets out to achieve. JEREMY SWAYNE British Homoeopathic Journal |
Review
This book review is reprinted from the British Homoeopathic Journal Volume 79, Number 3, July 1990, with permission from Peter Fisher, Editor.
Among the fascinations and frustrations of the various repertories available to us is the correct interpretation of the rubrics. Their language is often archaic, ambiguous or vague and therefore difficult to apply to our patients' own description of their symptoms. The most skilled and sensitive casetaking will be frustrated if we cannot confidently and accurately represent the meaning of the patient with the meaning of the text in the repertory, or for that matter the materia medica, when we need to.
Dr Master's book sets out to remedy this problem. It provides a comprehensive list of rubrics from the repertories of Kent, Boenninghausen, Barthel (synthetic repertory) and Vithoulkas, with cross references to other comparable rubrics, a definition of the meaning of the rubric, an explanation or interpretation of this, a list of clinical syndromes to which it is relevant, and of the chief drugs associated with the rubric.
The intention is admirable, and such a book could be extremely useful. Unfortunately the author fails in the attempt, and I really cannot recommend the book except for its collection of cross references. These do call to mind other rubrics which may express the patient's meaning better and should be considered. This is a useful practical aid and an aid to better knowledge of the repertory, but this virtue alone would not justify buying the book because the central discussion of the meaning of rubrics is very poor. The meanings and explanations, which tend to be paraphrases of one another, are in the main either obvious, incorrect, incomplete, or subjective. I am afraid that British readers, and our European colleagues whose interpretation and accuracy in the use of English often puts us to shame, will even find many of them comical. The psychiatric diagnoses given in association with each rubric are all obvious and add nothing to our understanding of them.
The book bears no comparison with Kent's Comparative Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica (Dockx and Kokelenberg; Homeoden Book Service, Belgium). This excellent study, which also integrates data from other authors, draws out the sense of rubrics by a perceptive analysis of the meaning represented by the medicines in the rubric. It promises to be a contemporary classic in the homoeopathic literature, and it is this book that I would recommend to fulfil the purpose that Dr Master sets out to achieve.
JEREMY SWAYNE
British Homoeopathic Journal
Volume 79, Number 3, July 1990
