That is a strange thing and that brings us right back to the observations made by Boenninghausen in the early days. His observations, as well as those of others at that time, were based on a small number of cases. My observations are based on a very large number of cases and I do not intend to stop making these observations under at least three or four thousand. I believe then they will have same value.
Another thing it has also demonstrated which is that some remedies do not favor any particular phase of the moon. Sulphur is one of those Sulphur shows very little preference. Some of our friends who are very theoretical speak of Sulphur as being a fiery remedy and that sort of thing. It is a sun remedy, and so forth, but when it comes down to the bald, hard, rock bottom facts, Sulphur doesnt act any better one time than it does another. I hope at some future meeting to bring still more conclusive evidence of what I am doing, before you.
DR. EUGENE UNDERHILL, JR.: Have you made any observation relative to Cina?.
DR. C. M. BOGER: Very much so.
DR. C. L. OLDS: Wouldnt Sulphur be classed by itself? It is rather al inclusive. Wouldnt it be explained by itself?.
DR. C. M. BOGER: Calcarea doesnt show much variation.
DR. CLIFFORD: What about Pulsatilla?.
DR. C. M. BOGER: Maybe it is on the increase of the moon.
DR. H. A. ROBERTS: Boenninghausen has an increase.
DR. EUGENE UNDERHILL, JR.: I have observed that nearly all convulsions occur either around the new moon or at full moon.
DR. A. H. GRIMMER: This paper is without question the best I have ever listened to. It has more meaning and carries more meaning from so many different angles that it is rather a difficult one to discuss.
The doctor has wisely stressed the difference between the mathematical and the artistic side of our prescribing in the use of the repertory. I think that it is a splendid one for us all to remember. Both have their value. The mathematical is, of course, the scientific method. It appeals to those who are scientifically inclined because of its exactness, at least from a material sense, but science has not yet gotten into the higher realms where the artistic will come in. Science will serve as a balance for those who are apt to act too much on impulse and so-called intuition.
Both methods have their values, no question about it. Intuition is nothing more than stored up knowledge, after all, and from long study and practice we develop intuitional powers of prescribing, but, on the other hand, we need this material, this mathematical part, because of the stupendousness of the materia medica. Without the mathematical part to hold us down and lead us, we are apt to go into confusion, and the paper has brought those points out forcibly.
The astrological part has been of great interest to me personally for a great many years. I have not said much about it, but I have studied astrology deeply and profoundly over a long period of years; even before I took up homoeopathy, I was interested in astrology and notwithstanding that some of our fine people. Dr. Kent himself was radically opposed to it I believe that it is still based on truth. Astrology comes down from ancient times, from the ancient philosophers who had wisdom in a higher degree than we have today, and that wisdom is wrapped up and comes through the science of astrology.
Not so many months ago a series of articles by a French scientist was published in the Herald-Examiner weekly, a magnificent series and well worth anybodys while to read. This man showed that astrology was based on absolute facts throughout the whole realm of nature, and especially that the phases of the moon had a great influence over low forms of animal life and plant life, as well as on the tides, the tidal pull. These were all shown to be under lunar influence.
This lunar influence is, of course, electro-magnetic. It shows that all nature from the very finest particle of matter into the most massive, is under the same law, electro-magnetism or gravitation, and we need not be surprised that our remedies have such a tremendous influence on the vital force, and that they, having such a tremendous influence, would be influenced by these electro-magnetic forces.
I am glad to see the work of Dr. Boger. It is a wonderful and a scientific thing and it will prove things beyond any shadow of doubt. I have some data I will give to Dr. Boger to confirm what he is doing. I am working along the same lines.
Going deeper along other lines, astrology teaches us that disease is divided into the acute and the chronic, the acute being under the influence of the various phases of the moon, as well as under the higher relation to the sun and also to most of the other planets in our solar system. When we get to study those things it is too long to take up here but some time I will be glad to write a paper on this phase of it and will unfold to your vision that tremendous good can come from the scientific study of these influences in our work in relation to our remedies.
DR. CHARLES A. DIXON: I couldnt help but think, as Dr. Roberts gave us his paper, what a tremendous argument it is for using the repertory. He spoke about keynote prescribing. I remember bringing out in a paper several years ago about the three oclock in the morning aggravation of Kali carb. We have a routine about a lot of things and instantly if we get a three oclock a.m. aggravation, we always think of Kali carb., yet I dont know how many remedies Kent has in that 3:00 a.m. aggravation. I wouldnt attempt to try to memorize them. What is the use?.
Another thing it brings us right back to fundamentals, our laws I like to say “one of the two things that dont change”. The homoeopathic law doesnt change and neither does the multiplication table, which Dr. Roberts brought out in his mathematics. Those are the two most fixed stars we have in our astrological chart, and when it comes to astrology, I dont know very much about it, but I have learned to ask what year the patient was born and immediately I apply the astrologic chart, and it often has a bearing on the remedy which comes out strongly in the mentals.
DR. CHARLES L. OLDS: I want to commend Dr. Roberts for the paper. He says very truly that mathematics is the mother of sciences and I think that we will find that the closer we can come to an actual mathematical conclusion, the more definitely it will prove that homoeopathy is the science of therapeutics. Unfortunately, we havent yet arrived at that position, that is to say, that our work in our tabulating of these remedies mathematically has not been absolutely exact and these values may change. We dont know that the values are absolutely correct; they have been changed from time to time.
DR. DAYTON T. PULFORD: I should like to say in regard to this paper that I am very glad that the fact was brought out that the art is a controlling feature, because whenever mathematics are used, we are likely to bear circulation to statistics, and you know the old saying is that figures dont lie, but liars do figure, so art comes in as a governing phase to keep us from going astray. In the use of mathematics we all have to be sure that our facts are right before we go ahead. I was glad that the doctor brought out the basis Boenninghausen used in evaluating the remedies in the repertory. Did you use the provings and the clinicals together, or were just the provings used in evaluating these remedies?.
DR. EUGENE UNDERHILL, JR.: I enjoyed very much Dr. Roberts splendid paper.
Last summer, up at the Post-Graduate School in Boston I really learned for the first time from Dr. Roberts how to use Boenninghausens Repertory satisfactorily. I had been trained in the use of Kents Repertory and confined myself almost exclusively to that, but since getting this instruction first- hand from Dr. Roberts, I have found increasing pleasure and joy and profit in working Boenninghausen, and I am coming now to rely almost more on Boenninghausen than on Kent.
One more point on astrology I have for several years put down the day, month, and year, and made a note at he top of the zodiac the sign of the sun at the time of birth and have generalized a little bit on certain points. In the first place, if a person is born from the 21st of March to the 20th of April, when the sun is in the sign of Aries, I find such a person usually (not always) very fond of conversation. Those born under the sign of Leo like a lot of attention. A 100 per cent Leo person will act as if he were doing you a personal favor if he gives you the privilege of prescribing for him.
Those under Virgo rising, or the sun of Virgo, especially if compounded, the sun rising, nearly all in a good measure really enjoy their ill health. Those under Taurus fear disease and they hang on to it though not desiring it. They cant realize it is possible for them to get well. Once down, they stay down.
From a diagnostic standpoint I find astrology quite useful. Perhaps I make more use of it that way than in remedy selection. Most of the people who get out the horoscopes for you are the worst kind of charlatans and I do not rely much on all these prognostications as to death and recovery, neither do I consider prognosticated events of various kinds of much value. I think the truth is all there in that wheel of life, but we have lost several of the keys to interpretation which the ancients had and which will undoubtedly be unfolded in the future.
