Welcome to Hpathy Dr. Winter. We are pleased to have you with us today !
KS: Many of the old masters have made important contributions to the development of homeopathy. How did you come to focus on the work of Cyrus Maxwell Boger ?
NW: About 20 years ago I came in contact with Boger’s Synoptic Key – actually it looked very interesting but I had no idea what to do with it. About five years later a collegue showed me some papers she got from the Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) in Bombay, that gave some insights into Boger’s way of thinking, and how to approach a case in order to use tools like the Synoptic Key. This actually looked very fascinating and seemed to be just what could match my personal way of thinking. Of course I did not understand so much of it, but I got more and more curious and looked for all the information I could get. I had to dig into the journals of that time, for the way homeopathy was taught in the colleges, practiced in the clinics and private offices and discussed in the meetings. More and more I got the impression that the kind of experience and the manner of discussion was much more elaborate and professional at that time, than what I knew of contemporary homeopathy. I found a lot of interesting discussions on heredity, on psychological aspects, on dreams, signature and all those things that are discussed today….but at that time were on a very practical ground and with instant tests in everydays practice. I was lucky, because Boger’s approach would go into depth in case taking and in perceiving materia medica, but would save time in the technical aspects of case analysis, as only a few rubrics were used and only a few remedies needed to be considered.
KS: Boger was one of the most thorough students of Boenninghausen. One of the most important repertories left by Boger is Boenninghausen’s Characteristics and Repertory (BBCR), in which he condensed the essentials of Boenninghausen’s contributions into one volume. In what way do his contributions go beyond Boenninghausen’s work ?
NW: I probably have to give two answers. First we have to look at the first edition of 1905. Here Boger compiled a repertory by integrating different Boenninghausen repertories into one big framework. Boger’s work consisted of this compilation, but the rubrics and the remedies had been given by Boenninghausen. When some decades had passed after Boenninghausens death, Boger decided to integrate some modern remedies like Gels or Arg-nit into the schema in order to produce a kind of “update” of the Boenninghausen approach. But everything was held in the Boenninghausen style – the meaning of rubrics and the grades of the remedies actually needed Boenninghausen’s way of thinking in order to make full use of it.
On the other hand Boger merged different books of Boenninghausen’s into one, thus mixing up different meanings Boenninghausen gave to these different presentations. At that point one can either argue that Boger to some extent left Boenninghausen’s mode of thinking, or even altered the meaning of Boenninghausens rubrics, or that Boger compiled these things to get a starting point for a new generation of homeopaths….. thus matching it with actual experiences and correcting remedies and grades to get prepared for the needs of the 20th century. As we can see, the second interpretation is more probable.
After this first edition was completed, Boger increasingly included his own experiences, changed rubrics for more convenience or practical use, added remedies and so on and slowly the book changed its shape along with Boger’s additional experience. It is the most detailled of his repertories, and he never left the work of completing this book. But, unfortunately, we have to assume that all his efforts were wiped out by the fire which destroyed his office on November 30,1929. Probably he had to start from the beginning, which might explain the fact that he was never able to publish his personal BBCR. After his death, all his notes were published in the form now known as the BBCR (Indian edition). It is based on the former edition of 1905, but includes many changes of rubrics, remedies and actually more experiences, which had accrued up to 1935. But it also contains errors, incompleteness, duplicates etc., all relics of the fact, that Boger did not have the time to complete the book. Anyway, even in this rudimentry form, it has become a very important and useful instrument. When looking at Boger’s published cases, we can see that he looked up only few, very striking rubrics in the BBCR and used the bigger rubrics only for short reference.
KS: Boger certainly did a huge job with this, and by adding the detailed modalities of amelioration and aggravation, as well as concomitants at the end of each chapter, he satisfied the critics of Boenninghausen’s doctrine of analogy and grand generalization. Moreover, Boger completed the understanding of remedy and disease condition by including the time dimension, tissue affinities and pathological generals. How do these help in understanding the case ?
NW: Of course it was a big advantage for case analysis that Boenninghausen opened the way for generalization. And, as you pointed out, Boger sharpened this Boenninghausen tool by adding rubrics that allowed one to avoid over-generalization. In today’s interpretation of Boenninghausen’s approach, the past history of the patient does not play an important role. This was taken on by Boger, who formulated rubrics for that purpose. So if the patient has a variety of shifting or changing symptoms in his history, this can be parameterized by the rubric “alternating effects or “wandering pains”, which is of much higher value than the actual effect itself. This way of focussing the role of time allows us to see miasmatic (psoric) tendencies and thus permits a deeper understanding of the roots of the disease. When the patient’s history or family history suggests a tendency to diseases of glands (thyroiditis, orchitis, hepatitis) the regional rubric “glands” will give a secure and stable image of the patients problems. When focussing on pathological expressions, for example a tendency to cramps, Boger formulated a rubric to express this cramping tendency (colic pain, cramp of bronchi, of blood vessels, maybe even a kind of “crampy” mood). Thereby, Boger gives us more tools for a deeper understanding of the case.
KS: James Tyler Kent was very popular at his time. Did he influence Boger’s work? What is the main difference in his repertorization approach?
NW: Of course Kent was well known to all the homeopathic physicians of that time. But for Boger, the Kentian approach to case analysis, seemed only one of different possible ways…..in some cases the best one, but in other cases of minor value. He was aware of the fact that the way the patient appoaches the doctor, will lead to the instruments to be used….which are in some cases Kent, in other cases Boenninghausen, or special repertories like what we now call “Symptomenlexikon”. And, of course, later on Boger’s personal repertories filled the gap.
Being embedded with a group of busy practitioners, the discussion came up, whether the Kentian way of looking to Materia medica was a good tool for understanding the most relevant aspects of the remedies. In many cases it was a big help, but in some cases, it proved dangerous to reduce the remedy pictures as Kent did in his lectures. Concerning Kent’s Repertory, they discussed the use of the big rubrics and the grades used in them, and how could it be done in a better way. Kent’s way of focusing on general symptoms did not necessarily match with good or helpful rubrics in his repertory. And the other side of the Kentian approach, the local, striking, peculiar symptoms would lead to rubrics that necessarily would be incomplete, in many cases not even existing.
Boenninghausen’s approach seemed to be the most important type of case analysis for cases not apt to the Kentian approach. Boger used both methods of case analysis. He added a large number of most valuable additions to Kent’s Repertory and shaped the Boenninghausen approach in his personal way, which is now called Boger’s approach. It focuses mainly on symptoms running through the whole materia medica and whole case history, which are called genius symptoms.
KS: The synopsis of remedies in the second part of the Synoptic Key is intended to make clear the general expression or genius of each remedy. Could you explain the genius concept of the remedy ?
NW: It is a different way of analyzing the remedy which ends up with a group of symptoms that are most reliable, and of most practical value. They are seen as a repetitive theme, found in several regions or in different contexts, and mainly symptoms are used which appeared in provings and were confirmed by clinical experience. Boger wrote in the foreword of the Synoptic Key: “The theme which runs through every pathogenetic symptom complex has been called the “genius” of the drug. To give this it’s proper place in the prescription should be the ideal of every prescriber. To this end this book is written.”
First we must be aware of the fact, that the synopsis given in the Synoptic Key gives us the main points of the remedy, as well as the grades of those symptoms within the scope of this remedy. This is sometimes different to the grades of those symptoms in the repertory part.
When we use a materia medica like Allen’s Encyclopaedia or Hering’s Guiding Symptoms, we can look over all symptoms in all regions and conclude that there are some ameliorations or aggravations (open air amel: Puls), some sensations (burning: Ars), some combined symptoms (fear accompanies different physical symptoms: Acon), that occur in many different regions. And, on the other hand, there are some anatomical structures, that seem to be affected more than others (joints: Bry, glands: Merc), or even anatomical regions that seem to be primarily affected by the remedy (eyes: Euphr).
In addition to this procedure, clinical experience leads to the knowledge of what kind of symptoms work in a very useful manner, and what symptoms would not give good results, when using them for prescribing. So all the experience of more than 100 years of the history of homeopathy will be summed up in that little book.
Boger started from materia medica study, to fill his synopsis with the most relevant symptoms — as long as those symptoms proved to be relevant in everyday practical work. Mere pathogenetic symptoms, without being verified, are hard to find there. Also, mere clinical symptoms without the ground of pathogenesy, need a very reliable and frequent verification in order to be included here. Boger made sure that the most relevant information was given in the smallest possible presentation. This text is ordered by generals and separeted by a schema listing mind, head, feet, fever rubrics etc. Every place of the symptom within the synopsis, has its own meaning. Boger was able to concentrate all the clinical relevant experiences from the beginning of homeopathy until his time, into a very short but most informative summary.
Boger died in 1935, which was the year the academic education of homeopathy in the USA had stopped, marking the decline of homeopathy. Boger happened to be the last witness to the huge pool of experiences in homeopathic practice of that time.
KS: Could you give an example for the genius of a remedy ?
NW: One could take any symptom of any remedy to demonstrate this genius approach. Let’s take a very familiar symptom “burning like fire”, of Arsenicum. The symptom at this position within the synopsis means that – whatever region of the patient is affected – the pains may be of such a burning character, even if this local aspect has not yet been seen in a proving. When you take another symptom of Arsenicum album “Insatiable burning thirst”, this does not merely mean a gastric symptom, but can be seen as a symptom in a wider sense, which can accompany every other symptom of any problem the patient reports. Or, it could be a symptom of such a strangeness or intensity, that it alone might already point to the remedy. All these symptoms don’t just give some effects seen under Ars, but provide an actual symptom character in a homeopathic sense.
KS: Hahnemann wrote in § 153 of the Organon that in search for the homeopathic remedy, the more striking, peculiar, uncommon and characteristic signs and symptoms of the disease case, are to be especially and almost solely kept in view. Could you illustrate how Boger differentiated between the characteristic, genius symptoms, and the peculiar, uncommon symptoms ?
NW: Boger practised homeopathy in a place and in a time, where the ideas of this §153 were somehow distorted and too much stress was laid on peculiar, uncommon symptoms, thus ignoring the characteristic or genius symptoms. The Kentian Repertory was – when used properly – a very good tool for peculiar, uncommon symptoms, but was not so for characteristic or genius symptoms. This very relevant part of the symptoms could at that time be looked up in the repertories of Boenninghausen, Jahr, Guernsey, Lippe etc. But there was no contemporary compilation of all those experiences, culminating up to time. This is the work, Boger took up.
KS: The genius concept differs greatly from the keynote approach, favored by homeopaths like Guernsey. How did Boger view the keynote approach?
NW: Guernsey’s way of introducing keynotes was actually a way of focusing on remedies with the highest grades in Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook. Using this information, he was able to react in a reliable and fast way to emergencies in obstetrics. Quite often he found that these symptoms actually did not only match the local problem, but also fit the totality of symptoms and thus the patient as a whole. He included those very striking symptoms in his small book of keynotes. When doing this, he wrote about remedies from his long experience as a practitioner and materia medica teacher, and as one being familiar with the finest shades of these remedies.
Later on, these short remedy presentations came into the hands of homeopathy students who had hardly any knowledge and experience. It looked like an easy way and an abbreviation to prescribing. So, in their hands, these keynotes were reduced to symptom matching, without knowing either the patient nor the remedy as a whole. And so this method changed from a very practical and efficient method for experienced practitioners, to a method which could be used by quacks.
What Boger actually did, however, is making use of Boenninghausen’s grades in the same way that Guernsey did. Thus it can be seen, that H.N. Guernsey, H.C. Allen, A. Lippe – and actually before them C.M.v.Boenninghausen and even G.H.G. Jahr, practised homeopathy in a way which was later on summarized and completed by Boger. Not a new approach, but the continuation of the manner given before and summarized at the time, when homeopathy was on its culmination point.
KS: Less is often more. With the Synoptic Key (SK) and General Analysis (GA) Boger wrote quite small repertories, yet they are said to be some of the best and most reliable. What is their basic concept and how did he manage to work successfully with such small repertories ? NW: As already stated before, Boger’s intention was to reduce the huge number of remedy symptoms to a relatively small number of well proven genius symptoms. But, in order to match the information given by the patient, the symptoms of the case history have to be reduced to the most important and most reliable symptoms. Boger introduced a kind of filtering in order to get the most important strain of symptoms. For example, he summarizes all the symptoms which show some common aspect in the present situation of the patient, e.g. a “burning” headache, “burning” gastric pain and burning” eczema as well. There might be as well, a common aspect in the history of the patient, e.g. he now has problems with prostatitis, formerly he had been affected by tonsillitis or thyroiditis – the common aspect is “glands”. This historical approach can actually be seen even in the family anamnesis, where the weak point in a certain direction may have been given.
The third point of Boger’s method of filtering is similar to Guernsey’s approach to Keynotes – some symptoms are of such a strong value in the total picture, that the presence of this symptom is very probably associated with other symptoms of that remedy. Those very strong symptoms are given in Boger’s Synoptic Key, e.g. the violent fear of death, accompanying let’s say, gastric symptoms, is a strong hint for Aconitum. This point can only be used in a reliable way by practitioners with very good knowledge of Materia medica.
After reducing the patients anamesis to a few very strong, clear symptoms of the highest grade, these can be matched with remedy symptoms of similar quality. This can be done with a few short rubrics, and won´t even need the use of a computer. It is even faster when using the book. And thus, by not doing too much analysis, which could destroy the wholeness of the case, one should compare the case with the synopsis in the book, so that a decision is based on the totality of the picture. When done by an experienced and careful prescriber, the method avoids uncertain symptoms and misleading interpretations and leads to a better understanding of the patient, a more efficient case analysis, and a better cure. However, using Boger’s approach only as an abbreviation and shortcut of case analysis, one will certainly fail.
KS: What do you see as the advantages and dangers in working with these repertories?
NW: When using Boger’s tools, it is necessary to study the materia medica in the way Boger suggested. The case analysis must also be done in the manner described by Boger. Both are to some extent a challenge and cannot be accomplished by beginners in homeopathy. When approaching homeopathy this way, it will lead to a deeper understanding of the remedies, in all their different aspects. Most important it will provide a more practical, ready reference in all areas of practice. And it will give rise to a deep and miasmatic understanding of the patient, leaving not much room for interpretations or vague symptom matching.
All this will need some more time. On the other hand, there is not much time needed for the technical aspects of repertorisation, not even a computer is needed. Actually, and this might be surprising for many, computer work will prove to be of lower quality than a case analysis done with the Synoptic Key, as the book allows a very fast switching from the analytical repertory structures to the synoptical materia medica structures, which enables us to keep the totality of remedies in mind.
The danger again, is the idea that this book could be used without intense study, both in materia medica and in case analysis. So the beginner should not start with this method or should be guided very carefully when doing so.
KS: Boger changed the hierarchy of symptoms in the course of his career. Which role do the symptoms of the Mind play in his approach ?
NW: Boger lived in a time, when psychoanalysis was formulated by Sigmund Freud. There was lively disucssion of these theories in homeopathic circles. When Boger talked about the importance of the mind symptoms, he nearly used the same words as Kent did in his lectures. The state of the mind is the most important key to the case. Boger seemed aware of the fact that on the one hand, it is difficult to grasp the mental aspects of the patient, and on the other hand there is considerable uncertainty about the mind symptoms of the remedies. So it is for practical reasons, that he did not focus so much on mind symptoms. It’s interesting to see that the same holds true for Kent, whose practical work is not very much different from the work of Boger or others. The main difference may be the current interpretation of Kent’s lectures, which does not match what Kent was actually practising.
KS: Did Boger accept Hahnemann’s theory of the chronic diseases and integrate the miasm concept in his prescribing ?
NW: At that time Hahnemann’s miasm theory was, as it has always been, discussed very much. More and more people asked hard questions about the role of the underlying diseases (Itch, Gonorrhea, Syphilis) and the way of transmitting those infectious diseases. Actually, at that time, the role of bacteria could be seen in official medicine. Questions about the role of other diseases like tuberculosis, and the importance of those diseases, also arose.
Increasingly, the most experienced homeopaths with 40 years or so of practice, could see the importance of heredity in chronic dieseases. J.H. Allen began to formulate his newly structured miasmatic theory while others contributed further ideas. The most striking question, was the practical relevance and the use of the theories in everyday life. When looking at Bogers publications one can see that he always defended miasmatic approaches, but would never classify diseases like his collegue J.H. Allen did. As Boger extended his method of case analysis to the patients complete history and even to his family’s history, he saw the need to see the disease as one more problem within a chain of problems called the miasm. However, he did not lay too much strength on the name of Psora, Sycosis or Syphilis, but instead on miasmatically relevant symptoms, such as fungoid growth for Sycosis and ulcers for Syphilis. Indeed, he found a sample of symptoms, deeply rooted in the patient’s or family history, that marked the quality of the chronic disease. Whether you call it Psora or a sample of those proven symptoms (like Hahnemanns symptoms of latent or manifest Psora), would not matter. It’s a very pragmatic perspective on miasmatic case analysis, which would not conflict with the later insights in medicine and which helped describe the patient’s disease in terms of strong, individual symptoms, rather than clinical entities.
In addition, Boger and his collegues got the impression that focusing on the main miasmatic remedies, (Sulf, Thuja, Merc etc) or the nosodes, would not often be necessary, as many deep acting remedies were well known at that time, and a more individual remedy could be selected.
KS: Boger wrote that it wasn’t unusual to find indications for the same remedy running through whole families. Could you tell us about Boger’s ideas on the anamnesis of the family ?
NW: When a patient presents his symptoms of a – lets say – actual putrid tonsillitis, it might be a way of approaching the case by asking the question “Does this patient tend to the formation of pus, or does he tend to problems with tonsils or other glandular tissues?” So, the former diseases of the patient and his family should be examined and scanned for similarities, especially in one-sided cases. In the given example, the history could give the tendency to pus (tooth abcesses, putrid skin diseases, abscesses in inner organs etc.) or glandular diseases (thyroiditis, prostatitis etc,. or cancer of testes or mammae in patients or familiy history), or some other details might come up. Maybe there is a tendency of diseases to get dangerous (maybe the tendency to form phlegmonous exacerbation matches cardiac problems resulting from rheumatic fever in the history), or the tendency for predominantly left sided symptoms (left sided tonsillitis matches left sided ovarian problems or joint problems etc.). So a careful analysis can end with very strong symptom lines, which give a deep insight into miasmatic tendencies.
When looking at the history of the family, it is important to match the patient’s symptoms with those of the familiy, not the other way round, as no patient can express all the hereditary influences in his own symptomatology. So you focus on the anatomical region, the modality, or whatever and look for similar expressions in the family’s history. Boger pointed out that the affected anatomical structure, is of highest interest. Actually this is quite often the only information the patient can give about his ancestor’s diseases (â€žGrandpa had some heart troubles”). It could be seen that the most general things can be matched in the parent’s expression of diseases. But striking and strange symptoms more often have their counterpart in the grandparent’s generation. As a quite natural consequence, sometimes family remedies seem to show up all over the family.
KS: This is surely an interesting concept and leaves much room for reasearch and controversy. Boger, however, argued that “this is not a strange thing when we remember that the same mental as well as physical influences are apt to be at work there, and that the inheritances are very likely to be of a kind. In acute diseases the divergence is greater, but as we approach constitutional predispositions and miasmatic effects, they converge.”
The need for new proven remedies is also a much discussed subject. Although Boger added some remedies to complete Boenninghausen’s work, he opined that, “The better we know our original materia medica, the less will we feel the need of newer and but partially proven drugs”. Do you see the need for new, proven remedies ?
NW: Certainly new remedies might be a fascinating challenge to keep homeopathy alive. Considering the way Boger and his collegues looked at the grade of the given symptoms, it might seem a very long and difficult chore to find our way from an initial proving, to a useful remedy. This will need a very good proving in the beginning, but it would also need a huge amount of clinical experience to get familiar with the meaning of the new symptoms – in the framework of given rubrics. Of course this needs to be pursued, but when focussing on this, we have to pay the price of withdrawing our focus from better known remedies. There are so many remedies and no one can actually grasp and manage all the information we have already. I would appreciate new provings, but in the context that it will need decades to shape the actual meaning of the new remedies. This can only be done by many practitioners, with an interest in this remedy and with good documentation of their cases over a long period. On the other hand, the existing remedies already pose a huge challenge, that I personally do not focus on new provings very much.
KS: To grasp Boger’s whole work and contribution, one certainly has to study his writings in depth. What is most essential in his manner of analysing a case and how is that different from others’ methods?
NW: Boger’s tools allow two approaches to case analysis. First, the case analysis with a sample of detailed symptoms, and second, case analysis by reduction and consolidation of information into the most essential items. For both approaches he worked out repertories, the BBCR for a detailed analysis, and then with the Synoptic Key and General Analysis, he offered with his new repertorization concept the possibility to analyse and synthesize the case in a most efficient way. They allow the practical realization of the doctrine of generalization and therewith, allow us to focus on the essential features of the case without losing the overview due to over-individualization.
In these aspects, Boger’s approach is clearly differentiated from Kent’s and Boenninghausen’s methods. Unfortunately, only Kent’s approach was recognized worldwide and most homeopaths practice accordingly, whereas Boenninghausen’s and Boger’s work attracted less interest. The conciseness of Boger’s approach especially, is often met with a lack of understanding.
The following graph illustrates his twofold approach:
KS: You teach homeopathy at the “Centre for classical homeopathy”, Karlsruhe. Are the different approaches of repertorisation and analysing a case part of your education program?
NW: For our education program we try to draw on homeopathy schools at that time, as homeopathy was in much better shape than it is now. We know how it was taught, when for example, Boger was a student and when he was a teacher. And we know how people actually practised at that time. We do not want to fix on any method, but want to provide all the necessary tools for all the possible challenges of homeopathic practice. We study the tools of Jahr, Kent, Boenninghausen and Boger and even some modern approaches – with our main emphasis on Kent and Boger. And for each of them, the possibilities and limitations have to be evaluated. When studying materia medica, we use the patterns given by Boger and along with these, we go deeper by looking at the experiences of all other authors that seem trustworthy for us.
After some preliminary lessons, we try of course to implement these features in practice, in anamnesis situations, in follow up discussions and so on. Actually, that there is not so much difference in those methods. All these authors practice homeopathy in a quite similar way, only their writings seem to emphasize special aspects. But homeopathy should not be reduced to certain methods, as each individual case and each individual homeopath have preferences in certain directions. Feeling attached to one or more methods the learner will focus on them and chose them as the main tool, having in mind, that there are other approaches when needed.
KS: Together with Armin Seideneder you teach materia medica in a very special way. How do you recommend approaching the remedies for a deeper understanding ?
NW: What Armin and I are doing in our materia medica project is a somewhat personal approach to materia medica, but for many participants it seems to fit as well. Armin Seideneder is well known for his detailed Materia Medica compilation. Currently it is the most comprehensive materia medica ever written.
I myself am fascinated by the kind of minimalism given by Boger. And our different views meet at these Materia Medica lectures. We use Boger’s Synoptic Key as a kind of matrix, where every given symptom of repertory and materia medica is seen as a challenge to understanding what it means in its full context. We see that one word in Boger’s book matches one side in Herings Guiding Symptoms, or some sentences of Kent’s or Farrington’s Materia Medica. Or we see a published case, being cited in a small hint in Bogers book. And we see publications in different journals which are summed up in short statements. We got the impression that the Synoptic Key is a kind of condensation of the whole history of homeopathy, as far as it could be seen in practice. We feel the need to unfold these short hints to their full meaning. Thereby the Synoptic Key gets increasingly more valuable in everyday practice. It enables us to remember all the details we learned and to recall information we need in a practical situation. Doing this hard work by ourselves, is the actual trick to geting in contact with materia medica. Sitting in a seminar and listening to others teaching will never have the same effect. Participants have to take the given notes of the remedies (between 50 and 120 pages for a remedy) and do their own study work at home. With the tool of the Synoptic Key, this work of materia medica studying can be structured and clarified and can be done by everybody, even without a big library.
KS: Jungian Psychology has been integrated into homeopathy by many homeopaths lately. What role does it play in your work ?
NW: Its hard to give an answer to that question, as my personal approach to these things is in flux and may change. For the moment, I do not use Jungian psychology for case analysis, in a way that would help for remedy selection. Of much higher importance is understanding the disease dynamics and the reaction to the given remedy. C.G. Jung’s ideas may help in understanding certain aspects, as dreams or fears, or the mechanisms of getting ill. But in my personal approach to these things my interest is focused on the boundaries of Jungian psychology – the place where it meets physics.
The dialogue of the Nobel winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli with C.G.Jung, is a dialogue between modern physics and psychology, a dialogue between substance and mind, and this is the exact place where homeopathy plays an important role. Its not a place, where definite answers can be formulated, but a place to open the mind to look at the world with different eyes. I get the impression, that this dialogue will help us in our profession to handle hard questions, to accept all the different aspects of our practical work in the context of this very broad way of thinking and relating things.
This Pauli-Jung-dialogue and modern interpretations may be seen as an underlying philosophy to our work. But its not a way of mixing Jungian psychology with Hahnemannian homeopathy. Homeopathy might rather play the role of the missing link between psychology and physics. Understanding the place where psychology and physics get in touch, will become important for our profession. This is certainly in the future, but most exciting.
KS: Thank you very much for the interesting and informative interview. I hope it will help to revive interest in Boger’s work and help us to treat our patients more successfully!
Interested persons can read Boger’s Synoptic Key, General Analysis and Boenninghausens Characteristics and Repertory on the following website:
Further articles written by C.M.Boger are available at:
1 C.M.Boger, The study of materia medica and taking the case, p.3
2 C.M.Boger, The study of materia medica and taking the case, p.51
Norbert Winter was born in 1960. He first studied and worked as an elementary particle physicist. He started his homeopathy education after finishing civil service in the health sector. In 1991 he graduated as “Heilpraktiker” and started practicing as classical homeopath. In 1997 he founded a homeopathy school in Karlsruhe. Since 1999 he dedicates his time to the in depth study of the works of the American homeopath C.M. Boger (1861-1935), worked out ways to use Boger’s way of thinking and published them. During the last years he mainly focused on daily practice.
Dr rer nat Norbert Winter
Haid-und Neu-StraÃŸe 5a
E-Mail [email protected]
Homeopathy for Everyone (Hpathy.com)