Digest Number 1067

[Guest guest]

Marco,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

 

Perhaps because I've spent most of

the last ten years living outside of

North America, I appreicated your

comments about what I interpret to

be the hegemony of those who set

and define cultural standards and

legislate norms of behavior. I realize

that's not what you said, but I

also realized that that is, in part,

what you were talking about. From

within the field of effectiveness of

any political machine that is designed

to take and hold the public's imagination

in order to convince the body politic

to submit to its rule, it becomes

quite difficult for individual members

of that political aggregate to understand

such effects.

 

I had studied cross cultural issues

with some interest and intensity from

1971 when I was introduced to the subject

by both Bucky Fuller and his daughter,

Allegra. But it wasn't until after I'd

lived in China for nearly two years

that I began to understand how little

I understand about the experience of

moving either people or ideas from one

cultural set to another.

 

I mention all this because I think it's

pertinent to your comment about the " self-

evident " requirement of language study.

 

I agree that in the long run it is a good idea to identify whom said what. As

an recent example the blunder that I made between shen1 and shen2 is

" acceptable " when knowing the fact that I do not speak Chinese and as such

have limited experience, as well as still feel very much like a student more

then a practitioner.

 

Me, too. When I started teaching English in

China in 1992 I realized that the one biggest

obstacle in the paths of my students was that

they were absolutely mortified by the very

thought of making a mistake. So I went on a

campaign based on a principle of communication

that I learned reading a book called, Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind,

by Ries and Trout. The principle: if it's worth doing, it's worth doing wrong.

 

 

 

Or, as Prof. Cheng would say, " Invest in loss. "

 

This list would be a very cool place to

spend more time if people would contribute

more.

 

And, it is also a self evident argument that at least medical Chinese ought to

begin at undergraduate...

 

It's quite important to point out that not

only is it not self evident, it is an argument

that has largely been rejected by those who

currently set and control the standards of

education and certification in the field in the United States and other

political zones that for one reason or another have been emulating the

behavior of Americans for several decades now.

 

American standard setters have not yet embraced

the idea that language learning is an integral

part of the education of practitioners of TCM or virtually any form of

medicine based on the various sources of medical thought and practice in China

that have come and gone over the past many millennia.

 

People in many other countries have realized this

and do include such requirements in their educational

standards. I believe that the same forces that

keep people silent here are at work distorting

many self-evident aspects of the medicine that

we offer under the banner of Chinese medicine.

 

Of course, it is the conflict of these same

forces that manifests in the issues being

discussed on this list right now about

regulations of one kind or another.

 

I think people should come to their senses

about the fact that learning language is the

first step to breaking free from the unwanted

influence of such forces. People who argue

against it or against including it in the

educational rundowns and requirements are

not putting forth arguments and actions that

will result in any greater freedom for anybody.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Fernando, and All,

 

There's an old passage admonishing us to " ..examine all things and

hold fast to that which is good " . Of course, one can raise the

question of how does one know what's good if one lacks understanding

of Chinese. Well, I guess we're left with clinical evidence as a last

resort.

 

 

The idea that " clinical evidence "

and " understanding of Chinese " stand

somehow in opposition to each other

or vie for supremacy in some fancied

list of justifications for one's

beliefs or that either one could serve

as a last resort with respect to the

supposed failure of the other

just doesn't make sense to me

 

I know people often forward such

an argument, i.e., that we don't

need to know Chinese and read medical

classics in the original language

in which they were written; all

we need to know is what happens

in the clinic. Not just a last

resort...but a first resort.

 

The only connection that really

exists between these two " things "

is that some people justify their

own lack of knowledge about one

of them, Chinese language (along

with the wealth of its cultural

and literary contexts) by asserting

the supreme importance of their

wealth of knowledge in the other,

clinical medicine.

 

Of course this connection only

exists because we call it " Chinese

Medicine " and claim to base what

we do on the contents of these old

books. But what do they say?

 

And what does that mean?

 

It is a very big mistake for people

to consider that others can supply

them with the knowledge that they

need to understand the answers to

questions like that. If you look

closely at the Chinese traditions

that we claim to be talking about here

you find that such knowledge must

be self-generated. This is a Confucian

standard which applies to virtually

every drop of what we call Chinese

medicine. If we want to know what

it is and how to use it properly

we simply have to take a look at

what these old books say for ourselves.

 

There simply is no conflict or opposition

with " clinical evidence, " which is

yet another vital category of information

a well trained medical practitioner

needs to master and become conversant with.

 

There are many others as well, of course.

But they don't stand in opposition to one

another; they mutually support and sustain

the growth and development of the individual.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

no decision has been made. But Ken, since you are not a

practitioner, you may have less concern about " bad " advice.

 

While it's true that I do not practice

professionally, I certainly am a practitioner

of Chinese medicine and related arts and

practices. So I'm not sure what you meant

by saying I'm not a practitioner. I have

been practicing these arts since the early

1970's and all of my writings as well as

my spoken presentations are based upon

these years of practice. Many of those

years have also been years of study.

 

In my mind and in my experience for

three decades now, study and practice

go hand in hand.

 

I consider myself a student of these

subjects.

 

Currently my principal contact with

patients is in the course of clinical

courses and workshops. I've just

completed a couple of months of such

in Europe and will be doing more in

the future. I mention this here

so that people can understand the

importance that I personally place

on maintaining the perspective

of clinical practice in approaching

all of the issues that I discuss

on this list.

 

I

guess we work with the caveat emptor rule. Do not assume

because it was said on this list that it has inherent value.

Scrutinize all comments here as you would a book or live

speaker.

 

Agreed. I urge everyone to be extremely

skeptical of all the information and

points of view displayed here, particularly

those that council to rely on others

for the basic understanding of the subject.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Marco,

 

Thanks, once again, for a thought

provoking post. I am going to

pass your questions and comments

on to Nigel Wiseman and I'll let

you and other know what he has

to say. I'd ask him to participate

directly, but at the moment he's

trying to keep his eyes on the road

of a project that we're working on

together. Maybe he'll have more

input if people here would be

interested, I'll let him know.

 

 

 

 

Within this I am trying to convey that Chinese medicine has its way of

classifying and hence utilising the drogas naturals may potentially be

different from just recognising the western cosmovision pertinent to materia

medica.

 

It is always worth asking:

 

Is any one aware of any investigations studies that actually take this in to

account?

 

This is a darn good question. If anyone

has information along these lines that

they are willing to share, please contact

me directly. I am working on plans for

a meeting to be held in Beijing in 2003

on the subject of Complexity and Chinese

Medicine, and one of the things that I'd

very much like to incorporate into such

a meeting is information from such studies,

if they exist.

 

 

What is drastically needed in Guatemala for the promotion and recognition of

traditional medicine is " conformation " from within the medical paradigm in

question(s) Maya, Chinese... as any outside conformation is not enough to keep

the clinical integrity respectively, because the prevalent view is to believe

that western science is the answer (when it is only part of a answer...)

 

This is one of the factors underlying

the work currently being done on complexity

and Chinese medicine. If you're intrested

in this, there is an article that has just

recently appeared in the current issue

of Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine

that I wrote with Prof. Zhu Jian Ping of

the China Academy of TCM on this topic.

 

And finaly many thanks to Rey Tiquia could not incoperate the info into the

talk " body " since it was by then " history " :-) but sincerely it was good info

and will need to contemplate it more...

 

How'd the talk go?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, <yulong@m...> wrote:

If we want to know what

> it is and how to use it properly

> we simply have to take a look at

> what these old books say for ourselves.

 

 

Ken

 

Is this your contention or is it generally accepted wisdom in the

PRC that ongoing study of the old classics is essential to

practice? That one cannot just make do with the modern

treatment manuals.

 

Given that many of the older classics are now available in

standardized english translations (and the nei jing on the way),

is it absolutely essential that all practitioners read chinese?

One of my colleagues at PCOM who does read chinese believes

some medical chinese is essential for teachers, but not for all

practitioners. As long as practitioners are taught to be

discerning about their sources and teachers, there is now

adequate material to in english to practice quite well (including

shang han lun, pi wei lun, writings of zhu dan xi, qin bo wei, fu

qing zhu and many more plus treatment manuals for just about

every imaginable condition).

 

When one considers only the good work available in english (not

including any of the crap) and then factors in the reasonable

amount of time a busy practitioner, spouse and parent could

conceivably spend studying in a week, it is easy to see that just

the english language literature could occupy someone for at

least a decade. That same practitioner who needs immediate

clinical guidance from books would probably have to devote all

the time formerly allotted to general studying to the learning of

medical chinese. That isn't very practical, because one won't be

able to do any substantial reading in chinese for years after this

process begins. Granted, the rewards should be self-evident to

anyone, but that does mean they can be practically achieved?

 

With few exceptions, those who know medical chinese well

either learned it before going into practice or at such time later in

their careers when time permitted extended studies. It seems

completely unrealistic that recent grads with huge loan debts will

be able to make this sacrifice of time, especially when they see

so many successful others who do not possess this skill or

even deem it valuable. It also seems equally unrealistic that

schools will bite the bullet and ever require medical chinese in

the master's program. Even SIOM has made it a prereq.

Master's students have their hands more than full with current

requirements. There is no way to add more hours of study in the

4 years without injuring the students.

 

Now I suppose the question is raised whether qi gong, tai ji and

massage are more or less essential to the study of chinese

herbology than language. Because those are the only hours that

could go to make room. I think having a year of medical chinese

as a prereq makes the most sense. the schools could give the

classes themselves so they were medical and relevant. But

then ALL professors would have to be brought up to speed. I

mean what good would it do for students to read chinese, but

not their professors? Given the strong reluctance amongst

americans to learn foreign languages, I am not sure this would

change even if TCM studies shifted to major universities.

 

Isn't there a middle ground here, where practitioners can make

use of good translated materials and resources like CHA to be

medium level doctors? I mean there have been plenty of asians

docs over the years who have eschewed book learning. There

was apparently a lot of rejection of text in favor or practice in

japan, due in part ot the role of the blind in acupuncture and the

japanese strand of zen which went through long periods of anti-

intellectualism. So this debate is not new, it would seem. While

I do not think that clinical experience alone is a sufficient guide to

practice (given the huge placebo effect and other distortions of

reality that go on in private practice), I do believe the clinical

results are all that ultimately matters. At least to our patients.

 

[Guest guest]

There are many others as well, of course.But they don't stand in opposition to oneanother; they mutually support and sustainthe growth and development of the individual

>>>Ken I will have to say again, that one may choose to look at the "beef"first. And for me it is going to China and seeing what they can do in their hospitals. Then decide how much the language skills help.

Alon

[Guest guest]

 

You've presented a very thought provoking post here on the issue of

studying medical Chinese, and the availability of better English

translations than in the past. For now, I just want to share one level

of experience with you and the CHA group.

 

While I agree that a significant amount of time is necessary to

devote to ability to read medical Chinese, even a very basic knowledge,

in my experience, will enrich one's understanding, and, yes, clinical

practice. My reasoning is that there is a quality to the Chinese

language itself that places one within the realm of ying, resonance,

that is at the root of the world of the medical and philosophical

classic texts. It is that world that I try to inhabit daily in my

thoughts and clinical environment, as I try to place the symptoms of

each patient in a coherent gestalt that will respond to the

therapeutics, that after all, are based on this ancient understanding of

life and medicine.

 

Ken Rose suggested a little text in Chinese with an excellent English

translation some time ago, Yuan Dao, written in the Han Dynasty. This

little book has given me much inspiration in understanding the ancient

Chinese concept of resonance, and I keep it around as a companion text

and inspiration to my work. It helps me understand the mentality and

gestalt of the conceptual universe from which Chinese medicine has

developed.

 

To me, this is the essential thing. If we cannot grasp the philosophy

inside of Chinese medicine, how can we ultimately grasp its practice?

The philosophy is the root, the methodology the branches. They are one,

and we need both.

 

 

On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 08:41 AM, 1 wrote:

 

> While

> I do not think that clinical experience alone is a sufficient guide to

> practice (given the huge placebo effect and other distortions of

> reality that go on in private practice), I do believe the clinical

> results are all that ultimately matters.  At least to our patients.

>

[Guest guest]

Z'ev and Ken,

 

Where can I find the book, Yuan Dao (translated version)? Publisher?

Thank you.

 

Frances

 

wrote:

 

>

> You've presented a very thought provoking post here on the issue of studying

medical Chinese, and the availability of better English translations than in the

past. For now, I just want to share one level of experience with you and the CHA

group.

>

> While I agree that a significant amount of time is necessary to devote to

ability to read medical Chinese, even a very basic knowledge, in my experience,

will enrich one's understanding, and, yes, clinical practice. My reasoning is

that there is a quality to the Chinese language itself that places one within

the realm of ying, resonance, that is at the root of the world of the medical

and philosophical classic texts. It is that world that I try to inhabit daily in

my thoughts and clinical environment, as I try to place the symptoms of each

patient in a coherent gestalt that will respond to the therapeutics, that after

all, are based on this ancient understanding of life and medicine.

>

> Ken Rose suggested a little text in Chinese with an excellent English

translation some time ago, Yuan Dao, written in the Han Dynasty. This little

book has given me much inspiration in understanding the ancient Chinese concept

of resonance, and I keep it around as a companion text and inspiration to my

work. It helps me understand the mentality and gestalt of the conceptual

universe from which Chinese medicine has developed.

>

> To me, this is the essential thing. If we cannot grasp the philosophy inside

of Chinese medicine, how can we ultimately grasp its practice? The philosophy is

the root, the methodology the branches. They are one, and we need both.

>

>

> On Saturday, July 27, 2002, at 08:41 AM, 1 wrote:

>

> While

> I do not think that clinical experience alone is a sufficient guide to

> practice (given the huge placebo effect and other distortions of

> reality that go on in private practice), I do believe the clinical

> results are all that ultimately matters. At least to our patients.

[Guest guest]

Harold,

I just want to say, I'm glad there's you. Your thought shares fill my

mind with love and help it to renew. May your purpose continue with zeal and

zest, stimulating all you reach to realize and deliver their best.

 

Warmest Regards,

Franke

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Morgana:

Thankyou for your help and suggestion of the purple stone. Its not a very

bright stone and I don't really think it is agate. It is hard to tell if

you cant see a pic of it. But thankyou so much for your help.

 

Love and Light, Dolores