Guest guest Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 In a message dated 7/20/04 2:55:28 PM, Chinese Medicine writes: << I am sorry, but this is clearly false. Chinese medicine is based on statements of fact. If only a small percentage of information is in books, where do you get your information from? Lineages? Who records them? And how? Lon: Chinese medicine is a science of tendencies (induction) and NOT facts (deduction). The difference between the two modes of inquiry is clearly presented in Chapter 37 of my Clinical practice book. Yes, there is historical precedence for some deduction in CM but its not a primary mode of inquiry and CM is only really interesting to me to the degree it complements the Western causal view. What's true and relevant is always emerging in the human experience *now* to the interested practitioner. History can inform the interpretation of that experience, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Books are always history and freedom has no history. Books are fine but nothing in them could ever be as important as what's true now. What is " fact " to most people is the opposite of what I'm calling freedom. Chinese medicine is a literary, rational medicine with an unbroken chain going back 2000 years. While there have been great innovations in its history, and clinically Chinese medicine is very creative, personal and individualized, there are principles, theories and statements of fact that must be learned to practice it, like any other field. Lon: And these are always negotiable because the universe is evolving. What " following the laws of yin and yang " meant when the Nei Jing was written and what it means now may well be two entirely different things. The authors didnt understand or even recognize the principles of evolution which, even now, are only beggining to emerge in their higher implications on this planet. Also, this point of view (there are no facts in CM) can be used to legislate misinformation. Lon: Equally the point of view that there are " facts " in TCM has been used to legislate misinformation-much of which is contained in the NCCAOM exam for example. A fast pulse indicates heat? Really? -Not mostly in the last 100 years- " but its written in a book! " -Either CM is living or its not. if its living then its following the principles of evolution which means that, ultimately, at its cutting edge-it *is* free from its history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 I don't think you are giving the authors of the Nei Jing enough credit, Lon. I don't believe in a linear evolution with everyone becoming smarter all the time. There was a great deal of sophisticated knowledge back then, and we have a lot to learn from it. This doesn't mean that we cannot continue to develop and grow, but as a field, we are still very immature and can't even have coherent discussions or agree in principle on much. True innovation will happen when we learn our own history and what the roots of our medicine truly are. A tree grows as tall as its root grow deep. On Jul 21, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Spiritpathpress wrote: > > Lon: And these are always negotiable because the universe is evolving. > What > " following the laws of yin and yang " meant when the Nei Jing was > written and > what it means now may well be two entirely different things. The > authors didnt > understand or even recognize the principles of evolution which, even > now, are > only beggining to emerge in their higher implications on this planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 I am familiar with the concepts of inductive and deductive logic, and it is true that Chinese medicine measures tendencies and qualities, not quantities. Having said this, and agreeing with you, I think it is irresponsible to suggest such sweeping generalities that book learning is not essential. You set up a dichotomy between scholarship and clinical practice that simply doesn't exist in the practice of Chinese medicine (see Farquhar's " Knowing Practice " and Hsu's " The Transmission of " ). They inform each other. You are talking about what in my opinion is an idealized state of perfect transmission of truth through an abstract enlightened state. Chinese medicine is a literary tradition, like it or not. There are too many people with an anti-intellectual bias in our field. Without continuing scholarship, as has been the standard for 2000 years, Chinese medicine cannot survive merely on 'experience'. On Jul 21, 2004, at 9:39 AM, Spiritpathpress wrote: > Lon: Chinese medicine is a science of tendencies (induction) and NOT > facts > (deduction). The difference between the two modes of inquiry is clearly > presented in Chapter 37 of my Clinical practice book. Yes, there is > historical > precedence for some deduction in CM but its not a primary mode of > inquiry and CM is > only really interesting to me to the degree it complements the Western > causal > view. What's true and relevant is always emerging in the human > experience > *now* to the interested practitioner. History can inform the > interpretation of > that experience, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. > Books are > always history and freedom has no history. Books are fine but nothing > in them > could ever be as important as what's true now. What is " fact " to most > people > is the opposite of what I'm calling freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.