Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Matt, Two of these 'authorities', Felix Mann and George Ulett, believe the entire foundation of Chinese medicine is false and illusory. They don't accept yin and yang, five phases, acutracts, pulse diagnosis and other foundations of Chinese medicine as being real. So I wouldn't lump them together with Paul Unschuld and Deke Kendall, who both give integrity to the foundations of Chinese medicine. I'd also like to clarify my original statement. I don't think that what is being taught in Western TCM colleges is 'wrong'. I just think it needs to grow, gain clarity, depth and breadth, and my idea on how to do this is to develop and share tools to increase knowledge of medical Chinese, translate more essential texts, and encourage everyone to study study study and grow. I would never advocate tearing down any of the structures we have already built. I already work quite comfortably within the TCM college structure, and have never faced obstruction in my own efforts to improve Chinese medical education. It is wrong, however, for a portion of our profession to say we don't need the scholars and translators. We need them side by side with practitioners and their skills, and much of my own work has been to try to bring these two together. On Sep 27, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Matt Bauer wrote: > I attempted to do this last May at the Acupuncture/Oriental Medicine > Alliance's annual conference when I gave a presentation in which I > reviewed books from four authorities: Paul Unschuld, Felix Mann, Deke > Kendall, and George Ulett. The point of my presentation was to stress > that while each of these credible and knowledgeable authorities' > teachings focus on different specific themes, the one theme they all > have in common is the contention that what we are teaching in our > acupuncture/OM schools is wrong. I can't try to explain a 2 hour > presentation in this forum, but I think the theme of that talk applies > to this thread: What do we really know about the foundations of > Chinese medicine theories - especially from a historic basis and how > that may now apply clinically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Z'ev, (sorry for the funky font) I will respond to your most recent post first and hope to get to your others soon. The reason I chose these four authorities was because they represent such a wide spectrum of different views of Chinese medicine. The point of my talk was that there is a new breed of Chinese medicine critic emerging today - unlike the critics of the past who discounted CM without understanding its' theories, this new breed is very knowledgeable about CM theories but find significant faults with the manner it is taught in our schools - although for very different reasons. While you are correct to point out that Mann and Ulett completely disavow the commonly accepted foundations of Chinese medicine, no one can say they take this position out of an ignorance of these concepts. Felix Mann wrote the first substantial book on acupuncture ever published in the English language in 1962 and followed this with several highly respected additional books, was the founder and president of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959-1980) and president of the British Medical Acupuncture Society (1980), and was the individual who followed the French lead and developed the English numbering system we use today for designating acupuncture points (L.I. 4, St. 36., etc.). In other words, he is a pioneer of acupuncture in the Western world yet, despite years of advocating yin/yang. qi, meridians, etc., he came to the conclusion it is all wrong. Dr. George Ulett, M.D., was involved with the first NIH funded acupuncture research in the U.S. in 1972, has practice acupuncture since the 1960's, authored several journal articles and one book advocating the positive effects of acupuncture , and has teamed up (in a fashion) with Dr. Jisheng Han, M.D., of the Beijing Medical University, the worlds foremost acupuncture researcher. Ulett is likewise very well aware of the classic theories, supports the effectiveness of acupuncture but, like Mann, thinks the classic theories are dead wrong. You stated that Unschuld and Kendall " both give integrity to the foundations of Chinese medicine. " This, I think, depends on your idea of " giving integrity " or perhaps on exactly what constitutes " Chinese medicine. " Kendall contends that the idea that qi is a type of energy that flows within non-physical meridians is the result of mistranslations of original Chinese texts and that what is taught in schools is thus wrong and leads to only marginally effective clinical outcomes. On Page 13 of his notable book, " The Tao of " , Kendall states: .. " . the Western energy-meridian explanation of Chinese medicine permeates most acupuncture training programs, and is fundamentally at odds with the physiological basis of both Chinese and Western medicine. Through a misunderstanding of the true basis of Chinese medical theories, it has been difficult to obtain consistent clinical and research results. " Unschuld is highly critical of acupuncture/CM training programs as not having a grounding in their curriculum that is supported by historic evidence. He states in his book " " that any Western university trying to establish a curriculum on Chinese medicine would not be able to do so because: .. " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of Chinese medicine can be standardized. " p119 If you add the positions of these authorities up - it represents a substantial undermining of the manner in which we educate ourselves. I simply thought becoming familiar with what such authorities are really saying, might be useful to our profession. It seems however, that few worry about this as much as I do. If any schools would be interested in this topic - I have a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation I would gladly give that goes into much more detail. I think this would make a good topic for the teachers/administrators of CM schools although it might not be best for the students as it might freak them out a bit. Matt Bauer - Chinese Medicine Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:46 PM Re: Response to Godfrey Matt, Two of these 'authorities', Felix Mann and George Ulett, believe the entire foundation of Chinese medicine is false and illusory. They don't accept yin and yang, five phases, acutracts, pulse diagnosis and other foundations of Chinese medicine as being real. So I wouldn't lump them together with Paul Unschuld and Deke Kendall, who both give integrity to the foundations of Chinese medicine. I'd also like to clarify my original statement. I don't think that what is being taught in Western TCM colleges is 'wrong'. I just think it needs to grow, gain clarity, depth and breadth, and my idea on how to do this is to develop and share tools to increase knowledge of medical Chinese, translate more essential texts, and encourage everyone to study study study and grow. I would never advocate tearing down any of the structures we have already built. I already work quite comfortably within the TCM college structure, and have never faced obstruction in my own efforts to improve Chinese medical education. It is wrong, however, for a portion of our profession to say we don't need the scholars and translators. We need them side by side with practitioners and their skills, and much of my own work has been to try to bring these two together. On Sep 27, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Matt Bauer wrote: > I attempted to do this last May at the Acupuncture/Oriental Medicine > Alliance's annual conference when I gave a presentation in which I > reviewed books from four authorities: Paul Unschuld, Felix Mann, Deke > Kendall, and George Ulett. The point of my presentation was to stress > that while each of these credible and knowledgeable authorities' > teachings focus on different specific themes, the one theme they all > have in common is the contention that what we are teaching in our > acupuncture/OM schools is wrong. I can't try to explain a 2 hour > presentation in this forum, but I think the theme of that talk applies > to this thread: What do we really know about the foundations of > Chinese medicine theories - especially from a historic basis and how > that may now apply clinically? http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Matt, You are correct on all counts. Ulett and Mann are dangerous for the very reasons you mention, that they do know the foundations of Chinese medicine and disavow them completely. They are strong voices for the complete dissolution of the theoretical foundations of our medicine. But their argument is no reason at all to dismantle our present educational system. The antidote, in my opinion, is to strengthen our foundations by making the tools available to students and practitioners to learn medical Chinese and deepen their knowledge of the source materials of our medicine. Paul Unschuld's arguments are more to the point, however, he has the same criticisms of the educational system in mainland China as well. He argues that Chinese medicine is a hydra-headed phenomenon, complex in structure and sometimes contradictory with its many streams and philosophies. He also critiques modern medicine's educational system as well. So I don't think he is focused solely on the TCM medical educational system in the West. I've known Deke Kendall for years and studied with him back in the '80's. I recently read his book and while his ideas are very interesting and seductive, it is one person's attempt to fit a vast and complex medical tradition into a neat package (based on a physiological interpretation). I think his conclusions are no more authoritative than Claude Larre's or George Soulie de Morant's for that matter. The problem is that a political movement has grown up around his conclusions that claim to have 'the answer' for the profession, and simple answers are never the correct ones for complex phenomena. They only lead to dogma and power plays. On Sep 28, 2004, at 9:13 PM, Matt Bauer wrote: > Hi Z'ev, (sorry for the funky font) > > I will respond to your most recent post first and hope to get to your > others soon. The reason I chose these four authorities was because > they represent such a wide spectrum of different views of Chinese > medicine. The point of my talk was that there is a new breed of > Chinese medicine critic emerging today - unlike the critics of the > past who discounted CM without understanding its' theories, this new > breed is very knowledgeable about CM theories but find significant > faults with the manner it is taught in our schools - although for very > different reasons. > > While you are correct to point out that Mann and Ulett completely > disavow the commonly accepted foundations of Chinese medicine, no one > can say they take this position out of an ignorance of these concepts. > Felix Mann wrote the first substantial book on acupuncture ever > published in the English language in 1962 and followed this with > several highly respected additional books, was the founder and > president of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959-1980) and president > of the British Medical Acupuncture Society (1980), and was the > individual who followed the French lead and developed the English > numbering system we use today for designating acupuncture points (L.I. > 4, St. 36., etc.). In other words, he is a pioneer of acupuncture in > the Western world yet, despite years of advocating yin/yang. qi, > meridians, etc., he came to the conclusion it is all wrong. > > Dr. George Ulett, M.D., was involved with the first NIH funded > acupuncture research in the U.S. in 1972, has practice acupuncture > since the 1960's, authored several journal articles and one book > advocating the positive effects of acupuncture , and has teamed up (in > a fashion) with Dr. Jisheng Han, M.D., of the Beijing Medical > University, the worlds foremost acupuncture researcher. Ulett is > likewise very well aware of the classic theories, supports the > effectiveness of acupuncture but, like Mann, thinks the classic > theories are dead wrong. > > You stated that Unschuld and Kendall " both give integrity to the > foundations of Chinese medicine. " This, I think, depends on your idea > of " giving integrity " or perhaps on exactly what constitutes " Chinese > medicine. " Kendall contends that the idea that qi is a type of energy > that flows within non-physical meridians is the result of > mistranslations of original Chinese texts and that what is taught in > schools is thus wrong and leads to only marginally effective clinical > outcomes. On Page 13 of his notable book, " The Tao of Chinese > Medicine " , Kendall states: > > . " . the Western energy-meridian explanation of Chinese medicine > permeates most acupuncture training programs, and is fundamentally at > odds with the physiological basis of both Chinese and Western > medicine. Through a misunderstanding of the true basis of Chinese > medical theories, it has been difficult to obtain consistent clinical > and research results. " > > > > Unschuld is highly critical of acupuncture/CM training programs as not > having a grounding in their curriculum that is supported by historic > evidence. He states in his book " " that any Western > university trying to establish a curriculum on Chinese medicine would > not be able to do so because: > . " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of > Chinese medicine can be standardized. " p119 > > > If you add the positions of these authorities up - it represents a > substantial undermining of the manner in which we educate ourselves. I > simply thought becoming familiar with what such authorities are really > saying, might be useful to our profession. It seems however, that few > worry about this as much as I do. If any schools would be interested > in this topic - I have a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation I would gladly > give that goes into much more detail. I think this would make a good > topic for the teachers/administrators of CM schools although it might > not be best for the students as it might freak them out a bit. > > Matt Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Matt, > > Unschuld is highly critical of acupuncture/CM training programs as not having a grounding in their curriculum that is supported by historic evidence. He states in his book " " that any Western university trying to establish a curriculum on Chinese medicine would not be able to do so because: > . " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of Chinese medicine can be standardized. " p119 > This is very profound. Thank you for the reference. It is my observation that all of Chinese medicine (and its philosophical roots) is based upon " individualization " - from all perspectives. It may be possible to " standardize " but in a way that allows the individual to build one's own skills and knowledge. This would certainly explain the fact that Chinese medicine is practiced in so many different ways in real life. Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Matt, Feel free to post your PowerPoint presentation onto the group's files section. (P.S. all font's become standardised on ). Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Matt Bauer [acu.guy] 29 September 2004 05:13 Chinese Medicine Re: Response to Godfrey If you add the positions of these authorities up - it represents a substantial undermining of the manner in which we educate ourselves. I simply thought becoming familiar with what such authorities are really saying, might be useful to our profession. It seems however, that few worry about this as much as I do. If any schools would be interested in this topic - I have a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation I would gladly give that goes into much more detail. I think this would make a good topic for the teachers/administrators of CM schools although it might not be best for the students as it might freak them out a bit. Matt Bauer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 In rural India of the 1930, '40's, village folk would know if the crop would turn well, the rains fall more or less, if famine were around the corner, if this was right time to sow seed even when frost stood on leaf. They could categorize an illness as 'cold', 'warm'. 'heated', hot, 'fiery', damp, 'sodden', and some dozen variations more based on temperature, texture of tissue, or torque the illness would produce on flesh, bone or energy. They knew how to 'drain' pus upwards, sideways, downwards, outwards; how to inflame it rather than turn cold and compacted. They could categorize people into the torpid, fiery, dry, damp, languid types and had interesting names for these. They could tell you that rice was 'towards' Damp, wheat towards 'Heat', onions towards 'Dry', and what diet would suit which illness. I could go on for ever about the therapeutic food they ate, poor folk just this side of penury, not one with any written word, forlorn of book or creed or tome, almost everyone from the Shudra Untouchable People. Everyone grew up with this knowledge, and they would have laughed if we would call it wisdom. TCM probably began as such, spoken lore gathered of experience. If we were to use that in honor, one should remember that. In some sense we are crippled and at a disadvantage. We can read. Dr. Holmes Keikobad MB BS DPH Ret. DIP AC NCCAOM LIC AC CO & AZ www.acu-free.com - 15 CEUS by video. NCCAOM reviewed. Approved in CA & most states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Z'ev, I agree with every point you made in this reply. I too, do not believe we should dismantle our present educational system and that the best possible translations of the classics should form one of the fundamental pillars of our educational system. - Matt - Chinese Medicine Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:32 PM Re: Response to Godfrey Matt, You are correct on all counts. Ulett and Mann are dangerous for the very reasons you mention, that they do know the foundations of Chinese medicine and disavow them completely. They are strong voices for the complete dissolution of the theoretical foundations of our medicine. But their argument is no reason at all to dismantle our present educational system. The antidote, in my opinion, is to strengthen our foundations by making the tools available to students and practitioners to learn medical Chinese and deepen their knowledge of the source materials of our medicine. Paul Unschuld's arguments are more to the point, however, he has the same criticisms of the educational system in mainland China as well. He argues that Chinese medicine is a hydra-headed phenomenon, complex in structure and sometimes contradictory with its many streams and philosophies. He also critiques modern medicine's educational system as well. So I don't think he is focused solely on the TCM medical educational system in the West. I've known Deke Kendall for years and studied with him back in the '80's. I recently read his book and while his ideas are very interesting and seductive, it is one person's attempt to fit a vast and complex medical tradition into a neat package (based on a physiological interpretation). I think his conclusions are no more authoritative than Claude Larre's or George Soulie de Morant's for that matter. The problem is that a political movement has grown up around his conclusions that claim to have 'the answer' for the profession, and simple answers are never the correct ones for complex phenomena. They only lead to dogma and power plays. On Sep 28, 2004, at 9:13 PM, Matt Bauer wrote: > Hi Z'ev, (sorry for the funky font) > > I will respond to your most recent post first and hope to get to your > others soon. The reason I chose these four authorities was because > they represent such a wide spectrum of different views of Chinese > medicine. The point of my talk was that there is a new breed of > Chinese medicine critic emerging today - unlike the critics of the > past who discounted CM without understanding its' theories, this new > breed is very knowledgeable about CM theories but find significant > faults with the manner it is taught in our schools - although for very > different reasons. > > While you are correct to point out that Mann and Ulett completely > disavow the commonly accepted foundations of Chinese medicine, no one > can say they take this position out of an ignorance of these concepts. > Felix Mann wrote the first substantial book on acupuncture ever > published in the English language in 1962 and followed this with > several highly respected additional books, was the founder and > president of the Medical Acupuncture Society (1959-1980) and president > of the British Medical Acupuncture Society (1980), and was the > individual who followed the French lead and developed the English > numbering system we use today for designating acupuncture points (L.I. > 4, St. 36., etc.). In other words, he is a pioneer of acupuncture in > the Western world yet, despite years of advocating yin/yang. qi, > meridians, etc., he came to the conclusion it is all wrong. > > Dr. George Ulett, M.D., was involved with the first NIH funded > acupuncture research in the U.S. in 1972, has practice acupuncture > since the 1960's, authored several journal articles and one book > advocating the positive effects of acupuncture , and has teamed up (in > a fashion) with Dr. Jisheng Han, M.D., of the Beijing Medical > University, the worlds foremost acupuncture researcher. Ulett is > likewise very well aware of the classic theories, supports the > effectiveness of acupuncture but, like Mann, thinks the classic > theories are dead wrong. > > You stated that Unschuld and Kendall " both give integrity to the > foundations of Chinese medicine. " This, I think, depends on your idea > of " giving integrity " or perhaps on exactly what constitutes " Chinese > medicine. " Kendall contends that the idea that qi is a type of energy > that flows within non-physical meridians is the result of > mistranslations of original Chinese texts and that what is taught in > schools is thus wrong and leads to only marginally effective clinical > outcomes. On Page 13 of his notable book, " The Tao of Chinese > Medicine " , Kendall states: > > . " . the Western energy-meridian explanation of Chinese medicine > permeates most acupuncture training programs, and is fundamentally at > odds with the physiological basis of both Chinese and Western > medicine. Through a misunderstanding of the true basis of Chinese > medical theories, it has been difficult to obtain consistent clinical > and research results. " > > > > Unschuld is highly critical of acupuncture/CM training programs as not > having a grounding in their curriculum that is supported by historic > evidence. He states in his book " " that any Western > university trying to establish a curriculum on Chinese medicine would > not be able to do so because: > . " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of > Chinese medicine can be standardized. " p119 > > > If you add the positions of these authorities up - it represents a > substantial undermining of the manner in which we educate ourselves. I > simply thought becoming familiar with what such authorities are really > saying, might be useful to our profession. It seems however, that few > worry about this as much as I do. If any schools would be interested > in this topic - I have a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation I would gladly > give that goes into much more detail. I think this would make a good > topic for the teachers/administrators of CM schools although it might > not be best for the students as it might freak them out a bit. > > Matt Bauer http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Hi Rich and Matt... Matt: > Medicine " that any > Western university trying to establish a curriculum > on Chinese > medicine would not be able to do so because: > " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or > even theory of > Chinese medicine can be standardized. " p119 Rich: > observation that all of Chinese medicine (and its > philosophical > roots) is based upon " individualization " - from all Nothing can be standardised. Everything has local irregularities or fluctuations including things like gravity and atomic forces. Standardisation is a dangerous concept and should be applied very carefully. Primary school teachers are always struggling against standardisation because it is so clear in their clinical practice that people cannot be standardised. There are general principles which can be flexibly applied but those have nothing to do with actual standardisation. If CHinese medicine is " heterogenous and pluralistic " it is because it has come to grips with the reality of constant change and infinite variation. As far as teachig CM in a university setting, curiculum designers will be forced to do what PRC CHina did - to simply /choose/ a style to teach, and then teach it. And if different universities offer different styles, so much the better. We won't all be streamed into a " one-size fits-all " medical system. Thanks, Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Hi Hugo, > > Nothing can be standardised. Everything has local > irregularities or fluctuations including things like > gravity and atomic forces. In my own practice, whether it be Tuina bodywork or teaching Taiji/Qigong, each individual lesson is always different. Every interaction I have with a client is always quite unique. On the otherhand, classes have a more formalized content where everyone is learning the same Taiji movements and practicing them together in unison. The students tend to like practicing together - as one. Though each individual is certainly, at the same time, practicing in their own unique manner. So again, there is this paradox. Individualization of practice withing standardized practice. The Yin within the Yang and vice-versa. :-) Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed reading it. Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Attilio - I will have to review my PowerPoint presentation and carefully consider whether or not to post it in the groups files. My concern is that some may interpret certain slides as being critical when they were not presented that way. I was careful in my presentation to make clear that I was only trying to inform about these authority's positions and was not trying to discredit them in any way. My session was recorded and anyone can order tapes which will have my full oral explanations that supported the slides (the AOM Alliance should be able to give ordering information - speakers do not profit from tapes sales). Please send me info on how to post to the group's files and I will give it more thought. It is unfortunate I would have to worry about such things, but my experience has been that some in this profession are too quick to see the worst and then lash out without even bothering to check with the source to clarify intent. - Matt Bauer - Attilio D'Alberto Chinese Medicine Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:21 AM RE: Response to Godfrey Hi Matt, Feel free to post your PowerPoint presentation onto the group's files section. (P.S. all font's become standardised on ). Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com Matt Bauer [acu.guy] 29 September 2004 05:13 Chinese Medicine Re: Response to Godfrey If you add the positions of these authorities up - it represents a substantial undermining of the manner in which we educate ourselves. I simply thought becoming familiar with what such authorities are really saying, might be useful to our profession. It seems however, that few worry about this as much as I do. If any schools would be interested in this topic - I have a 2 hour PowerPoint presentation I would gladly give that goes into much more detail. I think this would make a good topic for the teachers/administrators of CM schools although it might not be best for the students as it might freak them out a bit. Matt Bauer 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.