Response to Godfrey (now transation and accreditation)

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

I couldn't agree with you more. I was in those same classes you attended with

Deke. I respect him and consider him a friend. In addition, your concerns

about a political movement growing up around his transliterative assumptions are

well founded. Most notable is the attempt to develop a new accreditation

commission based on Deke's theorem. We came a hair's breadth from Nevada setting

that as the standard last year.

 

I do consider it dangerous when translational opinion is constructed into the

language and culture of a bureaucracy that will set standards for our

educational systems. This group does not understand this problem or the duty of

an

accreditation body which is to consider the competencies necessary for the

current and future scope and standards of practice; then to create with all the

key

stake holders the full set of institutional and program requirements that

create and environment so that learners can achieve those competencies.

 

Best -

 

Will

 

 

 

>

> 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.

>

>

 

 

Will Morris, LAc., OMD, MSEd

Secretary AAOM

310-453-8300 phone

310-829-3838 fax

 

This message is a PRIVATE communication. This e-mail and any attachments may

be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended

recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not disclose it to

others.

Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message with

the word delete in the subject column, and then delete it and any attachments

from your system. Thank you.