Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hi guys; I agree Mike, there is a lot of overlap (because the two systems do interface), but direction of flow is as stated in the classics. Not being able to recognise flow is one of the consequences of subscribing to Kendal's version of Qi. However, these basic questions can be succinctly answered by practicing energy cultivation. The experience clarifies in a way that a book cannot. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Fri, 19 February, 2010 12:07:58 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai It would appear that direction of flow does not support our channel theory and yet, Manaka has shown in study that direction of needling influences result. He did this pain along ren channel. I would also submit that the nerves/blood vessels do not really follow the channels that closely, instead they exit a common central tube, whereas, the channels appear to independently follow another course. There is certainly overlap with the different systems though. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 Hugo, I maid an error in my sentence. It should have read that nerves and blood vessels both have an outward flow that goes against what the classics claim for the channels. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine subincor Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:32:47 +0000 Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi guys; I agree Mike, there is a lot of overlap (because the two systems do interface), but direction of flow is as stated in the classics. Not being able to recognise flow is one of the consequences of subscribing to Kendal's version of Qi. However, these basic questions can be succinctly answered by practicing energy cultivation. The experience clarifies in a way that a book cannot. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Fri, 19 February, 2010 12:07:58 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai It would appear that direction of flow does not support our channel theory and yet, Manaka has shown in study that direction of needling influences result. He did this pain along ren channel. I would also submit that the nerves/blood vessels do not really follow the channels that closely, instead they exit a common central tube, whereas, the channels appear to independently follow another course. There is certainly overlap with the different systems though. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 Simon, They probably denied it because your facts are in a bit in disarray. " Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture " " in the 1915/20 period " ??? Where did you read this one? -- people love to tell these stories, and the funny thing is that the endpoint is usually that they somehow have some special training/knowledge that isn't documented anywhere and that the " communist " destroyed... come on... I am in no way suggesting that TCM or Chinese medicine in general has not had its ups and downs. But let's get our facts straight and really it would serve us to focus on the positive aspects. Or more importantly, try to learn the most we can about the material before completely disregarding it, bashing it, and then gravitating to some more esoteric traditions. My experience is, many such " bashers " don't even understand fundamental Chinese medicine (TCM). Quite simply, TCM is why almost all of us are even studying Chinese medicine in the first place. It is the most complete system we have. If one takes the time to read (especially in Chinese), one can see how diverse and broad it actually is. Of course it does not include everything, but I would rather study it then some quirky oral tradition (which usually completely ignores basic knowledge in favor of esoteric ideas). I have no problem supplementing one's already solid education in TCM with more esoteric traditions. Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these topics, but schools often forgo actually buckling down and teaching fundamental Chinese medicine in favor of presenting a " diverse " education and at the same time letting (even encouraging) teachers to present their own ideas, who often bash " TCM " in the process -- where does it get us? Therefore, I understand many people's frustration, but this is not TCM's fault. It is my belief that if we actually just focused on TCM we might not have so many disgruntled students. Why do you think Sharon's (postgraduate) course on basic differential diagnosis has been so popular? Quite simply, students graduate and can't even diagnose. There is something fundamentally wrong with our education not TCM. -Jason e_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Simon Cairns Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:29 PM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, Very well said. After gestating a while on this you let loose a well aimed cannon ball at the heretofor Elephant lurking in the corner. I too am very much a paltry understander.....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture.(well documented, as you say) This lasted through the 30's and 40's. Some of the practitioners fled to Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan amongst other places and continued their old ways. Meanwhile, in China there was now a lack of medicine and Western Medicine was introduced . Then due to big demand " Barefoot doctors " were sent out after 8 weeks of training which borrowed mainly from China's rich herbal tradition, which had remained intact, such as the 8 principles and included ashi points and so on. This was due to the fact that the acupuncture teachings were lost!!! My memory is a little hazy so I won't bet my appendix on this but wasn't it so that acupuncture was kind of reinvented on the slim pickings from the past and from the herbal traditions. Hence the gaps in knowledge that you speak of. When I was in China and raised this subject my teachers flat out denid that this was so......but ......then again nor did they tell me why the colour red was so important. simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 This is pretty sad, all this misinformation could be easily remedied by having teachers read some of the historical works published by historians and social researchers etc. Kim Taylors in Early Communist China, Volkers Scheids works, as well as Nathan Sivin. The information is out there in English to read. Institutions that Teach should make it mandatory that their staff educate themselves on these basic issues. Gabe Fuentes --- On Sun, 2/21/10, wrote: RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Chinese Medicine Sunday, February 21, 2010, 8:01 AM Â Simon, They probably denied it because your facts are in a bit in disarray. " Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture " " in the 1915/20 period " ??? Where did you read this one? -- people love to tell these stories, and the funny thing is that the endpoint is usually that they somehow have some special training/knowledge that isn't documented anywhere and that the " communist " destroyed... come on... I am in no way suggesting that TCM or Chinese medicine in general has not had its ups and downs. But let's get our facts straight and really it would serve us to focus on the positive aspects. Or more importantly, try to learn the most we can about the material before completely disregarding it, bashing it, and then gravitating to some more esoteric traditions. My experience is, many such " bashers " don't even understand fundamental Chinese medicine (TCM). Quite simply, TCM is why almost all of us are even studying Chinese medicine in the first place. It is the most complete system we have. If one takes the time to read (especially in Chinese), one can see how diverse and broad it actually is. Of course it does not include everything, but I would rather study it then some quirky oral tradition (which usually completely ignores basic knowledge in favor of esoteric ideas). I have no problem supplementing one's already solid education in TCM with more esoteric traditions. Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these topics, but schools often forgo actually buckling down and teaching fundamental Chinese medicine in favor of presenting a " diverse " education and at the same time letting (even encouraging) teachers to present their own ideas, who often bash " TCM " in the process -- where does it get us? Therefore, I understand many people's frustration, but this is not TCM's fault. It is my belief that if we actually just focused on TCM we might not have so many disgruntled students. Why do you think Sharon's (postgraduate) course on basic differential diagnosis has been so popular? Quite simply, students graduate and can't even diagnose. There is something fundamentally wrong with our education not TCM. -Jason e_Medicine@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Cairns Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:29 PM traditional_ chinese_medicine RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, Very well said. After gestating a while on this you let loose a well aimed cannon ball at the heretofor Elephant lurking in the corner. I too am very much a paltry understander. ....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture. (well documented, as you say) This lasted through the 30's and 40's. Some of the practitioners fled to Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan amongst other places and continued their old ways. Meanwhile, in China there was now a lack of medicine and Western Medicine was introduced . Then due to big demand " Barefoot doctors " were sent out after 8 weeks of training which borrowed mainly from China's rich herbal tradition, which had remained intact, such as the 8 principles and included ashi points and so on. This was due to the fact that the acupuncture teachings were lost!!! My memory is a little hazy so I won't bet my appendix on this but wasn't it so that acupuncture was kind of reinvented on the slim pickings from the past and from the herbal traditions. Hence the gaps in knowledge that you speak of. When I was in China and raised this subject my teachers flat out denid that this was so......but ......then again nor did they tell me why the colour red was so important. simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 Jason, I agree with you on most of your points, but have questions about these 2: 1. " Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. " The practitioners that I have talked with tell me that their learning experience in China (first 4 years) seems to mimic what we study in the US, except they see many more patients, see many more different syndrome patterns and diseases, but don't needle practice very much or at all and don't learn any thing other than TCM (no Japanese acup., Master Tung etc.). Their text books are not very different from the ones we use in the US. The major difference is that the students in China are better at mastering the material inside of the textbooks. If one opts for the Masters/ PhD programs, they can study the medicine with an emphasis in the classics, but few actually do this. So, I do think that there is a major distinction between TCM and CCM. Classical medicine, including Zhang Zhong Jing study requires contextual learning, not just learning Gui zhi tang is used for deficiency type wind-cold. Arnaud Versluys teaches a 9 month introductory course in making these distinctions. Your friends who have pursued PhDs in the classics must be commended, but they are the exception to the rule. 2. " We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... " Jason, I agree that we should be expanding our education, not amending it. Actually, I don't know of any school in the country which teaches homeopathics. I agree that this is not really part of a TCM education. However, if a school teaches Japanese or Korean acupuncture as an elective, which many do, I think this is a great service to the students in the U.S. " Meridian therapy " for instance, is rooted in the Chinese medical classics esp. Nan Jing and utilizes more classical needling technique (channel-based treatment, direct thread-moxa treatment etc.). This is at once the greatest advantage and greatest curse we have training in the U.S. We have access to so much and are distracted by so much. Do you think that functional medicine should be taught at TCM schools? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 Not at all. -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of john kokko Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:19 AM Do you think that functional medicine should be taught at TCM schools? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 I think electives are one thing, but practitioners emphasizing non-TCM material in core curriculum classes (in a TCM school) is another. Not to say that this material is not valuable, I greatly enjoy practicing Japanese acupuncture myself. However, when people complain that they don't get adequate needle technique or any real depth of acupuncture again this is not TCM's fault. There are plenty of TCM material (both acupuncture and herbs) that are often left by the wayside just to incorporate all of these other type of methodologies. However, one of the biggest complaints in the clinic seems to be that each practitioner (supervisor) has their own style of practice. They often try to dictate the treatment in the style that they prefer. This seems great on the surface because the student can get exposed to so many different kinds of treatment modalities. However this provides no consistency for the theoretical model that they are supposed to be learning in the classroom. Therefore not only do they not see enough patients, they did not have enough exposure to actually practicing core basic Chinese medicine (TCM). As far as homeopathics go, I did not mean to imply that schools are teaching homeopathic courses as a core curriculum. However is not uncommon for teachers when talking about clinical situations, to use examples involving alternative therapies as treatments. Students love this, because usually the logic in Western alternative medicine is very easy to follow. The patient has X problem and they give Y remedy. -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of john kokko Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:19 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Jason, I agree with you on most of your points, but have questions about these 2: 1. " Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. " The practitioners that I have talked with tell me that their learning experience in China (first 4 years) seems to mimic what we study in the US, except they see many more patients, see many more different syndrome patterns and diseases, but don't needle practice very much or at all and don't learn any thing other than TCM (no Japanese acup., Master Tung etc.). Their text books are not very different from the ones we use in the US. The major difference is that the students in China are better at mastering the material inside of the textbooks. If one opts for the Masters/ PhD programs, they can study the medicine with an emphasis in the classics, but few actually do this. So, I do think that there is a major distinction between TCM and CCM. Classical medicine, including Zhang Zhong Jing study requires contextual learning, not just learning Gui zhi tang is used for deficiency type wind-cold. Arnaud Versluys teaches a 9 month introductory course in making these distinctions. Your friends who have pursued PhDs in the classics must be commended, but they are the exception to the rule. 2. " We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... " Jason, I agree that we should be expanding our education, not amending it. Actually, I don't know of any school in the country which teaches homeopathics. I agree that this is not really part of a TCM education. However, if a school teaches Japanese or Korean acupuncture as an elective, which many do, I think this is a great service to the students in the U.S. " Meridian therapy " for instance, is rooted in the Chinese medical classics esp. Nan Jing and utilizes more classical needling technique (channel-based treatment, direct thread-moxa treatment etc.). This is at once the greatest advantage and greatest curse we have training in the U.S. We have access to so much and are distracted by so much. Do you think that functional medicine should be taught at TCM schools? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 I think all undergraduate TCM schools are little bit different. However keep in mind that 50% of the students do not want to be there are usually never practice Chinese medicine. Most serious doctors go on to a graduate or PhD program. However, my point is that these classic texts are still a core part of TCM although it just might be a little bit deeper level than the basic introductory courses, as it should be! -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of john kokko Sunday, February 21, 2010 9:19 AM The practitioners that I have talked with tell me that their learning experience in China (first 4 years) seems to mimic what we study in the US, except they see many more patients, see many more different syndrome patterns and diseases, but don't needle practice very much or at all and don't learn any thing other than TCM (no Japanese acup., Master Tung etc.). Their text books are not very different from the ones we use in the US. The major difference is that the students in China are better at mastering the material inside of the textbooks. If one opts for the Masters/ PhD programs, they can study the medicine with an emphasis in the classics, but few actually do this. So, I do think that there is a major distinction between TCM and CCM. Classical medicine, including Zhang Zhong Jing study requires contextual learning, not just learning Gui zhi tang is used for deficiency type wind-cold. Arnaud Versluys teaches a 9 month introductory course in making these distinctions. Your friends who have pursued PhDs in the classics must be commended, but they are the exception to the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 Jason, this is definitely true: " However, one of the biggest complaints in the clinic seems to be that each practitioner (supervisor) has their own style of practice. They often try to dictate the treatment in the style that they prefer. This seems great on the surface because the student can get exposed to so many different kinds of treatment modalities. However this provides no consistency for the theoretical model that they are supposed to be learning in the classroom. Therefore not only do they not see enough patients, they did not have enough exposure to actually practicing core basic Chinese medicine (TCM). " I think this is why it's so important that we do apprenticeships during and after graduation of TCM school. We also need residency programs right after graduation, where teaching-clinics can take advantage of rookies who will still work for peanuts and new practitioners can continue to get clinical experience, instead of waiting or trying to get patients in through the door. K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2010 Report Share Posted February 22, 2010 Jason, I take your point! I refer to what I have heard from past teachers.....mainly and I have no authors or books to point to. I wish I did. For those of us who do not read Chinese nor have access to certain material however the history of Chinese medicine is unclear. This opens the door for different theories and opinions to have their influence. Thanks for your solid response. Simon Chinese Medicine Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:01:36 -0700 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Simon, They probably denied it because your facts are in a bit in disarray. " Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture " " in the 1915/20 period " ??? Where did you read this one? -- people love to tell these stories, and the funny thing is that the endpoint is usually that they somehow have some special training/knowledge that isn't documented anywhere and that the " communist " destroyed... come on... I am in no way suggesting that TCM or Chinese medicine in general has not had its ups and downs. But let's get our facts straight and really it would serve us to focus on the positive aspects. Or more importantly, try to learn the most we can about the material before completely disregarding it, bashing it, and then gravitating to some more esoteric traditions. My experience is, many such " bashers " don't even understand fundamental Chinese medicine (TCM). Quite simply, TCM is why almost all of us are even studying Chinese medicine in the first place. It is the most complete system we have. If one takes the time to read (especially in Chinese), one can see how diverse and broad it actually is. Of course it does not include everything, but I would rather study it then some quirky oral tradition (which usually completely ignores basic knowledge in favor of esoteric ideas). I have no problem supplementing one's already solid education in TCM with more esoteric traditions. Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these topics, but schools often forgo actually buckling down and teaching fundamental Chinese medicine in favor of presenting a " diverse " education and at the same time letting (even encouraging) teachers to present their own ideas, who often bash " TCM " in the process -- where does it get us? Therefore, I understand many people's frustration, but this is not TCM's fault. It is my belief that if we actually just focused on TCM we might not have so many disgruntled students. Why do you think Sharon's (postgraduate) course on basic differential diagnosis has been so popular? Quite simply, students graduate and can't even diagnose. There is something fundamentally wrong with our education not TCM. -Jason e_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Simon Cairns Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:29 PM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, Very well said. After gestating a while on this you let loose a well aimed cannon ball at the heretofor Elephant lurking in the corner. I too am very much a paltry understander.....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture.(well documented, as you say) This lasted through the 30's and 40's. Some of the practitioners fled to Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan amongst other places and continued their old ways. Meanwhile, in China there was now a lack of medicine and Western Medicine was introduced . Then due to big demand " Barefoot doctors " were sent out after 8 weeks of training which borrowed mainly from China's rich herbal tradition, which had remained intact, such as the 8 principles and included ashi points and so on. This was due to the fact that the acupuncture teachings were lost!!! My memory is a little hazy so I won't bet my appendix on this but wasn't it so that acupuncture was kind of reinvented on the slim pickings from the past and from the herbal traditions. Hence the gaps in knowledge that you speak of. When I was in China and raised this subject my teachers flat out denid that this was so......but ......then again nor did they tell me why the colour red was so important. simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2010 Report Share Posted February 22, 2010 Simon, As Gabriel pointed out, as far as history goes, there is quite a bit of high quality material written on the topic in English. I think your point is pretty interesting because you are not the only person who says such things. I think many teachers (especially non-TCM oriented) have never really read or studied the history and just spout their mouth off. However, it does not make their theories and opinions correct, and it is up to us to verify the information and get as close to the truth as we can. Thanks for the conversation, -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Simon Cairns Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:04 PM Chinese Traditional Medicine RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Jason, I take your point! I refer to what I have heard from past teachers.....mainly and I have no authors or books to point to. I wish I did. For those of us who do not read Chinese nor have access to certain material however the history of Chinese medicine is unclear. This opens the door for different theories and opinions to have their influence. Thanks for your solid response. Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2010 Report Share Posted February 22, 2010 Chinese Medicine , Simon Cairns <SimonBethel wrote: > I too am very much a paltry understander.....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture.(well documented, as you say) Um, I hate to break the news, but Mao and the PRC government weren't in power until 1949. There was a movement in the ROC against Chinese medicine during that early period, but it had nothing to do with Mao and it didn't really have any lasting effects on Chinese medicine overall. I agree with Jason that most of the misconceptions about " TCM " and its history in China could be easily resolved if people relied on factual sources rather than hearsay. All too often, the emotional diatribes that bash " TCM " lack any real evidence that could stand up to peer review, and nine times out of ten these diatribes come from people that are either A) selling something, or B) simply haven't pursued the facts because the emotional diatribe resonates with what they want to hear. Here are some good blogs on this subject: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2008/12/17/chinese-culture-extends\ -far-beyond-the-c http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2008/12/11/the-cultural-revolution http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2008/12/10/li-hong-fang-aamp-the-f\ irst-generation-o Eric Brand http://bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/index.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Hi Eric, what is Fruehauf's current stand on the subject? His tirade in JCM was very strongly worded: --Fruehauf, JCM 1999, in Crisis - This article is based on the conviction that the traditional art of Oriental medicine is dying - both in mainland China, home of the mother trunk of the field, and, consequently overseas where branches of the tree are trying to grow. It may be an anachronistic piece, written at a time when TCM administrators around the world are celebrating major advances in the field, such as increasing numbers of students, practitioners, patients, colleges, universities and hospitals, which all appear to reflect a booming state of Oriental medicine. But if we truly respect our tradition as a living organism and listen intently to the deeper layers of its pulse, it becomes evident that the original vitality of the system is expiring, although its true condition may be obscured by a steroidal glow on the surface. --- And a bit more: --(cont)- It exposes a system [TCM] that has been conditioned by a distinctly political agenda, and reveals its logo “TCM†(Traditional ) as a grave misnomer - designating a medicine that is not at all aiming to preserve the traditional characteristics of Chinese medicine, but on the contrary, to expurgate, reform, and control the classical and folkloric texture of the traditional record in the name of progress. --- Thank you for the links to your blog on this topic. I will continue to enjoy your informative writing as I have for a number of years. I do find your commentary regarding apprenticeship vs university training to be very misleading, however, painting the old method as " suffering " whereas the new method of university-style training is portrayed as having only the positives of both. It is very easy to find information in various modern fields relating to education that is very critical of university style " didactics " . There is even a growing literature that specifies the university educational style as being, itself, an indoctrination injurious to learning (Monture 2009). The vetting of the idea that the university style approach is superior via endorsement by Taiwan and Hong Kong is also suspect for many serious reasons that have been described by Fanon (1963). Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ smilinglotus <smilinglotus Chinese Medicine Mon, 22 February, 2010 12:57:27 Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Simon Cairns <SimonBethel@ ...> wrote: > I too am very much a paltry understander. ....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture. (well documented, as you say) Um, I hate to break the news, but Mao and the PRC government weren't in power until 1949. There was a movement in the ROC against Chinese medicine during that early period, but it had nothing to do with Mao and it didn't really have any lasting effects on Chinese medicine overall. I agree with Jason that most of the misconceptions about " TCM " and its history in China could be easily resolved if people relied on factual sources rather than hearsay. All too often, the emotional diatribes that bash " TCM " lack any real evidence that could stand up to peer review, and nine times out of ten these diatribes come from people that are either A) selling something, or B) simply haven't pursued the facts because the emotional diatribe resonates with what they want to hear. Here are some good blogs on this subject: http://www.bluepopp y.com/blog/ blogs/blog1. php/2008/ 12/17/chinese- culture-extends- far-beyond- the-c http://www.bluepopp y.com/blog/ blogs/blog1. php/2008/ 12/11/the- cultural- revolution http://www.bluepopp y.com/blog/ blogs/blog1. php/2008/ 12/10/li- hong-fang- aamp-the- first-generation -o Eric Brand http://bluepoppy. com/blog/ blogs/index. php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Couldn't agree more. . On Feb 21, 2010, at 7:22 AM, Gabriel Fuentes wrote: > This is pretty sad, all this misinformation could be easily remedied by having teachers read some of the historical works published by historians and social researchers etc. Kim Taylors in Early Communist China, Volkers Scheids works, as well as Nathan Sivin. The information is out there in English to read. Institutions that Teach should make it mandatory that their staff educate themselves on these basic issues. > Gabe Fuentes > > --- On Sun, 2/21/10, wrote: > > > RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > Chinese Medicine > Sunday, February 21, 2010, 8:01 AM > > > > Simon, > > They probably denied it because your facts are in a bit in disarray. " Mao > and his cronies banned acupuncture " " in the 1915/20 period " ??? Where did > you read this one? > > -- people love to tell these stories, and the funny thing is that the > endpoint is usually that they somehow have some special training/knowledge > that isn't documented anywhere and that the " communist " destroyed... come > on... > > I am in no way suggesting that TCM or Chinese medicine in general has not > had its ups and downs. But let's get our facts straight and really it would > serve us to focus on the positive aspects. Or more importantly, try to learn > the most we can about the material before completely disregarding it, > bashing it, and then gravitating to some more esoteric traditions. My > experience is, many such " bashers " don't even understand fundamental Chinese > medicine (TCM). > > Quite simply, TCM is why almost all of us are even studying Chinese medicine > in the first place. It is the most complete system we have. If one takes the > time to read (especially in Chinese), one can see how diverse and broad it > actually is. Of course it does not include everything, but I would rather > study it then some quirky oral tradition (which usually completely ignores > basic knowledge in favor of esoteric ideas). I have no problem supplementing > one's already solid education in TCM with more esoteric traditions. > > Furthermore, to think that classic texts like SHL, JGYL are not an integral > part of TCM is completely silly. Such texts may not be part of one's > watered-down Western education but please don't confuse our lack of > classical study in the West with what is available in TCM (in the East). I > have quite a few Western friends who have PhD's from China in TCM focusing > on SHL. Their education and depth of knowledge is deep. > > We currently have schools wanting to simplify their programs, giving > exclusive two-year acupuncture degrees, and we allow students to speed > through programs in three years. Is there a question why we feel we don't > get enough? We also do not require Chinese language, water-down our programs > with pretty much useless superficial Western biomedical info, and teach a > large spattering of other modalities (psycho-spiritual aspects of herbs, > Korean acupuncture, Japanese acupuncture, Western supplements, homeopathics, > each individual teacher's quirky systems etc.... > > Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with any of these topics, but schools > often forgo actually buckling down and teaching fundamental Chinese medicine > in favor of presenting a " diverse " education and at the same time letting > (even encouraging) teachers to present their own ideas, who often bash " TCM " > in the process -- where does it get us? > > Therefore, I understand many people's frustration, but this is not TCM's > fault. It is my belief that if we actually just focused on TCM we might not > have so many disgruntled students. Why do you think Sharon's (postgraduate) > course on basic differential diagnosis has been so popular? Quite simply, > students graduate and can't even diagnose. There is something fundamentally > wrong with our education not TCM. > > -Jason > > e_Medicine@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Cairns > Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:29 PM > traditional_ chinese_medicine > RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > Hugo, > > Very well said. After gestating a while on this you let loose a well aimed > cannon ball at the heretofor Elephant lurking in the corner. > > I too am very much a paltry understander. ....the little I learn't was that > in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture. (well > documented, as you say) This lasted through the 30's and 40's. Some of the > practitioners fled to Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan amongst other places and > continued their old ways. Meanwhile, in China there was now a lack of > medicine and Western Medicine was introduced . Then due to big demand > " Barefoot doctors " were sent out after 8 weeks of training which borrowed > mainly from China's rich herbal tradition, which had remained intact, such > as the 8 principles and included ashi points and so on. This was due to the > fact that the acupuncture teachings were lost!!! My memory is a little hazy > so I won't bet my appendix on this but wasn't it so that acupuncture was > kind of reinvented on the slim pickings from the past and from the herbal > traditions. Hence the gaps in knowledge that you speak of. When I was in > China and raised this subject my teachers flat out denid that this was > so......but ......then again nor did they tell me why the colour red was so > important. > > simon > > 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.