Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Don, I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer whole. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500 > RE: Re: Another play > > > That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our patient? > > > > Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom. What should we base our hierarchy on? > > > > Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I, for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect humans just like you and me. > > > > So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on? > > > > Again my two cents. > > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000 > Re: Another play > > > > > > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap. > > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged. > > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified. > > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise. > > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of individual's motivations and value systems. > > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are motivated by the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, I do not think that the medical, PT or any other health care profession seeks votes from the public, which it serves, prior to making many of the changes they make. I think it is an implied directive that changes you make should look out for the best interest of the patients we serve. BTW, I fail to see how an increase in education, both clinical and theoretical, will harm the public. I would think it would improve our ability to diagnose and treat patient, thereby, improving efficacy. The issue of education lies at the middle of this issue and yet what is enough hours? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 1 May 2010 13:15:45 -0400 Re: Re: Another play M Alright......so let's use reasoning. What is the world of numbers of stakeholders in/for the AOM profession? Stakeholder category is supposed to include patients according to USDE. If there are 25,000 licensees, 5,000 students, 2,000 teachers/administrators etc. then there might be an estimated 500,000 patients. To gain CONSENSUS of over 530,000 individuals in the literal sense would be impossible. Agreed? Then what would be a hypothetical reasonable number for CONSENSUS? If the figures were 3,000 with 2,000 against......and ACAOM could throw out (according to an interpretation of the USDE statement) then would 1,000 for FPD be CONSENSUS? Because that's what it appears has transpired. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Maybe we should state that is an assumption and work from that as opposed to it being regarded as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R You misrepresent my position. I saw some nice photos of Jessica and some paper, nothing more. As one that has been through legal battles, I think we can agree that this means nothing. It is not even a photo of actual signatures. I mean no disrespect but where is the proof? I do share some concern about how Mr. Biggs has left but, at this point, it is meaningless speculation. I hope we learn of this as well. The FPD is not being crammed down anyone's throats, there is even discussion of keeping the master as entry but allowing, those that want, to get a FPD instead. I think this is acceptable. There is no discussion of changing state laws either. Failure to allow the FPD only puts us on a path where those that know little about a doctorate and what it represents, are making decisions for the entire profession. Talk about inappropriate. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Sat, 1 May 2010 13:04:31 -0400 Re: Re: Another play M You like to repeat previous discussions? Obviously you don't trust other's statements of FACT. I do. Jessica hand delivered 2000+ signatures AGAINST the FPD. I didn't see/hear Dort Bigg deny that he received those 2000+ signatures and he had the chance to respond in this forum. Also......I find it curious that both Mr Bigg and the Assistant ED have left ACAOM in a hurry. Possibly one day we will find out what was up with that. How one goes about change is as important as the change. It appears that just because it may be good ...you wouldn't mind if it was just shoved down everyone's throats. Is that true? Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, You are assuming that the 2000 signatures exist. Maybe we should state that is an assumption and work from that as opposed to it being regarded as fact. I have not seen these, have you? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine CC: habeas_1 acudoc11 Sat, 1 May 2010 12:24:30 -0400 Re: Re: Another play Thanks for your reply. Glad someone had the interest. Your government (USDE) has just spoken on the issue in response to many stakeholders concerns: " You also address your ongoing concerns regarding the first professional degree and the use of the word " consensus. " Again, this is a professional disagreement and does not involve ED (Education Department). However, it should be noted that while the agency is required to invite input from its communities of interest in the standards review process and to demonstrate consideration of the input, the agency is not required to accept all input or to have consensus by the entirety of the profession. " Yes.,....if there are at least 30,000 stakeholders it would a stretch to believe that in order to move the FPD forward the profession would need ALL 30,000. But on the other end of the spectrum 900 for and 2000 against does not make for consensus. It appears that according to the USDE and this process, ACAOM could have received 1000 responses with 700 AGAINST the FPD and not taken into account those 700 and arrived at CONSENSUS. I guess no one ever said that citizens of the USA were guaranteed honesty, ethical standards or morality. Why even bother to go through the process when the con doesn't even appear right. It's like what used to be referred to as justice. Not only is there NO justice we do not even get the appearance of justice in the courts anymore. In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Revolution writes: I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap. The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged. The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified. This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise. The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of individual's motivations and value systems. From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are motivated by the bottom line. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28 326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills. Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something we recognize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear. I will expect no more dead horses then about our associations, schools and the FPD. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 14:57:06 -0400 Re: Re: Another play M This has been discussed many times before and unnecessary to repeat which apparently you like to do. No need to beat the dead horse. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/3/2010 1:39:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R, I do not think that the medical, PT or any other health care profession seeks votes from the public, which it serves, prior to making many of the changes they make. I think it is an implied directive that changes you make should look out for the best interest of the patients we serve. BTW, I fail to see how an increase in education, both clinical and theoretical, will harm the public. I would think it would improve our ability to diagnose and treat patient, thereby, improving efficacy. The issue of education lies at the middle of this issue and yet what is enough hours? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, I would give much more credibility to an organization that posts its results anytime over an individual with a nice photo. I am unsure as to how you would expect someone to win this kind of argument in a court of law, without actual proof. The same can be stated for your issue with Mr. Bigg. If you have proof of wrong-doing then great, let's all see it. If not, then we should not be speculating upon it. All I have been asking for, is to show us the proof of wrongdoing so all of us can have an open and informed discussion. I was referring to individuals with a political agenda that seek to prevent the FPD at all costs. From one that has completed an actual doctorate, I can agree with Don, it provided a much deeper educational experience. Legislating one does not even come close. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine CC: hkaltsas acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 14:55:48 -0400 Re: Re: Another play M And you misrepresent mine. On ACAOM's website there exists an undated (with a generic date of February 2010) notice posted with no PROOF of anything. Just a statement. Where's that PROOF? Furthermore...until it's unraveled as to what happened to BOTH Dort Bigg and the Assistant ED Lori Schroeder this should ALL come to a standstill. ACAOM has a lot to answer. Show the PROOF of that process along with documents and meeting minutes and which school owners on the board voted for the FPD..... before we even discuss Jessica's proof. On this we can agree.....ALL of it MEANS NOTHING. This is not the first time ACAOM has been in such question. In 2004 there was another imbroglio. And from what I understand from Harvey Kaltsas there was yet another one back in 1995. Yes...you are right...the schools who are represented on such a Board are speaking for the FPD and who know little about how it affects the profession other than self interests in charging big bucks. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc Ap LAc In a message dated 5/3/2010 2:02:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: R You misrepresent my position. I saw some nice photos of Jessica and some paper, nothing more. As one that has been through legal battles, I think we can agree that this means nothing. It is not even a photo of actual signatures. I mean no disrespect but where is the proof? I do share some concern about how Mr. Biggs has left but, at this point, it is meaningless speculation. I hope we learn of this as well. The FPD is not being crammed down anyone's throats, there is even discussion of keeping the master as entry but allowing, those that want, to get a FPD instead. I think this is acceptable. There is no discussion of changing state laws either. Failure to allow the FPD only puts us on a path where those that know little about a doctorate and what it represents, are making decisions for the entire profession. Talk about inappropriate. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 At this point in time, I find the ACAOM position solid. If things change, I will re-evaluate it then. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 15:08:07 -0400 Re: Re: Another play Let's SEE the proof of CONSENSUS before judging anything else. In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Lonny, Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that a group of OM elders would do any better then recent graduates at running the profession. There are so many facets to this issue that we cannot limit our vision to simply OM experience/education. There are many practitioners that are getting more then one degree, in order to better work inside the profession (John Chen PharmD, Tran Viet Tzung MD, Dan Bensky DO) to name but a few. I have noticed that a lack of basic knowledge in organizations, legislation, even politics has created real problems for us (large master's program, poor license regulations, scope of practice). Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine Revolution Mon, 3 May 2010 19:03:54 +0000 Re: Another play There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills. Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something we recognize. _______________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\ T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, Good luck with that. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 15:30:48 -0400 Re: Re: Another play And until such time as I SEE all the PROOF and ACAOM answers all the questions........my position remains the same and won't change. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:19:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: At this point in time, I find the ACAOM position solid. If things change, I will re-evaluate it then. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 15:08:07 -0400 Re: TCM - Re: Another play Let's SEE the proof of CONSENSUS before judging anything else. In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia To change your email delivery settings, click, and adjust accordingly. Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group requires prior permission from the author. Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, I trust that our association is working for us (even made up of some LAc's) and you do not. That is what it really comes down to. I do not perceive Mr. Bigg or even ACAOM as if they are conducting themselves inappropriately. In the future, that may change. Schools decided the direction that they took many years ago. Some areas of the profession are not up to our vote. We cannot be involved in every area, much like our govt. An entry level degree does not need regional accreditation unless you were planning to have a FPD. Otherwise, it makes no sense. We definitely have an interesting profession, don't we? Thank you for noticing what I have been saying for quite awhile on the way our profession has created itself. Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then complain? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:03 -0400 Re: Re: Another play M I never claimed that Mr Bigg or ACAOM was into any wrong doing. That's the difference between us. I don't trust blindly. I want to see PROOF from all including these so called national orgs. And neither should you be speculating that FPD is done deal and that all the PROOF has been received.. We go back to the source of the computation...which is ACAOM and let's SEE the PROOF. WHY do you want to except their word BLINDLY? It is of course unreasonable to calculate every patient into the figures. It is interesting to see that after 40 years NOW there is this school-cottage-industry PUSH for FPD. This profession should have been brought through the regionally accredited 2 year colleges and then moved up from there to 4 yr regionally accredited colleges for entry level degree. Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:18:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: I would give much more credibility to an organization that posts its results anytime over an individual with a nice photo. I am unsure as to how you would expect someone to win this kind of argument in a court of law, without actual proof. The same can be stated for your issue with Mr. Bigg. If you have proof of wrong-doing then great, let's all see it. If not, then we should not be speculating upon it. All I have been asking for, is to show us the proof of wrongdoing so all of us can have an open and informed discussion. I was referring to individuals with a political agenda that seek to prevent the FPD at all costs. From one that has completed an actual doctorate, I can agree with Don, it provided a much deeper educational experience. Legislating one does not even come close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 R, That is simply not true and I plan to continue doing more. I have been asked to lend some help on the FPD issue and I think I will do so. The fact is that our profession likes to complain while avoiding involvement, that is human nature but does not help overcome our problems. Status quo is not a solution to our problems and never has been. A better attitude, is what have we done today? So what are your solutions that help us move forward? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine acudoc11 Mon, 3 May 2010 16:21:30 -0400 Re: Re: Another play There you go again making accusations while ignoring the FACTS. I have done more for the profession than I see you have. So why don't you Do something constructive? Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc In a message dated 5/3/2010 4:10:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, naturaldoc1 writes: Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then complain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 I pay my professional dues every year. I do try to financially support our organizations unless they are doing something I am strongly against. And at this time they get a C+ or B-. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Mon, 3 May 2010 20:54:13 +0000 > RE: Re: Another play > > > R, > > That is simply not true and I plan to continue doing more. I have been asked to lend some help on the FPD issue and I think I will do so. The fact is that our profession likes to complain while avoiding involvement, that is human nature but does not help overcome our problems. Status quo is not a solution to our problems and never has been. A better attitude, is what have we done today? > > So what are your solutions that help us move forward? > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > acudoc11 > Mon, 3 May 2010 16:21:30 -0400 > Re: Re: Another play > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There you go again making accusations while ignoring the FACTS. > > I have done more for the profession than I see you have. > > So why don't you Do something constructive? > > > > Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc > > > > > > In a message dated 5/3/2010 4:10:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > naturaldoc1 writes: > > > > Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then > > complain? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Yes, I agree with you here. It appears that it's the seniors that have been running the organization all along and folks just aren't happy with the direction they have taken in the past and now. Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Mon, 3 May 2010 19:29:33 +0000 > RE: Re: Another play > > > Lonny, > > Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that a group of OM elders would do any better then recent graduates at running the profession. There are so many facets to this issue that we cannot limit our vision to simply OM experience/education. There are many practitioners that are getting more then one degree, in order to better work inside the profession (John Chen PharmD, Tran Viet Tzung MD, Dan Bensky DO) to name but a few. > > I have noticed that a lack of basic knowledge in organizations, legislation, even politics has created real problems for us (large master's program, poor license regulations, scope of practice). > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Mon, 3 May 2010 19:03:54 +0000 > Re: Another play > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills. > > > > Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something we recognize. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________ > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\ T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there are those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine. We should be teaching the complete medicine. Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics. Just enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I don't think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for those who want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the master's might have been lacking. Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from the beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining will change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to mold what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and guiding things as they become. Sincerely, Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. Chinese Traditional Medicine naturaldoc1 Mon, 3 May 2010 17:31:56 +0000 RE: Re: Another play Don, I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer whole. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500 > RE: Re: Another play > > > That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our patient? > > > > Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom. What should we base our hierarchy on? > > > > Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I, for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect humans just like you and me. > > > > So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on? > > > > Again my two cents. > > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Medicine > Revolution > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000 > Re: Another play > > > > > > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap. > > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged. > > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified. > > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise. > > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of individual's motivations and value systems. > > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are motivated by the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Don, It is hard to have a conversation when people lack the education to be informed on the issue. I also agree that schools are just following what those of us in the profession have set them up to do, they teach to a certain level. We seem to forget that we our a part of the problem. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Mon, 3 May 2010 16:22:35 -0500 > RE: Re: Another play > > > That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there are those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine. We should be teaching the complete medicine. > > > > Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics. Just enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I don't think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for those who want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the master's might have been lacking. > > > > Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from the beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining will change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to mold what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and guiding things as they become. > > > > Sincerely, > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Mon, 3 May 2010 17:31:56 +0000 > RE: Re: Another play Don, > > I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer whole. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > > don83407 > > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500 > > RE: Re: Another play > > > > > > That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our patient? > > > > > > > > Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom. What should we base our hierarchy on? > > > > > > > > Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I, for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect humans just like you and me. > > > > > > > > So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on? > > > > > > > > Again my two cents. > > > > > > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Revolution > > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000 > > Re: Another play > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap. > > > > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged. > > > > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified. > > > > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise. > > > > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of individual's motivations and value systems. > > > > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are motivated by the bottom line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Touchet' don Chinese Traditional Medicine naturaldoc1 Mon, 3 May 2010 21:37:45 +0000 RE: Re: Another play Don, It is hard to have a conversation when people lack the education to be informed on the issue. I also agree that schools are just following what those of us in the profession have set them up to do, they teach to a certain level. We seem to forget that we our a part of the problem. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > don83407 > Mon, 3 May 2010 16:22:35 -0500 > RE: Re: Another play > > > That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there are those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine. We should be teaching the complete medicine. > > > > Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics. Just enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I don't think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for those who want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the master's might have been lacking. > > > > Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from the beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining will change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to mold what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and guiding things as they become. > > > > Sincerely, > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Mon, 3 May 2010 17:31:56 +0000 > RE: Re: Another play Don, > > I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer whole. > > Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > > > Chinese Traditional Medicine > > don83407 > > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500 > > RE: Re: Another play > > > > > > That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our patient? > > > > > > > > Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom. What should we base our hierarchy on? > > > > > > > > Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I, for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect humans just like you and me. > > > > > > > > So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on? > > > > > > > > Again my two cents. > > > > > > > > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac. > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Revolution > > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000 > > Re: Another play > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap. > > > > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged. > > > > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's opinion up to the most qualified. > > > > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But the Truth never reflects compromise. > > > > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of individual's motivations and value systems. > > > > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are motivated by the bottom line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2010 Report Share Posted May 3, 2010 Greetings from Down Under I admit to barely skimming most posts in this thread, yet from my distant and totally unattached position, whatever is going on over there is ultimately good for the profession of acupuncture and TCM. Here in Oz, we're a pretty relaxed bunch. Only one state requires registration with a board, but this changes to a national registration in 2012. Our nationally centralized tertiary education system means that all Aussies study very similar degrees in TCM / acupuncture. Our professional interests are well-represented by our national association, and some of us choose to join a few other associations which also represent other natural medicine modalities. It would be accurate to say that very few of us have an interest in joining local committees, or becoming involved in our associations, which are also lobby groups who represent our profession to government and health insurers. That there is vigorous and active debate amongst US based practitioners - regardless of what the debate is - must be good for an emergent 21stC health profession. I can't even imagine what kind of lightning rod would activate Aussie practitioners to become impassioned and active in large numbers. It would take years of our collective disinterest and quiet mutterings to get to a point where we all rose up, Liver Yang released, in an uprush of passion or fury. All professions and guilds and associations have a hierarchy. Most of those who end up at the pointy end, get there because they have actively sought to be there, not because like cream, they rose passively to the top. There are lessons here for each of us. Margi Macdonald Brisbane - Australia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 There are many things to consider in recognizing what a natural hierarchy might be in our profession and I agree it's not as simple as the number of years practiced. Going into the discussion we'd have to acknowledge that most people in the profession simply don't acknowledge hierarchy. It isn't on their radar screen. Everything is seen as being equal and relative, " you have your truth, I have my truth, an nobody knows The truth. All points of view are equal. " This sate (hierarchy deficit syndrome of HDS) is culturally conditioned into most of us who've grown up in the USA since 1960. IN order to recognize an authentic hierarchy and who is actually capable of leading the way we'd need to understand the natural development and structure of value systems. In the USA most people born here are rooted in a *green meme*, egalitarian and pluralistic value system (hence the import of the notion of " consensus " (which really is a pretense anyway). Why is it a pretense? Because most of the people doing the regulating and pushing for regulations are *Blue meme* (artificial hierarchy, absolutist, the one right way " ) or *orange meme* entrepreneurs ($ and status are the bottom line). I used to go testify at hearings of national import until it became clear that they were just a formality. I'd guess that 60% of the profession are *second tier* systems thinkers. I'd also guess that less than 1% of the profession has reached a level of ethical development as high as their cognitive line of development relative to the higher implications of holistic/integral theory for the self structure. I will simply suggest that until a significant minority of people do actually reach this stage and are driven by the higher motives implicit within it, the profession will continue straight on the course off the cliff that its careening toward. I'll also suggest that, as you point out, this level of development IS NOT dependent on years in practice, language skill, or scholarship. It's really just based on authentic recognition of and striving for a higher purpose and is ultimately a matter of character. SO, my conclusion is not that we need better schools, tests, laws, or study of CM but, rather, that we need a new culture. It strikes me that there isn't anyone better equipped to create it than the who can understand systems theory at the level of CM and hold world centric values. I have been politically involved in this profession for 26 years. I'm always amused at the number of people who are content to YAP on a newsgroup and often wonder how many are on their national, state, and school boards???? It is my assumption that we will get exactly the profession that we deserve and want. One things for sure. We have always had the opportunity to design this profession from the ground up on our own terms in a way that reflects the higher values inherent in the medicine. Instead, most people have seemed intent on emulating the worst attributes of the standard American educational, fiscal, and medical models under the auspices of " raising standards " . I do think that the many of us who have fought against this have been at least a tempering influence. Things could be a lot worse. I think the good news always is that there are teachers at most of the schools who give their hearts and souls to what they are doing. I teach at many of the schools and always find people who give a remarkable amount and really care about what they are doing. And, students have a fantastic degree of options to pursue actual depth in the medicine once they get out of school. If I could identify a single influence that has the potential to do the most harm to the profession it will be insurance reimbursement. If the orange memers are allowed to make the laws and regulations regarding insurance that just might be the last nail in the coffin of " Standard professional " . The imposition of *orange meme* scientific materialism on the medicine is what we have to fight to prevent. Having said all this, let me end by saying that I think most of the news is basically good. While the profession may be form fitted into a least common denominator framework I have absolutely no doubt that there are those who will never rest until they have awoken to the heart of the medicine and that they will, as they always have, be the ones who carry it forward to ever greater heights. A practitioner of CM should be the type of individual whose own integrity is such a force that people are moved before a word about the medicine is spoken. Regards, Lonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Those with the greatest skills often are not the best leaders. Lonny: Those who are the best leaders are humble enough to serve those who have the greatest skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Lonny, Or the profession. Good point though. The recent discussions have focused to attack those in service, that our profession has often placed in these roles. This becomes a straw-man argument and accomplishes little except create more anger and frustration. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine Revolution Mon, 3 May 2010 20:16:36 -0400 Re: Another play Those with the greatest skills often are not the best leaders. Lonny: Those who are the best leaders are humble enough to serve those who have the greatest skill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2010 Report Share Posted May 4, 2010 Margi, Nicely put. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine margi.macdonald Mon, 3 May 2010 22:35:17 +0000 Re: Another play Greetings from Down Under I admit to barely skimming most posts in this thread, yet from my distant and totally unattached position, whatever is going on over there is ultimately good for the profession of acupuncture and TCM. Here in Oz, we're a pretty relaxed bunch. Only one state requires registration with a board, but this changes to a national registration in 2012. Our nationally centralized tertiary education system means that all Aussies study very similar degrees in TCM / acupuncture. Our professional interests are well-represented by our national association, and some of us choose to join a few other associations which also represent other natural medicine modalities. It would be accurate to say that very few of us have an interest in joining local committees, or becoming involved in our associations, which are also lobby groups who represent our profession to government and health insurers. That there is vigorous and active debate amongst US based practitioners - regardless of what the debate is - must be good for an emergent 21stC health profession. I can't even imagine what kind of lightning rod would activate Aussie practitioners to become impassioned and active in large numbers. It would take years of our collective disinterest and quiet mutterings to get to a point where we all rose up, Liver Yang released, in an uprush of passion or fury. All professions and guilds and associations have a hierarchy. Most of those who end up at the pointy end, get there because they have actively sought to be there, not because like cream, they rose passively to the top. There are lessons here for each of us. Margi Macdonald Brisbane - Australia _______________ The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en\ -US:WM_HMP:042010_3 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.