Guest guest Posted May 5, 2000 Report Share Posted May 5, 2000 Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. Please lets carry on. Also consider that according to Unschuld, except for the shang han lun, TCM bian zheng herbology did not come into existence until about 1000 AD. Before then, it had developed largely as an empirical discipline. This empirical body of knowledge was then scrutinized using prevailing medical concepts to yield a diagnostic and prognostic system for treating patterns, not just diseases. Other holistic systems treat patterns empirically, like homeopathy, eclecticism, perhaps some styles of kampo. I like to think my position is always against treating bing without addressing zheng, not empiricism versus rationalism, per se. The pendulum can certainly swing too far towards rationalism and this was true of some attempts at conceptualization in both later medieval chinese and greek medicine. In fact, many historians think greek medicine died because its rationalism had become so completely divorced from practice. Paracelsus, who exemplified this pragmatic movement, is, of course, also the name of large online discussion group devoted to eclectic healers. For those who like this stuff, consider joining them, as well. But please stay with us, too. I love this debate. for more about paracelsus, go to http://www.healthwwweb.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2000 Report Share Posted May 6, 2000 I read this text about 16 years ago, and have come back to it again and again ever since. It is interesting that homeopathy is still considered to be empirical, because, although it started that way with Hahnemann, a body of rational theory has developed over time, and like bian zheng medicine, it treats patterns of symptoms, remedy by remedy. It would seem that empiricism keeps the vitality of new discoveries entering the world of medicine, and rationalism connects it with the existing body of information. However, without the principles of nature and the universe that underlie rational systems, the emperical approach cannot be passed on to future generations intact. >Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a >medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of >rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this >grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. >Please lets carry on. > >Also consider that according to Unschuld, except for the shang han lun, >TCM bian zheng herbology did not come into existence until about 1000 >AD. Before then, it had developed largely as an empirical discipline. >This empirical body of knowledge was then scrutinized using prevailing >medical concepts to yield a diagnostic and prognostic system for >treating patterns, not just diseases. Other holistic systems treat >patterns empirically, like homeopathy, eclecticism, perhaps some styles >of kampo. I like to think my position is always against treating bing >without addressing zheng, not empiricism versus rationalism, per se. > >The pendulum can certainly swing too far towards rationalism and this >was true of some attempts at conceptualization in both later medieval >chinese and greek medicine. In fact, many historians think greek >medicine died because its rationalism had become so completely divorced >from practice. Paracelsus, who exemplified this pragmatic movement, is, >of course, also the name of large online discussion group devoted to >eclectic healers. For those who like this stuff, consider joining them, >as well. But please stay with us, too. I love this debate. > >for more about paracelsus, go to http://www.healthwwweb.com > >Todd > > >------ >eLerts >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! >http://click./1/3864/9/_/542111/_/957576064/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2000 Report Share Posted May 7, 2000 > and rationalized formulations of th underlying principles of nature may have to be reformulated in a new generation when the patient " ground " has changed, based on new empirical evidence. There's no change in the underlying principles, but applications may have to change in new circumstances. I have a friend who studied traditional Ayurveda with a master of that system in Nepal. Part of the tradition is that the methods have to be reassessed (empirically) each generation. Paul > It would seem that empiricism keeps the vitality of new discoveries entering > the world of medicine, and rationalism connects it with the existing body of > information. However, without the principles of nature and the universe that > underlie rational systems, the emperical approach cannot be passed on to > future generations intact. > > > > >Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a > >medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of > >rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this > >grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. > >Please lets carry on. > > > >Also consider that according to Unschuld, except for the shang han lun, > >TCM bian zheng herbology did not come into existence until about 1000 > >AD. Before then, it had developed largely as an empirical discipline. > >This empirical body of knowledge was then scrutinized using prevailing > >medical concepts to yield a diagnostic and prognostic system for > >treating patterns, not just diseases. Other holistic systems treat > >patterns empirically, like homeopathy, eclecticism, perhaps some styles > >of kampo. I like to think my position is always against treating bing > >without addressing zheng, not empiricism versus rationalism, per se. > > > >The pendulum can certainly swing too far towards rationalism and this > >was true of some attempts at conceptualization in both later medieval > >chinese and greek medicine. In fact, many historians think greek > >medicine died because its rationalism had become so completely divorced > >from practice. Paracelsus, who exemplified this pragmatic movement, is, > >of course, also the name of large online discussion group devoted to > >eclectic healers. For those who like this stuff, consider joining them, > >as well. But please stay with us, too. I love this debate. > > > >for more about paracelsus, go to http://www.healthwwweb.com > > > >Todd > > > > > >------ > >eLerts > >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! > >http://click./1/3864/9/_/542111/_/957576064/ > >------ > > > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > ------ > *--- FREE VOICEMAIL FOR YOUR HOME PHONE! ---* > With eVoice Now you can keep in touch with clients, vendors, co-workers, > friends and family ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Sign Up Today for FREE! > http://click./1/3426/9/_/542111/_/957669939/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help -- Paul Bergner Editor, Medical Herbalism Clinical Program Director, Rocky Mountain Center for Botanical Studies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2000 Report Share Posted May 7, 2000 But in order to reasess medical traditions, there has to be enough knowledge of the tradition to do so. It is my contention that we do not have that knowledge at this stage. . ..we westerners do not have enough access to the tradition, i.e. knowledge of medical Chinese. The main classics such as the Nei Jing remain basically untranslated. How can we modify what we don't know? Also, the Chinese have undertaken the cultural experiment known as zhong xi yi jie he, or 'combined western-chinese medicine'. How will the tradition survive a subservient role in a combined medicine where biomedical diagnosis and protocols call the shots? >> > >and rationalized formulations of th underlying principles of nature may >have to >be reformulated in a new generation when the patient " ground " has changed, >based on new empirical evidence. There's no change in the underlying >principles, but applications may have to change in new circumstances. I have a >friend who studied traditional Ayurveda with a master of that system in Nepal. >Part of the tradition is that the methods have to be reassessed (empirically) >each generation. > >Paul > >> It would seem that empiricism keeps the vitality of new discoveries entering >> the world of medicine, and rationalism connects it with the existing body of >> information. However, without the principles of nature and the universe >>that >> underlie rational systems, the emperical approach cannot be passed on to >> future generations intact. >> > > > > >> >> >> >Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a >> >medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of >> >rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this >> >grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. >> >Please lets carry on. >> > >> >Also consider that according to Unschuld, except for the shang han lun, >> >TCM bian zheng herbology did not come into existence until about 1000 >> >AD. Before then, it had developed largely as an empirical discipline. >> >This empirical body of knowledge was then scrutinized using prevailing >> >medical concepts to yield a diagnostic and prognostic system for >> >treating patterns, not just diseases. Other holistic systems treat >> >patterns empirically, like homeopathy, eclecticism, perhaps some styles >> >of kampo. I like to think my position is always against treating bing >> >without addressing zheng, not empiricism versus rationalism, per se. >> > >> >The pendulum can certainly swing too far towards rationalism and this >> >was true of some attempts at conceptualization in both later medieval >> >chinese and greek medicine. In fact, many historians think greek >> >medicine died because its rationalism had become so completely divorced >> >from practice. Paracelsus, who exemplified this pragmatic movement, is, >> >of course, also the name of large online discussion group devoted to >> >eclectic healers. For those who like this stuff, consider joining them, >> >as well. But please stay with us, too. I love this debate. >> > >> >for more about paracelsus, go to http://www.healthwwweb.com >> > >> >Todd >> > >> > >> >------ >> >eLerts >> >It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! >> >http://click./1/3864/9/_/542111/_/957576064/ >> >------ >> > >> >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help >> >> ------ >> *--- FREE VOICEMAIL FOR YOUR HOME PHONE! ---* >> With eVoice Now you can keep in touch with clients, vendors, co-workers, >> friends and family ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. Sign Up Today for FREE! >> http://click./1/3426/9/_/542111/_/957669939/ >> ------ >> >> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > >-- >Paul Bergner >Editor, Medical Herbalism >Clinical Program Director, Rocky Mountain Center for Botanical Studies > > > >------ >Save up to 54% on Quest & Kelty tents, backpacks, sleeping bags and >outdoor gear. FREE Shipping and a 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee at >screaminghotdeals.com >http://click./1/4012/9/_/542111/_/957679615/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2000 Report Share Posted May 7, 2000 Homeopathy is considered empirical because it does not label a pattern before selecting a remedy, but the remedy is focused on a pattern nonetheless, not a symptom or a disease. I suppose you could say that sulfur is the dx and the tx; that's what some kampo folks say. but without a rational label as opposed to a merely identifying label, one cannot use theory to learn anything about the interactions BETWEEN patterns. <zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > I read this text about 16 years ago, and have come back to it again and > again ever since. It is interesting that homeopathy is still considered to > be empirical, because, although it started that way with Hahnemann, a body > of rational theory has developed over time, and like bian zheng medicine, > it treats patterns of symptoms, remedy by Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2000 Report Share Posted May 7, 2000 but in TCM, at least, that reassessment always culminates in an expansion or refinement of theory, not a license to apply remedies in a purely empirical fashion Paul Bergner <bergner@m...> wrote: > > > > Part of the tradition is that the methods have to be reassessed (empirically) > each generation. > > Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 In a message dated 5/6/00 11:25:59 PM, zrosenberg writes: >Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a >>medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of >>rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this >>grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. >>Please lets carry on. This was the textbook for our history of western medicine course in OM school in San Francisco in 1982, taught by an MD! DAVe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 " Divided Legacy " is a wonderful elation depicting the battle created by the AMA in order to suppress alternative (altho at that specific point in history, mainstream) medicine. It's a splendid book! The AMA is an organization whose intent was to create a monopoly, and that intent is still in place! I refer readers to a text entitled " Rackteering in Medicine " by James P. Carter, MD, Dr. P.H. luke , acuman1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 5/6/00 11:25:59 PM, zrosenberg@p... writes: > > >Has anyone ever read Divided Legacy by Harris Coulter. This is a > >>medical history that is organized around the timeless debate of > >>rationalism versus empiricism. We have inadvertently stumbled onto this > >>grand discourse. It underlies many of our controversial debates. > >>Please lets carry on. > > > This was the textbook for our history of western medicine course in OM school > in San Francisco in 1982, taught by an MD! > DAVe 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.