Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 This debate over purism has got me thinking about the different terms, purist, eclectic, rational and empirical. I drew a little chart to help me sort it out and it just doesn't seem right to label TCM purist, when it is clearly quite eclectic. It incorporates numerous modalities (acupuncture, tui na, bonesetting, herbology, qi gong) and uses herbs borrowed from many different cultures (mo yao, for example). It is certainly no less eclectic in this regard than naturopathy. What distinguishes TCM from naturopathy is it's reliance on rational pattern discrimination. In this way, naturopathy is actually more akin to allopathy in that they are both largely eclectic and empirical. While naturopathy has a unique philosophy, this does not really constitute a set of diagnostic rules for rational pattern discrimination, as in TCM. So in order for therapies to be incorporated into TCM, they must be used according to some form of pattern discrimination. If they are not being used this way, then they are being used empirically. There is nothing wrong with empirical medicine, but chiropractors, MD's and ND's are all legally allowed to practice Chinese herbology in this empirical fashion in many states where they are licensed. We distinguish ourselves as a profession by using rational pattern discrimination (whether this is primarily by pulse, abdominal palpation, TCM questioning, etc.). Homeopathy is indeed considered the quintessential empirical medicine. But is it eclectic itself? While using a diverse array of remedies from animal, mineral and vegetable, they all must be potentized. So is homeopathy purist? Have you ever talked to a hardcore classicist like Durr Ellmore at NCNM. He is proud to be pure in this way. I would argue that classical homeopathy is more purist than any other "system" in this sense. Thus, in order to ethically practice homeopathy as part of Acupuncture, one needs to either rigorously study this pure system on its own or somehow rationalize the remedies according to bian zheng. According to Dr. Ellmore, who was my homeopathy professor at NCNM for 2 terms, in order to effectively practice classical homeopathy requires detailed memorization of at least 500 remedies. That, computer programs can only get you so far and that, like chinese herbology, having the information in your human brain transforms your relationship to the information in ways that cannot be done if you do have the data in your head. This is a serious intellectual undertaking, one that was more than I could handle and seriously pursue chinese herbology. I have not been able to think of a rational purist system of medicine, as I have defined these terms. That would be a medicine which uses a single therapy like potentized dilutions, yet selects these remedies based on some form of rational pattern discrimination. Since homeopathy no longer exists as a distinct profession in most of the world, it has been effectively absorbed into other professions. Mainly MD's and ND's practice homeopathy professionally and both of these fields are eclectic/empirical, albeit each in their own ways. So homeopathy becomes part of an eclectic armamentarium. No longer pure. This is a major shift, because many classicists, including Dr. Ellmore, oppose the use of herbs or other natural medicines in material doses. So, it seems there are really only two eclectic camps left, one rational, the other empirical. We can thus incorporate any therapy into our rational framework. TCM is open that way. In fact, according to Paul Unschuld, chinese herbology was practiced largely as an empirical medicine until about 1000 years ago. But it only really began to advance and achieve high status for its success when this empirical body of knowledge was reorganized according to pattern discrimination concepts. So to merely use therapies because they work is placing yourself squarely in the other empirical camp. I think this diminishes our long tradition because the hallmark of ALL professional asian medicines is some form of bian zheng. This must have something to do with its durability. I have reproduced the chart that provoked these thoughts below. Remedies Eclectic TCM, Ayurveda, Greek, Tibetan Naturopathy, Biomedicine, Eclecticism Dx Method: Rational Empirical ???? Classical Homeopathy Purist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 I think here you need to look at Volume I, the introduction of "Divided Legacy", to put this into perspective. Purist generally refers to doctrine, i.e. inflexible dogma which describes everything by one perspective. All divergences are seen to be wrong as a result. Chinese medicine, because of its basis in dialectical perspective, is able to synthesize different and even opposing perspectives, not dissimilar to talmudic debates on Jewish law. In other words, begin with an agreement on the nature of the reality being described, then debate specific issues within that reality. Empirical, i.e., 'what works', is really a broad classification that includes everything from kinesiology to homeopathic medicine. However, unlike kinesiology, homeopathy has evolved a large body of knowledge and data about potentized medicines and their effects on the body, and continues to evolve theoretical knowledge about these medicines that, in my opinion, is beginning to become more of a rational school of medicine (i.e., evolve a theoretical foundation, as in the work of Berkeley Digby, Francisco Eizayaga, and Vega Rozenberg). In fact, some authors, such as Jeremy Scherr, borrow five phases and other Chinese medical theories to organize the huge amount of data collected in homeopathy in the last few hundred years. When empiricism is used as Harris Coulter describes, in other words, building therapeutics out of collected experience, it has the advantage of first-hand, here-now results. Homeopathy, however, has stringent rules about how this data is to be employed in patient care. When homeopathic remedies, or Chinese herbal remedies, are used out of context, however, in an eclectic fashion, they both lose context, efficacy, and there is danger of iatrogenesis. This is a major problem with modern health care, the 'pick and choose' mentality, all surface and no depth. While some techniques are strong enough to relieve symptoms in the here and now, there is a problem with follow, prognosis and projection of the path of an illness and the recovery of a patient. One of the 'problems' with classical homeopathy has always been its purist nature. However, this is the only type of homeopathy I support. Because of the fear of antidoting remedies, or the inability to determine the action of a remedy, other forms of treatment are discouraged, including herbs, medications, and acupuncture. Therefore, according to homeopathic theory, the use of remedies cannot be combined with Chinese medical treatment. This makes it very difficult to practice anything other than classical homeopathy as a result, at least concurrently with Chinese medical treatment. It also reduces the number of patients that will follow classical homeopathic treatment, and puts great pressure on the expertise of a homeopath. If the remedy is not correct, nothing will happen, and the patient's condition will degenerate further. Let's continue this thread. > This debate over purism has got me thinking about the different terms, purist, eclectic, rational and empirical. & nbsp; I drew a little chart to help me sort it out and it just doesn't seem right to label TCM purist, when it is clearly quite eclectic. & nbsp; It incorporates numerous modalities (acupuncture, tui na, bonesetting, herbology, qi gong) and uses herbs borrowed from many different cultures (mo yao, for example). & nbsp; It is certainly no less eclectic in this regard than naturopathy. >What distinguishes TCM from naturopathy is it's reliance on rational pattern discrimination. & nbsp; In this way, naturopathy is actually more akin to allopathy in that they are both largely eclectic and empirical. & nbsp; While naturopathy has a unique philosophy, this does not really constitute a set of diagnostic rules for rational pattern discrimination, as in TCM. & nbsp; So in order for therapies to be incorporated into TCM, they must be used according to some form of pattern discrimination. & nbsp; If they are not being used this way, then they are being used empirically. & nbsp; There is nothing wrong with empirical medicine, but chiropractors, MD's and ND's are all legally allowed to practice Chinese herbology in this empirical fashion in many states where they are licensed. We distinguish ourselves as a profession by using rational pattern discrimination (whether this is primarily by pulse, abdominal palpation, TCM questioning, etc.). >Homeopathy is indeed considered the quintessential empirical medicine. & nbsp; But is it eclectic itself? & nbsp; While using a diverse array of remedies from animal, mineral and vegetable, they all must be potentized. & nbsp; So is homeopathy purist? & nbsp; Have you ever talked to a hardcore classicist like Durr Ellmore at NCNM. & nbsp; He is proud to be pure in this way. & nbsp; I would argue that classical homeopathy is more purist than any other "system" in this sense. & nbsp; Thus, in order to ethically practice homeopathy as part of Acupuncture, one needs to either rigorously study this pure system on its own or somehow rationalize the remedies according to bian zheng. >According to Dr. Ellmore, who was my homeopathy professor at NCNM for 2 terms, in order to effectively practice classical homeopathy requires detailed memorization of at least 500 remedies. & nbsp; That, computer programs can only get you so far and that, like chinese herbology, having the information in your human brain transforms your relationship to the information in ways that cannot be done if you do have the data in your head. & nbsp; This is a serious intellectual undertaking, one that was more than I could handle and seriously pursue chinese herbology. >I have not been able to think of a rational purist system of medicine, as I have defined these terms. & nbsp; That would be a medicine which uses a single therapy like potentized dilutions, yet selects these remedies based on some form of rational pattern discrimination. & nbsp; Since homeopathy no longer exists as a distinct profession in most of the world, it has been effectively absorbed into other professions. & nbsp; Mainly MD's and ND's practice homeopathy professionally and both of these fields are eclectic/empirical, albeit each in their own ways. & nbsp; So homeopathy becomes part of an eclectic armamentarium. & nbsp; No longer pure. & nbsp; This is a major shift, because many classicists, including Dr. Ellmore, oppose the use of herbs or other natural medicines in material doses. >So, it seems there are really only two eclectic camps left, one rational, the other empirical. & nbsp; We can thus incorporate any therapy into our rational framework. & nbsp; TCM is open that way. & nbsp; In fact, according to Paul Unschuld, chinese herbology was practiced largely as an empirical medicine until about 1000 years ago. & nbsp; But it only really began to advance and achieve high status for its success when this empirical body of knowledge was reorganized according to pattern discrimination concepts. & nbsp; So to merely use therapies because they work is placing yourself squarely in the other empirical camp. & nbsp; I think this diminishes our long tradition because the hallmark of ALL professional asian medicines is some form of bian zheng. & nbsp; This must have something to do with its durability. >I have reproduced the chart that provoked these thoughts below. >Todd >Remedies >Eclectic >TCM, Ayurveda, Greek, Tibetan & nbsp; Naturopathy, Biomedicine, Eclecticism >Dx Method: & nbsp; Rational & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; Empirical > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???? Classical Homeopathy >Purist <http://click./1/4774/9/_/542111/_/959970696/http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/promo/landing?code=P11C99S1N0B2A3V1 target="_blank"> ÝÝType your search here: Ýwww. Ý Ý.com >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 I'm thankful and amazed to find so many thoughtful and highly dedicated practitioners here. I am grateful to all taking part and will respond as soon as I can to all comments and suggestions but I'm a bit overwhelmed as I also have a busy practise. Just a note, to point out that when I first proposed a division of pure vs. eclectic, I intended to characterize styles of practitioners and educators regarding treatment modalities. Many practitioners choose to solely focus on the use of acupuncture, Chinese herbal formulations , tui na, cupping, etc. from the rich source that is. And these practitioners have a point. On the otherhand, some practitioners are health care practitioners first and choose to use a broader scope of tools. This does not immediately mean that they are poor practitioners of Oriental medicine. It means that they simply practise more than Chinese medicine. [Along these lines, I have known MD's and DO's who have been highly trained in Chinese medicine; I have worked with MD's who have spent years in the study of homeopathy.] Ken makes a powerful appeal [message 1332] regarding the vastness of material of Chinese medical literature. I am thankful to him and others at this site for their passionate dedication to expanding availability of these sources to the rest of us. And I would certainly agree that being able to read in Chinese broadens one's knowledge in an ineffable way. This is the work of scholars. As much as I value Ken's and Bob's and Z'ev's intent and insight, I do not agree that the ability to read Chinese is " necessary " to the practise of Chinese medicine, anymore so than having to study homeopathy in German is. [note: I have studied both Chinese and Japanese, though i readily admit that I am not fluent in either language. And do realize the vast scope of difference between European vs. Asian cultures.] I have what I consider to be a successful practise solely on the basis of patient and physician referral even though I would never claim to be a scholar of Chinese medical work. I have sufficient knowledge and skills to be able to help many people even though most of my education was in the English language. Naturally it takes much effort to try to understand the various ways that writers translate, what they intend to convey and whether their terminology reflects other terminology. As in any field of knowledge, one can never know it all. Scholars choose to focus on very narrow topics. There are 1000's of scientific and academic journals relating to their respective interests and sub-interests. This is all for the good. I believe, however, that society also benefits from the thoughts of other individuals who focus on the greater picture and the interweaving of threads. Is any system complete? Personally I don't think that Chinese medicine, as much as I love it, has all the answers. I search for the truth, hoping and believing that there is such a thing. I seek to discover where the tenets of one system mirror those of another. I get a thrill from discovering a discussion, for example, of how the kidney's influence respiration in Anthroposophical medical thinking. It fascinates me that terms like " qi " , " prana " and " pneuma " have so much in common. I'm curious when researchers discover a correlation of acupuncture points and electrical conductivity/resistance. That is perhaps why I label myself as eclectic. Perhaps a better word would be a synthesist, though it would be nice to come up with a term that doesn't carry connotation. Someone pointed out that TCM practitioners in China can prescribe antibiotics. Do they do so based on the system of thought that proposes that infections are a result of bacterial attack and therefore an agent is required to battle this bug or do they do so thinking in terms of the cold nature of the agent, from a TCM point of view? My point is that what I intended by the use of the terms eclectic and purist is that the former way of thinking in prescribing the antibiotic is eclectic, the latter is purist. When Jim looks at complexity theory, I believe he remains a purist. He, if I understood correctly, is thinking in terms of the Oriental medical paradigm. On the other hand if I treat my child for an ear infection, I might, in addition to my analysis based on the Oriental model, note that her symptoms look very similar to the symptom picture of homeopathic 'mercurius'. That's eclectic. And surprise, surprise, my child recovers. Moving on, I would agree with you, that classic homeopathy is probably the closest form of empirical science. Incidentally, Anthroposophy has incorporated homeopathy, in much the same that Einsteinian physics has incorporated Newtonian, but Anthroposophical medicine is a rational system. There is a growing group of health care providers creating a system they call Functional medicine. I believe that this system is the formation of a rational approach to modern medicine. Practitioners who practise this system look at the inter-relatedness of physiological systems, environmental and dietary factors, and emotional components; they then attempt to discover the pattern of illness and how this particular patient can best be directed in order to bring him/her to a state of wellness. Thank you all for the stimulation. So much food for thought! One quick question, since we're talking about terminology; How do practitioners define: TCM Chinese medicine Oriental medicine and Traditional East Asian medicine ? luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 a professional style of chinese medicine derived from classical texts, based upon the concept of bian zheng. While many have dismissed this label (TCM) as referring to a communist, purified form of the traditional medicine, this is because they have only been exposed to basic textbooks. Commentaries on the classics are just as much part of modern TCM, as are the idiosyncratic case histories of senior herbalists. The fact that this is not widely known is just another example of what is missed when one only has access to english language sources. Chinese medicine - anything a chinese person has ever done in the name of healing, including prayers, charms, talisman, meditation and including TCM Oriental medicine and Traditional East Asian medicine - I would suggest that these two mean the same thing. However oriental is considered a derogatory term in all academic circles except our own. I think this would refer to any practice used in east asia, not limited to china or professionals, per se. East Indian and arab medicines are usually excluded from this term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 Very well stated, Thank you, luke , herb-t@s... wrote: > > a professional style of chinese medicine derived from classical > texts, based upon the concept of bian zheng. While many have > dismissed > this label (TCM) as referring to a communist, purified form of the > traditional medicine, this is because they have only been exposed to > basic textbooks. Commentaries on the classics are just as much part > of > modern TCM, as are the idiosyncratic case histories of senior > herbalists. The fact that this is not widely known is just another > example of what is missed when one only has access to english > language > sources. > > Chinese medicine - anything a chinese person has ever done in the > name > of healing, including prayers, charms, talisman, meditation and > including TCM > > Oriental medicine and Traditional East Asian medicine - I would > suggest > that these two mean the same thing. However oriental is considered a > derogatory term in all academic circles except our own. I think this > would refer to any practice used in east asia, not limited to china > or > professionals, per se. East Indian and arab medicines are usually > excluded from this term. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 Hello, Z'ev, I must comment on your message 1370. When I first used the terms, purist and eclectic, I did not intend to connote dogma. It is unfortunate that many of these terms (labels) carry baggage. Can you offer a better general term for one who practices a single system of medicine? [and I'm not being facetious.] I don't agree that empiricism means " what work's " but rather, it is the theory that all knowledge is derived from experience and that no knowledge is innate or a priori. Homeopaths observe that in large doses certain substances produce certain symptoms. They then use minute doses of those same substances to treat patients who present with corresponding symptoms. [Naturally, there is a theoretical assumption here, i.e. that " like treats like " and that what in larger doses imbalances physiological homeostasis, in minute doses restores this homeostasis.] With regard to " iatrogenesis " , there is always risk of iatrogenesis, whether one practices allopathic medicine or not. Medicine is both an art and a science. I agree that the 'pick and choose' mentality increases risk, but I comment that thoughtful practise, from within the context of a system can successfully be combined with thoughtful use of methods from another system. Regarding antidoting, there is also the notion of complementary medicines in homeopathy. The task of coordinating things out is in the hands of the skillful practitioner. We practitioners of pulse diagnosis are fortunate to have an immediate feedback tool by which to quantitatively and qualitatively measure the effect. Thanks for the continuing thoughtful remarks and inspiration, luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 Luke, > As much as I value Ken's and Bob's and Z'ev's intent and insight, I do not > agree that the ability to read Chinese is " necessary " to the practise of > Chinese medicine, ...> I don't hold that it is necessary for any or all individuals who wish to practice Chinese medicine to read Chinese. I do hold that in order for there to be social structures that effectively convey Chinese medical education in English language environs, there must come into existence a organized sources of scholarship devoted to the complicated and difficult task of providing access to texts that are written in Chinese for those individuals who do, can, or will not read them in the original. As long as those who refrain from engaging in the study of Chinese language recognize that they will always be at the mercy of others' interpretations of the meanings of the basic texts, I believe that a functional level of skill can be developed by students who do not possess the requisite skill and learning. I do not believe that an education in Chinese medicine that entirely omits the study of Chinese language and the influence it has had on the development of Chinese medical thinking can possibly be considered complete. > As in any field of knowledge, one can never know it all. Scholars choose to > focus on very narrow topics. There are 1000's of scientific and academic > journals relating to their respective interests and sub-interests. This is > all for the good. Precisely. This is the point I stress about the social necessity of such scholarship. Here again, we can benefit from the combination of our efforts. > > I believe, however, that society also benefits from the thoughts of other > individuals who focus on the greater picture and the interweaving of > threads. Is any system complete? Personally I don't think that Chinese > medicine, as much as I love it, has all the answers. And personally I couldn't agree with you more. That is why I will continue to argue for the vigorous scholarship of the classics and the transmission of their contents in order that such threads are in fact available to those who undertake such interweaving. > > > Someone pointed out that TCM practitioners in China can prescribe > antibiotics. Do they do so based on the system of thought that proposes > that infections are a result of bacterial attack and therefore an agent is > required to battle this bug or do they do so thinking in terms of the cold > nature of the agent, from a TCM point of view? Whenever I've encountered Chinese doctors using antibiotics it has been from the point of view of their status as Western pharmaceuticals and not based upon their properties according to Chinese medical theory. Some doctors add herbs to the herbal formulas of patients also taking antibiotics in order to counteract the Chinese medical effects of such drugs. > One quick question, since we're talking about terminology; > > How do practitioners define: > > TCM > Chinese medicine > Oriental medicine > and Traditional East Asian medicine ? Meaningless bable. I am a strong opponent of the overwhelming tendency to create epithets. Why do we need them at all? Whenever talking about something in particular, why not just state what it is? For most of the history of Chinese medicine, Chinese medical writers did not refer to their subject as " Chinese " medicine. It was simply medicine. The need arose, once foreign medicine began to arrive in China and to be practiced by Chinese, to coin a term to differentiate native practices from alien ones. This came relatively late in the history of Chinese medicine and well after Chinese medicine had spread to other parts of Asia to be mingled with native practices elsewhere. Note that whenever Japanese or Koreans or others set about to study and use Chinese medicine, they always included vigorous scholarship of Chinese medical classics as well as translation of those classics and authorship of their own interpretations. Successful models of how to import Chinese medicine exist aplenty. When speaking of traditions that come from China, I refer to them as Chinese. When speaking of traditions that come from Japan, I refer to them as Japanese...and so on. I think the whole field would be far easier to comprehend without these terms. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 To pick up on one of the threads, Ze'v, one of the beautiful and intriguing subtleties of chinese medicine and its theoretical framework is the thought process one engages in when diagnosing. I see the process as Mandalic thought, in which one operates from a center and accesses various branches. Significantly different than linear thought often employed in empirical medicine: " If one has this symptom, treat it with a specific substance. " One makes many connections on many levels when mandalic thought is en route, various spheres and dimensions are accessed, allowing for an integration of all aspects into one dynamic, vibrant wholeness. Creative, imaginative and very fertile soil for growth. Eti Domb > > > I think here you need to look at Volume I, the introduction of > " Divided Legacy " , to put this into perspective. Purist generally > refers to doctrine, i.e. inflexible dogma which describes everything by > one perspective. All divergences are seen to be wrong as a result.=20 > Chinese medicine, because of its basis in dialectical perspective, is > able to synthesize different and even opposing perspectives, not > dissimilar to talmudic debates on Jewish law. In other words, begin > with an agreement on the nature of the reality being described, then > debate specific issues within that reality. Empirical, i.e., 'what > works', is really a broad classification that includes everything from > kinesiology to homeopathic medicine. However, unlike kinesiology, > homeopathy has evolved a large body of knowledge and data about > potentized medicines and their effects on the body, and continues to > evolve theoretical knowledge about these medicines that, in my opinion, > is beginning to become more of a rational school of medicine (i.e., > evolve a theoretical foundation, as in the work of Berkeley Digby, > =46rancisco Eizayaga, and Vega Rozenberg). In fact, some authors, such > as Jeremy Scherr, borrow five phases and other Chinese medical theories > to organize the huge amount of data collected in homeopathy in the last > few hundred years. > > > When empiricism is used as Harris Coulter describes, in other words, > building therapeutics out of collected experience, it has the advantage > of first-hand, here-now results. Homeopathy, however, has stringent > rules about how this data is to be employed in patient care. When > homeopathic remedies, or Chinese herbal remedies, are used out of > context, however, in an eclectic fashion, they both lose context, > efficacy, and there is danger of iatrogenesis. This is a major problem > with modern health care, the 'pick and choose' mentality, all surface > and no depth. While some techniques are strong enough to relieve > symptoms in the here and now, there is a problem with follow, prognosis > and projection of the path of an illness and the recovery of a patient. > =20 > > > One of the 'problems' with classical homeopathy has always been its > purist nature. However, this is the only type of homeopathy I support. > Because of the fear of antidoting remedies, or the inability to > determine the action of a remedy, other forms of treatment are > discouraged, including herbs, medications, and acupuncture. Therefore, > according to homeopathic theory, the use of remedies cannot be combined > with Chinese medical treatment. This makes it very difficult to > practice anything other than classical homeopathy as a result, at least > concurrently with Chinese medical treatment. It also reduces the > number of patients that will follow classical homeopathic treatment, > and puts great pressure on the expertise of a homeopath. If the remedy > is not correct, nothing will happen, and the patient's condition will > degenerate further. =20 > > > Let's continue this thread. > > > > > > > > This debate over purism has got me thinking about the different > terms, purist, eclectic, rational and empirical. & nbsp; I drew a little > chart to help me sort it out and it just doesn't seem right to label > TCM purist, when it is clearly quite eclectic. & nbsp; It incorporates > numerous modalities (acupuncture, tui na, bonesetting, herbology, qi > gong) and uses herbs borrowed from many different cultures (mo yao, for > example). & nbsp; It is certainly no less eclectic in this regard than > naturopathy.=20 > > >What distinguishes TCM from naturopathy is it's reliance on rational > pattern discrimination. & nbsp; In this way, naturopathy is actually more > akin to allopathy in that they are both largely eclectic and > empirical. & nbsp; While naturopathy has a unique philosophy, this does > not really constitute a set of diagnostic rules for rational pattern > discrimination, as in TCM. & nbsp; So in order for therapies to be > incorporated into TCM, they must be used according to some form of > pattern discrimination. & nbsp; If they are not being used this way, then > they are being used empirically. & nbsp; There is nothing wrong with > empirical medicine, but chiropractors, MD's and ND's are all legally > allowed to practice Chinese herbology in this empirical fashion in many > states where they are licensed. We distinguish ourselves as a > profession by using rational pattern discrimination (whether this is > primarily by pulse, abdominal palpation, TCM questioning, etc.).=20 > > >Homeopathy is indeed considered the quintessential empirical > medicine. & nbsp; But is it eclectic itself? & nbsp; While using a diverse > array of remedies from animal, mineral and vegetable, they all must be > potentized. & nbsp; So is homeopathy purist? & nbsp; Have you ever talked > to a hardcore classicist like Durr Ellmore at NCNM. & nbsp; He is proud > to be pure in this way. & nbsp; I would argue that classical homeopathy > is more purist than any other " system " in this sense. & nbsp; Thus, in > order to ethically practice homeopathy as part of Acupuncture, one > needs to either rigorously study this pure system on its own or somehow > rationalize the remedies according to bian zheng.=20 > > >According to Dr. Ellmore, who was my homeopathy professor at NCNM for > 2 terms, in order to effectively practice classical homeopathy requires > detailed memorization of at least 500 remedies. & nbsp; That, computer > programs can only get you so far and that, like chinese herbology, > having the information in your human brain transforms your relationship > to the information in ways that cannot be done if you do have the data > in your head. & nbsp; This is a serious intellectual undertaking, one > that was more than I could handle and seriously pursue chinese > herbology.=20 > > >I have not been able to think of a rational purist system of medicine, > as I have defined these terms. & nbsp; That would be a medicine which > uses a single therapy like potentized dilutions, yet selects these > remedies based on some form of rational pattern discrimination. & nbsp; > Since homeopathy no longer exists as a distinct profession in most of > the world, it has been effectively absorbed into other > professions. & nbsp; Mainly MD's and ND's practice homeopathy > professionally and both of these fields are eclectic/empirical, albeit > each in their own ways. & nbsp; So homeopathy becomes part of an eclectic > armamentarium. & nbsp; No longer pure. & nbsp; This is a major shift, > because many classicists, including Dr. Ellmore, oppose the use of > herbs or other natural medicines in material doses.=20 > > >So, it seems there are really only two eclectic camps left, one > rational, the other empirical. & nbsp; We can thus incorporate any > therapy into our rational framework. & nbsp; TCM is open that way. & nbsp; > In fact, according to Paul Unschuld, chinese herbology was practiced > largely as an empirical medicine until about 1000 years ago. & nbsp; But > it only really began to advance and achieve high status for its success > when this empirical body of knowledge was reorganized according to > pattern discrimination concepts. & nbsp; So to merely use therapies > because they work is placing yourself squarely in the other empirical > camp. & nbsp; I think this diminishes our long tradition because the > hallmark of ALL professional asian medicines is some form of bian > zheng. & nbsp; This must have something to do with its durability.=20 > > >I have reproduced the chart that provoked these thoughts below.=20 > > >Todd =20 > > <bold>>Remedies</bold>=20 > > >Eclectic=20 > > <italic>>TCM, Ayurveda, Greek, Tibetan & nbsp;</italic> > <italic>Naturopathy, Biomedicine,</italic> <italic> Eclecticism=20 > > <bold>>Dx Method: & nbsp; > </bold>Rational & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & = > nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp= > ; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nb= > sp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & = > nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp= > ; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nb= > sp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & = > nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp= > ; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nb= > sp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; > Empirical =20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ???? Classical Homeopathy =20 > > >Purist =20 > <<http://click./1/4774/9/_/542111/_/959970696/http://www.networks= > olutions.com/cgi-bin/promo/landing?code=3DP11C99S1N0B2A3V1 > target=3D " _blank " > =DD=DD<bold>Type your search here:</bold> > = > =20 > =DD<bold>www.</bold> =DD =DD<bold>.com</bold> =20 > <fontfamily><param>Monaco</param> > > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help</fontfamily>=20 > </italic> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Eti, > To pick up on one of the threads, Ze'v, one of the beautiful and intriguing > subtleties of chinese medicine and its theoretical framework is the thought > process one engages in when diagnosing. I see the process as Mandalic thought, > in which one operates from a center and accesses various branches. > Significantly > different than linear thought often employed in empirical medicine: " If one has > this symptom, treat it with a specific substance. " An intriguing notion. Is it fair to ask where you came by this perception? I, too, believe that this fundamentally different approach to the function of thinking underlies a good deal of the characteristic differences between Chinese and Western approaches to medicine. And I'm curious to know what in your own study has brought you to this conclusion. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 In a message dated 6/2/00 5:35:58 PM, zrosenberg writes: << Because of the fear of antidoting remedies, or the inability to determine the action of a remedy, other forms of treatment are discouraged, including herbs, medications, and acupuncture. Therefore, according to homeopathic theory, the use of remedies cannot be combined with Chinese medical treatment. This makes it very difficult to practice anything other than classical homeopathy as a result, at least concurrently with Chinese medical treatment. It also reduces the number of patients that will follow classical homeopathic treatment, and puts great pressure on the expertise of a homeopath. If the remedy is not correct, nothing will happen, and the patient's condition will degenerate further. >> One of my friends had dysentery in India, that couldn't be dealt with with conventional medicine. He went to an Indian Homeopath, who gave hm a single dose. My friend asked him what he should avoid,and they guys said not to avoid anything. If it is the correct remedy, nothing will antidote it. This is one of theviews of homeopathy and one I have seen hold true. I tell pateints to avoid coffee andmint, just in case. I am certainly not as good as many homeopaths, but I dont do many cases. I still get good results, and I always use herbs too. Maybe it is the herbs. Maybe the homeopathy. Maybe the interconnection. I tend to use homeopathy for treatment blocks when I dont see other things working, and it works for me that way. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2000 Report Share Posted June 4, 2000 In a message dated 00-06-04 16:07:24 EDT, you write: << If it is the correct remedy, nothing will antidote it >> David- Agreed. And, the right remedy will work regardless of potency. Gina Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Ken, before replying, allow me to introduce myself, since I never did put in an introductory post. I am a graduating intern at Pacific college and have been apprenticing with Zev Rosenberg for 3 years. I am looking forward to meeting you in person, however, these email discussions are a great oppurtunity to exchange ideas. Brain Candy! I am fascinated by the concept of the mandala. It has been used since antiquity by spiritual and shamanic cultures worldwide, in various forms and contexts. The mandala is a tool, aiding to bring together all elements in the universe through a focal point, a center. The mandala as a concept can be applied to the macro or microcosm. The Mandala, Like Chinese medicine, is an ecclectic concept, drawing on many diverse elements, yet integrating them all into one framework. I came upon the concept of mandalic thought through a challenge I had as a practitioner with the process of diagnosing. I was attempting to bring together and obtain a clear picture out of the vast nebullas of information in my head. I realized that to form a diagnosis, one operates from a center, and draws upon many tools, modalities and theoretical frameworks. Perception, smelling, asking, looking, palpation, etc. The construct of the mandala was helpful to me in my attempt to master the principle of diagnosis. I found that to be able to make sense of the logic of Chinese medicine and how conflicts can and do coexist - they are part of the mandalic construct we access and continue to expand on indefinitely. There is so much room for growth, which is one of the beautiful aspects of our Medicine. So inspiring. A beautiful book: Mandala by Jose and Miriam Araguelles Quoting Cosmic Dragon LLC <yulong: > Eti, > > > To pick up on one of the threads, Ze'v, one of the beautiful and > intriguing > > subtleties of chinese medicine and its theoretical framework is the > thought > > process one engages in when diagnosing. I see the process as Mandalic > thought, > > in which one operates from a center and accesses various branches. > > Significantly > > different than linear thought often employed in empirical medicine: " If > one has > > this symptom, treat it with a specific substance. " > > An intriguing notion. Is it fair to ask where you came by this perception? > I, too, believe that this fundamentally different approach to the function > of thinking underlies a good deal of the characteristic differences between > Chinese and Western approaches to medicine. And I'm curious to know > what in your own study has brought you to this conclusion. > > Ken > > > > ------ > Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving > more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance > rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! > http://click./1/2567/9/_/542111/_/960095709/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2000 Report Share Posted June 5, 2000 Eti, Thanks for your post. If you're at the PCOM event in November, I'll see you there. Ken " Our most fundamental liberties depend upon the freedom of thought and the freedom of expression; and you cannot limit either one in any way without destroying both. " Thomas Jefferson - Eti Domb <edomb Monday, June 05, 2000 2:27 PM Re: some terms and thoughts > Ken, before replying, allow me to introduce myself, since I never did put in an > introductory post. I am a graduating intern at Pacific college and have been > apprenticing with Zev Rosenberg for 3 years. I am looking forward to meeting > you in person, however, these email discussions are a great oppurtunity to > exchange ideas. Brain Candy! > > I am fascinated by the concept of the mandala. It has been used since antiquity > by spiritual and shamanic cultures worldwide, in various forms and contexts. The > > mandala is a tool, aiding to bring together all elements in the universe through > > a focal point, a center. The mandala as a concept can be applied to the macro > or microcosm. > > The Mandala, Like Chinese medicine, is an ecclectic concept, drawing on many > diverse elements, yet integrating them all into one framework. > > I came upon the concept of mandalic thought through a challenge I had as a > practitioner with the process of diagnosing. I was attempting to bring together > > and obtain a clear picture out of the vast nebullas of information in my head. > I realized that to form a diagnosis, one operates from a center, and draws upon > many tools, modalities and theoretical frameworks. Perception, smelling, > asking, looking, palpation, etc. The construct of the mandala was helpful to me > > in my attempt to master the principle of diagnosis. > > I found that to be able to make sense of the logic of Chinese medicine and how > conflicts can and do coexist - they are part of the mandalic construct we access > > and continue to expand on indefinitely. There is so much room for growth, which > is one of the beautiful aspects of our Medicine. So inspiring. > > A beautiful book: Mandala by Jose and Miriam Araguelles > > > > Quoting Cosmic Dragon LLC <yulong: > > > Eti, > > > > > To pick up on one of the threads, Ze'v, one of the beautiful and > > intriguing > > > subtleties of chinese medicine and its theoretical framework is the > > thought > > > process one engages in when diagnosing. I see the process as Mandalic > > thought, > > > in which one operates from a center and accesses various branches. > > > Significantly > > > different than linear thought often employed in empirical medicine: " If > > one has > > > this symptom, treat it with a specific substance. " > > > > > > An intriguing notion. Is it fair to ask where you came by this perception? > > I, too, believe that this fundamentally different approach to the function > > of thinking underlies a good deal of the characteristic differences between > > Chinese and Western approaches to medicine. And I'm curious to know > > what in your own study has brought you to this conclusion. > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > ------ > > Would you like to save big on your phone bill -- and keep on saving > > more each month? Join beMANY! Our huge buying group gives you Long Distance > > rates which fall monthly, plus an extra $60 in FREE calls! > > http://click./1/2567/9/_/542111/_/960095709/ > > ------ > > > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese H > > ------ > Failed tests, classes skipped, forgotten locker combinations. > Remember the good 'ol days > http://click./1/4053/9/_/542111/_/960235999/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > 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.