Guest guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Share Posted June 11, 2000 Hello again, Z'ev, I begin by responding to your comment, " For you to say 'outdated notions of classics' shows you do not understand the idea of what a classic is. Classics are universal philosophy applied to reality. . . .they are not 'ancient', they apply here and now... " I respectfully disagree. The classics were works written by men, not gods, seeking answers. They, the classics, are not universal philosophy any more than Einstein's ideas are universal philosophy, or for that matter, the Kabbala (and I thoroughly respect this tradition).... And though they extend to the present, they are indeed " ancient " . We live in a world far removed from the lifestyles that predominated when these classics were written. And I have encountered teachers who state that the classics are full of mistakes.... So where does perfection exist? I state again that we must adapt. And I reiterate that I spend many hours each week rereading these thoughtful translations of the classics. But I also restate that I live in a culture far removed from that of when these classics were written. And I'm sorry, Z'ev, I refuse to simply accept the notions of others simply because they lived and wrote centuries ago. There really is no need to glorify the past. We can certainly benefit from past experience. This why I spend so much time reading and re-reading these works. But there really is no need to glorify these works as all-encompassing. They certainly are not, especially in view of cultural progression. We live in a modern world. And regarding your teacher's advice regarding the patient with emotional dis-ease, let's get real! Why don't we all move to the country, wake with the sun and bed with the sunset, eat only local foods, etc. Life is a dynamic that manifests beyond your rigid conditions. Let's get beyond these straight-jacketed parameters in order to best serve our 20th century patients. Health and happiness (really), luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Share Posted June 11, 2000 > >I respectfully disagree. The classics were works written by men, not gods, >seeking answers. They, the classics, are not universal philosophy any more >than Einstein's ideas are universal philosophy, or for that matter, the >Kabbala (and I thoroughly respect this tradition).... And though they >extend to the present, they are indeed " ancient " . Luke, Again, you miss the point. The survival of the classics, or Einstein's teaching, or the teachings of Kabbalah and Torah is based on the fact that they have touched something timeless in the human soul and the reality in which we live. Like it or not, Chinese medical tradition is based on a continuous lineage from the time of the Nei Jing. > >We live in a world far removed from the lifestyles that predominated when >these classics were written. And I have encountered teachers who state that >the classics are full of mistakes.... As far as I know, the sun still rises in the morning and sets in the evening, people still eat food, have two eyes ears and a nose, and love, live, learn, sleep and pray. > >I state again that we must adapt. And I reiterate that I spend many hours >each week rereading these thoughtful translations of the classics. But I >also restate that I live in a culture far removed from that of when these >classics were written. And I'm sorry, Z'ev, I refuse to simply accept the >notions of others simply because they lived and wrote centuries ago. In which case, it would make it very hard for you to claim that you practice Chinese medicine. . . .since the 'notions' of yin and yang, five phase, channel and connecting vessel were designed by these people 2000 years ago. > >There really is no need to glorify the past. We can certainly benefit from >past experience. This why I spend so much time reading and re-reading these >works. But there really is no need to glorify these works as >all-encompassing. They certainly are not, especially in view of cultural >progression. I guess, Luke, you have transcended these teachings and gone beyond them. Perhaps, with your great experience, you should enlighten us on how to go beyond these teachings. > >We live in a modern world. And regarding your teacher's advice regarding >the patient with emotional dis-ease, let's get real! Why don't we all move >to the country, wake with the sun and bed with the sunset, eat only local >foods, etc. Yes, Luke, let's get real. George Ohsawa, the founder of macrobiotics put it like it is. His response to a patient on how to cure his illness. It is simple. . . .just change your life! People can only heal serious illnesses if they are willing to change their lifestyles, to what degree is possible. Otherwise, what do we offer? Magic bullets? > >Life is a dynamic that manifests beyond your rigid conditions. Thank you for enlightening me, Luke. > >Let's get beyond these straight-jacketed parameters in order to best serve >our 20th century patients. Again, you show your inability to grasp the nature of the classical texts. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Share Posted June 11, 2000 Z'ev I am using the term transformation as defined by philosopher Ken Wilber, which is that all stable transformation both transcends AND preserves the information from which it evolved. So any transformation must proceed from this preservation. An example in biology would be the way phsyical elements take on new properties and organization in living systems that are not present in inanimate matter. Yet living systems are made of the same elements as the air and the rocks. Life transcends merely rocks, but includes them, too. So when I say I think radical transformation is what will ultimately happen, it is just my hunch about the direction of social forces that are beyond the control of our puny profession, not necessarily my utopian world. If a paradigm shift is occurring, I do not see it shifting backwards to the han dynasty, but rather to something new and not wholly conceivable in my mind. , " " < zrosenberg@p...> wrote: .. > > > >Todd Transformation is fine. . . .however, right now, I think a certain stand of preservation is order, because of the profound transformations that have occured in the practice of indigenous medicines everywhere by the influx of modern medicine. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Share Posted June 11, 2000 I'm a fan of Ken Wilbur as well.. . .and I would agree 100% with his definition of transformation. My concern is for what Harris Coulter defines as " integration " : " Why is there this incessant desire to fuse different systems, take the best from each and synthesize them? The answer, is, of course, as in most things medical, that these are political and economic issues, questions of sovereignty. Sovereignty is indivisible, and the allopaths will never willingly relinquish their sovereignty over medical practice in all its aspects. For the allopathic majority to recognize the equal standing of homeopathy (or, read Chinese medicine if you like), would be like Lincoln recognizing the Confederacy, or Yeltsin recognizing the Chechens. Hence, the call for fusion, for convergence, for bringing (homeopathy) into the mainstream. But when one percent of the profession fuses with the remainder, we know who will be doing the fusing and who will be fused. The result will be the denaturing of (homeopathy) along allopathic lines " . >Z'ev > >I am using the term transformation as defined by philosopher Ken >Wilber, which is that all stable transformation both transcends AND >preserves the information from which it evolved. So any >transformation >must proceed from this preservation. An example in biology would be >the way phsyical elements take on new properties and organization in >living systems that are not present in inanimate matter. Yet living >systems are made of the same elements as the air and the rocks. Life >transcends merely rocks, but includes them, too. So when I say I >think >radical transformation is what will ultimately happen, it is just my >hunch about the direction of social forces that are beyond the >control >of our puny profession, not necessarily my utopian world. If a >paradigm shift is occurring, I do not see it shifting backwards to >the >han dynasty, but rather to something new and not wholly conceivable >in >my mind. > >Todd > > , " " < >zrosenberg@p...> wrote: >. >> > >> >Todd > Transformation is fine. . . .however, right now, I think a certain >stand of preservation is order, because of the profound >transformations >that have occured in the practice of indigenous medicines everywhere >by >the influx of modern medicine. >> >> > > > >------ >Buy and sell used, rare and vintage gear at the Web's best >music gear auction. Register to enter the weekly gear giveaway! >http://click./1/3735/9/_/542111/_/960746467/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2000 Report Share Posted June 11, 2000 Phillipe, >I will be very happy to share these informations with a Committee designed >to establish standards where to go /what to translate.. for the benefit of >all Students of TCM. Thanks. In a day or two, we'll be getting something set up to proceed on this front. Look forward to seeing more of this material. Ken 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.