Guest guest Posted June 12, 2000 Report Share Posted June 12, 2000 Hello, all, (esp., Z'ev, Ken and Todd), We are all in the process of learning. And though I sometimes become passionate about my own perspectives, please do not feel offended by my remarks. I once again thank you for this sight, and am grateful for the opportunity to refine my remarks thanks to comments from other passionate practitioners such as Z'ev and Ken. I have perhaps not stated my position(s) as clearly as I would have liked. And Ken, you are wise when you exclaim, " when the archer misses the bullseye, he turns his attention to himself. " So I turn my attention to my own shortcomings. But I beg all of you to be considerate. Though we focus our respective attentions on differing aspects, I trust that we are all well intentioned. In particular, Z'ev, thank you for your comments. They are instrumental for me in honing my skills of communication. And really, no offense was intended. We are passionate practitioners of a medicine that is derived from a history many years removed. And in spite of your comments, Z'ev, I do believe that I understand what a " classic " is. I merely hope to point out that much learning has evolved since the years when these classics were first written, and that this learning requires vision and revision. Z'ev, your remarks regarding lifestyle were quite on target. My retort simply addressed that sometimes these lifestyle changes are not possible. I personally would like to move out of the city. But my economic situation does not yet allow me to do so. This is a situation common to many of my patients. Still, I must treat them as best I can. I do take offense when remarks insult personal practise options. Please do not assume that when one chooses other methods, one is lacking in understanding of Chinese medicine. I agree with you, Z'ev, that, " The survival of the classics, or Einstein's teaching, or the teachings of the Kabbalah or Torah is based on the fact that they have touched something timeless in the human soul and the reality in which we live " ( though I must comment that these realizations are not fact). With regard to my disrespectful comments regarding the authors of the classics, I merely stated, that " I refuse to simply accept the notions of others simply 'because they lived and wrote centuries ago'. " This statement did not exclaim that I did not accept these ancient perspectives. My intention was to move away from dogma and toward a more universal perspective of medicine. I do, in fact, accept many of their notions (perhaps an unfortunate choice of terminology). But I do so based on my experience and learning and not on the mere presentation of these notions (concepts, theories, etc.) as ancient. And I also feel that I agree with your perspectives, Z'ev, and all, more than I disagree. With regard to your comment, " 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 move beyond these teachings when we reach toward other sources of knowledge. We move beyond when we make these classics our own and then transform them, as Todd has noted. I sometimes recommend for my patients to undergo a Comprehensive Hormone Profile, which pinpoints specific endocrinal deficiencies. I do so based upon my Oriental medical diagnosis. Because DHEA or Cortisol are not currently understood within the vocabulary of classical Chinese medical writings, must I eliminate these valuable descriptions from my perspective? [And I would further point out that if a patient is determined to be DHEA deficient and subsequently, when this patient is supplemented this hormone, the Kidney Jing deficiency is resolved.] I hope that I have clarified some of my views here. My intent is not to offend but to propose that there is much more to medical reality than meets the classic eye. Health and happiness, luke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2000 Report Share Posted June 12, 2000 In a message dated 6/11/00 8:53:32 PM, zrosenberg writes: << 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? >> It is my position that things can be integrated and yet retain their integrity as long as the foundation remains. I definitly believe that what is taught in colleges must remain basic Chinese Medical thought processes so that a gaduate can think in those terms when looking at a disorder or when looking at another field or concept, for that matter. Western medicine has chemistry and OM has Qi, or whatever. It is the basic foundation principles behind which our medicine works. After understanding and groking the ideas behind the medicine, one travels forth and works to describe things according to that science. Western medicine is not THE science. It is A science. The integration of our science into the helath care of this country is what I mean when I talk about integration, not the integration of our medicine into Conventional Western medical science so they can understand what it is we are doing within their principles. Not to sound egotistical, but thier paradigm is't flexible or sensitive enough to detect many of the things we are working with. They are still in the Sputnik stages of science, and there is still a medical cold war going on. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2000 Report Share Posted June 12, 2000 > >So I turn my attention to my own shortcomings. But I beg all of you to be >considerate. Though we focus our respective attentions on differing >aspects, I trust that we are all well intentioned. Luke, I have no doubt of your good intentions. It is just that e-mail is a difficult medium. . ..the statements we would make with each other in conversation to test our knowledge, when ossified in e-mail state, look much more extreme. > >In particular, Z'ev, thank you for your comments. They are instrumental for >me in honing my skills of communication. And really, no offense was >intended. I never took any personal offense. I was just concerned about some of the statments. > >We are passionate practitioners of a medicine that is derived from a history >many years removed. And in spite of your comments, Z'ev, I do believe that >I understand what a " classic " is. I merely hope to point out that much >learning has evolved since the years when these classics were first written, >and that this learning requires vision and revision. G-d should give us the knowledge and strength to do so. I, for one, am not there yet. Donn Hayes has the same sentiments, of extending the knowledge of the classics in the modern era. But mastery of them is quite difficult. > >Z'ev, your remarks regarding lifestyle were quite on target. My retort >simply addressed that sometimes these lifestyle changes are not possible. I >personally would like to move out of the city. But my economic situation >does not yet allow me to do so. This is a situation common to many of my >patients. Still, I must treat them as best I can. I would also like to get out of the city (although San Diego is quite nice for a city). I was thinking more for specific periods of time to help cure intractable conditions. As you know, there are health spas and resorts in the countryside for millenia to serve these purposes. But we must be careful on how we utilize technologies such as air travel, as they do represent significant threats to world health on many levels. > >I do take offense when remarks insult personal practise options. Please do >not assume that when one chooses other methods, one is lacking in >understanding of Chinese medicine. It is not the technique or modality, Luke, that is the problem. It is mastery of one's craft. One question, however: I assume that you use the advanced pulse diagnostic techniques you learned from Sung Baek, who I also greatly admire. I would also assume that you base your treatment on the pulse diagnosis. So, how do you use 'non-Chinese' treatment modalities, based on the pulse analysis? > > >And I also feel that I agree with your perspectives, Z'ev, and all, more >than I disagree. I am sure that is so, again, no blame. > >I sometimes recommend for my patients to undergo a Comprehensive Hormone >Profile, which pinpoints specific endocrinal deficiencies. I do so based >upon my Oriental medical diagnosis. Because DHEA or Cortisol are not >currently understood within the vocabulary of classical Chinese medical >writings, must I eliminate these valuable descriptions from my perspective? >[And I would further point out that if a patient is determined to be DHEA >deficient and subsequently, when this patient is supplemented this hormone, >the Kidney Jing deficiency is resolved.] This is not a problem, sometimes blood tests are necessary and helpful. As long as one understands how to analyze the data according to Chinese medical criteria. Certainly, DHEA and cortisol levels can be measures of kidney dynamics.. . . .and DHEA with jing/essence. I have lectured quite a bit on this possibility. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2000 Report Share Posted June 13, 2000 In a message dated 6/12/00 4:03:47 AM, l.klincewicz writes: << With regard to your comment, " 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 move beyond these teachings when we reach toward other sources of knowledge. >> Maybe he was referring to Luke Skywalker. DAvid Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2000 Report Share Posted June 14, 2000 Funny, really funny, David! , acuman1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 6/12/00 4:03:47 AM, l.klincewicz@w... writes: > > << With regard to your comment, " 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 move beyond > these teachings when we reach toward other sources of knowledge. >> > > Maybe he was referring to Luke Skywalker. > DAvid Molony 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.