Guest guest Posted July 17, 2000 Report Share Posted July 17, 2000 > My main point is that All terminology should be easy to relate to and not > distracting from the clinical information. People educated since the 1950's have a familiar vocabulary of 2,500 English words. For this claim to be true, a clinically effective Chinese medicine must be composed of concepts that can be expressed with words from within that 2,500. Otherwise, they will not be easy to relate to. Further, this is a claim that the Chinese notions expressed by those words either so usefully fit the definitions assigned by English dictionaries, or, have meanings that are so well rooted in lay peoples' experience, that they require no shared, written definition. In other words, this is a claim that Chinese medical concepts that do not fit the commonly held lay vocabulary are mere ``antropological distractions'' containing no clinically-useful information. This is, of course, exactly the argument put forward by skeptics, that is, that notions in CM that do not conform to the Western frame of reference are useless, baseless and should be discarded. When faced with Chinese concepts that do not conform to Western ideas - that is the uniqueness of CM itself - we have a limited range of options. We can face their uniqueness, choosing words, methods of presentation and teaching, that give us access, reliable records and intra- inter-field communications that preserve that uniqueness and support our claims of having mastered a specialized body of knowledge. Or, we can eliminate those concepts by dropping them, simplifying them to fit, or reducing them to the framework of another profession such as biomedicine -- all of which can and is being done in one place or another. The questions is why anyone in our field wants this outcome, when so doing eliminates the foundations on which we can claim mastery of a body of knowledge that justifies our status as an independent profession. Put well within the easy-to-relate 2,500 words, this claim is a saw with which we can cut off the branch we are sitting on. bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2000 Report Share Posted July 17, 2000 , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote: Put well within the easy-to-relate 2,500 words, this claim is a saw with which we can cut off the branch we are sitting on. > touche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 2000 Report Share Posted July 19, 2000 In other words, this is a claim that Chinese medical concepts that do not fit the commonly held lay vocabulary are mere ``anthropological distractions'' containing no clinically-useful information. >>>Well this is the real question is it. First, I do not believe that OM has to confirm to Western Medicine, but, I think we do have to think about basic questions such as: How do 2000 year old description apply to today's patient? How consistent can a group of practitioners be interpreting these, and using them to Objectively change disease processes? How theoretical these concepts are reflecting dated idees (as many TCM theories changed with the prevailing popular general principles of different dynasties), do they have a real clinical bases? Should we except these just because they are classical writing? Even in this country you can see how every time a new book comes out, new treatments are suddenly used to treat the same conditions which only several months before were supposedly successfully treated with principals from the previous book. Does that mean that the treatment advocated last month was unsuccessful and now we have a new answer. If the treatments were successful that why do we need new ones? Why is Japanese acupuncture suddenly so popular were 15 years ago we were able to " successfully " treat the same disorders using so called TCM acupuncture? I believe these are the major issues for today and should be in the mind of any Practitioner writing a book. If one just translates literature then I suppose the above consideration do not matter. Alon Marcus - " Robert L. Felt " <bob Monday, July 17, 2000 1:14 PM `easy terminology' > > > My main point is that All terminology should be easy to relate to and not > > distracting from the clinical information. > > People educated since the 1950's have a familiar vocabulary of 2,500 English > words. For this claim to be true, a clinically effective Chinese medicine must be > composed of concepts that can be expressed with words from within that 2,500. > Otherwise, they will not be easy to relate to. Further, this is a claim that the > Chinese notions expressed by those words either so usefully fit the definitions > assigned by English dictionaries, or, have meanings that are so well rooted in > lay peoples' experience, that they require no shared, written definition. In > other words, this is a claim that Chinese medical concepts that do not fit the > commonly held lay vocabulary are mere ``antropological distractions'' > containing no clinically-useful information. > > This is, of course, exactly the argument put forward by skeptics, that is, that > notions in CM that do not conform to the Western frame of reference are > useless, baseless and should be discarded. > > When faced with Chinese concepts that do not conform to Western ideas - that > is the uniqueness of CM itself - we have a limited range of options. We can face > their uniqueness, choosing words, methods of presentation and teaching, that > give us access, reliable records and intra- inter-field communications that > preserve that uniqueness and support our claims of having mastered a > specialized body of knowledge. Or, we can eliminate those concepts by dropping > them, simplifying them to fit, or reducing them to the framework of another > profession such as biomedicine -- all of which can and is being done in one place > or another. The questions is why anyone in our field wants this outcome, when > so doing eliminates the foundations on which we can claim mastery of a body of > knowledge that justifies our status as an independent profession. > > Put well within the easy-to-relate 2,500 words, this claim is a saw with which we > can cut off the branch we are sitting on. > > > bob Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street > Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 > 617-738-4664 > > ------ > Get great brand name shoes with just the click of a mouse. Check out > the huge selection at Zappos.com, the Web's Most Popular Store! > http://click./1/6994/11/_/542111/_/963864895/ > ------ > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > 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.