More about what constitutes Chinese Medicine

[Guest guest]

Z'ev is correct. What justifies not only our system but any system of

medicine is its coherence, what Western scientists consider " an

intellectual coherence that includes consistancy with all the

experiences and expectations founded on it, the fulfillment of

precise, far-reraching predictions implied by it, and the functioning

of all the technology built on its basis. " The quote is from Roger

Newton in Thinking About Physics (Princeton University Press, 2000)

but is equally applicable to how we should think about what we're

doing. The cultural boundaries between Chinese and Western are no

longer clearly defined--here or in China. The notions that Chinese

medicine can be " explained " by Western science or that Chinese

medical analogies used in place of theories are somehow a deeper

understanding of reality, are both fallacious.

 

Unfortunately, most practitioners rarely take advantage of all the

theories that are commonly available in Chinese medicine. Of those

listed by Z'ev, how many theories have been used in discussions of

this group? When discussing pulses (my particular interest and

expertise) in group case histories, very little detail is used and

never any perspective from the Nan Ching. Yet, as Z'ev indicated, the

material is out there waiting to be applied. There is nothing that

Chinese medicine should not touch upon or help illuminate how it

works in the human body. But the Chinese models are tools to inquire

more deeply into phenomenon, not a final arbitration of reality.

 

In my class, I try to make my students think by having them

superimpose each model on the problem before coming to any

conclusion. Admittedly, it's more difficult at first, but it offers a

much richer detail to the solution.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " "

<zrosenberg@e...> wrote:

> on 10/29/00 8:10 AM, alonmarcus@w... at alonmarcus@w... wrote:

>

> Using Chinese herbs (with some non-Chinese herbs) is not Chinese

> medicine. Pattern differentiation is Chinese medicine

> >>>>So what you are saying is that

> 1. OM can not change or develop

> 2. All family, or other traditions, that do not follow (TCM) pattern

> discrimination are not CM.

> alon

>

> Using any treatment modality, if it can be understood by yin yang,

wu xing,

> liu jing, wei qi ying xue, jing luo, or zang fu pattern diagnosis

can be

> incorporated in TCM, whether east west north or south. It simply

takes

> time, clinical experience and peer review to do so. Many western

herbs

> will, in time, be incorporated into CM practice. However, to just

put saw

> palmetto, an herb with a good history in the West for genitourinary

> disorders, without understanding its nature according to Chinese

medical

> theory, into a chaotic prescription with Chinese medicinals not

only doesn't

> make sense, we do not know its possible interactions with the other

> medicines in the prescription. This makes no sense, professionally

or

> ethically. Why should we approve anything that comes along, just

because it

> has 'Chinese herbs' in it? What about 'Herbal Ecstasy'? That

has 'Chinese

> herbs' in it, too. We shouldn't play on lay people's inate desire

to get

> well with ready-made hype.

>

> I don't know of any eastern medical tradition that doesn't use yin

and yang

> or its derivatives. . . (maybe Yoshimasu Todo's herbal school in

Japan?).

> what are you thinking of here, Alon?

>

>