More about the classics

[Guest guest]

Todd:

 

I can appreciate that there is a great deal of emotion in your

(and Z'ev's) response. Perhaps because you deal with these debates

much more often than I do. I would like to hear more of your thoughts

regarding deconstruction and how its been detrimental to alternative

medicine. While deconstruction does not necessarily preclude

empirical experience, that may not be your observation.

 

While my criticism of the classics may be somewhat cynical (actually,

it's a love/hate relationship), I look forward to reading most new

literature. There is no real debate between us on the worth of the

classics, only how they will be utilized. And like you, I have little

patience for " authorities " who simply imitate or speculate, but have

not verified the work in their own clinical practice. So, you are

preaching to the choir on all major points.

 

I suspect where our perspectives begin to diverge is in the belief

that you can create an intellectual niche in Oriental medicine that

takes its models and theories from the classics but looks for new

ways to combine and apply them. For example, the project I am

currently working on is combining the pulse diagnosis information

from the Nan Jing with the pulse diagnosis from the Li Shi-zhen into

a single, comprehensive system (this is actually the basis of the

Dong Han system). It is the product of the Korean system I studied

and my own clinical practice. By combining these two classical

pictures, we can make our diagnosis much more specific---often to the

point where a particular disorder shows a characteristic " signature "

in the pulse even when a symptom has not yet presented. While most of

the information is " from " the classics, it is not " in " the classics

per se. A side benefit of combining these disparate pulse systems is

that we can admit descriptions of many physiological processes and

disorders in both Eastern and Western terms.

 

One of the problems I see in only seeking answers in the classics is

that much important (albeit Western) medical analysis is omitted. In

this country, acupuncture and herbology will, undoubtedly, need to

adapt to Western culture, technology, and information. But while

Western medicine may try to absorb TCM politically, Chinese medicine

can be expanded to absorb much of Western medicine conceptually.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, November 25, 2000 12:53 PM

 

Re: Seasonal Changes, Pulses, and

Herbal Formulas

 

 

, " James Ramholz "

<OMJournal@m...>

wrote:

 

Therefore, my personal choice would be

> to read the classics (I will leave that definition up to you) as

> Jacques Derrida would, to deconstruct them.

 

Jim

 

I am quite familiar with the postmodern deconstructionist philospohy

epitomized by Derrida, Lacan, Foucault and others. However I agree

with neo-conservative philosphers that this process, while having

some

value, can easily lead to a postion of total relativism. In fact,

while most folks in our field are probably not very familiar with

this

strand of french philosophy (except Mark Seem), I believe it has

nevertheless influenced the development of american alternative

medicine in a detrimental fashion. The successful reinterpretation

of

the classics in every era and culture is always built upon empirical

experience. The failure to respect this empirical clinical heritage

has resulted in many people wandering very far afield in their

abstractions.

 

The only reason to introduce a new interpetation of a classical

concept

is when the prevailing one does not succeed in clinical practice.

And

then that new interpretation should still be rooted in clinical

experience not just a manipulation of concepts divorced from

practice.

For example, advancing the idea that hidden pathogens equal chronic

viral infections does not seem to jive with actual patient

presentation

in many cases of AIDS, hepatitis, etc. Yet this abstract idea is

seductive and has both influenced many seasoned px and impressionable

students. the net result has been the often inappropriate

administration of cold bitter medicinals where they are not well

indicated. conversely, the simplistic abstract correlation of immune

deficiency with xu conditions has resulted in the knee jerk use of

tonics when not indicated by s/s.

 

P.S. I do not mean to suggest that such ideas are held by you, nor

do

I have any valid opinion on your own work with wu yun liu qi, five

phase, pulse, mathematics, etc., as these concepts are admittedly not

well understood by me. It does seem that you blend experience with

abstraction and that's all I ask. My concern is the majority of

others

who clearly do not.

 

It is perhaps not coincidental that the worst examples of this type

of

anything goes mentality are typically proposed by those with no

access

to chinese sources and often no respect for the many rigorous

translations now available, as well. I think the biggest gap in the

translated literature are case studies. Case studies illustrate the

collected successes and failures of TCM. It is too easy to think TCM

has nothing to offer for certain conditions when there is merely not

enough information available to make a proper assessment. thus,

rather

than accessing the information, the tendency is often to create new

abstractions of theory to fill this gap. For instance, until Blue

Poppy translated Li dong Yuan and then published extensive

commentaries

and case studies on yin fire theory on its website, people were all

over the map with regard to spleen/stomach and chronic illness, much

of

which can now be seen to have no actual relationship with the work of

the master himself. The same was true of the SHL before Craig and

Nigels recent work.

 

 

 

eGroups Sponsor

 

 

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

on 11/26/00 3:58 AM, James Ramholz at OMJournal wrote:

 

:

>

> I can appreciate that there is a great deal of emotion in your

> (and Z'ev's) response. Perhaps because you deal with these debates

> much more often than I do. I would like to hear more of your thoughts

> regarding deconstruction and how its been detrimental to alternative

> medicine. While deconstruction does not necessarily preclude

> empirical experience, that may not be your observation.

 

For me, it's an 'anything goes' approach, the idea that any individual's

emprical method is immediately valid clinically, because that individual

'said so'. Look at the supplement industry, loaded with products that

'work' because they 'said so'. While new innovations deserve a fair shake,

to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the public.

>

 

> I suspect where our perspectives begin to diverge is in the belief

> that you can create an intellectual niche in Oriental medicine that

> takes its models and theories from the classics but looks for new

> ways to combine and apply them. For example, the project I am

> currently working on is combining the pulse diagnosis information

> from the Nan Jing with the pulse diagnosis from the Li Shi-zhen into

> a single, comprehensive system (this is actually the basis of the

> Dong Han system). It is the product of the Korean system I studied

> and my own clinical practice. By combining these two classical

> pictures, we can make our diagnosis much more specific---often to the

> point where a particular disorder shows a characteristic " signature "

> in the pulse even when a symptom has not yet presented. While most of

> the information is " from " the classics, it is not " in " the classics

> per se. A side benefit of combining these disparate pulse systems is

> that we can admit descriptions of many physiological processes and

> disorders in both Eastern and Western terms.

 

I have no problem with your innovations and development of the tradition,

Jim... . .the problem you have will be in communicating what you have

discovered, and putting it in a form and context where your peers can test

it clinically.

>

> One of the problems I see in only seeking answers in the classics is

> that much important (albeit Western) medical analysis is omitted. In

> this country, acupuncture and herbology will, undoubtedly, need to

> adapt to Western culture, technology, and information. But while

> Western medicine may try to absorb TCM politically, Chinese medicine

> can be expanded to absorb much of Western medicine conceptually.

>

 

This, again, is only a problem if we somehow as a profession come to the

conclusion that the classics are 'obsolete', that we mix biomedical

information with Chinese medicine indisciminately without careful analysis.

I agree that Chinese medicine can absorb much of biomedicine conceptually.

Again, the devil is in the details.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev wrote:

For me, [i'm against] an 'anything goes' approach, the idea that any

individual's emprical method is immediately valid clinically, because

that individual 'said so'. Look at the supplement industry, loaded

with products that 'work' because they 'said so'. While new

innovations deserve a fair shake, to set up new schools and methods

without scholarship, history or accountability amounts to no more

than experimentation on the public.

 

Jim wrote:

The " anything goes approach " is a human foible, not a matter of

deconstruction. But now you're raising a separate issue---how to

verify claims. The classics (translated well or not) do not

constitute any sort of verification in this sense. You've moved the

discussion from verification or authority of the classics to

verification in general. And how do you discriminate between some of

the outrageous claims even if for one or two persons it is true but

not evident in any statistically significant group? How do you prove

that what you've done to a client has affected them without

discounting placebo effect? Even in Western medicine, less than 20%

(statistic from JAMA) of what is done in an MDs office has been

double-blind tested. For example, millions (sic) of doses of

antibiotics are given out for cold and flu each year even though the

research shows it actually has no effect on the virus that causes

them.

 

Verification is one of the Western problematical bottlenecks. I have

no objection to submitting acupuncture and herbs to (some) scientific

accountability (it will actually yeild some interesting results). But

that raises politcal issues if we submit to a cultural standard we

have no control over and a methodology that was never originally

considered in the development of acupuncture and herbs.

 

I think it's the accuracy of translation and the authority of the

classics that you're actually more concerned about. Without even

getting into the issue of financing them, scientific studies don't

prove that Chinese theory is accurate or that your treatment is

applied correctly. We have the luxury of viewing Chinese medicine

through a 2500 year microscope where a lot of the goofiness has

already been disected out. This time-honored method won't necesarily

help convince a culture who's underlying belief is that new is better

and more true. Acceptance will only happen in time. Something we, as

an American culture, are less prepared for. Especailly when the

Chineses have never really finalized the issues for themselves.

 

 

Z'ev wrote:

This, again, is only a problem if we somehow as a profession come to

the conclusion that the classics are 'obsolete', that we mix

biomedical information with Chinese medicine indisciminately without

careful analysis.

 

 

Jim wrote:

I doubt that it will ever happen if we make the kind of historical

scholarship you want part of the higher degree program.

[Guest guest]

 

[zrosenberg]

Sunday, November 26, 2000 9:39 AM

 

Re: More about the classics

 

 

 

For me, it's an 'anything goes' approach, the idea that any individual's

emprical method is immediately valid clinically, because that individual

'said so'. Look at the supplement industry, loaded with products that

'work' because they 'said so'. While new innovations deserve a fair shake,

to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the public.

>

I have no problem with your innovations and development of the tradition,

Jim... . .the problem you have will be in communicating what you have

discovered, and putting it in a form and context where your peers can test

it clinically.

 

 

Zev and James,

 

You have raised issues that I have been struggling with for years.

Specifically, if a useful and valid innovation is developed by an individual

which has the potential to improve diagnostic perspective and/or therapeutic

outcomes within the general context of TCM, how should that innovation be

tested or evaluated by the greater TCM community. At what point should

classes in that innovation be accepted for continuing education credit.

Part of the problem is that each of us as individuals will have more or less

success with certain techniques or tools that assist us in accessing

diagnostic information such as the use of certain intuitive pulse

techniques, the palpation techniques that Dan Bensky has demonstrated,

muscle testing, or whatever improves one's concious or intuitive access to

information. Some people are particularly good at methods to which others

cannot relate. Its been a long time since I saw a board exam but my

recollection is that knowledge of the classics is not necessary in order to

get licenced. If practicing outside the parameters of what is defined in

the classics would be considered " experimentation on the public " then the

experiment is underway. In some ways that may be ok and in others maybe its

not. Who's to decide and what criteria should be used?

 

Stephen

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I want to make a few further comments on what appears to

me to be a specious argument in which " the classics "

appear on one end and " clinical experience " appears on

the other, as if these two aspects of existence are somehow

in conflict.

 

Of course, there really is no such conflict, and I find that the

appearance and persistence of this supposed " problem " and

its fruitless " solutions " is a poor substitute for the work that

waits to be accomplished.

 

The classics, however we understand and define that term

and whatever particular texts we choose from time to time

to include in that category, are merely texts. Just collections

of Chinese characters. Data, information, knowledge...to

some...and wisdom for a few.

 

There is approximately nothing about the existence of an archive

of this nature that puts it in any sort of opposition to the ongoing

conduct of clincial practice, research, study, and hopefully

growth and development. That is what these materials are for:

to inform, to enlighten, to inspire, and to guide.

 

I think the bald fact is that those who find some such conflict are

merely reflecting their own lack of familiarity with the form and

contents of the classical literature. As Nigel Wiseman has pointed

out, the most fanciful inventions of " interpretation " regarding the classics

and about Chinese medicine in general tend to be forwarded principally

by those who lack access to the classical texts themselves.

 

It is more or less comparable to someone coming up with a bold

new interpretation of Newtonian physics without having gone to

the trouble to read Principia.

 

Nor am I suggesting that we need to legislate or even be all that

concerned about such shoddy " scholarship. " Having no root, it

will most likely wither and die. It is worthwhile, however, to develop a

sense

of what constitutes responsible work in this field and what does

not. To do this, we have to develop a synthesis based upon our

own individual and group principles as well as of those who developed

and who use the principles of Chinese medicine. This is not my

idea. It is something that Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure

of Scientific Revolutions.

 

" Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrisically the common

property

of a group or else it is nothing at all. To understand it we need to

know

the special characteristics of the group that creates and applies it. "

 

I do not pretend to know or to possess this sense. But it is unthinkable

that the process whereby it might hopefully come into existence could

possibly take place without complete and comprehensive access to and

understanding of the Chinese medical archives. And it is absolutely wrong

to consider that such access and understanding in any way conflicts with

the vigorous pursuit of clinical or any other type of research and

investigation.

 

We are indeed in the midst of a scientific revolution, and Chinese medicine

as it has been transmitted for centuries by means, at least in part, of the

classical literature, lies at its revolving core. There are tremendous

oppotunities awaiting those who can rise to the challenges that lie ahead.

And I continue to believe that chief among these challenges are the rather

substantial ones that attend the process of transmitting Chinese medical

knowledge from its origins to the world that increasingly demands it.

 

We should not be cavalier in approaching our individual responsibilites

in this regard. I think Z'ev actually understates the situation when he

suggests that

 

>While new innovations deserve a fair shake,

> to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

> accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the public.

 

For not only is this experimentation, but calling such an activity

Chinese medicine without thorough grounding in the Chinese

medical literature is a non-trivial misrepresentation.

 

Ken

 

-

" " <zrosenberg

 

Sunday, November 26, 2000 8:39 AM

Re: More about the classics

 

 

> on 11/26/00 3:58 AM, James Ramholz at OMJournal wrote:

>

> :

> >

> > I can appreciate that there is a great deal of emotion in your

> > (and Z'ev's) response. Perhaps because you deal with these debates

> > much more often than I do. I would like to hear more of your thoughts

> > regarding deconstruction and how its been detrimental to alternative

> > medicine. While deconstruction does not necessarily preclude

> > empirical experience, that may not be your observation.

>

> For me, it's an 'anything goes' approach, the idea that any individual's

> emprical method is immediately valid clinically, because that individual

> 'said so'. Look at the supplement industry, loaded with products that

> 'work' because they 'said so'. While new innovations deserve a fair

shake,

> to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

> accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the public.

> >

>

> > I suspect where our perspectives begin to diverge is in the belief

> > that you can create an intellectual niche in Oriental medicine that

> > takes its models and theories from the classics but looks for new

> > ways to combine and apply them. For example, the project I am

> > currently working on is combining the pulse diagnosis information

> > from the Nan Jing with the pulse diagnosis from the Li Shi-zhen into

> > a single, comprehensive system (this is actually the basis of the

> > Dong Han system). It is the product of the Korean system I studied

> > and my own clinical practice. By combining these two classical

> > pictures, we can make our diagnosis much more specific---often to the

> > point where a particular disorder shows a characteristic " signature "

> > in the pulse even when a symptom has not yet presented. While most of

> > the information is " from " the classics, it is not " in " the classics

> > per se. A side benefit of combining these disparate pulse systems is

> > that we can admit descriptions of many physiological processes and

> > disorders in both Eastern and Western terms.

>

> I have no problem with your innovations and development of the tradition,

> Jim... . .the problem you have will be in communicating what you have

> discovered, and putting it in a form and context where your peers can test

> it clinically.

> >

> > One of the problems I see in only seeking answers in the classics is

> > that much important (albeit Western) medical analysis is omitted. In

> > this country, acupuncture and herbology will, undoubtedly, need to

> > adapt to Western culture, technology, and information. But while

> > Western medicine may try to absorb TCM politically, Chinese medicine

> > can be expanded to absorb much of Western medicine conceptually.

> >

>

> This, again, is only a problem if we somehow as a profession come to the

> conclusion that the classics are 'obsolete', that we mix biomedical

> information with Chinese medicine indisciminately without careful

analysis.

> I agree that Chinese medicine can absorb much of biomedicine conceptually.

> Again, the devil is in the details.

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

We'll always struggle with these issues. It's simply one aspect of

the historical process. Medicine (including Western medicine) is an

art or craft not a science---although you may choose to apply the

scientific method to much of it. So, some experimentation is

inevitable---that's one reason why Western medicine radically changes

every 5-7 years. For example, bone marrow transplants were considered

the gold standard for breast cancer care for years until studies

showed them to be entirely ineffective.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

Stephen Morrissey [stephen]

Sunday, November 26, 2000 1:35 PM

 

RE: More about the classics

 

 

 

 

You have raised issues that I have been struggling with for years.

Specifically, if a useful and valid innovation is developed by an

individual

which has the potential to improve diagnostic perspective and/or

therapeutic

outcomes within the general context of TCM, how should that

innovation be

tested or evaluated by the greater TCM community. At what point

should

classes in that innovation be accepted for continuing education

credit.

Part of the problem is that each of us as individuals will have more

or less

success with certain techniques or tools that assist us in accessing

diagnostic information such as the use of certain intuitive pulse

techniques, the palpation techniques that Dan Bensky has demonstrated,

muscle testing, or whatever improves one's concious or intuitive

access to

information. Some people are particularly good at methods to which

others

cannot relate. Its been a long time since I saw a board exam but my

recollection is that knowledge of the classics is not necessary in

order to

get licenced. If practicing outside the parameters of what is

defined in

the classics would be considered " experimentation on the public " then

the

experiment is underway. In some ways that may be ok and in others

maybe its

not. Who's to decide and what criteria should be used?

 

Stephen

[Guest guest]

the palpation techniques that Dan Bensky has demonstrated

>>>can you tell me more about this

alon

[Guest guest]

List what you consider to be the gold standard of translations. And,

what you feel should be in every school and practitioner's library.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " Ken Rose "

<cosmic.dragon@g...> wrote:

> I want to make a few further comments on what appears to

> me to be a specious argument in which " the classics "

> appear on one end and " clinical experience " appears on

> the other, as if these two aspects of existence are somehow

> in conflict.

>

> Of course, there really is no such conflict, and I find that the

> appearance and persistence of this supposed " problem " and

> its fruitless " solutions " is a poor substitute for the work that

> waits to be accomplished.

>

> The classics, however we understand and define that term

> and whatever particular texts we choose from time to time

> to include in that category, are merely texts. Just collections

> of Chinese characters. Data, information, knowledge...to

> some...and wisdom for a few.

>

> There is approximately nothing about the existence of an archive

> of this nature that puts it in any sort of opposition to the ongoing

> conduct of clincial practice, research, study, and hopefully

> growth and development. That is what these materials are for:

> to inform, to enlighten, to inspire, and to guide.

>

> I think the bald fact is that those who find some such conflict are

> merely reflecting their own lack of familiarity with the form and

> contents of the classical literature. As Nigel Wiseman has pointed

> out, the most fanciful inventions of " interpretation " regarding the

classics

> and about Chinese medicine in general tend to be forwarded

principally

> by those who lack access to the classical texts themselves.

>

> It is more or less comparable to someone coming up with a bold

> new interpretation of Newtonian physics without having gone to

> the trouble to read Principia.

>

> Nor am I suggesting that we need to legislate or even be all that

> concerned about such shoddy " scholarship. " Having no root, it

> will most likely wither and die. It is worthwhile, however, to

develop a

> sense

> of what constitutes responsible work in this field and what does

> not. To do this, we have to develop a synthesis based upon our

> own individual and group principles as well as of those who

developed

> and who use the principles of Chinese medicine. This is not my

> idea. It is something that Thomas Kuhn pointed out in The Structure

> of Scientific Revolutions.

>

> " Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrisically the common

> property

> of a group or else it is nothing at all. To understand it we

need to

> know

> the special characteristics of the group that creates and

applies it. "

>

> I do not pretend to know or to possess this sense. But it is

unthinkable

> that the process whereby it might hopefully come into existence

could

> possibly take place without complete and comprehensive access to and

> understanding of the Chinese medical archives. And it is absolutely

wrong

> to consider that such access and understanding in any way conflicts

with

> the vigorous pursuit of clinical or any other type of research and

> investigation.

>

> We are indeed in the midst of a scientific revolution, and Chinese

medicine

> as it has been transmitted for centuries by means, at least in

part, of the

> classical literature, lies at its revolving core. There are

tremendous

> oppotunities awaiting those who can rise to the challenges that lie

ahead.

> And I continue to believe that chief among these challenges are the

rather

> substantial ones that attend the process of transmitting Chinese

medical

> knowledge from its origins to the world that increasingly demands

it.

>

> We should not be cavalier in approaching our individual

responsibilites

> in this regard. I think Z'ev actually understates the situation

when he

> suggests that

>

> >While new innovations deserve a fair shake,

> > to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

> > accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the

public.

>

> For not only is this experimentation, but calling such an activity

> Chinese medicine without thorough grounding in the Chinese

> medical literature is a non-trivial misrepresentation.

>

> Ken

>

> -

> " " <zrosenberg@e...>

>

> Sunday, November 26, 2000 8:39 AM

> Re: More about the classics

>

>

> > on 11/26/00 3:58 AM, James Ramholz at OMJournal@m... wrote:

> >

> > :

> > >

> > > I can appreciate that there is a great deal of emotion in your

> > > (and Z'ev's) response. Perhaps because you deal with these

debates

> > > much more often than I do. I would like to hear more of your

thoughts

> > > regarding deconstruction and how its been detrimental to

alternative

> > > medicine. While deconstruction does not necessarily preclude

> > > empirical experience, that may not be your observation.

> >

> > For me, it's an 'anything goes' approach, the idea that any

individual's

> > emprical method is immediately valid clinically, because that

individual

> > 'said so'. Look at the supplement industry, loaded with

products that

> > 'work' because they 'said so'. While new innovations deserve a

fair

> shake,

> > to set up new schools and methods without scholarship, history or

> > accountability amounts to no more than experimentation on the

public.

> > >

> >

> > > I suspect where our perspectives begin to diverge is in the

belief

> > > that you can create an intellectual niche in Oriental medicine

that

> > > takes its models and theories from the classics but looks for

new

> > > ways to combine and apply them. For example, the project I am

> > > currently working on is combining the pulse diagnosis

information

> > > from the Nan Jing with the pulse diagnosis from the Li Shi-zhen

into

> > > a single, comprehensive system (this is actually the basis of

the

> > > Dong Han system). It is the product of the Korean system I

studied

> > > and my own clinical practice. By combining these two classical

> > > pictures, we can make our diagnosis much more specific---often

to the

> > > point where a particular disorder shows a

characteristic " signature "

> > > in the pulse even when a symptom has not yet presented. While

most of

> > > the information is " from " the classics, it is not " in " the

classics

> > > per se. A side benefit of combining these disparate pulse

systems is

> > > that we can admit descriptions of many physiological processes

and

> > > disorders in both Eastern and Western terms.

> >

> > I have no problem with your innovations and development of the

tradition,

> > Jim... . .the problem you have will be in communicating what you

have

> > discovered, and putting it in a form and context where your peers

can test

> > it clinically.

> > >

> > > One of the problems I see in only seeking answers in the

classics is

> > > that much important (albeit Western) medical analysis is

omitted. In

> > > this country, acupuncture and herbology will, undoubtedly, need

to

> > > adapt to Western culture, technology, and information. But while

> > > Western medicine may try to absorb TCM politically, Chinese

medicine

> > > can be expanded to absorb much of Western medicine conceptually.

> > >

> >

> > This, again, is only a problem if we somehow as a profession come

to the

> > conclusion that the classics are 'obsolete', that we mix

biomedical

> > information with Chinese medicine indisciminately without careful

> analysis.

> > I agree that Chinese medicine can absorb much of biomedicine

conceptually.

> > Again, the devil is in the details.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

on 11/26/00 12:35 PM, Stephen Morrissey at stephen

wrote:

 

>

Stephen,

I agree with Ken Rose. . . .we first need to establish 'complete and

comprehensive access to and understanding of the Chinese medical archives'.

And, yes, Jim, the accuracy of translation and the authority of the classics

is what I am most concerned about. I think it would be premature and

damaging to the profession to set up commissions to try to decide what is

TCM and what is not at a practical level. As Jim said, much of modern

medicine is also experimentation.. . .and it is difficult to draw the line.

However, as the education of practitioners improves, both pre and

post-graduate, the increase in reliable information and training will bear

fruit in practice.

 

Most of the unfounded eclecticism in practitioners are in those students and

graduates who are still fishing for something that feels right to them, or

who cannot complete grasp the classical Chinese medicine because of lack of

access to original texts, teachers who are not grounded in the tradition, or

who don't really want to practice CM but are using the license to have

access to practice other things (apparent in California).

 

Finally, the classical texts are not a rigid orthodoxy.. ..they are fluid,

open and creative, but also grounded. Really, Chinese medicine is a way of

viewing the world, a profound look at nature and the universe, and this is

the essence, for me of what this study is about. This is what we must claim

as our legacy.

 

 

 

> Zev and James,

>

> You have raised issues that I have been struggling with for years.

> Specifically, if a useful and valid innovation is developed by an individual

> which has the potential to improve diagnostic perspective and/or therapeutic

> outcomes within the general context of TCM, how should that innovation be

> tested or evaluated by the greater TCM community. At what point should

> classes in that innovation be accepted for continuing education credit.

> Part of the problem is that each of us as individuals will have more or less

> success with certain techniques or tools that assist us in accessing

> diagnostic information such as the use of certain intuitive pulse

> techniques, the palpation techniques that Dan Bensky has demonstrated,

> muscle testing, or whatever improves one's concious or intuitive access to

> information. Some people are particularly good at methods to which others

> cannot relate. Its been a long time since I saw a board exam but my

> recollection is that knowledge of the classics is not necessary in order to

> get licenced. If practicing outside the parameters of what is defined in

> the classics would be considered " experimentation on the public " then the

> experiment is underway. In some ways that may be ok and in others maybe its

> not. Who's to decide and what criteria should be used?

>

 

 

> Stephen

>

\

[Guest guest]

 

alonmarcus [alonmarcus]Sunday, November 26, 2000 1:53 PM Subject: Re: More about the classics

the palpation techniques that Dan Bensky has demonstrated

>>>can you tell me more about this

alon

 

 

Alon, It would be difficult for me to justice to this subject. In my opinion, Dan's gift is not translation but rather the sensitivity in his hands. His description of what he feels when doing a physical assessment is a bit like describing a taste you've never tried. Sorry, that's the best I can do.

 

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.

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <OMJournal@m...>

wrote:

 

> The " anything goes approach " is a human foible, not a matter of

> deconstruction.

 

Jim

 

I do think the intellectual relativism of deconstruction at its extreme

is rather destructive to the idea of inherently valid bodies of

knowledge. My interpretation of Derrida is that there are no facts,

just context. If the context changes, so do the facts. I agree with

this in the narrow areas of literary theory, but I do not agree with

many of the assumptions made by decontructionist historians,

anthropologists and sociologists. However, by some accounts,

deconstruction theory has overwhelmed the liberal arts departments of

many major academic universities.

 

I believe Derrida also espouses the idea that any observer has equal

authority to interpret any phenomena, regardless of training or

experience. This is perhaps harmless when left to the humanities, but

it becomes insidious when applied to science and medicine (which notice

I do not equate, per se). Foucault has gone so far as to question the

existence of atoms, molecules, biochemicals, etc., essentially arguing

that such entities exist only in the context of science and have no

inherent existence outside this context. Yet these phenomena can be

reliably measured, analyzed and used for their predictive value. If by

deconstruction,one refers to teasing apart the various contexts to find

truth, I am all for that. but to deny the existence of matter or give

authority in science to poets is not my cup of tea.

 

I love history and medical anthropology, which, as noted, are heavily

influenced today by deconstruction theory. So one thing one discovers

when deconstructing the Nei Jing, for example, is the curious

coincidence that the description of the body in TCM just happens to be

identical to the emperor's court, government agencies and early chinese

engineering successes. unschuld suggests, much to the chagrin of many,

that there is no transcendental or cosmological significance in these

descriptions, just politics and culture. That is one reason why the

only things in TCM that interest me are clinical methods that work.

And I base my assumptions about what probably works on whether

something has stood the test of time.

 

the descriptions in the classics are merely modes of understanding to

me. I value them because they have been a continual source of

inspiration for clinicians. In this respect, the nei jing and nan jing

are of less interest to me than the evolving permutations of these

texts that have been used to enhance clinical efficacy. Li Dong Yuan's

ideas work in my clinic, but zhang zi He's attribution of all disease

to be treated with purgation does not. Yet Zhang zi he rooted his

ideas in quotes from the nei jing. But the empirical experience of

later generations found his ideas to be of more limited usefulness.

Rather than being obedient to the classics, I think I am obedient to

pragmatism. But only by exploring the classics from the earliest

through the most recent can I get a sense of what truly has clinical

value. To naively read the nei jing (without deconstruction) would

lead me to make assumptions that are without clinical foundation and to

merely practice textbook TCM would leave me without any dynamic

foundation in which to root my conceptualization. If deconstruction

leads to reconstruction ala the hegelian antithesis + thesis =

synthesis, then it has value. If deconstruction merely seeks to undo

knowledge, then it is destruction. I actually think what you are doing

is perhaps more Hegelian than foucaultian in that you are taking

something apart to put it back together in another fashion (and no

insult was intended in case you consider hegelian to be derogatory; it

was meant as compliment).

:-)

 

[Guest guest]

on 11/26/00 7:30 PM, at wrote:

 

 

 

>

> (Todd) I love history and medical anthropology, which, as noted, are heavily

> influenced today by deconstruction theory. So one thing one discovers

> when deconstructing the Nei Jing, for example, is the curious

> coincidence that the description of the body in TCM just happens to be

> identical to the emperor's court, government agencies and early chinese

> engineering successes. unschuld suggests, much to the chagrin of many,

> that there is no transcendental or cosmological significance in these

> descriptions, just politics and culture. That is one reason why the

> only things in TCM that interest me are clinical methods that work.

> And I base my assumptions about what probably works on whether

> something has stood the test of time.

 

(Z'ev) While admirably pragmatic in approach, I do think there is more to

the Nei Jing than just politics and culture, as Unschuld seems to believe.

The politics and culture are there for sure, as in all human writings and

endeavors, but behind all that is the relationship of an individual with a

culture, and an individual and/or culture with the universe and natural law.

Underneath the visible interface of the Nei Jing and Nan Jing is the

software code, based on sophisticated observation of natural law manifesting

in nature and human life. As you point out, this would be just fanciful if

it was just elegant theory; the fact that this heals human beings is of

utmost importance. But to reduce a classic like the Nei Jing or Nan Jing to

mere social discourse is a bit reductive, in my opinion.

>

>(Todd) the descriptions in the classics are merely modes of understanding to

> me. I value them because they have been a continual source of

> inspiration for clinicians. In this respect, the nei jing and nan jing

> are of less interest to me than the evolving permutations of these

> texts that have been used to enhance clinical efficacy. Li Dong Yuan's

> ideas work in my clinic, but zhang zi He's attribution of all disease

> to be treated with purgation does not. Yet Zhang zi he rooted his

> ideas in quotes from the nei jing.

 

(Z'ev) My hit on this is Talmudic discourse. Ted Kaptchuk and I have

discussed this at length. The idea that out of a body of knowledge,

different schools of thought develop and interact. While Li Dong-yuan's

development of Nei Jing has a broader application that Zhang Zhi-he's, they

were both Jin-Yuan scholar-physicians taking a piece of the software code

and developing new 'applications', so to speak. Dr. Li's code just turned

out to be more durable and universal.

 

 

[Guest guest]

.. His description of what he feels when doing a physical assessment is a bit like describing a taste you've never tried. Sorry, that's the best I can do.

>>>What vocabulary does he use. Is it osteopathic?

alon

[Guest guest]

.. unschuld suggests, much to the chagrin of many, that there is no transcendental or cosmological significance in these descriptions, just politics and culture. That is one reason why the only things in TCM that interest me are clinical methods that work. And I base my assumptions about what probably works on whether something has stood the test of time. the descriptions in the classics are merely modes of understanding to me. I value them because they have been a continual source of inspiration for clinicians. In this respect, the nei jing and nan jing are of less interest to me than the evolving permutations of these texts that have been used to enhance clinical efficacy.

>>>>Beutfuly stated. That is they way I view the classics ie nei jing su wan etc

[Guest guest]

At 3:30 AM +0000 11/27/00, wrote:

>unschuld suggests, much to the chagrin of many,

>that there is no transcendental or cosmological significance in these

>descriptions, just politics and culture. That is one reason why the

>only things in TCM that interest me are clinical methods that work.

>And I base my assumptions about what probably works on whether

>something has stood the test of time.

----

 

Isn't this rather limiting. I'm not sure that I want to bow to

Unschuld as an authority on what should be significant to me as a

practitioner of healing; after all he is not one. To say that the

descriptions are " just politics and culture " under values both

politics and culture, and the material he is describing; surely the

authors of the nei jing and their forebears were doing their best to

observe natural phenomena and make sense of them and describe them in

ways that would make sense to their audience. We might as well say

that modern biology is " just politics and culture " . In neither case

does it contribute much to do so.

 

Rory

[Guest guest]

Isn't this rather limiting. I'm not sure that I want to bow to Unschuld as an authority on what should be significant to me as a practitioner of healing; after all he is not one. To say that the descriptions are "just politics and culture" under values both politics and culture, and the material he is describing; surely the authors of the nei jing and their forebears were doing their best to observe natural phenomena and make sense of them and describe them in ways that would make sense to their audience. We might as well say that modern biology is "just politics and culture". In neither case does it contribute much to do so.>>>He makes an interesting argument on his analytic methods

alon