RE:CHA - The Alon-Ken debate

[Guest guest]

From Ken:

 

I however I did not make the statement about " oriental culture, "

you did.

 

Response: I believe the statement Alon originally made was: . " Since

Chutzpa as well as open challenge of the so called older master is not

within the oriental culture. "

 

From where I stand this seems to be a personal observation about cultural

tendencies, albeit of questionable value, but not intended as bigotry or a

racial slur.

 

From Ken: In another post you commented that you

had deliberately overstated in order to make a

point. So perhaps all I was reacting to was another

of your deliberate overstatements.

 

I believe that nothing could be more political

than medicine. Paul Unschuld has made an extremely

cogent argument for the social/political nature

of medical practice. In essence, people tend

to accept as valid, those medical practices

that conform to culturally determined norms.

 

Response: I find that the American TCM community is particularly caught up

in this pattern. Perhaps by necessity and to some degree by natural human

tendencies that cause individuals to align themselves with factions and

groups which support their own biases. If you think human profiling is

limited to the middle east, get out some history books on just about every

other region of the world. Yugoslavia is a great example. In just about

every country in the world, bigotry and profiling are more common than in

the US. It is not only NOT politically incorrect in some places but in fact

just the opposite. This is the sad truth.

 

From Ken: And, again, directly to the point of what we

are discussing. What we are discussing is

what determines authority in medicine and

how individuals relate to that authority.

 

Let me pose a question to you as well as to

the rest of the members of this list.

 

Who are the authorities of Chinese medicine

in the West? And how did they come to be considered authorities?

 

Response: My observation is that the authorities are those that have taken

historical teachings of TCM and translated them into English. In the best

cases they have provided useful commentary. I find that innovation in the

use or interpretation of TCM is generally not appreciated unless it can be

supported by some kind of historical context, whether the relationshjp of

the innovation and historical context is a stretch or not. This is partly

because of the difficulty of testing the innovations by individuals and the

lack of widespread use of the innovation by most TCM practitioners. In

order to properly test an innovation you either have to undertake years of

documented experimentation with the innovation on the public, hopefully

without doing any harm, or undertake generally accepted western research

designs that are innately limited in their ability to evaluate most (but not

all) new ideas. The other way is to develop a consistent and reproducible

system to evaluate and establish cause-and-effect relationships (CER's).

These types of CER's are lacking in medicine and limit its ability to

advance our innovative ideas more quickly. That's why some medical

innovations have only been appreciated post mortem to the inventor.

 

From Ken: Bob Flaws' original statement with which I

strongly agreed was that when you pick up

a book one of the first things that matters

most is what are the qualifications of the

writer of that book.

 

Response: It is often difficult to determine the qualifications of an

author before reading the book. And even then, in some cases very good, yet

untouched questions about the basis of certain generally accepted concepts

in TCM have come from students. No one has all the answers. And it should

be ok to be wrong, especially if you are trying to push the established

boundries in an effort to shed new light. However, all to often, and quite

naturally, those trying to shine new light are attached to being right. And

those within factions that do not share the same viewpoint are too quick to

discard the potential value of the light. This leaves us beholden to what

has been established in TCM by practitioners of historically accepted

methods.

 

From Ken: So when it comes to questioning authority, how about if we start

closer to home?

Who do you listen to? And why?

 

Response: Everyone. It becomes a combination of intuitive and intellectual

perceptions that cause one to sit up and incorporate ideas into their

thinking. For me, the basic concepts espoused in TCM as well as by

visionaries such as Rudolf Steiner are a good example of combining common

sense, intuition, in intellectual assessment in evaluating what information

to include in your quiver of decision-making reference points.

 

From Ken: Let me make this extremely clear.

Your remark was a blatant racial slur. I

find that sort of thing intolerable.

 

Don't get cute about it.

 

It's not cute.

 

It's ugly.

 

Response: I personally over-reacted to some posts made by Alon at one point

and perhaps you may be as well. I don't believe Alon was intending to

express bigotry but rather making an observation of cultural differences.

Whether the observation is accurate or not may be more relevant a topic and

you seem to have some valuable insights on the issue. In my many trips to

China I have found that generalizations about people from certain parts of

China are often made by my Chinese friends. As you know there are many

subcultures within China that, in some cases, display certain unique

culturally based characteristics. Some of them are good characteristics,

some would not be considered either good or bad, and others are a slur.

Lets not lump them all together.

 

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]

Response: I find that the American TCM community is particularly caught upin this pattern. Perhaps by necessity and to some degree by natural humantendencies that cause individuals to align themselves with factions andgroups which support their own biases. If you think human profiling islimited to the middle east, get out some history books on just about everyother region of the world. Yugoslavia is a great example. In just aboutevery country in the world, bigotry and profiling are more common than inthe US. It is not only NOT politically incorrect in some places but in factjust the opposite. This is the sad truth.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well the nature of profiling is that it does not apply universally. This does not mean it is useless or unnecessary. If I would to say that the Japanese are very clean this certainly is not universal but true in general. It is not bigotry. I think to be less sensitive and always be openly questioning is a quality that is necessary to avoid holocaust or in other words "authority" control. It is certainly useful in medicine.

 

My observation is that the authorities are those that have takenhistorical teachings of TCM and translated them into English. In the bestcases they have provided useful commentary. I find that innovation in theuse or interpretation of TCM is generally not appreciated unless it can besupported by some kind of historical context, whether the relationship ofthe innovation and historical context is a stretch or not. This is partlybecause of the difficulty of testing the innovations by individuals and thelack of widespread use of the innovation by most TCM practitioners.

>>>>>>>>>

I could not agree more. Unfortunately I think it is less clinical out come driven, and more intellectually driven.

 

Alon

[Guest guest]

Stephen,

 

>

> Response: I believe the statement Alon originally made was: .

" Since

> Chutzpa as well as open challenge of the so called older master is

not

> within the oriental culture. "

>

> From where I stand this seems to be a personal observation about

cultural

> tendencies, albeit of questionable value, but not intended as

bigotry or a

> racial slur.

 

You may well be right, but I was not trying to second guess

Alon's intentions. Since we're dissecting this so-called

debate, let me explain my thinking. Let's just say that

the arrow pointed the other direction. Let's say that someone

posted a statement that said that contemplation and thoughtfullness

were not part of Western culture. We won't even speculate

as to the ethnic/racial background of the hypothetical author

of this hypothetical remark.

 

Would we be content or, indeed, well advised to let such

a statement stand unchallenged?

 

It seems to me that some of the most damaging of racial

slurs are precisely those that are not intended as such

but are simply reflections of deeply seated stereotypical

prejudices. You know in the ante-bellum South in the USA

there was no particular problem with racism...which was

precisely the problem!

 

My reason for jumping on Alon's remark was several fold.

For one, I work with people from all parts of the world

day in and day out. Thus I am constantly being sensitized

to the vagaries of ethnic diversity. It's not a matter of

political correctness for me. I could care less about

political correctness. For me it's a matter of survival.

 

I live in the middle of a city that's home to some 11 million

Chinese. I teach Chinese students. I study with Chinese

teachers. Everyday when I walk down the streets I am

confronted by people who recognize me solely and only

as a foreigner. I experience this issue of ethnic stereotyping

from a lot of different perspectives.

 

This list is a public forum. And the world is an awfully

small place these days. Do you want to be part of a group,

i.e. CHA, that admits and allows to go unchallenged remarks

that reflect what seems to me to be a profound disrespect

for vast numbers of human beings? I certainly do not. I

cannot afford to be.

 

I reacted strongly because I want everyone here to

think it over carefully before making such remarks.

>

> Response: I find that the American TCM community is particularly

caught up

> in this pattern. Perhaps by necessity and to some degree by

natural human

> tendencies that cause individuals to align themselves with factions

and

> groups which support their own biases. If you think human

profiling is

> limited to the middle east, get out some history books on just

about every

> other region of the world. Yugoslavia is a great example. In just

about

> every country in the world, bigotry and profiling are more common

than in

> the US. It is not only NOT politically incorrect in some places

but in fact

> just the opposite. This is the sad truth.

 

Sad, indeed. The only way I know of acting effectively to

counteract this sad madness is to struggle against it when

it appears in my own sphere of influence.

 

>

> Response: My observation is that the authorities are those that

have taken

> historical teachings of TCM and translated them into English. In

the best

> cases they have provided useful commentary. I find that innovation

in the

> use or interpretation of TCM is generally not appreciated unless it

can be

> supported by some kind of historical context, whether the

relationshjp of

> the innovation and historical context is a stretch or not. This is

partly

> because of the difficulty of testing the innovations by individuals

and the

> lack of widespread use of the innovation by most TCM

practitioners. In

> order to properly test an innovation you either have to undertake

years of

> documented experimentation with the innovation on the public,

hopefully

> without doing any harm, or undertake generally accepted western

research

> designs that are innately limited in their ability to evaluate most

(but not

> all) new ideas. The other way is to develop a consistent and

reproducible

> system to evaluate and establish cause-and-effect relationships

(CER's).

> These types of CER's are lacking in medicine and limit its ability

to

> advance our innovative ideas more quickly. That's why some medical

> innovations have only been appreciated post mortem to the inventor.

 

You've raised several complicated points here.

With respect to the historical context, one of

the biggest problems that we face in the English

language materials on Chinese medicine is the

currently inadequate representation of this

context in the English literature. In other

words, what currently stands as the English

language context of Chinese medicine is woefully

inadequate when compared to the actual historical

context of the subject. That is the point of

our book, Who Can Ride the Dragon? And that

is the point of the initiative known as

Chinese_Medicine.net, i.e. to bring more

of this broad context of Chinese medicine to

life in English language materials and to

create wider and deeper access to the Chinese

sources for students and readers who come

to the study of Chinese medicine without the

benefit of the Chinese language.

 

With respect to the issues related to the

scientific evaluation of Chinese medical

methods, I refer you and other interested

readers to the forthcoming issue of Clinical

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in which

Stephen Birch has written a poignant appraisal

of the current situation.

 

As I said, it's a complicated matter.

>

> Response: It is often difficult to determine the qualifications of

an

> author before reading the book. And even then, in some cases very

good, yet

> untouched questions about the basis of certain generally accepted

concepts

> in TCM have come from students. No one has all the answers. And

it should

> be ok to be wrong, especially if you are trying to push the

established

> boundries in an effort to shed new light. However, all to often,

and quite

> naturally, those trying to shine new light are attached to being

right. And

> those within factions that do not share the same viewpoint are too

quick to

> discard the potential value of the light. This leaves us beholden

to what

> has been established in TCM by practitioners of historically

accepted

> methods.

 

I think it's not only OK to be wrong, but

mandatory. Science demands trial and error.

But we've got to maintain the highest possible

standards of personal integrity when it comes

to reporting the trials and the errors. Otherwise

it's not science by any means, but purely hype

and self-aggrandizement.

 

>

> Response: I personally over-reacted to some posts made by Alon at

one point

> and perhaps you may be as well. I don't believe Alon was intending

to

> express bigotry but rather making an observation of cultural

differences.

 

As above, I was reacting solely to the statement and

not trying to second guess the intention behind it.

Alon has now made it clear that he stands by his

statement, and I stand by those that I made.

 

Oriental people question authority, whether it

be the authority of old masters or of political

leaders. The examples that I gave illustrate this,

even though Alon dispensed with them as being

merely political.

 

> Whether the observation is accurate or not may be more relevant a

topic and

> you seem to have some valuable insights on the issue.

 

From my perspective, I've merely had glimpses. One always

hopes for insight. But like most things, it's far easier

to hope for it than to get it. When I came to China for

the first time in 1992, I had the idea that having studied

Chinese culture, Chinese medicine, taijiquan, and so on

for more than 20 years, that I knew a little something

about the place and its people. It took me nearly two

years to realize I was completely self-deluded. Then

the mist began to lift from my eyes and I started to

look at things quite differently.

 

In my many trips to

> China I have found that generalizations about people from certain

parts of

> China are often made by my Chinese friends.

 

People in China are every bit as capable of racial

stereotyping as people everywhere else. I remember

one day back in 1993 when my then 11 year old son

came home from school one day in tears because in

his Cantonese class they had been learning to sing

a song about the " foreign devils. " The kids all

laughed at him, since he was one. And when I went

to talk to his teacher about this, she was completely

baffled. I told her I thought this was a perfectly

dreadful song and it was particularly insensitive

of her to teach it in the class with my son as

one of her students. She replied that it was an

old song and that no one thought like that anymore.

It was all just a joke. And when I said, " Yeah, but

you're teaching this old joke to kids now...today...

and they're laughing at us foreign devils right now, "

she just couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

 

As you know there are many

> subcultures within China that, in some cases, display certain unique

> culturally based characteristics. Some of them are good

characteristics,

> some would not be considered either good or bad, and others are a

slur.

> Lets not lump them all together.

 

Very good point. 5% of the Chinese population is

made up of some 54 different nationalities. That

might seem like a small percentage, but it represents

a population of some 75 million human beings. That's

nearly 1/3 of the US population, 1/2 of the population

of Japan, more than the population of Great Britain,

in other words...a lot of people.

 

And even among the Han Chinese there is a great deal

of cultural diversity.

 

Indeed, let's not lump them all together. There's

no truth to be found in such lumps. Let's follow

the principles of Chinese medical theory and

deal with individuals as individuals, each

according to his or her own time, place, and

circumstance.

 

Ken

>

[Guest guest]

With respect to the issues related to thescientific evaluation of Chinese medicalmethods, I refer you and other interestedreaders to the forthcoming issue of ClinicalAcupuncture and Oriental Medicine in whichStephen Birch has written a poignant appraisalof the current situation.>>>>>>>>>>>Can you give a synopsis of it here

Alon

[Guest guest]

Very good point. 5% of the Chinese population ismade up of some 54 different nationalities. Thatmight seem like a small percentage, but it representsa population of some 75 million human beings. That'snearly 1/3 of the US population, 1/2 of the populationof Japan, more than the population of Great Britain,in other words...a lot of people.

>>>>>I have never suggest that all of the orient or china is monolithic. All I am talking about is the Master / Disciple relationship. Certainly the wealth of different ideas in OM shows that there is a forum for disagreement and differing opinion. But again, from my experience there is still a strong influence of the Master/Disciple relationship within modern TCM which Strongly affects clinical research reports. I am not sure how you seem to jump from these ideas to the breath of you argument, perhaps this is a personal button of yours.

Alon

[Guest guest]

I would prefer to end this thread. given some of the posts and private

messages to me, I am not alone in this desire. positions have been

submitted and rebutted. the personal biases, motivations, intentions

of the combatants is too " hot " a topic for this list and one that

clearly cannot be resolved. thank you.

 

[Guest guest]

I would prefer to end this thread. given some of the posts and private messages to me, I am not alone in this desire. positions have been submitted and rebutted. the personal biases, motivations, intentions of the combatants is too "hot" a topic for this list and one that clearly cannot be resolved. thank you.>>>>If you are talking about the issue of reliability of Chinese medical literature I am sorry to here this since I think it is a major issue to deal with. Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> With respect to the issues related to the

> scientific evaluation of Chinese medical

> methods, I refer you and other interested

> readers to the forthcoming issue of Clinical

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine in which

> Stephen Birch has written a poignant appraisal

> of the current situation.

> >>>>>>>>>>>Can you give a synopsis of it here

 

Certainly.

 

The gist of the piece is that armed with an

incomplete understanding of Chinese medical

theory and methodolgy and harboring various

prejudices, both personal and professional,

various researchers have compiled meta-studies

of late that compound errors in clinical

trials and result in altogether erroenous

" findings. " Dr. Birch raises a flag of caution

that we are all wise to pay attention to.

 

I don't have a copy of the piece in front

of me, as I've been travelling for a couple

of weeks now. But the issue will be out

shortly, and I urge all who are interested

and concerned about the future of the field

to take a close look at it.

 

Best,

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

ÿþ