Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 Like Will, I have no problem with building on theories as long as it has demonstrated clinical value. The classics are not the final arbiter of what we can know; they are, or should be, a spring board. What substantiates not only this system but any system of medicine is its coherence, what is considered ¡§an intellectual coherence that includes consistency with all the experiences and expectations founded in it, the fulfillment of precise, far-reaching predictions implied by it, and the functioning of all the technology built on its basis.¡¨ This quote is about= physical theories from Roger Newton¡¦s Thinking About Physics (Princeton University Press, 2000) but applies equally to how we should think about doing Chinese medicine. The first problem to resolve is to not refer to things as " MSU " unless they are outrageous and have no real foundation in accepted theory or widespread clinical experience. This term negatively taints a proposal. But there is always room to speculate and grow. There will always be different and, therefore, competing styles of acupuncture and herbalism. People, though, should be challenged as to how they arrived at their idea, how it expands upon or advances known theory, and how it can accurately be reproduced in widespread clinical experience. If they can't do that, they shouldn't put it forward (at least not in this group). For a long time, we have imitated China in that the authority for this field rested on the reputations of senior practitioners, our professional " ancestors. " But in a Western culture, that is not sufficient.= It is an historical inevitablity that acupuncture and herbalism will change= as they interact with Western science and culture. It would be nice to see the big conferences focus some time on these issues, too. Perhaps Todd could lead a round table discussion at the Pacific Symposium? Jim Ramholz , WMorris116@A... wrote: > I'll maintain the virtue of acupuncturizing herbal theory along with > herbalizing acupuncture theory. And...that exploration of divergents as > channels traversing the exterior and interior would likely necessitate agents > that have tropism to both areas. Since the idea remains fragmented > classically, it is up to the practitioners who have an interest to flush the > ideas out and pursue the truth of clinical virtue. I'd say the French have > gone a long way toward developing useful implementation of the Divergents, > and....I have no problem building on something someone made up as long as it > has clinical viability. The only catch is academic. It should be cited. > > As far as multicultural use of medicinals is concerned, I find that one > culture may cultivate the use of a medicinal in a way that is not fully > understood or utilized by another. For instance the study Sheng Ma usage in > western culture has tremendous possibilities compared to adhering to strict > TCM thoughts. The same is true for Mai Men Dong/Shatavari and especially He > Zi/Haritaki when comparing Hindu and Chinese usage of same medicinals. > > Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 on 3/19/01 12:48 AM, jramholz at jramholz wrote: > Like Will, I have no problem with building on theories as long as it > has demonstrated clinical value. The classics are not the final arbiter > of what we can know; they are, or should be, a spring board. What > substantiates not only this system but any system of medicine is its > coherence, what is considered ¡§an intellectual coherence that includes > consistency with all the experiences and expectations founded in it, the > fulfillment of precise, far-reaching predictions implied by it, and the > functioning of all the technology built on its basis.¡¨ The classics certainly were designed to be a creative medium, applied to the here-now reality of the clinic, but if one wants to use them as a springboard, one needs to have a better grounding in them than the vast majority of us have at present. There are few practitioners/teachers who we can say are well-grounded and knowledgeble in the classics. > > The first problem to resolve is to not refer to things as " MSU " > unless they are outrageous and have no real foundation in accepted > theory or widespread clinical experience. This term negatively taints a > proposal. But there is always room to speculate and grow. There will > always be different and, therefore, competing styles of acupuncture and > herbalism. Again, a tree can only grow as tall as its roots grow deep. > > People, though, should be challenged as to how they arrived at their > idea, how it expands upon or advances known theory, and how it can > accurately be reproduced in widespread clinical experience. If they can't > do that, they shouldn't put it forward (at least not in this group). Agreed. > > For a long time, we have imitated China in that the authority for > this field rested on the reputations of senior practitioners, our > professional " ancestors. " But in a Western culture, that is not sufficient.= One has to be cautious here. Felix Mann wrote several of the earlier English language texts on Chinese medicine, only to abandon the entire philosophical structure for a neurologically based approach, concluding that the channels and points didn't exist. > > It is an historical inevitablity that acupuncture and herbalism will change= > > as they interact with Western science and culture. Chinese medicine has already changed. . . .for better or worse, both in China and abroad. But I think it only makes sense to try to create an English language literature base and train more people to read medical Chinese so we can maintain some continuity with the tradition. There is no guarantee that Chinese medicine will survive with its theoretical structure intact. > > It would be nice to see the big conferences focus some time on these > issues, too. Perhaps Todd could lead a round table discussion at the > Pacific Symposium? A nice idea.. . .are you interested, Todd? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 I agree Alon - jramholz Monday, March 19, 2001 12:48 AM No more MSU (making stuff up) Like Will, I have no problem with building on theories as long as ithas demonstrated clinical value. The classics are not the final arbiter of what we can know; they are, or should be, a spring board. What substantiates not only this system but any system of medicine is its coherence, what is considered ¡§an intellectual coherence that includes consistency with all the experiences and expectations founded in it, the fulfillment of precise, far-reaching predictions implied by it, and the functioning of all the technology built on its basis.¡¨ This quote is about= physical theories from Roger Newton¡¦s Thinking About Physics (Princeton University Press, 2000) but applies equally to how we should think about doing Chinese medicine.The first problem to resolve is to not refer to things as "MSU"unless they are outrageous and have no real foundation in accepted theory or widespread clinical experience. This term negatively taints aproposal. But there is always room to speculate and grow. There will always be different and, therefore, competing styles of acupuncture and herbalism.People, though, should be challenged as to how they arrived at their idea, how it expands upon or advances known theory, and how it can accurately be reproduced in widespread clinical experience. If they can't do that, they shouldn't put it forward (at least not in this group).For a long time, we have imitated China in that the authority forthis field rested on the reputations of senior practitioners, ourprofessional "ancestors." But in a Western culture, that is not sufficient.= It is an historical inevitablity that acupuncture and herbalism will change= as they interact with Western science and culture.It would be nice to see the big conferences focus some time on these issues, too. Perhaps Todd could lead a round table discussion at the Pacific Symposium?Jim Ramholz, WMorris116@A... wrote:> I'll maintain the virtue of acupuncturizing herbal theory alongwith > herbalizing acupuncture theory. And...that exploration ofdivergents as > channels traversing the exterior and interior would likelynecessitate agents > that have tropism to both areas. Since the idea remains fragmented > classically, it is up to the practitioners who have an interest toflush the > ideas out and pursue the truth of clinical virtue. I'd say theFrench have > gone a long way toward developing useful implementation of the Divergents, > and....I have no problem building on something someone made up as long as it > has clinical viability. The only catch is academic. It should becited.> > As far as multicultural use of medicinals is concerned, I find thatone > culture may cultivate the use of a medicinal in a way that is notfully > understood or utilized by another. For instance the study Sheng Ma usage in > western culture has tremendous possibilities compared to adheringto strict > TCM thoughts. The same is true for Mai Men Dong/Shatavari and especially He > Zi/Haritaki when comparing Hindu and Chinese usage of same medicinals.> > WillChinese 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...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 In a message dated 3/19/01 5:50:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, yulong writes: > > How do people who assert that they are > making up new ideas based on Chinese medical > theories relate these new ideas to a body > of data that, strictly speaking, they have > never studied? > Ken, Zev....I have to say that in my class Practical Application of the Classics, 1-4 year students came up with similar arguments as the authorities Unschuld translated regarding chapter 5 of the Nan Jing. The students demonstrated keen insight and a capacity to deal with the material rendered into English by Unschuld. We have a corpus of material that makes it possible for English speaking practitioners to converse intelligently about the material. Not only that, but with 10 to 40 years of experience some practitioners bring into those conversations, it is possible to derive findings based on the synergy of these components (MSU) that have clinical significance. I am agreeing with you, the ability to synthesize TCM concepts and make new developments is dependent on a classical foundation, clinical scrutiny, and exposure to senior practitioners. (God help us if we drown in a sea of dogmatic authoritarianism predicated on a bunch of old books someone made up at one time in history.) Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 Jim, > People, though, should be challenged as to how they arrived at their > idea, how it expands upon or advances known theory, and how it can > accurately be reproduced in widespread clinical experience. If they can't > do that, they shouldn't put it forward (at least not in this group). > > For a long time, we have imitated China in that the authority for > this field rested on the reputations of senior practitioners, our > professional " ancestors. " But in a Western culture, that is not sufficient.= There is one fundamental way in which we in the West have not imitated China with respect to medical authority, namely that we have tended to ignore the Chinese medical literature. As Z'ev has pointed out, there are few practitioners or teachers among the cohort of Westerners who are active in Chinese medical practice and education who can even read the Chinese literature. Therefore, in the spirit that you evoke of challenging those who put forward ideas that are supposedly based upon the theories that come from these medical classics, I would like to pose some general questions. How do people who assert that they are making up new ideas based on Chinese medical theories relate these new ideas to a body of data that, strictly speaking, they have never studied? Would we lend any credence, as a culture or as individuals, to anyone who purveyed " new ideas " in the realm of physics, to further your very pertinent reference to that subject, who had not familiarized themselves with the accumlated literature on the subject? If someone reported that they had made some new advancements in the theory of relativity or if they advanced a Grand Theory of Everything or a Grand Unification Theory without knowing the language and the literature of mathematics and physics on which such theories are based, would such reports earn any respect? The one big difference between the scene in the West and the scene in China is that the senior practitioners in China who have long stood in positions of authority tend to know the fundamentals of the subject based upon years of study of the accumulated literature as well as lengthy and broad experience as clinical practitioners. I am not arguing for a mere orthodoxy. I believe very strongly in the necessity for a modern recapitulation of Chinese medical theory. But I believe just as strongly that such a recapitulation must be rooted in the substantive roots of the subject itself. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 Ken, I couldn't agree more! Very well said. on 3/19/01 5:47 PM, yulong at yulong wrote: > > There is one fundamental way in which we > in the West have not imitated China with > respect to medical authority, namely that > we have tended to ignore the Chinese medical > literature. As Z'ev has pointed out, there > are few practitioners or teachers among the > cohort of Westerners who are active in > Chinese medical practice and education who > can even read the Chinese literature. > > Therefore, in the spirit that you evoke > of challenging those who put forward ideas > that are supposedly based upon the theories > that come from these medical classics, > I would like to pose some general questions. > > How do people who assert that they are > making up new ideas based on Chinese medical > theories relate these new ideas to a body > of data that, strictly speaking, they have > never studied? > > Would we lend any credence, as a culture > or as individuals, to anyone who purveyed > " new ideas " in the realm of physics, to > further your very pertinent reference to > that subject, who had not familiarized > themselves with the accumlated literature > on the subject? > > If someone reported that they had made some new > advancements in the theory of relativity > or if they advanced a Grand Theory of Everything > or a Grand Unification Theory without knowing > the language and the literature of mathematics > and physics on which such theories are based, > would such reports earn any respect? > > The one big difference between the scene in > the West and the scene in China is that the > senior practitioners in China who have long > stood in positions of authority tend to know > the fundamentals of the subject based upon > years of study of the accumulated literature > as well as lengthy and broad experience as > clinical practitioners. > > I am not arguing for a mere orthodoxy. I > believe very strongly in the necessity for > a modern recapitulation of Chinese medical > theory. But I believe just as strongly that > such a recapitulation must be rooted in > the substantive roots of the subject itself. > > Ken > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 on 3/19/01 8:54 PM, WMorris116 at WMorris116 wrote: > In a message dated 3/19/01 5:50:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, > yulong writes: > >> >> How do people who assert that they are >> making up new ideas based on Chinese medical >> theories relate these new ideas to a body >> of data that, strictly speaking, they have >> never studied? >> > > Ken, Zev....I have to say that in my class Practical Application of the > Classics, 1-4 year students came up with similar arguments as the authorities > Unschuld translated regarding chapter 5 of the Nan Jing. The students > demonstrated keen insight and a capacity to deal with the material rendered > into English by Unschuld. Will, I have also, from time to time, had students make remarkable insights into aspects of the classical Chinese medical literature. . . .there are some very bright people out there. This is why we owe them the best knowledge base we could possibly give them, that is, better access to the Chinese medical literature, both modern and classical. > > We have a corpus of material that makes it possible for English speaking > practitioners to converse intelligently about the material. Not only that, > but with 10 to 40 years of experience some practitioners bring into those > conversations, it is possible to derive findings based on the synergy of > these components (MSU) that have clinical significance. We certainly have more and better material than we used to. However, there are still problems. I still think it is necessary for a classical text to include the Chinese characters, pinyin, and English translation with accessible glossary, along with commentaries to explain the text. I also use the Blue Poppy Mai Jing and other such books, and really appreciate their availability and quality, but their usefulness is limited by the lack of Chinese and pinyin, or useful commentaries. 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.