Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Robert Felt's balanced perspective and detached common sense on the issues of validity and authority is refreshing. I think most would agree that TCM requires a fluid and intuitive thought process that cannot be practiced using computer software or a great cookbook. The " useful and necessary creative process " (his words) encompasses a spectrum grounded in theory and experience on one end and reaches the other extreme as baseless speculation. Medicine of all kinds is practiced in this gray area because no two patients are the same. Modern and historical texts therefore provide invaluable reference points and act as a guide to the practitioner but do not lay out the optimal course of action for us. Its art vs science, and TCM is both. New herbal formulations are being developed for specific disease conditions on a regular basis in China and elsewhere without the benefit of historical precedent. That is where the " modern scientific method " of outcomes or physiological end-point analysis research becomes necessary for expedient incorporation of new ideas into widespread clinical use. The many new pathogenic factors seen today seem to reflect a greater difference over the past 100 years than during the previous 1000 years. It is my observation that many of these new pathogenic influences provide daily insults to humans that in some cases require stretching the boundaries of creativity in ways not required or fully addressed in historical times. Having a mouth full of dental materials and new forms of psychic hyper-stimulation (e.g. driving in LA or Beijing) are only part of a long list. I believe that the route of entry or cause of a pathology that results in small intestine fire or liver yin vacuity can change the pathogenesis and consequently the necessary course of treatment for its resolution. From R. Felt: ...in terms of discussions among ourselves there are reasonable standards for making claims that do not put any undue burden on the exchange of information, or the ability to speculate freely. Overly judgmental reference points, from which some individual biases are heavily supported, risk the suppression of free and open discussion... Stephen Morrissey 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...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Stephen Morrissey wrote: The many new pathogenic factors seen today seem to reflect a greater difference over the past 100 years than during the previous 1000 years. Stephen, That should get the quote of the year award, thanks for the input. Heiko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 on 3/20/01 4:26 PM, Stephen Morrissey at stephen wrote: > > Robert Felt's balanced perspective and detached common sense on the issues > of validity and authority is refreshing. I think most would agree that TCM > requires a fluid and intuitive thought process that cannot be practiced > using computer software or a great cookbook. The " useful and necessary > creative process " (his words) encompasses a spectrum grounded in theory and > experience on one end and reaches the other extreme as baseless speculation. > Medicine of all kinds is practiced in this gray area because no two patients > are the same. Modern and historical texts therefore provide invaluable > reference points and act as a guide to the practitioner but do not lay out > the optimal course of action for us. Its art vs science, and TCM is both. Agreed. > > New herbal formulations are being developed for specific disease conditions > on a regular basis in China and elsewhere without the benefit of historical > precedent. That is where the " modern scientific method " of outcomes or > physiological end-point analysis research becomes necessary for expedient > incorporation of new ideas into widespread clinical use. The many new > pathogenic factors seen today seem to reflect a greater difference over the > past 100 years than during the previous 1000 years. It is my observation > that many of these new pathogenic influences provide daily insults to humans > that in some cases require stretching the boundaries of creativity in ways > not required or fully addressed in historical times. Having a mouth full of > dental materials and new forms of psychic hyper-stimulation (e.g. driving in > LA or Beijing) are only part of a long list. I believe that the route of > entry or cause of a pathology that results in small intestine fire or liver > yin vacuity can change the pathogenesis and consequently the necessary > course of treatment for its resolution. I don't think any of your conclusions contradict anything that has been said in this group so far. I think the CM paradigm is inclusive and flexible enough to deal with our modern epidemics. . . .for myself, this means applications of SHL and Wen Bing (especially latent qi) theory to modern situations. My experience is that deepening and broadening my knowledge base through study and practice within Chinese medical parameters is much more successful than outright eclecticism. If I feel other methodologies are needed, I refer to practitioners who are better than I at them. 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.