Guest guest Posted November 1, 2001 Report Share Posted November 1, 2001 Dear Group, I read Doctor Heiner Fruehauf's article: " Chinese Medicine In Crisis " Yesterday. Dr. Fruehaul really catched the historical point of TCM development in both Mailand Taiwan. But, I would like to provide some different opinions below. 1.I don¡¦t think TCM in China and Taiwan should change the name into Classical CM. I think,for distinguish the difference, TCM in western should change the name in WESTERN STYLE CHINESE MEDICINE,WSCM, because TCM in western is no longer in real TCM style according to Chinese standard,and,TCM will be TCM for ever because since 1000s years ago that it is the name. 2.TCM is not a religion. Daoist is not TCM. Daoism is not = TCM. Daoism borrow the TCM theory(Yin and Yong ,Qi ,and others)become the rule of their religion, but, this does not mean that TCM is a religion. TCM is the victim of religion. There were always mentioned in our records that Buddhism or monks or daoist are also the great master of Martial ARTS or TCM.Those Daoism and Buddhism use TCM¡¦s theory maintain their health in regular daily life because it is not easy to find a doctor in the high mountains. And , there were herbs every where in the mountains. 3.I am not afraid TCM going to the wrong way in both mainland and Taiwan because in our country, Government release partial right to people for self treatment. People can do some self treatment in Mainland and Taiwan. When people sick, he might recalled that his/her grand mother told him/her some herbs + leaf + flower might cure the disease, he/her can find those herbs in the wild or in the raw herbal store (some people pick herbs for sale ,and there are always customers). No body can stop thiskind of self treatment. Government will change their education policy when they realize they are going to the wrong directions of TCM some day. Therefore, that¡¦s why we always drink herbal tea or raw herbal formula any time. Every Chinese all had such experiences since childhood. But, The biggest crisis for TCM now is that WM in Western own great power to set the rule of TCM in WM approach. One single standardized herbal formula can only treatment one single disease or one single patient,according to TCM theory.Because the standardize formula is not adjustable, the herb powder or pills might not fit the patient's disease focused 95-100% correct.the patient 's disease might not get good treatment as well. WM did not understand the theory of TCM quite clear, they didn't get the whole picture of TCM.but , They has great power to set the rule to request TCM do as what they said. This is dangerous because wrong hypothesis develop wrong result. The genetic-change bio-chemestry technology also will going to distroy TCM herbalogy because genetic change also change the Sin4- Wei4-Qi4-keigin(taste and smell and qi4 and enter what channel that herbs can do) since modern people already don't understand how ancient chinese discriminate Sin4-Qi4-Wei4-keigin of TCM herbs. Jean Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2001 Report Share Posted November 2, 2001 > > Dr. Fruehaul really catched the historical point of > TCM development in both Mailand Taiwan. I'm curious to know if anyone on the list finds it puzzling that according to Fruehauf traditional medicine was experiencing something like a golden age at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries while the nation itself and the Chinese people were in a period of collapse, decay, and pretty complete devastation. Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive, i.e. that a system of health care so concerned about living in harmony within the natural and human environment could be flourishing while the enviornment itself is involved in such utter upheaval? Think about those lines from the treatise on living in harmony with the four seasons in the Su Wen that suggest that superior doctors treat their patients before they get sick and educate the people before they become rebellious. Whatever medicine was being argued and practiced in the period Fruehauf cites, it does not begin to measure up to these standards. We are asked to believe that the doctors and medical people were flourishing while the people themselves were perishing in vast numbers due to widespread disease and violence. During the period described in the opening section of the essay, something along the lines of 50-70 million Chinese died from the sickness that had the whole country in its grips. This suggests to me that the subject and certainly the practice of Chinese medicine was already seriously out of whack by this time. Another thing I think that Fruehauf overlooks is the fact that since time immemorial, medical personnel in China have integrated foreign ideas, artifacts, methods, and substances into their traditional ways. Seen in a longer term historical perspective, the current integration of Western medicine appears entirely traditional. I'm reminded of the famous exchange between a French journalist and the late Premier, Zhou En Lai. The journalist asked Zhou if he thought that the French revolution had had an impact on the Communist revolution in China. Zhou replied, " Too soon to tell. " Fruehauf does not account for how a subject that was supposedly in such great shape could have been all but eradicated. He mentions the Nationalist initiatives to modernize by eliminating traditional medical education and practice, and he notes in passing that it was the Communist initiatives that saved the subject from possible oblivion. Then he proceeds to forward his conviction that the subject is dying at the hands of the Communist government while also directing our attention to the initiative of his mentor in Chengdu to reestablish a more " traditional " approach to curriculum design and instruction. I'm aware of a number of such initiatives coming from within the PRC, and I am reminded of the fact that the Chinese have well established traditions of how to deal with the extremely powerful influences of the central government that date way back to long before the advent of Communism there. Near the end of the piece Fruehauf shifts away from his doomsday prophecy by suggesting that the subject is stepping into maturity. He seems to have fallen into the trap that Paul Eluard once warned all writers about: falling under the spell of their own metaphors. He treats traditional medicine as if it were a thoroughly anthropomorphic entitity that lives and matures and dies the way an individual human being does. I think it's more accurate to understand Chinese medicine as a complex adaptive system itself requiring a more multi-dimensional method of analysis if we are to understand the mechanisms that have nourished it and kept it alive for the past several thousand years. I also do not find a credible let alone convincing argument for his assertion that the advent of an integrative approach diminishes or threatens the traditional. But what troubles me most about the piece is the implicit assertion the he, Fruehauf, is in possession of the True Tradition. This is a common complaint of traditional medical people in China, i.e. that no one but they themselves really knows what's going on because they got the real stuff from their teacher, whose accomplishments are almost always legendary if not downright mythical. > > 2.TCM is not a religion. Daoist is not TCM. Daoism is > not = TCM. Daoism borrow the TCM theory(Yin and Yong > ,Qi ,and others)become the rule of their religion, > but, this does not mean that TCM is a religion. I've always thought that it was the other way round, i.e. that the medical writers borrowed philosophical ideas in order to formulate and codify their theoretical considerations about human bodies, health, and medical interventions. > > 3.I am not afraid TCM going to the wrong way in both > mainland and Taiwan because in our country, Government > release partial right to people for self treatment. I'm not either. And I find Fruehauf's fundamental, if implicit assertion that somehow the Chinese have screwed up Chinese medicine a bit hard to swallow. > > Therefore, that¡¦s why we always drink herbal tea or > raw herbal formula any time. Every Chinese all had > such experiences since childhood. Very good point. The quantity of the widespread use of traditional cures in China results in a qualitative difference between the environment in which the subject exists there and in Western zones where it is sill very much " alternative " to mainstream medical thinking and behavior. > > > WM did not understand the theory of TCM quite clear, > they didn't get the whole picture of TCM.but , > They has great power to set the rule to request > TCM do as what they said. This is dangerous because > wrong hypothesis develop wrong result. I think here you hit the nail on the head. It's lack of understanding of the basic terms and theories that makes Western-trained students and practitioners liable to the crisis of Chinese medicine. I agree with Fruehauf that we're in crisis. But I believe that the origins of this crisis can be traced largely to the conduct of individuals who themselves lack a deep understanding of the subject yet nonetheless establish themselves as authorities and draw up blueprints for its growth and development that are based on highly idiosyncratic (not to mention often just plain wrong) interpretations. I think there's another recent piece of writing that we ought to consider in this same light, namely the piece by Dan Bensky and Volker Scheid about " descriptive " and " normative " accounts of Chinese medicine and the significance of " yi " . I'm preparing a couple of pieces for publication in response to both of these articles and I'll appreciate any feedback and input from group members. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2001 Report Share Posted November 2, 2001 Ken, I had a chance to read Heiner's essay before it was published in the JCM and engaged in a brief round of give and take. I thought the dichotomy between Confucian medicine and Daoist medicine was overly simplistic and potentially even dangerous to the future of this profession here in the West where we are not very knowledgeable about the history of Chinese medicine and where, therefore, many people may take Heiner's opinions as gospel. I particularly objected to Heiner's categorization of the Chinese medicine he liked as being " classical. " When pressed to define this term, it came down to that style of medicine predicated on and informed by the premodern books he happens to like and value. Although he agreed with me this usage of the term " classic " was incorrect in terms of Chinese medicine in China, he said he was going to use it anyway. Unfortunately for Heiner's argument and as you well know, a large number of the most important premodern books in Chinese medicine were written by people who indentified themselves as Confucianists (while, at the same time in some cases, also being Daoists). It seems to me that Huang-fu Mi, Zhang Zhong-jing, Wang Tao, Zhang Zi-he, Li Dong-yuan, Zhu Dan-xi, Li Shi-zhen, and Ye Tian-shi would have to be considered " heavy hitters " in premodern Chinese medicine by pretty much anyone who knows the history of Chinese medicine and all were, to the best of my knowledge, Confucianists. Even Sun Si-miao was, as evidenced by his own writings, as much a Confucian (as well as a Buddhist) as a Daoist. Further, it is my understanding that the description of a book as a " classic " in Chinese medicine in China is reserved for an extremely small group of books, such as the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shan Han Lun/Jin Gui Yao Lue, and Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing. It is impossible to say that the first two of these titles is Daoist since they contain at least as many Confucian ideas as Daoist ideas, and Zhang Zhong-jing specifically refers to himself as a Confucian. Only Tao Hong-jing, the author of the Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing, can be said to be a card-carrying Daoist. So I just don't buy this Confucian/bad/TCM::Daoist/good/classical Chinese medicine dichotomy. I completely agree with you that, in this essay, Heiner has reduced some of the issues and problems facing modern (and postmodern) Chinese medicine to an overly simplistic set of dichotomies and that the true situation is much more complex and multifaceted than he represents. Unfortunately, I don't see a really good history of modern Chinese medicine coming down the tubes. A couple of years ago I looked into commissioning a modern history of Chinese medicine commencing in the late 1800s specifically for the purpose of laying the groundwork for a more rounded, nuanced vision of Chinese medicine in China. We found a Chinese medical historian with a very large ms. which was very well researched, written, and documented. However, the book was 700-800 pages in Chinese, and you know what that would mean in terms of turning that into English -- 2,000 or more pages. Unfortunately, when we did the ROI (return on investment) analysis, there was no way we could afford to publish this book. Even Bob Felt and Stephen Birch's much less ambitious book has, as far as I know from one of the authors, only sold several hundred copies. Yet that book provides a much more mature and nuanced vision of modern Chinese medicine. Would that more Americans read it. Bob , yulong@m... wrote: > > > > > Dr. Fruehaul really catched the historical point of > > TCM development in both Mailand Taiwan. > > I'm curious to know if anyone on the list > finds it puzzling that according to Fruehauf > traditional medicine was experiencing > something like a golden age at the end > of the 19th and beginning of the 20th > centuries while the nation itself and > the Chinese people were in a period of > collapse, decay, and pretty complete > devastation. > > Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive, > i.e. that a system of health care so > concerned about living in harmony within > the natural and human environment could > be flourishing while the enviornment itself > is involved in such utter upheaval? > > Think about those lines from the treatise > on living in harmony with the four seasons > in the Su Wen that suggest that superior doctors > treat their patients before they get sick > and educate the people before they > become rebellious. Whatever medicine > was being argued and practiced in the > period Fruehauf cites, it does not > begin to measure up to these > standards. > > We are asked to believe that the doctors > and medical people were flourishing > while the people themselves were perishing > in vast numbers due to widespread disease > and violence. During the period described > in the opening section of the essay, something > along the lines of 50-70 million Chinese > died from the sickness that had the > whole country in its grips. > > This suggests to me that the subject and > certainly the practice of Chinese medicine > was already seriously out of whack by this time. > > Another thing I think that Fruehauf overlooks > is the fact that since time immemorial, medical > personnel in China have integrated foreign > ideas, artifacts, methods, and substances > into their traditional ways. Seen in a longer > term historical perspective, the current > integration of Western medicine appears > entirely traditional. > > I'm reminded of the famous exchange > between a French journalist and the > late Premier, Zhou En Lai. The journalist > asked Zhou if he thought that the French > revolution had had an impact on the > Communist revolution in China. > > Zhou replied, " Too soon to tell. " > > Fruehauf does not account for how a subject > that was supposedly in such great shape > could have been all but eradicated. He > mentions the Nationalist initiatives > to modernize by eliminating traditional > medical education and practice, and he > notes in passing that it was the Communist > initiatives that saved the subject from > possible oblivion. Then he proceeds to > forward his conviction that the subject > is dying at the hands of the Communist > government while also directing our > attention to the initiative of his mentor > in Chengdu to reestablish a more " traditional " > approach to curriculum design and instruction. > > I'm aware of a number of such initiatives > coming from within the PRC, and I am reminded > of the fact that the Chinese have well > established traditions of how to deal with > the extremely powerful influences of the > central government that date way back > to long before the advent of Communism > there. > > Near the end of the piece Fruehauf shifts > away from his doomsday prophecy by suggesting > that the subject is stepping into maturity. > He seems to have fallen into the trap that > Paul Eluard once warned all writers about: > falling under the spell of their own metaphors. > > He treats traditional medicine as if it were > a thoroughly anthropomorphic entitity that > lives and matures and dies the way an individual > human being does. I think it's more accurate > to understand Chinese medicine as a complex > adaptive system itself requiring a more > multi-dimensional method of analysis if > we are to understand the mechanisms that > have nourished it and kept it alive for > the past several thousand years. > > I also do not find a credible let alone > convincing argument for his assertion > that the advent of an integrative > approach diminishes or threatens the > traditional. > > But what troubles me most about the piece is > the implicit assertion the he, Fruehauf, > is in possession of the True Tradition. > > This is a common complaint of traditional > medical people in China, i.e. that no one > but they themselves really knows what's > going on because they got the real stuff > from their teacher, whose accomplishments > are almost always legendary if not downright > mythical. > > > > > 2.TCM is not a religion. Daoist is not TCM. Daoism is > > not = TCM. Daoism borrow the TCM theory(Yin and Yong > > ,Qi ,and others)become the rule of their religion, > > but, this does not mean that TCM is a religion. > > I've always thought that it was the other way > round, i.e. that the medical writers borrowed > philosophical ideas in order to formulate and > codify their theoretical considerations about > human bodies, health, and medical interventions. > > > > > 3.I am not afraid TCM going to the wrong way in both > > mainland and Taiwan because in our country, Government > > release partial right to people for self treatment. > > I'm not either. And I find Fruehauf's fundamental, > if implicit assertion that somehow the Chinese > have screwed up Chinese medicine a bit hard to > swallow. > > > > > Therefore, that¡¦s why we always drink herbal tea or > > raw herbal formula any time. Every Chinese all had > > such experiences since childhood. > > Very good point. The quantity of the widespread use of > traditional cures in China results in a qualitative > difference between the environment in which the > subject exists there and in Western zones where > it is sill very much " alternative " to mainstream > medical thinking and behavior. > > > > > > WM did not understand the theory of TCM quite clear, > > they didn't get the whole picture of TCM.but , > > They has great power to set the rule to request > > TCM do as what they said. This is dangerous because > > wrong hypothesis develop wrong result. > > I think here you hit the nail on the head. It's > lack of understanding of the basic terms and > theories that makes Western-trained students > and practitioners liable to the crisis of > Chinese medicine. > > I agree with Fruehauf that we're in crisis. > But I believe that the origins of this > crisis can be traced largely to the conduct > of individuals who themselves lack a deep > understanding of the subject yet nonetheless > establish themselves as authorities and > draw up blueprints for its growth and > development that are based on highly > idiosyncratic (not to mention often just plain > wrong) interpretations. > > I think there's another recent piece of > writing that we ought to consider in this > same light, namely the piece by Dan Bensky > and Volker Scheid about " descriptive " > and " normative " accounts of Chinese medicine > and the significance of " yi " . > > I'm preparing a couple of pieces for > publication in response to both of these > articles and I'll appreciate any feedback > and input from group members. > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2001 Report Share Posted November 2, 2001 that no onebut they themselves really knows what'sgoing on because they got the real stufffrom their teacher, whose accomplishmentsare almost always legendary if not downrightmythical. >>>>>That is why it is all about outcome Alon - yulong Friday, November 02, 2001 2:28 PM Re: TCM will be TCM for ever!! > > Dr. Fruehaul really catched the historical point of> TCM development in both Mailand Taiwan. I'm curious to know if anyone on the listfinds it puzzling that according to Fruehauftraditional medicine was experiencingsomething like a golden age at the endof the 19th and beginning of the 20thcenturies while the nation itself andthe Chinese people were in a period ofcollapse, decay, and pretty completedevastation. Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive,i.e. that a system of health care soconcerned about living in harmony withinthe natural and human environment couldbe flourishing while the enviornment itselfis involved in such utter upheaval?Think about those lines from the treatiseon living in harmony with the four seasonsin the Su Wen that suggest that superior doctors treat their patients before they get sickand educate the people before theybecome rebellious. Whatever medicinewas being argued and practiced in theperiod Fruehauf cites, it does notbegin to measure up to thesestandards.We are asked to believe that the doctorsand medical people were flourishing while the people themselves were perishingin vast numbers due to widespread diseaseand violence. During the period describedin the opening section of the essay, somethingalong the lines of 50-70 million Chinesedied from the sickness that had thewhole country in its grips.This suggests to me that the subject andcertainly the practice of Chinese medicine was already seriously out of whack by this time. Another thing I think that Fruehauf overlooksis the fact that since time immemorial, medicalpersonnel in China have integrated foreignideas, artifacts, methods, and substancesinto their traditional ways. Seen in a longerterm historical perspective, the currentintegration of Western medicine appearsentirely traditional. I'm reminded of the famous exchangebetween a French journalist and thelate Premier, Zhou En Lai. The journalistasked Zhou if he thought that the Frenchrevolution had had an impact on theCommunist revolution in China.Zhou replied, "Too soon to tell."Fruehauf does not account for how a subjectthat was supposedly in such great shapecould have been all but eradicated. Hementions the Nationalist initiativesto modernize by eliminating traditionalmedical education and practice, and henotes in passing that it was the Communistinitiatives that saved the subject frompossible oblivion. Then he proceeds toforward his conviction that the subjectis dying at the hands of the Communistgovernment while also directing ourattention to the initiative of his mentorin Chengdu to reestablish a more "traditional"approach to curriculum design and instruction.I'm aware of a number of such initiativescoming from within the PRC, and I am remindedof the fact that the Chinese have wellestablished traditions of how to deal withthe extremely powerful influences of thecentral government that date way back to long before the advent of Communismthere.Near the end of the piece Fruehauf shiftsaway from his doomsday prophecy by suggestingthat the subject is stepping into maturity.He seems to have fallen into the trap thatPaul Eluard once warned all writers about:falling under the spell of their own metaphors.He treats traditional medicine as if it werea thoroughly anthropomorphic entitity thatlives and matures and dies the way an individualhuman being does. I think it's more accurateto understand Chinese medicine as a complex adaptive system itself requiring a moremulti-dimensional method of analysis ifwe are to understand the mechanisms thathave nourished it and kept it alive forthe past several thousand years.I also do not find a credible let aloneconvincing argument for his assertionthat the advent of an integrativeapproach diminishes or threatens thetraditional.But what troubles me most about the piece isthe implicit assertion the he, Fruehauf,is in possession of the True Tradition.This is a common complaint of traditionalmedical people in China, i.e. that no onebut they themselves really knows what'sgoing on because they got the real stufffrom their teacher, whose accomplishmentsare almost always legendary if not downrightmythical. > > 2.TCM is not a religion. Daoist is not TCM. Daoism is> not = TCM. Daoism borrow the TCM theory(Yin and Yong> ,Qi ,and others)become the rule of their religion,> but, this does not mean that TCM is a religion.I've always thought that it was the other wayround, i.e. that the medical writers borrowedphilosophical ideas in order to formulate andcodify their theoretical considerations abouthuman bodies, health, and medical interventions.> > 3.I am not afraid TCM going to the wrong way in both> mainland and Taiwan because in our country, Government> release partial right to people for self treatment.I'm not either. And I find Fruehauf's fundamental,if implicit assertion that somehow the Chinesehave screwed up Chinese medicine a bit hard toswallow. > > Therefore, that¡¦s why we always drink herbal tea or> raw herbal formula any time. Every Chinese all had> such experiences since childhood.Very good point. The quantity of the widespread use oftraditional cures in China results in a qualitativedifference between the environment in which thesubject exists there and in Western zones whereit is sill very much "alternative" to mainstreammedical thinking and behavior.>> > WM did not understand the theory of TCM quite clear,> they didn't get the whole picture of TCM.but , > They has great power to set the rule to request > TCM do as what they said. This is dangerous because> wrong hypothesis develop wrong result.I think here you hit the nail on the head. It'slack of understanding of the basic terms andtheories that makes Western-trained studentsand practitioners liable to the crisis ofChinese medicine.I agree with Fruehauf that we're in crisis.But I believe that the origins of thiscrisis can be traced largely to the conductof individuals who themselves lack a deepunderstanding of the subject yet nonethelessestablish themselves as authorities and draw up blueprints for its growth and development that are based on highly idiosyncratic (not to mention often just plainwrong) interpretations.I think there's another recent piece ofwriting that we ought to consider in thissame light, namely the piece by Dan Benskyand Volker Scheid about "descriptive"and "normative" accounts of Chinese medicineand the significance of "yi".I'm preparing a couple of pieces forpublication in response to both of thesearticles and I'll appreciate any feedbackand input from group members.KenChinese 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 November 2, 2001 Report Share Posted November 2, 2001 Further, it is my understanding that the description of a book as a "classic" in Chinese medicine in China is reserved for an extremely small group of books, such as the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shan Han Lun/Jin Gui Yao Lue, and Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing. >>>>That has been my understanding and that is why when we had the discussion on the classics what do people consider classic Alon - pemachophel2001 Friday, November 02, 2001 3:34 PM Re: TCM will be TCM for ever!! Ken,I had a chance to read Heiner's essay before it was published in the JCM and engaged in a brief round of give and take. I thought the dichotomy between Confucian medicine and Daoist medicine was overly simplistic and potentially even dangerous to the future of this profession here in the West where we are not very knowledgeable about the history of Chinese medicine and where, therefore, many people may take Heiner's opinions as gospel. I particularly objected to Heiner's categorization of the Chinese medicine he liked as being "classical." When pressed to define this term, it came down to that style of medicine predicated on and informed by the premodern books he happens to like and value. Although he agreed with me this usage of the term "classic" was incorrect in terms of Chinese medicine in China, he said he was going to use it anyway. Unfortunately for Heiner's argument and as you well know, a large number of the most important premodern books in Chinese medicine were written by people who indentified themselves as Confucianists (while, at the same time in some cases, also being Daoists). It seems to me that Huang-fu Mi, Zhang Zhong-jing, Wang Tao, Zhang Zi-he, Li Dong-yuan, Zhu Dan-xi, Li Shi-zhen, and Ye Tian-shi would have to be considered "heavy hitters" in premodern Chinese medicine by pretty much anyone who knows the history of Chinese medicine and all were, to the best of my knowledge, Confucianists. Even Sun Si-miao was, as evidenced by his own writings, as much a Confucian (as well as a Buddhist) as a Daoist. Further, it is my understanding that the description of a book as a "classic" in Chinese medicine in China is reserved for an extremely small group of books, such as the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shan Han Lun/Jin Gui Yao Lue, and Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing. It is impossible to say that the first two of these titles is Daoist since they contain at least as many Confucian ideas as Daoist ideas, and Zhang Zhong-jing specifically refers to himself as a Confucian. Only Tao Hong-jing, the author of the Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing, can be said to be a card-carrying Daoist. So I just don't buy this Confucian/bad/TCM::Daoist/good/classical Chinese medicine dichotomy. I completely agree with you that, in this essay, Heiner has reduced some of the issues and problems facing modern (and postmodern) Chinese medicine to an overly simplistic set of dichotomies and that the true situation is much more complex and multifaceted than he represents. Unfortunately, I don't see a really good history of modern Chinese medicine coming down the tubes. A couple of years ago I looked into commissioning a modern history of Chinese medicine commencing in the late 1800s specifically for the purpose of laying the groundwork for a more rounded, nuanced vision of Chinese medicine in China. We found a Chinese medical historian with a very large ms. which was very well researched, written, and documented. However, the book was 700-800 pages in Chinese, and you know what that would mean in terms of turning that into English -- 2,000 or more pages. Unfortunately, when we did the ROI (return on investment) analysis, there was no way we could afford to publish this book. Even Bob Felt and Stephen Birch's much less ambitious book has, as far as I know from one of the authors, only sold several hundred copies. Yet that book provides a much more mature and nuanced vision of modern Chinese medicine. Would that more Americans read it. Bob , yulong@m... wrote:> > > > > Dr. Fruehaul really catched the historical point of> > TCM development in both Mailand Taiwan. > > I'm curious to know if anyone on the list> finds it puzzling that according to Fruehauf> traditional medicine was experiencing> something like a golden age at the end> of the 19th and beginning of the 20th> centuries while the nation itself and> the Chinese people were in a period of> collapse, decay, and pretty complete> devastation. > > Doesn't this seem counter-intuitive,> i.e. that a system of health care so> concerned about living in harmony within> the natural and human environment could> be flourishing while the enviornment itself> is involved in such utter upheaval?> > Think about those lines from the treatise> on living in harmony with the four seasons> in the Su Wen that suggest that superior doctors > treat their patients before they get sick> and educate the people before they> become rebellious. Whatever medicine> was being argued and practiced in the> period Fruehauf cites, it does not> begin to measure up to these> standards.> > We are asked to believe that the doctors> and medical people were flourishing > while the people themselves were perishing> in vast numbers due to widespread disease> and violence. During the period described> in the opening section of the essay, something> along the lines of 50-70 million Chinese> died from the sickness that had the> whole country in its grips.> > This suggests to me that the subject and> certainly the practice of Chinese medicine > was already seriously out of whack by this time. > > Another thing I think that Fruehauf overlooks> is the fact that since time immemorial, medical> personnel in China have integrated foreign> ideas, artifacts, methods, and substances> into their traditional ways. Seen in a longer> term historical perspective, the current> integration of Western medicine appears> entirely traditional. > > I'm reminded of the famous exchange> between a French journalist and the> late Premier, Zhou En Lai. The journalist> asked Zhou if he thought that the French> revolution had had an impact on the> Communist revolution in China.> > Zhou replied, "Too soon to tell."> > Fruehauf does not account for how a subject> that was supposedly in such great shape> could have been all but eradicated. He> mentions the Nationalist initiatives> to modernize by eliminating traditional> medical education and practice, and he> notes in passing that it was the Communist> initiatives that saved the subject from> possible oblivion. Then he proceeds to> forward his conviction that the subject> is dying at the hands of the Communist> government while also directing our> attention to the initiative of his mentor> in Chengdu to reestablish a more "traditional"> approach to curriculum design and instruction.> > I'm aware of a number of such initiatives> coming from within the PRC, and I am reminded> of the fact that the Chinese have well> established traditions of how to deal with> the extremely powerful influences of the> central government that date way back > to long before the advent of Communism> there.> > Near the end of the piece Fruehauf shifts> away from his doomsday prophecy by suggesting> that the subject is stepping into maturity.> He seems to have fallen into the trap that> Paul Eluard once warned all writers about:> falling under the spell of their own metaphors.> > He treats traditional medicine as if it were> a thoroughly anthropomorphic entitity that> lives and matures and dies the way an individual> human being does. I think it's more accurate> to understand Chinese medicine as a complex > adaptive system itself requiring a more> multi-dimensional method of analysis if> we are to understand the mechanisms that> have nourished it and kept it alive for> the past several thousand years.> > I also do not find a credible let alone> convincing argument for his assertion> that the advent of an integrative> approach diminishes or threatens the> traditional.> > But what troubles me most about the piece is> the implicit assertion the he, Fruehauf,> is in possession of the True Tradition.> > This is a common complaint of traditional> medical people in China, i.e. that no one> but they themselves really knows what's> going on because they got the real stuff> from their teacher, whose accomplishments> are almost always legendary if not downright> mythical. > > > > > 2.TCM is not a religion. Daoist is not TCM. Daoism is> > not = TCM. Daoism borrow the TCM theory(Yin and Yong> > ,Qi ,and others)become the rule of their religion,> > but, this does not mean that TCM is a religion.> > I've always thought that it was the other way> round, i.e. that the medical writers borrowed> philosophical ideas in order to formulate and> codify their theoretical considerations about> human bodies, health, and medical interventions.> > > > > 3.I am not afraid TCM going to the wrong way in both> > mainland and Taiwan because in our country, Government> > release partial right to people for self treatment.> > I'm not either. And I find Fruehauf's fundamental,> if implicit assertion that somehow the Chinese> have screwed up Chinese medicine a bit hard to> swallow. > > > > > Therefore, that¡¦s why we always drink herbal tea or> > raw herbal formula any time. Every Chinese all had> > such experiences since childhood.> > Very good point. The quantity of the widespread use of> traditional cures in China results in a qualitative> difference between the environment in which the> subject exists there and in Western zones where> it is sill very much "alternative" to mainstream> medical thinking and behavior.> >> > > > WM did not understand the theory of TCM quite clear,> > they didn't get the whole picture of TCM.but , > > They has great power to set the rule to request > > TCM do as what they said. This is dangerous because> > wrong hypothesis develop wrong result.> > I think here you hit the nail on the head. It's> lack of understanding of the basic terms and> theories that makes Western-trained students> and practitioners liable to the crisis of> Chinese medicine.> > I agree with Fruehauf that we're in crisis.> But I believe that the origins of this> crisis can be traced largely to the conduct> of individuals who themselves lack a deep> understanding of the subject yet nonetheless> establish themselves as authorities and > draw up blueprints for its growth and > development that are based on highly > idiosyncratic (not to mention often just plain> wrong) interpretations.> > I think there's another recent piece of> writing that we ought to consider in this> same light, namely the piece by Dan Bensky> and Volker Scheid about "descriptive"> and "normative" accounts of Chinese medicine> and the significance of "yi".> > I'm preparing a couple of pieces for> publication in response to both of these> articles and I'll appreciate any feedback> and input from group members.> > KenChinese 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 November 2, 2001 Report Share Posted November 2, 2001 Hi,Alon, >>>>>That is why it is all about outcome Alon Please jump into and do swiming in TCM,(use it,taste it like you are sen2-long2 shi4, you will see that it is not outcome only. Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2001 Report Share Posted November 3, 2001 Please jump into and do swiming in TCM,(use it,tasteit like you are sen2-long2 shi4, you will see that itis not outcome only.>>>>May be for the doctor, not for me as a patient Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2001 Report Share Posted November 3, 2001 Hi,alon, > Please jump into and do swiming in TCM,(use it,taste > it like you are sen2-long2 shi4, you will see that > it is not outcome only. > >>>>May be for the doctor, not for me as a patient > Alon Once,again,Welcome to Taiwan,patient Alon. Every patient(person)all taste herbs,massages,and many others,swimming in the TCM ocean very much ,and at every daily life in Both mainland and Taiwan. Do you hear Yao-san(TCM herb food,very delicious,we have four seasons herb food formulas and cooked it often.)? Our doctors in Taiwan(also,mainland ,I think) provide Yao-san (food formula),herbal tea formula on the TV news/TV program/news paper almost every day. If you came and visit Taiwan some day,and tell me you are Dr.Alon(one Dr. Alon only,Haaa!and ,maybe plus Mark.Hi,Mark,lone time no see)be my guest,I will bring you to swimming in the TCM ocean at Taiwan.Or maybe I will cooked it for you if you like. Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2001 Report Share Posted November 4, 2001 Once,again,Welcome to Taiwan,patient Alon.Every patient(person)all taste herbs,massages,and manyothers,swimming in the TCM ocean very much ,and atevery daily life in Both mainland and Taiwan.>>>>Surprise surprise Jean but not only I went swimming in TCM in Mainland China but also with many famous TCM dr in USA. May you come to USA and will have swim in the pool of objectivism. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2001 Report Share Posted November 4, 2001 Hi,Alon, > >>>>Surprise surprise Jean but not only I went > swimming in TCM in Mainland China but also with many > famous TCM dr in USA. May you come to USA and will > have swim in the pool of objectivism. > Alon > I have been visited there many times. It is unfare that you even not been here once but criticize us un-objective. If you want to see the objectivism in TCM in western approch,I will porvide one next time.Hope you can answer my question in objectivism next time. see you later Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 - It is unfare that you even not been here once >>>So you do not concider mainland China as China Alon Jeansu Sunday, November 04, 2001 7:39 PM Re: Re: TCM will be TCM for ever!! Hi,Alon, > >>>>Surprise surprise Jean but not only I went> swimming in TCM in Mainland China but also with many> famous TCM dr in USA. May you come to USA and will> have swim in the pool of objectivism.> Alon> I have been visited there many times.It is unfare that you even not been here once butcriticize us un-objective. If you want to see the objectivism in TCM in westernapproch,I will porvide one next time.Hope you cananswer my question in objectivism next time.see you laterJean=====--------------------------------< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..twThe 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 November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hi,Alon, It is unfare that you even not been here once > >>>So you do not concider mainland China as China > Alon How many places have you been visited in mainland China?I have been visited Peiging(twice),Shanhi,Najing(twice),Kun-tong,Hongkong. Taiwan,In political reality,we are not part of Mainland yet,we present ROC, not PRC. I admit I am chinese because our ancient was from Mainland and we are in the same culture. But,The seprate for almost 50 years are something you can't deny.During passing 50 years,we develop in completely different ways no matter in culture(Taiwan is much closer with western than mainland during 50 years) or others,Include TCM.We still keep many good old fassion TCM in Taiwan.I believe there are also remain very well in some corner of mainland because mainland is so huge.And,I don't believe that Government can control anything. Kun-Ton can't present China very well.Kun-Tong TCM hospital also can't not present the whole TCM development in Mainland China.You should learn more from other four old school,Nanjing TCM University is oldest TCM school according to Dr.'s article. I never reject to visit any part or earth if I got chance.There are so many wonderfrul things to read no matter what culture it is. Therefore,I don't think your mainland China experiences can prove you know TCM very well. By the way,Do you know that every point(meridian)all got it beautiful name in chinese,and each name all got it's meaning while you do acupuncture.And,They are all connected with Qi4,and Blood's flood,Especially ,Qi because Qi flood in the Channel. We don't use L1,K4,S7. We learn by it beautuful name. The name tell us why we have to punch it while we do treatment. There are about 8-12 points is the key point points according to some acupuncture books. In Mainlan and Taiwan,The excellent acupuncture we called " one needle treat all " .The excellent the acupuncture doctor,the less the needle point. How much did you learn from Mainland? Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 , Jeansu <jeansu009> wrote: > There are about 8-12 points is the key point points > according to some acupuncture books. > > In Mainland and Taiwan, the excellent acupuncture we > called " one needle treat all " . The excellent the > acupuncture doctor, the less the needle point. Similarly, in our Korean system, we usually use a short list of key points; yet, personally, I sometimes like using a lot of needles. I was always intrigued by the reputation for the single needle treatment. But, it's like the last thought in Zen---it's still a thought, you're still using a needle. If you want to take this path, why use needles at all? Why not just do qi gong? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2001 Report Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hi,James, Yes,No doubt.I am just provide one example for Alon. I don't have any question for the doctor who make decision while he treat his patient.Believe what you learn and persude more excellent skills. That's What I mean. Jean ===== -------------------------------- < ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2001 Report Share Posted November 6, 2001 I use Qi Gong in about 80% of the people I see. But my training is in Qi Gong not Acc. - " James Ramholz " <jramholz Monday, November 05, 2001 8:50 PM Re: TCM will be TCM for ever!! > , Jeansu <jeansu009> wrote: > > There are about 8-12 points is the key point points > > according to some acupuncture books. > > > > In Mainland and Taiwan, the excellent acupuncture we > > called " one needle treat all " . The excellent the > > acupuncture doctor, the less the needle point. > > > Similarly, in our Korean system, we usually use a short list of key > points; yet, personally, I sometimes like using a lot of needles. I > was always intrigued by the reputation for the single needle > treatment. But, it's like the last thought in Zen---it's still a > thought, you're still using a needle. If you want to take this path, > why use needles at all? Why not just do qi gong? > > Jim Ramholz > > > > 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...
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.