Digest Number 765

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

 

> When I spoke with Paul Unschuld at Pacific Symposium, he said something

> curious. He said that chinese medicine does not conceive of an innate

> tendency for the body to heal from disease and all medical texts are

> focused upon active intervention to correct the body's failing in this

> area. He contrasted this to greek medicine which felt that merely by

> removing obstacles to cure, the body would spontaneously achieve health.

> Thus, pure water, wholesome food and exercise were all that was needed.

 

This arose in Paul's afternoon workshop in the context of questions

regarding the supposed rooting of acupuncture and Chinese medicine in

Daoist philosophy. Because Daoism, Confucianism, and Legalism are all

products of Chinese culture, they share concepts such as qi and dao but

differ in how they propose humans, heaven and earth interact. Daoism

posits human intervention in nature -- nature being the strongest

component of the Daoist Dao -- as chaos. Confucianism and Legalism

propose righteous human behavior as a means to create order. Thus,

medicine depends upon the Confusican Dao, as can be seen in the formative

Chinese medical literature, because it offers the rationale for any

intervention at all.

 

> Does this seem correct to those who have wide access to premodern

> medical texts?

 

Paul has collected some 8,000 Nei Jing references ranging from the

archelogical to the literary. As that research becomes available over the

next couple of years, the evidence for his conclusions will become easy to

access for English readers.

 

It is important to note that when we speak of concepts like " China " and " the

Chinese'' or " the CM literature'' we are naming a nearly unimaginable

immensity. The historical landscape we thus invoke is in every way equal

to Western history in its entirety. The Chinese peoples have contributed

vastly to every aspect of human culture. Given that mass of historical

record you can go into the literature and find some author at some time who

proposes almost any idea one can conceive. What historians like Paul are

talking about is the intellectual weight and centricity of ideas.

 

What Dr. Unschuld's Nei Jing project does is to make the breadth and depth

of the historical record available.

 

> How does qi gong and food therapy fit into this

> hypothesis?

 

One of the more interesting conclusions of research in the medical literature

is that the Shang Han Lun stands virtually alone as a systematic

`herbology.' It is not until the 1100's until it takes a central place in the

medical literature. Food, on the other hand, is attributed yin-yang

properties beginning with the Nei Jing.

 

Qi gong is also an interesting study. In YuHuan and Ken's new book there

is an extended look at these practices in seminal texts. In my reading of it I

found it impossible to abstract the Daoist view of these practices from the

idea of attaining actual physical immorality. So, the evolution of qi gong

into an exercise system or healing art is itself an example of a cultural

adaptation of qi gong to a rationale that the Chinese people no longer

consider reasonable.

 

Again, the point is not that no author ever used the Shang Han principles

until 1100, or that we will never find a modern view of qi gong among the

immorality quests, it is that these are not the focus of history.

 

> What ramifications does it have for our practices?

 

If we understand history, we have perspective; the point of history is not to

provide technique but priority and value. Consider as an example most

readers will remember that TCM was first introduced into the U.S. as " what

they do in China, " with no explanation of the why, who, what, where and

when. As a result (in my opinion) there was an extended conflict between

five phase proponents, those who followed one of the traditional lineal

teachers, and those proposing the " new " TCM. If at that time we had

understood the role that each of these sources had played in Chinese

history, if TCM's role as a public health measure had been explained along

with its clinical description, the field would be several years ahead in terms

of the information available because the field's attentions would not have

been diverted by the idea that the TCM of " The Web " and the TCM of the

Nei Jing were the same thing. Were clinicians well served?

 

Tin Yao So is not only dead but literally forgotten to the point that the

current leaders of the school he founded have no idea at all that everything

they have was built on his ground. At his death this summer he had treated

more cases from his bed side through the hundreds of Chinese and Western

students who called him for help than I bet most English language writers

have ever seen. He was dismissed because what he did was " not TCM "

despite the fact that his practices were historically linked directly to the

sources used to create TCM. Was that dismissal based on " clinical

experience " or on a perception of what seemed reasonable to Western

people?

 

> Is this

> another example of us projecting our western ideas onto chinese culture

> because of our lack of exposure?

 

Yes, I believe it is another case of projection. While interpretations of

zheng4 qi4 as the body's natural healing force certainly fit our Western

models of nature, particularly when qi is thought of as an actual energy, it is

nonetheless " right qi " in conflict with " evil qi " and an inseparable part of a

Confucian idea of the human body wherein the zang and fu, the various

channels and vessels, and the entire body is described using the same

Chinese terms used to describe the political and social order.

 

We are of course free to make such an interpretation, but a historian

speaking on the basis of the historical record is describing what is found in

the recorded explanations of the original culture. This is, of course, the

`frame of reference' that people like Unschuld, Wiseman, Harper, et. al. are

concerned to preserve in our reception of Chinese ideas.

 

One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion of religion currently

transpiring is faith itself, as an earlier post by Ken Rose noted. If you

read,

for example, the Fruehof article, which has been discussed at length, from

the perspective of what he believes to be true, I think it is hard to deny that

he believes there is a superior, probably original TCM that is being lost or

degraded in our time. In the workshop noted above one of the questioners

who was particularly disturbed by the idea that acupuncture was not a

Daoist invention kept asking " what if " questions until it got down to " isn't it

possible that there is a Daoist book that does it acupuncture but which is

lost and we don't know about.'' Of course, everything is possible, but if you

look at the question itself it is really asking for a confirmation for a faith

in

something that the historical record does not confirm. It was easier for the

questioner to imagine that the genesis of acupuncture in Daoism was lost

than it was to accept that the common Western notion was wrong.

 

The religious aspect of TCM that we need to address isn't just in the

generative culture but in ourselves. I think what is offensive to people

about integration, for example, is not the integration but the idea that

something ineffable is being lost. But, that sense of loss depends completely

upon a faith that this ineffable something exists. Otherwise, what is there to

be upset about? If you ask about the idea of " intentioning " whether or not

this is an exclusive quality of Chinese medicine or a quality of human

beings, you can also see the element of faith. If this healing ability can be

described as belonging to humans, not to some identifiable element of

traditional Chinese medicine, then it is impossible to include that things like

" positivist research strategies " can do any harm because it is impossible to

conclude that the quality can be lost. The harm, again, is the loss of an

unidentified but superior quality.

 

I think there is a powerful influence of the Western ideas of `before the Fall'

in many current interpretations of Chinese concepts and that these extend

beyond the Chinese idea of the classics in both substance and emotional

value.

 

Bob

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

[Guest guest]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2001, at 10:16 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

 

> I think what is offensive to people

> about integration, for example, is not the integration but the  idea

> that

> something ineffable is being lost. 

 

For me, the potential problems with integration are:

1) how the parameters of integration are defined

 

2) who determines the integration

 

3) what limitations are placed upon the practice of Chinese medicine in

an integrated setting (scope of practice, type of clinic, diagnosis,

limitations on treatment options)

 

You have made the point that until now, perceptions of what Chinese

medicine 'is' have been determined without an accurate historical

perspective, leading to encampments of entrenched points of view. But

if the profession as it stands cannot have a clear perspective of what

our own field entails, how can we offer it to the biomedical profession

as a mature profession, ready to be integrated? What will be 'left out'

of the mix?

 

One could make several arguments, but two stand out at this point: 1)

that Chinese medical technology will survive integration, but not

Chinese medical theory, i.e. use of Chinese medicinals and

acumoxatherapy according to biomedical criteria or 2) an approach that

intelligently accesses both Chinese and biomedical data effectively

without compromising the integrity of either field.

 

The problem I have with believing that the second outcome will arrive is

that we are a small, immature, and underfinanced profession. Chinese

medicine is not well understood by the public, not well covered in the

media, and our own understanding has not yet matured. Biomedicine is

fairly well understood by laypeople, and is accessible in the media,

libraries and the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that there

will be an overwhelming bias in the direction of biomedical thinking.

 

I have always made the argument that there is a lot to critique in the

present practice of biomedicine, and that we have a challenge to make.

This doesn't make us 'anti Western medicine', but shows that Chinese

medicine can fill many of the gaps in modern medical practice, while

recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

 

>

> I think there is a powerful influence of the Western ideas of `before the

Fall'

> in many current interpretations of Chinese concepts and that these extend

> beyond the Chinese idea of the classics in both substance and emotional

> value.

 

 

and this is precisely what philosophers have referred to as

romanticism, a bemoaning of the loss of an ideal or utopian age that

probably never existed. An extended consideration of how romantic

notions have clouded many new age and alternative pursuits can be found

in the writings of Ken Wilber, most succinctly in his recent Brief

History of Everything.

 

[Guest guest]

wrote:

 

>

> For me, the potential problems with integration are:

> 1) how the parameters of integration are defined

>

> 2) who determines the integration

>

> 3) what limitations are placed upon the practice of Chinese medicine in an

integrated setting (scope of practice, type of clinic, diagnosis, limitations on

treatment options)

>

 

I think the idea of integration has different shades of meaning depending on

whether such integration is on: a) Research and development. b) Academic

environment, or c). Clinical setting.

 

Of these three, I think the clinical setting is most likely to compromise our

way of practicing. This, I believe, is not due to limitations placed by the

biomedical profession but rather by a style of thinking affecting the great

majority of those who practice Western medicine in our society. And by society,

I'm referring to us here in the United States.

 

In most " integrated " clinical settings, the acupuncturist, homeopath, massage

therapist and other " Alternative medicine " practitioners, play second fiddle to

the Md., DOs, and Chiropractors. I am sure that this is not always true. But

generally speaking it is.

 

What's really important in these settings, is whether we have the right codes

for billing; that our practice does not interfere or overlap with that of the

massage therapist or chiropractor thus avoiding double billing.

 

I have worked with two Medical doctors and one DO for a total of three years. By

the time the patients came to me, he/she had a bag of drug samples courtesy of

the drug rep. via the MD.; these included anti-inflamatories, antibiotics,

antidepressants, antiacids (lots of anti-this, anti-that) etc. I would provide

the acupuncture, Qi gong, hypnosis, etc. But herbs ? forget it. All of these

three practices bragged in their advertising about being " integrated " . A joke,

in my opinion.

 

Keeping soap notes was also juggling act. I can't tell you how many times my

notes where not submitted to the attorneys and insurance companies. Had they

been submitted, the insurance company's payment or lawsuits would've been

compromised. For example: " Patient is not practicing the Qi gong exercises I

prescribed, therefore the pain continues " . These type of notes drove the MDs

mad. And, since they were in top of the gene pool, they called the shots and

deleted my notes.

 

So, integration at the academic level? Yes. At the Research and Development

level? Sure. At the clinical level? Not sure. A drastic change in thinking would

have to take place, and economics stands in the way. I think years of both A & B

need to go by before C, clinical setting, has any value to us as practitioners

and to the patients.

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

Hi,Fernando,

 

An sincerely advice:

 

Qi-Kun master should use their own Qi to cure

patient,not request patient to practice Qi-kun

in a very short turn for remove the pain of the

patient by patient him self.

 

But,While Qi-Kun master treat patient by his inner Qi,

he have to enhance his own Qi.And If the patient's

Xei-Qi is stronger than the Qi-Kun master 's

zhang-Qi,the Qi-kun master will get all the sick Qi

from the patient and present same symptum likt the

patient.

 

Therefore,Ancient Qi-Kun master have to practice

Qi-kun every day,and known how to remove Xei-Qi from

his body through points or some route if the patient's

Xei-Qi is so strong ,especially the cancer patient.

 

Jean

 

 

=====

 

 

--------------------------------

< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw

[Guest guest]

Jeansu wrote:

 

> Hi,Fernando,

>

> An sincerely advice:

>

> Qi-Kun master should use their own Qi to cure

> patient,not request patient to practice Qi-kun

> in a very short turn for remove the pain of the

> patient by patient him self.

>

 

Well Jean, I'm far from being a master. So for the time being I will follow

Professor Cheng Man Ching's example and prescribe/teach Qi gong to my patients.

Particularly, " the Constant Bear " .

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

how can we offer it to the biomedical profession

> as a mature profession, ready to be integrated?

 

Today, as in the past, the subject belongs to those

who take the time to study and acquire it. The

Chinese have passed it down from generation to

generation for millennia. Recently it has appeared

with greater frequency outside of China, but the

laws of transmission remain unchanged...and quite

simple. If you can access the knowledge base

and master it to the extent that you can think

with the basic theories and apply them to

the situation at hand as well as refer to specialized

data as necessary, then you have something to

offer. Lacking real knowledge, no amount of post-nomial

alphabetic fiction will suffice.

 

It is in fact a rather mature subject. We in

the West have just been somewhat immature in

our conduct in the early stages. The biomedical

profession is entirely capable of accessing

the knowledge base with or without the help

of any specific individual or organization

that currently asserts itself as an authority

in Chinese medicine.

 

The actual task remains focused on knowledge.

 

What will be 'left out'

> of the mix?

 

Fortunately, the literary archive is so vast

and represents such a broad spectrum of ideas and

methods, that even if one generation tends to

diminish the importance of this or that, it

remains in the larger knowledge base and can

be accessed by later generations who invariably

return to their roots in search of material

to compensate for weaknesses that develop.

 

Chinese medicine is such a vast array of

data that it functions as a complex adaptive

system in and of itself. What will be left out

in any particular circumstance is whatever

the people involved fail to either grasp

or value and therefore include in their

rendition. But even when mistakes are made

the system itself demonstrates an enormous

tendency towards homeostasis, a kind of

self-correcting mechanism that tends to

restore the value of those elements possessed

of enduring value.

 

I think this is one of the reasons that

makes the study of Chinese medicine so

compelling in the modern age.

>

> One could make several arguments, but two stand out at this point:

1)

> that Chinese medical technology will survive integration, but not

> Chinese medical theory, i.e. use of Chinese medicinals and

> acumoxatherapy according to biomedical criteria or 2) an approach

that

> intelligently accesses both Chinese and biomedical data effectively

> without compromising the integrity of either field.

 

I think this second outcome is precisely

the outcome that we envision in the work

of the Complexity and

research center, namely the synthesis

of a workable understanding of the behavior

of natural systems that reflects the sensibilities

of both ancient Chinese and contemporary

theorists.

>

> The problem I have with believing that the second outcome will

arrive is

> that we are a small, immature, and underfinanced profession.

Chinese

> medicine is not well understood by the public, not well covered in

the

> media, and our own understanding has not yet matured. Biomedicine

is

> fairly well understood by laypeople, and is accessible in the

media,

> libraries and the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that

there

> will be an overwhelming bias in the direction of biomedical

thinking.

 

So the task includes more effective

communication, which is the royal road

to changing the way that people think.

Fact is that people are changing all

the time. Just look at the changes that

are going down these days.

 

>

> I have always made the argument that there is a lot to critique in

the

> present practice of biomedicine, and that we have a challenge to

make.

> This doesn't make us 'anti Western medicine', but shows that

Chinese

> medicine can fill many of the gaps in modern medical practice,

while

> recognizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

>

There is always a lot to critique about

everything. Always. The mode of thinking

of Chinese medicine is at once critical and

comprehensive. And this is one of the ways

in which it can indeed fill in gaps in

modern practices.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Patient is not practicing the Qi gong exercises I prescribed, therefore the pain continues". These type of notes drove the MDs mad

>>>What's the difference from not doing their rehab exercises? perhaps the conclusion you make that the pain continues".

Alon

 

-

fb

Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:45 PM

Re: Digest Number 765

wrote:>> For me, the potential problems with integration are:> 1) how the parameters of integration are defined>> 2) who determines the integration>> 3) what limitations are placed upon the practice of Chinese medicine in an integrated setting (scope of practice, type of clinic, diagnosis, limitations on treatment options)>I think the idea of integration has different shades of meaning depending on whether such integration is on: a) Research and development. b) Academic environment, or c). Clinical setting.Of these three, I think the clinical setting is most likely to compromise our way of practicing. This, I believe, is not due to limitations placed by the biomedical profession but rather by a style of thinking affecting the great majority of those who practice Western medicine in our society. And by society, I'm referring to us here in the United States.In most "integrated" clinical settings, the acupuncturist, homeopath, massage therapist and other "Alternative medicine" practitioners, play second fiddle to the Md., DOs, and Chiropractors. I am sure that this is not always true. But generally speaking it is.What's really important in these settings, is whether we have the right codes for billing; that our practice does not interfere or overlap with that of the massage therapist or chiropractor thus avoiding double billing.I have worked with two Medical doctors and one DO for a total of three years. By the time the patients came to me, he/she had a bag of drug samples courtesy of the drug rep. via the MD.; these included anti-inflamatories, antibiotics, antidepressants, antiacids (lots of anti-this, anti-that) etc. I would provide the acupuncture, Qi gong, hypnosis, etc. But herbs ? forget it. All of these three practices bragged in their advertising about being "integrated". A joke, in my opinion.Keeping soap notes was also juggling act. I can't tell you how many times my notes where not submitted to the attorneys and insurance companies. Had they been submitted, the insurance company's payment or lawsuits would've been compromised. For example: "Patient is not practicing the Qi gong exercises I prescribed, therefore the pain continues". These type of notes drove the MDs mad. And, since they were in top of the gene pool, they called the shots and deleted my notes.So, integration at the academic level? Yes. At the Research and Development level? Sure. At the clinical level? Not sure. A drastic change in thinking would have to take place, and economics stands in the way. I think years of both A & B need to go by before C, clinical setting, has any value to us as practitioners and to the patients.FernandoChinese 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.