How much philosophy is enough?

[Guest guest]

All,

 

A while back in a discussion about pain

the role of philosophy in the understanding

of Chinese medical theory came up. This

discussion left an unaswered question

that I was thinking about this morning.

 

How much philosophy is too much?

 

I've pushed the point about the need

to explore the meanings of the basic

terms, such as qi4, yin1 yang2, etc.

that come to Chinese medicine from philosophical

sources. But I wonder where people draw

the line on the need to understand

Chinese philosophy in order to understand

and apply Chinese medical theories.

 

It seems to me that all Chinese medical

theory connects at the level of yin1 yang2,

and since it is a philosophical artifact,

we have to understand its meanings and

usages in philosophy in order to understand

what we are to make of it and do with it

as a tool for medical interventions.

 

I'm collecting people's statements about

yin1 yang2 theory. I'll appreciate hearing

from anybody who wants to take a stab at

responding to how much philosophy is too

much? How much is enough?

 

What do we need to know about yin1 yang2

in order to successfully apply Chinese

medical theory?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

But I wonder where people drawthe line on the need to understand Chinese philosophy in order to understandand apply Chinese medical theories.>>>>Were the tire hits the road. Direct clinical use. All the rest I will leave to others

Alon

[Guest guest]

Dear Ken and all,

Until I studied I used to be involved in the

philosophy of science so this question engages me greatly.

 

When it comes to philosophy as an intellectual dicipline of inquiry

most people think that any is too much. Philosophies, however, are

welcomed as lending theoretical respectability to practices. In fact

I would suggest, they tend not to stand up to scrutiny, being post

hoc to practice which has precedence and will change , enlarge, drop

and forget terms as circumstances require. I doubt whether it is

necessary or indeed possible to understand a Philosophy of Chinese

Medicine where it is seen as a reified collection of theories and

basic assumptions .This isnt to say that practice isnt guided by

theories, metaphors and assumptions but, rather, that a looser

approach is required to its analysis.

 

Your point that the usage of yin yang as a tool for medical

intervention requires understanding of its meanings in a particular

philosophy, is , I think, to assume too much relativist baggage.

There is a danger of taking off on an arduous search for an

unattainable holy grail of meaning. I could say masses on this but

prehaps it just is the case that communication through ages and

cultures is much easier than you think, meaning is not essentially

subjective or culturally or historically specific and if we can use

the terms yin yang with some prosaic definitions and examples such as

to allow clinically succesful interventions, why go further? In

practice I am always stuck by the difficulty of producing many

examples where more exact understanding of nuances of meaning cash

out usefully.

 

This said, I believe that your efforts in defining and refining

language and meaning in are crucial as well as

fascinating. For although I think that meaning is not as illusive as

you seem to suggest, the history of CM in the West clearly shows that

it isnt obvious or unimportant. While there is a lack of theoretical

tools and the desire to rigourously apply them within the practice of

in the West, and in the abscence of alternative

adequate biomedical analyses, then anything that emphasises precision

of language, internal consistency and the ability to communicate

mustbe valued as raising standards of care. Its just that I think

such endeavours shouldn't rise to philosophic reaches too far beyond

what we do, whats applicable and what works. " Dont ask for the

meaning ask for the use " , to enter deep Wittgensteinian waters.

 

Best wishes

Simon

[Guest guest]

Simon,

 

> Until I studied I used to be involved in the

> philosophy of science so this question engages me greatly.

 

I have not made a serious study of

the philosophy of science, but I have

begun to notice that there is a reemergence

of philosophical ideas in contemporary

science that closely correspond to the

tenets of Chinese traditional thought,

particularly Daoist philosophy.

 

 

>

> When it comes to philosophy as an intellectual dicipline of

inquiry

> most people think that any is too much.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. And I don't

understand how you come to believe it.

Is it something that everybody knows?

 

My teachers in China, who are not at

all philosophers for the most part, all

stress the importance of philosophical

thinking in the apprehension of medical

ideas. My emphasis is nothing other than

my attempt to transmit a message that

I received in China from Chinese teachers

about Chinese medicine.

 

Philosophies, however, are

> welcomed as lending theoretical respectability to practices. In

fact

> I would suggest, they tend not to stand up to scrutiny, being

post

> hoc to practice which has precedence and will change ,

enlarge, drop

> and forget terms as circumstances require.

 

I agree with this and yet continue to

believe that there is a wider range of

dynamics that link Chinese medical

theory with clinical practice based

upon them. I'll be giving a talk on

this topic later this year, so I'll have

a chance to work out a description

of this range of dynamics that I have

in mind.

 

I doubt whether it is

> necessary or indeed possible to understand a Philosophy of

Chinese

> Medicine where it is seen as a reified collection of theories and

> basic assumptions .This isnt to say that practice isnt guided by

> theories, metaphors and assumptions but, rather, that a

looser

> approach is required to its analysis.

 

I get it that you doubt this, but it's

not yet clear to me why you doubt it.

If the practice is guided by theories,

metaphors, and assumptions then

that is the point and the rest of the

discussion should focus not on

whether or not this is so but how

to conduct ourselves given the

fact and its implications.

 

I'm intrigued by your characterization

of the need for a looser approach.

And I'd be very pleased to learn what

part of this is too tight.

 

>

> Your point that the usage of yin yang as a tool for medical

> intervention requires understanding of its meanings in a

particular

> philosophy, is , I think, to assume too much relativist baggage.

 

Sorry, I really don't understand what that

means. My point in this regard is simply

the point that you make above, i.e. that

clinical practice is guided by theory.

 

I hate carrying baggage. So if you can

relieve me of any of my needless baggage

I will be in your debt.

 

 

> There is a danger of taking off on an arduous search for an

> unattainable holy grail of meaning. I could say masses on this

but

> prehaps it just is the case that communication through ages

and

> cultures is much easier than you think,

 

Do you mean much more difficult? If it were

easier than I think it is, and my own experience

tells me that it is easy enough to be done by

virtually anyone who puts their mind to it, but

if it were easier then everyone would get it

and when asked, for example, what qi4 is

or means, would just spit it out.

 

I suppose I have a sense of a certain bitterness

to the work related to acquiring and refining

understanding and skill, but I have formed

this attitude in the spirit of the Chinese

concept of gong1 fu3. There is a certain

amount of bitter toil in which any student

must engage in order to bring the knowledge

to life.

 

meaning is not essentially

> subjective or culturally or historically specific and if we can use

> the terms yin yang with some prosaic definitions and

examples such as

> to allow clinically succesful interventions, why go further?

 

If our ancestors had followed this path,

we would not have the terms to talk about

now. They have been kept alive, growing

changing, adapting to the situations and

circumstances in which they turn up for

thousands of years. Why should we

decide to disregard all of that in favor

of some other set of values? What do

you suggest the benefit might be of a

quick and easy rendering that eschews

the difficulties and complexities?

Clinical results?

 

The Nei Jing suggests that the aim of

medicine is to educate people before

they get sick and rebellious. How can

you take a single step along such a path

without a personal foundation in the

philosophy that supports such bold

objectives? Or should we simply disregard

the ancient ideals and settle for the

needles and herbs that are clearly

described as being too little too late?

And if the text can be so easily dismissed

in this regard, why pay any heed to

anything it says at all?

 

 

 

 

> practice I am always stuck by the difficulty of producing many

> examples where more exact understanding of nuances of

meaning cash

> out usefully.

 

Really? Then why do people always seek out

experienced veterans when they have a serious

health problem? Isn't that what we want in

all of our professionals, a more exact understanding

of nuances? Far from having difficulty producing

examples, I find it hard to conceive of a single

situation in which a more exact understanding

of nuance wouldn't be an obvious asset.

>

> This said, I believe that your efforts in defining and refining

> language and meaning in are crucial as

well as

> fascinating.

 

I think that potential solutions to a wide array

of problems facing the profession today can

be found in working to improve the quality

and substance of communication both

within the professional community and

between members of that community and

the publics that they serve.

 

For although I think that meaning is not as illusive as

> you seem to suggest,

 

I don't know what I've said that suggests that

meaning is illusive. Certainly the " meanings "

that have been promulgated among the

English language community of Chinese

medical students and practitioners of some

of the most basic terms are illusive in that

they both misinform and deprive access

to the sense of the Chinese originals. There

is, indeed, a certain deceitfullness to this.

 

Perhaps you meant elusive. But even

in that case I don't think I'd say that the

meanings themselves are hard to come

by. All you have to do is learn what the

words mean. It's certainly not impossible.

We wrote A Brief History of Qi to show

that it can be at least attempted, even

with one of the most challenging terms.

 

the history of CM in the West clearly shows that

> it isnt obvious or unimportant. While there is a lack of

theoretical

> tools and the desire to rigourously apply them within the

practice of

> in the West, and in the abscence of

alternative

> adequate biomedical analyses, then anything that

emphasises precision

> of language, internal consistency and the ability to

communicate

> mustbe valued as raising standards of care.

 

Agreed. And, as in the other post I put

up the other day, these same things

can and should be pointed out with

respect to regulation.

 

Its just that I think

> such endeavours shouldn't rise to philosophic reaches too far

beyond

> what we do, whats applicable and what works.

 

I guess the way I'd characterize what seems

to be our difference of opinion here is that

I think of the pursuit of philosophy as the

search for the root, not the raising of experience

to some idealized lofty state beyond what

we do, what's applicable and what works.

 

That's my whole point. Yin1 yang2 theory

is an artifact that connects the individual

mind with the imponderable. Traditional

Chinese practices that develop from this

curious artifact grow from this root. In my

experience, the most efficacious application

of medical theory takes such factors into

account at all stages.

 

One of the things that has kept me at

the study and practice of tai4 ji2 for

over thirty years now is the embodiment

of philosophical ideas that it suggests

and engenders. This does not mean

that I think everybody has to practice

tai4 ji2. I don't. I do think that those who

study Chinese medicine should engage

in some sort of personal quest to establish

a strong connection to the philosophical

roots of the subject so that their study and

practice can be nourished by the same

substance that has kept the subject alive

until today.

 

" Dont ask for the

> meaning ask for the use " , to enter deep Wittgensteinian

waters.

 

I don't know Wittgenstein.

But what's the difference bewteen

meaning and use? Particularly

in medicine where the words are

all tools and have no meaning at

all if they are not put to use.

 

Thanks for an engaging and thought

provoking discussion.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Thanks for your thorough dissection of my piece.

 

20 years ago I did philosophical research into theoretical physics

and the then fashionable analogies to Daoism ,

it was part of my route to . Back then, one of

my reasons for thinking that it was a largely invalid

correspondance was that, similar to your position, words have to be

understood in their context. Same words and similar sounding

concepts,can actually be referring to very different things.

 

However, for me, its all a question of degree. While I think that the

context doesn,t need to be, or can't be, as thoroughly elucidated

as you seem to hold I also think that there are questions for

positions at another end of the scale, prehaps like that held by Alon

Marcus.

 

In saying that most people find any philosophical inquiry too much I

was making a making a distinction between philosophical activity as

an analytic approach and philosophies which are themselves

subjects for philosophical analysis.The shock of the anti-

intellectualism of CM when I started 20 years ago remains, hence I

value your type of approach even if I quibble.

 

Clearly CM thinking involves first priciples vastly more than does eg

WM and I quite accept that this is the route to doing it effectively

at the moment, especially since most of us so lacked a solid

grounding. But- and this is where I think my position bites- the

practical problem with the term philosophy in the context of CM is

that it tends to a

reification of the role of theories, assumptions and metaphors which,

arguably, in the longer term will inhibit progress.

 

The reason for this has to do with the relativist baggage of which I

was talking ,ie Kuhn and paradigm theory. Whether one is directly

aquainted of not it has informed much of discussion and justification

within sciences, particularly those on the peripheri. I wrote an

article on this in last summer's European Journal of Oriental

Medicine and will email it if you would like. Basically if we accept

his analysis, which I don't, then the implications are that the more

culture specific are the terms then the greater the difficulty of

communicating outside of that culture.The bad news for CM would be

that in the rub with the outside world change would occur by

irrational processes mostly to do with power.

 

The extreme position would be that in trying to " tighten " meaning up

there is an exchange of diminishing return of our own clinical

efficacy for greater isolation from the wider medical community. I

don't think, in fact, this is actually happening, it is just a

philosophical position; our main problem of course has been that we

couldn't even communicate amongst ourselve.

 

The point about Wittgenstein and use having precedence over meaning

is that use is " looser " and hence more flexible to change. It is

possible to be able to use a term correctly without knowing its

meaning comprehensively or at all, clearly seen in children who know

how to use a word to achieve what they want but who would not be able

to give a definition.

 

On the question of how theoretical nuances cash out; do you not think

it the case that experienced veterans tend to cut through theory with

practical insights which they then,it seems post hoc, justify with

those theoretical nuances? I feel that it is a strength and a

weakness of CM theory that it allows the holding of so many views of

possible practice, for it means that practice has priority as theory

has little guiding power rather it permits practice and experience to

be.

 

Best wishes

Simon

[Guest guest]

Simon,

 

> Thanks for your thorough dissection of my piece.

 

The use of words lies in their meanings, just

as the meaning of words is expressed in their

usage. While some dismiss the close examination

of words and meaning as " merely philosophy "

or worse, I believe, as the Chinese have for

centuries, that the rectification of words lies

at the roots of the establishment of civilization,

culture, and their various artifacts.

 

A word is essentially a connecting vessel

that ferries ideas and understanding between

at least two individuals. Of course we can

think and use words all by ourselves, but

in the beginning and in the end it's a group

activity, by which some of the most intimate

and durable connections that exist between

people are fashioned and maintained.

 

I see words as an analog of qi4 from this

perspective, and aligning them even with

our most inarticulate thoughts, with an

eye trained on precise verbal definitions, is not

only recommended in the Confucian classics

but it is, in my experience, a highly effective

mode of operation to proceed towards

the lofty goals expressed in Su Wen.

 

That's why I suggest it to the students

and practitioners on this list.

>

> 20 years ago I did philosophical research into theoretical

physics

> and the then fashionable analogies to Daoism ,

> it was part of my route to . Back then, one of

> my reasons for thinking that it was a largely invalid

> correspondance was that, similar to your position, words have

to be

> understood in their context. Same words and similar sounding

> concepts,can actually be referring to very different things.

 

Perhaps a good deal of invalid work

has been produced under the guise of

the correspondence between theoretical

physics and Daoism. But I have to place

an appropriately heavy weight on the fact

that one of the progenitors of theoretical

physics, Niels Bohr himself, established

a cornerstone for the construction of such

correspondence. Bohr said that he learned

from the Daoists that on the stage of life

we are both actors and audience. This

sensibility lies at the roots of his theory of

complementarity and thus not only of

theoretical physics but of much of science

in the 20th century. It's a valid and vital linkage

that I believe we must now explore to its

fullest potentials, not only within the

field of Chinese medicine.

 

 

>

> However, for me, its all a question of degree. While I think that

the

> context doesn,t need to be, or can't be, as thoroughly

elucidated

> as you seem to hold

 

Doesn't need to be and can't be are two

quite different propositions. Which is it?

Have you determined that an exegesis of

the context of Chinese medical ideas is

not necessary for the successful transmission

of those ideas? Or have you balked at the

enormity of the task and decided that it's

relative difficulty makes its attainment

unlikely?

 

I also think that there are questions for

> positions at another end of the scale, prehaps like that held by

Alon

> Marcus.

 

Indeed. Questions and answers.

 

 

>

> In saying that most people find any philosophical inquiry too

much I

> was making a making a distinction between philosophical

activity as

> an analytic approach and philosophies which are themselves

> subjects for philosophical analysis.The shock of the anti-

> intellectualism of CM when I started 20 years ago remains,

hence I

> value your type of approach even if I quibble.

 

I don't see it as quibbling. How else can we

come to really understand and appreciate

the contents of one another's minds if we

don't drag them out and show them?

 

Silence, as the poet William Carlos Williams

pointed out, may be golden, but you do not

get very far with silence.

 

 

>

> Clearly CM thinking involves first priciples vastly more than

does eg

> WM and I quite accept that this is the route to doing it effectively

> at the moment, especially since most of us so lacked a solid

> grounding. But- and this is where I think my position bites- the

> practical problem with the term philosophy in the context of CM

is

> that it tends to a

> reification of the role of theories, assumptions and metaphors

which,

> arguably, in the longer term will inhibit progress.

 

How can it inhibit progress now when it has

fostered and sustained progress for so many

thousands of years up until now? The notion of

achieving longevity for oneself and one's ideas

by connecting them to the longlived principles,

i.e. the philosophy of the ancient past is a central

theme in Chinese medical theory, even though

it is seldom expressed. It constitutes an important

component of the definition of health with which

illness is assessed. It's a complex system of

self-regulation according to the movements and

changes of the natural environment.

 

I still am not seeing how this all turns in

contemporary hands into an obstruction,

except by virtue of the acts of those who

knowingly or unwittingly devote themselves

to ignorance of the subject that they profess

to study.

>

> The reason for this has to do with the relativist baggage of

which I

> was talking ,ie Kuhn and paradigm theory. Whether one is

directly

> aquainted of not it has informed much of discussion and

justification

> within sciences, particularly those on the peripheri. I wrote an

> article on this in last summer's European Journal of Oriental

> Medicine and will email it if you would like.

 

Very much. Please do. Is it possible to

post it so others in the group who want

to can access it?

 

Basically if we accept

> his analysis, which I don't, then the implications are that the

more

> culture specific are the terms then the greater the difficulty of

> communicating outside of that culture.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion.

I'll read your article and let you know.

But on the surface it seems to me that

the successful solution to difficulties

often begins with a clear assessment

of them. Of course when we first glimpse

difficulties, they appear as impediments.

But often it is the overcoming of difficulties

that engenders necessary survival strengths

and skills. I'm also not sure that I agree

that the implication you cite necessarily

follows from Kuhn's argument.

 

The bad news for CM would be

> that in the rub with the outside world change would occur by

> irrational processes mostly to do with power.

 

Hmmm....isn't that more or less borne

out by experience?

>

> The extreme position would be that in trying to " tighten "

meaning up

> there is an exchange of diminishing return of our own clinical

> efficacy for greater isolation from the wider medical community.

 

Here again, I'm not tracking with the logic.

I don't experience this. In fact, I've recently

been working with a number of doctors

from " the wider medical community " who

express a great interest in efforts to

tighten up the meaning, very much including

the cultural dimensions, for the very purpose

of bringing Chinese medical theory and

practice more stably within their

spheres of influence in that wider

medical community.

 

I

> don't think, in fact, this is actually happening, it is just a

> philosophical position; our main problem of course has been

that we

> couldn't even communicate amongst ourselve.

 

Another sorry consequence of ignoring

the nomenclature in favor of...well...other

things. A principal linkage between Chinese

medicine and Chinese philosophy is

established at the level of their nomenclature.

 

>

> The point about Wittgenstein and use having precedence over

meaning

> is that use is " looser " and hence more flexible to change.

 

Was he talking about the meaning of words

compared to their use or about Meaning and Use

in some capitalized and broader senses?

 

The use of a word is its meaning when all

is said and done. Its flexibility to change

monitors its survival in usage. We only

need to be concerned about those that

didn't change and survive when we are

reading dated texts that contain such

outdated words and usages.

 

It is

> possible to be able to use a term correctly without knowing its

> meaning comprehensively or at all, clearly seen in children

who know

> how to use a word to achieve what they want but who would not

be able

> to give a definition.

 

Which is why we don't let children

perform medical interventions. If your

doctor doesn't know the meaning of

the words he or she is speaking to you,

you are not likely to feel confident in

his or her skill.

 

>

> On the question of how theoretical nuances cash out; do you

not think

> it the case that experienced veterans tend to cut through theory

with

> practical insights which they then,it seems post hoc, justify with

> those theoretical nuances?

 

No, I don't. I think in that in hands that

are both well educated and trained through

years of experience, theory and practice

merge permitting those with real accomplishments

to interact with their patients at the most

fundamental levels described by theory.

 

In other words, I believe that if one studies

yin1 and yang2 carefully and is guided by

experienced and well trained teachers

that these theoretical tools become

fused with the consciousness and actions

so that theory comes to life.

 

There is no other way to keep it alive.

 

I feel that it is a strength and a

> weakness of CM theory that it allows the holding of so many

views of

> possible practice, for it means that practice has priority as

theory

> has little guiding power rather it permits practice and

experience to

> be.

 

I think it allows or more precisely demands

that the individual supply the actual view

of practice. It's up to each and every one

of us to make the most of the opportunities

that we have for both the reception and

transmission of the subject.

 

I appreciate this discussion, as these

things have been on my mind and, as I

said, I have to talk about them in a few

months.

 

Best,

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

But- and this is where I think my position bites- the practical problem with the term philosophy in the context of CM is that it tends to a reification of the role of theories, assumptions and metaphors which, arguably, in the longer term will inhibit progress.>>>>This is were we completely agree. I for one see much more danger in such pursuits than benefits. And referred to them here in the past as seeing the trees from the forest (if this is how the saying goes). And again is why I think many important answers will come out of "agnostics"like me that insist on looking at CM from a new perspective instead of the traditional one ( of course inelegantly).

Alon

[Guest guest]

I wrote an article on this in last summer's European Journal of Oriental Medicine and will email it if you would like

>>>Please do

Alon

[Guest guest]

Simon:

 

Can you email a copy of the article to me or post it in the Files

section?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

, " dallaskinguk " <dallasking@b...>

I wrote an article on this in last summer's European Journal of

Oriental Medicine and will email it if you would like.

[Guest guest]

What about Lao zi, who says the opposite: dao is not Dao, name is

not Name? The meaning of words is not fixed; sign and signification

are fluid. Is no part of CM based on daoist principles and the

determining role of the observer?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

" dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

with an

> eye trained on precise verbal definitions, is not

> only recommended in the Confucian classics

> but it is, in my experience, a highly effective

> mode of operation to proceed towards

> the lofty goals expressed in Su Wen.

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> But- and this is where I think my position bites- the

> practical problem with the term philosophy in the context of CM is

> that it tends to a

> reification of the role of theories, assumptions and metaphors

which,

> arguably, in the longer term will inhibit progress.

> >>>>This is were we completely agree. I for one see much more

danger in such pursuits than benefits. And referred to them here in

the past as seeing the trees from the forest (if this is how the

saying goes). And again is why I think many important answers will

come out of " agnostics " like me that insist on looking at CM from a

new perspective instead of the traditional one ( of course

inelegantly).

 

I do not dispute that important answers

will come from looking at Chinese medicine

from a new perspective. This has been

the case for centuries. I myself am

engaged in various initiatives to establish

new perspectives from which Chinese medicine

can be investigated.

 

I simply question the strategy that

has put so many " agnostics " into the

field without a clear understanding of

the Simple and Difficult Questions

to cite just two of the principal

works on the subject.

 

You've written a book, so I'll put

it like this. What would you think

of someone who went before the world

and said that they would come up with

important new answers to the subject

of your book if you discovered that

this person had never even read it?

 

I know you believe that there just

isn't time or that the time you have

is more well spent on the search for

important answers. These are decisions

that we each make for ourselves.

 

But there is a big difference between

being an agnostic before reading the

Bible and afterwards.

 

I am not trying to change your mind.

I only want to clarify my position

on this topic. If someone were going

to discover important answers to the

contents of a book I have written, I

would prefer them to be familiar with

the words I wrote.

 

Certainly you can get all the important

answers you and your patients need

without ever once opening a book

about Chinese medicine. People all

over the world get on with their

answers to medical problems by the

billions without a single thought

wasted on Chinese medicine.

 

But if we call ourselves practitioners

of Chinese medicine, if we license

ourselves as acupuncturists and Chinese

herbalists, then we should afford the

materials to which our professional

existence owes its origins the same

kind of respect that I believe you

and I would expect as authors.

 

I don't know any way to do this other

than to read and study them. I believe

it was always a mistaken idea to assume

that the education in Chinese medicine

could proceed without a thorough familiarity

with the language, literature, and thinking

(i.e. philosophy) that supports the theory

and practice of the medical methods.

 

And I think it is high time that the

entire field recognize this and undertake

effective actions to correct it. Left

unattended, this deficiency could prove

a fatal flaw.

 

I hope you can see and appreciate the

difference I'm drawing here between

arguing with you about the way you conduct

your personal practice and the way in

which we should conduct the education

and qualification of practitioners.

 

I do not mean to judge you as an individual

or the way you approach the subject. I do

not doubt that you will have successes

in your search for important answers and

that you will share them with the rest of

us.

 

But as you continue to assert that there

is more danger than benefit in " such pursuits " ,

which I take to refer to such things as

language, literature, theory, and philosophy,

then we will continue to lock horns.

 

What you are suggesting is not agnosticism

but ignorance.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

, " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

> What about Lao zi, who says the opposite: dao is not Dao, name is

> not Name? The meaning of words is not fixed; sign and signification

> are fluid. Is no part of CM based on daoist principles and the

> determining role of the observer?

 

Good point. My screed was not intended

as a complete description of the philosophical

roots of Chinese medicine. We address this

subject in Who Can Ride the Dragon? and in

the second chapter of the new book about qi4.

And just as you point out, we include the

Daoist sources and influences.

 

There is, in my mind, no conflict or

disharmony between the Daoist principles

and the Confucian admonitions.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

This is interesting.

 

According to Maimonides, the category of heretic could only be applied

to an individual who had completely studied, mastered, and practiced the

teachings of the Torah, and then rejected it completely.

 

In his time, not a single individual could be found that fit this

category.

 

I also find attempts at revisionism faulty when we have few, if any,

individuals who truly have a grasp of the source material on the subject

of Chinese medicine.

 

However, Jewish tradition also teaches " if you know only Aleph, teach

Aleph " .

 

Let's just try to get Aleph as accurately as possible.

 

 

On Monday, February 18, 2002, at 07:15 AM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> Alon,

>

> , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > But- and this is where I think my position bites- the

> > practical problem with the term philosophy in the context of CM  is

> > that it tends to a

> > reification of the role of theories, assumptions and metaphors

> which,

> > arguably, in the longer term will inhibit progress.

> > >>>>This is were we completely agree. I for one see much more

> danger in such pursuits than benefits. And referred to them here in

> the past as seeing the trees from the forest (if this is how the

> saying goes). And again is why I think many important answers will

> come out of " agnostics " like me that insist on looking at CM from a

> new perspective instead of the traditional one ( of course

> inelegantly).

>

> I do not dispute that important answers

> will come from looking at Chinese medicine

> from a new perspective. This has been

> the case for centuries. I myself am

> engaged in various initiatives to establish

> new perspectives from which Chinese medicine

> can be investigated.

>

> I simply question the strategy that

> has put so many " agnostics " into the

> field without a clear understanding of

> the Simple and Difficult Questions

> to cite just two of the principal

> works on the subject.

[Guest guest]

You've written a book, so I'll putit like this. What would you thinkof someone who went before the worldand said that they would come up withimportant new answers to the subjectof your book if you discovered thatthis person had never even read it?>>>>There you go again with black and white thinking (very Chinese ?). If to understand you correctly than 20 years of study in not enough to make Any comment. Can you make any comments of Qi I am sure there are thousands of commoneries on Qi that you have never been exposed to. So how much is?

[Guest guest]

But if we call ourselves practitionersof Chinese medicine, if we licenseourselves as acupuncturists and Chineseherbalists, then we should afford thematerials to which our professionalexistence owes its origins the samekind of respect that I believe youand I would expect as authors.>>>>By the way i welcome any comments to anything I say or write with open arms from anybody. There is always something to learn. Sometimes more from the uninitiated than from the so called educated scholar. And I get these lessons at work every day from patients.

Alon

[Guest guest]

hope you can see and appreciate thedifference I'm drawing here between arguing with you about the way you conductyour personal practice and the way inwhich we should conduct the educationand qualification of practitioners.>>>>Again i have no problem with increasing all requirements. I would however think hard on priorities. Since all my queues are taken from what I have seen in China and some very well known Chinese teaches in the west. It is their outcomes that as far as I am concern should dictate such priorities. Again, and i think Simon has touched on this, there is a place were the so called "pursuit" has diminishing returns. Much of it should be left for scholars not physicians.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> You've written a book, so I'll put

> it like this. What would you think

> of someone who went before the world

> and said that they would come up with

> important new answers to the subject

> of your book if you discovered that

> this person had never even read it?

>

> >>>>There you go again with black and white thinking (very

Chinese ?). If to understand you correctly than 20 years of study in

not enough to make Any comment. Can you make any comments of Qi I am

sure there are thousands of commoneries on Qi that you have never

been exposed to. So how much is?

 

As I said, I am not impugning you or

your capacity to make comments, discover

answers, treat patients or anything else.

 

You react to my question, but you don't

answer it. Don't you think someone should

read a book before commenting on it?

 

I suppose that is " black and white thinking " .

Is it very Chinese? Well, I think people

the world round could agree that with

respect to knowing what's written in

a book, either you've read it or you

haven't.

 

As for the size and importance of

my own knowledge of the subject, I assure

you it is miniscule and probably not

important at all. We wrote the book

to suggest that people look to Chinese

sources for their understanding of qi4.

 

I suggest that this is a sensible

approach to the study of the whole

subject. And I have nowhere, not one

single time, suggested that innovative

perspectives and approaches are unwise

or unwelcome.

 

You continue to rail against

it, citing unspecified dangers that

might ensue if one were to spend too

much of one's time studying in this

way.

 

What is the downside risk?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

You react to my question, but you don'tanswer it. Don't you think someone shouldread a book before commenting on it?>>>>Were did you get the idea that somebody said that its ok to comment on a book you have not read. I have not seen it

Alon

[Guest guest]

You continue to rail againstit, citing unspecified dangers thatmight ensue if one were to spend toomuch of one's time studying in thisway.>>>>The danger is in loosing clinical perspective.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

, " ALON MARCUS " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> You react to my question, but you don't

> answer it. Don't you think someone should

> read a book before commenting on it?

> >>>>Were did you get the idea that somebody said that its ok to

comment on a book you have not read. I have not seen it

 

You talk all the time about the clinical relevance

of not just one book but by implication literally

thousands of them when you dismiss the importance

of the Chinese medical literature or suggest that

by becoming familiar with it people risk losing

clinical perspective.

 

And it's not just you.

 

Ignorance and ignoring of the Chinese medical

literature is the status quo in Chinese medicine

in the USA.

 

The subject has been organized in the States

on the basis of the evaluations of large numbers

of individuals who have decided that the

great bulk of this medical literature is

not pertinent to the education of practitioners

of Chinese medicine. For the most part such

decision makers are not able to read Chinese

and therefore have not read the books that

they thus evaluate.

 

As I've pointed out in the past, the only

voices that argue against the inclusion of

the study of Chinese medical language and

literature in the curriculum of Chinese

medical schools are those that do not know them.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> But if we call ourselves practitioners

> of Chinese medicine, if we license

> ourselves as acupuncturists and Chinese

> herbalists, then we should afford the

> materials to which our professional

> existence owes its origins the same

> kind of respect that I believe you

> and I would expect as authors.

> >>>>By the way i welcome any comments to anything I say or write

with open arms from anybody. There is always something to learn.

Sometimes more from the uninitiated than from the so called educated

scholar. And I get these lessons at work every day from patients.

 

I too get a great deal of benefit from

feedback from readers of all different

backgrounds and levels of experience.

 

But I can't think of a single instance

of anybody coming to me saying they

had not read something I've written

but they want to express their opinions

about it anyway.

 

I have not read your book. Given that,

what would you think if I were

to suggest to people that they could

get a better return on investment of

their time by not reading it but spending

the time they would devote to it to reading

other books?

 

That's more or less what you are saying

with respect to the vast Chinese medical

literature when you state with some authority

that it is not worth people's time to read it

or that " I for one see much more danger in such

pursuits than benefits. "

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I have not read your book. Given that,what would you think if I wereto suggest to people that they could get a better return on investment of their time by not reading it but spending the time they would devote to it to readingother books?>>>>Actually my point is that if one wants to be a good clinician there is only so much time one should spend reading

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> >>>>Actually my point is that if one wants to be a good clinician

there is only so much time one should spend reading

 

Yes, I know. I have always understood

your point to be a warning of the

dangers of literacy. But the vast

majority of Chinese sources with which

I have become familiar over the years

warn conversely of the dangers facing

clinicians who remain ignorant of

the teachings that have been handed

down from generation to generation.

And since education is learning to

use the tools that the race has found

indispensable, it seems to me that

as a group we should follow the advice

of the Chinese with respect to the

transmission and reception of Chinese

medicine.

 

I am not in the business of prognostication,

but I strongly suspect that continued

neglect of the literary transmissions

of traditional Chinese medicine will

only result in damage to the profession.

 

What's wrong with this picture?

The field is supposedly booming.

Thousands enrolled in training programs

across the country. NIH grants millions

for research.

 

Yet, according to one of the leading

publishers in the field, Bob Flaws,

it doesn't pay to bring excellent

books to the marketplace.

 

I guess a lot of people share your

conviction that reading too much can

be harmful to your health. But I suggest

that it is, in the end, an indefensible

position. How do you rationalize it,

for example, with the fact that you

yourself have written a book? What

on earth for if not to have people

take some of their precious time, which

you suggest should not be wasted on reading

books, and read a book?

 

I always urge people to read our books.

That's why we wrote them. I also urge

folks to read as many as they can of

the other fine books that already exist.

I believe that reading is one fine way to

cultivate the most useful tools clinicians

have at their disposal: their minds.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Perhaps schools should mandate a larger reading list, and develop

classes which utilize them? How does one get to be a teacher without

keeping up with what's going on in their field? Or, perhaps the

NCCAOM should make practitioners do book reports for updating their

certificates?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

 

> Yet, according to one of the leading

> publishers in the field, Bob Flaws,

> it doesn't pay to bring excellent

> books to the marketplace.

[Guest guest]

jramholz wrote:

Or, perhaps the

> NCCAOM should make practitioners do book reports for updating their

> certificates?

 

Jim: Great idea! Ken can write one on Alon's book and Alon on Ken's!

;-))

 

Fernando

>

> , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

>

> > Yet, according to one of the leading

> > publishers in the field, Bob Flaws,

> > it doesn't pay to bring excellent

> > books to the marketplace.

>

>