standards of discourse; was treatment of cancer patients

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I'm not saying that we should discard Prof. Cheng's opinions, just

that I think we need to judge them in the light of contemporary

medical standards of discourse. But I'm pretty sure you know that's

what I was saying.

 

The question of whether or not Chinese medical practitioners should

model our discourse on that of other modern medical practitioners' is

a very interesting one. It's one that probably does merit some debate.

 

Does anyone want to discuss A) what this means and B) whether its

appropriate for CM practitioners? Obviously, I think it's important.

We function in the modern world and must constantly interface with

members of other health care professions as well as with governmental

and regulatory agencies. I see adopting this model of discourse as

working within the dominant paradigm. For me, it is nothing more than

a level of intellectual sophistication. There is more meta-discourse.

 

As I read the contemporary Chinese medical literature from the PRC, I

see such modelling more and more. For instance, in the last several

years, Chinese authors have begun citing the literary sources for

their diagnostic criteria, e.g. the 1999 Shanghai Blood Stasis Working

Committe Standards for the Diagnosis & Treatment of Blood Stasis, etc.

They weren't doing that 10 years ago.

 

Bob

 

 

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

> Bob, Fernando, and All,

>

> > First of all, please know that I very much do appreciate the

> > vulnerability of speaking in public. However, part of being

> > professional in my experience is debating differences. As Ken has

> said

> > many times before on this list, this is how we all learn and grow.

>

> And in situations where ideas and opinions

> clash, I always like to refer to the proverb

> the Wm. Blake brought back from his trip to

> Hell, " Opposition is true friendship. "

>

> As in push hands, there is nothing to compare

> with the resistance of conflicting ideas. This

> resistance and the pressures that build up

> shine like beacons on those aspects of our

> mutual understanding that require our attention.

>

> Personally, I approach the whole affair as

> an extension of my push hands practice and

> focus on listening, sticking to the point,

> and returning to those who will engage my

> information and intent related to what they

> put out. I pay careful attention to those

> things that don't add up or fit in. And I

> suggest, Fernando, that the difficulties

> involved can be compared to the pain in

> the thigh when sinking all the weight onto

> one leg at a time. Without such practice

> and pain, skill does not emerge.

>

>

>

> It

> > is only by taking the risk of putting an idea out in public that

we

> > can test that idea and receive feedback from others thinking and

> > working in the same field.

>

> Precisely. The concomitant joy that

> accompanies the pain is the release

> from the grip of wrong ideas or

> needlessly difficult habits of thought

> or expression. Bucky Fuller used to

> point out that metaphysical wealth

> only increases, for even when we discover

> that all of our previous ideas were

> incorrect, we still know more than

> we did before. In the recognition of

> what we got wrong, we open to the

> possibility of getting it closer

> to right. Again, I think the transformations

> are what matter, and that the right-wrong a

> xis exists primarily to serve as an attractor

> to the forces that we exchange.

>

> The process of learning is a dynamic

> one indeed, and it has a direct impact

> on clinical practice. For what you learn

> in the morning might save a life in

> the afternoon.

>

> How I long for someone to demonstrate

> to my satisfaction the error of my

> thinking on the subject of Chinese

> language and thought and the importance

> of understanding them for those who

> study and practice Chinese medicine.

> I may still have several decades to live,

> and if I could be disabused of this

> conviction, I might spend the time

> having some fun.

>

>

>

> I also understand that the word

> > " professional " is an extremely loaded one, and it is all too easy

> to

> > say that something is unprofessional simply if one doesn't like or

> > agree with it. Nevertheless, we are trying to grow this profession

> > here in the West, and we cannot allow ourselves to retreat from a

> > debate over what is or is not unprofessional due to

oversensitivity

> to

> > political correctness. It seems to me that professionalism has to

> be

> > one of the topics on the table for debate.

>

> Agreed. And I think that the discussion

> should include the implications of professionalism

> and their impact on the clinical interaction.

>

> By mimicing the beahvior patterns of

> conventional medical doctors, do practitioners

> of Chinese medicine enhance the delivery

> of those modalities peculiar to the traditions

> they purvey?

>

>

> >

> > When I use the term " professional " vis a vis communication among

> > health care practitioners, I am thinking of the standards of

> discourse

> > common among other contemporary health care professions. Having

> worked

> > at Denver General Hospital as well as in the offices of both MDs

> and

> > DCs, having written a study for the NIH which required my

> discussion

> > with a large number of MDs and Ph.D.s of various disciplines,

being

> a

> > contributing editor for the Townsend Letter for Doctors, regularly

> > teaching MDs and DOs in the U.S. and Europe, and having

> collaborated

> > with numerous MDs on a variety of different projects, it is my

> > experience that there are certain standards of discourse in modern

> > medicine. Further, in my experience of reading the contemporary

> > Chinese medical literature or having worked in various Chinese

> > hospitals and clinics, these are basically the same standards of

> > discourse in contemporary professional Chinese medicine in China.

>

> Agreed. It matters extensively how we

> communicate with each other, with patients,

> with colleagues in various professions.

> Communication consists not only of having

> a message but of taking into account all

> those factors that impinge on the transmission

> and reception of that message. Of course,

> it also includes the capacity to receive

> and understand what others in the communication

> have to say.

> >

> > In modern professional medicine, East or West, if one makes a

> > statement, then one is expected to back that statement up by some

> kind

> > of proof. That proof could be 1) a citation from some source

deemed

> to

> > be authoritative (for instance your citation of Prof. Cheng), 2) a

> > case study, 3) a retrospective clinical audit, 4) a prospective

> > clinical trial, or 5) the results of laboratory, anthropological,

> > sociological, or epidemiological research. When one asserts such a

> > proof, then one has to be ready for others to question the

> vailidity

> > of that proof. That is how we test and assess the validity of our

> > ideas and assertions. In Western medical school, that questioning

> is

> > commonly extremely aggressive. It is called " pimping. " I have,

> > likewise, been pimped by some (agreed, not all) of my Asian

> teachers.

> > (In Asia, because of concerns over " face, " pimping is not always

> > acceptable.)

>

> Curious term. New to me. But

> I certainly agree with the notion

> that ideas should be subjected to

> scrutiny and criticism. The traditions

> of intellectual review and criticism

> in China have fluctuated along with

> the social standards and mores of

> successive ages. But one of the

> curious aspescts of Chinese medical

> literature and lore is precisely the

> way in which information has been

> vetted by subtle and complex processes

> over millennia. All such processes

> proceed according to accepted values

> and necessarily involve evaluation

> of the material in question.

>

> I think it is a matter of such values

> that underlies the question of the

> validity of Prof. Cheng's approach

> to the treatment of cancer. I personally

> place a high value on his comments

> on virtually every subject that

> he bothered to address. And, by the

> way, I find the same difficulties and

> challenges dealing with translations

> of his work as with other Chinese sources.

> He was a scholar in the classical tradition

> and his written work is largely in the

> style and language of the classical

> literature. It is the work of a poet

> who happened also to be a painter,

> a doctor, and a master of tai4 ji2.

>

> Such refinement is quite difficult to

> comprehend for the rest of us, let

> alone translate. And my understanding

> of the Professor's tai4 ji2 teachings

> leads me to believe that his own

> application of the principles Fernando

> cited would have been goverened by

> a flexible mind that could adapt to

> circumstances favorably.

> >

> > In my opinion, if this medicine is going to survive in the modern

> > world, then we as practitioners must learn to discourse at the

same

> > level of sophistication, intelligence, and education as members of

> > other health care professions. In the early 70s, I would have been

> > very impressed with Prof. Cheng's opinion. Hell, I probably would

> of

> > included it in one of my books as if it were gospel. Today, I am

> not

> > so impressed since it was unsupported by any kind of real

evidence,

> > Western or Chinese.

>

> Standards defining " real evidence " are,

> like all other human artifacts, dynamic.

> Prof. Cheng was a bridge between generations

> and cultures. When we examine such peculiar

> individuals, we should judge them not only

> according to how well they conform to

> accepted standards. We should pay attention

> to what we can learn about the value systems

> they represent, which might be of another

> time or place or entirely of their own making.

> I never met the old man, but from what I

> understand from many who knew him for

> years, he was such a character. And it

> would be a loss, indeed, to discard his

> teachings out of deference to a perceived

> lack of " real evidence. "

> >

> Ken

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Ken,

>

> I'm not saying that we should discard Prof. Cheng's opinions, just

> that I think we need to judge them in the light of contemporary

> medical standards of discourse. But I'm pretty sure you know that's

> what I was saying.

 

And we further have an ethical responsibility to our patients that must

be construed in our culture according to prevailing western standards.

Whatever consensus we come to regarding the nature of how to debate and

assess information, this has no bearing in my mind on how we address

the issue of ethical treatment. If the chinese tradition of medical

ethics differs from the west, so be it. But that is an area where we

have no recourse but to conform to western standards, if for no other

reason than legal ones. When treating life threatening illnesses, we

must minimize harm and maximize evidence based methodologies. When you

are treating PMS, do whatever you want, there will probably be no

repercussions. But when someones life is at stake, we are dealing with

a bomb. If there is a likelihood that the pure TCM approach will work

on cancer, let's prove it. As far I have heard and read, the chinese

have not been able to prove this themselves. And the opinions of

classical scholars aside, I have never met a modern TCM doc from china

who is comfortable with anything but an integrative approach to cancer.

In fact, my chinese colleagues tend to be much more comfortable with

integrative therapy than my american colleagues. If nothing else, this

reflects prevailing standards of care in modern china, for better or

for worse. It was always a matter of some chagrin when I was at OCOM

that the chinese docs had no qualms about giving antibiotics to their

kids or taking valium for test anxiety. things that were considered

heretical by all my american teachers. Finally, I cannot provide

citations about the statistics for integrative cancer care in modern

china. But Subhuti D. can. However, you will need to call him at 503-

233-4907 as I do not think most of this is on his website. Mark Reese

is more on top of ITM lit these days than I am, so perhaps he has some

thoughts to add.

 

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

> I'm not saying that we should discard Prof. Cheng's opinions, just

> that I think we need to judge them in the light of contemporary

> medical standards of discourse. But I'm pretty sure you know that's

> what I was saying.

 

I understood. I'm not suggesting you had

any other intent. I'm also not suggesting

that Prof. Cheng not be judged by whatever

standards anyone wishes to use. I was only

pointing out that his life and work are

peculiar if not unique and warrant careful

examination by those interested in seeing

one particularly refined expression of

the ideas and principles of traditional

Chinese culture.

 

I am not opposed to turning a critical

eye on him or anyone else. I have always

been curious as to why several of his

senior students in this country have

died relatively early in their lives.

And the discord that raged in his wake

when he himself died in the mid-70s

has similarly left me with a number of

questions that will probably never be

answered.

 

Nevertheless, I find his teachings to

be of extreme excellence, and I have no

doubt that he could do things with his

hands that I cannot clearly dream about.

Anybody who comes in contact with teachings

of this nature naturally takes whatever

they are prepared to take and makes

of them what they will. And when you

said that earlier you'd have thought

very highly of what he had to say

about medical matters, but now you

tend to think less of it because it

lacked proper evidence, I just wanted

those who read along with us to know

that at least one who has continued to

look closely at his work finds it of

increasing value rather than decreasing.

 

It's a different message than whether

we are to judge his work and how.

 

 

>

> The question of whether or not Chinese medical practitioners should

> model our discourse on that of other modern medical practitioners'

is

> a very interesting one. It's one that probably does merit some

debate.

 

I think so.

>

> Does anyone want to discuss A) what this means and B) whether its

> appropriate for CM practitioners? Obviously, I think it's

important.

> We function in the modern world and must constantly interface with

> members of other health care professions as well as with

governmental

> and regulatory agencies. I see adopting this model of discourse as

> working within the dominant paradigm. For me, it is nothing more

than

> a level of intellectual sophistication. There is more meta-

discourse.

 

And what about the discourse and the whole

character of the interaction between doctor

and patient? Should this also resemble the

patter of a medical doctor, either in style or

terminology, as well as content?

 

 

> As I read the contemporary Chinese medical literature from the PRC,

I

> see such modelling more and more. For instance, in the last several

> years, Chinese authors have begun citing the literary sources for

> their diagnostic criteria, e.g. the 1999 Shanghai Blood Stasis

Working

> Committe Standards for the Diagnosis & Treatment of Blood Stasis,

etc.

> They weren't doing that 10 years ago.

 

You are far more up on this than I am.

How might it have appeared differently

10 years ago?

 

Do you think that we should be guided

by the same adaptive mechanisms that

operate in the PRC?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I do pay attention to ITM's info and there has been quite a bit over the

last few years about integrative cancer treatments. However most of it is

spread out through many piles in my office. Suffice to say that integration

of the two medical systems is the rule in China and that better clinical

results can be demonstrated by these means. For those interested, I believe

ITM to be one of the most important English sources of info in the US and

would encourage anyone to call them and request this info in a detailed

mannner. They will either fax or mail you the reports.

 

Mark

 

 

 

Finally, I cannot provide

> citations about the statistics for integrative cancer care in modern

> china. But Subhuti D. can. However, you will need to call him at 503-

> 233-4907 as I do not think most of this is on his website. Mark Reese

> is more on top of ITM lit these days than I am, so perhaps he has some

> thoughts to add.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Sorry for not responding sooner. I was in NYC teaching a workshop this

weekend.

 

During the early 70s, I was living and practicing Tibetan Buddhism in

NYC. My Lama-teachers installed me form 12 noon to 6 PM in a Tibetan

antique store in the Village to raise money for our sect's various

projects. As manager and main salesperson of that store, I came in

contact with many seminal people of that era, including a goodly

number who were or had been students of Prof. Cheng. Some of

these students later became students of Tibetan Buddhism, and I

came to know them quite well. Others were just part of the Village

" Journey to the East " scene. Our store often felt more like a

salon or hang-out than a shop. Some day I hope to publish my memoires

of that time. The names would read like a 70s alternative cultural

Who's Who.

 

In any case, never met Prof. Cheng myself (I did meet Ben Lo and

Martin In), but I have been very interested in the high esteem you and

Z'ev seem to hold him. Back in the early 70s, I did not know Prof.

Cheng practiced Chinese medicine. So I did not realize that he had

written on CM. I have to say, up until you and Z'ev started mentioning

him, I had had a very negative opinion of the man based on all the

stuff I had heard about him way back when. I would be very interested

in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work, especially

vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the milieu in

which I lived back then.

 

Bob

 

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

> Bob,

>

> > I'm not saying that we should discard Prof. Cheng's opinions, just

> > that I think we need to judge them in the light of contemporary

> > medical standards of discourse. But I'm pretty sure you know

that's

> > what I was saying.

>

> I understood. I'm not suggesting you had

> any other intent. I'm also not suggesting

> that Prof. Cheng not be judged by whatever

> standards anyone wishes to use. I was only

> pointing out that his life and work are

> peculiar if not unique and warrant careful

> examination by those interested in seeing

> one particularly refined expression of

> the ideas and principles of traditional

> Chinese culture.

>

> I am not opposed to turning a critical

> eye on him or anyone else. I have always

> been curious as to why several of his

> senior students in this country have

> died relatively early in their lives.

> And the discord that raged in his wake

> when he himself died in the mid-70s

> has similarly left me with a number of

> questions that will probably never be

> answered.

>

> Nevertheless, I find his teachings to

> be of extreme excellence, and I have no

> doubt that he could do things with his

> hands that I cannot clearly dream about.

> Anybody who comes in contact with teachings

> of this nature naturally takes whatever

> they are prepared to take and makes

> of them what they will. And when you

> said that earlier you'd have thought

> very highly of what he had to say

> about medical matters, but now you

> tend to think less of it because it

> lacked proper evidence, I just wanted

> those who read along with us to know

> that at least one who has continued to

> look closely at his work finds it of

> increasing value rather than decreasing.

>

> It's a different message than whether

> we are to judge his work and how.

>

>

> >

> > The question of whether or not Chinese medical practitioners

should

> > model our discourse on that of other modern medical practitioners'

> is

> > a very interesting one. It's one that probably does merit some

> debate.

>

> I think so.

> >

> > Does anyone want to discuss A) what this means and B) whether its

> > appropriate for CM practitioners? Obviously, I think it's

> important.

> > We function in the modern world and must constantly interface with

> > members of other health care professions as well as with

> governmental

> > and regulatory agencies. I see adopting this model of discourse as

> > working within the dominant paradigm. For me, it is nothing more

> than

> > a level of intellectual sophistication. There is more meta-

> discourse.

>

> And what about the discourse and the whole

> character of the interaction between doctor

> and patient? Should this also resemble the

> patter of a medical doctor, either in style or

> terminology, as well as content?

>

>

> > As I read the contemporary Chinese medical literature from the

PRC,

> I

> > see such modelling more and more. For instance, in the last

several

> > years, Chinese authors have begun citing the literary sources for

> > their diagnostic criteria, e.g. the 1999 Shanghai Blood Stasis

> Working

> > Committe Standards for the Diagnosis & Treatment of Blood Stasis,

> etc.

> > They weren't doing that 10 years ago.

>

> You are far more up on this than I am.

> How might it have appeared differently

> 10 years ago?

>

> Do you think that we should be guided

> by the same adaptive mechanisms that

> operate in the PRC?

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Mark,

 

Our forthcoming diabetes and CM book is chock full of research

suggesting that the integration of CM and WM gets better results in

the treatment of DM and its many complications than either system

alone. The book has a 20 plus page Chinese language bibliography, and

we only translated and sourced approximately 1/5 of the Chinese

medical research published in PRC CM journals in the last 3-5 years.

We hope that the sheer volume of this research opens a few more

people's eyes to this.

 

Bob

 

, " Mark Reese " <tcm2@r...> wrote:

> I do pay attention to ITM's info and there has been quite a bit over

the

> last few years about integrative cancer treatments. However most of

it is

> spread out through many piles in my office. Suffice to say that

integration

> of the two medical systems is the rule in China and that better

clinical

> results can be demonstrated by these means. For those interested, I

believe

> ITM to be one of the most important English sources of info in the

US and

> would encourage anyone to call them and request this info in a

detailed

> mannner. They will either fax or mail you the reports.

>

> Mark

>

>

>

> Finally, I cannot provide

> > citations about the statistics for integrative cancer care in

modern

> > china. But Subhuti D. can. However, you will need to call him at

503-

> > 233-4907 as I do not think most of this is on his website. Mark

Reese

> > is more on top of ITM lit these days than I am, so perhaps he has

some

> > thoughts to add.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

I would be very interested

> in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work, especially

> vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the milieu

in

> which I lived back then.

 

I don't think I can provide such a thing.

I never knew him personally, but I've

known several people over the years who

studied with him.

 

I don't know of a biography per se,

although there are various biographical

sketches of him included in several books

that are available both in English and

Chinese.

 

You might find his lecture notes on

Lao Zi of interest. They're in a book

called Lao Tzu, My Words Are Very Easy

To Understand, translated by the Professor's

student, Tam Gibbs. In fact I find this

translation of the Dao De Jing to be one

of the better I've seen, and since it

is a bilingual edition, it's proven to

be a rather useful book to me over the

years.

 

I know Fernando has a website dedicated

to the man, so perhaps he can be of help

finding more biographical materials.

I know he was a unique human being,

not only controversial.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

My knowledge of Prof. Cheng is also second-hand, but from people I am

close to and respect. One is Michel Abehsera, a very close friend,

macrobiotic teacher and rabbi who lived in the Village at that time.

Michel ran a macrobiotic restaurant, Samsara and knew Prof. Cheng quite

well. I heard many stories about Prof. Cheng's martial arts practice,

and, unfortunately, about his excesses with alcohol. I was also in the

village around 1970-1, studying at NYU, browsing Weiser's bookstore and

hanging around the various macrobiotic restaurants and groceries. I

heard about Prof. Cheng everywhere I went, and was sorry I didn't get to

meet him. Then I moved to Colorado soon after that and lost touch with

the scene. He and Dr. Liang in Boston were the big names in tai qi and

martial arts among macrobiotic people at that time. I hadn't heard

about him in years until Ken Rose mentioned him in his book, " A Brief

History of Qi " .

 

 

 

 

On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 03:05 PM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> Ken,

>

> Sorry for not responding sooner. I was in NYC teaching a workshop this

> weekend.

>

> During the early 70s, I was living and practicing Tibetan Buddhism in

> NYC. My Lama-teachers installed me form 12 noon to 6 PM in a Tibetan

> antique store in the Village to raise money for our sect's various

> projects. As manager and main salesperson of that store, I came in

> contact with many seminal people of that era, including a goodly

> number who were or had been students of Prof. Cheng. Some of

> these students later became students of Tibetan Buddhism, and I

> came to know them quite well. Others were just part of the Village

> " Journey to the East " scene. Our store often felt more like a

> salon or hang-out than a shop. Some day I hope to publish my memoires

> of that time. The names would read like a 70s alternative cultural

> Who's Who.

>

> In any case, never met Prof. Cheng myself (I did meet Ben Lo and

> Martin In), but I have been very interested in the high esteem you and

> Z'ev seem to hold him. Back in the early 70s, I did not know Prof.

> Cheng practiced Chinese medicine. So I did not realize that he had

> written on CM. I have to say, up until you and Z'ev started mentioning

> him, I had had a very negative opinion of the man based on all the

> stuff I had heard about him way back when. I would be very interested

> in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work, especially

> vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the milieu in

> which I lived back then.

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

Bob, Z'ev, all,

 

I think that Mark Hennesy's book on Professor Cheng, is a good book

regarding several aspects of Professor's CM, Calligraphy, poetry,

taiji, and painting.

 

Two years ago I developed/designed a site to honor him. For those

interested and with Todd's permision, here's the url:

http://www.chengmanching.com

 

Please visit the paintings section.

 

I am in the process of giving the site and domain to his family and

will not be the webmaster in the future.

 

I would like to find some of his medical work in Chinese and make it

my translation project.

 

Fernando

 

 

>I would be very

interested

> in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work, especially

> vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the milieu

in

> which I lived back then.

>

> Bob

>

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

> > Bob,

> >

> > > I'm not saying that we should discard Prof. Cheng's opinions,

just

> > > that I think we need to judge them in the light of contemporary

> > > medical standards of discourse. But I'm pretty sure you know

> that's

> > > what I was saying.

> >

> > I understood. I'm not suggesting you had

> > any other intent. I'm also not suggesting

> > that Prof. Cheng not be judged by whatever

> > standards anyone wishes to use. I was only

> > pointing out that his life and work are

> > peculiar if not unique and warrant careful

> > examination by those interested in seeing

> > one particularly refined expression of

> > the ideas and principles of traditional

> > Chinese culture.

> >

> > I am not opposed to turning a critical

> > eye on him or anyone else. I have always

> > been curious as to why several of his

> > senior students in this country have

> > died relatively early in their lives.

> > And the discord that raged in his wake

> > when he himself died in the mid-70s

> > has similarly left me with a number of

> > questions that will probably never be

> > answered.

> >

> > Nevertheless, I find his teachings to

> > be of extreme excellence, and I have no

> > doubt that he could do things with his

> > hands that I cannot clearly dream about.

> > Anybody who comes in contact with teachings

> > of this nature naturally takes whatever

> > they are prepared to take and makes

> > of them what they will. And when you

> > said that earlier you'd have thought

> > very highly of what he had to say

> > about medical matters, but now you

> > tend to think less of it because it

> > lacked proper evidence, I just wanted

> > those who read along with us to know

> > that at least one who has continued to

> > look closely at his work finds it of

> > increasing value rather than decreasing.

> >

> > It's a different message than whether

> > we are to judge his work and how.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > The question of whether or not Chinese medical practitioners

> should

> > > model our discourse on that of other modern medical

practitioners'

> > is

> > > a very interesting one. It's one that probably does merit some

> > debate.

> >

> > I think so.

> > >

> > > Does anyone want to discuss A) what this means and B) whether

its

> > > appropriate for CM practitioners? Obviously, I think it's

> > important.

> > > We function in the modern world and must constantly interface

with

> > > members of other health care professions as well as with

> > governmental

> > > and regulatory agencies. I see adopting this model of discourse

as

> > > working within the dominant paradigm. For me, it is nothing more

> > than

> > > a level of intellectual sophistication. There is more meta-

> > discourse.

> >

> > And what about the discourse and the whole

> > character of the interaction between doctor

> > and patient? Should this also resemble the

> > patter of a medical doctor, either in style or

> > terminology, as well as content?

> >

> >

> > > As I read the contemporary Chinese medical literature from the

> PRC,

> > I

> > > see such modelling more and more. For instance, in the last

> several

> > > years, Chinese authors have begun citing the literary sources

for

> > > their diagnostic criteria, e.g. the 1999 Shanghai Blood Stasis

> > Working

> > > Committe Standards for the Diagnosis & Treatment of Blood

Stasis,

> > etc.

> > > They weren't doing that 10 years ago.

> >

> > You are far more up on this than I am.

> > How might it have appeared differently

> > 10 years ago?

> >

> > Do you think that we should be guided

> > by the same adaptive mechanisms that

> > operate in the PRC?

> >

> > Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

Used to eat at Samsara regularly when I lived on East 5th between snd

& 3rd Aves. Didn't know Michel personally, but recongnize the name.

 

Bob

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> My knowledge of Prof. Cheng is also second-hand, but from people I

am

> close to and respect. One is Michel Abehsera, a very close friend,

> macrobiotic teacher and rabbi who lived in the Village at that time.

 

> Michel ran a macrobiotic restaurant, Samsara and knew Prof. Cheng

quite

> well. I heard many stories about Prof. Cheng's martial arts

practice,

> and, unfortunately, about his excesses with alcohol. I was also in

the

> village around 1970-1, studying at NYU, browsing Weiser's bookstore

and

> hanging around the various macrobiotic restaurants and groceries. I

> heard about Prof. Cheng everywhere I went, and was sorry I didn't

get to

> meet him. Then I moved to Colorado soon after that and lost touch

with

> the scene. He and Dr. Liang in Boston were the big names in tai qi

and

> martial arts among macrobiotic people at that time. I hadn't heard

> about him in years until Ken Rose mentioned him in his book, " A

Brief

> History of Qi " .

>

>

>

>

> On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 03:05 PM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> > Ken,

> >

> > Sorry for not responding sooner. I was in NYC teaching a workshop

this

> > weekend.

> >

> > During the early 70s, I was living and practicing Tibetan Buddhism

in

> > NYC. My Lama-teachers installed me form 12 noon to 6 PM in a

Tibetan

> > antique store in the Village to raise money for our sect's various

> > projects. As manager and main salesperson of that store, I came in

> > contact with many seminal people of that era, including a goodly

> > number who were or had been students of Prof. Cheng. Some of

> > these students later became students of Tibetan Buddhism, and I

> > came to know them quite well. Others were just part of the Village

> > " Journey to the East " scene. Our store often felt more like a

> > salon or hang-out than a shop. Some day I hope to publish my

memoires

> > of that time. The names would read like a 70s alternative cultural

> > Who's Who.

> >

> > In any case, never met Prof. Cheng myself (I did meet Ben Lo and

> > Martin In), but I have been very interested in the high esteem you

and

> > Z'ev seem to hold him. Back in the early 70s, I did not know Prof.

> > Cheng practiced Chinese medicine. So I did not realize that he had

> > written on CM. I have to say, up until you and Z'ev started

mentioning

> > him, I had had a very negative opinion of the man based on all the

> > stuff I had heard about him way back when. I would be very

interested

> > in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work,

especially

> > vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the

milieu in

> > which I lived back then.

> >

> > Bob

> >

[Guest guest]

If you ever want more memories of the village, I've got 'em. Front-row

center at the Fillmore East for Jimi Hendrix and Pink Floyd, first ever

American concerts for Cream, the Kinks, the Who, midnight with the

Grateful Dead, Traffic, Moby Grape, Miles Davis and Jefferson Airplane.

All for a couple of dollars. McCoy Tyner, Sun Ra and Pharoah Sanders at

Slugs. John Fahey and Allen Ginsberg at St. Mark's Church. Trungpa

Rinpoche and Michio Kushi lectures. The works.

 

 

On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 07:34 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> Used to eat at Samsara regularly when I lived on East 5th between snd

> & 3rd Aves. Didn't know Michel personally, but recongnize the name.

>

> Bob

>

> , " " <zrosenbe@s...>

> wrote:

> > My knowledge of Prof. Cheng is also second-hand, but from people I

> am

> > close to and respect.  One is Michel Abehsera, a very close friend,

> > macrobiotic teacher and rabbi who lived in the Village at that time.

>

> > Michel ran a macrobiotic restaurant, Samsara and knew Prof. Cheng

> quite

> > well.  I heard many stories about Prof. Cheng's martial arts

> practice,

> > and, unfortunately, about his excesses with alcohol.  I was also in

> the

> > village around 1970-1,  studying at NYU, browsing Weiser's bookstore

> and

> > hanging around the various macrobiotic restaurants and groceries.  I

> > heard about Prof. Cheng everywhere I went, and was sorry I didn't

> get to

> > meet him.  Then I moved to Colorado soon after that and lost touch

> with

> > the scene.  He and Dr. Liang in Boston were the big names in tai qi

> and

> > martial arts among macrobiotic people at that time.  I hadn't heard

> > about him in years until Ken Rose mentioned him in his book, " A

> Brief

> > History of Qi " .

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 03:05  PM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

> >

> > > Ken,

> > >

> > > Sorry for not responding sooner. I was in NYC teaching a workshop

> this

> > > weekend.

> > >

> > > During the early 70s, I was living and practicing Tibetan Buddhism

> in

> > > NYC. My Lama-teachers installed me form 12 noon to 6 PM in a

> Tibetan

> > > antique store in the Village to raise money for our sect's various

> > > projects. As manager and main salesperson of that store, I came in

> > > contact with many seminal people of that era, including a goodly

> > > number who were or had been students of Prof. Cheng. Some of

> > > these students later became students of Tibetan Buddhism, and I

> > > came to know them quite well. Others were just part of the Village

> > > " Journey to the East " scene. Our store often felt more like a

> > > salon or hang-out than a shop. Some day I hope to publish my

> memoires

> > > of that time. The names would read like a 70s alternative cultural

> > > Who's Who.

> > >

> > > In any case, never met Prof. Cheng myself (I did meet Ben Lo and

> > > Martin In), but I have been very interested in the high esteem you

> and

> > > Z'ev seem to hold him. Back in the early 70s, I did not know Prof.

> > > Cheng practiced Chinese medicine. So I did not realize that he had

> > > written on CM. I have to say, up until you and Z'ev started

> mentioning

> > > him, I had had a very negative opinion of the man based on all the

> > > stuff I had heard about him way back when. I would be very

> interested

> > > in reading a balanced reappraisal of Prof. Cheng's work,

> especially

> > > vis a vis CM. He certainly was a controversial figure in the

> milieu in

> > > which I lived back then.

> > >

> > > Bob

> > >

>

>

 

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>