Guest guest Posted February 22, 2002 Report Share Posted February 22, 2002 Alon and others: In a number of discussions the question of how much philosophy and wehere it should stop has arisen. I believe ALon responded that discussions outside the realm of clinical relevance were where they should stop(please clarfy if this is incorrect). I am interested in where the philosophy stops and the clinic starts. What are the parameters of " the clinical setting " ? And how does one know when it is " philosophy " and when it is " clinical " ? Eagerly awaiting a respnse...Kelly _______________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 , " Kelly Welch " <kdwelch25@h...> wrote: > Alon and others: In a number of discussions the question of how much > philosophy and wehere it should stop has arisen. I believe ALon responded > that discussions outside the realm of clinical relevance were where they > should stop(please clarfy if this is incorrect). > > I am interested in where the philosophy stops and the clinic starts. > > What are the parameters of " the clinical setting " ? > > And how does one know when it is " philosophy " and when it is " clinical " ? > > Eagerly awaiting a respnse...Kelly > > __ Kelly, I really would drop the word " philosophy " if you are refering to a system of theories under that umbrella word; it has so many implications and undercurrents. Rather, I think, the question, which is in part a philosophical one, would be better put as, " what are the parameters of theory and practice? " This is prehaps the core question of Chinese medicine and one with which, to an extent, we grapple treating each patient. Simon _____________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 "whatare the parameters of theory and practice?" This is prehaps the core question of Chinese medicine and one with which, to an extent, we grapple treating each patient.>>>>Agreed Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 , " dallaskinguk " <dallasking@b...> wrote: > > __ > > Kelly, > > I really would drop the word " philosophy " if you are refering to > a system of theories under that umbrella word; it has so many > implications and undercurrents. Rather, I think, the question, which > is in part a philosophical one, would be better put as, " what > are the parameters of theory and practice? " This is prehaps the core > question of Chinese medicine and one with which, to an extent, we > grapple treating each patient. > whatever we call it, it seems to be a central theme in chinese medical lit for millennia, this interplay between theory and practice. Books like those of zhu dan xi and li dong yuan always intermix the two. It is almost amusing that we are even debating the importance of this interplay. We can't change history and the historical record is pretty clear. But I guess one only knows that if one reads the record for him/her self. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 Didn't someone say that clinical practice was the arms and legs of theory? Jim Ramholz , " 1 " <@i...> wrote: > whatever we call it, it seems to be a central theme in chinese medical > lit for millennia, this interplay between theory and practice. Books > like those of zhu dan xi and li dong yuan always intermix the two. It > is almost amusing that we are even debating the importance of this > interplay. We can't change history and the historical record is pretty > clear. But I guess one only knows that if one reads the record for > him/her self. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 > > whatever we call it, it seems to be a central theme in chinese medical > lit for millennia, this interplay between theory and practice. Books > like those of zhu dan xi and li dong yuan always intermix the two. It > is almost amusing that we are even debating the importance of this > interplay. We can't change history and the historical record is pretty > clear. But I guess one only knows that if one reads the record for > him/her self. > whatever we call it, it seems to be a central theme in chinese medical > lit for millennia, this interplay between theory and practice. Books > like those of zhu dan xi and li dong yuan always intermix the two. It > is almost amusing that we are even debating the importance of this > interplay. We can't change history and the historical record is pretty > clear. But I guess one only knows that if one reads the record for > him/her self. > In this case I think the original question from Kelly was about the parameters of the interplay, not whether it is important. We can't change history but, it is not given, we interpret it in the context of the present. Personally, I find that when I read Zhu Dan Xi etc I have to do a fair amount of internal debate about the relevance to my patients; about whether examples of particular cases are meant to be taken as examples of theoretical patterns to be more universally applied, whether there are sufficient practical details to extrapolate to theoretical patterns or just infer empirical practice, about what theories I take as spurious and which I take as grounded in the practical reality that I see and so on. If there is some difficulty with interpretation and application within an author's work then this is magnified between them, always there are choices which must be cashed out in our practice. Then there is the point of Devils Advocate Jim Ramholz about how we interpret and modify our theory and practice in a world which has the influence of modern biomedicine. I suppose the issue is that however clear the past is, the present is confused, , and the future is seen as if through a glass darkly. For me, answering this question is what your discussion board is about. Simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Personally, I find that when I read Zhu Dan Xi etc I have to do a fair amount of internal debate about the relevance to my patients; about whether examples of particular cases are meant to be taken as examples of theoretical patterns to be more universally applied, whether there are sufficient practical details to extrapolate to theoretical patterns or just infer empirical practice, about what theories I take as spurious and which I take as grounded in the practical reality that I see and so on. If there is some difficulty with interpretation and application within an author's work then this is magnified between them, always there are choices which must be cashed out in our practice.>>>I have the same struggle Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 Simon, > > > In this case I think the original question from Kelly was about the > parameters of the interplay, not whether it is important. For myself, when I tried to answer the question as it was put, I came to see that the distinction is indeed difficult to make. That's why I was interested in learning what others think about this: so I can better understand how the group draws these lines. > We can't change history but, it is not given, we interpret it in the > context of the present. Personally, I find that when I read Zhu Dan > Xi etc I have to do a fair amount of internal debate about the > relevance to my patients; about whether examples of particular cases > are meant to be taken as examples of theoretical patterns to be more > universally applied, whether there are sufficient practical details > to extrapolate to theoretical patterns or just infer empirical > practice, about what theories I take as spurious and which I take as > grounded in the practical reality that I see and so on. If there is > some difficulty with interpretation and application within an > author's work then this is magnified between them, always there are > choices which must be cashed out in our practice. And I think that an important lesson can be abstracted from such experience, namely the value of going through that sort of exercise. Is that not a critical component of the whole chaotic system of mechanisms by which traditionally medical knowledge and skills have been transmitted and developed from one age to the next? > Then there is the point of Devils Advocate Jim Ramholz about how we > interpret and modify our theory and practice in a world which has the > influence of modern biomedicine. Throughout its long history, Chinese medicine has always found itself in the " modern " age. And " modern " individuals have always had to struggle with how ancient ideas can be fitted into the conceptual schema of the contemporary age. What we see over a span of time are certain meta-images that emerge from the edges of the chaos. Whether one is advocating on behalf of devils or angels, the reference to the Chinese material should be made accurately, and that's what I think it really comes down to, over and again. > I suppose the issue is that however clear the past is, the present is > confused, , and the future is seen as if through a glass darkly. For > me, answering this question is what your discussion board is about. Agreed. Which is precisely why I place such a high value on this forum and the activity that goes on within it, very much including your thoughtful input. I see the process of " knowing " Chinese medicine as a group dynamic and that only by widening the participation in such discussions will we ever arrive at a meaningful and lasting set of questions and answers, which is more or less precisely what much of the classic literature contains. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 An interesting footnote to this discussion is in a text that is now out of print (in English), " Yojokun " , by Ekiken Kaibara. Ekiken Kaibara was an 18th century Japanese physician who is cited by Georges Ohsawa as one of the forerunners of the Macrobiotic school. This school was based on the principle of 'food as medicine', through an (somewhat ideosyncratic) application of yin-yang theory to dietary theory. Dr. Kaibara was a disciple of the Dong-yuan school, and applies many neo-Confucian ideas to diet, lifestyle and medical treatment (herbal medicine and acumoxatherapy). However, he is very critical of Zhu Dan-xi's additions to Dr. Li (Dong-yuan)'s work, feeling that adding yin supplementing medicinals was an unnecessary innovation. One small piece to show that Chinese medicine always has had an ongoing dialogue and debate, wherever it was or is practiced. We are part of this as well. We just need ample source materials to have a clear perspective where it is we are entering this ongoing dialogue. On Sunday, February 24, 2002, at 01:49 AM, dallaskinguk wrote: > . Personally, I find that when I read Zhu Dan > Xi etc I have to do a fair amount of internal debate about the > relevance to my patients; about whether examples of particular cases > are meant to be taken as examples of theoretical patterns to be more > universally applied, whether there are sufficient practical details > to extrapolate to theoretical patterns or just infer empirical > practice, about what theories I take as spurious and which I take as > grounded in the practical reality that I see and so on. If there is > some difficulty with interpretation and application within an > author's work then this is magnified between them, always there are > choices which must be cashed out in our practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.