Patterns & WM lab tests

March 10, 2002

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

The usual

> understanding of intuiting something is to understand it directly

> without recourse to reasoning processes such as induction or

> deduction. If this is what is meant, where does it apply to CM? Are

> people really suggesting that the insights of CM are given to us

> innately? If what is meant is that the rational processes of CM have

> become so automatic that we may be no longer aware of them then, of

> course, this is not intuition just subconcious reasoning which still

> allows the possibility of post hoc communication and justification.

> Alot less scary in the field of medicine I would suggest.

>

Simon is corrct that the dictionary definition of intuition is a

process that does not involve reason. What I referred to as intuition

transcending but including reason is not accurate in this light.

Simon is right to refer to this as another process. He labels it

subconscious reason; I might call it transconscious reason, as it

seems to include more than just logic and incorporates this into a

thought process that is higher order than mere conscious reason, IMO.

So I prefer not to use the prefix sub-, as it denotes something less

than reason. I believe many folks refer to this experience as

intuition because they are unaware of the elements of the process in

their own minds. Ken Wilber calls this state vision-logic. So to

clarify, I think what most people call intuition is either this

experience (which is desirable) or, perhaps even more commonly, the

one Simon calls scary. I totally concur. If the suggestion is that

part of CM involves accessing some innate or akasic knowledge of

healing that has no relationship at all to temporally acquired

knowledge, I would love to see some citations that this has ever been

a part of mainstream CM thought in any era.

According to Wilber, this so-called intuitive process is typically

what he calls, pre-rational. It is neither the complementary pair to

reason, nor a transcendance to vision logic. It is a lower level

aspect of the mind that operates with input from only the sensations

and feeling and does incorporate any higher order input from the ego

and beyond. To a certain extent, intuition has become a useless word.

Both of the processes I have described, pre- and trans- rational,

appear to not include reason, thus both have been labeled intuitive by

different authors. In neither case is reason involved in the way we

think of it at the egoic level of consciousness. However, in the

first case, the mental structures at play precede the development of

reason (culturally, psychologically and historically). In the latter

case, the mental structures at play have moved beyond reason. Thus,

those who have access to transrational vision logic may not use what

appears to be standard logic in their methods, but if they are

conscious of the process can still use " post hoc communication and

justification. "

March 10, 2002

, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...> wrote:

I was only

> contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve from lab tests

> alone.

why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient. but

these tests are merely another form of observation using extensions of

our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a time,

CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking questions.

pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in the

last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China, but

developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as long as

we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still stand by

my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests do a

better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not all,

practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed that

EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc armed

with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven wrong.

March 10, 2002

Bergson defines intuition as " the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one

places oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in

it and consequently inexpressible...intuition may enable us to grasp what it

is that intelligence fails to give us, and indicate the means of

supplementing it. " Thus, intuition in this context is not parallel to

instinct, where we just know something innately, but is a sense that

transcends reason alone. I think that feeling the pulse is a good example

of this type of amplification of reason by intuition.

Similarly, Liang Shuming (a philosopher in contemporary China who was into

Bergson)stated that " In order to know the significance or tendency, we have

to use zhijue to experience (tihui) and ruminate (wanwei). What are called

yin and yang and qian and kun cannot be grasped throught sensation (ganjue);

also, they are not abstract concepts formed through the operation of

intellect (lizhi). Those are dynamic and harmonious concepts, whereas the

concepts that are formed through lizhi are ones that are all definitive and

fixed. " (From Yangming An's paper: Liang Shuming and Henri Bergson on

intuition: cultural context and the evolution of terms)

This is how I was defining intuition-- in a nutshell

Sonya

>

>_______________

> > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

> > http://www.hotmail.com

>

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

March 10, 2002

Interesting perspective, and I can't refute that any further diagnostic

tools that become available should be utilized. I just would like to see

the integrity of traditional medicine maintained.

> " 1 " <

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:45:25 -0000

>

>, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> I was only

> > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve from lab tests

> > alone.

>

>why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient. but

>these tests are merely another form of observation using extensions of

>our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a time,

>CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking questions.

> pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in the

>last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China, but

>developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as long as

>we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still stand by

>my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests do a

>better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not all,

>practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed that

>EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc armed

>with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven wrong.

>

>Todd

>

Sonya

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

March 10, 2002

Simon, and anybody else still hanging in there on this,

>

> Simon is corrct that the dictionary definition of intuition is a

> process that does not involve reason.

Absolutely. But my reading of Damasio's work

leads me to believe that the " dictionary " is

not correct in that there are not two discrete

categories of mentation, i.e. intuition and

reason. This dualism is an old prejudice,

Descarte's error, to use Damasio's phrase,

although it is not entirely clear whether

or not Descartes himself made this error

or simply came to be its namesake. He had

inscribed on his tomb a latin phrase that

means " to have hidden well is to have

lived well. "

What I referred to as intuition

> transcending but including reason is not accurate in this light.

> Simon is right to refer to this as another process. He labels it

> subconscious reason; I might call it transconscious reason, as it

> seems to include more than just logic and incorporates this into a

> thought process that is higher order than mere conscious reason,

IMO.

This is just the kind of fix that we tend to

find ourselves in when once we have accepted

that we have to solve the various dilemmas

presented by the mistaken identity of one

thing, i.e. mental activity, as two things,

i.e. intuition and reason.

> So I prefer not to use the prefix sub-, as it denotes something

less

> than reason. I believe many folks refer to this experience as

> intuition because they are unaware of the elements of the process in

> their own minds.

That would be humans, i.e. all humans. As

far as I know, there are none that are

aware of the elements of the process

in their own minds. It's a subject of some

intense interest these days, as scientists

come more and more to realize that without

such an understanding the various products

of the mind are, ultimately, unreliable.

One of the ways I read texts such as

the Dao De Jing, for example, is as manuals

of a " primitive " cognitive science that

sought to put in the hands of those who

seek them instructions on the use of

the curious instrument that we call

the mind.

Ken Wilber calls this state vision-logic. So to

> clarify, I think what most people call intuition is either this

> experience (which is desirable) or, perhaps even more commonly, the

> one Simon calls scary. I totally concur. If the suggestion is that

> part of CM involves accessing some innate or akasic knowledge of

> healing that has no relationship at all to temporally acquired

> knowledge, I would love to see some citations that this has ever

been

> a part of mainstream CM thought in any era.

To address this issue, I think you have to

take a long view of the development of medicine

in China and assess the influence of the

earlier ideas and practices on those that

emerged as civilization was developed and

refined by successive generations. I won't

go into this at length here because we've

written about it in chapter two of Who Can

Ride the Dragon?

My study of the subject has left me with

the impression that part of, perhaps the

essence of Chinese medicine involves development

and hence access to one's own innate and

basic knowledge of what it means to be

whole, healthy and in harmony with the

forces of nature. Such self cultivation has

an important aspect of traditional

medical education throughout much of Chinese

medical history judging from sources such

as Ge Hong, Sun Si Miao, and many others

who stress it, and an even broader base

of evidence from works of a philosophical

nature that would have formed part of the

general educaiton of most doctors over

much of the past 2,000 years. And it would

not be correct to suggest that it is or

has been or should be conducted with no

relationship to other acquired knowledge.

Sun Si Miao stressed that all knowledge

must be integrated in order to follow

the path of medicine.

What is qi4?

I think it is important that our definitions

include at least the main aspects of

meaning that have been accumulated in

this word for such a long time. And one

of these definitely is all about knowing

the unknowable, or in other words connection

to innate knowledge.

This is discussed in the early chapters

of A Brief History of Qi and you can

find a number of citations there if you

want to pursue it.

But once you include in the understanding

of qi4 this aspect of connection with

the invisible, unknowable, etc. then

the answer to your demand appears quite

obviously. For certainly there is not

a single major construct in Chinese medicine

that does not incorporate qi4.

>

> According to Wilber, this so-called intuitive process is typically

> what he calls, pre-rational. It is neither the complementary pair

to

> reason, nor a transcendance to vision logic. It is a lower level

> aspect of the mind that operates with input from only the sensations

> and feeling and does incorporate any higher order input from the ego

> and beyond.

I have to admit that I'm utterly ignorant

of Ken Wilber's work. But I'll just point

out again that the definitions of the key

terms in what you've just said are in need

of review based upon some of the latest

research in neuro-science, cognitive science,

linguistics, and complexity. So-called lower

level aspects of mind seem to be intimately linked

and involved in mental processes that span

the entire spectrum you've alluded to.

To a certain extent, intuition has become a useless word.

As a descriptor of mental processes based

upon their neurological analogs, I'd agree.

But as a commonly used word, I think it

conveys an important and highly useful

notion, i.e. that at times our mental

processes deliver apparently whole complete

pictures of things that lead us to believe

that we understand them. The feeling of

suddenly knowing something can be of

great significance, regardless of whether

or not the thing known is true, false,

delusion, induced by drugs, or what have you.

Bucky Fuller wrote a long poem calle intuition,

and he named his sloop Intuition.

I'd hate to see such things cancelled.

So if only out of respect for old Trimtab, let's

hang on to intuition.

> Both of the processes I have described, pre- and trans- rational,

> appear to not include reason, thus both have been labeled intuitive

by

> different authors. In neither case is reason involved in the way we

> think of it at the egoic level of consciousness. However, in the

> first case, the mental structures at play precede the development of

> reason (culturally, psychologically and historically). In the

latter

> case, the mental structures at play have moved beyond reason. Thus,

> those who have access to transrational vision logic may not use what

> appears to be standard logic in their methods, but if they are

> conscious of the process can still use " post hoc communication and

> justification. "

Well, obviously I'm having the same trouble

with this bit as with the rest of it.

So I'll leave it at that.

Ken

March 11, 2002

I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am all for

integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the opportunity to

look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to use and if one

does not know what test to use, the people working @ companies like Quest

Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share information! For

me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept C and I am

giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC every 3 months.

While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes... it does not

necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced stages enzymes

are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other presentation they

are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver biopsy and most

definitely share with patients information about Genotyping... as we know,

Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like interferon.

Teresa

-

" 1 " <

Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> , " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> I was only

> > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve from lab tests

> > alone.

>

> why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient. but

> these tests are merely another form of observation using extensions of

> our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a time,

> CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking questions.

> pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in the

> last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China, but

> developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as long as

> we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still stand by

> my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests do a

> better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not all,

> practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed that

> EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc armed

> with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven wrong.

>

> 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.

>

March 11, 2002

I've been off-list over the weekend. Seems like my original post has

inspired a lot of very interesting discussion. In Tibetan, the word

for intuition is ngon-she. Literally this means, prior knowing, i.e.,

knowing something before one, in theory, has gathered adequate

information to know about that thing.

When I was young, I was almost on a tv program during the

mid-50s called ESP. Three cards were dealt at random from a pack out

of view of the contestants and contestants were then asked what these

cards were dealt. (I had the highest scores tested until we moved to

playing with money. At that point, I was a failure and didn't make it

on the show.) Later in life, as a Tibetan yogi, my religious superiors

recurrently praised me for my ngon-she. To this day, most of the time,

I'd say my ngon-she is pretty good. This knowledge is something that

pops into my head without any prior warning and is not based on any

logical processes that I am aware of.

However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong points as

a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is extremely

logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for each

element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose often

ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask often

seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell these

students that my question was based on prior clinical experience. I

knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain question

because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was elicited by

some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far as I

am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she alone.

Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of oracles and

in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain people

seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at higher

levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of native

intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village shaman

who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is someone

who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never have shown

any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

methodological training.

Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

that pattern.

Bob

, " Teresa Hall " <Teresa.bodywork4u@w...>

wrote:

> I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am all for

> integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the

opportunity to

> look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to use and

if one

> does not know what test to use, the people working @ companies like

Quest

> Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share

information! For

> me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept C and I

am

> giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC every 3

months.

> While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes... it does

not

> necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced stages

enzymes

> are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other

presentation they

> are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver biopsy and

most

> definitely share with patients information about Genotyping... as we

know,

> Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like interferon.

>

> Teresa

> -

> " 1 " <@i...>

>

> Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>

> > , " Sonya Pritzker "

<spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> > I was only

> > > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve from

lab tests

> > > alone.

> >

> > why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient. but

> > these tests are merely another form of observation using

extensions of

> > our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a

time,

> > CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking

questions.

> > pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in the

> > last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China, but

> > developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as

long as

> > we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still

stand by

> > my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests do a

> > better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not

all,

> > practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed

that

> > EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc

armed

> > with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven wrong.

> >

>

> >

> > 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.

> >

March 11, 2002

I had some thoughts on the intuition vs. intellect issue as it applies

to Chinese medical practice.

I have always felt, as I expressed in previous posts, that intuition was

largely an educated faculty. I always think of a Keith Jarrett solo

piano concert I saw in Boulder in 1976, where he literally improvised

for two hours, composing on the spot, drawing the music as if from

somewhere else. However, he could only pull off this feat after years

of training, practice and discipline. Someone without training could

hardly go off and play in front of audiences without great experiences

in the nuances of classical and jazz piano. This was also combined with

his more common work with a jazz trio playing standards, and a classical

repertoire as well. He also paid a high price in stress for this work.

Injuries to his neck and shoulders, and on his most recent attempt at

recording spontaneous creation ( La Scala in the late '90's), severe

chronic fatigue that immobilized him for two years with total exhaustion.

A few of my patients have seen otherwise untrained 'medical intuitives'

prior to my treating them. I have always marveled (with the good ones)

at two things: 1) their ability to pick up on diseases and pathologies

without sophisticated medical equipment or training and 2) otherwise

being totally off base on everything else about the patient. In other

words, hit and miss. Such strong intuition must be trained when in the

realm of medicine, otherwise, great mistakes can be made that can

endanger the life and health of the patient.

A few weeks ago, a friend came down with severe chills and violent

headaches. After a few days, he went to the ER (he has never consulted

alternative medicine), where he was told that he had the flu, and was

given an injection of antibiotics in the hip. He went home, and

continued to suffer, returned to the ER, where the same physician said

there is nothing wrong, go home. His family insisted on MRI and cat

scans, and it was found that he had a brain aneurism, a serious medical

condition. Fortunately, he had a special surgery performed through an

artery in the leg where a platinum coil was inserted around the aneurism

and contained it.

So, even trained, rational medical technique can also lead to medical

errors (in this case, by not listening to what was really going on with

the patient). The mistakes can come from either side, intuition or

(faulty) logic.

I agree with Bob that CM is largely based on a logical approach to

pattern diagnosis. However, there are aspects to the case, having to do

with the person's lifestyle or approach to life (their perception of

life experience) that is often left out in modern case studies, unlike

the information in older case literature, such in Yu Chang's case

histories (a few of which are recorded in Elizabeth Hsu's " A Flourishing

Yin " ). We call this material 'anecdotal', but sometimes the information

here gives us important clues to the patient's conditions, and to the

reasoning process of the physician in understanding the case.

A great neurologist, Aleksandr Luria, who died in 1977, mentioned the

importance of the anecdote in his book, " The Mind of a Mnenomist " . His

detailed case studies, which also inspired the work of Oliver Sacks

( " Awakenings " , " The Man Who Mistook His Wife For His Hat " ), were studies

of how people struggled with their health and improved their lives, even

if their illnesses were not (completely) relieved. Luria was concerned

that " the ability to describe what was so common to the great

neurologists and psychiatrists of the nineteenth century. . . is almost

lost now " (letter to Oliver Sacks, reported in Wired Magazine, April

2002 issue). What was lost was " the skill of intuitive, sharp-sighted

observation that had distinguished the great minds of medicine " (Steve

Silberman, author of the article on Oliver Sacks in Wired Magazine 4/02).

The case history of Chinese medicine ideally should include this

detailed observation of patient's lives and habits, which often hold the

keys to accurate diagnosis and treatment. It would be a shame to lose

this dimension of our medical art to a mere data-oriented reporting

method.

On Monday, March 11, 2002, at 08:04 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

> However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong points as

> a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is extremely

> logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for each

> element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

> differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

> to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose often

> ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask often

> seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell these

> students that my question was based on prior clinical experience. I

> knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

> situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain question

> because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was elicited by

> some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far as I

> am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she alone.

>

> Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of oracles and

> in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain people

> seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at higher

> levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of native

> intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

> training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village shaman

> who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is someone

> who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never have shown

> any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

> methodological training.

>

> Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

> ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

> until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

> that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

> that pattern.

>

> Bob

March 11, 2002

>The point of logical training is an important one, and I think that logic

>does play a huge role in CM-- more than the innate understanding/insight of

>the type of intuition that you refer to as ngon-she. But what about basic

>understanding of concepts such as yin or yang, qian or kun: surely that

>requires more than logic?

" pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:04:06 -0000

>

>I've been off-list over the weekend. Seems like my original post has

>inspired a lot of very interesting discussion. In Tibetan, the word

>for intuition is ngon-she. Literally this means, prior knowing, i.e.,

>knowing something before one, in theory, has gathered adequate

>information to know about that thing.

>

>When I was young, I was almost on a tv program during the

>mid-50s called ESP. Three cards were dealt at random from a pack out

>of view of the contestants and contestants were then asked what these

>cards were dealt. (I had the highest scores tested until we moved to

>playing with money. At that point, I was a failure and didn't make it

>on the show.) Later in life, as a Tibetan yogi, my religious superiors

>recurrently praised me for my ngon-she. To this day, most of the time,

>I'd say my ngon-she is pretty good. This knowledge is something that

>pops into my head without any prior warning and is not based on any

>logical processes that I am aware of.

>

>However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong points as

>a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is extremely

>logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for each

>element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

>differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

>to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose often

>ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask often

>seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell these

>students that my question was based on prior clinical experience. I

>knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

>situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain question

>because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was elicited by

>some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far as I

>am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she alone.

>

>Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of oracles and

>in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain people

>seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at higher

>levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of native

>intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

>training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village shaman

>who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is someone

>who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never have shown

>any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

>methodological training.

>

>Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

>ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

>until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

>that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

>that pattern.

>

>Bob

>

>, " Teresa Hall " <Teresa.bodywork4u@w...>

>wrote:

> > I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am all for

> > integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the

>opportunity to

> > look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to use and

>if one

> > does not know what test to use, the people working @ companies like

>Quest

> > Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share

>information! For

> > me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept C and I

>am

> > giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC every 3

>months.

> > While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes... it does

>not

> > necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced stages

>enzymes

> > are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other

>presentation they

> > are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver biopsy and

>most

> > definitely share with patients information about Genotyping... as we

>know,

> > Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like interferon.

> >

> > Teresa

> > -

> > " 1 " <@i...>

> >

> > Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

> > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> >

> > > , " Sonya Pritzker "

><spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> > > I was only

> > > > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve from

>lab tests

> > > > alone.

> > >

> > > why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient. but

> > > these tests are merely another form of observation using

>extensions of

> > > our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a

>time,

> > > CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking

>questions.

> > > pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in the

> > > last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China, but

> > > developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as

>long as

> > > we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still

>stand by

> > > my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests do a

> > > better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not

>all,

> > > practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed

>that

> > > EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc

>armed

> > > with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven wrong.

> > >

> >

> > >

> > > 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.

> > >

March 11, 2002

Sonya,

If you are sure, please elucidate. I'd like to hear what you have to

say. However, let me point out that qi, yin, yang, qian, and kun are,

after all, merely words, albeit Chinese words. They are not reality,

but a human description of reality. I am 40 years separated from my

studies of Western philosophy, but it seems to me that words mean only

what we say they mean.

Bob

, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...>

wrote:

> >The point of logical training is an important one, and I think that

logic

> >does play a huge role in CM-- more than the innate

understanding/insight of

> >the type of intuition that you refer to as ngon-she. But what

about basic

> >understanding of concepts such as yin or yang, qian or kun: surely

that

> >requires more than logic?

>

" pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001>

> >

> > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> >Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:04:06 -0000

> >

> >I've been off-list over the weekend. Seems like my original post

has

> >inspired a lot of very interesting discussion. In Tibetan, the word

> >for intuition is ngon-she. Literally this means, prior knowing,

i.e.,

> >knowing something before one, in theory, has gathered adequate

> >information to know about that thing.

> >

> >When I was young, I was almost on a tv program during the

> >mid-50s called ESP. Three cards were dealt at random from a pack

out

> >of view of the contestants and contestants were then asked what

these

> >cards were dealt. (I had the highest scores tested until we moved

to

> >playing with money. At that point, I was a failure and didn't make

it

> >on the show.) Later in life, as a Tibetan yogi, my religious

superiors

> >recurrently praised me for my ngon-she. To this day, most of the

time,

> >I'd say my ngon-she is pretty good. This knowledge is something

that

> >pops into my head without any prior warning and is not based on any

> >logical processes that I am aware of.

> >

> >However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong points

as

> >a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is extremely

> >logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for

each

> >element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

> >differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

> >to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose often

> >ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask

often

> >seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell these

> >students that my question was based on prior clinical experience. I

> >knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

> >situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain question

> >because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was elicited by

> >some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far as I

> >am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she

alone.

> >

> >Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of oracles

and

> >in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain people

> >seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at higher

> >levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of native

> >intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

> >training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village

shaman

> >who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is

someone

> >who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never have

shown

> >any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

> >methodological training.

> >

> >Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

> >ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

> >until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

> >that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

> >that pattern.

> >

> >Bob

> >

> >, " Teresa Hall "

<Teresa.bodywork4u@w...>

> >wrote:

> > > I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am all

for

> > > integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the

> >opportunity to

> > > look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to use

and

> >if one

> > > does not know what test to use, the people working @ companies

like

> >Quest

> > > Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share

> >information! For

> > > me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept C

and I

> >am

> > > giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC every

3

> >months.

> > > While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes... it

does

> >not

> > > necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced

stages

> >enzymes

> > > are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other

> >presentation they

> > > are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver biopsy

and

> >most

> > > definitely share with patients information about Genotyping...

as we

> >know,

> > > Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like interferon.

> > >

> > > Teresa

> > > -

> > > " 1 " <@i...>

> > >

> > > Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

> > > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> > >

> > > > , " Sonya Pritzker "

> ><spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> > > > I was only

> > > > > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve

from

> >lab tests

> > > > > alone.

> > > >

> > > > why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient.

but

> > > > these tests are merely another form of observation using

> >extensions of

> > > > our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a

> >time,

> > > > CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking

> >questions.

> > > > pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in

the

> > > > last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China,

but

> > > > developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as

> >long as

> > > > we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still

> >stand by

> > > > my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests

do a

> > > > better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not

> >all,

> > > > practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed

> >that

> > > > EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc

> >armed

> > > > with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven

wrong.

> > > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > >

March 11, 2002

Sonya, Bob,

>

> If you are sure, please elucidate. I'd like to hear what you have

to

> say.

I'd like to hear what you have to say, too,

Sonya. I'm particularly interested in your

point of view as you are conversant with

the Chinese language and can address an

important aspect of the discussion, namely

what does it all mean in the Chinese traditions?

However, let me point out that qi, yin, yang, qian, and kun are,

> after all, merely words, albeit Chinese words. They are not

reality,

> but a human description of reality. I am 40 years separated from my

> studies of Western philosophy, but it seems to me that words mean

only

> what we say they mean.

I'm glad that you bring up the reality of

words. I felt this thread being pulled by

the attractors we know as words. Language

is a tricky subject and one that lies at or

near the core of many issues that we deal with

here. No doubt this will be perceived by

some as yet another way in which the old

Orientalist gets to say the same old thing.

But this time it was Simon who pointed out

that before we could proceed beyond square

one in this discussion of intuition and its

role in traditional diagnostics, we'd have

to define our terms. No one has yet mentioned,

that I've noticed, the role of intuition in

therapeutics. Who knows where this might lead?

Now you evince the same concern: what does

it all mean? No doubt some will say that

this can only be answered all at once.

As the poet e.e. cummings put it, whoever

cares about the syntax of things will never

wholly kiss you. What it all means, according

to this approach, only comes together in

a realm conceived of as beyond ourselves, beyond

others, indeed beyond otherness (and certainly

beyond words). I think this stems from a

phenomenon or a class of phenomena that

Hofstader described as jumping out of the

system or " joots " in his monumental work,

Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

Confucius, as I am wont to quote, suggested

that the approach to the clear blue sky was

by way of the search for precise verbal

definitions of our most inarticulate thoughts,

the tones given off by the heart, according

to Pound's reading of certain Chinese characters.

In other words, define your terms. Simon was

right. As are you.

Words are just words. They only mean what

we mean for them to mean, along with what

others who use them mean them to mean. Being

a writer, I'm afraid I would have to defend

this point with my life. For what meaning has

the life of a writer who will not defend the

meaning of his own words?

But I'd also point out that it is precisely

this characteristic of words that makes them

not less than real but the source of so much that

we experience as real. Don't take my word for it.

As yourself. Consult your own feelings. And

presuming you are like most people, you will

do so with words.

The creation and conveyance of these extraordinary

little demons constitutes a good deal of what

is real. Why are governments always so concerned

with what the people are saying, and hearing,

and reading and writing?

Those who control the definitions of words do

so by monopolization of the press and the

process by which the natural and organic

processes that result in language take place.

Or at least they attempt to insinuate various

arbitrary factors, according to their political

and economic power and influence, that essentially

restrain from the control of the people who use

the language these very processes. The easiest

way to do this is ignorance. By keeping people

ignorant, the task is accomplished.

I guess the classic example of this is the definition

of the word " men " in the phrase " all men are

created equal. " I don't really want to get into

the political discussion, but all such discussions

bring us to the brink of power, of politics and

money. I think Lon was right the other day over

on the Chinese_Medicine.net list to note the linkage

between language and tyranny. He's just got the

wrong target. The tyranny related to language is

the way in which the meanings of words are

knowingly obscured and then kept obscure by

folks who care more for power than...well than

anything else.

NB. Such people do not publish dictionaries,

for to publish a dictionary is the antithesis

of keeping people ignorant concerning the

meanings of words. One could conceivably

publish a dictionary that falsified the

meanings of words or introduced idiosyncratic

definitions that forwarded one's own personal

designs on power. But the maintenance of

standards of scholarship, such malfeasance

is hard to pull off...in the real world of

words. The publishing of dictionaries runs

contrary to the objective of keeping the

meanings of the words obscure, a treasure

to be appreciated by only a select few.

That's why I push so hard for language

study. It busts up the monopoly of knowledge.

It eradicates ignorance.

The clarion call for standards of translation

is a rallying cry for revolution, precisely

the revolution called for by Paul Unschuld

in Medicine in China: A History of Ideas.

It's on page 9 in the Introduction for anyone

who wants to check it out: a revolution in

the comparison of conceptual systems in

medicine. That is, after all, what we're

talking about. Just look up at the subject

line of this thread.

I think Professor Unschuld hit the nail

on the head there, and we should carry out

just such a revolution. Early steps have

already been taken by yourself and others

involved in the COMP initiatives. And at

CAOM we are conducting flanking actions,

which are explained in the mission statement

of the journal.

This is obviously a long term undertaking.

But an important point can be made here

and now.

What does a discussion sound like when

the participants all have different meanings

of the words being used? We have a good

example of such a situation going on here.

Look what's happened. We've come upon a

troublesome English word, intuition.

Several of us have had our two cents to

throw in on the question of what it is

and means. What does all or any of it

have to do with diagnosis in Chinese medicine?

Now the issue arises, Hey, there are

Chinese words and terms that need to be

considered and understood and correlated

in order for us to be able to make sense

out of all of it. Todd questioned the

other day the legitimacy, based on historical

evidence, of claims of the inclusion of...

how did he put it, intuitive knowledge

that is directly, immediately and not

temporally gained in Chinese diagnostics.

It was an excellent question for many

reasons, not the least of which is that

it brings to light the importance of

certain epistemological issues in terms

of their relationship to and influence

on Chinese medical theory and practice.

But I'll leave it at that because now

not only have we once again returned to

the importance of language but we've

walked right up to the abyss of philosophy.

Ken

March 11, 2002

Bob,

True, words do mean only what we say they mean. Their flexibility there is

magnificent, and as Ken pointed out, a source of much struggle when people

are using different definitions. Discussion is good, though, and I have

learned a lot from the way this whole exchange has unfolded.

As to the necessity of intuitive understanding of words like yin and yang,

etc. (NOTE: I am thinking here of the zhijue that I described in response to

Simon), Liang Shuming also pointed out that these are processes rather than

static concepts in traditional Chinese medicine and language. He noted that

to truly grasp such processes, we must use not only lizhi but zhijue as

well.

As Ken Wilber says in reference to Macbeth: " But if you want to know the

meaning of the play, you will have to read it and enter into its

interiority, its meaning, its intentions, its depths. And the only way you

can do that is by interpretation: what does this sentence mean? Here,

empirical science is largely worthless, because we are entering interior

domains and symbolic depths, which cannot be accessed by exterior empiricism

but only by introspection and interpretation. Not just objective, but

subjective and intersubjective. Not just monological, but dialogical. "

If we want to say that yin simply means dark and yang light, then fine. But

if we want to understand their meaning as processes, then we have to

transcend logic and enter into the intersubjective domain that Wilber

referred to above. Their logical meaning is only aspect of their total

significance. Of course there is a logic to understanding them, as there is

when diagnosing with CM. In fact, I agree with both Eti and Z'ev when they

pointed out the necessity of logic in CM, especially when putting together a

formula or treatment plan.

But I also am sticking to my guns about the necessity of zhijue, intuition,

or whatever you want to name it. When we look at processes as complex as

human beings, and when we look at them as wholes rather than collections of

parts, as we all do in CM, we are striving to go beyond the empirical,

mechanistic understanding that plagues WM. I doubt that anyone would

disagree with me on this point. Whatever logical tools we use, whether it's

the algorithms of herb combination or even lab tests, we strive to see the

process, the whole picture, and this requires the use of zhijue. From

having studied Chinese language and medicine (though I have much less

experience in medicine), my perspective is that this zhijue underlies and

forms the foundation of much of our logic. For how, if we didn't understand

the processes of yin and yang intuitively, could we logically defend our

choice of you gui wan or zuo gui wan?

Zhijue is taught, not innate. The feeling of the pulse uses zhijue and most

of us are pathetically unskilled when we start. The development of zhijue,

as well as lizhi(logic/intellect) takes time, work (gongfu), and though I am

far from being able to claim that I have mastered either, I am happy to have

found a discipline that encourages the development of each. I think most of

us are...

Sonya

> " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:24:22 -0000

>

>Sonya,

>

>If you are sure, please elucidate. I'd like to hear what you have to

>say. However, let me point out that qi, yin, yang, qian, and kun are,

>after all, merely words, albeit Chinese words. They are not reality,

>but a human description of reality. I am 40 years separated from my

>studies of Western philosophy, but it seems to me that words mean only

>what we say they mean.

>

>Bob

>

>, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...>

>wrote:

> > >The point of logical training is an important one, and I think that

>logic

> > >does play a huge role in CM-- more than the innate

>understanding/insight of

> > >the type of intuition that you refer to as ngon-she. But what

>about basic

> > >understanding of concepts such as yin or yang, qian or kun: surely

>that

> > >requires more than logic?

> >

> > " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001>

> > >

> > > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> > >Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:04:06 -0000

> > >

> > >I've been off-list over the weekend. Seems like my original post

>has

> > >inspired a lot of very interesting discussion. In Tibetan, the word

> > >for intuition is ngon-she. Literally this means, prior knowing,

>i.e.,

> > >knowing something before one, in theory, has gathered adequate

> > >information to know about that thing.

> > >

> > >When I was young, I was almost on a tv program during the

> > >mid-50s called ESP. Three cards were dealt at random from a pack

>out

> > >of view of the contestants and contestants were then asked what

>these

> > >cards were dealt. (I had the highest scores tested until we moved

>to

> > >playing with money. At that point, I was a failure and didn't make

>it

> > >on the show.) Later in life, as a Tibetan yogi, my religious

>superiors

> > >recurrently praised me for my ngon-she. To this day, most of the

>time,

> > >I'd say my ngon-she is pretty good. This knowledge is something

>that

> > >pops into my head without any prior warning and is not based on any

> > >logical processes that I am aware of.

> > >

> > >However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong points

>as

> > >a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is extremely

> > >logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for

>each

> > >element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

> > >differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

> > >to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose often

> > >ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask

>often

> > >seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell these

> > >students that my question was based on prior clinical experience. I

> > >knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

> > >situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain question

> > >because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was elicited by

> > >some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far as I

> > >am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she

>alone.

> > >

> > >Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of oracles

>and

> > >in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain people

> > >seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at higher

> > >levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of native

> > >intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

> > >training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village

>shaman

> > >who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is

>someone

> > >who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never have

>shown

> > >any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

> > >methodological training.

> > >

> > >Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

> > >ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

> > >until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

> > >that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

> > >that pattern.

> > >

> > >Bob

> > >

> > >, " Teresa Hall "

><Teresa.bodywork4u@w...>

> > >wrote:

> > > > I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am all

>for

> > > > integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the

> > >opportunity to

> > > > look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to use

>and

> > >if one

> > > > does not know what test to use, the people working @ companies

>like

> > >Quest

> > > > Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share

> > >information! For

> > > > me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept C

>and I

> > >am

> > > > giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC every

>3

> > >months.

> > > > While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes... it

>does

> > >not

> > > > necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced

>stages

> > >enzymes

> > > > are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other

> > >presentation they

> > > > are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver biopsy

>and

> > >most

> > > > definitely share with patients information about Genotyping...

>as we

> > >know,

> > > > Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like interferon.

> > > >

> > > > Teresa

> > > > -

> > > > " 1 " <@i...>

> > > >

> > > > Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

> > > > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> > > >

> > > > > , " Sonya Pritzker "

> > ><spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> > > > > I was only

> > > > > > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve

>from

> > >lab tests

> > > > > > alone.

> > > > >

> > > > > why not? I don't think this info alone would be sufficient.

>but

> > > > > these tests are merely another form of observation using

> > >extensions of

> > > > > our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once upon a

> > >time,

> > > > > CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking

> > >questions.

> > > > > pulse came later. tongue has only become really prominent in

>the

> > > > > last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in China,

>but

> > > > > developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can access, as

> > >long as

> > > > > we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I still

> > >stand by

> > > > > my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab tests

>do a

> > > > > better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly not

> > >all,

> > > > > practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never believed

> > >that

> > > > > EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average doc

> > >armed

> > > > > with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven

>wrong.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > 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.

> > > > >

March 12, 2002

<< Sonya: But I also am sticking to my guns about the necessity of

zhijue, intuition, or whatever you want to name it. >>

While I agree with much you have to say, I think the use and

importance of intuition is being overstated---nor has the definition

kept up with contemporary neurophysiology. Besides, as an amatuer

Jungian, I want to give equal time to feeling, sensation, and

thinking. There are many tacit components to knowing and perceiving

[here, I'm also thinking of the philosophical perspectives of

Michael Polanyi and Paul Churchland]. If someone off the street

without any CM training said---and was correct--- " You have pi xu

(spleen vacuity), " THAT would be intuition. If a student of CM

says " You have pi xu (spleen vacuity), " that will be either a

logical deduction or a lucky guess. If a licensed practitioner says

it, that will be $60.

<< Sonya: Zhijue is taught, not innate. The feeling of the pulse

uses zhijue and most of us are pathetically unskilled when we

start.>>

Here, I would disagree. I suspect a more integrative approach is

what you are interested in, also. The key idea of intuition is its

instinctive characteristic, that is, knowing without perceiving,

experience, or evidence. In cases where the person has even a little

bit of training, there is always a perception and rational

component. I always warn my pulse diagnosis students that intuition

should never enter into a diagnosis---for, at least, the first

decade. My fear is that a student will use " intuition " to compensate

for lack of training, or as a cover for intellectual laziness.

Competence is always a matter of sensitivity, training, and logic.

Anyone who has tried to intuit a diagnosis never seemed to fair

better than chance success. Because of its instinctive character,

Zhijue cannot be taught---but it should be trained to function with

the other three faculties, if and when it does arise.

Jim Ramholz

March 12, 2002

Sonya & Ken,

As you've asked, I've been thinking about the necessity of philosophy

as a professional practitioner of CM and just how much phiosophy is

necessary to do a good job as a clinician. In talking this issue

over with my wife (who is also a professional practitioner of Chinese

medicine), I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

none at all.

As a clinician, my job is to pattern discriminate my patients and

prescribe remedies for the imbalances implied in the names of those

patterns. Those remedies may be meds, manual therapies, diet,

lifestyle modifications, or psychological counselling/intervention),

but, as a legally licensed professional practitioner of Chinese

medicine in the State of Colorado, these remedies are predicated on a

combination of the patient's Chinese disease(s) and, more importantly,

on their pattern(s). Further, a patient only had a pattern if they

have a signs and symptoms of that pattern. After all, that's what the

pattern is made up of. It is not a pattern of something else. As

both you know, the verb you, to have, is typically not used when

describing a patient's relationship to a pattern, Rather it is the

verb to see, manifest, or exhibit that is most commonly used.

That being said, frankly, I don't think that you need to know the

definitions of qi, yin, or yang in order to identify liver depression

qi stagnation (gan yu qi zhi), kidney yin vacuity (shen yin xu), or

heart yang vacuity (xin yang xu), or that you need to know the

definitions of these words in order to treat these patterns. In other

words, you can talk till the cows come home about the philosophical

meanings of qi, yin, and yang, but that does not necessarily make you

any more adept at identifying the standard, professionally agreed upon

signs and symptoms of the patterns whose name contain these words, nor

does it, in my experience, give you any special leg up on these

patterns' clinical treatment.

While qi, yin, and yang may be abstruse and complicated concepts in

Chinese philosophy, it is both my belief and my experience that you do

not need to know anything about these concepts in order to identify a

liver blood-kidney yin vacuity, a spleen-kidney yang vacuity, or a

kidney qi vacuity not securing. This goes back to my concern voiced

many moons ago that we not conflate separate fields of endeavor (such

as philosophy and medicine) and make more of things than we need to in

terms of clinical practice. I am well aware that Sun Si-miao thought

that one had to study Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism in order to

be a good Chinese doctor, and I myself taught that for years (back

when I was personally interested in religion and philosophy). However,

looking at this issue again from a fresh perspective (and some years

distant from any personal interest in religion or philosophy), I'm not

at all sure a philosophical understanding of these terms is necessary

(emphasis on the word necessary) in order to be a better than average

practitioner.

In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line, as a

clinician, I would be very appreciative if someone (Sonya, Ken,

anyone) would write me a case history where understanding the

philosophical meaning of qi, yin, or yang played a vital,

instrumental, sine qua non role in either making a pattern

discrimination or crafting an effective therapy based on pattern

discrimination. If you can show me in real life exactly how this makes

a person a better clinician, I will be much more receptive to the

idea.

In particular, Sonya, I completely disagree that standard professional

Chinese pulse examination is at all intuitive. Each pulse is defined

by a series of very specific tactile and temporal adjectives, such as

width, depth, force, speed, and regularity of beat. In my experience

as both a pulse-taker and pulse-teacher, it is clarity about the

fundamental definitions of each pulse image which lead to good,

inter-rater reliable pulse examination. It is the combination of

specific sets of adjectives which add up to a specific pulse. I agree

that some of those pulse adjectives, such as force, are immediate

sensations, similar to discriminating the color yellow. However, I

would not call the discrimination of a color or the appraisal of

tactile force " intuition. " Agrteed, this is not derived by logic.

Rather, it is fundamental human tactile sensation.

In my 20 plus years experience, one of the keys to Chinese pulse

examination is getting clear which adjectives (among all those which

have been traditionally associated with a certain pulse image) are

actually the bottom-line, dependable ones.

As a for instance, if you say a surging pulse feels like a wave

breaking on the shore which arrives with a surplus and departs in

decline, this is not very clear-cut tactilely and allows for a lot of

room for subjective interpretation. However, since this definition is

not a very reliable or objective one, many Chinese doctors have

jettisoned it for a much more tactilely based, potentially objective

one: a surging pulse pulse is a floating, large, forceful (and some

authorities add slippery) pulse. Each one of those elements is as

tactilely immediate to most people as the color yellow once you

explain exactly the parameters for floating. I agree, you may simply

have to show the student by tactile experience what a slippery pulse

is. Pearls rolling in a dish is not very objective. However, even when

you simply have to point out a slippery plus, that is not intuition.

It is based on an immediate tactile experience.

Bob

, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...>

wrote:

> Bob,

>

> True, words do mean only what we say they mean. Their flexibility

there is

> magnificent, and as Ken pointed out, a source of much struggle when

people

> are using different definitions. Discussion is good, though, and I

have

> learned a lot from the way this whole exchange has unfolded.

>

> As to the necessity of intuitive understanding of words like yin and

yang,

> etc. (NOTE: I am thinking here of the zhijue that I described in

response to

> Simon), Liang Shuming also pointed out that these are processes

rather than

> static concepts in traditional Chinese medicine and language. He

noted that

> to truly grasp such processes, we must use not only lizhi but zhijue

as

> well.

>

> As Ken Wilber says in reference to Macbeth: " But if you want to

know the

> meaning of the play, you will have to read it and enter into its

> interiority, its meaning, its intentions, its depths. And the only

way you

> can do that is by interpretation: what does this sentence mean?

Here,

> empirical science is largely worthless, because we are entering

interior

> domains and symbolic depths, which cannot be accessed by exterior

empiricism

> but only by introspection and interpretation. Not just objective,

but

> subjective and intersubjective. Not just monological, but

dialogical. "

>

> If we want to say that yin simply means dark and yang light, then

fine. But

> if we want to understand their meaning as processes, then we have to

> transcend logic and enter into the intersubjective domain that

Wilber

> referred to above. Their logical meaning is only aspect of their

total

> significance. Of course there is a logic to understanding them, as

there is

> when diagnosing with CM. In fact, I agree with both Eti and Z'ev

when they

> pointed out the necessity of logic in CM, especially when putting

together a

> formula or treatment plan.

>

> But I also am sticking to my guns about the necessity of zhijue,

intuition,

> or whatever you want to name it. When we look at processes as

complex as

> human beings, and when we look at them as wholes rather than

collections of

> parts, as we all do in CM, we are striving to go beyond the

empirical,

> mechanistic understanding that plagues WM. I doubt that anyone

would

> disagree with me on this point. Whatever logical tools we use,

whether it's

> the algorithms of herb combination or even lab tests, we strive to

see the

> process, the whole picture, and this requires the use of zhijue.

From

> having studied Chinese language and medicine (though I have much

less

> experience in medicine), my perspective is that this zhijue

underlies and

> forms the foundation of much of our logic. For how, if we didn't

understand

> the processes of yin and yang intuitively, could we logically defend

our

> choice of you gui wan or zuo gui wan?

>

> Zhijue is taught, not innate. The feeling of the pulse uses zhijue

and most

> of us are pathetically unskilled when we start. The development of

zhijue,

> as well as lizhi(logic/intellect) takes time, work (gongfu), and

though I am

> far from being able to claim that I have mastered either, I am happy

to have

> found a discipline that encourages the development of each. I think

most of

> us are...

>

> Sonya

>

> " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001>

> >

> > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> >Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:24:22 -0000

> >

> >Sonya,

> >

> >If you are sure, please elucidate. I'd like to hear what you have

to

> >say. However, let me point out that qi, yin, yang, qian, and kun

are,

> >after all, merely words, albeit Chinese words. They are not

reality,

> >but a human description of reality. I am 40 years separated from my

> >studies of Western philosophy, but it seems to me that words mean

only

> >what we say they mean.

> >

> >Bob

> >

> >, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...>

> >wrote:

> > > >The point of logical training is an important one, and I think

that

> >logic

> > > >does play a huge role in CM-- more than the innate

> >understanding/insight of

> > > >the type of intuition that you refer to as ngon-she. But what

> >about basic

> > > >understanding of concepts such as yin or yang, qian or kun:

surely

> >that

> > > >requires more than logic?

> > >

> > > " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001>

> > > >

> > > > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> > > >Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:04:06 -0000

> > > >

> > > >I've been off-list over the weekend. Seems like my original

post

> >has

> > > >inspired a lot of very interesting discussion. In Tibetan, the

word

> > > >for intuition is ngon-she. Literally this means, prior knowing,

> >i.e.,

> > > >knowing something before one, in theory, has gathered adequate

> > > >information to know about that thing.

> > > >

> > > >When I was young, I was almost on a tv program during the

> > > >mid-50s called ESP. Three cards were dealt at random from a

pack

> >out

> > > >of view of the contestants and contestants were then asked what

> >these

> > > >cards were dealt. (I had the highest scores tested until we

moved

> >to

> > > >playing with money. At that point, I was a failure and didn't

make

> >it

> > > >on the show.) Later in life, as a Tibetan yogi, my religious

> >superiors

> > > >recurrently praised me for my ngon-she. To this day, most of

the

> >time,

> > > >I'd say my ngon-she is pretty good. This knowledge is something

> >that

> > > >pops into my head without any prior warning and is not based on

any

> > > >logical processes that I am aware of.

> > > >

> > > >However, as a CM diagnostician (I believe, one of my strong

points

> >as

> > > >a CM practitioner), my pattern discrimination process is

extremely

> > > >logical. In other words, I can give you supporting evidence for

> >each

> > > >element of my pattern discrimination. Frequently, the

> > > >differences between my pattern discriminations and other have

> > > >to do with the questions I ask. Others, watching me diagnose

often

> > > >ask, Why did you ask this or that question? The questions I ask

> >often

> > > >seem as if based on ngon-she. Most often, in response, I tell

these

> > > >students that my question was based on prior clinical

experience. I

> > > >knew to ask this question because I had seen this or a similar

> > > >situation before. In other cases, I knew to ask a certain

question

> > > >because of some piece of theoretical knowledge that was

elicited by

> > > >some diagnostic evidence. At this point in my life, and as far

as I

> > > >am aware, I never diagnose and/or prescribe based on ngon-she

> >alone.

> > > >

> > > >Interestingly, in Tibetan Buddhism, both in the realm of

oracles

> >and

> > > >in the realm of medicine, it is well understood that certain

people

> > > >seem to be born with more ngon-she than others. However, at

higher

> > > >levels of Tibetan society, there tends to be a distrust of

native

> > > >intuitives until or unless they have undergone rigorous logical

> > > >training. For instance, in Tibet, there were untrained village

> >shaman

> > > >who acted as local oracles. But the state oracle of Nechung is

> >someone

> > > >who is trained in a very step-by-step way and who may never

have

> >shown

> > > >any particular ngon-she before they underwent their rigorous,

> > > >methodological training.

> > > >

> > > >Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have

the

> > > >ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that

pattern

> > > >until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my

peers

> > > >that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms

of

> > > >that pattern.

> > > >

> > > >Bob

> > > >

> > > >, " Teresa Hall "

> ><Teresa.bodywork4u@w...>

> > > >wrote:

> > > > > I think WM lab tests are a great way to collect data! I am

all

> >for

> > > > > integrative medicine... and working with a Doctor, I get the

> > > >opportunity to

> > > > > look at many lab tests. Lab tests are actually very easy to

use

> >and

> > > >if one

> > > > > does not know what test to use, the people working @

companies

> >like

> > > >Quest

> > > > > Diagnostics or Great Smokey are more then happy to share

> > > >information! For

> > > > > me, I use it as a marker. For example, if a person has Hept

C

> >and I

> > > >am

> > > > > giving them herbs... I want to see their Liver panel & CBC

every

> >3

> > > >months.

> > > > > While there could be a drastic drop in the liver enzymes...

it

> >does

> > > >not

> > > > > necessarily mean something positive... because in advanced

> >stages

> > > >enzymes

> > > > > are known to raise and fall. So depending on what other

> > > >presentation they

> > > > > are presenting, I may or may not suggest they get a Liver

biopsy

> >and

> > > >most

> > > > > definitely share with patients information about

Genotyping...

> >as we

> > > >know,

> > > > > Genotype 1a is most resistant to Western drugs like

interferon.

> > > > >

> > > > > Teresa

> > > > > -

> > > > > " 1 " <@i...>

> > > > >

> > > > > Sunday, March 10, 2002 12:45 PM

> > > > > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> > > > >

> > > > > > , " Sonya Pritzker "

> > > ><spritzker15@h...> wrote:

> > > > > > I was only

> > > > > > > contesting the notion that a coherent CM dx could evolve

> >from

> > > >lab tests

> > > > > > > alone.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > why not? I don't think this info alone would be

sufficient.

> >but

> > > > > > these tests are merely another form of observation using

> > > >extensions of

> > > > > > our senses to hear and see what we can't unaided. Once

upon a

> > > >time,

> > > > > > CM diagnosis was made by looking at the patient and asking

> > > >questions.

> > > > > > pulse came later. tongue has only become really

prominent in

> >the

> > > > > > last millenium and abdominal dx has never been big in

China,

> >but

> > > > > > developed in Japan. So why not add any data we can

access, as

> > > >long as

> > > > > > we incorporate the data into pattern identification. I

still

> > > >stand by

> > > > > > my prediction that time will eventually prove that lab

tests

> >do a

> > > > > > better job of TCM dx than some (maybe most), but certainly

not

> > > >all,

> > > > > > practitioners. Once upon a time, cardiologists never

believed

> > > >that

> > > > > > EKG and lab tests would be more accurate than the average

doc

> > > >armed

> > > > > > with eyes, ears and a stethoscope. They have been proven

> >wrong.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > 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.

> > > > > >

March 12, 2002

I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe none at all. >>>Totally agreed. Also in terms of understanding CM none is needed

Alon

March 12, 2002

While qi, yin, and yang may be abstruse and complicated concepts in Chinese philosophy, it is both my belief and my experience that you do not need to know anything about these concepts in order to identify a liver blood-kidney yin vacuity, a spleen-kidney yang vacuity, or a kidney qi vacuity not securing. \

>>>>Finally words of reason

Alon

March 12, 2002

In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line, as a clinician, I would be very appreciative if someone (Sonya, Ken, anyone) would write me a case history where understanding the philosophical meaning of qi, yin, or yang played a vital, instrumental, sine qua non role in either making a pattern discrimination or crafting an effective therapy based on pattern discrimination. If you can show me in real life exactly how this makes a person a better clinician, I will be much more

>>>>>And this is why I do not see why one should learn CM in Chinese and can not learn it in another langue

Alon

March 12, 2002

Hi Bob-

Are you going to be teaching pulse diagnosis any

time soon?

Thanks.

Celia

--- pemachophel2001 <pemachophel2001

a écrit : >

> In my 20 plus years experience, one of the keys

> to Chinese pulse

> examination is getting clear which adjectives

> (among all those which

> have been traditionally associated with a

> certain pulse image) are

> actually the bottom-line, dependable ones.

_________

-- Une adresse @.fr gratuite et en français !

Mail : http://fr.mail.

March 12, 2002

Bob,

I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> none at all.

Thanks very much for taking the time to

respond to this point. Now I can understand

why I seem guo1 or beyond the limit to you.

We do seem to stand on different sides of

some sort of limit. And please let Honora

know that I appreciate her input also.

I am well aware that Sun Si-miao thought

> that one had to study Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism in order

to

> be a good Chinese doctor, and I myself taught that for years (back

> when I was personally interested in religion and philosophy).

However,

> looking at this issue again from a fresh perspective (and some

years

> distant from any personal interest in religion or philosophy), I'm

not

> at all sure a philosophical understanding of these terms is

necessary

> (emphasis on the word necessary) in order to be a better than

average

> practitioner.

>

> In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line,

Sorry that I can't observe your request that your

remarks be excused from scrutiny. I will

try to keep it down. But in response to the statement

made above, I would very much like to understand the

process whereby your learning over the past several

years allowed you to gain the perspective to be

able to realize that Sun Si Miao was wrong.

As it's a matter of record that I still believe

him to be right, I won't go further with the

argument of why this is so. But certainly I

can be wrong; Sun can be wrong. Heck, even

you can be wrong.

But other than stating that you've seen the

light on this matter, I don't grasp how this

came about. If I, for example, wanted to get

my mind right and see things correctly, what

should I do?

> It is based on an immediate tactile experience.

Hmmm...I would have defined intuition as an

immediate tactile experience. It is simply

feeling things that have a relatively small

wave length, high frequency, and tend to

escape notice...except when we intuit them.

And here we fall again into the snake pit

of words.

I do appreciate that you've put the discussion

into such clear cut terms. I think we can

now form a debating club focusing on this

one topic. The sides, as currently drawn,

consist of the following members:

Pro (One does need to understand Chinese

language and philosophy to a certain extent

to be able to understand and employ the

terms and theories of Chinese medicine.):

Me, Sun Si Miao, virtually every other

writer on the subject for over 2,000 years

prior to the contemporary age.

Con (Nonsense. You don't need to know

anything about Chinese language or

philosophy to understand and employ

Chinese medicine.):

You, and Alon.

I suggest we conduct a poll of

the members of the list. We can fill out

the teams and pursue the matter further.

And Bob, feel free to round up testimony

of experts who support your views. I would

be very interested to learn how many accomplished

doctors and scholars share the view that

you have expressed.

And please do make time to explain how I

might come to see things correctly, which would

put an end to all this nonsense.

In response to you request for a case

history, all I can say is that my study

of the language and the thinking, both

strategic principles and modes of thinking

about how to employ them, inform my clinical

actions in virtually every aspect. Sometimes

my hands are guided by carefully delineated

thoughts based on my undertanding of bian4 zheng4.

Sometimes I act according to feelings, intuitions

if you will. And I recognize that all of this

takes place under the overall guidance of many

years of study and cultivation of qi4 according

to the principles of tai4 ji2 or, in other words

yin1 yang2. I don't think this makes me unique,

in fact it's a method of study and practice that

I received from several teachers both in the

States and in China. And as I read the literature

on the subject, these matters are the long

established roots of the subject which sustain

it and nourish those who study and practice

it.

I'm not making this up. It's what's written in

old books. I am interpreting it. And that's why

I encourage people to learn the language and

read the books. So they can see for themselves.

Your approach discourages access to the knowledge

base, as we see in Alon's swift extension of

your argument to support his view that one need

not know anything Chinese at all to study Chinese

medicine. And you are replacing thousands of

years of medical authority with your own.

Ni3 tai4 guo4 fen1.

Ken

PS. Meanwhile, I highly urge people who

read along for the laughs to hang on to

their copies of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Kongzi,

and all the other Zi's. Just in case...

March 12, 2002

Bob wrote:

> Basically, as a CM professional, I do not believe that I have the

> ethical right to say that a patient exhibits this or that pattern

> until or unless I can demonstrate to the satisafaction of my peers

> that that patient does, in fact, exhibit the signs and symptoms of

> that pattern.

Yeah...

My issue with intuitive diagnosis is that it can become a convenient

means by which you can ignore the rational and obvious signs and

symptoms in favor of the more romantic psycho-spiritual pathologies.

The premise behind the five element theory is that the universe is

broken up into five phases. Just like Yin and Yang, but instead of two,

it is five.

If we have a patient who complains of depression following the loss of a

love interest, most will automatically jump to the metal element and

start treating the bonding and detachment function of the metal element

without asking any more questions.

But the deal with five elements is that what manifests in the spiritual,

emotional, or mental levels must also manifest in the physical! In

astrology, they say " as above, so below. " If there is truly a metal

element disharmony causing the depression then there must also be

physical signs of Lung or LI pathology. Whether its a respiratory or

excretory issue, floating pulse, or sensitivity at mu points, there has

to be some guiding indication in the physical to support this. If push

came to shove, I would entertain organ relationships or complex patterns

too, but still it has to fall out into the physical.

Intuition is perfectly acceptable to me as viable means to diagnosis,

but it is only half of the yin/yang equation. If we don't see any

rational indication in the physical world of a psychological or

spiritual disharmony, I think that one is breaking the very first rule

of diagnosis through metaphor and that is " as above, so below " .

--

Al Stone L.Ac.

<AlStone

http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

March 12, 2002

Jim,

I suspect a more integrative approach is

>what you are interested in, also.

Yes yes yes- I am all about integration-- of logic and intuition, Western

perspective and Eastern perspective, etc. .

I do not think that anyone just learning Chinese medicine (or anyone for

that matter) should rely upon instinctive perception rather than good solid

training. Nor have I ever suggested that intuitive knowledge assumes the

lack of logical analysis...

I think there has been some confusion over terms...

If someone off the street

without any CM training said---and was correct--- " You have pi xu

(spleen vacuity), " THAT would be intuition. If a student of CM

says " You have pi xu (spleen vacuity), " that will be either a

logical deduction or a lucky guess. If a licensed practitioner says

it, that will be $60.

This is not exactly the definition I have been using for intuition, but I

see that you and many others perceive it this way. In this case, then yes,

I agree- intuition has very little to do with making a good diagnosis. The

logical deduction and $60 options are much more on target as far as clinical

efficacy.

I guess it all comes back to where I am coming from when I describe the

understanding of terms like yin, yang, etc. I think that zhijue is required

to grasp these concepts. Whether it's necessary to have this intuitive

knowledge in order to effectively treat- that's a different story

altogether. Bob has stated that he doesn't think that philosophy is

necessary. I have always assumed, based on the Chinese and English texts

that I have read, that it is.

I cannot really make a decision here except for myself, and even then I am

at a loss because I was brought to Chinese medicine from a background of

studying Chinese language and philosophy. So maybe I am biased in that

direction.

Sonya

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

March 12, 2002

On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 09:37 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

> I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> none at all.

> >>>Totally agreed. Also in terms of understanding CM none is needed

> Alon

I have to disagree with both Bob and Alon. I think philosophy is the

essential underpinning to the practice of Chinese medicine. And, that

spirituality (if not religion) is even more essential.

In order to practice the art and science of medicine, one has to care

about people, putting aside one's little desires (to sit on the beach

all day) and be involved with other's problems. One has to devote much

time to study, and direct one's thoughts and one's heart to the

suffering of others. I don't know how anyone can disagree that this is

a 'spiritual' motivation, and that it must be cultivated (spiritual

practice, including meditation, prayer and right action). It is not

merely professional in the sense of being an accountant or banker,

although these professions can be 'spiritual' as well, with the right

motivation and care.

While one can practice CM without much philosophical understanding, in

my opinion it will become mechanical after awhile. Otherwise, where

will the inspiration come from? Where will one draw one's strength

from? While one can draw much satisfaction and success from clinical

acumen, it doesn't develop the mind of the practitioner. Pattern

diagnosis is simply the result of distillation of Chinese medical

philosophy, whose source is in the classical texts.

Chinese medicine is as much a way of life as a profession. The more one

lives it, the better one practices. Taking care of others begins with

taking care of oneself. Patients are inspired by the example we give,

whether we like it or not. We are not faceless technicians, giving

prescriptions and needles with masks on. Patients sense our own qi, our

own struggles, strengths and resolve. They look to us in terms of how

WE cultivate our health, with diet, exercise, daily life, and study.

In Jewish tradition, medicine is considered by Maimonides to be the

pursuit of wisdom, and that it should be the constant companion of

laypeople and physicians alike. He says that it teaches us how to live

with order, discipline and balance, which are prerequisites to the

acquiring of wisdom in life.

Finally, I am going to quote Zhang Xi-chun, the early 20th century

physician as translated by Heiner Fruehauf. I have been fortunate to

acquire a copy of this text.

" We can only teach our fellow human beings about how to protect their

bodies if we are first capable of protecting our own. The base science

for the protection of our own body and health is philosophy, i.e. the

age-old knowledge of the movement patterns of the universe which are at

the root of our body's transformative processes. The base science for

the safeguarding of other people's health is medicine, again a process

wherein the physician first thoroughly understands the workings of

his/her own body transformations, and then naturally becomes a teacher

who is capable of instructing others how to regulate their body's qi

metabolism.

And:

" Every physician can and should get in touch with the deepest layer of

this philosophical wisdom (which lays beyond the realm of the

intellect). If this is achieved, the moment of diagnostic insight is

like drinking water from a mountain lake: with absolute clarity, one can

see the source of the disease revealed. "

I like to think that this last quote sheds some interesting light on

what we have been discussing vis-a-vis intuition and diagnosis.

March 12, 2002

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

> I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> none at all.

> >>>Totally agreed. Also in terms of understanding CM none is needed

> Alon

Two things come to my mind in light of this.

1. The importance of learning chinese language is then all about

gaining access to more information. It is not about gaining a deeper

understanding of chinese culture and philosophy in order to enhance

one's understanding of the medicine.

2. that philosophy can lead one down erroneous paths if one gives it

primacy over clinical consensus. for example, if one makes inferences

about psychological archetypes from five phase descriptions. any use

of philosophy must be grounded in clinic, otherwise it is only so much

blather that can be (and has been) used to justify any whim anyone has.

March 12, 2002

Ken,

I would like to add my name to Sun's team.

Sonya

P.S. Bob- Do you think that we are technicians or doctors? - a friend who

read your post.

> " dragon90405 " <yulong

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:55:06 -0000

>

>Bob,

>

> I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> > clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> > none at all.

>

>Thanks very much for taking the time to

>respond to this point. Now I can understand

>why I seem guo1 or beyond the limit to you.

>We do seem to stand on different sides of

>some sort of limit. And please let Honora

>know that I appreciate her input also.

>

> I am well aware that Sun Si-miao thought

> > that one had to study Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism in order

>to

> > be a good Chinese doctor, and I myself taught that for years (back

> > when I was personally interested in religion and philosophy).

>However,

> > looking at this issue again from a fresh perspective (and some

>years

> > distant from any personal interest in religion or philosophy), I'm

>not

> > at all sure a philosophical understanding of these terms is

>necessary

> > (emphasis on the word necessary) in order to be a better than

>average

> > practitioner.

> >

> > In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line,

>

>Sorry that I can't observe your request that your

>remarks be excused from scrutiny. I will

>try to keep it down. But in response to the statement

>made above, I would very much like to understand the

>process whereby your learning over the past several

>years allowed you to gain the perspective to be

>able to realize that Sun Si Miao was wrong.

>

>As it's a matter of record that I still believe

>him to be right, I won't go further with the

>argument of why this is so. But certainly I

>can be wrong; Sun can be wrong. Heck, even

>you can be wrong.

>

>But other than stating that you've seen the

>light on this matter, I don't grasp how this

>came about. If I, for example, wanted to get

>my mind right and see things correctly, what

>should I do?

>

> > It is based on an immediate tactile experience.

>

>Hmmm...I would have defined intuition as an

>immediate tactile experience. It is simply

>feeling things that have a relatively small

>wave length, high frequency, and tend to

>escape notice...except when we intuit them.

>And here we fall again into the snake pit

>of words.

>

>I do appreciate that you've put the discussion

>into such clear cut terms. I think we can

>now form a debating club focusing on this

>one topic. The sides, as currently drawn,

>consist of the following members:

>

>Pro (One does need to understand Chinese

>language and philosophy to a certain extent

>to be able to understand and employ the

>terms and theories of Chinese medicine.):

>

>Me, Sun Si Miao, virtually every other

>writer on the subject for over 2,000 years

>prior to the contemporary age.

>

>Con (Nonsense. You don't need to know

>anything about Chinese language or

>philosophy to understand and employ

>Chinese medicine.):

>

>You, and Alon.

>

> I suggest we conduct a poll of

>the members of the list. We can fill out

>the teams and pursue the matter further.

>

>And Bob, feel free to round up testimony

>of experts who support your views. I would

>be very interested to learn how many accomplished

>doctors and scholars share the view that

>you have expressed.

>

>And please do make time to explain how I

>might come to see things correctly, which would

>put an end to all this nonsense.

>

>In response to you request for a case

>history, all I can say is that my study

>of the language and the thinking, both

>strategic principles and modes of thinking

>about how to employ them, inform my clinical

>actions in virtually every aspect. Sometimes

>my hands are guided by carefully delineated

>thoughts based on my undertanding of bian4 zheng4.

>Sometimes I act according to feelings, intuitions

>if you will. And I recognize that all of this

>takes place under the overall guidance of many

>years of study and cultivation of qi4 according

>to the principles of tai4 ji2 or, in other words

>yin1 yang2. I don't think this makes me unique,

>in fact it's a method of study and practice that

>I received from several teachers both in the

>States and in China. And as I read the literature

>on the subject, these matters are the long

>established roots of the subject which sustain

>it and nourish those who study and practice

>it.

>

>I'm not making this up. It's what's written in

>old books. I am interpreting it. And that's why

>I encourage people to learn the language and

>read the books. So they can see for themselves.

>

>Your approach discourages access to the knowledge

>base, as we see in Alon's swift extension of

>your argument to support his view that one need

>not know anything Chinese at all to study Chinese

>medicine. And you are replacing thousands of

>years of medical authority with your own.

>

>Ni3 tai4 guo4 fen1.

>

>Ken

>

>PS. Meanwhile, I highly urge people who

>read along for the laughs to hang on to

>their copies of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Kongzi,

>and all the other Zi's. Just in case...

>

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

March 12, 2002

So, while I agree that philosophy alone can lead to speculations that

are not clinically valuable, as in your example, it is implied that

separating philosophy from clinical practice is another dualism on the

order of theory vs. clinical practice. There is no need for separation.

On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 11:36 AM, 1 wrote:

> 2. that philosophy can lead one down erroneous paths if one gives it

> primacy over clinical consensus. for example, if one makes inferences

> about psychological archetypes from five phase descriptions. any use

> of philosophy must be grounded in clinic, otherwise it is only so much

> blather that can be (and has been) used to justify any whim anyone has.

>

Patterns & WM lab tests

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation