Patterns & WM lab tests

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

> > Speaking to your point about the relationship

> > between one's personal experience and views

> > and one's take on such positions as the ones

> > in question here, I assume that your position

> > is influenced somewhat by your decidedly

> > anti-Chinese feelings and opinions stemming

> > from issues realted to Tibet, Chinese treatment

> > of Tibetans, etc. Is that an accurate assumption

> > on my part?

>

> Hm, good question. I have no great love for Chinese. However, I

also

> do not have any special fuzzy feelings about Tibetans. In fact,

> getting to know lots of Chinese helped open my eyes in terms of

> Tibetans. I believe there were definite reasons their culture was

> destroyed. In my experience, certain parts of it, like parts of

> Chinese culture, were dysfunctional. In any case, in terms of

> disclosing biases, rather than being anti-Chinese, I would say I

tend

> to be very happy to have been born an American, and, frankly, I

often

> wish this medicine had come from some place else.

 

Got it. Hope may change the future,

but it has little effect on the past.

Chinese medicine does come from China.

It comes in Chinese wrappings with

Chinese contents. The manuals are written

in Chinese by Chinese hands using Chinese

words to express Chinese ideas.

 

I fail to see how the suggestion that

understanding how all of this operates

is over the limit.

>

> > However, I

> > > recommend the reading of the Chinese medical literature in

Chinese

> > for

> > > the following two main reasons: 1) as a way to get clear about

the

> > > process of doing clinical Chinese medicine,

> >

> > Well, how on earth does this clarification

> > take place without understanding what you're

> > reading?

>

> The issue seems to be one of proportion. You seem to want to make

this

> an all or nothing kind of thing.

 

What have I said that makes you draw this

conclusion? I have stated many times that

what constitutes adequate education is a matter

of personal preference and decision. At the

same time I think that there are some common

basic standards that anyone in the field should

meet with respect to a basic grasp of the

mechanisms by which the knowledge they are

being expected to master has been created

and transmitted.

 

I think your interest in the

> philosophy behind the words is guo fen, too much. As Kung-zi said,

> going beyond the mark is just as wrong as falling short.

 

How do you know that, Bob? How do you have

the slightest idea about what Kongzi said?

 

I dare say it's because you read it. You

read it. You acquired the perspective. And

now you want us to accept that others don't

have to. They should just take your word for

it?

 

Again, I

> would go back to my specific request of how much does one have to

know

> about the philosophical underpinnings of qi, yin, or yang in order

to

> pattern discriminate and treat patients? I am not willing to be

sucked

> into the larger argument that you seem bent on having.

 

What larger argument? Your meaning escapes me.

>

> >> What is pattern discrimination? It is an

> > application of yin1 yang2 theory. What is

> > yin1 yang2 theory?

>

> Yes and no. In my experience as both a practitioner and a teacher,

one

> can do good pattern discrimination by learning the signs and

symptoms

> associated with each of the standard patterns, especially if one

> understands the mechanisms which produce these signs and symptoms.

 

You can train a monkey to do various

things with pattern recognition as well.

But you wouldn't want one sticking needles

in you or mixing your formulas.

 

My

> point still is, How much does one have to know about yin or yang to

> discriminate kidney yin or yang vacuity? In this instance, this is

a

> proper name of a diagnostic label. My question was and still is,

How

> much do you need to know about yin or yang to adequately

> professionally work with this diagnostic category? And again, I say

> not all that much.

 

OK. How much? You tell me. You don't dig

my answers. What's your answer? Is it not

that much? Or is it nothing at all?

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

>

> Now, does that mean that knowing more about yin and yang doesn't

make

> you a potentially better practitioner? Yes, it does. However, I

think

> we have to be careful about how philosophically profound and

abstruse

> we are in our discussions depending on the use of the term at hand.

 

I don't believe I've said anything here that

is either profound or abstruse. It's basic

common sense. If you want to understand stuff

written in Chinese, you'd better understand

what it means to be written in Chinese.

 

Period.

 

 

>

I agree that one can do a lot clinically by

> simply determing whether a condition is yin or yang. However, in

> medicine, this mostly means the difference between hot and cold,

> repletion and vacuity, exterior and interior, etc. What I'm saying

is

> that there is a relatively short list of things one needs to know

> about yin and yang when it comes to the application of these terms

to

> diagnosis.

 

Look, we provided a detailed and annotated

list of topics that need to be considered

as the cultural roots of medicine in China.

That's Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

In our new book we explore some of the

meanings of qi4 in the hopes that it will

help people understand this one fundamental

concept.

 

With respect to case-based evidence, I'll

make you a one-to-one trade. You provide

evidence that an eduation in Chinese medicine

that omits language and the material we've

identified as the cultural roots can produce

a robust system of clinical medicine that

can survive for generations and produce

competent clinicians; and I'll produce an

entire book of case histories that document

the usefullness of yin1 yang2 theory in the

clinic.

>

> > You need to know what yin1 and yang2 are

> > what they mean and how they mean it and

> > how they interact as concepts in order

> > to get a firm grasp on what is being

> > differentiated by means of pattern

> > discrimination.

>

> Agreed, but to what degree of complexity?

 

You tell me.

 

I think that is the issue we

> are sticking on.

 

I'm not stuck.

 

I have studied Chinese medicine with a number of

> different teachers over the last two decades, and more than one has

> started in right at yin and yang. However, the teaching has never

gone

> beyond a page or so of statements of " fact " about yin and yin, and,

as

> a clinician, this has served me well.

 

You are an individual. I'm talking about an

educational system. You've already identified

yourself as extremely gifted in terms of

intution, and clearly despite the fact that

you now feel it is pointless, you have invested

a considerable amount of time and attention

in the study of these matters with which you

now want to dispense.

 

For someone to have a library full of Chinese

medical texts, both ancient and modern, and

argue that all those that mention philosophy

are needless is, well, curious.

 

 

>

> > Incorrect. We began this discussion when I said

> > that one needs to have a foundation of understanding

> > of Chinese language and Chinese thought in order

> > to study the nomenclature of Chinese medicine...or

> > words to that effect, and you told me I was over the

> > limit.

> >

> > > To me, this is a bad question in that it is way too grandiose.

> >

> > Yeah, well, I didn't ask it the way you've

> > characterized it. I asked you to simply explain

> > where you draw the limit. You have done that

> > now by saying that you probably don't need

> > to know anything at all about Chinese philosophy

> > to be a good clinician. Although I see in a

> > later post that you seem to be backing away

> > from that statement.

> >

> Perhaps we are using the phrase " philosophy " different. I am not

> equating basic CM yin-yang theory with philosophy.

 

Are you saying that yin1 yang2 theory in Chinese

medical texts is not related to yin1 yang2 theory

in Chinese philosophical texts?

 

When I think of

> philosophy, I think of mainly of metaphysics and epistemology.

 

Yin1 yang2 theory is the root of Chinese

metaphysics and epistemology. It is also

the root of Chinese medical theory. What

am I missing?

 

I've

> just gone and looked at some basic CM theory books. When I read the

> statements about yin-yang theory, I don't seem much in the way of

> metaphysical definitions. Most of the statements are about the

> functional relationships of yin and yang. E.g., if yin is this,

then

> yang is that. If yin does this, yang does that, etc. So maybe

that's

> where the disconnect is.

 

What disconnect? We're pretty darn connected.

 

 

Should a person know basic MEDICAL yin-yang

> theory? Yes, of course.

 

Can you cite a presentation of it that you

find adequate?

 

Do they need to know the differences in

> interpretation of yin-yang theory from the Warring States to the

late

> Ming dynasty, I think not.

 

And that's it, huh? Those are the choices?

Well, I guess we really can't even evaluate

the choices that you're offering until you

present the specific citation(s) that embody

an adequate treatment of yin1 yang2 theory.

 

I like the essay in Needham SCC Vol II.

 

There are numerous books on the subject in

Chinese, as you no doubt know. I suspect

that you've read more than I have in fact.

 

 

I suppose I can imagine an argument

> > that uses the metaphor of driving a car. You

> > sure don't need to know even what internal

> > combustion is in order to drive a car.

> > But it seems to me that we're not talking

> > about drivers here, but mechanics. When

> > you're car breaks down, would you take

> > it to someone who didn't understand the

> > first thing about internal combustion?

>

> Of course you need to know the first thing. It's the fiftieth or

one

> hundredth thing I question the necessity of.

 

So, 49? What are the 49 things you need to

know about yin1 yang2 theory?

 

OK. OK. Whatever it is, just spell it out.

Let's talk about the specifics. I have.

A Brief History of Qi is all about yin1

and yang2. And we've been compiling material

for a book about yin1 yang2 theory for

years. Hopefully it will someday see

the light of day.

 

 

>

> > > 4. According to my memory (and it's been several years), Sun Si-

> > miao

> > > recommends the study of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism as

> being

> > > necessary to the study of Chinese medicine in his Preface to

the

> > Qian

> > > Jin Yao Fang. However, what I also remember is that he does not

> > > specify exactly why such a study is important.

> >

> > Yes he does. You can see our translation of this

> > preface in the front matter of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

> > He states that if you don't read Laozi and Zhuangzi

> > you won't know how to live your daily life.

>

> Again, I am talking about clinical medicine, not living one's daily

> life.

 

So is Sun. He's talking about the daily

life of a doctor.

 

(Yes, of course, clinical medicine is a life activity. But

> again, that's not the level at which I'm talking.)

 

Physician, heal thyself.

 

> The book does a very good job of giving the history and

multifaceted

> Chinese uses and interpretations of the word qi. As book on qi, I

> think it is a very good one for someone who generally wants to know

> about qi.

>

> However, I seem to remember that a number of weeks/months ago, you

> were suggesting to members of this list that it took a book like

yours

> to even begin to understand the concept qi. Since you were talking

to

> CM practitioners, I assumed that you meant that we should

understand

> qi to the extent that you have written about it, and I don't find

that

> to be so.

 

So what would you put in your abridged brief history

of qi4 for Chinese medical students? Where do we

go over the limit?

 

The word qi4 is the word qi4 regardless of

who is reading or writing it. Of course

everybody brings their own needs, experience,

etc. to the process of understanding and using it.

If you want people to use it knowledgably, then

you have to teach them what it means.

 

The book was written to help anybody who

wants to understand qi4. I am going to

turn around twice in order to accept

what I believe may be the world's most

backhanded compliment.

 

Have a good time in Florida.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

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

 

> >>>>Well i guess non of the non Chinese speaking American or

Europeans practitioners are any good. But you know I have seen planty

of good outcomes from these when Chinese trained have failed. To me

that is were one looks

> Alon

 

I think the evidence Alon wants and Bob wants and that which would

certainly interest me is a concrete example of an instance when a

nuanced understanding of qi, yin and yang led one to make a diagnosis

that he would not have otherwise made. And that this diagnosis led to

a successful treatment that could have only been accomplished by one

with this special knowledge. It is one thing to provide historical or

cultural evidence as to why something seems to make logical sense, but

this does not address the pragmatic clinical need at hand. Members of

this list are being told by erudite, respected scholars and px in the

field that unless they bite this bullet, they will be forever

consigned to a low level of practice and commensurate poor clinical

results. This position just cries out for an example of how to use

this material in clinic. Until such an example can be provided, I see

no reason for the skeptical to do anything but continue with the

status quo.

 

[Guest guest]

Todd:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if you look at the body of work

that Bob has anthologized along side what he is saying, he actually

makes clear sense. He is representing a style of treatment strategy

which parses and simplifies any more complicated problem (e.g.,

mental-emotional problems) into a familiar and common 8-Principle

pattern. Consequently, and by design, there are limited types of

herbal formulas and diagnostic theories from which to draw upon, in

order to develop a solution.

 

The economic advantage to this strategy is that any type of problem

can be parsed into a familiar simplified pattern or group of

patterns; this simplification defines and controls this strategy.

The details from many theories (e.g. stems and branches) may be

ignored---making fewer requirements for philosophical details or

sources. The disadvantage is that, while it promotes a technical

skill, there is no unique pattern to define and identify a

particular disorder. The spleen xu that is involved with one type of

problem is indistinguishable from the spleen xu involved with

another; only the resulting symptoms are different.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> I think the evidence Alon wants and Bob wants and that which would

> certainly interest me is a concrete example of an instance when a

> nuanced understanding of qi, yin and yang led one to make a

diagnosis that he would not have otherwise made. And that this

diagnosis led to a successful treatment that could have only been

accomplished by one with this special knowledge. It is one thing to

provide historical or cultural evidence as to why something seems to

make logical sense, but this does not address the pragmatic clinical

need at hand. Members of this list are being told by erudite,

respected scholars and px in the field that unless they bite this

bullet, they will be forever consigned to a low level of practice

and commensurate poor clinical results. This position just cries

out for an example of how to use this material in clinic. Until

such an example can be provided, I see no reason for the skeptical

to do anything but continue with the status quo.

>

 

[Guest guest]

>Bob,

 

I agree that getting into the meanings inherent in the term " doctor " is a

little guo4fen1 at this juncture. My friend's point was that Chinese

medicine as he understands it is not the blind mechanical application of

rules that have been memorized. This, in his opinion, seemed more like a

technician.

 

I agree. I do, however, see how it's possible to get results this way. I

do realize that one can treat, help, and do business as a practitioner of CM

without knowing or at least striving to know the philosophical roots and

underpinnings of the medicine. To follow the rules logically makes a

certain sort of Western, empirical sense. But having studied Chinese

philosophy and language for 9 years (I started at age 17 as a double major

in Chinese studies and psychology at UCSC), I have learned that Chinese

medicine isn't mechanistic or reductionist in the way that Western medicine

(or car repair) is.

 

Maybe I am naive. Obviously, you have a lot more experience than I do (as I

am still very young, and am still an intern).

 

I am also obviously biased toward academics. I have been criticized before

for being too scholarly in my writing (for CJOM, thus far), and not clinical

enough. The first time I heard this perspective, I was surprised. I grew

up thinking that the examination of philosophical foundations and the

pursuit of knowledge was the responsiblity of educated individuals. I guess

that is not the case for everybody.

 

Fine. I, like Ken, have no motive to change anybody's mind. And I have

never proposed that I have the clinical knowledge to tell anyone how to be a

better clinician. I didn't think I was telling anyone how to do anything.

I have merely been writing my own views, which are (as stated above) based

on a very academic (and social-- I go to Beijing 4-5 times a year to visit

my fiancee, friends, and family) understanding of Chinese culture.

 

I think I've answered most of your questions.

 

As far as your current perspective, and the writing you spoke of to describe

the process by which you arrived at the place that you have, I would be very

interested to read about it. I enjoy learning about peoples' experiences

and the way that their lives unfold.

 

Regards,

Sonya

 

 

 

" pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001

>

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:56:58 -0000

>

>Sonya,

>

>Doctors (who happen to be human beings). Oh Go-d, now we are going to

>have to define the term " doctor. " Please, no.

>

>Now I have a question for you. Actually several questions:

>

>How old are you?

>How long have you been in practice?

>What did you study before coming to Chinese medicine?

>How interested are you personally in philosophy and religion?

>Are you a practitioner of any purposive spiritual path?

>

>I ask these questions because, as I've said to Z'ev in a previous

>post, I don't think we can separate who people are from their answers.

>It helps to know a person's biases, " where they're coming from. "

>

>Z'ev and some of the older hands know that I was one of the original

>voices of spirituality in this field. Was I ever rah-rah Sun Si-maio.

>You can check out the Prefaces to any number of books I wrote

>published 10 or more years ago. Now I've come to a different

>perspective. Some readers might be interested to know that I have been

>writing (of and on) the story of my 20 years training as a Tibetan

>Buddhist and Chinese doctor. It's the only way I know to convey why I

>have come to the perspective I have.

>

>Bob

>

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

>wrote:

> > 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@m...>

> > >

> > >

> > > 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

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Bob, Alon,

 

> I think the evidence Alon wants and Bob wants and that which would

> certainly interest me is a concrete example of an instance when a

> nuanced understanding of qi, yin and yang led one to make a

diagnosis

> that he would not have otherwise made.

 

No doubt. The reason I balk is that I cannot

even begin to imagine a single circumstance

in which an individual's understanding of qi4,

whether it has been nuanced or not, does not

lead that individual to make the decisions

that he or she makes in the clinic.

 

And if you don't know anything about qi4,

well that's reflected in the quality of your

decision making.

 

 

It's kind of like asking for an example of

when thinking made a difference. I guess for

some it matters more than for others.

 

I've been thinking about the whole discussion,

and I really think it boils down to more or

less the same issue that Bob and I originally

came to disagree about way back in the mists

of history when there were just a few dozen

people on this list. Quick and easy versus

long and laborious.

 

My assertion amounts to a statement that

the study of Chinese medicine is long and

laborious. It's involved with lots of things,

which we've spelled out at some length.

 

Bob's theme is quick and easy. He says he

can teach diagnosis in a weekend. I challenged

that statement when he first made it, and he

subsequently left the list having no time

for such nonsense.

 

I note that Bob, you seem to have a similar

attitude as the discussion approaches the

same issue once again, i.e. you want to

drop it all and get on to the practical

stuff.

 

One of the things that I respect about Alon's

posts is that they are consistant. Alon

obviously believes that everything can be

summed up in a single breath. I would love

to find such brevity, but, alas, it remains

elusive for me.

 

But Bob, I really challenge your assertion

of the quick and easy solution to Chinese

medicine. You have invested such an enormous

amount of time in studying. The disconnect

I find is between what you say and what

you do. You are essentially telling us not

to make the mistakes that you have by spending

enormous amounts of time over long periods

of years studying the philosophy behind

Chinese medicine because now that you've

been through it all, it's all pointless.

 

And that this diagnosis led to

> a successful treatment that could have only been accomplished by one

> with this special knowledge.

 

You know, it's possible to set up any

set of criteria for a hypothetical situation.

But that's really not the point. The point

is the primacy, to borrow your term of qi4

as a concept in Chinese medicine.

 

I just can't think with the idea that you

don't have to know anything about qi4 in

order to practice Chinese medicine.

 

It is one thing to provide historical or

> cultural evidence as to why something seems to make logical sense,

but

> this does not address the pragmatic clinical need at hand.

 

Can you cite one case history where having

hands and feet proved an immeasurable benefit

to the doctor?

 

Members of

> this list are being told by erudite, respected scholars and px in

the

> field that unless they bite this bullet, they will be forever

> consigned to a low level of practice and commensurate poor clinical

> results.

 

Who are these scoundrels and rapscallions.

Imagine saying such a thing!

 

Look, I've never said what you're saying now.

All I've said is that if you're gonna study

Chinese medicine you should know something

about the way its terms were created and how

they've been used and what all the basic terms

mean and how people think with them who practice

the medicine. I've said time and again that

I'm interested in doing this on a grass roots

basis as a widespread campagin for individuals

to promote their own personal standards of

knowledge and understanding of the subject.

 

I do believe that such a campaign should be

reflected in the design of programs to

train and qualify practitioners, but I'm

principally concerned with talking directly

to students and practitioners. That's why

I write. That's why I take part in this

discussion. To me it's all part of the

long term process whereby we all help

each other improve our knowledge.

 

Give me one example of one instance where

such knowledge was not beneficial.

 

This position just cries out for an example of how to use

> this material in clinic. Until such an example can be provided, I

see

> no reason for the skeptical to do anything but continue with the

> status quo.

 

Look, all I want is for people to make

their views clear for others to see.

It's not a contest. It's a matter of

the folks in the field who have to

put up with all this communication

knowing who's who, who's saying what

and why.

 

So thanks to everyone for persevering.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

>

> sorry, I can't help myself here. Does the mechanic need to know

> physics to repair your car? there is a certain modicum of knowledge

> that is useful and the rest is just extraneous, right?

>

"

" Dare to be naive.

 

It is one of our most exciting discoveries that local discovery leads

ot a complex of further discoveries. Corollary to this we find that

we no sooner get a problem solved than we are overwhelmed with a

multiplicity of additional problems in a most beautiful payoff of

heretofore unknown, preivously unrecognized, and as yet unsolved

problems. "

 

 

These are quotes from Synergetics by Bucky

Fuller.

 

I am not in any position to adjudicate the

status of knowledge. Nor, I submit for your

consideration is anybody else on this list.

 

I consider myself a reporter in some sense.

I've done some checking into this Chinese

medicine stuff and have written about what

I've found. I try to give my sources so

that those who care can check and follow up.

 

I'm more interested in the dynamics Bucky

talks about than in trying to determine

what the bare minimum is that someone needs

to know in order to tie their shoes.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

 

I've been following this discussion for a while now, although I've

fallen behind in some of the posts recently...so please forgive me if

I'm not exactly in the thread, as it were.

 

Ken, I must say you've got me up late at night thinking about how I

do translate qi...especially in speaking with the public. (I'm sure

this is exactly what you want, too.) I moved from the west coast to

the east about six months ago, and feel that I need to do a lot more

in the way of patient education on TCM with the people I encounter.

Plus, I also need to do some public speaking to get a new practice

off the ground. I, of course am reading your book...so hopefully that

will help.

 

I remember thinking, back in school, that we as practitioners of TCM

could discover imbalances on the qi level, and treat before they got

to the blood level - ie: before they could be discovered by lab

testing. As western lab testing gets more refined, maybe the two will

meet. There is a big difference between testing for pathology (as in

what most MD's do) and testing for function (as in Grest Smokies type

testing). Finding out that there is a functional imbalance and

treating that before there are pathological changes to tissues or

organs seems similar to working with the qi level before it reaches

the blood level.

 

So, just to put my two cents in, I think that we should think about

the possibilities of qi being a functional term. The qi leads the

blood...disfunction preceeds pathology. Cellular metablosim related

to transformation and transportation in the case of spleen qi? I

don't know...I'm just tossing out some thoughts. I certainly don't

think I have the answers.

 

Any thouhgts?

 

Nan

[Guest guest]

Nan,

>

> I've been following this discussion for a while now, although I've

> fallen behind in some of the posts recently...so please forgive me

if

> I'm not exactly in the thread, as it were.

 

I think you're precisely in the thread.

For me, what the thread is all about is

encouraging people to think about these

things. I just read a review of A Brief

History of Qi that was published in CJOM,

and it was particularly gratifying to

see that the reviewer quoted this sentence

to begin her comments: " In the deepest sense,

no one can tell anyone else the ultimate or complete

meaning of qi4...such understanding is only

achieved through individual contemplation... "

 

 

>

> Ken, I must say you've got me up late at night thinking about how I

> do translate qi...especially in speaking with the public. (I'm sure

> this is exactly what you want, too.)

 

As I was saying...

 

The biggest problem I have with the attitude

expressed by Bob and Alon, the attitutde that

you don't need to know about these things

and that you don't need to think about these

things, is that it encourages no thinking.

If you don't need to know what it's meant

in the past, why should you need to know

what it means in the present. And words

that thus lose the importance of their

meaning tend to lose their meaning. This

ultimately leads to the loss of the words.

One of the most remarkable things about

Chinese medicine and the culture in which

it has existed for so long is precisely

its capacity to overcome this entropic

tendency.

 

As it's all part of this same thread, I'll

mention here that the insistence on an example

where knowing what qi4 and yin1 yang2 mean is, the more

I think about it, ludicrous. It is on a par

with asking for clinical evidence that breathing

is beneficial. Qi4 I point out in substantiation

of this analogy, means among its many meanings,

air. Anybody need to know how to breathe? Or

to understand the Chinese concept of respiration?

The function of the lung? The meaning of the

metal phase in which the essence of the atmospheric

qi4 is extracted and refined in the lungs and prepared

and passed on to the qi4 of the kidney that

circulates up and takes hold of it as the

whole organism continues its manifold processes

that result in life? It's all described in

terms of qi4, and qi4 in those descriptions

actually means something and that meaning is

intimately linked with the meaning of qi4 as

an element in Chinese cosmology and epistemology.

 

 

Shall we do a clinical trial to demonstrate

that those patients (and practitioners) who

have a measurable heartbeat tend to fare

better than those without one?

 

Yes. That's the point.

 

Think about it.

 

I moved from the west coast to

> the east about six months ago,

 

Where are you now?

 

and feel that I need to do a lot more

> in the way of patient education on TCM with the people I encounter.

 

Is this because of the education level

in the patient population there?

 

> Plus, I also need to do some public speaking to get a new practice

> off the ground. I, of course am reading your book...so hopefully

that

> will help.

 

I'll be glad to get any feedback you have

once you've finished it...or as you go

for that matter. I particularly appreciate

it when people catch errors, find faults,

correct our misunderstandings, and so on.

That is the fruitful part of it for the

authors. The process of understanding

this stuff is extremely hard and involved

work. I've always tended to think that it

can only be accomplished in a group.

 

One of the main reasons I devote my time

to the list is to recruit help. But before

anybody can be expected to offer their

own attention and effort in the way of

help, they have to recognize that there's

something that needs to be done.

 

Rather than to improve some particular

aspect of one's clinical expertise (as

Bob anticipated it might, only to be

disappointed that it didn't for him),

I think that this book can simply help

someone bring the issues into view,

hopefully clearly focused, that will

allow an individual to see what needs

to be done. We mention, but don't even

suggest particular methods and ways of

proceeding, should one want to understand

qi4 more deeply and to involve oneself in

one of the fundamental prerequisites for

understanding qi4, i.e. the practice of

its cultivation.

 

It's not a how-to book. And clearly it's

not a quick and easy approach to anything.

It's a sit down and relax and open up

your mind and we're gonna go for a little

ride now through a wonderful place.

A whole series of wonderful places.

 

 

>

> I remember thinking, back in school, that we as practitioners of

TCM

> could discover imbalances on the qi level, and treat before they

got

> to the blood level - ie: before they could be discovered by lab

> testing. As western lab testing gets more refined, maybe the two

will

> meet. There is a big difference between testing for pathology (as

in

> what most MD's do) and testing for function (as in Grest Smokies

type

> testing). Finding out that there is a functional imbalance and

> treating that before there are pathological changes to tissues or

> organs seems similar to working with the qi level before it reaches

> the blood level.

 

More encouragement for the utility of

thinking. The only way that the traditions

come to life is if individuals connect themselves

and allow themselves to be vessels through

which information is transmitted. This was

made very clear to me more than thirty

years ago by my tai4 ji2 teacher, Martin Inn.

 

I believe it holds generally true for the transmission

of traditional arts and sciences of ancient

China. And in tai4 ji2 and Chinese medicine

particularly, the economics of transmission

are principally calculated in terms of qi4.

>

> So, just to put my two cents in,

 

It is indeed an economic factor, here represented

in your use of the metaphor that equates thought

and money. I am asking that people make such

an investment. Not in me. The deal that I

strike with readers is rather clear cut.

Invest in yourself. Or, as Bucky said, dare

to be naive.

 

I think that we should think about

> the possibilities of qi being a functional term. The qi leads the

> blood...disfunction preceeds pathology. Cellular metablosim related

> to transformation and transportation in the case of spleen qi? I

> don't know...I'm just tossing out some thoughts. I certainly don't

> think I have the answers.

>

> Any thouhgts?

 

One or two.

 

Qi4 is a functional term. It has also taken

on the flavor of substance, in fact it is used

to describe medicinals in that same fundamental

way that their flavors are categorized. Qi4,

as physicists since Einstein and Bohr have come more and

more to understand about " matter " and " energy " ,

is the function and the substance. The shift of

thinking that began to take place with the advent

of complementarity and the quantum notion of physical

realities at the fundamental level is of great significance

when it comes to the confluence of traditional

Chinese thinking and modern scientific concepts.

 

Two reasons. One is the presence of Chinese

ideas, namely yin1 yang2 theory in the intellectual

development of Bohr himself. The other is

the fact that it begins to bring the thinking

patterns of contemporary scientists into

remarkale harmony with those of ancient

Chinese writers. When I showed the paper

on Complexity and to Brian

Arthur, an economist and one of the pioneers

of complexity theory at SFI, he said that

he was glad to see someone finally making

the connection between complexity and

Daoism seriously. He himself has pointed

to this connection in his published work.

 

Anyhow the point is not to discourage the

understanding of qi4 as functionality. It

definitely does mean that, as reflected

in the widespread use of the word as an

element in compounds which describe the

functional attributes of a wide range

of phenomena. Look at the list in Ch. 7.

At the same time, while holding the functional

notion in mind, we should consider the substantive

implications. Qi4, as I was suggesting earlier in the

thread about flow in terms of pain theory,

is all about connection and connectivity.

 

In this instance, the connection between

substance and function is accounted for

to a certain extent in the notion of

qi4 itself. So that's something to keep

in mind when sorting these things into

organic categories.

 

With respect to the analogy and equation

of traditional Chinese terms with Western

medical concepts I think a great deal of

work needs to be done. If you start to

think about it, which several people have,

what emerges is that it's a big job.

 

At this point, I'm quite satisfied with

trying to bring the full range of problems

into view and looking forward to that

cascade of new heretofore unknown, previously

unrecognized, and as-yet unsolved problems,

as we solve each problem that pops into view.

 

There's a couple of thoughts. My 2 cents worth.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

To follow the rules logically makes a certain sort of Western, empirical sense. But having studied Chinese philosophy and language for 9 years (I started at age 17 as a double major in Chinese studies and psychology at UCSC), I have learned that Chinese medicine isn't mechanistic or reductionist in the way that Western medicine (or car repair) is.>>>>That is a fallacy as to practice any good medicine is not any of the above. This is posturing and I am still waiting for a good example beyond such postures

Alon

[Guest guest]

No doubt. The reason I balk is that I cannoteven begin to imagine a single circumstancein which an individual's understanding of qi4,whether it has been nuanced or not, does notlead that individual to make the decisions that he or she makes in the clinic.

>>>Well know that the character for a car has Qi does nothing to me

alon

[Guest guest]

I note that Bob, you seem to have a similarattitude as the discussion approaches thesame issue once again, i.e. you want todrop it all and get on to the practicalstuff.

>>>>Thanks for thatat I respect about Alon'sposts is that they are consistant. Alonobviously believes that everything can besummed up in a single breath. I would loveto find such brevity, but, alas, it remainselusive for me.

>>>What does that mean

 

I just can't think with the idea that youdon't have to know anything about qi4 inorder to practice Chinese medicine.>>>Again what does that mean. You need to know the medicine and qi.

 

alon

[Guest guest]

The biggest problem I have with the attitudeexpressed by Bob and Alon, the attitutde thatyou don't need to know about these thingsand that you don't need to think about thesethings, is that it encourages no thinking.>>>You are overstating here. Again its a question of degree and time spent

alon

[Guest guest]

Anybody need to know how to breathe? Orto understand the Chinese concept of respiration?The function of the lung? The meaning of themetal phase in which the essence of the atmosphericqi4 is extracted and refined in the lungs and preparedand passed on to the qi4 of the kidney thatcirculates up and takes hold of it as thewhole organism continues its manifold processesthat result in life? It's all described interms of qi4,

>>>I think this is CM 101 no?

Alon

[Guest guest]

think that this book can simply helpsomeone bring the issues into view,hopefully clearly focused, that willallow an individual to see what needsto be done. We mention, but don't evensuggest particular methods and ways ofproceeding,

>>>How about seeing patients recognizing patterns of Qi problems and attempting to treat them. FOr an herbalist is it usually by herbs i would think

Alon

[Guest guest]

Todd and Ken,

 

> > sorry, I can't help myself here. Does the mechanic need to know

> > physics to repair your car? there is a certain modicum of knowledge

> > that is useful and the rest is just extraneous, right?

 

I was thinking about Todd's statement, too, and realized that the guys on

Car Talk (NPR) have degrees from MIT. I'm not sure if they are in physics

or not, but I know I'd rather take my car to them than anyone else.

 

Sonya

 

 

> " dragon90405 " <yulong

>

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:15:11 -0000

>

>

> >

> >

> "

> " Dare to be naive.

>

>It is one of our most exciting discoveries that local discovery leads

>ot a complex of further discoveries. Corollary to this we find that

>we no sooner get a problem solved than we are overwhelmed with a

>multiplicity of additional problems in a most beautiful payoff of

>heretofore unknown, preivously unrecognized, and as yet unsolved

>problems. "

>

>

>These are quotes from Synergetics by Bucky

>Fuller.

>

>I am not in any position to adjudicate the

>status of knowledge. Nor, I submit for your

>consideration is anybody else on this list.

>

>I consider myself a reporter in some sense.

>I've done some checking into this Chinese

>medicine stuff and have written about what

>I've found. I try to give my sources so

>that those who care can check and follow up.

>

>I'm more interested in the dynamics Bucky

>talks about than in trying to determine

>what the bare minimum is that someone needs

>to know in order to tie their shoes.

>

>Ken

>

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Guest guest]

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

wrote: and Ken,

 

I was thinking about Todd's statement, too, and realized that the

guys on

> Car Talk (NPR) have degrees from MIT. I'm not sure if they are in

physics

> or not, but I know I'd rather take my car to them than anyone else.

>

Sonya,

 

Here's a little tip: when you take your car to those guys with degrees

from MIT, first look at their nails. If they are clean, run like

hell!;-)

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

Fernando,

>

> Here's a little tip: when you take your car to those guys with

degrees

> from MIT, first look at their nails. If they are clean, run like

> hell!;-)

 

Many years ago I drove a Porsche 911S.

I had a German mechanic whose hands

were always spotless. The car ran

perfectly in his care.

 

So even in auto mechanics there

are characteristic cultural differences

that should be taken into account

when making decisions as to what

to rely upon.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I think that you are astute enough to understand my point.

It is like a tai chi player who can't do push-hands. They do a

beautiful form, but there's no function. Under pressure they fall

apart and become tense. Likewise, many practitioners can quote the

classics, and even write comments on such. However, in real life, if

they are seeing patients, they obtain poor result. That was my point

regarding the dirty nails. Like an old preacher I once knew used to

say: " There are those who are so heavenly minded that they become no

earthly good "

 

Regards,

 

Fernando

 

 

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

> Fernando,

> >

> > Here's a little tip: when you take your car to those guys with

> degrees

> > from MIT, first look at their nails. If they are clean, run like

> > hell!;-)

>

> Many years ago I drove a Porsche 911S.

> I had a German mechanic whose hands

> were always spotless. The car ran

> perfectly in his care.

>

> So even in auto mechanics there

> are characteristic cultural differences

> that should be taken into account

> when making decisions as to what

> to rely upon.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Fernando,

 

Aside from Ken's example, I do see where you are going with the hands thing.

I think that I would also be less than enthusiastic about getting

acupuncture from someone who's needles were covered with dust. This is why

I am studying to be a practitioner and not only a writer/scholar.

 

But back to the Car Guys. Even if their hands were clean (meaning their

practical skills were below par), I think I would still rather have their

perspective on diagnosis before taking my car to a technician. In fact, so

many people would that they have their own show. It's a pretty amusing

show, too.

 

Regards,

Sonya

 

 

 

 

> " fbernall " <fbernall

>

>

> Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:02:23 -0000

>

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

>wrote:

>Todd and Ken,

>

> I was thinking about Todd's statement, too, and realized that the

>guys on

> > Car Talk (NPR) have degrees from MIT. I'm not sure if they are in

>physics

> > or not, but I know I'd rather take my car to them than anyone else.

> >

>Sonya,

>

>Here's a little tip: when you take your car to those guys with degrees

>from MIT, first look at their nails. If they are clean, run like

>hell!;-)

>

>Fernando

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Fernando,

 

 

> I think that you are astute enough to understand my point.

 

And I think that you are astute enough to understand mine.

 

> It is like a tai chi player who can't do push-hands. They do a

> beautiful form, but there's no function. Under pressure they fall

> apart and become tense. Likewise, many practitioners can quote the

> classics, and even write comments on such. However, in real life,

if

> they are seeing patients, they obtain poor result.

 

But the fault is not in knowing the classics.

The fault would lie in having failed to integrate

the knowledge into their lives and practice.

 

That was my point

> regarding the dirty nails. Like an old preacher I once knew used to

> say: " There are those who are so heavenly minded that they become

no

> earthly good "

 

Certainly this happens, and we can all cite

numerous examples of individuals who have

proceeded in an out-of-balance fashion.

 

My vigilance in pointing out that people can

indeed have clean hands and be effective

technicians is meant to differentiate between

strengths and weaknesses. Just because an

individual possesses one does not mean he

or she will be free of the other.

 

I have never proposed that study of language

and classical literature is the end of

education, rather that it be included

from the beginning.

 

What did Prof. Cheng reply when asked,

" How do we know if what we're learning is

correct? "

 

Ken