Guest guest Posted December 28, 2002 Report Share Posted December 28, 2002 It is generally accepted wisdom that if one gets in a serious car accident, then one is better off in an emergency room than an acu's office. This is of course due to the presence of lifesaving technology. However, this technology was created with western science and its proper use depends on a western understanding of the body. what this means is that TCM does not have an adequate enough understanding of the anatomical body to intervene at this level. So why do we assume that TCM has an adequate understanding of the body sufficient to understand and treat all chronic internal illness. It seems that some critical knowledge is missing and other modalities must fil the gap. since many disease are caused by western science (antibiotic misuse, vaccine misuse, drug misuse in general, toxins in the environment,etc.), it seems to make sense that a western understanding of the body might be essential to the solution. Just as one gets their life saved in the ER, but recuperates in the acu's office, I think there may be an analogy with chronic illness. again, I will paraphrase Ken Wilber. A medicine cannot be holistic until it reconciles all available data. TCM can only be a partial worldview. It is not possible in my mind that it is anything more than that. And the more time I spend in the field, the more I feel this way. sometimes I need a topographical map and sometimes I need a roadmap. the map is not the terrain. Chinese Herbs " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " -- Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2002 Report Share Posted December 28, 2002 At 9:21 AM -0800 12/28/02, wrote: >So why do we assume that TCM has an adequate understanding of the >body sufficient to understand and treat all chronic internal >illness. It seems that some critical knowledge is missing and other >modalities must fil the gap. since many disease are caused by >western science (antibiotic misuse, vaccine misuse, drug misuse in >general, toxins in the environment,etc.), it seems to make sense >that a western understanding of the body might be essential to the >solution. Just as one gets their life saved in the ER, but >recuperates in the acu's office, I think there may be an analogy >with chronic illness. --- Chinese medicine is a system of thought that permits the effective delivery of therapies. However inadequate TCM may seem to you in its theories, it is quite effective in doing that. Chinese medical thought includes an understanding of the effects of acupuncture and herbs, diet and qigong, not just the anatomy and physiology of the human body. That understanding has not been surpassed by Western medicine, and Western medicine has thus far been able to deliver those particular therapies as effectively as CM, and really shows little sign of being able to do so. CM also has a lot to say about how to live a healthy life, and what can lead to ill health -- many of those ideas are clearly as relevant today as they were 2000 years ago, and compare well to the constantly changing and frequently erroneous ideas espoused by Western medicine that are supposedly based on modern science. There seems to be an implied assumption in your comments that whereas CM is limited in its ability to describe reality, Western science IS reality. Of course, this cannot be so. The cliche that the map is not the terrain applies equally to modern science as it does to CM. In some respects Western medicine maybe a better description, simply because it is built with the advantage of hindsight, and has some technologies available to it that weren't available in the past. But at some point in the future, the current paradigm that we call now call scientific will be shown to be as inadequate as you seem to be suggesting TCM is now. And it maybe that some of the insights of CM will never be bettered simply because the people who formulated had sufficient insight into the human condition, whatever paradigm they were working with. Also implied in your remarks is the idea that Western medicine is the same thing as Western science. Although Western medicine draws from Western science, no medicine is a solely scientific endeavor, and current Western medicine certainly isn't -- although it often uses the fig leaf of science as a cover for some very dubious and harmful practices. Most doctors in general practice are no more scientists than you or I, even though they have had some training based information developed using modern scientific methods. Just as we do, they have to make decisions that based on a human encounter. They are most likely to give a medicine because a salesman told them to, and the salesman may well be representing a pharmaceutical company that's suppressing a more effective therapy from which they would derive a smaller profit (witness the recent revelations about the last 20 to 30 years of bogus treatment with antihypertensives and, of course, HRT). What's so scientific about that. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2002 Report Share Posted December 28, 2002 I agree with all of your points, Rory. Well said. I personally have no problem drawing on data from Western medicine, or working with Western medicine if it is truly beneficial to the patient, as with diabetes, cancer, or heart disease. I do have a problem with the 'politically correct' attitude that seems to dominate our profession, that somehow we need to live up to the criteria of Western medicine to be 'legitimate', and never criticize the excesses of biomedicine. Why is the Chinese medical community afraid to step up to the plate and boldly state what it is we can offer to world medicine, without fear? As I've mentioned before, in our drive to acceptance, we should be careful not to be absorbed into the mainstream to the point where we lose our theoretical foundations, and be left just with needles and herbs (even the moxa would disappear! Too messy and smelly). Finally, we should remember that in the West, we are on the map largely because of perceived shortcomings of modern medicine by the general public. On Saturday, December 28, 2002, at 06:33 PM, Rory Kerr wrote: > There seems to be an implied assumption in your comments that whereas > CM is limited in its ability to describe reality, Western science IS > reality. Of course, this cannot be so. The cliche that the map is not > the terrain applies equally to modern science as it does to CM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 Rory, and anyone else who might care to chime in, What do you reckon the source of this apparent inadequacy is? Ken , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote: > At 9:21 AM -0800 12/28/02, wrote: > >So why do we assume that TCM has an adequate understanding of the > >body sufficient to understand and treat all chronic internal > >illness. It seems that some critical knowledge is missing and other > >modalities must fil the gap. since many disease are caused by > >western science (antibiotic misuse, vaccine misuse, drug misuse in > >general, toxins in the environment,etc.), it seems to make sense > >that a western understanding of the body might be essential to the > >solution. Just as one gets their life saved in the ER, but > >recuperates in the acu's office, I think there may be an analogy > >with chronic illness. > --- > > Chinese medicine is a system of thought that permits the effective > delivery of therapies. However inadequate TCM may seem to you in its > theories, it is quite effective in doing that. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 Z'ev, , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I agree with all of your points, Rory. Well said. > > I personally have no problem drawing on data from Western medicine, Although I have met some old Chinese doctors who steadfastly refuse to include any slightest insights or approaches from Western medical science or practice, the vast majority of Chinese medical doctors I've met here in China share your view. In fact, I see the implied conflict between the two systems of thought, to use Rory's excellent phrase, to be more or less a red herring. Lack of familiarity with the system of thought and the mode of thinking in Chinese medicine typically and predictably leads to inadequacy. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2002 Report Share Posted December 29, 2002 , " dragon90405 <yulong@m...> " <yulong@m...> wrote: > Rory, and anyone else who might care to chime in, > > What do you reckon the source of this apparent > inadequacy is? > > Ken Ken et al, From a philosophy of science perspective, I would say that ulltimately the inadequacy is CM is the prioritizaton of theory and method over ontology,ie what is actually there. ALthough, at an inadequate level of understanding, a cohesive methodology such as CM might be more useful than a practice based on disparate facts, as understanding progresses unless method is informed by ontology (with all the consequences for terminology) then it will stagnate in its own guiding concepts and metaphors. Simon King < > > At 9:21 AM -0800 12/28/02, wrote: > > >So why do we assume that TCM has an adequate understanding of the > > >body sufficient to understand and treat all chronic internal > > >illness. It seems that some critical knowledge is missing and > other > > >modalities must fil the gap. since many disease are caused by > > >western science (antibiotic misuse, vaccine misuse, drug misuse > in > > >general, toxins in the environment,etc.), it seems to make sense > > >that a western understanding of the body might be essential to > the > > >solution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 2002 Report Share Posted December 30, 2002 Simon, Thanks for your response. It raises a couple more questions. > > Ken et al, > From a philosophy of science perspective, I would say that > ulltimately the inadequacy is CM is the prioritizaton of theory and > method over ontology,ie what is actually there. Can you point to sources in which we can see this prioritization? Who prioritized theory and method over what is actually there? ALthough, at an > inadequate level of understanding, a cohesive methodology such as CM > might be more useful than a practice based on disparate facts, as > understanding progresses unless method is informed by ontology (with > all the consequences for terminology) then it will stagnate in its > own guiding concepts and metaphors. > > Simon King Is this what you reckon has happened to Chinese medicine? Has it stagnated in its own guiding concepts and metaphors? If so, when did that happen? Was it once adequate and now longer, having stagnated? And if this is the case, why has it survived so long? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.