Guest guest Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 (todd) Be that as it may, it does not even remotely prove that what is missing would significantly improve one's practice over one based on what we have. More is not always better. (jason) See if this logic makes sense to you: 2 years ago, would you make the same claim about TCM in english as you are now? I imagine that is an easy yes. Let's take the topic of diabetes mellitus, as an example. Bob Flaws, obviously , in the last year or two has put out 450 pages on this one disease. IS this information useless? I gather much of what is contained in this book is from the Chinese languange.. correct? Before this book, much of the options/ information was just not avaible in English. IS this correct? Do you not think that this information leads one to prescibe more precisely for this disease, therefore rendering better clinical results. Yes there is no study that proves this, but I think I would imagine the answer is yes. If this is the case, then I can probobly guess there are many other diseases that have much more information of them, then what is written, Does this make sense? Maybe Bob can comment of what he thinks... I ask, does anyone have an extesive breakdown of cirrohosis of the liver in english? If not, don't you think this information would help you treat the disease better? Is more better...? OF course.. I have rarely found that too much information hurts me in my treatments.. That argument just does not make sense to me... Especially when one can Dx well, you can skip through irrelevent information quite quickly, and get to what you need. I just don't know who says, " I would rather have less information to choose from " ...??? Again look back at the information 20 years ago... I would hate to go back to those days... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 Maybe Bob can comment of what he thinks... Obviously, I think more information is better or I wouldn't spend so much of my life's qi translating such materials. That being said, treatment outcomes are so multifactorial that I'm not sure that there's much point discussing all this. Some people are (IMO) profoundly ignorant and still get great clinical results. Others are quite well educated but don't get particularly good results. Some people like words, like to study, like to read, like to study foreign languages, and they generally tend to value these endeavors. Others don't care for these things. Again in my experience, I've never seen debating the merits of such fundamental proclivities change anyone's behavior when it comes to such things. There will always be ru yi (scholar doctors) and fang shi ( " formula masters, " i.e., more empirically oriented practitioners who aren't all that interested in theory). My first acupuncture teacher was such an acupuncture fang shi and he was a very successful clinician. He would always shake his head at my incessant reading. I once stopped by his clinic on my way to a seminar on the " secondary channels. " He asked me why I was looking for difficulties " inside the horns of the water buffalo. " It just wasn't his style and it didn't interest him. Ren shi ren, people are people, and it takes all kinds to make the world go round. It also takes all kinds of practitioners. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2003 Report Share Posted February 6, 2003 Bob, I quite agree with the sentiment that it takes all kinds. But I want to add that in addition to what seems in your view of it to be two categories of individuals. I would suggest another quite broad category that I imagine includes the vast bulk of students and practitioners. This third category is actually an anti-category, for it consist of people who rely on their own personal blend of book knowledge and the knowledge they gain through their own senses and experiences. A good example of such a person is my longtime taiji teacher and good friend Martin Inn, who teaches taiji and practices Chinese medicine in San Francisco. He's another good recommendation, by the way in the Bay Area. I asked Martin to contribute an article to CAOM a while back, and he replied by saying that he didn't know enough about Chinese medicine to write an article for the journal. Martin relies heavily in his practice of acupuncture and Chinese medicine on his highly developed sensory capacities. Yet, he is one of the translators of the Taijiquan classics, along with Cheng Man Ching's Thirteen Treatises. Whenever possible I engage Martin in conversations about the literary traditions of both Taiji and Chinese medicine, and I know he has a deep respect for these traditions and is a relatively advanced student. I hope he doesn't mind me talking about him in public, but in my mind he exemplifies this third, anti-category of individual who benefits substantially from both of the approaches that you've described. It's never once seemed to me to be an either-or proposition, and the only reason that it becomes so is the fallacious argument that there isn't enough time. Hell, there isn't enough time for anything! And as long as an attitude of disdain and disregard for the literary traditions of our subject prevails, I humbly disagree with you that it's not worth our time to talk about. If we don't talk about it, who will? Ken , " Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001> " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Maybe Bob can comment of what he thinks... > > Obviously, I think more information is better or I wouldn't spend so > much of my life's qi translating such materials. > > That being said, treatment outcomes are so multifactorial that I'm not > sure that there's much point discussing all this. Some people are > (IMO) profoundly ignorant and still get great clinical results. > Others are quite well educated but don't get particularly good > results. Some people like words, like to study, like to read, like > to study foreign languages, and they generally tend to value these > endeavors. Others don't care for these things. Again in my experience, > I've never seen debating the merits of such fundamental proclivities > change anyone's behavior when it comes to such things. > > There will always be ru yi (scholar doctors) and fang shi > ( " formula masters, " i.e., more empirically oriented practitioners who > aren't all that interested in theory). My first acupuncture teacher > was such an acupuncture fang shi and he was a very successful > clinician. He would always shake his head at my incessant reading. I > once stopped by his clinic on my way to a seminar on the " secondary > channels. " He asked me why I was looking for difficulties " inside the > horns of the water buffalo. " It just wasn't his style and it didn't > interest him. Ren shi ren, people are people, and it takes all kinds > to make the world go round. It also takes all kinds of practitioners. > > Bob 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.