Subject: in the woods with Prof Unschuld

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...>

wrote:

>

> >

> > To sum up:

> >

> > You are being lied to.

>

> This is a bold statement..

 

to suggest a lie has been told means there is a single truth to uncover. is

that

really the case or are we actually dealing with differing interpretations.

Sivin

disagrees with Unschuld. Marnae and Jason read chinese. This is not a matter

of the unlettered challenging the lettered. We all know Dr. Unschuld is no

champion of modern clinical CM. He has made it clear his interest is historical

and sociological and he has expressed surprise that anyone would seriously

practice it today regardless of their depth of study. While I respect him

deeply, his words continue to have the same influence on me they ever did.

Ironically, he makes me want to be even more pragmatic and less

philosophical every time I read him. I see CM as a practical medicine with an

overlay of conflicting theories, concepts and dogma, which are sometimes

helpful and sometimes not. If the practice of so-called CM in america is

efficacious, that is what concerns me. whether it honors the tradition of

medicine in china adequately is really a moot point to me. That is always a

divisive and subjective issue. I would say the tradition is honored if people

are helped without iatrogenesis. All the rest is ultimately superfluous to me.

I

thus remain mainly interested in proving this latter hypothesis. As for the

more philosophical debate, Ken Wilber says these things can also reach

resolution if the dialog contues long enough, though often not in our lifetimes.

So carry on and we shall see.

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with the gist of Todd's comments.

 

One way one could put things is that with TCM, the modern Chinese have attempted

to systematise a much more extensive tradition of CM. To some extent, there has

been an attempt to construct a new paradigm. Scholars such as Unshuld and Scheid

look at TCM and point to the uncertainties, the incoherence, of the larger

tradition, etc. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact, I would argue that

as we mature as a profession, we've got to come to terms with historical

reality. However, it's very easy to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Given the interpretative problems, and issues of incoherence in the larger

tradition, one has to ask how does one construct a clinically useful aproach

which can be taught in a practical manner. I consider that TCM is a very

successful attempt at this. The question is, is the tradition of CM violated by

TCM. Perhaps in some ways, but one has to ask whether any 20th or 21st Century

attempt to systematise CM into a modern, usable and teachable form would not

also have certain objectionable qualitites.

 

Having practised TCM for 17 years, having also studied five element and stems

and branches approaches in my initial training, I've always been satisfied that

TCM provides a wide-ranging, safe, and very successful basis for medical

practice, that also enables and facilitates more advanced study.

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>> I see CM as a practical medicine with an

overlay of conflicting theories, concepts and dogma, which are sometimes

helpful and sometimes not. If the practice of so-called CM in america is

efficacious, that is what concerns me. whether it honors the tradition of

medicine in china adequately is really a moot point to me. That is always a

divisive and subjective issue. I would say the tradition is honored if people

are helped without iatrogenesis. All the rest is ultimately superfluous to me.

I

thus remain mainly interested in proving this latter hypothesis. As for the

more philosophical debate, Ken Wilber says these things can also reach

resolution if the dialog contues long enough, though often not in our lifetimes.

So carry on and we shall see.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ironically, he makes me want to be even more pragmatic and less

philosophical every time I read him. I see CM as a practical medicine with an

overlay of conflicting theories, concepts and dogma, which are sometimes

helpful and sometimes not. If the practice of so-called CM in america is

efficacious, that is what concerns me. whether it honors the tradition of

medicine in china adequately is really a moot point to me.

 

>>>>> These are the points i have been making for a long time now. It is too

easy to get caught in the philosophical and multiple approaches and ideas of CM.

There is always another possibility, always more. If we do not focus our entire

energy on clinical outcomes and practice we are not serving our patients

 

alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

Ironically, he makes me want to be even more pragmatic and less

philosophical every time I read him. I see CM as a practical

medicine with an overlay of conflicting theories, concepts and

dogma, which are sometimes helpful and sometimes not. If the

practice of so-called CM in america is efficacious, that is what

concerns me. whether it honors the tradition of medicine in china

adequately is really a moot point to me. >>>

 

 

I don't think there is any better way to honor CM than by using it

to perform efficacious treatments.

 

 

 

 

 

>>>>>> Alon wrote:

These are the points i have been making for a long time now. It is

too easy to get caught in the philosophical and multiple approaches

and ideas of CM. There is always another possibility, always more.

If we do not focus our entire energy on clinical outcomes and

practice we are not serving our patients. >>>

 

 

Ditto.

[Guest guest]

> They're complicated and uncomfortable subjects.

> They don't fit neatly into most preconceived notions

> of them. I've been hoping to hear from Will, who was

> at the week in Butler Creek. I know your busy

> Will, but if you can grab a few minutes, I think

> everyone would benefit from you perspective

> on all of this.

>

 

Hi Ken -

 

It was good getting to know you in the Butler Creek environs. I apologize for

not chiming in more but my current schedule is whelming.

 

Professor Unschuld is arguably one of the most influential Western historians

of Chinese medicine. His works are rigorous and his footnotes have footnotes!

His links to mainstream Chinese historical research departments at Chinese

universities contribute to the validity of his works. Here is a bit of

paraphrasing of the good Professor:

 

CTM is a collection of views of 2 millennia of intelligent observers of man.

It includes the knowledge of the elite that came to us in printed texts. In

these texts we find theory, clinical reports, pharmaceutical monographs, and

collections of prescriptions. The role of patent or fixed prescriptions were the

mainstay of herbal traditions. It is a medicine.

 

The individualized physician was marginalized and compromised. Beginning with

the Song there is two recipe traditions one is OTC patents and the other is

individualized prescriptions this requires much time and specialization. What

became dominant is a compromise that is effective remedies based on fixed

prescriptions but tailored to individual needs. There is a fixed core

prescriptions, this person has fever I add clear heat. One can add or take away

from a core

prescription and tailor it to a given patient. This is the physicians

prescription. The physician will not write it down because the pharmacist will

then

use it for commercial purposes. The doc cuts it into three portions and tells

the patient to purchase at three different locations so that no pharmacist

knows the prescription. It's not in the printed texts, it's in the manuscripts -

Paul is working on a significant text of manuscripts.

 

TCM is a political attempt to eliminate the heterogeneity of Chinese

Traditional Medicine. Western trained physicians created TCM. It was an attempt

to

build on Marxism as social science and modern science as a model for medicine.

This is a redefinition rather than a discontinuance. Keep the outer forms but

change the inner structure. In Tibet the Chinese leave the stands by the

roadside and at night go into homes and destroy the altars.

 

Best regards,

 

Will

 

 

 

William R. Morris, OMD

Secretary, AAOM

Academic Dean

Emperor's College of TOM

310-453-8383

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

James wrote:

 

> Ken:

>

> Other than remembering it as a basic text, I haven't reconsidered

> the book for 20 years.

> [Kaptchuk's The Web]

 

Julie responds:

 

Well, I have. I look at it three times a year, whenever I start teaching a

new group of incoming students. I own four copies of it, which I lend to

patients and students. Even though, yes, it was written for lay people, it

was also the only basic theory " text " available for American schools of

Chinese medicine before Maciocia came along. I like the book for presenting

what I feel is a balanced view of Chinese medicine and Western biomedicine,

and I think it does a good job with basic ideas of Chinese medicine theory

(Ken, you will take issue with this, I suspect). Of course, I am not a

Chinese reader, so I cannot have access to all that Ken has access to. But,

Ken, unless you are willing to say what is missing from, or what is wrong

with this book, then it sounds like you are just " sounding off " . Please make

some specific concrete suggestions or comments.

>

James further asked:

 

> But perhaps we should start with an easier question: do you think

> there are any factual errors in the book?

 

Yes, please let us know.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Ken et al,

 

I can discuss Ted Kaptchuk's approach to CM to some extent, as I did a two

year Chinese herbal medicine course with him and Giovanni Macioicia in

1986-88. Ted was the primary teacher.

 

Ted drew on both modern PRC TCM literature, and classical CM sources in the

course. His training in Macau was in TCM, but it was apparent that this was

only the beginning of his CM studies. He was extremely enthusiastic about

studying classical Chinese medical texts (which he read in Chinese - I don't

know if he read ancient Chinese, or had to rely on translations into the

modern

language), and would often comment on changes in approaches over the

centuries. Furthermore, he would occasionally discuss aspects of Chinese

philosophy that were relevant to the subject matter. You will no doubt be

pleased that he seemed to be extremely fond of Sun Si Miao. Discussion of

matters like Shamanism and development of numerology as a precursor to more

scientific type of thought occasionally arose. Ted was also

very interested in anthropological and cultural issues, and discussed at

some length issues of developing Chinese medicine in the West. He quoted the

development of Buddhism in Tibet, where the initial concern was to become

acquainted with the canon of scriptures in depth, and translate them into

Tibetan, and back to their original languages, until the retranslation into

the original language matched the original text itself. In other words, he

emphasised

the importance of us, in the West, becoming thoroughly acquainted with

classical Chinese medical literature. He had also studied epidemiology at

Harvard, and was very interested in the phenomenon that disease changes, but

can repeat. Therefore, it was extremely valuable to have recourse to such a

long line of medical experience as the Chinese.

 

Ted argued that 'Western qi was different from Chinese qi', so that, with a

deep rooting in the entirety of the Chinese medical tradition, we would need

to adapt Chinese medicine to Western needs.

 

He considered issues like this in quite considerable detail, particularly at

the beginning phases of the course, but there were rumblings of discontent

as some of the students wanted to be taught a clear-cut dry TCM course, and

put pressure on Ted to steer away from the more profound mode of enquiry

that was more natural to him. This didn't inhibit him too much, though.

 

I'd say that Ted was a great teacher.

 

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

 

 

-

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

 

Monday, October 06, 2003 2:27 AM

Re: in the woods with Prof Unschuld

 

 

> Jim,

>

>

> > Ken:

> >

> > What *specifically* troubles you about Kaptchuk's book?

> >

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

>

> As I said when I first mentioned it the other day,

> I have no intention of offering a critique of the

> book at this point in time. It's an important book

> that has had an enormous impact on the field,

> even if you or others now find it out of date

> or otherwise lacking.

>

> The questions I wanted to raise by mentioning

> Web were ones having to do with the sources

> of the knowledge that people engaged in the

> practice of Chinese medicine employ.

>

> I'm concerned about where that book comes

> from. Is Ted Kaptchuk a Chinese scholar?

> Is he able to read Chinese medical writings,

> ancient or modern?

>

> I just don't know the answer to those questions,

> and before I could adequately review the

> book I would have to have a far better understanding

> of the author, his background and his preparation

> for writing the book.

>

> If you read the introduction to the second edition,

> Kaptchuk describes himself as having been a

> novice when he wrote it. I suppose we just have

> to accept his word for it, but then what does that

> say about the text itself? Clearly, according to

> the author himself, it is the work of a novice.

>

> That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course.

> Maybe as a novice he had important insights

> into the subject he was new at that deserved

> to be recorded for posterity.

>

> Another thing that concerns me about this

> book is that as a relatively early publication

> in English on this subject, it laid a foundation

> for the enduring perception that Chinese

> medicine is a coherent system that flows

> as a continuum from past to present. I think

> this is one of the things that brings it to

> attention in the context of this current

> discussion. Where did Ted get this idea?

>

> Was it from the Chinese sources in his

> bibliography? Was it his teachers in Macau?

>

> Where else did he study? Whose version of

> Chinese medicine was he purveying? Was

> it particular to the teachers he mentions?

>

> Was it something that he synthesized himself?

>

> These are all just a few questions that I have

> about that particular book, as well as others.

>

> What do you think of the book?

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote:

> Perhaps what's making you uncomfortable is

> the fact that I'm really just raising questions and

> don't intend to offer any answers. But I will offer

> to do this, in order to avoid some of the built

> in limitations that this forum includes. >>>

 

> You know better than I that nothing gets resolved

> on these lists. >>>

 

 

 

Since you've put yourself at the center of this and not everyone

will be at the PCOM conference, you should offer---if not a complete

plan about resolution---some possibilities about how a resolution

might be developed, to the list. Don't be such a tease.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Spread the dialogue - through feasible routes...

 

> What are you going to

> do about it?

>

 

Will

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> what were we going to do about it.

>

Ken -

 

For me it was a confirmation about the disciplines used to develop

NeoClassical pulse diagnosis. I view that process as dipping into the historical

pool

for replenishment and insight. These insights are then evaluated on the basis of

experience and exposure to family traditions such as the Tong. The next step

is to evaluate clinical efficacy privately. Then evaluation is performed

about how it can be communicated and whether it proves to be a valid clinical

application for others.

 

This is a method I see as effective for the purposes of identifying useful

methodologies from the vast historical storehouse of Chinese Traditional

Medicine.

 

Will

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

>

> Since you've put yourself at the center of this and not everyone

> will be at the PCOM conference, you should offer---if not a complete

> plan about resolution---some possibilities about how a resolution

> might be developed, to the list. Don't be such a tease.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

I'm not teasing and I have no idea how a

resolution might be developed or even

what needs to be resolved. I've noticed

some things, and the week spent with Paul

Unschuld helped clarify some things. It was particularly

instructive to take part in an interaction

between Paul and a dozen or so professionals

who represent different approaches to

the subject.

 

Here is precisely what happened.

 

On the last day, Paul had given a kind of

summing up talk and had challenged all

of us there with the question I stated in

my first post on this thread.

 

Now that we had seen a clear and more

comprehensive picture of what the historical

record indicates and had become aware of

some of the dissonance that exists between

what Chinese medical traditions actually

seem to include and what has been packaged

up and sold as Chinese medicine by various

individuals and agencies over the past few

decades, what were we going to do about it.

 

I was sitting beside Joe Helms and he

urged me to make some sort of comment,

but I just couldn't think of anything to say.

 

Imagine that.

 

But a day or two later, I was driving through

the giant sequoia redwoods and it dawned on me that

what the whole subject could use is a period,

a process of truth and reconciliation whereby

the various versions of TCM, CM, CTM, or whatever

names have been given to it, can be carefully

examined and compared to the growing body

of data concerning the subject. Someone the

other day suggested that this means I see

a single truth to be discovered. But as I

said, that is more or less opposite to what

I see. I see that people have come up with

lots of individual truths and that there is

relatively little in the way of any slightest

chance that these truths can be understood

in the light of the kind of work on the subject

that Paul and others have been doing for

the past many years unless we put our

attention on the situation and as a group

undertake to respond to Paul's challenge.

 

I am working here from the general to the

specific. I do not have any answers, nor

do I pretend to know what answers might

be or look like.

 

As I've said many times now, my purpose in

raising the subject was to try and determine

where people were at. I see now that you

and others are quite interested and I will

pursue the subject, along the lines that I

have already stated.

 

Sorry, there probably won't be much in

the way of excitement and certainly no

instant gratification.

 

It's a complicated situation, you know.

 

Julie asked, as have you, for my critique

of Web, and if I have some time later this

morning...I am trying to get a book to

press, at least my part of the chores that

remain to be done...I will see if I can

put together a short response to that

request.

 

Probably it will consist of critical questions

however, rather than answers.

 

I share your hunger for answers but find

that they are often hard to come by.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Will,

 

Thanks. Yeah, it was good to be able to

hang out in that environment and talk

about these things. And it once again

demonstrated to me how very limited this

forum is (CHA) when it comes to really

exchanging ideas and information.

 

That's why I've urged that everyone who can

take in Paul's lectures and workshops at

PCOM in November. It's a great chance

to hear what he has to say and to pursue

questions wtih him directly.

 

Thanks for posting your precis of some of

the notes you took.

 

I would be interested in reading your take

on Paul's question that I've mentioned a

few times, i.e., What are you going to

do about it?

 

And I look forward to seeing you at PCOM.

 

I dropped by your office a couple of times

when I was in Santa Monica last month,

but missed you. I'll be back there at the

end of this week and will stop by and say

hello if you're in.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Julie,

 

Not sure what you mean exactly by sounding off.

Certainly, I am sounding off, and listening to the

responses as carefully as I can.

 

I will probably not have time to prepare an entire

critique of Web, but I will try and make some time

later this morning to sit down with it and articulate

some of my fundamental concers.

 

I'm glad you mention your reliance on the book

as a basis for instruction in basic theory, as I

have a hunch that you represent a substantial

prortion of educators in the field in this regard.

 

I think that the book remains widely read, widely

influential, particularly among new comers to

the field, and that the impressions that it leaves

in people's minds are durable.

 

So I will try to sound off a bit more specifically

about it in a few hours.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

Good. It will probably turn into a bit of a

moveable feast, as always at such get

togethers; but we'll see what happens, eh?

 

Definitely bring those cameras and recorders.

 

There's going to be a lot of interesting action

at the Redwing booth. That new character book

is out, and if I can get my act together, I'll have

a little pamphlet entitled What Is Qi? for people

to have a look at.

 

See you there.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In his book ' in Contemporary China', in his appendix

(p275-289), Volker Sheid discusses four attempts at systematizing pattern

differentiation and treatment differentiation in the PRC.

 

 

-

> Paul is working on a significant text of manuscripts.

>

> TCM is a political attempt to eliminate the heterogeneity of Chinese

> Traditional Medicine. Western trained physicians created TCM. It was an

attempt to

> build on Marxism as social science and modern science as a model for

medicine.

> This is a redefinition rather than a discontinuance. Keep the outer

forms

but

> change the inner structure. In Tibet the Chinese leave the stands by the

> roadside and at night go into homes and destroy the altars.

>

> Best regards,

>

> Will

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I think COMP has largely failed for two important reasons:

 

1. I don't think the COMP initiative spoke to a need felt by its

putative market. It was (and probably still is) too far ahead of the

curve. Just like I'm not very sanguine about these discussions even

though, like you, I think they are necessary. Too many others do

not think they are necessary. For instance, we were not able to

convince journal editors to adopt these labels and they are supposed

to be more knowledgeable about these kinds of things than the rank and

file.

 

2. Although the COMP nomenclature was agreed on by all who attended

the initial COMP retreat here in Colorado, one main publisher who was

present and whose books are used as required texts in every school in

the country never implemented the use of these labels in their books.

If they had actively supported the COMP labels, we might've had a

chance. However, I believe they passively (aggressively) sabotaged the

initiative.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Thank you. I look forward to your further sounding. I just meant: making

statements without backing them up with details, and now you intend to do

that, so I am glad.

 

Julie

 

> Julie,

>

> Not sure what you mean exactly by sounding off.

> Certainly, I am sounding off, and listening to the

> responses as carefully as I can.

>

[Guest guest]

> Any chance you can make the scene at PCOM?

> I'd love to see you again and to have

> you present in our informal discussions.

>

> Ken

 

Sorry, BPE's sending three lovely ladies to charm the crowds at PCOM.

For us, this is a commercial trade show and one of the most important

of our year. In any case, they try to keep me away from the customers.

Leaders can only lead where others want to follow.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

You're right, it is addressed to Ken. Not enough of the extraneous

message was stripped away.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote:

> Emmanuel Segmen most assuredly did not write this. Ken Rose wrote

this. I am not raising any questions. Ken is. Please correct this

immediately. Thank you.

>

> Emmanuel Segmen

>

>

> , " Emmanuel Segmen "

wrote:

> > Perhaps what's making you uncomfortable is

> > the fact that I'm really just raising questions and

> > don't intend to offer any answers. But I will offer

> > to do this, in order to avoid some of the built

> > in limitations that this forum includes. >>>

>

> > You know better than I that nothing gets resolved

> > on these lists. >>>

>

>

>

> Since you've put yourself at the center of this and not everyone

> will be at the PCOM conference, you should offer---if not a

complete

> plan about resolution---some possibilities about how a

resolution

> might be developed, to the list. Don't be such a tease.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Julie - we too use the Web - but only as a supplement to other, much more

extensive theoretical textbooks. Our primary text is

Wiseman's Fundamentals. The problem with the Web as a textbook is that it

is not written for the practitioner. It is nicely written, it

reads easily and it often gives a false sense of simplicity in CM. One of

the problems that I encounter is that students often read the

book prior to entering a program and then think that they know all there is

to know about the FT of CM and that because it is in the

Web it must be true/correct. This goes back to the lack of critical

reading that so many of our students and teachers engage in.

Ted's book gained such wide usage because it was the first. I remember

speaking to Judith Farquhar in 1983 or 84 as she was writing her

dissertation on CM at the U of Chicago w/ Nathan Sivin and I was completing

my undergrad degree in Asian studies and she was so excited

because this book was about to come out and it was going to answer all of

our questions. Well, at the time it did - but is also forced us to ask

a lot more questions - it is to be hoped that over the past 20 years we

have matured in our understanding of and access to CM materials - the Web is

important because it was " the first " (although it really wasn't - Manfred

Porkert and Felix Mann were writing long before). It responds to many of

the fantasies that we want to be true about CM without addressing the

problematic elements or placing the medicine in much context. Granted,

the other FT books don't really do this either - Maciocia is more detailed

than the Web but equally simplified and glosses over many things.

Wiseman is a translation/compilation from modern FT textbooks in China and

so it has many of the problems of modern writing on CM but

it is more " true " to the FT being taught in schools of CM in China today

than any of the others. It covers aspects of CM theory that the other

fundamental textbooks don't even hint at -it needs to be used in

conjunction with a teacher who can help guide the students through learning

the

language and through understanding the concepts because it does not

simplify CM so that it is " understandable " to the western trained mind or

to the western fashioned fantasy. While this is not a fully formed

critique of every aspect of the Web, I hope it helps to understand why the

text

is not appropriate to use as a basis for teaching FT (as a stand alone text).

 

Marnae

 

 

 

At 12:09 PM 10/6/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Julie,

>

>Not sure what you mean exactly by sounding off.

>Certainly, I am sounding off, and listening to the

>responses as carefully as I can.

>

>I will probably not have time to prepare an entire

>critique of Web, but I will try and make some time

>later this morning to sit down with it and articulate

>some of my fundamental concers.

>

>I'm glad you mention your reliance on the book

>as a basis for instruction in basic theory, as I

>have a hunch that you represent a substantial

>prortion of educators in the field in this regard.

>

>I think that the book remains widely read, widely

>influential, particularly among new comers to

>the field, and that the impressions that it leaves

>in people's minds are durable.

>

>So I will try to sound off a bit more specifically

>about it in a few hours.

>

>Ken

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

How could anyone think that you

are me?

 

Ken

 

Indeed! I direct list members to please refer to my profile for a

reasonable likeness. I'll be at the Pacific Symposium as will Ken. Ken's the

highly articulate and good looking one. We'll be wearing name cards to prevent

any further confusion.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with Marnae's analysis.

 

I will often recommend 'Web' as one of the best intro books for the

public, or as an intro text for those considering Chinese medicine as a

step up professionally from massage school or macrobiotic counceling,

but not as a school textbook at this point. And, yes, the new footnotes

are excellent.

 

I think the profession as a whole has gone far beyond the Web. I think

this is normal and natural. I also think Ted himself has gone far

beyond the Web in his interests and teaching.

 

 

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 05:39 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

 

> Julie - we too use the Web - but only as a supplement to other, much

> more

> extensive theoretical textbooks. Our primary text is

> Wiseman's Fundamentals. The problem with the Web as a textbook is

> that it

> is not written for the practitioner. It is nicely written, it

> reads easily and it often gives a false sense of simplicity in CM. One

> of

> the problems that I encounter is that students often read the

> book prior to entering a program and then think that they know all

> there is

> to know about the FT of CM and that because it is in the

> Web it must be true/correct. This goes back to the lack of critical

> reading that so many of our students and teachers engage in.

> Ted's book gained such wide usage because it was the first. I remember

> speaking to Judith Farquhar in 1983 or 84 as she was writing her

> dissertation on CM at the U of Chicago w/ Nathan Sivin and I was

> completing

> my undergrad degree in Asian studies and she was so excited

> because this book was about to come out and it was going to answer all

> of

> our questions. Well, at the time it did - but is also forced us to ask

> a lot more questions - it is to be hoped that over the past 20 years we

> have matured in our understanding of and access to CM materials - the

> Web is

> important because it was " the first " (although it really wasn't -

> Manfred

> Porkert and Felix Mann were writing long before). It responds to many

> of

> the fantasies that we want to be true about CM without addressing the

> problematic elements or placing the medicine in much context. Granted,

> the other FT books don't really do this either - Maciocia is more

> detailed

> than the Web but equally simplified and glosses over many things.

> Wiseman is a translation/compilation from modern FT textbooks in China

> and

> so it has many of the problems of modern writing on CM but

> it is more " true " to the FT being taught in schools of CM in China

> today

> than any of the others. It covers aspects of CM theory that the other

> fundamental textbooks don't even hint at -it needs to be used in

> conjunction with a teacher who can help guide the students through

> learning

> the

> language and through understanding the concepts because it does not

> simplify CM so that it is " understandable " to the western trained mind

> or

> to the western fashioned fantasy. While this is not a fully formed

> critique of every aspect of the Web, I hope it helps to understand why

> the

> text

> is not appropriate to use as a basis for teaching FT (as a stand alone

> text).

>

> Marnae

>

>

>

> At 12:09 PM 10/6/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>> Julie,

>>

>> Not sure what you mean exactly by sounding off.

>> Certainly, I am sounding off, and listening to the

>> responses as carefully as I can.

>>

>> I will probably not have time to prepare an entire

>> critique of Web, but I will try and make some time

>> later this morning to sit down with it and articulate

>> some of my fundamental concers.

>>

>> I'm glad you mention your reliance on the book

>> as a basis for instruction in basic theory, as I

>> have a hunch that you represent a substantial

>> prortion of educators in the field in this regard.

>>

>> I think that the book remains widely read, widely

>> influential, particularly among new comers to

>> the field, and that the impressions that it leaves

>> in people's minds are durable.

>>

>> So I will try to sound off a bit more specifically

>> about it in a few hours.

>>

>> Ken

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Ha, Funny-man yourself, Jason. Do you mean " zen koan " ?

 

 

 

< wrote:

 

Dear Funny-man Ken,

 

Are you giving us some zen cohen?? Supply examples (from you or PU) and I am

sure we all

will discuss this 'major concern' of yours... Stay on track is right!

 

-

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Except it should be 'zen cohen'. Sometimes people mistake my name and

call me 'zen rosenberg'. Zen rose? Sushi bar indeed.

 

 

On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 02:59 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

 

> Ken, you and Jason should go on the road together. I almost fell out

> of my chair reading this one. Jason can set up all of your punch

> lines.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote

>

> Another thing that concerns me about this

> book is that as a relatively early publication

> in English on this subject, it laid a foundation

> for the enduring perception that Chinese

> medicine is a coherent system that flows

> as a continuum from past to present.

 

In so many ways, though...

if an individual is compelled enough to do some research into

the history of chinese medicine, she will soon enough come to

percieve it as a complexity of change, innovation and reconciliation

with the past. I don't really think people are being lied too or

need any kind of drastic rewiring of their thinking about this

stuff. What matters to a clinician is what works and what makes

sense within his own cosmology of sense-making, as well as in the

concrete reality of cause and affect in healing. It is the

establishment of at least believed resonance between the two that

makes a coherent belief-structure that tends to last.

The highly readable and fascinating book " Innovation in Chinese

Medicine " is an excellent systematic and temporally linear study

into the history of drastic epoch shifting events in the history of

chinese medicine.

Much recent scholarship on the history and anthropology of chinese

medicine has shown over and over again the vast complexity of it's

history and it's heterogenous-ness.

If you care to read about it....it's everywhere.

You can never put a stop on the fact that although trendiness is

not neccesarily a bad thing, the memes involved neccesarily become a

bit degraded down the whispering bench.

so..

what's my point..

Chinese medicine is marketed both from the PRC and in our own

country as a set of tools for healing and a philosophy to boot.

History is for academics and the clinical medicine is for the

doctors. Some people tread both waters, but most don't.

The web that has no weaver is a great book because it reads well

and it is a frim introduction to the set of techniques and theories

that make up whatever you want to call this medicine.

 

I think

> this is one of the things that brings it to

> attention in the context of this current

> discussion. Where did Ted get this idea?

>

 

Ted probably never really thought that chinese medicine was an

ancient thing passed on never-changing through the eons of history.

His intention (i believe) was to provide a sound introduction into

clinical TCM as taught in present day PRC.

 

matt

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Ken