in the woods with Prof Unschuld

[Guest guest]

> Marnae Ergil wrote:

 

>ANd remember, even if we do read the texts in the original chinese, we

>still don't really know what the author was attempting to portray - the

>cultural aspects of the time are not present today and, despite the

work of

>many anthropologists (myself included) to try to " know " what is

>meant by Chinese medicine then and now, we can only speculate.

 

 

I appreciate what you're saying here, Marnae.

 

If folks on this list who speak the same language fluently and live

concurrently misunderstand each other so frequently, what's the

likelihood that our understanding of the CM classics will be 'accurate?'

Still, we need to strive for some common understanding of the history of

CM. And some common understanding of how CM should be practiced today in

the US (and elsewhere?). I suggest we elect some of our brightest to a

'commission' to determine these things . . . and pay them. Likely the

group would spend a long time just determining what is to be determined.

This commission might bud out from one of our current organizations, or

be an off-shoot of the CHA. I would happily pay a 'dues' to an

organization formed for this important purpose. To me these questions

are primary and everything else about our profession should flow after

these matters are better understood. I know that discussions like that

" in the woods " are part of this process and perhaps y'all would prefer

those less 'official' discussions of these issues. But I like the idea

of voting for who's involved and setting goals and keeping everyone in

the profession up-to-date on progress. Can we afford such a commission?

Can we afford not to have one? I know about the Little Hoover Commission

and other developments but do the people who should be taking part have

the time to get involved? CM may not have a coherent history but I

think, CM as a profession, here, today, must find its own sort of

coherence. The path to creating that coherence is best embarked on in an

organized, concerted fashion. Or else we will likely be regulated from

without, in an unpleasant way. I guess that's already underway.

 

Isn't most of what we learn in our field (in any field? in everyday

life?) 'just' something we read from a source we trust, or heard from a

source we trust? We trust sources because we trust the initials after

someone's name, or the reputation of a publication, or someone we

respect said it was good or the way something was expressed, it sounded

right to our ears . . . . Lots of discussions of facts and truths boil

down to our individual predilections to 'trust.' I think we don't

acknowledge how much of our 'knowing' is floating on this soup of our

cultural/psychological, etc. make-up. The way I learned CM in school

(graduated 5 yrs ago), I did not 'trust' it. And I've spent the

intervening years looking for information I can trust more. I find it.

And then I find other information that is completely different that I

think I can trust also. I try this. I try that. It's very difficult to

know what works clinically when you're still discovering the medicine .

.. . when the field is still discovering the medicine. I'm sure I'm not

alone. I believe that many other practitioners who see improvement in

most of their patients are satisfied with CM and their knowledge of it.

I am not. The healing relationship is a profound and mysterious

interaction and people get better for lots of reasons and I would not be

surprised if the particular herbs and points I'm using are a small

fraction of why my patients get better. I acknowledge that I'm 'the kind

of person' who'll never be satisfied that I know enough. But I think

there are too many in this profession who are too easily trusting and

ready to take the credit for 'healing with CM.' I think we need to get

the 'facts' of CM clearer. (Notice I didn't say 'clear.') A commission

could tackle these matters.

 

Marian

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release 12/25/2002