Ken's review of The Web

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I'd be interested in your review of The Web, and don't dispute that

that could be a useful exercise. What I'm not so clear about, though,

is why you feel so strongly that The Web is such an important work. It

hasn't been for me, nor, I believe, for most of the other

practitioners I know. And I began my training in 1983, at a time when

there were many fewer CM texts available in English. (I even did a

signficant amount of study with Ted, and The Web didn't come into it

at all. Indeed, Ted's ideas went far beyond the material presented in

The Web. As I've mentioned before, Ted's London herb courses

introduced CHM to Westerners in the UK, but his influence in this area

had very little to do with anything in The Web, and I imagine that

most of the participants had learned most of their TCM from other

sources.)

 

The general consensus of this group seems to be that The Web is an

introductory text, perhaps most suitable for 'laymen'. That's how I

see it. Perhaps it occupies a significant historical position, being

the first English language work of note to discuss TCM-style theory,

and therefore deserves consideration, but I would be grateful if you

could comment in detail why you think this work should be singled out.

 

I can think of a number of English language books that I think have

had much more influence in the development of CM in the West than the Web.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

Wainwright,

 

As Julie said, she reads it several

times a year and uses it as a resource

in teaching basic theory courses.

 

I think Web is widely used in this way and that

generally the understanding of Chinese

medicine that it embodies has an enduring

influence on the field.

 

I don't think I overestimate the importance

of the work. I simply cited it as an example

of the kind of source that presents a distorted

image of " Chinese medicine " and stands as

a standard reference.

 

That was Paul's question. What are we

going to do about representations of the

subject that have come to be accepted as

standards despite their divergence from

what his view of history suggests.

 

I certainly don't want to single it out, but

when pressed for an example, I cited it

because it is so widely read and well known.

 

My suggestion, as you will recall, is that

we establish a cooperative effort to

scrutinize all the sources of data in

the field so that we can come to a clearer

shared understanding of where our

information comes and how it comes

to be reliable.

 

So, OK. I'll do Web. How about some

volunteers to take up other titles?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I'll ask my question a different way.

Would it not be more productive to question TCM, and scrutinize its

limitations, assumptions, possibly the misleading sense that it gives

of a coherent tradition embodied in itself, than to focus on

individuals like Ted Kaptchuk? My feeling is that The Web is more of a

messenger than the message. OK, there are some teachers who use The

Web regularly - that's their right, and working method, but as I've

suggested before, and it seems to be the consensus in this forum, The

Web is primarily an introductory text, probably a very good one, but

not much more than that. Perhaps we simply disagree in our estimation

of the signficance of The Web - maybe, for example, it is a much more

signficant work in the US than in the UK. But most people who have

contributed to this debate seem to side with the interpretation that

The Web's best considered an introductory text.

 

Why not focus on a text that it more directed at professionals? The

Fundamentals of might be a much better text to

analyse, particularly since it is a translation of a PRC textbook. If

you could show the inadequacies of such a text, then you would really

be contributing to our perceptions of CM and TCM.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

, " wainwright " wrote:

> Why not focus on a text that it more directed at professionals? >>

 

Doug wrote: But more importantly, I know that one is not supposed

to " get personal " on these lists but I wonder if you have

entertained the possibility that you are wrong? No, no, not that you

are asking the questions. Not that PU has given you a valid line of

inquiry. Not that your questions are wrong. But simply that the way

you are doing it, using these very pages, to question someone's

credentials is, as the Buddhists say, " not skillful " . Posting in

public these very serious innuendo is not scholarship and I really

object to that.

 

 

Wainwright and Doug:

 

I suspect that Kaptchuk and Bensky were chosen, not at random or for

their historical value, but because they do not support the Wiseman

terminology (I may be wrong). And that stadardization, I suspect

(again, I may be wrong), is ultimately what Ken's thread will try to

justify.

 

Sometimes I find it ironic that people argue that CM is a plurality,

that we can see many varied and conflicting definitions of terms,

and yet argue to reduce that pleasant cacophony to a standardization

of terms. Although, I would agree that we certainly need to show

where our ideas came from, and all publishers should include the

original Chinese text they are translating or a glossary.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

No matter what one thinks of the Web, it's presence should be on

every practitioner's bookshelf.

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

At 3:46 PM +0000 10/15/03, kenrose2008 wrote:

OK. You've convinced me.

 

I'll do a review of the whole book.

Please be patient. It will take a

while.

--

 

Ken,

 

Well, I wasn't trying to convince you to do this; just that if you do,

to do it in it's entirety -- i.e. be fair to the author and his product.

However, I'm not sure doing this is going to get you what you

want. This whole subject sprang from the notion that there are

serious misunderstandings and false claims about the history of

CM, amongst practitioners, and through them, the wider public. I

think you reported that Unschuld made this claim. If this is your

starting hypothesis, then I suggest that we'd have to look much

further than one book to see if it is true, and if so how it came to

be.

 

So first, is there in fact a significant percentage of practitioners

who hold the belief that " Chinese medicine is a distinct form or

system of medicine that has come down to us in the present age

after thousands of years of more or less seamless transmission

from its mythic past into its present circumstances in the West

today " ?

 

If so, who are they and how did they in fact gain this impression?

was it because they were predisposed to do so? was it because

they received a biased education in general? or from certain

influential teachers? was it the books they read?

 

If it turns out that the answer to these questions yes, and the

reasons given point to The Web, how did they get this

impression from that book? have they in fact read the book

thoroughly? given that a lot of people read that book without

getting that impression, what are the differences between the

two groups?

 

Of course there are more questions to ask, but you see my point.

We need to first find out if the premise holds up, before we go

looking for culprits, and before we devote a lot of time and effort

trying to justify the hypothesis by torturing ourselves and the

literature.

 

Rory

[Guest guest]

It is important to review 'The Web' because so few other books offer

practical insights. I have read about half a dozen translations of TCM texts

(not much I know but all I could get hold of) including the 4 volumes that

makes up the core course material at Middlesex (Advanced Textbook on

Traditional and Pharmacology). They all have their merits

and they all have their failings.

 

Ken's analysis of Kaptchuk is on the money, albeit only based on a 'few

lines in the first chapter'. I find Kaptchuk deliberately obscure on his

meaning of the " web " . For Kaptchuk the web has some indefinable fluid

ever-changing quality that makes it impossible to nail down and stereotype.

Fine, life itself has a transitory and irreducible quality, but we have to

get by, giving these fleeting shadows names and sometimes even numbers to

capture and transform them into something value added in our lives. Hence

Language, hence Science. Robert Graves wrote a great poem about it but I

digress .. ( also I am not too happy with Neitze's comments on science as

you can probably intuit).

 

No mention of Five Element Theory in the main text, this is consigned to a

footnote. Yet how much easier it is to see the resonances for example in Ch

2: 'Fundamental Textures Qi, Blood, Essence, Spirit and Fluids', IF ONLY he

had linked these up to a five pointed star that is on the Chinese flag. It

is SO EASY then to remember how Liver-wood promotes Heart-fire and how

Liver-wood itself is restricted by Lung-metal. So easy then to see how

disharmonies arise through a simple breakdown in the unity of Yin-Yang

within the transmission of energy from one Organ to another around the star

(in promotion) or across the star (in restriction). So easy then to see how

like a vibrating Chladni Plate, the degeneration from a five pointed

structure (TCM) to a four pointed structure (Greek) is a natural progression

of the physical state.

 

Despite that I really value Kaptchuk's second edition. There is a lot of

very useful and practical information. It is a pity this is marred by

uncorrected typos and diagrammatic errors that shake one's faith in the

author's own insight and depth of knowledge. In particular the pulse

diagrams on page 200-201 are labelled completely the opposite to the

diagrams in the rest of the chapter. In my view these diagrams are

incorrectly labelling " bone " and " superficial " together and also labelling

" deep " and " skin " together. Pretty obvious maybe, but if you are new to the

game it shakes you up a little bit.

 

Last of all is Kaptchuk's statement that the Chinese had no knowledge of the

cardiovascular circulatory system. We have had this out before and there

seems to be a consensus of sorts (based on Unschuld) that because there is

no word for 'pump' to be found in the ancient texts the Chinese had no idea

how the CV system worked. Duh uh ! I don't think so: to conceptualise the

Heart as one of the five zang organs needs a damned good idea of anatomy.

 

A little story. Years ago I worked in north Canada I learnt that the Eskimos

made great car mechanics. Although they had seven words for different types

of snow, they didn't have a word for " spark plug " or " fuel pump " or

" combustion chamber " in Inuit. Despite that lacking, they sure learned how

to fix engines and had gained a reputation in that field. Moral of the story

is don't underestimate what the Chinese are doing today, or were doing 2000

years ago.

 

Oh and yes, please Ken full critique of 'The Web', I am looking forward to

that.

 

Sammy.

 

 

 

 

kenrose2008 [kenrose2008]

15 October 2003 18:07

 

Re: Ken's review of The Web

 

 

Wainwright,

 

As Julie said, she reads it several

times a year and uses it as a resource

in teaching basic theory courses.

 

I think Web is widely used in this way and that

generally the understanding of Chinese

medicine that it embodies has an enduring

influence on the field.

 

I don't think I overestimate the importance

of the work. I simply cited it as an example

of the kind of source that presents a distorted

image of " Chinese medicine " and stands as

a standard reference.

 

That was Paul's question. What are we

going to do about representations of the

subject that have come to be accepted as

standards despite their divergence from

what his view of history suggests.

 

I certainly don't want to single it out, but

when pressed for an example, I cited it

because it is so widely read and well known.

 

My suggestion, as you will recall, is that

we establish a cooperative effort to

scrutinize all the sources of data in

the field so that we can come to a clearer

shared understanding of where our

information comes and how it comes

to be reliable.

 

So, OK. I'll do Web. How about some

volunteers to take up other titles?

 

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]

I've personally haven't wanted to get involved in this particular

discussion, because of my friendship and/or professional involvement

with all the individuals involved. Discussing such issues, no matter

how valid, gets lost in emotional complexities, especially in an

e-mail forum when these individuals are not within ear-shot or visual

contact. The issues raised on texts, training and legacy are

legitimate ones, but people's personalities and emotions will often

cloud them.

 

I think that it is incorrect, Jim to say that Kaptchuk and Bensky were

chosen for discussion by Ken because of their non-use of the Wiseman

dictionary. Their primary texts were written before the existence of a

decent English-Chinese medical dictionary, so, for me at least, the

issue is moot. They did the best job they could with the tools at

hand. As clinical texts, the Bensky texts have stood the test of time,

although I think a larger glossary and explanation of term choices

would have been ideal. Somehow this issue escaped our radar until the

appearance of the Wiseman terminology.

 

It has more to do with standards and credentials that have been

established by default in our profession, and while I'd be more

comfortable without raising specific personalities for scrutiny on this

list, I don't think making another accusation like this (that the

authors Bensky and Kaptchuk don't conform to the Wiseman dictionary,

explaining Ken's 'attack') helps matters at all.

 

The issue is not whether the Wiseman dictionary and its terminology

will become the de-facto standard in our profession, but whether

authors of Chinese medical books in English will explain their term

choices in footnotes, and educate the reader in the process of study on

terms, concepts and meaning, with proper references. Until other

alternatives in Chinese-English medical dictionaries and glossaries

present themselves, the Wiseman dictionary will be the 'standard' by

default, just as the Bensky and Kaptchuk texts have become 'standard'

by the lack of any other alternatives at the time. And for Formulas

and Strategies, no contender has really appeared, even after 13 years.

How many years do you think it will be before a new, alternative

dictionary appears in this profession?

 

 

Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 11:52 AM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> , " wainwright " wrote:

>> Why not focus on a text that it more directed at professionals? >>

>

> Wainwright and Doug:

>

> I suspect that Kaptchuk and Bensky were chosen, not at random or for

> their historical value, but because they do not support the Wiseman

> terminology (I may be wrong). And that stadardization, I suspect

> (again, I may be wrong), is ultimately what Ken's thread will try to

> justify.

>

> Sometimes I find it ironic that people argue that CM is a plurality,

> that we can see many varied and conflicting definitions of terms,

> and yet argue to reduce that pleasant cacophony to a standardization

> of terms. Although, I would agree that we certainly need to show

> where our ideas came from, and all publishers should include the

> original Chinese text they are translating or a glossary.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

[Guest guest]

" James Ramholz " <jramholz

>>Sometimes I find it ironic that people argue that CM is a plurality,

that we can see many varied and conflicting definitions of terms,

and yet argue to reduce that pleasant cacophony to a standardization

of terms.>>

 

Jim,

This thought has occurred to me as well. That's one reason why it

might be very interesting to apply Ken's project to a book like the

Fundamentals of . Doing this would enable one to both

explore the problematics of TCM in the light of Unschuld's point about

incoherence, and simultaneously explore how this applies to an attempt

to standardize terminology.

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/03 4:23:27 PM, zrosenbe writes:

 

 

>

> Until other 

> alternatives in Chinese-English medical dictionaries and glossaries 

> present themselves, the Wiseman dictionary will be the 'standard' by 

> default, just as the Bensky and Kaptchuk texts have become 'standard' 

> by the lack of any other alternatives at the time.  And for Formulas 

> and Strategies, no contender has really appeared, even after 13 years.  

> How many years do you think it will be before a new, alternative 

> dictionary appears in this profession?

>

 

I just got a request for donations to write a Functional Medicine textbook

that will possibly end up costing $100,000+ to develop. Wouldn't it be nice if

we could get our profession behind some major developments such as this that

would formalize our academia a bit? I'm hopeful it is coming.

It would be great if the Council of Colleges would show some largesse in this

direction. Perhaps the NCCAOM might chip in too. It is a sign of the

financial paucity of our field in it's newless that even those with the largest

amounts of money probably have access to less than a million bucks of liquidity.

Everybody buy a lottery ticket this week and lets check our karma.

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jim -

 

Just to clarify, it was I who first brought the Web into the discussion - I

listed it, along with Between Heaven & Earth, Misha's into to CM and Ken's

Who Can Ride the Dragon as the books that probably most inform the public

about what CM " is " . I brought them up not necessarily to engender the

critique that Ken wrote but rather as examples of huge variety of books

that are out there representing us to the public. I do not know why Ken

chose the Web to critique over the others - except that it has probably

been more extensively read than any of the others - although Heaven is

certainly up there (and portrays a VERY different picture of CM than the

Web does.). Is one more " real " than the other? My training in the US and

China certainly was more like what was presented in the Web than in

Heaven/Earth but clearly Ted/Dan's training was very different from

Harriet/Efrem.

 

 

All of this keeps bringing me back to PU's original " challenge " to Ken et.

al. I personally find the challenge itself quite problematized. If PU

thinks that the medicine that we are representing as CM is " not that " than

what exactly is his referent when he refers to CM?

 

Is it Pre-Communist Revolution CM - well, CM was outlawed for a time and

then came back in a form that is not all that distant from " TCM "

 

Is it pre-Republican CM?

 

Is it Ming/Qing CM? - the CM of Li Dong Yuan & Zhu Dan Xi?

 

Is it Tang Dynasty CM - after all this is when education in CM began to be

formalized.

 

Is it Han Dynasty CM? Is it the CM of the Nei Jing? The Nan Jing? The SHL?

 

Clearly CM has never been a static thing and people have been writing in

this field for 2000 years - commenting on each others work etc. Are we to

stop doing this and attempt to practice as it was practice at some other

unspecified time because that is more " real " than this? I am an

anthropologist (in response to doug's comments) as well as a practitioner,

and yet, as such, I think that the question/challenge is confused. I do

not think that it is possible for us to practice this medicine outside of

our cultural context. We make every attempt we can to learn as much about

this medicine as we can and to place it in as much of a historical context

as is appropriate but what perplexes me is how PU can pose this question in

light of his discussion about medical systems as cultural systems. This

is a given amongst cultural anthropologists and the most important this

about culture is that it is not static. An anthropologists work gives a

picture of a given circumstance at a given time - and the expectation is

that simply writing about that circumstance will change it and that things

will not be the same later. So how can PU expect a medical system to be

static. CM has been transplanted to a new culture. It must adapt (just as

'western medicine' adapted when it was transplanted). I remain puzzled by

exactly what the challenge PU presented really was.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

>Wainwright and Doug:

>

>I suspect that Kaptchuk and Bensky were chosen, not at random or for

>their historical value, but because they do not support the Wiseman

>terminology (I may be wrong). And that stadardization, I suspect

>(again, I may be wrong), is ultimately what Ken's thread will try to

>justify.

>

>Sometimes I find it ironic that people argue that CM is a plurality,

>that we can see many varied and conflicting definitions of terms,

>and yet argue to reduce that pleasant cacophony to a standardization

>of terms. Although, I would agree that we certainly need to show

>where our ideas came from, and all publishers should include the

>original Chinese text they are translating or a glossary.

>

>

>Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>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]

Ken,

 

Do you remember Sophia Delza's book on taijiquan Wu style?

I still have my first copy and will remain in my bookshelf. Why?

Well, it is not for the accuracy of her writings or the alignments of

her postures. Rather, because of the place her book has in Taijiquan

history in the West. She was sharing her knowledge way before Cheng

Man Ching, T. T. Liang, Kuo Lien-Ying or Marshal Ho. I see the Web in

the same light as Delza's work. A piece of early TCM literature in

the West.

 

I first read the Web in 1986 while a student at the Dupage Shiatsu

Institute in Dupage, Ill. It was required reading. Did it hurt my

development as a CM practitioner? I think not.

 

Your position on the Web, reminds me of that of Biblical scholars who

with more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, criticize the King James

version of the Christian scriptures as inaccurate and filled with

errors. Yet, all their criticism can never negate the fact that

millions of lives have been positively affected by it inspite of poor

translation.

 

Dr. Kaptchuk' work with all its flaws ought to ensured him a

prominent place in the annals of TCM literature in the West and his

book is destined to be a classic.

 

 

Fernando

[Guest guest]

I would beg to differ with your opinion about the King James Bible, but

this is not the correct forum for this discussion. I think

inaccuracies of the King James Bible translations have led to several

distortions leading to much misunderstanding and suffering. I also

don't see the comparision with " The Web That Has No Weaver " .

 

Inspiration is a wonderful thing, but accuracy is what builds cultures,

medicine and practical pursuits.

 

 

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 09:12 PM, fernando b. wrote:

 

> Your position on the Web, reminds me of that of Biblical scholars who

> with more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, criticize the King James

> version of the Christian scriptures as inaccurate and filled with

> errors. Yet, all their criticism can never negate the fact that

> millions of lives have been positively affected by it inspite of poor

> translation.

 

 

[Guest guest]

You're correct in that this is not the forum for theological

discussions albeit you've taken time to express your view on the KJV

and to some degree I agree. This is probably true of translations of

various religion's scriptures.

 

 

My objective was simply a comparsion between two books which

depending on which side of the fence one stands, receive praise or

are condemned. It was not meant to compare content. Perhaps I've

should've chosen " Between Heaven and Earth " . Sorry if the comparison

offended you.

 

Fernando

, " " wrote:

> I would beg to differ with your opinion about the King James Bible,

but

> this is not the correct forum for this discussion. I think

> inaccuracies of the King James Bible translations have led to

several

> distortions leading to much misunderstanding and suffering. I

also

> don't see the comparision with " The Web That Has No Weaver " .

>

> Inspiration is a wonderful thing, but accuracy is what builds

cultures,

> medicine and practical pursuits.

>

>

> On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 09:12 PM, fernando b. wrote:

>

> > Your position on the Web, reminds me of that of Biblical scholars

who

> > with more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, criticize the King James

> > version of the Christian scriptures as inaccurate and filled with

> > errors. Yet, all their criticism can never negate the fact that

> > millions of lives have been positively affected by it inspite of

poor

> > translation.

>

>