Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 At 5:09 AM +0000 10/23/03, kenrose2008 wrote: >I've just spent a couple of days >talking with Harriet and Efrem >about the issues that we've been >discussing here. ... > >Harriet and Efrem hosted the event >with Paul Unschuld and it took place >at their place. I want to do more >of these kinds of events to provide >people with opportunites for intensive >encounters with ideas and individuals. --- Ken, I was wondering if you had talked to Harriet and Efrem about their understanding of Unschuld's challenge, particularly with respect to their own book. It did strike me that that Unschuld's challenge may have been directed particularly at those authors present at the event. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Rory, I'm going to wait until the outline that I mentioned that Harriet and I are putting together is done to respond to your question in detail. I think that the statements and questions that the outline contains will inform you and others more or less precisely what is on Harriet's mind and will reflect the overall span of concerns that emerged from our week together at Butler Creek and in subsequent discussions. Paul definitely addressed his comments and questions to those of us in the room. He was asking me, Joe Helms, Harriet and Efrem, along with the others there what we were going to do about the divergences that exist between our published accounts of the material that he was presenting to us and what we all came to recognize as his far more accurate reading of that same material. It was really a pretty simple and straight forward question. It's like this, Paul said. And you guys have been saying it's like that. So do you have any thoughts about how to reconcile this and that? That's what he wanted to know, and it was the simple sincerity of his question that touched me and started me thinking about truth and reconciliation. I believe Paul's take on Heaven and Earth is that, just as Harriet and Efrem refer to the book as a whole, it is their creative and inventive take on certain ideas that come from various traditions of medical thought from China. They, like any and everyone, have every right to engage in this kind of creative interpretation. And the fact that they care enough about the integrity of the subject and the information that they deal with to identify their work accurately is an important distinction from other writers who have attempted to pass off idiosyncratic interpretations (and all too frequently misinterpretations) of source material (not to mention material that is fabricated on the basis of few or no sources). Harriet and Efrem have been readers, fans, and I think it's safe to characterize them as students of Paul's since they first met in 1987. I think the same goes for Joe Helms. I'm telling you, it's hard to find people who care deeply about the subject who don't come to recognize the profound care and concern that Paul has for his work and the issues he deals with,not to mention the enormously liberating effect of being able to deal with issues related to the literature and history of the subject on a more grounded basis. Look, we are all struggling with very complex and difficult materials. Even Paul seeks the help of Chinese scholars from time to time, although he does the bulk of the heavy lifting all by himself, of course with a great deal of inspirational input from his wife, Ulricke. I appreciate your question and think that in a few more days, a more or less complete answer will have been developed. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 I think this is very exciting stuff, Ken, and that you've hit on a significant key to the present scenario, i.e. the issue of accurate AND creative presentation and development of the Chinese medical tradition. I think we can find a way to be inclusive and deal with the issues at the same time. If you want any feedback on an outline, count me in. I'll plan to be there at the Symposium giving my two cents worth. On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 08:13 AM, kenrose2008 wrote: > Rory, > > I'm going to wait until the outline > that I mentioned that Harriet and I > are putting together is done to > respond to your question in detail. > I think that the statements and > questions that the outline contains > will inform you and others more > or less precisely what is on Harriet's > mind and will reflect the overall > span of concerns that emerged from > our week together at Butler Creek > and in subsequent discussions. > > Paul definitely addressed his comments > and questions to those of us in the > room. He was asking me, Joe Helms, > Harriet and Efrem, along with the > others there what we were going to > do about the divergences that exist > between our published accounts of > the material that he was presenting > to us and what we all came to recognize > as his far more accurate reading > of that same material. > > It was really a pretty simple and > straight forward question. It's like > this, Paul said. And you guys have > been saying it's like that. > > So do you have any thoughts about > how to reconcile this and that? > > That's what he wanted to know, > and it was the simple sincerity > of his question that touched me > and started me thinking about truth > and reconciliation. > > I believe Paul's take on Heaven and > Earth is that, just as Harriet and > Efrem refer to the book as a whole, > it is their creative and inventive > take on certain ideas that come > from various traditions of medical > thought from China. They, like any > and everyone, have every right to > engage in this kind of creative > interpretation. And the fact that > they care enough about the integrity > of the subject and the information > that they deal with to identify > their work accurately is an important > distinction from other writers who > have attempted to pass off idiosyncratic > interpretations (and all too frequently > misinterpretations) of source material > (not to mention material that is fabricated > on the basis of few or no sources). > > Harriet and Efrem have been readers, > fans, and I think it's safe to characterize > them as students of Paul's since they > first met in 1987. I think the same goes > for Joe Helms. > > I'm telling you, it's hard to find > people who care deeply about the subject > who don't come to recognize the profound > care and concern that Paul has for his > work and the issues he deals with,not to > mention the enormously liberating effect > of being able to deal with issues related > to the literature and history of the > subject on a more grounded basis. > > Look, we are all struggling with > very complex and difficult materials. > Even Paul seeks the help of Chinese > scholars from time to time, although > he does the bulk of the heavy lifting > all by himself, of course with a great > deal of inspirational input from his > wife, Ulricke. > > I appreciate your question and think > that in a few more days, a more or > less complete answer will have been > developed. > > Ken > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Ken, I'm a little perplexed at your response. The full title of Harriet & Efrem's book is Between Heaven and Earth: A Guide to Chinese Medicine. The tenor and tone of your remarks below are in marked contrast to those in your messages regarding The Web. You appear to be adopting a different standard in this case. H & E (Heaven and Earth, not Harriet and Efrem) makes a very specific claim in it's title, that it's " a guide to Chinese medicine " , which is at odds with your statement below that it should be excused as a creative interpretation of Chinese medicine. You gave no such benefit of the doubt in your remarks about The Web. Rory --- At 3:13 PM +0000 10/23/03, kenrose2008 wrote: >Rory, > >I'm going to wait until the outline >that I mentioned that Harriet and I >are putting together is done to >respond to your question in detail. >I think that the statements and >questions that the outline contains >will inform you and others more >or less precisely what is on Harriet's >mind and will reflect the overall >span of concerns that emerged from >our week together at Butler Creek >and in subsequent discussions. > >Paul definitely addressed his comments >and questions to those of us in the >room. He was asking me, Joe Helms, >Harriet and Efrem, along with the >others there what we were going to >do about the divergences that exist >between our published accounts of >the material that he was presenting >to us and what we all came to recognize >as his far more accurate reading >of that same material. > >It was really a pretty simple and >straight forward question. It's like >this, Paul said. And you guys have >been saying it's like that. > >So do you have any thoughts about >how to reconcile this and that? > >That's what he wanted to know, >and it was the simple sincerity >of his question that touched me >and started me thinking about truth >and reconciliation. > >I believe Paul's take on Heaven and >Earth is that, just as Harriet and >Efrem refer to the book as a whole, >it is their creative and inventive >take on certain ideas that come >from various traditions of medical >thought from China. They, like any >and everyone, have every right to >engage in this kind of creative >interpretation. And the fact that >they care enough about the integrity >of the subject and the information >that they deal with to identify >their work accurately is an important >distinction from other writers who >have attempted to pass off idiosyncratic >interpretations (and all too frequently >misinterpretations) of source material >(not to mention material that is fabricated >on the basis of few or no sources). > >Harriet and Efrem have been readers, >fans, and I think it's safe to characterize >them as students of Paul's since they >first met in 1987. I think the same goes >for Joe Helms. > >I'm telling you, it's hard to find >people who care deeply about the subject >who don't come to recognize the profound >care and concern that Paul has for his >work and the issues he deals with,not to >mention the enormously liberating effect >of being able to deal with issues related >to the literature and history of the >subject on a more grounded basis. > >Look, we are all struggling with >very complex and difficult materials. >Even Paul seeks the help of Chinese >scholars from time to time, although >he does the bulk of the heavy lifting >all by himself, of course with a great >deal of inspirational input from his >wife, Ulricke. > >I appreciate your question and think >that in a few more days, a more or >less complete answer will have been >developed. > >Ken -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 > Ken wrote: > And the fact that > >they care enough about the integrity > >of the subject and the information > >that they deal with to identify > >their work accurately is an important > >distinction from other writers who > >have attempted to pass off idiosyncratic > >interpretations (and all too frequently > >misinterpretations) Ken are you suggesting that the presentation of five phase psychological typing in the BHAE (amongst many other ideas including that of balance and self- healing) are not idiosyncratic or unrelated to the actual tradition. In fact, I believe that book, which is much more accessible to the public in its style, comes off as if it conveys the general consensus on TCM, not a personal take on the matter. When in fact, I know few professionals in the field who feel that it represents what they do. It is considered quite speculative, idiosyncratic and new age. On what sound historical or literary basis do these ideas derive from. In contrast, the web, while admittedly highly flawed, is a much more accurate representation of modern TCM. I also am perplexed at this apparent contradiction between your review of the web and your review of BHAE. I will remind longtime CHA readers that Nigel Wiseman chose this latter book as the basis for a quite scathing attack of his own. Clearly he does not share Ken's forgiveness in this matter. To quote one passage from his article in the CHA files section: " An example of the spiritual understanding of qi is found in Between Heaven and Earth: A Guide to , Harriet Beinfield and Efrem Korngold10 state: Subtle yet palpable, my initial encounter with acupuncture left me tantalized by mystery and promise. Mystery that tiny needles could extend my field of awareness and completely alter my state of being. Here acupuncture is unequivocally described as having an empowering spiritual effect. To my knowledge, no such descriptions are to be found of acupuncture in any Oriental texts. The notion of a spiritual effect of acupuncture does not come from China, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam. I suggest it is a notion of Western origin that has arisen under the influence of experiential spiritual traditions from India. " the entire article may be found at http://health. AltHealth.pdf P.S. large links usually break on , so it should start with http and end with pdf and look for spaces between characters if it does not work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 What I'm saying is what I said. Harriet and Efrem clearly identify what it is they are doing with their theorizing and their typology model. I was talking about this with them just the other day. I think they will have more to say on this topic in the days, weeks, months ahead. And I am satisfied to leave that up to them. I was not trying to sum up their work or even make any overarching comment on it. Harriet and I are working together on this truth and reconciliation initiative. So what does that tell you about her take on her own reflections concerning the character of her work? Stay tuned. You'll be hearing more about it in the next little while. The fact that you know few professionals who feel that Heaven and Earth represents what they do shows, in some anecdotal way, that the impact of that book on the thinking in and about the field does not compare with that of Web. Fewer yet think that Who Can Ride the Dragon? has anything at all to do with Chinese medicine. And Bob Flaws said that A Brief History of Qi, though beautifully written, had absolutely no relevance to the practice of medicine. But I don't see Harriet and Efrem's work or my own as beyond reproach. When Doug pointed out that he found similarities between statements in Dragon and Web, I replied that it was perhaps a valid criticism. And don't forget that after Nigel's scathing comments about Heaven and Earth at PCOM in 2000, I published his comments in CAOM and later invited Harriet and Efrem to publish their response. I worked with them for several months on that submission. I hope you or others are not expecting that I am somehow going to singlehandedly compile comprehensive reviews of every book written. And I reserve for myself the right to make any sort of comment on any piece or body of work that I see fit at any time. And I know I can count on your and others here to point out my flaws when I make them. Thanks, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Jim, I think that perhaps you, Marnae and several other people are misreading Ken's recent posts on " Between Heaven and Earth " . What I read in Ken's posts is that he is giving them credit for coming to terms with Chinese source literature, inquiring of and sponsoring such individuals as Paul Unschuld and Nigel Wiseman, not considering the costs to the reputation of their work. I see this as a brave and honest gesture, and I think the reevaluation of " Between Heaven and Earth " that will result is a credit to them, and to the profession. I don't think we need to wear this reevaluation of source materials as a scarlet letter, but as a dusting off of priorities. We've grown up as a profession. Many of the books that we are discussing were written many years ago. We need to reevaluate, not demonize. Books need to be updated or rewritten to share that growth that individuals have had. It would be impossible that our level of knowledge should be at the same level as books that were written so long ago, when the profession (in the West) was truly at a novice level. I am an optimist. I see growth and change, and I'd like to know what is true and real in our profession. On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 08:41 AM, James Ramholz wrote: > We also think the BHAE catagories are oversimplified and > idiosyncraticly new age, too. Those catagories probably directly > contributed to its popularity. > > I don't know any other professionals that use it; or how it can be > justified from either classical literature or clinical practice. But > from later postings, it looks like they are getting a pass from Ken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 , " " wrote: > I think that perhaps you, Marnae and several other people are > misreading Ken's recent posts on " Between Heaven and Earth " . >>> Z'ev: It seems to disagree or be critical is considered to be the same as misread. In any case, what you've said should not preclude BHAE from attention on this forum, should this thread continue. Jim Ramholz 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.