More the Web - conceptual gulfs

[Guest guest]

>>Alon,

 

I have raised what I consider to be a fairly

substantial point about the Web. It postulates

a relationship between " Chinese medicine "

and " Western medicine " that is characterized

from the get go as a vast conceptual gulf.

 

I've raised the question as to what the consequences

might have been if we had had an early look at

the subject that said, something else, something

along the lines that subsequent investigators have

concluded, i.e., that conceptually Chinese medicine

is quite comprehensible in terms that are familiar

to Westerners...once you understand what the

Chinese were actually saying.>>

 

Ken and Alon,

 

This email is not about The Web per se, but about the specific quote

above. (Interestingly, having studied with Kaptchuk, by the way, I

feel that in real life he did have a lot of understanding of CM that

went beyond a narrow TCM account, or indeed any kind of uniform

account. His approach was quite sophisticated, even in the mid 80s.)

 

I think there's a big difference in whether a system is

understandable, and whether it's compatible with the internal logic,

consistency, assumptions and attitudes of a different paradigm. For

example, I am a classically trained musician. I can write a fugue. I

can listen to Ravi Shankar on the sitar, and I certainly feel that I

understand it musically. However, as a western-trained musician, I

can't write or improvise ragas. It would undoubtedly take me years of

serious study to do so, just as it would for a person to study CM

properly.

 

What I would ask you to consider is that there are a number of

experienced, conventionally trained medical doctors who I know, who

have given up biomedicine to practice CM full time. In my experience,

these are the individuals who take paradigm issues most seriously,

just as Emmanuel, as a scientist, does. One of these doctors found,

when he first studied acupuncture, that it was what he had been

looking for when he studied biomedicine, but hadn't found. After his

acupuncture training, he thought he would practice acupuncture and

conventional medicine alongside each other. After doing this for some

time, he felt that it was too difficult to relate to two separate

systems of thought, and that he would have to chose one or the other.

In his case, he chose CM.

 

(There are also examples of Western medicine doctors who have studied

CM [in some form], but can't accept it theoretically, and think the

only correct approach is to develop a biomedical framework for its

practice.)

 

When we speak of conceptual gulfs, this is the sort of thing we need

to be taking into account, in my opinion. Furthermore, Andrew Weil

(for example in 'Spontaneous Healing), has given many examples of how

biomedical practitioners and a variety of CAM practitioners approach

health and illness from significantly different perspectives. These

issues, too, need to be taken into account. I can't see why an medical

doctor couldn't read Weil and understand the meaning of what he is

talking about - there's not a conceptual gulf in that sense, but there

is in many assumptions about how to treat people medically.

 

So, please can we relate to the conceptual gulf idea not in terms of

comprehensibility, but in a more profound paradigm sense?

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

When we speak of conceptual gulfs, this is the sort of thing we need

to be taking into account, in my opinion. Furthermore, Andrew Weil

(for example in 'Spontaneous Healing), has given many examples of how

biomedical practitioners and a variety of CAM practitioners approach

health and illness from significantly different perspectives. These

issues, too, need to be taken into account. I can't see why an medical

doctor couldn't read Weil and understand the meaning of what he is

talking about - there's not a conceptual gulf in that sense, but there

is in many assumptions about how to treat people medically.

>>>>>To some extent i agree. But even saying biomedical paradigm is somewhat

misleading. There are so many ways Dr practice it from " holistic " to surgical.

Some people are more comfortable with multiple hats some are not. Some can see

the similarities some only see the differences.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I think we'll benefit from a maximum amount of clarity at this stage -

if what we discuss and develop is rigorously precise from the

beginning, we'll hopefully avoid problems later. (This is a similar

point to what Ken is on about with regard to early English books on

CM, such as The Web.)

 

Therefore, with respect to your comment:

 

>>>>>To some extent i agree. But even saying biomedical paradigm is

somewhat misleading. There are so many ways Dr practice it from

" holistic " to surgical. Some people are more comfortable with multiple

hats some are not. Some can see the similarities some only see the

differences.

 

Yes, in practice doctors may approach their subject in all sorts of

different ways. But a formalised system of biomedicine exists, and

this is what I'm saying we need to consider carefully. It's rather

like the rules of grammar and spelling in the English language -

formal rules exist. An author may intentionally break those rules, to

great effect if she's a good writer, but a good editor will notice

them. They will be taught at university.

 

I get the feeling that your position is analogous to saying, let's

forget some of these formalisations - in practice, people do all sorts

of things differently from 'the rules'. The rules are an abstraction

and don't represent actual practice. So, look at actual practice, and

don't consider the rules too carefully.

 

There are many problems with that type of position, perhaps not at a

personal level, or even a personal-professional level, but these rules

do matter when different systems are being considered in relation to

one another. I believe that if we ignore this point, we could fail to

develop our positions as well as if we take both the formalisations,

and actual practice, into account explicitly.

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

 

 

-

" Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

 

Monday, November 03, 2003 4:18 PM

Re: Re: More " the Web " - conceptual gulfs

 

 

> When we speak of conceptual gulfs, this is the sort of thing we need

> to be taking into account, in my opinion. Furthermore, Andrew Weil

> (for example in 'Spontaneous Healing), has given many examples of how

> biomedical practitioners and a variety of CAM practitioners approach

> health and illness from significantly different perspectives. These

> issues, too, need to be taken into account. I can't see why an medical

> doctor couldn't read Weil and understand the meaning of what he is

> talking about - there's not a conceptual gulf in that sense, but there

> is in many assumptions about how to treat people medically.

> >>>>>To some extent i agree. But even saying biomedical paradigm is

somewhat misleading. There are so many ways Dr practice it from

" holistic " to surgical. Some people are more comfortable with multiple

hats some are not. Some can see the similarities some only see the

differences.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

So, please can we relate to the conceptual gulf idea not in terms of

comprehensibility, but in a more profound paradigm sense?

 

Wainwright

 

Wainwright,

 

In this I agree with you. Indeed, where I work, Dr. Kang is more adept at

thinking in Western medicine than I am, yet practices exclusively from the

paradigm of CM. He was the former chief of Shanghai Hospital #1, TCM Dept. But

he could have been an internal medicine professor if he so chose. It's so

obvious to watch him that his mind " hurdles " the gulf between WM and CM on a

regular basis. It's also obvious how his respect for each is quite clear. Both

sciences are profoundly important in our time. However, it's also obvious that

CM is the more mature paradigm, at least as Dr. Kang understands it and

practices it. Like many of his generation, however, he's not one to let any

helpful bit of information slip past him. So he's happy to read WM clinical

reports as well as doing his CM diagnostic assessment. One has to hang on a bit

if you want to stay with his mind as he relentlessly tears apart some conceptual

errors in WM treatment. One is the use of casts and supports. He really wants

his patients to go through the pain of soft tissue injury recovery early on and

not limit the flow of Qi to injured areas with too much supportive equipment

like braces. His commentary is you can go through the pain now or you can go

through it later with physical therapy. The latter version is very slow and

arduous by comparison. Pretty rugged guy. He has many such conceptual

commentaries regarding the limitations of WM treatment as compared to how he

would approach treatment with CM, particularly in the area of traumatic injury.

From my own limited observations the gulf between WM and CM is as vast as that

between grandparents and newborns ... and very similar. Interestingly, I

observe CM tending sometimes to be doting like a grandparent with regard to the

arrogant ways of WM.

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

[Guest guest]

I get the feeling that your position is analogous to saying, let's

forget some of these formalisations - in practice, people do all sorts

of things differently from 'the rules'. The rules are an abstraction

and don't represent actual practice. So, look at actual practice, and

don't consider the rules too carefully.

>>>>What Dr or people actually do is just as important as the so-called rules,

especially in CM but also in WM. My position is that if one looks at the

practice one can see what the rules one works by. I agree we need as much

clarity as possible but not in the expense of depth

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I agree. Depth is very much a concern of mine as well.

 

Both understanding conceptual frameworks as conceptual frameworks,

with their internal rules, consistencies, etc., and also looking at

actual practice, which may differ in important respects from the

theoretical model, are important. Each one should be done thoroughly

and explicitly. Then, paradigm and inter-paradigm issues should be

explored in depth. Otherwise, there's a danger of confusion, and as

I've mentioned before, in the context of the modern world, the danger

is to drift in the direction of biomedicalisation, not because it's

better, but because cultural (political, economic, power, etc.

amongst other factors) forces are directing it there.

 

Wainwright

 

 

 

-

" ALON MARCUS " <alonmarcus

 

Monday, November 03, 2003 11:01 PM

Re: Re: More " the Web " - conceptual gulfs

 

 

> I get the feeling that your position is analogous to saying, let's

> forget some of these formalisations - in practice, people do all

sorts

> of things differently from 'the rules'. The rules are an abstraction

> and don't represent actual practice. So, look at actual practice,

and

> don't consider the rules too carefully.

> >>>>What Dr or people actually do is just as important as the so-

called rules, especially in CM but also in WM. My position is that if

one looks at the practice one can see what the rules one works by. I

agree we need as much clarity as possible but not in the expense of

depth

> alon

[Guest guest]

Both understanding conceptual frameworks as conceptual frameworks,

with their internal rules, consistencies, etc., and also looking at

actual practice, which may differ in important respects from the

theoretical model, are important. Each one should be done thoroughly

and explicitly. Then, paradigm and inter-paradigm issues should be

explored in depth. Otherwise, there's a danger of confusion, and as

I've mentioned before, in the context of the modern world, the danger

is to drift in the direction of biomedicalisation, not because it's

better, but because cultural (political, economic, power, etc.

amongst other factors) forces are directing it there.

>>>I agree and my suggestion about terms is only an exercise, obviously it is

not how one would write a book or conduct a professional training, however i

suggest every teacher to try this. You will be surprised

alon