Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Wainwright. > The terms 'integration' and 'integrated/integrative medicine' have > come to mean so many different things to so many people, here and > elsewhere, that they're probably highly misleading by now, promoting > fuzzy thinking in the process. [ . . . .] > May I suggest that people refrain from using these terms in this forum > without making explicit the EXACT meaning of the terms as they are using > them? Well said. It seems to me that there are two classes of information mixed into discussions of integration: 1. Matters of policy, 2. Approaches to practice. As policy we need to look at integration in the political context, as for example, the way government and institutional budgets are assigned to different aspects of medical education, research and practice. However, when discussing approaches to practice the idea of integration can be described in terms of how traditional beliefs and principles are applied. When Steve Birch and I were writing about this, we found that a five-part description suggested by Dan Kenner was broadly applicable and useful: 1. Adherence to and belief in only traditional East Asian concepts. Complete rejection of the biomedical (scientific) model. 2. Adherence to and belief in traditional East Asian concepts, but with a limited utilization of biomedical concepts. 3. An interweaving of biomedical and traditional concepts. 4. Adherence to and belief in biomedical concepts, with the subsuming of traditional concepts where then can be fit within the biomedical model. 5. Adherence to and belief in only biomedical concepts with complete rejection of traditional models. In class one I would place schools such as Toyohari, and most of the keriaku chiryo (channel therapy) schools. In class two I would place both the U.S. and U.K. Traditional Acupuncture schools. They might disagree but I would select class two rather than class one because of the predominance of western metaphors and concepts in their pyscho-emotional language. In some of the personal applications I have read, modern psychological and emotional language has so replaced traditional language that class three or four might be a more appropriate classification. In class three I would place US/PRC TCM because of the integration of biomedical ideas in physiology and pathology. The extent to which concepts that depend on instrumentation (e.g blood pressure) rather than clinical observation, or biomedical labelling (diabetes as opposed to wasting and thirsting), describes the difference between " TCM " and " integrated medicine. " In class four I would place Manaka's yin-yang balancing system, Requena's Terrain system, and the approaches of biomedical researcher-clinician's such a s Nogier, Mussat ( " Medical Acupuncture " ), and Voll, Bisshko, Nakatani, etc. In class five I would place writers like Baldry, Ulett, Mann, and Gunn where the neuological bias predominates. For acupuncture, we can confirm these classes by looking at needle stimulus, which roughly follows the historical development (from class one to class five in time) and extent of neurological bias (from class one to class five in de qi perception (practitioner or patient) and strength (from tiny to very strong). For herbal practices we can confirm these classes by looking at the extent to which traditional metaphoric indications have been replaced by biomedical concepts (e.g. mounting as opposed to hernia, heat effusion as opposed to fever). While I would not claim these classes to be absolute in anyway, I do think they provide a reasonable guide to discussions and comparisons. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Bob, Wainwright, and All, > > In class two I would place both the U.S. and U.K. Traditional Acupuncture > schools. They might disagree but I would select class two rather than class > one because of the predominance of western metaphors and concepts in > their pyscho-emotional language. [...] I'm not sure if the appetites of those on this list will tolerate it, but I think that we can and should explore this territory of metaphor and Chinese medicine. I've felt for some time now that within this context there are potentially enormous insights and advantages to be developed. When I talk about language and access to information, I realize that I am actually talking about development of a grasp of the traditional Chinese approach to generating and employing metaphor in the creation and transmission of ideas and methodologies. I'll leave it at that for now, but I would welcome reading thoughts of anyone who has considered the nature and function of metaphor in understanding and communicating Chinese medical thought. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 While I would not claim these classes to be absolute in anyway, I do think they provide a reasonable guide to discussions and comparisons. Bob >>>>Bob as usual beautifully said alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote: > > 1. Adherence to and belief in only traditional East Asian concepts. > Complete rejection of the biomedical (scientific) model. > ...... > > In class one I would place schools such as Toyohari, and most of the keriaku > chiryo (channel therapy) schools. > This is the party line, of course, but when the Toyohari semior instructors (Fukushima sensei on down) use cranial nerve involvement as a rationale for Naso therapy, when Shudo Denmei routinely utilizes orthopedic testing, and considering the late Okabe Somei M.D. was president for many years of Keiraku Chiryo Gakkai (to give but a few examples), i wonder if anyone today is really in class one. robert hayden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Bob, How do you view the Helms book in these classifications? doug > > It seems to me that there are two classes of information mixed into > discussions of integration: 1. Matters of policy, 2. Approaches to practice. > As policy we need to look at integration in the political context, as for > example, the way government and institutional budgets are assigned to > different aspects of medical education, research and practice. > > However, when discussing approaches to practice the idea of integration can > be described in terms of how traditional beliefs and principles are applied. > When Steve Birch and I were writing about this, we found that a five-part > description suggested by Dan Kenner was broadly applicable and useful: > > 1. Adherence to and belief in only traditional East Asian concepts. > Complete rejection of the biomedical (scientific) model. > > 2. Adherence to and belief in traditional East Asian concepts, but with a > limited utilization of biomedical concepts. > > 3. An interweaving of biomedical and traditional concepts. > > 4. Adherence to and belief in biomedical concepts, with the subsuming of > traditional concepts where then can be fit within the biomedical model. > > 5. Adherence to and belief in only biomedical concepts with complete > rejection of traditional models. > > In class one I would place schools such as Toyohari, and most of the keriaku > chiryo (channel therapy) schools. > > In class two I would place both the U.S. and U.K. Traditional Acupuncture > schools. They might disagree but I would select class two rather than class > one because of the predominance of western metaphors and concepts in > their pyscho-emotional language. In some of the personal applications I > have read, modern psychological and emotional language has so replaced > traditional language that class three or four might be a more appropriate > classification. > > In class three I would place US/PRC TCM because of the integration of > biomedical ideas in physiology and pathology. The extent to which concepts > that depend on instrumentation (e.g blood pressure) rather than clinical > observation, or biomedical labelling (diabetes as opposed to wasting and > thirsting), describes the difference between " TCM " and " integrated > medicine. " > > In class four I would place Manaka's yin-yang balancing system, Requena's > Terrain system, and the approaches of biomedical researcher-clinician's > such a s Nogier, Mussat ( " Medical Acupuncture " ), and Voll, Bisshko, > Nakatani, etc. > > In class five I would place writers like Baldry, Ulett, Mann, and Gunn where > the neuological bias predominates. > > For acupuncture, we can confirm these classes by looking at needle > stimulus, which roughly follows the historical development (from class one > to class five in time) and extent of neurological bias (from class one to class > five in de qi perception (practitioner or patient) and strength (from tiny to > very strong). > > For herbal practices we can confirm these classes by looking at the extent to > which traditional metaphoric indications have been replaced by biomedical > concepts (e.g. mounting as opposed to hernia, heat effusion as opposed to > fever). > > While I would not claim these classes to be absolute in anyway, I do think > they provide a reasonable guide to discussions and comparisons. > > Bob > > > > bob@p... Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 > Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive > 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Bob, A very well thought out presentation, and it makes a lot of sense to me. I wonder, however, why you put Manaka in class four with Nogier and Mussat, as he adheres a lot more to traditional models than they do. On Nov 6, 2003, at 9:16 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote: > Wainwright. > >> The terms 'integration' and 'integrated/integrative medicine' have >> come to mean so many different things to so many people, here and >> elsewhere, that they're probably highly misleading by now, promoting >> fuzzy thinking in the process. > [ . . . .] >> May I suggest that people refrain from using these terms in this forum >> without making explicit the EXACT meaning of the terms as they are >> using >> them? > > Well said. > > It seems to me that there are two classes of information mixed into > discussions of integration: 1. Matters of policy, 2. Approaches to > practice. > As policy we need to look at integration in the political context, as > for > example, the way government and institutional budgets are assigned to > different aspects of medical education, research and practice. > > However, when discussing approaches to practice the idea of > integration can > be described in terms of how traditional beliefs and principles are > applied. > When Steve Birch and I were writing about this, we found that a > five-part > description suggested by Dan Kenner was broadly applicable and useful: > > 1. Adherence to and belief in only traditional East Asian concepts. > Complete rejection of the biomedical (scientific) model. > > 2. Adherence to and belief in traditional East Asian concepts, but > with a > limited utilization of biomedical concepts. > > 3. An interweaving of biomedical and traditional concepts. > > 4. Adherence to and belief in biomedical concepts, with the > subsuming of > traditional concepts where then can be fit within the biomedical model. > > 5. Adherence to and belief in only biomedical concepts with complete > rejection of traditional models. > > In class one I would place schools such as Toyohari, and most of the > keriaku > chiryo (channel therapy) schools. > > In class two I would place both the U.S. and U.K. Traditional > Acupuncture > schools. They might disagree but I would select class two rather > than class > one because of the predominance of western metaphors and concepts in > their pyscho-emotional language. In some of the personal > applications I > have read, modern psychological and emotional language has so replaced > traditional language that class three or four might be a more > appropriate > classification. > > In class three I would place US/PRC TCM because of the integration of > biomedical ideas in physiology and pathology. The extent to which > concepts > that depend on instrumentation (e.g blood pressure) rather than > clinical > observation, or biomedical labelling (diabetes as opposed to wasting > and > thirsting), describes the difference between " TCM " and " integrated > medicine. " > > In class four I would place Manaka's yin-yang balancing system, > Requena's > Terrain system, and the approaches of biomedical researcher-clinician's > such a s Nogier, Mussat ( " Medical Acupuncture " ), and Voll, Bisshko, > Nakatani, etc. > > In class five I would place writers like Baldry, Ulett, Mann, and Gunn > where > the neuological bias predominates. > > For acupuncture, we can confirm these classes by looking at needle > stimulus, which roughly follows the historical development (from class > one > to class five in time) and extent of neurological bias (from class one > to class > five in de qi perception (practitioner or patient) and strength (from > tiny to > very strong). > > For herbal practices we can confirm these classes by looking at the > extent to > which traditional metaphoric indications have been replaced by > biomedical > concepts (e.g. mounting as opposed to hernia, heat effusion as opposed > to > fever). > > While I would not claim these classes to be absolute in anyway, I do > think > they provide a reasonable guide to discussions and comparisons. > > Bob > > > > bob Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 > Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix > Drive > 505 758 7758 Taos, New > Mexico 87571 > > > > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 for many years of Keiraku Chiryo Gakkai (to give but a few examples), i wonder if anyone today is really in class one. >>>It is impossible unless you live in without any contact with the modern world alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Alon, Thank you. Doug, > Bob, How do you view the Helms book in these classifications? I may be biased by its use in the " Medical Acupuncture " (AAMA) courses. Yet, I see it as part of the French energetics movement with Soulie De Morant at base, Reguena and Mussat as influences, all of whom looked to at least find biomedical parallels to Chinese concepts. So, class four. I wouldn't argue class three. Robert, > This is the party line, of course, but when the Toyohari semior > instructors (Fukushima sensei on down) use cranial nerve involvement as a > rationale for Naso therapy, when Shudo Denmei routinely utilizes > orthopedic testing, and . . . You are correct. As is Alon correct in noting that one can't live in the world today with out scientific influences. These " movements " are all people and people reflect their times, education, etc. Class one is necessary I think to make the continuum clear. Z'ev, > I wonder, however, why you put Manaka in class four with Nogier > and Mussat, as he adheres a lot more to traditional models than they > do. Yes, but his root model of the X-signal system (information transmission via the fascia) is pretty much advanced science compared to antamo- physiological medicine. Shutting down to travel to San Diego, hope to see some of your there. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037 Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Bob, Excellent post it will be in my " book of recipes " and please forward it (the post of yours to) Chinese Medicine Where Holger the Swede ask about differences between CM and TCM. Do not mean to be a bore but each of this categories over time would call for modified terminology definitions (I think) since Terrains and pathology seam to use Jueyin for example different from jueyin in the little I have seen from " say cold damage " stream or are they both cold damage streams? Anyway I am still waiting for Terrains and Pathology to come out in English the volumes that are missing... Please Please Bob why not have Paradigm publish the French version completely? It would make the existing Terrains and Pathology (Requina) more complete and hence more useful... BTW Bob your really are one of my heroes all the amazing work you have done for the profession with high quality publications... May I suggest that a book on women's health and Sun Si Miao (sorry if it is misspelt) would be super important... And Ken BTW your referring to metaphors is great would not translating the Discussion on the Origins of symptom in illness Zhu Bing Yuan Hou Lun by Chao Yuan Fang. around 610 C.E. detailed descriptions of 1,720 illnesses under sixty-seven headings. Page 456 The Web that Has no Weaver. Of course I am not saying you " should " do it but I take this opportunity to express my adminiration for people who runed the gauntlet and actually have potential access to Chinese language materials...mind you like the definitions Bob sent which ignited this post in the first place there are many non Chinese practitioners on this list that I also admire... Marco in a admiring mood... .. > > 1. Adherence to and belief in only traditional East Asian concepts. > Complete rejection of the biomedical (scientific) model. > > 2. Adherence to and belief in traditional East Asian concepts, but with a > limited utilization of biomedical concepts. > > 3. An interweaving of biomedical and traditional concepts. > > 4. Adherence to and belief in biomedical concepts, with the subsuming of > traditional concepts where then can be fit within the biomedical model. > > 5. Adherence to and belief in only biomedical concepts with complete > rejection of traditional models. > 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.