Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 Bob, Thanks for your clear, interesting and and valuable email. I agree with you totally that 'there are two classes of information mixed into discussions of integration: 1. Matters of policy, 2. Approaches to practice', and think this is an important point. My own concerns and critique certainly factor in these two aspects, and I think that in many types of discussions, both these aspects of integration should be considered carefully and explicitly. I also agree with you that Dan Kenner's categories, which you state, are broadly applicable and useful. They don't quite cover the entire gamut of categories and classifications that I can think of associated with integration, but they're a good starting point. Kenner's categories straightforwardly represent a spectrum of belief in and adherence to traditonal vs. biomedical concepts, but it seems to me, for example, that Alon's example of using gastroscopy to make TCM diagnoses doesn't quite fit Kenner's categories, as one could use modern technology for observational purposes, while adhering to traditional concepts. (This is an interesting situation to consider in relation to the theme that 'observation is theory-laden', as modern technology depends on scientific theory, but the East Asian medicine doctor is merely regarding the instruments as an extension of vision.) Of course, theoretically, other possibilities exist beyond Kenner's categories - for one thing, one might get a paradigm shift in which the interaction between the insights and phenomena observed within East Asian medicine and biomedicine leads to the development of a new paradigm altogether - I think Capra had something like this in mind in The Turning Point and also the Web of Life. And even another possibility exists - the interaction of three paradigms. The UK doctor and researcher David St. George has something like this in mind, exploring CAM modalities from a combined biomedical and Vedic point of view, with I believe the Vedic point of view as the fundamental basis. David St. George has his own research department at the leading London University College and Royal Free Hospital complex, and considers himself to be the reincarnation of a Vedic seer. The last two possibilities I've outlined may seem to be far-fetched in the context of our discussion, but I don't think we should dismiss them as possibilities. Indeed, I think the development of a new paradigm or new paradigms beyond the current East Asian and biomedical models is a distinct possibility. Another issue that you allude to, but which possibly we should acknowledge and stress more, is the incorporation of Western ideas that are not endorsed in rigid biomedicine, such as Freudian etc. theory. I've heard it said that Worsley was very influenced by a school of psychotherapy. Possibly, a new paradigm might be developed which incorporated aspects of this area as well. When one thinks these things through, I think one can discern many possibilites, some very exciting. My own position is that whatever happens, I hope the integrity of the tradition of CM will be respected and preserved, and this requires the type of scholarship that has been discussed within this forum. Best wishes, Wainwright .. - " Robert L. Felt " <bob Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:16 PM Nomenclature of " integration " > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " < kenrose2008> wrote: > > 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. It is off topic. this development has nothing to do with herbology. The psychologization of five element acupuncture is purely an acupuncture phenomena and a limited one at best. Very few px worldwide practice this style and none of the work I have seen come from the worsley school appears to be based in actual classical study. It is pure MSU, IMO. If one wants to take up this thread of metaphor in a general way, fine. But we will not be talking about worsley acupuncture on this list. thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 It is off topic. this development has nothing to do with herbology. The psychologization of five element acupuncture is purely an acupuncture phenomena and a limited one at best. >>>>I thought Ted integrated these, although obviously non traditional or MSU if you like Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 , " Alon Marcus " < alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > >>>>I thought Ted integrated these, although obviously non traditional or MSU if you like I don't think Ted ever did anything besides write an obsolete book. He and the book had their day. I do not think he has contributed to my understanding since the first web. the psychoemotional info in the kan product guide has no citations and cannot be substatiated by any other scholars I have spoken with. grain of salt. MSU. 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.