New paradigms of research

[Guest guest]

Ken wrote: When you come right on down to it, there

is precisous little that we can do to interact

with paradigms and paradigm shifts. We should

naturally be aware with whatever information

and knowledge we can assemble from

available data, and the use of this construct

of paradigms, and shifts and collisions of

paradigms can be highly informative and

productive of important insights.

 

Wainwright wrote:

Emmanuel has been telling us for a long time to forget research, but people

wouldn't drop the subject. So now, he's saying, OK, so let's make sure we have

appropriate research for our own needs. Emmanuel and I see these issues in a

very similar way, but when you see the biomedical evaluation and appraisal of CM

gathering pace as it is, it is necessary to look into the nature of research and

paradigm issues

in the here and now, and not simply postpone this until we've better come to

terms with the tradition of CM.

 

Ken and Wainwright,

 

Yes, start with " what is CM " , and then ONLY if necessary determine " what is CM

research " based on the paradigm of " what is CM " . In fact the second must follow

the first. In addition to those who had low MCAT scores, there are also some

fairly brilliant people involved in the enterprise of CM. The former are easy

to pick out because they tend to whine a lot. The latter are busy creating the

current paradigm of CM. Paul Unschuld is engaged in research of an historical

nature. A research of efficacy based on CM principles can be addressed at the

present time, but requires an anthropological approach to even " see " it. So how

can you be an anthropologist, an artist and a practitioner simultaneously? I

sense that this is where the " seeing " is at. Mmmm, Ken ... is this taiji?

What's the documentation for this? Sorry, this kind of makes me giggle. But

then consider the name of Martin Yin's taiji studio in San Francisco.

 

Emmanuel Segmen