defining Chinese medicine

[Guest guest]

All

 

 

 

 

 

There are two basic tendencies that have been evolving in these various online

communities according to " what I see " . As I mentioned to Ken the other day, one

tendency is characterized by an emphasis on the importance of developing

scientific methodologies so as to definitively categorize, authenticate and

prove many of the claims made by traditional Chinese medicine. Advocates of

this approach believe that by doing this, modern societies will be more likely

to accept our work thus allowing it to develop in new directions in a new

millennium.

 

 

 

An example of this is the current effort on CHA to create commonly agreed-upon

definitions of terms like “Kidney Yang Deficiency” with a list of which symptoms

are/are-not within the category. While being helpful for students who are just

beginning to get acquainted with a very complex concept, in my opinion, we will

always find that clinical reality cannot be so neatly summarized. As these

definitions are thus helpful only in the initial stages of comprehension, it

seems more fruitful to pursue discussions as to “what is this thing that the

ancient Chinese called ‘Kidney’ and what is ‘yang’ with respect to the kidney.

In this way, the future practitioner can think for themselves about the patient

at hand without having to depend on memorized lists. This brings me to the

second basic trend….

 

 

 

The second basic trend involves those who advocate coming to grips with the

tradition as it has been passed to us. Followers of this approach to study

emphasize that many of the terms and ideas that we routinely use in our

professional discussions are in need of re-evaluation. The reason being that

our current understanding of these terms and ideas is possibly at variance with

the meanings intended by the original creators of the fundamental treatment

modalities that we utilize. The take home message of this group might be

summarized as " We're missing the boat by not getting a solid understanding of

the essence of two-thousand years of careful consideration of these ideas which

excite us all " .

 

 

 

Although, as I also mentioned to Ken, I am loathe to take sides in arguments

where I can see some of the merits of both approaches, I will state here that I

favor the approach of looking carefully at classical texts as a means of taking

our field forward. There is some irony of course at looking " backwards " in

order to move " forwards " which can be reconciled by remembering that, even in

modern China, some of the most powerful ideas that Chinese medicine has to offer

have been warped due to the influences of the very scientific rationality that

was attempting to " improve " it. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of

many serious thinkers in the modern Chinese CM community- I just happen to agree

with it.

 

 

 

In other words, some of the greatest " discoveries " yet to be made about Chinese

medicine are going to come from those looking carefully at the corpus of texts

from the distant past who are able to bring these ideas into a language and

frame of reference that modern readers can grasp. Classical Chinese texts are

not mysterious per-se but are written from the perspective of a time and culture

so vastly different than our own that we sometimes have difficulty grasping what

they are talking about. This difficulty can be surmounted but requires time and

effort. This, I think, is the glowing core of Ken Rose's approach and one that

I will continue to advocate as well.

 

 

 

 

 

respectfully,

 

Jason Robertson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm all for knowledge, I'm just not so sure that all of this will be clear =

at some point. ;-

)

 

(I'm reminded of Craig Mitchell's quip at the CHA talk, " I thought all this=

would be

clearer if I learned Chinese.)

 

I'm not optimist that the answers are out there. Isn't this what TCM was s=

upposed to

dispel...the confusion? And yes, we are all looking for a coherent way to p=

ractice the

medicine and any additional information would be helpful.

doug

 

 

, Jason Robertson

<kentuckyginseng> wrote:

>

> All

>

>

>

>

>

> There are two basic tendencies that have been evolving in these various o=

nline

communities according to " what I see " . As I mentioned to Ken the other day=

, one

tendency is characterized by an emphasis on the importance of developing sc=

ientific

methodologies so as to definitively categorize, authenticate and prove many=

of the

claims made by traditional Chinese medicine. Advocates of this approach be=

lieve that

by doing this, modern societies will be more likely to accept our work thus=

allowing it

to develop in new directions in a new millennium.

>

>

>

> An example of this is the current effort on CHA to create commonly agreed=

-upon

definitions of terms like " Kidney Yang Deficiency " with a list of which sym=

ptoms are/

are-not within the category. While being helpful for students who are just=

beginning

to get acquainted with a very complex concept, in my opinion, we will alway=

s find that

clinical reality cannot be so neatly summarized. As these definitions are =

thus helpful

only in the initial stages of comprehension, it seems more fruitful to purs=

ue

discussions as to " what is this thing that the ancient Chinese called `Kidn=

ey' and what

is `yang' with respect to the kidney. In this way, the future practitioner=

can think for

themselves about the patient at hand without having to depend on memorized =

lists.

This brings me to the second basic trend….

>

>

>

> The second basic trend involves those who advocate coming to grips with t=

he

tradition as it has been passed to us. Followers of this approach to study=

emphasize

that many of the terms and ideas that we routinely use in our professional =

 

discussions are in need of re-evaluation. The reason being that our curren=

t

understanding of these terms and ideas is possibly at variance with the mea=

nings

intended by the original creators of the fundamental treatment modalities t=

hat we

utilize. The take home message of this group might be summarized as " We're=

 

missing the boat by not getting a solid understanding of the essence of two=

-

thousand years of careful consideration of these ideas which excite us all " =

..

>

>

>

> Although, as I also mentioned to Ken, I am loathe to take sides in argume=

nts where

I can see some of the merits of both approaches, I will state here that I =

favor the

approach of looking carefully at classical texts as a means of taking our f=

ield forward.

There is some irony of course at looking " backwards " in order to move " forw=

ards "

which can be reconciled by remembering that, even in modern China, some of =

the

most powerful ideas that Chinese medicine has to offer have been warped due=

to the

influences of the very scientific rationality that was attempting to " impro=

ve " it. This is

not my opinion, it is the opinion of many serious thinkers in the modern Ch=

inese CM

community- I just happen to agree with it.

>

>

>

> In other words, some of the greatest " discoveries " yet to be made about C=

hinese

medicine are going to come from those looking carefully at the corpus of te=

xts from

the distant past who are able to bring these ideas into a language and fram=

e of

reference that modern readers can grasp. Classical Chinese texts are not m=

ysterious

per-se but are written from the perspective of a time and culture so vastly=

different

than our own that we sometimes have difficulty grasping what they are talki=

ng about.

This difficulty can be surmounted but requires time and effort. This, I th=

ink, is the

glowing core of Ken Rose's approach and one that I will continue to advocat=

e as well.

>

>

>

>

>

> respectfully,

>

> Jason Robertson

>

>

>

>

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

> Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

>

> Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

>

> home-86-010-8405-0531

> cell- 86-010-13520155800

>

>

>

>

> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

>

>

[Guest guest]

> , Jason Robertson

> <kentuckyginseng> wrote:

> >

An example of this is the current effort on CHA to create commonly agreed=

> -upon

> definitions of terms like " Kidney Yang Deficiency " with a list of which sym=

> ptoms are/

> are-not within the category. While being helpful for students who are just=

> beginning

> to get acquainted with a very complex concept, in my opinion, we will alway=

> s find that

> clinical reality cannot be so neatly summarized.

 

 

And it was stipulated from the outset that the purpose of these standards was

threefold. Education, research, and examination. clinical was specifically

left

out of this list because clinical training only uses the common language of

foundations as a jumping off point. clinical training and practice is more

complex, but those of us who have worked in large institutions for many years

know full well that standard foundations are the only basis for communication

about treatment strategies in what otherwise would be an incomprehensible

diversity of style. It is not at all the same thing as doing cookbook style

treatment; no one is advocating that. Volker Scheid says this is the exact

reason standardized TCM was first institutionalized in the PRC, because the

more idiosyncratic personalized versions were impossible to teach to the

students being trained in the time allotted. Unless one considers the PRC

system an abysmal failure, their work seems to be the clear jumping off point.

Students are able to work under the divergent styles of numerous supervisors

at PCOM, most of whom practice TCM. so that stnadard foundationhas

appeared to have been a strength in modern china. one that is often perceived

as lacking in american px.

 

As these definitions are =

> thus helpful

> only in the initial stages of comprehension, it seems more fruitful to purs=

> ue

> discussions as to " what is this thing that the ancient Chinese called `Kidn=

> ey' and what

> is `yang' with respect to the kidney. In this way, the future practitioner=

> can think for

> themselves about the patient at hand without having to depend on

memorized =

> lists.

 

 

these are two separate things, both valuable. both necessary. the task I speak

of has more political and social ramifications than clinical. I find that we

are

thus often comparing apples and oranges here or debating straw men. for the

record, I never said clinic should be reduced to standard formulas, nor that the

study of the classics be eschewed. quite the opposite. I merely think the

issue

of standards has far reaching consequences that can dramatically alter

society's view of our field if properly applied to research. As for memorized

lists, I think most chinese practitioners will tell you that americans memorize

far too little and often the wrong stuff. Such lists as these are designed

exactly

to accommodate the chinese professors who do most of our clinical supervision

and who were trained with certain standards themselves, only to wonder

where their interns are learning the stuff they do.

 

 

I am loathe to take sides in argume=

> nts where

> I can see some of the merits of both approaches, I will state here that I =

> favor the

> approach of looking carefully at classical texts as a means of taking our f=

> ield forward.

 

As am I. It is the stated mission of CHA that this is the case. I think you

mistake a difference in methods for a difference in motivations. according to

Scheid, this very same debate also took place in the PRC and continues to this

day. It will probably never be resolved. As someone said, this is a debate

that

is somewhat between those more rationalist than those more empiricist. the

age old medical debate. Guess who is who this time. :-)

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> As am I. It is the stated mission of CHA that this is the case.

I think you mistake a difference in methods for a difference in

motivations. according to Scheid, this very same debate also took

place in the PRC and continues to this day. It will probably never

be resolved. As someone said, this is a debate that is somewhat

between those more rationalist than those more empiricist. the

age old medical debate. Guess who is who this time. :-)

 

:

 

Any debate probably will never---can never---be fully resolved when

different parts of the brain dominate. That, in part, helped create

the richness in CM. Admittedly, I find myself using Wiseman's E-C C-

E Dictionary of CM while I'm translating and commenting on an

excerpt from Book 10 of the Mai Jing for my students (in part

something not included in the BP translation!). But it has more to

do with convenience, or my laziness in not wanting to argue with

some persons who may read it, since I more often use Wenlin. But I

intend to include the original Chinese when the article is completed.

 

When the original language is included, the translater does not

impose his personality between the text and the reader; the

translation is more transparent. With the original included, you can

use any glossary or any style of translation since the Chinese

themselves did not impose any real standard. Or even, as Craig

alluded to, explain things well in the original.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz>

wrote:

With the original included, you can

> use any glossary or any style of translation since the Chinese

> themselves did not impose any real standard. Or even, as Craig

> alluded to, explain things well in the original.

 

 

I do agree that technology will probably end this part of the debate. If all

the

texts we used were electronic and included wenlin readable chinese

characters. We could do instant lookup for any term the author chose and

sidestep this matter altogether. It is important to come to come to terms with

what the technology can and will soon do before we decide what we need to

impose as standards in this area.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I do agree that technology will probably end this part of the

debate. If all the texts we used were electronic and included

wenlin readable chinese characters. We could do instant lookup for

any term the author chose and sidestep this matter altogether. It

is important to come to come to terms with what the technology can

and will soon do before we decide what we need to impose as

standards in this area. >>>

 

:

 

I think you're right: electronic texts will be end this debate.

Hopefully, soon. It's something that we should keep in mind as we

try to decide a standard for the immediate future.

 

Perhaps a Wiseman dictionary in Wenlin format will make it too

convenient to not choose to use it. Isn't Bob working on one now?

 

I only bought Wenlin because of your peer pressure.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason

 

--- Jason Robertson wrote:

> ... it seems more fruitful to pursue discussions as to " what is

> this thing that the ancient Chinese called `Kidney' and what

> is `yang' with respect to the kidney. In this way, the future

> practitioner can think for themselves about the patient at hand ...

 

I'm all with you on this one. For me it's like building, if your

foundations are shabby, you may want to build a skyscraper on top of

them but it will come down sooner or later (if you can get up there

in the first place).

 

Alwin

 

 

> The second basic trend involves those who advocate coming to grips

> with the tradition as it has been passed to us. Followers of this

> approach to study emphasize that many of the terms and ideas that

> we routinely use in our professional discussions are in need of re-

> evaluation. The reason being that our current understanding of

> these terms and ideas is possibly at variance with the meanings

> intended by the original creators of the fundamental treatment

> modalities that we utilize. The take home message of this group

> might be summarized as " We're missing the boat by not getting a

> solid understanding of the essence of two-thousand years of careful

> consideration of these ideas which excite us all " .

>