Philosophical basis of CM

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon et al

 

--- " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>Alwin of course it is now part of the philosophical basis of

CM. But must it remain so?

 

IMO, yes it should remain so.

I, for one, think that we always should try to keep the origins of CM

a part of the knowledge base for those who wish to practice it.

IMO one should strive to obtain mastery (in the chinese sense) of

this art. That embraces IMO also knowing and applying the

philosophical views underlying CM and not only (a task big enough

though) knowing how to perform the diagnostics and how and where to

place the needles or how to prescribe a formula. I would like to

obtain a deep *understanding* of the basis out of which this CM

developed. As I view it, I woant to be able to perform out of this

*understanding* instead of 'just' out of " knowing-how-to-apply " .

 

That we in the West have difficulties grasping those oriental ways of

thinking and viewing the world, shouldn't be an excuse for not trying

or for not allowing them to coexist.

I resent the efforts to force the CM into a western way of looking or

the efforts to define a " standard " way of CM. These processes are

always excluding other views that are not shared by the majority /

people in power, which views may not be altogether less valid, and

therefore to the detriment of the total knowledge base.

 

I don't see the hegemony of Western science thinking as progress to

humankind. I rather view it as destructive to other modes of

thinking, especially because IMO it is so narrowminded, so dismissive

of all that doesn't fit in their (always limited) models. I donot

recall who mentioned it before, but one said on this list " western

science is always wrong " and I support that view. The harder they

look the less they see. I hope that in the near future we will get a

more integrative approach instead of this reductionist approach. I

consider this hegemony and its effects a great loss for all. We can't

*prove* either one or the other is right (probably all are right in

their own way), but I often ask myself if the advocates of this

superiority of western science ever consider they *might be 'wrong'*,

before dismissing other world views. IMO they are very insecure

people.

 

So Alon, yes I think the original philosophies should remain within

the knowledgebase of CM-practioners, to prevent them from becoming

just 'medical technicians' and to help to obtain mastery.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

So Alon, yes I think the original philosophies should remain within

the knowledgebase of CM-practioners, to prevent them from becoming

just 'medical technicians' and to help to obtain mastery.

>>>>I think you are missing my question. It is do we need to keep the original

even if found to not work? do we at some point take the place of an assessor

that is evaluate the knowledge? or traditionalism more important? I am not

asking should we abandon the " original philosophy " as a whole.

Alon

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

" I do not recall who mentioned it before, but one said on this list " western

> science is always wrong " and I support that view. "

 

Alwin,

 

A " true believer. " Check you out in 15-20 years.

 

Good luck and best wishes,

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob

 

That was a very short reply, would you care to elaborate on that.

 

I will on my statement, because I hope you don't take it literally

but more in a philosophical way. If you put the quote back into its

context, you notice I was talking about the reductionist approaches

which use limited models. This limitation means there is always a

part which lies beyond the bounderies of the model but which is

related to what lies within and thus the outcome cannot be " true " .

 

And I don't think 15 - 20 years will do. Widening viewpoint might.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

 

 

--- " Bob Flaws " wrote:

>> " I do not recall who mentioned it before, but one said on this

>> list " western science is always wrong " and I support that view. "

>

> Alwin,

>

> A " true believer. " Check you out in 15-20 years.

>

> Good luck and best wishes,

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

Alon, I think this is all true. One could see the TCM " invention " as a case of

throwing

out what doesn't work. (Certainly, for the economic and political realities on

mid-

century China.) Now, some find that much of TCM " doesn't work " . I'm loath to get

all

circular but it's a matter of paradigms. You have articulated well your

perspective/

paradigm. How one approaches the medicine will determine what in it works and

what doesn't. I have this saying, " One persons rhetoric is another persons

Truth. "

 

doug

As a side note I wonder what you think of this. A new teacher and practitioner

telling

students how TCM " didn't work " for pain relief and then went on to extol Master

Tong. Thoughts?

 

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> So Alon, yes I think the original philosophies should remain within

> the knowledgebase of CM-practioners, to prevent them from becoming

> just 'medical technicians' and to help to obtain mastery.

> >>>>I think you are missing my question. It is do we need to keep the original

even if found to not work? do we at some point take the place of an assessor

that is

evaluate the knowledge? or traditionalism more important? I am not asking should

we

abandon the " original philosophy " as a whole.

> Alon

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>I think you are missing my question.

 

Sorry about that.

 

 

> It is do we need to keep the original even if found to not work?

> do we at some point take the place of an assessor that is evaluate

> the knowledge? or traditionalism more important? I am not asking

> should we abandon the " original philosophy " as a whole.

 

I want to side with Doug on this issue. How do you determine what

works? What does not work for one, does seem to work for another.

Unless you can discover the mechanisms by which it all works (and I

think one cannot discover this at this moment in time), I think you

can't say what does and what does not work.

 

So please keep an open mind and keep a complete body of knowledge, do

not filter out things beforehand because 'we think it doesn't work',

while they have been put there at one time by somebody who thought it

valuable to be part of this body of knowledge. Let this body of

knowledge expand and not shrink.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

Alon, I think this is all true. One could see the TCM " invention " as a case of

throwing

out what doesn't work. (Certainly, for the economic and political realities on

mid-

century China.) Now, some find that much of TCM " doesn't work " . I'm loath to get

all

circular but it's a matter of paradigms. You have articulated well your

perspective/

paradigm. How one approaches the medicine will determine what in it works and

what doesn't. I have this saying, " One persons rhetoric is another persons

Truth. "

 

>>>>I agree and there will be the continued difficulties. I supposed that if one

is to understand and then agree with PU that statistics are going to be debunked

(which i do not agree with) then these questions will never be answered

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alwin van Egmond " <@v...>

wrote:

 

> So please keep an open mind and keep a complete body of knowledge, do

> not filter out things beforehand because 'we think it doesn't work',

> while they have been put there at one time by somebody who thought it

> valuable to be part of this body of knowledge.

 

the body of knowledge will not go away as long as we don't burn the books. It

almost

seems as if you are suggesting that CM is a system that has been developed

consciously rather than a hodgepodge of sometimes cogent, sometimes incredible

ideas scribbled down by mortal men. Every supposedly valuable thing in the

" system "

has already been accepted or rejected by each literate doctor all through

history. Why

should we be any different. The information is still there for the next

generation. but

things fell by the wayside in China and they will not necessarily be of any more

value

here. I personally wouldn't try a discarded or undeveloped idea on my patient

unless

the situation was dire and all else had failed. Its an ethical issue for me. I

certainly would not experiment to satisfy my own curiosity (and I do not suggest

that

is what you are saying, either). fortunately that really never happens as TCM

works so

well when you actually apply it (complex pattern differentiation with

individualized

formulas in fairly high doses just as they do in China).

 

Other styles work, but you cannot dismiss TCM unless you have actually practiced

it.

I think TCM has been dismissed by far too many who have never practiced as I

described. In fact, most folks I know rejected it wholesale before they ever

got into

practice because it did not mesh with pre-exisiting religious or philosophical

beliefs

(again, not you, alwin; in fact, my posts are rarely addressed in order to

underscore

they are never meant personally). Then spend one's whole career trashing CM and

looking in vain for the true medicine. I wish people would just develop their

radical

ideas and apply them, gather students and build schools. In other words, put

some

punch behind the rhetoric. I thinks that's what PU would want. Isn't that what

he said

to the guy at symposium who said he was wrong, it was really aliens who gave us

CM.

that's why I am actually glad that an new unschuld forum has sprung up to pursue

the

common interests of radicals and classicists. As I said, reformers always

depend on

radical ideas for their cannon fodder, yet CHA will remain a place of reform,

not

revolution.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alwin van Egmond " wrote:

How do you determine what works? What does not work for one, does

seem to work for another. Unless you can discover the mechanisms by

which it all works (and I think one cannot discover this at this

moment in time), I think you can't say what does and what does not

work. >>>

 

 

 

Alwin:

 

The first way to determine this is to see the changes in the pulses;

then you're not guessing and you know when they are still on the

table if your treatment is helping.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim

 

I agree that you can see the effects of a treatment by the change in

pulse, but I doubt this is sufficient proof to Alon for the effects

of a theory.

 

Alon questioned whether the law of systematic correpondence should

remain part of the modern day philosophical basis of TCM even if,

according to Alon, found it doesn't work.

 

I replied that unless one *knows* the mechanisms by which TCM works

in the human body and by which the laws of nature work in nature, one

cannot prove or disprove the law of systematic correspondance. So one

cannot uphold any claim that is doesn't work. Other people will claim

it does work. Who will you believe. The factors that are at work in

the healing process initiated by a TCM-treatment are not known and

can therefore not be related to theories applied in diagnosis to

prove or disprove those theories.

 

 

Alwin

 

--- " James Ramholz " wrote:

> , " Alwin van Egmond " wrote:

> How do you determine what works? What does not work for one, does

> seem to work for another. Unless you can discover the mechanisms by

> which it all works (and I think one cannot discover this at this

> moment in time), I think you can't say what does and what does not

> work. >>>

>

> Alwin:

>

> The first way to determine this is to see the changes in the

pulses;

> then you're not guessing and you know when they are still on the

> table if your treatment is helping.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

In the January 04 edition of Blue Poppy's on-line CM journal, there will be an

excellent article by Volker Scheid on three disciples of

Gang Ding-ren. Each sought to reform CM during the middle of the 20th century.

Each went about it in different ways. Each made

different choices about what was important and what was not. Each had their

followers. As this article shows, it's really important to

know the actual history of CM in China.

 

Nevertheless, I also know that those with strong mythological beliefs about CM

are not going to be swayed or influenced by such

history. There's too much emotional charge.

 

As for Todd's comments about people dissing TCM without really ever learning or

practicing it, I completely agree. If it doesn't work,

it's because you're not practicing it the way it's practiced in China.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Alon questioned whether the law of systematic correspondence should

remain part of the modern day philosophical basis of TCM even if,

according to Alon, found it doesn't work.

 

I replied that unless one *knows* the mechanisms by which TCM works

in the human body and by which the laws of nature work in nature, one

cannot prove or disprove the law of systematic correspondence. So one

cannot uphold any claim that is doesn't work. Other people will claim

it does work. Who will you believe. The factors that are at work in

the healing process initiated by a TCM-treatment are not known and

can therefore not be related to theories applied in diagnosis to

prove or disprove those theories.

>>>>>>As we are talking about treating disease i do think we can follow up and

study outcome. That is the proof i am talking about. While systematic

correspondence for example may show logic, let say outside medicine, as to the

question in medicine clinical outcome should be the final judge. People can find

many uses for such theories, for example in a kind of emotional guidenss and

therefore find value. The question is does the theory or its practice truly

effects clinical outcome. These are not easy questions to answer and as we can

see different people facing the same circumstances have different views. PU seem

to feel that this is more about what one's political view is rather than

clinical evidence.

I therefore think that we need to develop the research tools to evaluate such

questions and therefore question all assumption. To use PU conclusions, i do not

think we should base our practice on politics or fear.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

If it doesn't work,

it's because you're not practicing it the way it's practiced in China.

 

>>>>This is a sweeping statement and therefore problematic. We need to get away

from this emotional black and white thinking. Modern TCM works for many

disorders and does not work for many disorders. The question is what and when.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Agreed. It was a too broad statement. However, I was responding to Todd. So I

figured people would get what I meant. I agree that

TCM style CM does not effectively treat every person with every disease. As you

would, I think, agree, no system of medicine does.

But I also still agree with Todd that many people who denigrate this style (also

with sweeping, over-generalized statements) have

never really practiced it as designed and intended according to its professional

SOC.

 

Bob

 

> >>>>This is a sweeping statement and therefore problematic. We need to get

away from this emotional black and white thinking.

Modern TCM works for many disorders and does not work for many disorders. The

question is what and when.

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think you can say that five phase systematic correspondence was, overall and

at best, a mixed blessing for China. This is why the

Communists tried to do away with it. It caused lots and lots of problems in all

aspects of Chinese society, including medicine. I think

it is important that we should not be blind to this fact. Again, the importance

of a historically accurate picture. The Communists may

have thrown the baby out with the bathwater during the Cultural Revolution, but

that does not negate the fact that they were attempting

to respond to real problems within Chinese society which stemmed from the

application of five phase systematic correspondence in a

pro forma, doctrinnaire, and simplistic way.

 

Having lived for 20 years within a medieval society (i.e., with reactionary,

fundamentalist Tibetan refugees) still functioning according to

this kind of system of thinking, I came to see very personally the problems with

such a modus operandi in this time and place. A

couple of days ago, someone on NPR defined reactionaryism as the attempt to stop

change. The I Ching, on the other hand, counsels

intelligently going with the flow, using the flow to get you where you want to

go. Arguably, the dominant flow with CM today is

standard professional CM or what some of you all call TCM.

 

Question: Can history/the Dao/G-d be wrong? Just wondering. :-)

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I also still agree with Todd that many people who denigrate this style (also

with sweeping, over-generalized statements) have

never really practiced it as designed and intended according to its professional

SOC.

 

>>>>>I totally agree. TCM is really the only style that has any significant

support behind it. All the others are mostly lip service and completely

unsupported.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 8:38 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> I think you can say that five phase systematic correspondence was,

> overall and at best, a mixed blessing for China. This is why the

> Communists tried to do away with it. It caused lots and lots of

> problems in all aspects of Chinese society, including medicine. I

> think

> it is important that we should not be blind to this fact. Again, the

> importance of a historically accurate picture. The Communists may

> have thrown the baby out with the bathwater during the Cultural

> Revolution, but that does not negate the fact that they were

> attempting

> to respond to real problems within Chinese society which stemmed from

> the application of five phase systematic correspondence in a

> pro forma, doctrinnaire, and simplistic way.

 

I'd be interested in how five phase theory was a problem in mainstream

Chinese society. My question to you is, do you think there is a

non-doctrinaire, non-simplistic application of five phase theory in

Chinese medicine?

>

> Having lived for 20 years within a medieval society (i.e., with

> reactionary, fundamentalist Tibetan refugees) still functioning

> according to

> this kind of system of thinking, I came to see very personally the

> problems with such a modus operandi in this time and place. A

> couple of days ago, someone on NPR defined reactionaryism as the

> attempt to stop change. The I Ching, on the other hand, counsels

> intelligently going with the flow, using the flow to get you where you

> want to go. Arguably, the dominant flow with CM today is

> standard professional CM or what some of you all call TCM.

 

There are two factors provoking a conservative, reactionary response in

societies. The first is a result of power and corruption, where the

powers that be try to retain control of the society. The second is

when a society is threatened from the outside with destruction and loss

of culture. Wouldn't you say that the Tibetan culture is threatened

from the outside with total destruction, so that a certain amount of

retrenchment is to be expected? In contrast, I don't find individuals

such as Robert Thurman, for example, to be reactionary. His

explanations of Tibetan Buddhism are quite timely and contemporary.

>

> Question: Can history/the Dao/G-d be wrong? Just wondering. :-)

 

Nations and philosophies rise and fall, and rise again. Just

anticipating the next wave

 

 

[Guest guest]

I believe it was in a book about Tibetan Medicine where I read that one third of

medical problems can be cured by the doctor, one third by the patient and the

last

third are karmic that won't be cured.

doug

 

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Alon,

>

> Agreed. It was a too broad statement. However, I was responding to Todd. So I

figured people would get what I meant. I agree that

> TCM style CM does not effectively treat every person with every disease. As

you

would, I think, agree, no system of medicine does.

> But I also still agree with Todd that many people who denigrate this style

(also with

sweeping, over-generalized statements) have

> never really practiced it as designed and intended according to its

professional

SOC.

>

> Bob

>

> > >>>>This is a sweeping statement and therefore problematic. We need to get

away from this emotional black and white thinking.

> Modern TCM works for many disorders and does not work for many disorders. The

question is what and when.

> > Alon

> >

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> I'd be interested in how five phase theory was a problem in

mainstream Chinese society. My question to you is, do you think

there is a non-doctrinaire, non-simplistic application of five phase

theory in Chinese medicine? >>>

 

 

Z'ev:

 

I believe Unschuld reported that 5-Phases conflicted with Mao's

Marxist political ideology, and claimed that it was metaphysical and

supersitious.

 

Even if the modern Chinese did not value and make use of it (a very

restrictive criteria for what is important), the Koreans did. My

teacher always worked with it in mind. It emphasizes relationships

and the networking of systems (as does Complexity Theory and

Information Theory in the West), rather than things with their own

ontogenic trajectory. It is indispensible in sophisticated forms of

pulse diagnosis.

 

Ironically, it is the closest concept in CM to Complexity Theory.

Both try to describe living systems. When/if Complexity Theory

becomes more mainstream in the day to day business of medicine and

science in both East and West, 5-Phases may see a revival in CM.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

" I'd be interested in how five phase theory was a problem in mainstream Chinese

society. "

 

The government and the society as a whole were hamstrung by having to do things

at certain times and in certain ways based on the

phases and, as an extension, stems and branches whether or not this was the

efficient, practical thing to do. Just a simple for

instance. Everyone had to change to winter clothes on a certain date regardless

of the temperature out that day. Feng shui and

astrology which were based on the stems and branches and, therefore, the five

phases made building railroads, digging mines, etc.

undoable. Things got so bad that, eventually, a segment of Chinese society felt

the need for a clean sweep. This is not esoteric

history. These are well known facts.

 

" My question to you is, do you think there is a non-doctrinaire, non-simplistic

application of five phase theory in

Chinese medicine? "

 

Good question. I have no idea. The older I get, the less interested in or likely

to invoked five phase theory I am. I could probably do

away with it altogether and still practice just fine.

 

" Wouldn't you say that the Tibetan culture is threatened from the outside with

total destruction, so that a certain amount of

retrenchment is to be expected? "

 

Sure, of course it's only human. But that doesn't mean that Tibetan

fundamentalism is necessarily useful. Again, an element of

Tibetan society was willing to throw in with the ChiComs because their society

no longer worked well for a percentage of the

population.

 

" In contrast, I don't find individuals such as Robert Thurman, for example, to

be reactionary. "

 

Again, a red herring. I wasn't talking about Western redactions of Tibetan

Buddhism. I was talking about living within Tibetan society

amongst reactionary and ultraconservative (they would say orthodox) Tibetans for

many years.

 

Yes, I agree, societies rise and fall, and so do ideas. Ideas can outlive their

usefulness. Now, I am not categorically saying this is so

in terms of CM and five phase theory, but I am suggesting that we need to look

at such theories with a nondoctrinnaire gaze. The Han

Xue pai movement within the Qing was a well-known CM medical movement that

sought to root out five phase theory from Chinese

herbal medicine. As you know, the extension of five pahse theory to Chinese

herbal medicine was the result of Jin-Yuan

neoconfucianist trends.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " answered:

" I'd be interested in how five phase theory was a problem in

mainstream Chinese society. " >>>

 

 

Bob:

 

I found your comment very interesting (even more so since the Korean

system I studied still heavily utilizes 5 Phase Theory in both

acupunctue and herbs). It supports Unschuld's contention that CM was

shaped in large part by their social forces.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, Bob.

 

 

On Dec 15, 2003, at 2:30 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> " I'd be interested in how five phase theory was a problem in

> mainstream Chinese society. "

>

> The government and the society as a whole were hamstrung by having to

> do things at certain times and in certain ways based on the

> phases and, as an extension, stems and branches whether or not this

> was the efficient, practical thing to do. Just a simple for

> instance. Everyone had to change to winter clothes on a certain date

> regardless of the temperature out that day. Feng shui and

> astrology which were based on the stems and branches and, therefore,

> the five phases made building railroads, digging mines, etc.

> undoable. Things got so bad that, eventually, a segment of Chinese

> society felt the need for a clean sweep. This is not esoteric

> history. These are well known facts.