Elizabeth Hsu

[Guest guest]

Has Elizabeth Hsu's The Transmission of (1999) already been the

topic of discussion on the CHA? If not, I would

like to point readers to that book (buy secondhand paperback @ ExLibris). It is

an extremely good anthropological description of

various styles of Chinese medicine functioning in the PRC in the late 1980s. She

identifies " secret transmission, " " personal, " and

" standard, professional, academic " styles. In particular, the term " academic

style " (xue yuan pai) is what we tend to call in the West

" TCM. " Another way of translating this would be " scholastic " or " collegiate, "

i.e., the style taught in government-sponsored colleges of

Chinese medicine (zhong yi xue yuan). (Here, academic does not imply any value

judgement, such as the perjorative " strictly

academic. " It merely means from the academies.)

 

As an extension of this, I think it might help when respondents talk about their

views on CM, to identify their style right up-front. For

instance, based on Hsu's criteria, I believe Jim Ramholz would be an adherent of

a Korean " secret transmission " style, while

Leamington (Five Element) acupuncturists would be adherents of a purportedly

Chinese " secret transmission. " (Each style is/should

be free to describe themself any way they want to, regardless of the historicity

of their description.) I would be a a proponent of the

" academic " style. Deke Kendall, Mark Seem, and Toyohari acupuncturists would be

proponents of " personal " styles, etc. In the use of

these labels, there is no inherent value or ranking. They are merely medical

anthropological names of different styles of transmission. I

believe such identifications would go a long way to avoiding unnecessary

arguments and misunderstandings. Often, as a profession

as a whole, we talk at cross purposes because Chinese medicine is not a single

conceptual entity. In fact, here in the U.S.,

" Chinese " or " Oriental medicine " as a single thing is primarily a political

entity.

 

Further, I think the recognition and self-conscious adoption of such a style

identification by schools would be especially helpful. For

instance, I would recommend that the schools adopt the academic style as their

standard and that ALL teachers should teach to that

standard. Then, as in China, students before and/or after graduation would be

free to also study either " secret " or " personal " styles.

For instance, a teacher in class would teach the standard academic style, but in

their own study group outside of class they would be

perfectly free to teach their own personal style. However, such personal or

secret styles should not be taught to undergraduates within

the standard curriculum and especially if they are not identified for what they

are. I think this could clear up so much confusion and

misunderstanding without in any way limiting the intellectual and political

existence of any and all styles of CM/OM.

 

Such a style typology would also allow for the existence of schools teaching

their own style, just as we already have Leamington (Five

Element) acupuncture schools. If a person wanted to devote their entire

education to a nonstandard style of CM/OM, they could do it

at such schools. However, students would know right up-front exactly what they

were getting into.

 

Many problems and misunderstandings at our schools occur when different teachers

say different things without properly or

adequately indentifying the provenance of their information. As beginners, we

cannot expect entry level students to be able to sort

through and pick and choose from the information they are exposed to without

nonjudgemental but nonetheless transparent criteria for

making such choices.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Beautiful Bob! I read the book and highly recommend it to understand what we

learned vs. what is taught in China.

 

I agree that the standard is TCM and their are offshoots and other transmissions

and like the categories outlined in the book. I believe the Learnington style

appears to be a fusion of French, Chinese and Japanese sources, as well as their

own creation, as their 5 elements have different methods than in a purely

Chinese system.

 

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME

chusauli2003

 

Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 wrote:

Has Elizabeth Hsu's The Transmission of (1999) already been the

topic of discussion on the CHA? If not, I would

like to point readers to that book (buy secondhand paperback @ ExLibris). It is

an extremely good anthropological description of

various styles of Chinese medicine functioning in the PRC in the late 1980s. She

identifies " secret transmission, " " personal, " and

" standard, professional, academic " styles. In particular, the term " academic

style " (xue yuan pai) is what we tend to call in the West

" TCM. " Another way of translating this would be " scholastic " or " collegiate, "

i.e., the style taught in government-sponsored colleges of

Chinese medicine (zhong yi xue yuan). (Here, academic does not imply any value

judgement, such as the perjorative " strictly

academic. " It merely means from the academies.)

 

As an extension of this, I think it might help when respondents talk about their

views on CM, to identify their style right up-front. For

instance, based on Hsu's criteria, I believe Jim Ramholz would be an adherent of

a Korean " secret transmission " style, while

Leamington (Five Element) acupuncturists would be adherents of a purportedly

Chinese " secret transmission. " (Each style is/should

be free to describe themself any way they want to, regardless of the historicity

of their description.) I would be a a proponent of the

" academic " style. Deke Kendall, Mark Seem, and Toyohari acupuncturists would be

proponents of " personal " styles, etc. In the use of

these labels, there is no inherent value or ranking. They are merely medical

anthropological names of different styles of transmission. I

believe such identifications would go a long way to avoiding unnecessary

arguments and misunderstandings. Often, as a profession

as a whole, we talk at cross purposes because Chinese medicine is not a single

conceptual entity. In fact, here in the U.S.,

" Chinese " or " Oriental medicine " as a single thing is primarily a political

entity.

 

Further, I think the recognition and self-conscious adoption of such a style

identification by schools would be especially helpful. For

instance, I would recommend that the schools adopt the academic style as their

standard and that ALL teachers should teach to that

standard. Then, as in China, students before and/or after graduation would be

free to also study either " secret " or " personal " styles.

For instance, a teacher in class would teach the standard academic style, but in

their own study group outside of class they would be

perfectly free to teach their own personal style. However, such personal or

secret styles should not be taught to undergraduates within

the standard curriculum and especially if they are not identified for what they

are. I think this could clear up so much confusion and

misunderstanding without in any way limiting the intellectual and political

existence of any and all styles of CM/OM.

 

Such a style typology would also allow for the existence of schools teaching

their own style, just as we already have Leamington (Five

Element) acupuncture schools. If a person wanted to devote their entire

education to a nonstandard style of CM/OM, they could do it

at such schools. However, students would know right up-front exactly what they

were getting into.

 

Many problems and misunderstandings at our schools occur when different teachers

say different things without properly or

adequately indentifying the provenance of their information. As beginners, we

cannot expect entry level students to be able to sort

through and pick and choose from the information they are exposed to without

nonjudgemental but nonetheless transparent criteria for

making such choices.

 

Bob

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

She identifies " secret transmission, " " personal, " and

> " standard, professional, academic " styles. In particular, the term " academic

style "

(xue yuan pai) is what we tend to call in the West

> " TCM. " Another way of translating this would be " scholastic " or " collegiate, "

i.e., the

style taught in government-sponsored colleges of

> Chinese medicine (zhong yi xue yuan). (Here, academic does not imply any value

judgement, such as the perjorative " strictly

> academic. " It merely means from the academies.)

 

Bob

 

Well put. I do not think Jim would reject his label. I believe I am personally

more in

line with you, emphasizing professional consensus as the basis for practice.

The

personal style is the interesting one. If I understand correctly, the personal

style

relies on a study of the classics and/or other medical literature and

development of

one's own unique take on things. This may be highly effective, but until a

large

enough body of practitioners exists within this school of thought, one is

essentially

operating in the absence of consensus. This is fine for those with such a

comfort

level. And arguably, most chinese docs may have practiced this way for the sole

reason they did not have the same means for widespread, rapid and regular

interpersonal communication with their colleagues. Now if one comes from a

personal or secret tradition with a long lineage, then I would be more

optimistic. But

if one is operating mainly on personal ideas with neither lineage nor consensus,

I feel

less secure.

 

[Guest guest]

Bob:

 

Your categorizations make practical sense; I will try to use them in

the future myself.

 

Would it be helpful if COMP adopted these categories, too?

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Has Elizabeth Hsu's The Transmission of (1999)

already been the topic of discussion on the CHA? If not, I would

> like to point readers to that book (buy secondhand paperback @

ExLibris). It is an extremely good anthropological description of

> various styles of Chinese medicine functioning in the PRC in the

late 1980s. She identifies " secret transmission, " " personal, " and

> " standard, professional, academic " styles. In particular, the

term " academic style " (xue yuan pai) is what we tend to call in the

West

> " TCM. " Another way of translating this would be " scholastic "

or " collegiate, " i.e., the style taught in government-sponsored

colleges of

> Chinese medicine (zhong yi xue yuan). (Here, academic does not

imply any value judgement, such as the perjorative " strictly

> academic. " It merely means from the academies.)

>

> As an extension of this, I think it might help when respondents

talk about their views on CM, to identify their style right up-

front. For

> instance, based on Hsu's criteria, I believe Jim Ramholz would be

an adherent of a Korean " secret transmission " style, while

> Leamington (Five Element) acupuncturists would be adherents of a

purportedly Chinese " secret transmission. " (Each style is/should

> be free to describe themself any way they want to, regardless of

the historicity of their description.) I would be a a proponent of

the

> " academic " style. Deke Kendall, Mark Seem, and Toyohari

acupuncturists would be proponents of " personal " styles, etc. In the

use of

> these labels, there is no inherent value or ranking. They are

merely medical anthropological names of different styles of

transmission. I

> believe such identifications would go a long way to avoiding

unnecessary arguments and misunderstandings. Often, as a profession

> as a whole, we talk at cross purposes because Chinese medicine is

not a single conceptual entity. In fact, here in the U.S.,

> " Chinese " or " Oriental medicine " as a single thing is primarily a

political entity.

>

> Further, I think the recognition and self-conscious adoption of

such a style identification by schools would be especially helpful.

For

> instance, I would recommend that the schools adopt the academic

style as their standard and that ALL teachers should teach to that

> standard. Then, as in China, students before and/or after

graduation would be free to also study either " secret " or " personal "

styles.

> For instance, a teacher in class would teach the standard academic

style, but in their own study group outside of class they would be

> perfectly free to teach their own personal style. However, such

personal or secret styles should not be taught to undergraduates

within

> the standard curriculum and especially if they are not identified

for what they are. I think this could clear up so much confusion and

> misunderstanding without in any way limiting the intellectual and

political existence of any and all styles of CM/OM.

>

> Such a style typology would also allow for the existence of

schools teaching their own style, just as we already have Leamington

(Five

> Element) acupuncture schools. If a person wanted to devote their

entire education to a nonstandard style of CM/OM, they could do it

> at such schools. However, students would know right up-front

exactly what they were getting into.

>

> Many problems and misunderstandings at our schools occur when

different teachers say different things without properly or

> adequately indentifying the provenance of their information. As

beginners, we cannot expect entry level students to be able to sort

> through and pick and choose from the information they are exposed

to without nonjudgemental but nonetheless transparent criteria for

> making such choices.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> Well put. I do not think Jim would reject his label. >>>

 

:

 

You're correct not at all. I think it is a fair and accurate

description of my teacher's work. I'm trying to turn it into

a " personal " or " system " style.

 

Once again, Bob has saved the profession!

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Dr. Worsley learned a five phase method of acupuncture from Wu Weiping

in Taiwan, then fleshed out the theory with homeopathic elements (for

example, Constantine Hering's " Law of Cure " ). So we need to add that

thread as well (homeopathy).

 

 

On Dec 22, 2003, at 9:28 AM, Robert Chu wrote:

 

> I believe the Learnington style appears to be a fusion of French,

> Chinese and Japanese sources, as well as their own creation, as their

> 5 elements have different methods than in a purely Chinese system.

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz@m...> wrote:

> , " " wrote:

> > Well put. I do not think Jim would reject his label. >>>

>

>

:

>

> You're correct not at all. I think it is a fair and accurate

> description of my teacher's work. I'm trying to turn it into

> a " personal " or " system " style.

>

> Once again, Bob has saved the profession!

 

 

This should more accurately read: " You're correct; not at all. "

 

And, I would add, that Bob's comment about schools labeling

themselves and teaching academic style for undergraduates would

probably help immensely in sorting out some of the confusion and

help to consolidate a greater consensus in the profession.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz@m...>

wrote:

> , " " wrote:

> > Well put. I do not think Jim would reject his label. >>>

>

>

:

>

> You're correct not at all. I think it is a fair and accurate

> description of my teacher's work.

 

 

the source of the transmission WAS secret, then. but no longer. my bad.

 

I'm trying to turn it into

> a " personal " or " system " style.

 

 

I support that. I know your system uses very precise diagnostic standards.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> Dr. Worsley learned a five phase method of acupuncture from Wu Weiping

> in Taiwan, then fleshed out the theory with homeopathic elements (for

> example, Constantine Hering's " Law of Cure " ). So we need to add that

> thread as well (homeopathy).

 

Robert & Z'ev,

 

I agree that this is the objective history of L.A. However, their personal story

is (or at least at one time was) that this is a secret oral

tradition. In using these labels, I think one needs to use the labels that the

individual chooses except that, for the standard or

academic label, there needs to be definite, " freely available, " written

standards. Within a secret style, there could be standards for that

style. However, that does not make that style an example of the standard,

academic style. Should Leamington acupuncturists

themselves adopt the history that Prof. Worsely created this system himself,

then the style would cease to be a secret style and

become an idiosyncratic, personal style. As Dr. Hsu points out, a secret style

may be made up of materials that are entirely within

the public domain. It is how the members of a tradition relate to and transmit

that information that qualifies a style as " secret. "

 

Within the Chinese medical model that Dr. Hsu describes, " secret styles " tend to

be affinal (i.e., family styles), the relationship is that

of master to disciple, and an initiation is necessary into the style or sect.

Members of a secret style have lifetime obligations to their

master and the master's other disciples, and the community of members is

hierarchically structured.

 

When Dr. Ding Ji-feng made me his personal student and North American

representative, I became a member of his personal style of

tui na (Ding Ji-feng guen fa pai). However, because there were no secrets

imparted and no formal oaths taken, this was membership in

a personal style, not a secret style. When I studied acupuncture with Dr. Eric

Tao, I studied his personal style of acupuncture.

However, because I was not Chinese, he would not accept me or any other

round-eye as a " disciple " in the Tao family tradition. He

later did accepet a female disciple who was not from the Tao clan but accepted

her because of Dr. Tao's relationship with her father

and because she was at least Chinese. I can say I studied acupuncture with Dr.

Tao, but I cannot say I was a formal disciple of

Dr. Tao. When I was initiated into the practice of the Medicine Buddha by

Trogawa Rinpoche, I had to take certain lifetime vows and

obligations which included oaths of secrecy and the necessity of keeping certain

commitments to all my other Vajra-brothers and

-sisters. When I went to the Shanghai College of CM, I paid my money, went to

classes, passed my tests, and received a certificate

of having achieved certain standards of knowledge and clinical ability, but that

was the end of that and everyone in the class was

exposed to exactly the same materials.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I can think of 2 other practices, " Master " Tong and Jeffery Yuen, both of

considerable

influence in the acupucture world. Where would they fall in this scheme?

[Guest guest]

" Master " Tong "

 

Now, idiosyncratic and personal since his material is not secret any more. It

was because his sons were not deemed suitable for

training that he decided to teach publically a family system which had been a

secret lineage.

 

Jeffery Yuen

 

Also idiosyncratic and personal until or unless he requires initiation and

discipleship for learning secrets. However, since he teaches

publically, his public teachings would have to be seen as " personal. "

 

IMO.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

It would be better to say that Master Tung's son was about six when Master Tung

passed on, so therefore, unable to learn the family system. This nonsense that

his son(s) were not deemed suitable is simply an inaccuracy and distortion of

the truth. Also, Master Tung (actually " Dong " in Pin Yin and not " Tong " , " Tung "

being the Wades-Giles romanization) had openly taught parts of his system in

Taiwan since the 1950's.

 

 

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME

chusauli2003

 

Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 wrote:

" Master " Tong "

 

Now, idiosyncratic and personal since his material is not secret any more. It

was because his sons were not deemed suitable for

training that he decided to teach publically a family system which had been a

secret lineage.

 

Jeffery Yuen

 

Also idiosyncratic and personal until or unless he requires initiation and

discipleship for learning secrets. However, since he teaches

publically, his public teachings would have to be seen as " personal. "

 

IMO.

 

Bob

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Robert,

 

Thanks for setting the record straight. In any case, this system seems to have

changed from a secret one to a personal one.

 

More importantly, how might we foster the implementation of this classification

system here in North America?

 

Bob

 

, Robert Chu <chusauli2003> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> It would be better to say that Master Tung's son was about six when Master

Tung passed on, so therefore, unable to learn the

family system. This nonsense that his son(s) were not deemed suitable is simply

an inaccuracy and distortion of the truth. Also,

Master Tung (actually " Dong " in Pin Yin and not " Tong " , " Tung " being the

Wades-Giles romanization) had openly taught parts of his

system in Taiwan since the 1950's.

>

>

> Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME

> chusauli2003

>

[Guest guest]

I personally support such a classification system. I think it would be

very helpful to develop something like COMP, to let the professional

community, academic community and lay public know exactly what training

and system of practice a practitioner supports and teaches.

 

I recently reread both of Elizabeth Hsu's books. I highly recommend

them to everyone. And I agree that there should be a distinction

between academic TCM and more personal styles of practice. At the

school level (in the West), I think training should be primarily based

on 'academic CM', with introductions to other styles of practice,

perhaps through electives, seminars, or specific courses. This has

been fairly effective at PCOM with offerings of shifts in Japanese

acupuncture, for example, and a class that introduces concepts from the

Worsley school.

 

I also think that schools can be more specific about their philosophy

of medicine, so that students aren't surprised by what they get. I

think the ethical thing to do is make clear the distinctions between

" Five Element " acupuncture schools, TCM schools, programs more oriented

to herbal medicine, etc.

 

 

On Dec 23, 2003, at 8:46 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> More importantly, how might we foster the implementation of this

> classification system here in North America?

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

I am thinking that this approach is more for cultural anthropologists to list

schools of thought and classify Chinese medicine as it is taught today. To the

public, we're all " acupuncturists " , and to each other, we all know what we

really do, if at least, we look into it. Also, labels at times don't really

describe things adequately, and can be insulting.

 

Best regards,

 

Robert Chu

chusauli2003

 

Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 wrote:

Robert,

 

Thanks for setting the record straight. In any case, this system seems to have

changed from a secret one to a personal one.

 

More importantly, how might we foster the implementation of this classification

system here in North America?

 

Bob

 

, Robert Chu <chusauli2003> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> It would be better to say that Master Tung's son was about six when Master

Tung passed on, so therefore, unable to learn the

family system. This nonsense that his son(s) were not deemed suitable is simply

an inaccuracy and distortion of the truth. Also,

Master Tung (actually " Dong " in Pin Yin and not " Tong " , " Tung " being the

Wades-Giles romanization) had openly taught parts of his

system in Taiwan since the 1950's.

>

>

> Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME

> chusauli2003

>

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Robert Chu <chusauli2003>

wrote:

> Bob,

>

> I am thinking that this approach is more for cultural anthropologists to list

schools

of thought and classify Chinese medicine as it is taught today. To the public,

we're

all " acupuncturists " , and to each other, we all know what we really do, if at

least, we

look into it.

 

 

We may know, but our students do not. Students become very confused determining

what is consensus and what is personal. No one should be expected to accept

personal information that has not been characterized as such. I know many

students

who have internalized ideas that are personal and sometimes fly in the face of

consensus. and they think all of this is TCM in part because their own teachers

do

not even realize they are teaching personal rather than consensual material.

The

main criticism I have of giovanni is not accuracy or terminology, but the

widespread

inclusion of what are clearly personal thoughts without clearly delineating

this. I find

his work useful to me because I CAN make such personal discriminations at this

stage. But can a first term student being taught by a professor who does not

make

such distinctions herself. I think not. So these labels are thus quite useful

to

educators and students, if not the public or practitioners.

 

 

> Also, labels at times don't really describe things adequately, and can be

insulting.

 

labels never describe anything aderquately. but if labels serve no purpose,

let's just

dispense with CM theory altogether. a label is an orientation point. it is

hardly

absolute. As we have seen, the line between personal and secret is blurry, for

sure.

but the issue of personal vs. consensus is more clearcut, IMO. Either the basis

is

widespread professional agreement of not. I can hardly see how this would be

insulting when what Bob is calling for is self-labeling. He gave some examples

of

what he meant, but he actually called for people to label THEMSELVES, NOT each

other.

 

[Guest guest]

We may know, but our students do not. Students become very confused determining

what is consensus and what is personal. No one should be expected to accept

personal information that has not been characterized as such.

 

>>>>While i tend to agree that basic TCM should be the majority of the

curriculum in US schools, CM is not a scientific method in the sense that

" consensus " is achieved by experimentation (ie proof), and therefore without

" personal " or clinical input the materials are Empty. I agree that as much as

possible one should communicate one's sources (and thus clarify what is

so-called personal), i would hate to see training becoming too rigid. Together

with basic TCM I do believe that students for example should learn Japanese

style palpation techniques, as these can be even more important clinically than

the theoretical bent of TCM. We practice in the US and our needs are not the

same as consensus ideas in China. I know this makes life much more difficult for

schools and teachers, but this need for so-called less confusion is often just a

mirage. And of this as always leads to the arguments about medical terms and

their uses.

Alon