cultural context

[Guest guest]

> > " The masters of all the more intensely emotional arts have

> > frequently cultivated a high degree of chastity. This is notably

> > the case as regards music. One thinks of Mozart, of Beethoven, of

> > Schubert. At the age of twenty-five, when he had already produced

> > much fine work, Mozart wrote in a letter that he had never touched

> > a woman. "

 

How old was Mozart when he died? Were we talking about longevity or

creativity. If you don't have sex, you would have to make music like mozart or

you would probably just die on the spot. As Phil showed with his abstracts,

there is no actual medical evidence of the supposed detriment of masturbation

or sex. We can argue this point all we want. Perhaps Marnae can chime in, but

I believe the mainstream antropology position on this topic is that it reflects

cultural taboos more than medical necessity. controlling sexuality and

reproduction is generally considered one of the mechanisms by which so-

called civilization was established. If one reads well documented women's

studies literature, you will see that many traditional ideas about sexuality

were imposed by patriarchal usurpers of earlier matriarchal traditions. Many

of the matriarchal traditions celebrated sex, fertility, motherhood, etc. and

evidence suggests that many of the sexual taboos of the monotheistic

religions were overt attempts to wrest power from the priestesses by

declaring their practices satanic or the equivalent.

 

Perhaps this was truly a step forward, perhaps not. However, it was highly

motivated by politics and power at its inception. And as any student of history

knows, those in power will say or do anything to solidify the party line. After

thousands of years of rationalizing something, people might begin to assume

that it is actually true. thank god we have modern science to shed some light

on this darkness. I am often surprised at how many people in our field are

willing to accept ideas as gospel when I know many of those same people are

not fond of blind acceptance of other types of gospel. Is it because we might

mistake the gospel of CM for something more profound than the utterances of

failable mortal men. Do as you please, but be clear that to outsiders this

appears very similar to the posturing of religious zeal, not dispassionate

science. I will accept whatever verdict actual research yields. Will all of

you?

 

At the 2003 PCOM graduation, the mother of the husband of a favorite student

of mine commented that practicn chinese medicine was like joining a religion.

Being a devout catholic, she actually found it somewhat endearing that the

entire ceremony smacked of religion more than science. She was quite

correct in her assessment and I, of course, remain horrified that this is the

impression we give to the world. Faith in unproven ideas has NO place at all

in a modern healthcare system. And certain ideas that are considered

completely outrageous by mainstream medicine should be handled with care as

we present our modalities to the world.

 

Finally, I will apologize in advabnce that I do not feel obligated to address

every rebuttal to statements I make. My continuing policy is that I will

address rebuttals that I feel poke holes in my arguments if I feel the need.

Otherwise, I will let an argument stand or fall on it own accord. If you poke a

big hole in my case and I don't rebut, that is a forfeit on my part. You win.

However, sometimes you may think you poked a hole that deserves a rebuttal,

but I may still remain silent and let the members decide for themselves which

case is stronger. Sometimes the best tactic for advocating a case is to be

quiet. So don't take it personally. I do not read every post as the volume of

mail demands a second moderator for this group. There is just not enough

time in the day, even were I so inclined. However, if you ever need me to

respond to something you consider urgent, please contact me personally for a

response. I read ALL my personal email Just be sure that you use an email

address that dislays your full name and choose a subject that has CHA in the

title so my junkmail filter does not trash it.

 

[Guest guest]

 

When dealing with historical data, there is a certain degree of

complexity that requires a multi-faceted approach of scholarship, from

historical, cultural, medical and scientific points of view. However,

we need to be careful not to discount Chinese medical teachings because

of our own speculations about it.

 

On one hand, you say that modern science is somehow going to shed light

on darkness. But scientism is just as prone to belief and bias as

anything else. The results of research can be manipulated to suit

agendas, and often is. You believe in modern science, and that can

sometimes blind one to other aspects of existence. Modern science is

still bound by the relative world. If you believe that is all there is

to existence, you have a right to your belief. But a vast majority of

human beings still believe in a spiritual world. Can science legislate

sexual morality?

 

For example, ethical and moral teachings. Many ethical and/or moral

standards are not just political expediency, but based on deep

understanding of human nature discovered by sages all over the world.

We need to respect people's cultures and beliefs, even if they seem to

us to be 'superstition' to us. For example, the kosher or marital laws

of Judaism can neither be proven or disproven by science, but

practicing them, according to adherents, seems to have great benefit.

Should science be the final arbitrator on such practices?

 

I am not sure what you think is the 'gospel of CM' in this discussion.

Are you talking about what Chinese medicine says about jing/essence,

about retention of jing, about sexual taxation? Let's discount the

arguments about Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. We'll never know exactly

what happened there, so we cannot use them to support arguments. But

should we just dismiss everything that great Chinese physicians taught

about sexuality as taboo?

 

And what is wrong with zeal? Many scientists I know are zealous about

their work. And many religionists are dispassionate. A dispassionate,

critical stance may be useful at times, but if one is this way all the

time, then one is missing crucial dimensions of human existence.

 

To sum up, one has to accept the value of modern science, but also

realize its limitations. There are other dimensions to human existence

that influence the practice of medicine, and there are cultural issues,

and nuances to the study of classical literature that have to be

respected and taken on their own terms. I, for one, would be

uncomfortable with the role of being the final judge and jury on the

value and efficacy of Chinese practices based on modern science alone.

 

 

 

On Jan 28, 2004, at 10:47 AM, wrote:

 

> Perhaps this was truly a step forward, perhaps not. However, it was

> highly

> motivated by politics and power at its inception. And as any student

> of history

> knows, those in power will say or do anything to solidify the party

> line. After

> thousands of years of rationalizing something, people might begin to

> assume

> that it is actually true. thank god we have modern science to shed

> some light

> on this darkness. I am often surprised at how many people in our

> field are

> willing to accept ideas as gospel when I know many of those same

> people are

> not fond of blind acceptance of other types of gospel. Is it because

> we might

> mistake the gospel of CM for something more profound than the

> utterances of

> failable mortal men. Do as you please, but be clear that to

> outsiders this

> appears very similar to the posturing of religious zeal, not

> dispassionate

> science. I will accept whatever verdict actual research yields. Will

> all of

> you?

[Guest guest]

AS much as I like and embrace modern science, I have to side with Z'ev

on this one... I personally find nothing in Todd's argument that

compelling... Let's look..

 

a) the issue is around, " Does excessive Sex deplete Jing " --> " Does

ejaculation deplete jing. " – No one has said that a healthy sex life

is not healthy. No has said that China (or us) believes sex is bad.

But is there some kind of depletion that occurs with sex, and if done

excessively will it deplete Jing. Todd's argument seems to only deal

with proving that sex is good… and I will not argue with that one…

b) But to claim that modern science have proven that CM is wrong is a

BOLD statement… where are the studies? I saw very little support from

Phil's post. 1) He starts out saying how few studies have actually

been done. 2) (Maybe I missed one) But I did not see any of the

studies actually testing the claim above. First, one would have to

evaluate what jing meant (from a western perspective), and then

compare 2 groups over time, someone how factoring out other lifestyle

issues (i.e. prostitute, porn star w/ drugs) etc.. and then follow

these groups over an extended period of time. The avualting jing

loss… This would be an incredibly difficult study, and I don't think

it has been done. But difficulty aside I didn't see anything remotely

resembling evaluating excessive ejaculations… I find no evidence that

science has disproven CM on this one. Please point me to the studies.

c) China did go through periods of extreme sexuality where i.e. it was

en vogue to watch couples have sex, orgies etc. (according to Tiberi)

d) The fact that some idea has just stayed around in

because of some cultural bias 2000 years ago is possible (of course)

but w/o evidence the argument is a paper tiger. It is not like an

idea in CM just sticks around b/c it is written down, I argue that CM

physicians love to argue about various points of view, and debate

theory as much as any of us. Look at the commentary to the nanjing,

it is one big disagreement. I read it everyday in the CM literature…

e) It is clear also from Phil's post that he himself said he would

shrivel up with excessive sex, and it is well known within our culture

that athletes (etc) do refrain to conserve themselves… what are they

conserving, you decide…?

f) Phil also noted the average number of sex per week is 3 (was that

it??) anyway this is way in the norm of CM…

 

So it is clear to me that sex does deplete something, most men will

admit to feeling that… With a moderate sex life (in a healthy

individual) this depletion is easily absorbed and replenished. Sex

can actually increase one's energy if done moderately and properly…

Especially with techniques, which should be put aside for this

discussion… But the real issue is what excessive ejaculation does… and

this has not, IMO, at all, been answered by western medicine.

 

-

 

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

>

> When dealing with historical data, there is a certain degree of

> complexity that requires a multi-faceted approach of scholarship, from

> historical, cultural, medical and scientific points of view. However,

> we need to be careful not to discount Chinese medical teachings because

> of our own speculations about it.

>

> On one hand, you say that modern science is somehow going to shed light

> on darkness. But scientism is just as prone to belief and bias as

> anything else. The results of research can be manipulated to suit

> agendas, and often is. You believe in modern science, and that can

> sometimes blind one to other aspects of existence. Modern science is

> still bound by the relative world. If you believe that is all there is

> to existence, you have a right to your belief. But a vast majority of

> human beings still believe in a spiritual world. Can science legislate

> sexual morality?

>

> For example, ethical and moral teachings. Many ethical and/or moral

> standards are not just political expediency, but based on deep

> understanding of human nature discovered by sages all over the world.

> We need to respect people's cultures and beliefs, even if they seem to

> us to be 'superstition' to us. For example, the kosher or marital laws

> of Judaism can neither be proven or disproven by science, but

> practicing them, according to adherents, seems to have great benefit.

> Should science be the final arbitrator on such practices?

>

> I am not sure what you think is the 'gospel of CM' in this discussion.

> Are you talking about what Chinese medicine says about jing/essence,

> about retention of jing, about sexual taxation? Let's discount the

> arguments about Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. We'll never know exactly

> what happened there, so we cannot use them to support arguments. But

> should we just dismiss everything that great Chinese physicians taught

> about sexuality as taboo?

>

> And what is wrong with zeal? Many scientists I know are zealous about

> their work. And many religionists are dispassionate. A dispassionate,

> critical stance may be useful at times, but if one is this way all the

> time, then one is missing crucial dimensions of human existence.

>

> To sum up, one has to accept the value of modern science, but also

> realize its limitations. There are other dimensions to human existence

> that influence the practice of medicine, and there are cultural issues,

> and nuances to the study of classical literature that have to be

> respected and taken on their own terms. I, for one, would be

> uncomfortable with the role of being the final judge and jury on the

> value and efficacy of Chinese practices based on modern science alone.

>

>

>

> On Jan 28, 2004, at 10:47 AM, wrote:

>

> > Perhaps this was truly a step forward, perhaps not. However, it was

> > highly

> > motivated by politics and power at its inception. And as any student

> > of history

> > knows, those in power will say or do anything to solidify the party

> > line. After

> > thousands of years of rationalizing something, people might begin to

> > assume

> > that it is actually true. thank god we have modern science to shed

> > some light

> > on this darkness. I am often surprised at how many people in our

> > field are

> > willing to accept ideas as gospel when I know many of those same

> > people are

> > not fond of blind acceptance of other types of gospel. Is it because

> > we might

> > mistake the gospel of CM for something more profound than the

> > utterances of

> > failable mortal men. Do as you please, but be clear that to

> > outsiders this

> > appears very similar to the posturing of religious zeal, not

> > dispassionate

> > science. I will accept whatever verdict actual research yields.

Will

> > all of

> > you?

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> So it is clear to me that sex does deplete something, most men will

> admit to feeling that… With a moderate sex life (in a healthy

> individual) this depletion is easily absorbed and replenished. Sex

> can actually increase one's energy if done moderately and properly…

> Especially with techniques, which should be put aside for this

> discussion… But the real issue is what excessive ejaculation does… and

> this has not, IMO, at all, been answered by western medicine.

>

> -

 

In your previous posts on other topics, when someone may present an

idea in CM that is not particularly mainstream, you have asked for

proof in the form of clinical trials or case studies or something

similar to back up the notion of the theory that they present.

 

You are now stating that because science has not shown that sex does

not deplete jing, then it must deplete jing.

 

This is a very week leg to stand on. I would think that you would

require the same standards of proof for your own positions and not

just for those with whom you disagree.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " " <

@h...> wrote:

 

But to claim that modern science have proven that CM is wrong is a

> BOLD statement… where are the studies? I saw very little support from

> Phil's post. 1) He starts out saying how few studies have actually

> been done. 2) (Maybe I missed one) But I did not see any of the

> studies actually testing the claim above.

 

If you reject my argument on this point,you should quote me properly. I nev=

er

said science has proved CM wrong on this point.

 

I said,

 

" As Phil showed with his abstracts, there is no actual medical evidence of =

the

supposed detriment of masturbation or sex. "

 

In other words, science has not yielded any evidence to prove CM right on =

this

point and there is no logical scientic reason they will, IMO. could someon=

e

even postulate a reasonable western pathomech for this other than making

nebulous statements about needing lots more energy to replenish semen than =

 

the losses that might occur from hard work. Where's the evidence for that.=

 

 

I also said,

 

" I will accept whatever verdict actual research yields. Will all of you? " =

 

 

I personally feel quite silly advising my patients in this area unless the=

 

activity is obviously extreme. Perhaps masturbating five times per day is =

 

excessive. However,some sources say any masturbation is bad. do you agree=

 

with that? I would set aside taboo and suggest that for many people, the

discharge of liver qi is more beneficial than any loss from ejaculation. W=

hy

do accept this idea aside from your own personal experiences. Have you see=

n a

huge number of patients who fit this scenario. the prevailing theory of AI=

Ds

was that it occurred becuase patients had excessive and unnatural sex. All=

 

the TCM books said this before the virus was discovered. Now we know that=

 

you can get if from a blood transfusion and the sexual route is just incide=

ntal.

The disease may be transitted inmany cases by sex, but it's existence has

nothing to do with sexual activity,per se.

 

I view ALL CM concepts with immense, but open-minded, skepticism - a

scientifc perspective. Only a preponderance of evidence and logic can make=

 

me accept CM concepts. I have observed for years to see if this is true a=

nd I

reject it. If those of you who stand by your position have always believed=

this

concept to be true, you have to ask yourself if your observations are thus =

 

biased and meaningless. If you do something on faith, you cannot analyze

rationally.

 

Finally,I completely disagree with Z'ev's continual characterization of mod=

ern

science as a model as biased and flawed in its own way as CM.. However I w=

ill

not debate this complex point. I will merely ask if western science is as =

 

based on culture bound inherent assumptions, then why has it been adopted a=

s

a powerful tool by every culture that is exposed to it. And that science

eventually replaces most traditional belief systems as it PROVES them wrong=

..

CM never has and never will have that type of broad applicability. Science=

is

based on theory, while CM is based on dogma.

 

 

[Guest guest]

CM never has and never will have that type of broad applicability. Science=

is

based on theory, while CM is based on dogma.

>>>>Wow Todd be careful you sound like me and you will push yourself into the

hall of sacrilege in US TCM community

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It is a mistake to say that there are no culture bound factors in

modern science. As you've pointed out in the past, there are also

great socio-economic factors connected with the spread of Western

science and culture, connected with the great power of European

societies, followed by the United States. Undoubtedly, modern science

has brought a lot of good to the world, and also a lot of not so good

things, such as destruction of traditional cultures. I don't see what

is good about the destruction of traditional belief systems and

cultures, and the mass pollution of water, air and soil by technology.

Modern science cannot measure the human spirit. It cannot teach a

human being how to be compassionate, loving, caregiving or moral. It

also cannot replace the essential human practices of prayer, meditation

and spiritual development, rituals of birth, maturity, death, marriage

and other essential human milestones.

 

 

As far as Chinese medicine being based on dogma, I am going to let your

statement stand. If this is truly what you believe, we have nothing

further to discuss on this topic.

 

 

 

On Jan 29, 2004, at 9:51 AM, wrote:

 

> Finally,I completely disagree with Z'ev's continual characterization

> of mod=

> ern

> science as a model as biased and flawed in its own way as CM..

> However I w=

> ill

> not debate this complex point. I will merely ask if western science

> is as =

>

> based on culture bound inherent assumptions, then why has it been

> adopted a=

> s

> a powerful tool by every culture that is exposed to it. And that

> science

> eventually replaces most traditional belief systems as it PROVES them

> wrong=

> .

> CM never has and never will have that type of broad applicability.

> Science=

> is

> based on theory, while CM is based on dogma.

[Guest guest]

It cannot teach a

human being how to be compassionate, loving, caregiving or moral.

<<<<I would have to disagree with these. It can and " science " can be used to

evaluate claims of such teachings

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ah, now we get down to the gristle and bone.

 

Can modern science, which is the product of human intellect, measure

human moral and ethical fallibility? Can a product of human intellect

convey absolute truth, free of belief or bias? Can the tools of

science explain the spirit?

 

 

On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:53 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> It cannot teach a

> human being how to be compassionate, loving, caregiving or moral.

> <<<<I would have to disagree with these. It can and " science " can be

> used to evaluate claims of such teachings

> alon

[Guest guest]

Can modern science, which is the product of human intellect, measure

human moral and ethical fallibility? Can a product of human intellect

convey absolute truth, free of belief or bias? Can the tools of

science explain the spirit?

 

>>>Belief and bias is not outside science. There are definitely ways to deal

with such questions within the paradigm of science. Not all science is

reductionist to the extent that much of the modern pharmacological area has been

emphasizing. While we can not yet explain " spirit, " CM or any other belief

system can not either. One can speculate on possible explanations of these from

a scientific perspectives, just as much as other dogmas or religions do. Once

" morality " for example is defined, one can study CM practitioners or

practitioners of other religions for example and see which one hold the best

chance of creating moral behavior, if at all. This is one example of science and

morality. Of course there are endless other examples. I think you are talking

more about " knowing " . While internal feelings of knowing can not be evaluated or

known at all (even in people that get together and simulate agreement and thus

feel validated as is done when dogmas become systems of beliefs), action and

effects can always be measured. Once defined it can be studied with scientific

methods. Regardless of all this, CM is a medicine and medicine is there to treat

disease. If it is a spiritual path then it is a religion and Todd is then

correct. If it is not then it only takes increasing degree of sophistication in

applying the scientific method to assess it. Nothing within CM is outside the

preview of science. The great thing about science is the belief of promise is in

the future as apposed to the past. May be many scientific changes and effects

are, and have not been, what all of us like to see, his point on the effects and

adaptation of science by every known population on earth, and the complete

domination of scientific medicine everywhere in the world, does point to its

strengths. If indigenous populations had all the answers to disease they would

have never looked for modern science for more answers. If it did not do a good

job (for the most part) they would have not kept them.

I know a lot of conspiracy theorists would have many examples of political and

other forces that have contributed for such domination, and some of these are

true, the basic truth however is that societies all over the world choose modern

medicine because of direct experience not because of political or any other

brain washing.

Science is what will make CM more effective and as important more truthful.

Science is what will separate what is dogma in CM and what can be used

predictably used in real life clinical medicine.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

 

> In your previous posts on other topics, when someone may present an

> idea in CM that is not particularly mainstream, you have asked for

> proof in the form of clinical trials or case studies or something

> similar to back up the notion of the theory that they present.

>

> You are now stating that because science has not shown that sex does

> not deplete jing, then it must deplete jing.

>

> This is a very week leg to stand on. I would think that you would

> require the same standards of proof for your own positions and not

> just for those with whom you disagree.

>

Brian,

 

I find your logic highly eschew…

a) excessive sex causing jing depletion is not NOT mainstream (It is

mainstream)

b) It is all throughout CM theory and case studies

c) You must of missed something because Todd is the one who said that

Science has finally shed some light on this darkness… Meaning It is

False that excessive sex causes jing depletion (Todd is this right??)

So your statement is flawed.. It is not me who must not prove it,

because I have 2000 years of CM on my side and I agree with it… I do

not need science … But if one is going to make claims that science has

disproven something then lets see it… That is the only reason science

has entered into this…

I actually have no idea where you are coming from on this one… I have

never said that we need science to prove anything (CM) – but if

something comes out of science I definitely want to see it. Very

simple….

and I still ask if someone wants to prove something out of the norm of

CM, lets see the proof. (research, case studies, something…) .. Your

stance (and tODD'S) is not mainstream, So where is your proof Brian?

My stance is just the boring status quo... but time tested... The

burden in unfortunately on you… But don't get me wrong I am open to CM

being wrong, but not b/c you feel it is so, I need something real!

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> , " " <

> @h...> wrote:

>

> But to claim that modern science have proven that CM is wrong is a

> > BOLD statement… where are the studies? I saw very little support from

> > Phil's post. 1) He starts out saying how few studies have actually

> > been done. 2) (Maybe I missed one) But I did not see any of the

> > studies actually testing the claim above.

>

> If you reject my argument on this point,you should quote me

properly. I nev=

> er

> said science has proved CM wrong on this point.

 

This was taken from inference from your whole post... You are

mentioning science as some reason why excessive sex doesn't deplete

jing... what is the role of science in your belief and statement if it

has not (in your mind) disproven) something??? Otherwise why mention it?

 

 

>

> I said,

>

> " As Phil showed with his abstracts, there is no actual medical

evidence of =

> the

> supposed detriment of masturbation or sex. "

 

Yes but those abstracts had nothing to due with the question.. They

did not test excessive sex vs. jing... It is like showing 30 cancer

studies and saying yes but those studies show no medical evidence that

AIDS is a virus.. it is a red herring...

 

>

> In other words, science has not yielded any evidence to prove CM

right on =

> this

> point and there is no logical scientic reason they will, IMO.

 

But have they tested it???

 

 

> I also said,

>

> " I will accept whatever verdict actual research yields. Will all of

you? " =

>

>

> I personally feel quite silly advising my patients in this area

unless the=

>

> activity is obviously extreme. Perhaps masturbating five times per

day is =

>

> excessive.

 

So do you tell your patients (that do this) that it is bad... here is

the question.. It is not about average sex...

 

However,some sources say any masturbation is bad. do you agree=

>

> with that?

 

Of course not.. We are not talking about (or I am not) about

masturbation...

 

I would set aside taboo and suggest that for many people, the

> discharge of liver qi is more beneficial than any loss from

ejaculation. W=

> hy

> do accept this idea aside from your own personal experiences.

 

But what are you basing your decision on??? Science has not said

anything either way... This in no way proves or disproves anything...

IT, IMO, has not been tested... So your belief is just that... and my

belief is just that, but I have 1 advantage 2000 years/... Now I may

be wrong, but there have been many of great doctors that have believed

this, and I have seen it first hand...So it is reasonable assumption..

 

 

> the TCM books said this before the virus was discovered. Now we

know that=

>

> you can get if from a blood transfusion and the sexual route is just

incide=

> ntal.

> The disease may be transitted inmany cases by sex, but it's

existence has

> nothing to do with sexual activity,per se.

 

Red herring... So what… CM was wrong.. who cares, they are wrong on

things, and they change when they are wrong (as seen with AIDS)...

Just a RH...

 

 

>

> I view ALL CM concepts with immense, but open-minded, skepticism - a

> scientifc perspective. Only a preponderance of evidence and logic

can make=

>

> me accept CM concepts.

 

I am with you on this... but where is your scientific evidence.?

If I see it I will believe it, I definitely, as you know, embrace many

aspects of western science...

 

-

 

>

> Finally,I completely disagree with Z'ev's continual characterization

of mod=

> ern

> science as a model as biased and flawed in its own way as CM..

However I w=

> ill

> not debate this complex point. I will merely ask if western science

is as =

>

> based on culture bound inherent assumptions, then why has it been

adopted a=

> s

> a powerful tool by every culture that is exposed to it. And that

science

> eventually replaces most traditional belief systems as it PROVES

them wrong=

> .

> CM never has and never will have that type of broad applicability.

Science=

> is

> based on theory, while CM is based on dogma.

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

> As far as Chinese medicine being based on dogma, I am going to let your

> statement stand.

 

Dogma is an emotionally perjorative term for most people. Elizabeth Hsu uses the

term " doctrine. " Long before I came across

Hsu'swork, I coined the phrase " statements of fact. " Hsu does a nice job of

explaining how modern Chinese evolved the " theory " of

contemporary CM from the accepted doctrines of previous dynasties. While I think

we can talk about the theory of CM, I agree with that much of this theory is based on doctrine or dogma.

 

As for some of your other statements about science not supplying moral education

or rites of passage, you have a great gift for mixing

apples and oranges and arguing, as I have noted before, via use of red herrings.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Red herring... So what. CM was wrong.. who cares, they are wrong on

things, and they change when they are wrong (as seen with AIDS)...

Just a RH...

>>>>That is science if not its Dogma

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <

@h...> wrote:

 

> stance (and tODD'S) is not mainstream, So where is your proof Brian?

> My stance is just the boring status quo... but time tested... The

> burden in unfortunately on you… But don't get me wrong I am open to CM

> being wrong, but not b/c you feel it is so, I need something real!

 

I am not so sure that it is " time tested. " I agree that the idea has been =

 

repeated over time, but where is the proof? You also said that you do not =

 

need science on his matter because it is mainstream CM and that you agree

with CM on this point. Are you saying that if mainstream CM claims

something, then it is absoluately true? that the claim is proof?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " " <

@h...> wrote:

> So your statement is flawed.. It is not me who must not prove it,

> because I have 2000 years of CM on my side and I agree with it… I do

> not need science … But if one is going to make claims that science has

 

Do you think that an incorrect idea cannot exist for 2000 years? CM is the=

 

one that has made the claim; where is the evidence, not only in support of =

 

idea, but also the lack of evidence for the oposite view?

 

It is also reasonable to assume that there have been those that disagreed

with this particular stance of CM for 2000 years. So, if I or Todd side wi=

th that

2000 year tradition, why are you asking for our proof when you are not

offering your own from your 2000 year tradition?

 

My statement was not flawed, it just put you into a position from which you=

 

could not contend.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

I agree with Todd that there may be a cultural bias around sex. We

learn that according to CM excessive sexual activity may deplete the

Jing leading to disease. I am uncertain whether this reflects

clinical reality. But is it ever mentioned in mainstream Chinese

sources that a complete lack of sexual activity over a period of time

may lead to disharmony? This has been my observation and certainly

the observation of many others. And where is it mentioned that ( as

Brian alluded to) sexual activity can be a terrific healing

mechanism/modality? Cultural taboo, in my opinion.

Warren

 

 

In , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

> , " " <

> @h...> wrote:

> > So your statement is flawed.. It is not me who must not prove it,

> > because I have 2000 years of CM on my side and I agree with it… I

do

> > not need science … But if one is going to make claims that

science has

>

> Do you think that an incorrect idea cannot exist for 2000 years?

CM is the=

>

> one that has made the claim; where is the evidence, not only in

support of =

>

> idea, but also the lack of evidence for the oposite view?

>

> It is also reasonable to assume that there have been those that

disagreed

> with this particular stance of CM for 2000 years. So, if I or Todd

side wi=

> th that

> 2000 year tradition, why are you asking for our proof when you are

not

> offering your own from your 2000 year tradition?

>

> My statement was not flawed, it just put you into a position from

which you=

>

> could not contend.

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

> , " " <

> @h...> wrote:

>

> > stance (and tODD'S) is not mainstream, So where is your proof Brian?

> > My stance is just the boring status quo... but time tested... The

> > burden in unfortunately on you… But don't get me wrong I am open to CM

> > being wrong, but not b/c you feel it is so, I need something real!

>

> I am not so sure that it is " time tested. " I agree that the idea

has been =

>

> repeated over time, but where is the proof? You also said that you

do not =

>

> need science on his matter because it is mainstream CM and that you

agree

> with CM on this point. Are you saying that if mainstream CM claims

> something, then it is absoluately true? that the claim is proof?

 

Of course I am not saying this... I am saying only, if you are going

to claim that CM is wrong, let's see some evidence. That is it...

and I don't feel I need to defend CM with Western science until I see

a reason too, meaning good evidence athropological, research, etc...

The burden of proof is on the claimer...

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

> , " " <

> @h...> wrote:

> > So your statement is flawed.. It is not me who must not prove it,

> > because I have 2000 years of CM on my side and I agree with it… I do

> > not need science … But if one is going to make claims that science has

>

> Do you think that an incorrect idea cannot exist for 2000 years?

 

Of course. Never said otherwise…

 

CM is the=

>

> one that has made the claim; where is the evidence, not only in

support of =

>

> idea, but also the lack of evidence for the oposite view?

 

I think you are in the wrong medicine if you don't put any weight at

all on tradition...

 

>

> It is also reasonable to assume that there have been those that

disagreed

> with this particular stance of CM for 2000 years.

 

Yes, so show them to me.. this is what I want .. some opposition

besides your simple claims... My evidence is from the great doctors in

CM history... Show me the money...

 

So, if I or Todd side wi=

> th that

> 2000 year tradition, why are you asking for our proof when you are not

> offering your own from your 2000 year tradition?

 

You are not siding with tradition... Tradition is with me.. sorry...

So far you haven't even supplied 1 chinese source/ dr. / western study

who says otherwise... Until you start showing me some evidence, this

convo is a waste of time for me... You think because you logically

think through something it must be true... I say show me something..

either tradition, research, case studies... something... I have

nothing more to say...

 

-

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry Bob, but the original posts in question included statements

about how 'science eventually replaces most traditional belief systems

as it proves them wrong', and how 'thank G-d we have modern science to

shed some light on this darkness'. I think these statements express

value judgments and opinions about traditional cultures and medicine

that gives an absolute belief in modern science as the measure of all

things. So, I have to disagree with your value judgment on my

postings. I think my responses were entirely relevant as rebuttals to

these points. If you don't see the same things I do in these posts,

fine. This is what I perceive, and this is how I respond.

 

 

 

 

On Jan 29, 2004, at 3:18 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> As for some of your other statements about science not supplying moral

> education or rites of passage, you have a great gift for mixing

> apples and oranges and arguing, as I have noted before, via use of red

> herrings.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

>>> Belief and bias is not outside science. There are definitely ways to

>>> deal with such questions within the paradigm of science. Not all

>>> science is reductionist to the extent that much of the modern

>>> pharmacological area has been emphasizing. While we can not yet

>>> explain " spirit, " CM or any other belief system can not either.

 

This is the clearest statement of your point of view I've seen, Alon,

and I want to tell you that I appreciate it very much (the entire post,

not just the excerpt). You have presented a very coherent and

persuasive argument for your case. I am going to think about your

points for awhile before I respond.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Of course I am not saying this... I am saying only, if you are going

> to claim that CM is wrong, let's see some evidence. That is it...

> and I don't feel I need to defend CM with Western science until I see

> a reason too, meaning good evidence athropological, research, etc...

> The burden of proof is on the claimer...

>

> -

 

That sounds reasonable. However, unless I goofed, I do not think I

claimed that CM was wrong. I thought I have been saying that I do not

believe CM's claim on this point. If I had strong, compelling

evidence to support CM's claim on this point, I may be more inclined

to believe.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> You are not siding with tradition... Tradition is with me.. sorry...

> So far you haven't even supplied 1 chinese source/ dr. / western study

> who says otherwise... Until you start showing me some evidence, this

> convo is a waste of time for me... You think because you logically

> think through something it must be true... I say show me something..

> either tradition, research, case studies... something... I have

> nothing more to say...

>

> -

 

CM is the one making the claim, so the burden of proof lies with it.

I know that just thinking something through does not make it true; so

apply that to this claim of CM. Just because the theory wraps up

nicely, does not make it true. You show me something...research,

etc., rather than statements of theory.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> I will merely ask if western science is as based on culture

> bound inherent assumptions, then why has it been adopted as

> a powerful tool by every culture that is exposed to it.

 

IMHO because science is used as a means of power and overpowerment of

others. So to be able to stand up these science-based and agressive

cultures they (the other cultures) will have to turn to the same

instruments or be overpowered. It is this power-eager culture that

makes it so.

 

Also western philosophy from which 'science' arose is on a very basic

level different from the chinese one. Comparing western philosophy

and chinese philosophy and the worldview which stems from each of

them might give more insight why this is so.

 

IMO the philosophy, agression and intolerance of the west and the

spreading of western worldviews are much more the cause of the

conflicting views discussed here.

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

Anything that people engage in with zeal and promote against opposing

viewpoints begins to seem like religion to others. I have often been the

victim of the zeal of scientists who have tried to impose their views upon

me. If they had I would not be a supporter of but rather

an opponent. There is an important nuance in this statement. This lady was

endeared to the ceremony. This tells us a lot. We should seriously

consider the implications of this.

 

Barry Thorne

 

 

 

>At the 2003 PCOM graduation, the mother of the husband of a favorite

>student

>of mine commented that practicn chinese medicine was like joining a

>religion.

>Being a devout catholic, she actually found it somewhat endearing that the

>entire ceremony smacked of religion more than science. She was quite

>correct in her assessment and I, of course, remain horrified that this is

>the

>impression we give to the world. Faith in unproven ideas has NO place at

>all

>in a modern healthcare system. And certain ideas that are considered

>completely outrageous by mainstream medicine should be handled with care as

>we present our modalities to the world.

 

_______________

There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.

http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us & page=hotmail/es2 & ST=1