dogma or doctrine

January 30, 2004

, " Bob Flaws " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

> 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.

>

I did not realize dogma was a pejorative term. but doctrine is fin e with me.

Personally I think the works of Unschuld and Needham are what made me first

think of CM this way. I rarely have an original idea. :-) I will have to let

Hsu, Needham, Unschuld and others take the heat on this one. If someone has

read their works to suggest something else, I apologize for my

narrowmindedness in advance.

Subhuti also wrote an article about this years ago. If you call him at ITM, he

could probably FAX a copy.

January 31, 2004

could you explain what you mean by " sees its promise in the past "

thank you.

January 31, 2004

I did not realize dogma was a pejorative term. but doctrine is fin e with me.

Personally I think the works of Unschuld and Needham are what made me first

think of CM this way. I rarely have an original idea. :-) I will have to let

Hsu, Needham, Unschuld and others take the heat on this one. If someone has

read their works to suggest something else, I apologize for my

narrowmindedness in advance.

>>>>>The main differences are that theories are to be explored, challenged,

developed, discarded or expended. Dogma assumes truth without any of the above

and regardless of evidence. Since CM sees its promise in the past it is a Dogma

Alon

January 31, 2004

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I did not realize dogma was a pejorative term. but doctrine is fin

e with me.

> Personally I think the works of Unschuld and Needham are what made

me first

> think of CM this way. I rarely have an original idea. :-) I will

have to let

> Hsu, Needham, Unschuld and others take the heat on this one. If

someone has

> read their works to suggest something else, I apologize for my

> narrowmindedness in advance.

>

> >>>>>The main differences are that theories are to be explored,

challenged, developed, discarded or expended. Dogma assumes truth

without any of the above and regardless of evidence. Since CM sees its

promise in the past it is a Dogma

Alon,

I have to disagree if you are saying that CM has not been explored,

challenged, developed, and things discarded… This is just false!

Anyone that has spent time reading Chinese commentaries of theory,

cases, discussions etc. is well aware that all of these exist, and

quite extensively. (and this is classically/ pre-modern) but, even

with the integration of western medicine into TCM we see all of the

above occurring… I do think, though, there are things in CM that need

to be further challenged with western science, but western science is

no golden truth either… CM has spent much debate hashing out theories,

even if it's not double blind studies…

-

>

> Alon

>

January 31, 2004

could you explain what you mean by " sees its promise in the past "

>>>>For the most part the doctrine and theories of CM have been set. There is no

place for challenge of basic premises based on experimentation. For further

knowledge a practitioner is encouraged to study the past, etc

alon

January 31, 2004

I have to disagree if you are saying that CM has not been explored,

challenged, developed, and things discarded. This is just false!

Anyone that has spent time reading Chinese commentaries of theory,

cases, discussions etc. is well aware that all of these exist, and

quite extensively.

>>>For the most part all the theories within the classics are still viewed as

valid and set in stone. Show me any major idea in the nei jing, suwen etc that

have been in whole discarded based on experimentation. I am not talking about

debate I am talking about actual testing and conclusions

Alon

January 31, 2004

>>>For the most part all the theories within the classics are still

viewed as

valid and set in stone. Show me any major idea in the nei jing, suwen

etc that

have been in whole discarded based on experimentation. I am not

talking about

debate I am talking about actual testing and conclusions

Alon

Alon,

I still think that you are way off on this one, let's analyze this a bit.

If what you are talking about as a major idea is something as basic as

yin and yang or just five elements, then you are right... These

haven't been replaced. But there are numerous ideas and theories in

the NeiJing that had been weeded out through experimentation. Just

Spend 10 minutes wading through it and you'll find your answers. One

easy example that comes to mind is the five branches 10 stems system

of predicting diseases (with years etc) among other things. There are

numerous esoteric (to us now – but mainstream at the time) theories

that are no longer in popular use. Granted there will always be

people that go back into the classics and try to resurrect these

ideas, but as we have talked about, this is not mainstream Chinese

medicine and is therefore moot.

I just glanced through it again and there are so many things that just

aren't `true' anymore…

Furthermore, the Neijing is just one book, there are so many others

that followed it that not only petered out (because they did not carry

the weight), but also contained much more detailed theoretical

information than the somewhat simplified NeiJing.

Just in the last week I translated a piece on the history and

development of pulse diagnosis. It is very clear that it went through

a long progression of trial and error to come up with what we now

practice today. Many of the ancient ideas were just not found

relevant and have been weeded out. For example, prior to the NanJing

the common method for taking pulse involved not only the wrist pulse

but a comparison and use of St-9, and the instep pulse. That system

fell out of favor.

Granted, Chinese medicine keeps around a lot more theory than Western

science, but as most of us would agree, this is one of its strengths

and not a weakness. But, I personally find so many examples of theory

and treatments that have fell out of practice due too ineffectiveness

when reading through older material. For example, rubbing dog shit

all over one's body under a full moon to cure night blindness.

I don't think one has to look far in Chinese literature to find

examples. Maybe in our English literature where things have been

already trimed down into a TCM package things might seem more

cohesive. But there is a long history that I think you are

overlooking and I am giving you two examples to get you started, one

of theory and one of a treatment to contemplate.

Finally with much of the debate that has gone on in commentaries of

various books, new styles of treatments and approaches to disease have

been developed. Those (new- debating) practitioners take their new

idea and develop a new system. This is growth and a rejection of the

past. Just because the old theory is still in print does not mean

that there isn't something new to replace it in certain situations.

Or the new becomes the dominant view.

With a slightly different slat, another example, just look at SHL and

what happen with the WenBing. Previously all external attacks were

thought to be due to exterior cold. When the wenbing theory came on

the scene a huge development and change in theory occurred. This not

changed the theory but how we treat external attacks… This does not

mean SHL is dead, it means that in the SHL as a narrower reference of

use in that area. This all seems like a no brainer to me? Am I

missing something?

-

January 31, 2004

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I have to disagree if you are saying that CM has not been explored,

> challenged, developed, and things discarded. This is just false!

> Anyone that has spent time reading Chinese commentaries of theory,

> cases, discussions etc. is well aware that all of these exist, and

> quite extensively.

> >>>For the most part all the theories within the classics are still

viewed as valid and set in stone. Show me any major idea in the nei

jing, suwen etc that have been in whole discarded based on

experimentation.

To elaborate, the obvious point, to my last post... Is that obviously

the major ideas are still around and are considered major ideas

becomes they have stuck around! The ideas that have fell out aren't

considered major ideas because they are now fridge.. Many at one time

were considered mainstream and 'major'... SO to ask for 'Major' idea

that is been weeded out it somewhat silly.. It is all on how you

define the word major... Did that make sense>>>>>?

-

January 31, 2004

There are still schools in Japan that use this method. While I don't

use the comparision of the cun kou and ren ying pulses (wrist and

neck), I find it valuable to feel the channel pulses at times,

especially in patients with damaged radial pulses.

I also find it valuable to use abdominal palpation at times as well,

even though it never really developed in China. I don't think we have

to be limited to techniques used in present-day China, we can utilize

other techniques and methods in the tradition.

By the way, Paul Unschuld suggested the same thing in his recent San

Diego seminar.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 6:31 PM, wrote:

> Just in the last week I translated a piece on the history and

> development of pulse diagnosis. It is very clear that it went through

> a long progression of trial and error to come up with what we now

> practice today. Many of the ancient ideas were just not found

> relevant and have been weeded out. For example, prior to the NanJing

> the common method for taking pulse involved not only the wrist pulse

> but a comparison and use of St-9, and the instep pulse. That system

> fell out of favor.

January 31, 2004

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> There are still schools in Japan that use this method.

Yes I was actually aware of that, and maybe it was not the best

example, but I think the point is that a) There may be fringe groups

that use it, but b) because it was once mainstream and then it isn't

anymore means (mainstream) theory is revamped... But who knows maybe

it will come back and show how theory is changed again , and full

circle at that.. Here is the original quote from the passage…

" The biggest distinguishing feature within pulse theory of the nan

jing is the proposition that one should only take the wrist pulse.

Furthermore (the nan jing pulse theory) gives new interpretation to

Bian's diagnosis method as well as the 3 positions and nine

indicators. This caused the pulse diagnosis's foundation to become

solely based on taking the wrist pulse. "

For the sake of Alon's claim that theory doesn't change I think we

have to limit the discussion to mainstream thinking and practice.

-

January 31, 2004

Alon,

This is simply not true. Are you talking about the basic principles

(yin-yang, five-phase, channel theory), or techniques? There has been

controversy about many ideas in the Su Wen and Nan Jing, not to say the

Shang Han Lun for centuries. Much of Chinese medical literature is a

running debate over time. There are many new innovations,

contradictions and cross currents. It just happens to be an aspect of

Chinese culture to refer new innovations back to the sources.

Although over a shorter time span, I don't see where the original

theory (or doctrine?) of Darwin has been discarded over time. It has

been built on, and there have been changes, but the roots remain

basically the same. The same with biomedicine. Much has changed, but

much is the same. The principles of Chinese medicine survive because

they still work in practice.

On Jan 31, 2004, at 2:30 PM, alon marcus wrote:

> could you explain what you mean by " sees its promise in the past "

>>>>> For the most part the doctrine and theories of CM have been set.

>>>>> There is no place for challenge of basic premises based on

>>>>> experimentation. For further knowledge a practitioner is

>>>>> encouraged to study the past, etc

> alon

February 1, 2004

This is simply not true. Are you talking about the basic principles

(yin-yang, five-phase, channel theory), or techniques? There has been

controversy about many ideas in the Su Wen and Nan Jing, not to say the

Shang Han Lun for centuries. Much of Chinese medical literature is a

running debate over time. There are many new innovations,

contradictions and cross currents. It just happens to be an aspect of

Chinese culture to refer new innovations back to the sources.

>>>>>>There has been debate and innovation, but all referring to the early

classics for justification. There has not been much so-called brake through and

totally new ideas. " new ideas " have always been development out-of " " the basic

tenants already written. That is a big difference between the scientific model

and traditionalism.

None of Jason's examples were ever openly tested and then officially

disregarded. You can still find support for them in CM circles. They may not be

so-called mainstream at this point (and probably because of modern

sensibilities) but are still alive and well in many circles doing CM.

Developments and advances in Chinese medicine have not resulted in a basic

reinvestigation, laboratory (research) style proof or disproof of its principles

(i.e., the core values of the modern scientific method). Rather, developments

have emphasized further or novel applications within semi-fixed ideas.

Therefore, when a therapy has not worked (or does not), it has/is suggested that

one consult the basic tenets (already written) to determine if an error been

made or a better approach is available (as this discussion clearly illustrates).

Treatment failures are not attributed to any fundamental limitation of the

methodologies themselves, only to their incorrect application. The Yellow

Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine state "

The twelve Main channels and the 365 points (collateral vessels) are a

[functional] feature that all humans possess. This is perfectly understood.

Physicians use this knowledge for treatment. Therefore, the reason for an

inaccurate diagnosis is that the physician's mind cannot concentrate. Their will

and intention are not logical, causing the mutual interrelationship between the

external and internal to be lost. This in turn causes the physician to

experience dangerous disbelief and doubt. "

This is the basic tone running throughout the history of CM and this discussion,

i.e., we do not know enough, we need to understand more, we need to be more

religious. Not let see what the reality of this or that clinical trial. That is

why you still do not hear open discussion and real questioning of " principles "

of what people really see in hospitals in China, Taiwan, Korea, etc., were Dr

have had all the excess to the materials and were you can (if intellectually

honest) see huge limitation in clinical outcomes.

I (just like you Zev) think CM is a treasure house full of goods that are or may

be great in the managements of human disease and suffering. However, i do not

think the attitude that you (and the profession since its inception as quoted in

the little paragraph i quoted) sound will allow for truthful assessment. The

attitude is too religious (i.e., assuming truth not seeking and assessing for

one).

I will again state my opinion that we need much more science in our thinking,

knowledge, and attitudes.

Alon

February 1, 2004

For the sake of Alon's claim that theory doesn't change I think we

have to limit the discussion to mainstream thinking and practice.

-

>>>>>Even so-called main stream as not really discarded it, if is just less

popular. Hell you can say the pulse taking is becoming none main stream if you

take PRC as a standard.

Alon

February 1, 2004

Hello Alon,

I agree with you about that we need much more science in our thinking,

knowledge, and attitudes. The observation from one or two cases of treatment

will not be enough to warrant the same situation for the third treatment. TCM

can be accept and be satified by

public only when we have scientific evidence (such as statistics...etc.). I

would like to see TCM to be developed toward that direction.

R. Lyu

Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: