Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Todd and Rory - I would suggest that attributing the term " banal duality " to Unschuld is misleading and taken out of context. I have listened to him exaggerate metaphor to drive home a point on more than one occasion. I.e. He compared TCM to 'Chinese Traditional Medicine' (CTM). In that schema, he suggests that CTM and the mountain of history upon which it is built and includes is like a huge mansion with many rooms and nooks and crannies while TCM is like a play pen within that grand building. I can personally attest to Professor Unschuld's honesty of intention, graceful academe as well as full awareness and appreciation of the complexity of Chinese medicine. I think his tomes of work attest to that - especially the Huang Di Nei Jing translation. Will > > > There is no indication of an Unschuld forum at the above URL. The > last time I tried to use a discussion forum at Paradigm the software > was impossibly cumbersome, so I gave up. > > As to Unschuld's views, what is to me disgraceful is that he should > misrepresent the complexity of Chinese medicine. I have no problem > with him holding whatever beliefs he is inclined to, but for him to > suggest that all there is to CM is a " banal duality " is dishonest. > How come he's managed to write so many books about something that's > so banal. > > Rory > William R. Morris, L.Ac., O.M.D. Secretary, AAOM Dean of Educational Advancement Emperor's College of Oriental Medicine 310-453-8300 phone 310-829-3838 fax will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 --- Rory Kerr wrote: > theories of Chinese medicine should conclude that all there is to > it are a few " banalities like the dualism of night and day... " . How this remark about 'banalities' is stated in the (online) article is as follows: " Zweiter Baustein der TCM ist die Theorie von Yin und Yang, die antike Lehre der Gegensätze. " In der westlichen TCM-Literatur beschränkt sich das meist auf Banalitäten wie aktiv und passiv, Tag und Nacht, Mann und Frau. Aber das stimmt nur zum Teil " , sagt Forscher Unschuld. " Diese Lehre ist ein weitaus komplexeres Erklärungsmodell. " " Translation: " The second component of TCM is the theory of Yin and Yang, the ancient theory of contrasts. " In the western TCM literature this limits itself mostly to banalities like active and passive, day and night, man and woman. But this is only partly correct " , says researcher Unschuld. " This theory is a much more complex explanatory model. " " When I read this part of the article about banalities, Unschuld is saying just the opposite of what he is being acused of. He is not at all suggesting that Yin-Yang theory or TCM is 'just some banalities'. He is pointing out that it is a very complex system. I think it is best to read the article instead of throwing about, IMO, prejudiced positions. Alwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 At 6:56 PM +0000 1/31/04, wrote: >I think it is best to read the article instead of throwing about, >IMO, prejudiced positions. -- Alwin, I have no underlying desire to think ill of Paul Unschuld. I enjoy reading his works and have always regarded his scholarship highly. I've also enjoyed his company in social contexts, back in the 1980s. I can assure I had no prior prejudice before I read Barbara's message, which I took at face value (no reason to do otherwise). I think we are all entitled to express an opinion about what we read here, and my comments were aimed at what were reported as being his current public statements. I'm glad you were able to clarify the matter. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 , WMorris116@A... wrote: and Rory - > > I would suggest that attributing the term " banal duality " to Unschuld is > misleading and taken out of context. I never made any such attribution. I do not read German. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 , @v... wrote: > --- Rory Kerr wrote: > > > theories of Chinese medicine should conclude that all there is to > > it are a few " banalities like the dualism of night and day... " . > > How this remark about 'banalities' is stated in the (online) article > is as follows: alwin thanks for clarifying what PU said in that one quote. I would never dispute that he thinks CM is based upon a complex set of cultural metaphors. I still think his general tone towards the medical efficacy ofCM has largely been dismissive over the years. I am curious what he thinks about its clinical utility past and present. 1. would he advocate a career in clinical CM for his students. 2. would he utilize CM as primary care for himself and his family. P.S. Having dined with Paul and heard him handle his audience, I think he probably couldn't care less what is written in this forum. In his realm of academia, you don't bat an eye about the rank and file intepretation of your work. You just keep plugging away and let posterity decide. It is not even remotely slanderous to express an opinion about the perceived tone of a body of work. No one is questioning anyone's intelligence or credentials and I would consider PU to be an ethical man whatever position he adopted after his years of study. But there is no need to make assumptions about his motivations on either side. That is pure speculation. I don't know if PU is honorable or disgraceful. I could care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I am curious what he thinks about its clinical utility past and present. 1. would he advocate a career in clinical CM for his students. 2. would he utilize CM as primary care for himself and his family. >>>>>I heard him say he uses homeopathy. His work has not touched efficacy of CM yet. Which i am kind of sorry because i think he is one of the most intellectually honest writers in CM Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Hi Alwin. I think the context of his statements is important. In Germany he is regarded as a " specialist " for chinese medicine and thus frequently qouted. These qoutes are always followed by questioning the relevance of chinese medical practice in the west, and even more doubting practioner`s knowledge and capabilities. Despite all his merits he transfers a picture to the public that now the practice of chinese medicine has become fashionable because it satisfies our longing for a " wholistic " approach. In none of his articles or interviews one ever finds a word about the benefits of using this form of medicine. His opinions are usually embedded in articles discläiming or seriously questioning its usefulness as it is not scientifically proved. So a scholar like Unschuld working at a University in Germany, thus working scientifically, ought to reflect the effect of his statements, I feel. The " community " of practioners of Chinese medicine also needs a lobby, especially in regrads to the new legislative developments in Europe. Also in view of trials on acupuncture possibly leading to a more and more superficial approach as doctors may in the near future receive rebursement by the heatlth insurance which goes along with a decrease in tution for acupuncture. So all I want to say is , that we need authorative advocates for our case. Barbara Kirschbaum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 I second that motion, Will. Paul is right, classical Chinese medicine is a vast mansion. One can devote one's entire life to studying a single classical text with its commentaries. While modern TCM may be small in comparison to classical CM, it is also a very large body of knowledge as well. What is the point on passing judgment on a vast body of knowledge (even just modern TCM) that we're barely familiar with? It is fine to test, try, and refine a body of knowledge, with trials, studies or anything else. But who in the West has enough of a knowledge base, either of the modern or classical Chinese medical literature, to do that? Is there anyone on this list who can claim to do so? Let's lower our sights and do clinical studies, herbal studies, etc. before we reinvent the wheel. Recent discussions on CHA sound like a trial with CM on the stand. I, for one, don't feel like I am the one who wants to be the judge or the prosecutor. On Jan 31, 2004, at 7:14 AM, WMorris116 wrote: and Rory - > > I would suggest that attributing the term " banal duality " to Unschuld > is > misleading and taken out of context. I have listened to him exaggerate > metaphor to > drive home a point on more than one occasion. I.e. He compared TCM to > 'Chinese Traditional Medicine' (CTM). In that schema, he suggests > that CTM and the > mountain of history upon which it is built and includes is like a huge > mansion > with many rooms and nooks and crannies while TCM is like a play pen > within > that grand building. > > I can personally attest to Professor Unschuld's honesty of intention, > graceful academe as well as full awareness and appreciation of the > complexity of > Chinese medicine. I think his tomes of work attest to that - > especially the Huang > Di Nei Jing translation. > > Will Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Hi Barbara I agree with the comments you made but I also feel that Unschuld *as a historian* may be right in what he says about the transfer of TCM from the East to the West. That may mean that a historian may not be the best advocate for putting TCM in the footlight with a wider public. I think it is very difficult to avoid the biased criticism / opinions when publishing in popular magazines. I still don't know how Unschuld really thinks about CM. As I read his comments they appear to me always to be true in their core. But as you say, the context in which they are placed in the article gives a certain critical / unsupporting ring to it. But is that the intention of Unschuld or of the author of the article? I couldn't say, or is it that Unschuld condones it to be like that? When reading these articles I feel that the same kind of article and critical message could be written about western medicine. The article mentions 3 cases of pneumothorax by wrong needling, but how many cases of medical failures are there each year in western hospitals? And those are hardly written about. I think eventualy it boils down to the question: " How does one create an opportunity to publish a positive article in a popular magazine to get a more true picture across to the wider public? " . I think that those that control the popular media are mostly as biased as the medical establishment, they all let their ears hang to the ones who have the power and those in power usually have the more conservative minds. A strong advocate would be welcome but also an entry into the popular media. Best wishes Alwin , BKirschb@a... wrote: > Hi Alwin. > I think the context of his statements is important. In Germany he > is regarded as a " specialist " for chinese medicine and thus > frequently qouted. These qoutes are always followed by questioning > the relevance of chinese medical practice in the west, and even > more doubting practioner`s knowledge and capabilities. Despite all > his merits he transfers a picture to the public that now the > practice of chinese medicine has become fashionable because it > satisfies our longing for a " wholistic " approach. In none of his > articles or interviews one ever finds a word about the benefits of > using this form of medicine. His opinions are usually embedded in > articles discläiming or seriously questioning its usefulness as it > is not scientifically proved. > So a scholar like Unschuld working at a University in Germany, thus > working scientifically, ought to reflect the effect of his > statements, I feel. The " community " of practioners of Chinese > medicine also needs a lobby, especially in regrads to the new > legislative developments in Europe. Also in view of trials > on acupuncture possibly leading to a more and more superficial > approach as doctors may in the near future receive rebursement by > the heatlth insurance which goes along with a decrease in tution > for acupuncture. > So all I want to say is , that we need authorative advocates for > our case. > Barbara Kirschbaum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 When reading these articles I feel that the same kind of article and critical message could be written about western medicine. The article mentions 3 cases of pneumothorax by wrong needling, but how many cases of medical failures are there each year in western hospitals? And those are hardly written about. >>>>What does that have to do with Chinese medicine. This is just a medical complication and as you say is true for any intervention. I do not even think its nessuseraly " wrong needling " . If you do deep needling this can occur because there is no way to know every patients anatomy. Its a risk of a procedure nothing to do with Chinese medicine or acupuncture Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 , BKirschb@a... wrote: Despite all his merits he transfers a picture to the public that now the > practice of chinese medicine has become fashionable because it satisfies our > longing for a " wholistic " approach. Thanks, Barbara. As I said, this position has been clear to me in his writings since 1987. I was first thrown for a loop when I read PU. I was your typical 24 year old new ager. I was into energy medicine and the holographic model of reality. I believed that CM was a revelation of mystics practicing qi gong. Well, if you read Unschuld withan open mind, he blows all of that out of the water pretty quick. Is he right. I have no idea. But he took off my blinders and I have been a pragmatist ever since. I lost my romantic idealism about CM before I even took a single herb or points class. Luckily I was sufficiently impressed with TCM's pragmatism to proceed in my studies. The doctrine of bian zheng is useful to me. However I was drawn into alternative healthcare mainly for social and political reasons. TCM appealed to me philosophically at the time and naturopathy did not. But my sole motivation was do whatever I could to help fix our broken healthcare system. Chinese herbs seemed to be the most developed of the alternative meds at the time and certainly contained a treasure trove of data for further study. But now 17 years later, I no longer consider CM to be superior to naturopathy either philosophically or clinically. There is just way too much evidence of extremely high success rates from physiological and biochemical supplement and herb use to deny this. In addition, the differential diagnosis process of modern ND's is quite sophisticated and holisitc. these are not your pukers and purgers anymore. In fact, I find the average ND to be far more skilled at the succesful treatment of chronic internal illness than the average TCM doc. Perhaps that is because so many of our colleagues have little interest in internal medicine. In any event, I choose to teach one of these styles of practice, CM herbology, but I plan to continue to vigorously support all evidence based uses of natural medicine, including chinese herbs in any fashion. Whatever breaks the stranglehood of HMOs and pharmaceutical companies is my goal. No doubt this will be distressing to CM purists out there, but just as I know I will never change your minds, be sure you will never change mine, either. I write, as ever, not to influence those whose minds are made up, but for those who remain undecided on such matters. As such, my posts are directed at convincing the bulk of members as to what I believe, It serves me no purpose to plat tit for tat with those who will always oppose me. Nothing personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 In none of his articles or interviews one ever finds a word about the benefits of using this form of medicine. His opinions are usually embedded in articles discläiming or seriously questioning its usefulness as it is not scientifically proved. >>>>>I am not aware of any work he has done on modern (ie scientific work) in TCM. As he? Now i for one share many worries on poor science and CM in modern day practice. But I am not aware of PU doing any work on " science " and CM. Re there no other voices in Germany that can speak of CM and science, modern applications of CM methods and clinical benefits? There are many studies on acupuncture done in Germany (some of the best in the West), where are all these authors? They can give balance to PU cant they? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 I, for one, have no problem with naturopathy, Ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy or Tibetan medicine. My wife has been seeing a naturopath/midwife for several years. They all have precious material to contribute to the future of medicine. My original training was in naturopathy, at a small uncredited school in Santa Fe. I would also like to see a better future for medicine without the oppressive bureaucracy. However, what has irritated me on CHA is the recent tendency to meta-analyze Chinese medicine with sweeping generalizations on this list (dogma vs. theory), then the details are filled in later which are much more reasonable. If we are to discuss or debate specific ideas or topics, the ideas need to be fully presented, to avoid misunderstandings. On Feb 1, 2004, at 10:56 AM, wrote: > In any event, I choose to teach one of these styles of practice, CM > herbology, but I > plan to continue to vigorously support all evidence based uses of > natural medicine, > including chinese herbs in any fashion. Whatever breaks the > stranglehood of HMOs > and pharmaceutical companies is my goal. No doubt this will be > distressing to CM > purists out there, but just as I know I will never change your minds, > be sure you will > never change mine, either. I write, as ever, not to influence those > whose minds are > made up, but for those who remain undecided on such matters. As such, > my posts > are directed at convincing the bulk of members as to what I believe, > It serves me no > purpose to plat tit for tat with those who will always oppose me. > Nothing personal. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Young people are idealists, it is normal and expected. Later on, we try to ground our ideals in reality, to make them effective in day to day life. While I agree with your perception of Unschuld's work, he is going much farther than giving a demystified view of Chinese medicine. One of his main goals at this point is to provide tools to examine the source texts of Chinese medicine, which he feels are essential to an understanding of the subject, and the many streams of thought and practice that have emerged from there. One of the sticking points on CHA in the past has been whether study of classical Chinese materials, medical and non-medical, is necessary for practitioners of Chinese medicine. It is my position that it is, even if not in a large scale, in order to practice with real depth and meaning. In other words, I agree with Zhang Xichun, that Chinese medicine is an applied medical philosophy. The Blue Poppy journal recently published an article by Volker Scheid about the history of modern TCM and some of its main 'architects'. What I liked about this article, and about Volker's work in general, is that the four gentlemen had diverging views and styles of practice and philosophy, and differed in their vision of the future of Chinese medicine, but somehow were able to contribute to that future. I hope our diverging visions should not be taken as internal strife, but as converging streams towards the future of Chinese medicine in the West. I've seen several CM practitioners who are practicing mere symptomatic medicine, this point for this symptom, this formula for headaches, etc. I've met biomedical physicians who are practicing in a more 'holistic' way, considering all aspects of a patient's health. I also recently met a chiropractor who claims to heal any disease, including terminal cancer, by touching you on your neck and shoulder for one minute, and charges 45.00 per minute (obviously a faith healer raking in the dough). These are complex and crazy times, and boundaries are breaking down between medical symptoms. I used to practice more eclectically years ago than I do now, and chose to focus on deepening my practice of Chinese medicine. It is hard enough to do both herbal medicine and acupuncture, without adding homeopathy and western herbs to the mix. If I feel patients need that, or supplements, I'll refer out. My interests in various systems of healing and medicine remain, however. On Feb 1, 2004, at 10:56 AM, wrote: > Thanks, Barbara. As I said, this position has been clear to me in his > writings since > 1987. I was first thrown for a loop when I read PU. I was your > typical 24 year old new > ager. I was into energy medicine and the holographic model of > reality. I believed that > CM was a revelation of mystics practicing qi gong. Well, if you read > Unschuld withan > open mind, he blows all of that out of the water pretty quick. Is he > right. I have no > idea. But he took off my blinders and I have been a pragmatist ever > since. I lost my > romantic idealism about CM before I even took a single herb or points > class. Luckily I > was sufficiently impressed with TCM's pragmatism to proceed in my > studies. The > doctrine of bian zheng is useful to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Perhaps that is because so many of our colleagues have little interest in internal medicine. >>>I would attribute this to university level education, which we do not have Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 CM herbology, but I plan to continue to vigorously support all evidence based uses of natural medicine, including chinese herbs in any fashion. >>>Good for you and i will as well Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 However, what has irritated me on CHA is the recent tendency to meta-analyze Chinese medicine with sweeping generalizations on this list (dogma vs. theory), then the details are filled in later which are much more reasonable. If we are to discuss or debate specific ideas or topics, the ideas need to be fully presented, to avoid misunderstandings. >>>>That is the crook of the discussion and what is expectable evidence is were the meat of the discussion is. When we start to bring cultural context to evidence is were we get into trouble and were basic beliefs collide. If one is to try to understand CM from the so-called cultural context then I believe one can not objectively evaluate CM (i am sure many disagree). This is were we will constantly come back to circular arguments. If we go back to were most of this discussion stems from, ie the study of Chinese and Chinese culture vs the study of Medicine, it takes into where we disagree. Should we look at modern day clinical realities (and i would add modern understanding of disease, placebo, nocibo, natural course of disease, etc) to decide were time should be spent; what constitutes evidence; etc, or do we continue to FEEL there must be more there, we just have to dig deeper. Is what reputable and well educated modern day CM physicians achieve clinically enough evidence for what we need to learn and designs school programs from? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 These are complex and crazy times, and boundaries are breaking down between medical symptoms >>>>No kidding, but can you believe how desperate people are these days Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2004 Report Share Posted February 2, 2004 Although I have read Unschuld's books and enjoy his ideas with regards to history, I hardly accept him as an authority or specialist on because I feel his approach is one of a social anthropologist or sinologist, not as a practitioner. I think his works with regards to academia are good, but as a clinician I do not take what he says very seriously. BKirschb wrote:Hi Alwin. I think the context of his statements is important. In Germany he is regarded as a " specialist " for chinese medicine and thus frequently qouted. These qoutes are always followed by questioning the relevance of chinese medical practice in the west, and even more doubting practioner`s knowledge and capabilities. Despite all his merits he transfers a picture to the public that now the practice of chinese medicine has become fashionable because it satisfies our longing for a " wholistic " approach. In none of his articles or interviews one ever finds a word about the benefits of using this form of medicine. His opinions are usually embedded in articles discläiming or seriously questioning its usefulness as it is not scientifically proved. So a scholar like Unschuld working at a University in Germany, thus working scientifically, ought to reflect the effect of his statements, I feel. The " community " of practioners of Chinese medicine also needs a lobby, especially in regrads to the new legislative developments in Europe. Also in view of trials on acupuncture possibly leading to a more and more superficial approach as doctors may in the near future receive rebursement by the heatlth insurance which goes along with a decrease in tution for acupuncture. So all I want to say is , that we need authorative advocates for our case. Barbara Kirschbaum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.