ideology and debate

[Guest guest]

At 7:43 PM +0000 2/6/04, wrote:

>If we are talking solely about the issue of faith based belief, I am

>not sure I see the difference. While being spiritual does not

>necessarily mean one s to organized dogma, it does mean one

>has a worldview that does not depend solely on rational explanation

>of phenomena. I have no trouble with such a worldview for personal

>cultivation. But I find it anathema for politics and medicine. It

>only causes trouble.

--

 

 

 

I'm just wondering what you do when you are faced with phenomena in

clinic that cannot be rationally explained. After all, you practice a

medicine much of which cannot be rationally explained except by

resort to 'unproven' theory as a premise. In fact, what is your

justification for practicing this medicine in the first place? It

must have occurred to you in your first semester as a student that it

was almost all 'unproven'.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't know if you've read the several articles I've published where I have

criticized the Chinese authors for some perceived failing. I

don't know how many of these I've done, but there's a number.

>>>>Bob i have not seen these can you link

Thanks Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I used to see him lecture in Boulder. Amazing individual, lots of

paradoxical behavior. I also enjoyed this book when it came out in the

70's.

 

 

On Feb 6, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Al Stone wrote:

 

>> For an excellent look into this topic, consult the book:

>> Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism

>> by Chogyam Trungpa

>> ISBN: 1570629579

>

> I'm a big fan of this book and its author.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

The opposing nature of spirituality and rationalism that you propose is

artificial. Moses Maimonides, the great rabbi-physician, wrote a great

concordance of Jewish law, the Mishneh Torah, and a great text on the

rational argument for the existence of G-d, Moreh Nebuchim, or Guide

for the Perplexed. Both are available in English versions. Maimonides

was a philosopher in the tradition of Aristotle, and the first chapter,

first volume of his Mishneh Torah, ('The Book of Knowledge'), gives

rational arguments for the existence of G-d.

For example:

" The Holy One has neither body nor form, it is clear that nothing that

happens to bodies can happen to G-d, no joining or dividing, no

position or measure, no ascent or descent, no right or left, no front

or back, no sitting or standing. As He is not influenced by time, He

has no beginning or end or any measure in years, nor does He change for

there is nothing changable in Him. There is no death or life in Him as

in living bodies; no folly or wisdom such as are found in man. "

 

This may not be the use of scientific instruments to 'prove' the

existence of G-d, but rationality uses the tool of philosophy and

intellect, to understand both spiritual and physical worlds.

 

 

 

 

On Feb 6, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> I may be totally wrong here, but this is the line of reasoning your

> question has caused me to take: Spirituality is, ipso facto,

> irrational.

> No one has succeeded in rationally proving the existance of G-d,

> although many have tried and some have even claimed success,

> e.g., I believe, St. Augustine. Therefore, spirituality always

> involves some element of irrational faith. My experience is that

> people who

> are willing to believe in one thing irrationally are often willing to

> take other things on faith as well, especially if there is some

> relationship between the two.

[Guest guest]

I think a point of clarification may be necessary here.

 

There is a difference between basing one's practice of medicine on a

mythologized interpretation of material in Chinese classical texts (or

eclectic combinations of different medicines) and the view of Chinese

medicine as an applied philosophy.

 

I see Chinese medicine as a practical philosophy based on an

understanding of humanity's relationship with the natural world,

beginning with core principles such as yin and yang. These criteria

have served Chinese medicine well for millenia, and these are the ones

that we use, both intellectually and clinically. I have no problem

with clinical studies, depending on the quality of their design, but in

the end, we will be using the tools of yin and yang in defining the

practice of Chinese medicine.

 

Tai Sophia teachers state clearly that 'one doesn't need any books to

practice acupuncture'. It is based on oral or received teachings from

Jack Worsley. It has some relationship to the body of Chinese

medicine, but it is closer to a faith-healing type of system, such as

Reiki. If this is what you think is an irrational system, then I

agree. However, I do want to point out that many people love this type

of treatment, and there are wonderful people who practice this system

that I find to be great company and even inspiring. For example, John

Ford's love of nature, and his use of five phase theory to express it

is very creative, refreshing and inspiring. Is it Chinese medicine? In

my opinion, no.

 

 

On Feb 6, 2004, at 9:52 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> My experience is that people who

> are willing to believe in one thing irrationally are often willing to

> take other things on faith as well, especially if there is some

> relationship between the two. As an example, take Tai Sophia, in my

> opinion, the EST of American acupuncture.

[Guest guest]

religious " and yet considered

themselves " spiritual. "

>>>>fOR the record when i refer to being religious, i use it more in a sense

that when getting good in one's art is seen not just as the increase of one's

skill but also it terms of " i know the method will work i just have to be better

in it " as a jumping off point. Its the belief in something already written more

so than one's immediate experience in the material sense.

Alon

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Feb 6, 2004, at 11:43 AM, wrote:

 

> BTW, while one might think that the

> proven value of religious beliefs somehow validates their fundamental

> importance to the human psyche, I would offer that they merely provide

> psychological comfort, an opiate to the masses.

 

This is hardly rational or scientific, this is an opinion and value

judgement. I believe you are quoting the credo of Karl Marx, and we

all know how the social experiment of communism turned out.

 

Are you saying that one has to be a materialist or secular humanist to

practice Chinese medicine effectively? Please correct me if you

believe otherwise. If so, I find this to be very one-sided, and

history doesn't support this argument. Many of the great physicians of

many cultures, Indian, Chinese, Jewish, and Islamic, ancient and

modern, were and are 'spiritually-oriented' individuals in their lives

and behaviors. Their life stories are there to read.

 

I think you mistake reverence for teachers and teachings, based on

appreciation for the hard work and sacrifice of countless individuals

to pass them on to future generations, for blind faith or belief. This

is true for most traditional systems that survive in the modern era,

whether spiritual, medical or social. One can be critical or debate

teachings while appreciating and being inspired by them at the same

time.

 

We are running into circular arguments, when people are making the same

points over and over again, in slightly different ways. Jason and

Rory, among others, have already pointed out that the Chinese medical

tradition has many debates, disagreements over centuries, and many

proofs, case histories and logical arguments for its practical

philosophy. The philosophy provides the criteria for the practice, the

practice informs the philosophy. Returning to a purely empirical

medicine would be starting over, and this would produce a new medicine

from the ground up. If this is what you want to do, gezinte heit, be

my guest. But this is no longer Chinese medicine.

 

I strongly disagree with the notion that somehow people who practice

spiritual cultivation, or find inspiration in medicine, are somehow

irrational, or uncritical. Stereotyping individuals in this way allows

one to dismiss their arguments, by denying the complexity of the

average human being's thinking process.. I, for one, don't want to be

pigeonholed in this fashion.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> We may be operating from a slightly different definition of

> 'spiritual'. My definition does not necessarily include a god, or

> gods. It does include an attitude or emotional tone of reverence

 

I can go with that.

> spiritual practice

 

To what end?

 

 

> Medicine is not synonymous science,

 

Agreed.

 

There are some things about Chinese medicine that it may not be possible to

investigate with modern

> science.

 

I'm not totally sure about that. I think a lot can be done through properly

designed experimentation. What cannot be proven via

experimentation needs to be recognized as unverifiable, irrational belief. If

one understands that and still decides to to that

belief, I have no problem with that. I like certain colors, tastes, and sounds

for no rational reason. But I understand that this is a

purely subjective irrational choice on my part. Therefore, I recognize that it

is something real or true in any objective sort of wa.

Knowing that, I'm not going to argue about it or get too attached to it. It's

the presenting of critically unexamined beliefs that I think

Alon, and I are questioning. The more I learn, the less I believe. I think

we're talking about a certain type of emotional

attachment to ideas, with the less attachment to those ideas the better. But

then, hah!, that's just another irrational idea.

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

I can't answer for but for me, I use Chinese medicine in a sense of

Deweyian pragmatism. Much (not all of it) seems to work

reliably the way I hope/expect it to.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Rory,

>

> I can't answer for but for me, I use Chinese medicine in a sense of

Deweyian pragmatism. Much (not all of it) seems to work

> reliably the way I hope/expect it to.

>

> Bob

 

As I have stated on many occasions, pragmatism drives me above all else as

well. I do not mean to parrot Bob. I have felt this way about CM since I

first

had my doctrinaire blinders ripped off by Unschuld before I ever prescribed a

single herb. But then I was usually a skeptic my whole life except for a

unnecessarily prolonged flirtation with new age dogma between age 21 and

26.

 

[Guest guest]

At 11:31 PM +0000 2/6/04, Bob Flaws wrote:

>I can't answer for but for me, I use Chinese medicine in a

>sense of Deweyian pragmatism. Much (not all of it) seems to work

>reliably the way I hope/expect it to.

--

Bob,

 

Yes, I think this is part of the answer to the notion of taking it

all on faith. Even those who do profess to faith in Chinese medicine

are unlikely to maintain that faith if they they don't get results.

So I'm not sure that their faith is best described as religious as it

is pragmatic. They don't feel the need for further proof, because

pragmatism is it's own theory of truth.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Even those who do profess to faith in Chinese medicine

are unlikely to maintain that faith if they they don't get results.

So I'm not sure that their faith is best described as religious as it

is pragmatic. They don't feel the need for further proof, because

pragmatism is it's own theory of truth.

 

>>>>Not true. I cant even mention how many times i have seen others still assume

CM will work even oftenclear evidence that it has not been, i have seen CM

practitioner Dr shopping for themselves for years with continued faith that it

will work, they just need to find a better Dr. Same thing with their own

practices they often feel its just about more education, when i ask may its time

to look elsewhere i often get a discussed look. I have treated probably in

excess of 70 Lac's in my career and have seen this over and over again. Although

i have to say it is changing, especially with LAc i have seen that have also

taken my classes

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 10:16 PM -0600 2/6/04, Alon Marcus wrote:

> >>>>Not true. I cant even mention how many times i have seen others

>still assume CM will work even oftenclear evidence that it has not

>been, i have seen CM practitioner Dr shopping for themselves for

>years with continued faith that it will work, they just need to find

>a better Dr. Same thing with their own practices they often feel its

>just about more education, when i ask may its time to look elsewhere

>i often get a discussed look. I have treated probably in excess of

>70 Lac's in my career and have seen this over and over again.

>Although i have to say it is changing, especially with LAc i have

>seen that have also taken my classes

--

 

Alon, it's unclear to me what you are saying here. If the treatment

hasn't been working for an individual patient, and the patient

persists with treatment, then their motivation to do so might be one

of a few things, such as attachment to the practitioner or some other

secondary benefit. In any event it doesn't need to be religious

faith. So far as practitioners are concerned, if they are

unsuccessful in treating patients, yet other practitioners are

successful applying the same knowledge base, then I don't see how

their faith relates to their success or failure. Maybe they are

simply no good at applying Chinese medicine. However, I agree with

you that they may wasting their time going back to the books.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

it's unclear to me what you are saying here. If the treatment

hasn't been working for an individual patient, and the patient

persists with treatment, then their motivation to do so might be one

of a few things, such as attachment to the practitioner or some other

secondary benefit.

>>>>>You have missed what i was saying. I am talking about LAc shopping for

treatments sometimes for as long as 10 years.I am talking about LAc's that have

probably seen as many as 10-20 different TCM dr for their own problems and yet

still " believe " that CM is the answer for their own illnesses. That is faith

inspite of clear evidence or experience.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 1:06 AM -0500 2/7/04, Rory Kerr wrote:

>it's unclear to me what you are saying here.

-

At 10:07 AM -0600 2/7/04, Alon Marcus wrote:

>You have missed what i was saying.

---

Alon,

 

Finally we agree on something.

 

Rory

--