Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 I have oft stated that I believe there are two paths to evidentiary rigor in TCM. The study and application of chinese medical literature in chinese or faithfully translated and the application of modern science. Ideally, the former should occur under the tutelage of a seasoned practitioner. I have no interest in secret or oral traditions, which by their very nature are opaque and tend towards mysticism. I have no objection to people practicing in that latter way, but I do not think such practitioners can contribute in any open or deliberate way to the educational or political process at an institutional level. I find our profession to nonetheless dominated by this latter group as well as those practicing outright pseudoscience. The articles and ads in AT say it all. The NOMAA folks have been accused of shutting others out of their process and working against the true plurality of CM. I also read Scheid's book and borrowed his theme of plurality as mine for the CHA conference this year. But my take on plurality is that it is not a matter of anything goes. the plurality of CM is rooted in the actual traditions. So while I do not think secret or oral traditions can be the basis of any open discussion, I still accept that such things are part and parcel of CM. But I do not think that the secret traditions belong on any political or academic table. I also don't think any of the new age traditions that are neither rooted in science or CM literature belong on the table either. Again, practice these things if you please. I am a libertarian in this regard. But I will not spend my time debating people who have no evidence for their claims. The NOMAA folks are very comfortable with the aspects of our profession that involve study and application of classical texts. They also are comfortable with science. What they are not comfortable with is mysticism and metaphysics and secret knowledge. Thus, I see this organization as openminded to exploring any ideas that have scholarly underpinning and rejecting all that don't. While their process excludes much of the current profession, so does the position often espoused on this list by those who insist on reading chinese. I would submit that NONMAA is just as inclusive as the other intellectual wings of the profession and the only folks who are excluded are the anti-intellectuals and mystics. I do not consider these latter folks to be part of the plurality that Scheid talks about anyway. They are the progenitors of MSU and harm us every time they open their mouths publicly. For those who think we need to make room for the new age mystics in our field, I strongly disagree. Religion should be a private affair. Anyone who interjects mysticism into medicine is not doing what I do. If others are insistent of an opposing point of view, then I would suggest that the visioning task force has already failed. Because if the vision allows mysticism to dominate the field in the name of diversity, then the field will most definitely splinter. And if mysticism is rejected, the same thing will happen. Perhaps it is time to cut our losses and accept we have 2 major camps in this field with irreconcilable differences. Rather than try and craft a common vision, perhaps we should just support each others parallel tracks by staying out of each other's way. Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 Wow! Nicely put. You da man. Can I quote you? Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > > Wow! Nicely put. You da man. Can I quote you? > > Bob Quote away. Its really no surprise. America is similarly split between those who value rationale discourse and those who to magical thinking. We are just a microcosm. This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 The question is how are you defining this 'other' magical, irrational, mysticism based medicine. IF your criteria is based on what science can prove, then I would have many arguments. Where is the line? Is 5-element acu (worsley) fall into this camp? IS 5-element (Japanese)? Tuning fork acupuncture? Is Voll Testing? What about homeopathy? I think this is well worth figuring out, b/c I am also always saying similar things about Those MSU not TCMers, but I would like to hear what others say about these 2 camps? I am unclear at the moment. -JAson , " " wrote: > , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> > wrote: > > > > > > Wow! Nicely put. You da man. Can I quote you? > > > > Bob > > Quote away. Its really no surprise. America is similarly split between those who value > rationale discourse and those who to magical thinking. We are just a > microcosm. This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every level. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 , " " <@h...> wrote: > The question is how are you defining this 'other' magical, irrational, > mysticism based medicine. IF your criteria is based on what science > can prove, This should be: what science HAS proven... -JB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 , " " wrote: This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every level. funny, i thought this country was dominated by greed at every level but i guess it all depends on how you look at it. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 , " " <@h...> wrote: > The question is how are you defining this 'other' magical, irrational, > mysticism based medicine. IF your criteria is based on what science > can prove, then I would have many arguments. Where is the line? Is > 5-element acu (worsley) fall into this camp? IS 5-element (Japanese)? > Tuning fork acupuncture? Is Voll Testing? What about homeopathy? I > think this is well worth figuring out, b/c I am also always saying > similar things about Those MSU not TCMers, but I would like to hear > what others say about these 2 camps? I am unclear at the moment. > > -JAson > this is a very good point. i've got stacks of books from Japan which are yet untranslated but represent a very real and potentially teachable countercurrent to both Todd's " good OM " and " bad OM " examples. Toyohari (which i no longer represent so NFI) has possibly the most advanced pedagogical methods of any acupuncture school and an interpretation of classical materials that one could say are as valid as Kendall's or anybody's. They've been in this country for over a decade and i don't see their very reproducible methodology being investigated as a possibility for integration in US schools. They attract elite types (Birch) as well as some woo-woo types BTW, so i think Todd's portrayal of the acu-culture wars is a little simplistic. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2004 Report Share Posted May 24, 2004 At 12:25 PM 5/24/2004, you wrote: >Rather than try and craft a common >vision, perhaps we should just support each others parallel tracks by >staying out of each other's way. Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 , wrote: > I have oft stated that I believe there are two paths to evidentiary > rigor in TCM. The study and application of chinese medical literature > in chinese or faithfully translated and the application of modern > science. By application of modern science do you mean throwing out OM theory? Otherwise how is integrating science into OM not in itself a form of MSU? We routinely reject attempts to explain western herbs and drugs into TCM terms as pure speculation, for example. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 , " kampo36 " <kampo36> wrote: > , " " wrote: > This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every level. > > funny, i thought this country was dominated by greed at every level but i guess it all > depends on how you look at it. > > rh think again...I'd suggest fear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 In a message dated 5/24/04 6:50:04 PM, writes: > > > > > Wow! Nicely put. You da man. Can I quote you? > > > > Bob > > Quote away. Its really no surprise. America is similarly split between > those who value > rationale discourse and those who to magical thinking. We are > just a > microcosm. This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every > level. > > Very cute, but remember that the same people who believe so heavily in scientific ratioinale discourse recently had an article titled " Death by Medicine " . Science and psuedo-science are not so really far apart as some might believe, just as the politics you refer to are not. It is all dreamers who try to influence others thru political might, and the theocracy of science is just as dreadful when taken to its extreme as any other. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 , acuman1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 5/24/04 6:50:04 PM, @c... writes: > > > > > > > > > > Wow! Nicely put. You da man. Can I quote you? > > > > > > Bob > > > > Quote away. Its really no surprise. America is similarly split between > > those who value > > rationale discourse and those who to magical thinking. We are > > just a > > microcosm. This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every > > level. > > > > > Very cute, but remember that the same people who believe so heavily in > scientific ratioinale discourse recently had an article titled " Death by Medicine " . > Science and psuedo-science are not so really far apart as some might believe, > just as the politics you refer to are not. It is all dreamers who try to > influence others thru political might, and the theocracy of science is just as > dreadful when taken to its extreme as any other. > David > I don't think anyone is advocating " scientism " as a Way. Science is however certainly a form of knowledge and power which should be taken seriously and assimilated, albeit with a tight noose and a careful eye. In my opinion, the question of what constitutes the correct practice and theoretical understanding of is a fuzzy one. I do think an honest appraisal of it's history can attest too the developmentof integration/compromise and innovation in it's ongoing adaptation to clinical realities and cultural context. Simultaneously, it always reaches into the past to develop a foothold in what is certain. Allowing for the possibility that perhaps there is a lot more correlation between the biomedical concept of the body and the conceptual body of early chinese naturalists is a breathtaking view. The novel concepts in Donald Kendall's book will likely cause some quakes in TCM circles as well as in academic debate. But how is this different from any other viewpoint. Unschuld's notions of early chinese medicine are recommended to Grad. students as " to be taken carefully and with caution. " If another organization wants too train people in a style of classical acupuncture and Nei Jing theory that is of a valid interpretation, why shouldn't they be able too. Hey, just look at all the development of philosophy, medicine, logic and so on, that the Chinese experienced when the country was split into various Warring States. Or how about hellenistic times. Competition for what constitutes the foundations of Chinese Medicine is like a good spring cleaning for what we think we know.... matt > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 , " kampo36 " <kampo36> wrote: > , wrote: > > I have oft stated that I believe there are two paths to evidentiary > > rigor in TCM. The study and application of chinese medical literature > > in chinese or faithfully translated and the application of modern > > science. > > By application of modern science do you mean throwing out OM theory? Otherwise > how is integrating science into OM not in itself a form of MSU? We routinely reject > attempts to explain western herbs and drugs into TCM terms as pure speculation, for > example. > > rh did you read the line that said " study and application of chinese medical literature > > in chinese or faithfully translated " . How can one do this and also throw out OM theory? Appication of modern science refers, as I have said dozens of times here, applies to investigation of mechanisms and tracking clinical efficacy, not replacementof CM theory. Anyone whohas read Kendall willsee that while he uses another nomeclature, he is more faithful to the ACUPUNCTURE classics in his treatment planning than any standard TCM text I have ever read. He makes a lengthy case for his nomenclature, but in the end it is merely nomenclature and does not affect practice. I like the nomenclature becuase it takes metaphysics out of the picture. I assume others prefer such nomenclature and so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 , " turiyahill " <turiya@j...> wrote: > , " kampo36 " <kampo36> > wrote: > > , " " > wrote: > > This country is currently dominated by magical thinkers at every > level. > > > > funny, i thought this country was dominated by greed at every level > but i guess it all > > depends on how you look at it. > > > > rh yes, dominated by greedy magical thinkers who think it was our manifest destiny (a magical term) to control america and now our detiny to democratize the world. All for greed, no doubt. But I would submit that a magical thinker is willing to allow the ends to justify the means because the end is god's end and thus must be right. An elightened rationalist thinks of the greater good of society. America is a land of magical thinkers. Europe is much more representative of enlgihtened rationalism. You can't tell me no one in europe is greedy. I just think rational thought inhibits the worst of greed, because a rationalist can see the ramifications of his acts as logical consequences, not uncontrollable acts of god. Western europe has far less crime, a fraction of the gun violence and homicide, better education, universal healthcare and welfare, cleaner environment and food supply, et.c, etc., etc.. Perhaps this type of society does not lead to great personal wealth, but it also does not tromp on the weak. All due to thinking things through, using science as a guide, ironically being more truly christlike than anyhing we have ever come close to in America. Magical thinkers don't scare me, they piss me off. And yes, I will be leaving this medieval backwater first chance I get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 Good point. Let's not get carried away in any direction. On May 25, 2004, at 10:22 PM, acuman1 wrote: > Very cute, but remember that the same people who believe so heavily in > scientific ratioinale discourse recently had an article titled " Death > by Medicine " . > Science and psuedo-science are not so really far apart as some might > believe, > just as the politics you refer to are not. It is all dreamers who try > to > influence others thru political might, and the theocracy of science is > just as > dreadful when taken to its extreme as any other. > David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 I may be wrong, but what I think Todd is saying is that this profession needs to decide whether we are a secular profession providing health care in a multicultural milieu based on rational principles and discourse, outcomes-based research, and a sound knowledge of our historical development. Forget the word " science. " That's a red herring. Are we/do we want to become a mature secular health care profession, or are we a New Age spiritual path? (This is not the same debate as the Confucian concern over whether medicine is a big or little Dao.) I agree with Todd that confusion over this has negatively affected our profession at every level: educational, financial, political, and even societal. Confusion over this is absolutely understandable considering how this profession evolved. We grew out of the Baby Boomers' Hessian Journey to the East. So it's completely understandable that New Agism has played a large part in our education and practice. However, I think Todd is suggesting that we have reached a crossroads in that evolution where we have to decide whether we want to be a part of the dominant secular, humanistic health care milieu or whether we are content to always be on the fringe. (I admit, I totally lose it whenever I see the Acutonics people with large, enthusiastic crowds around their booth at all of our professional conventions.) I think there is the very real possibility that we could become integrated into the mainstream medical scene. (Please, let's not get off track with arguing over all the shortcomings of that scene. If we were part of it, we would have the possibility of making that scene better.) I think that option is ours to blow. In general, it is my experience that Chinese medicine is recognized as the " other " great professional medicine in the world today, at least as it is practiced in China. However, IMO, if we ever hope to attain the societal credibility, status, and earnings of a doctor, we are going to have to upgrade our education and practice by moving away from New Age " it's all good " mumbo-jumbo and inexactitude and towards more intelligence, rationality, and outcomes-based evidence. This means enrolling better educated, more intelligent students in our schools, hiring better educated, more intelligent teachers for those schools, adopting a standard professional terminology and standards of care, involving ourselves in research, etc. I for one think this would be a good thing. This does not inevitably mean stifling personal creativity or innovation. But it does mean thinking and practicing with a certain intellectual maturity. Interestinly, last night I was reading a book review in this week's Newsweek. The book predicts that our society is going down the tubes (imagine that!). One of the key things the author of this book credited with this devolution is professions' refusal/reluctance to set and maintain educational, technical, and ethical standards among their memberships. (According to one widely quoted definition of a profession, setting and maintaining standards is one of the hallmarks of a profession as opposed to a trade.) Again IMO, one of the reasons that our profession does not set higher academic and intellectual standards is that many/most of the political and educational leaders of our profession themselves don't/can't/wouldn't meet those standards. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 At 3:40 PM +0000 5/28/04, Bob Flaws wrote: >I may be wrong, but what I think Todd is saying is that this >profession needs to decide whether we are a secular profession >providing health care in a multicultural milieu based on rational >principles and discourse, outcomes-based research, and a sound >knowledge of our historical development. -- Bob, thanks for elevating this discussion above bombastic protests, which are both tedious to read let alone respond to, and do nothing to advance clarity and understanding. The problem I see with your own statement above is that this profession is indeed divided. It's an unavoidable fact. Those with a vested interest in using Chinese medicine and it's licenses as a new age platform, aren't going to go away. So, you are saying we need to do something we cannot do as a whole profession. In my view, all the rest of us can do about that is work diligently to promote our version of how it should be academically, in our practices, in our willingness to work together politically with respect to education and licensing issues, in making public statements, etc, etc. If we are constantly defining what Chinese medicine in a public way (as you do in your writing and teaching), then in the end we stand a chance of being the ones to define the profession. Contrary to Todd's protestation, the new-agers do exist in the same world as the rest of us, and in our profession, whether we like it or not. There'll always be fringe operators that use the license as a means to some other end, just as there are fringe operators of a similar sort in biomedicine. Their presence is unavoidable. We needn't feel defensive about it, so long as we make the effort to hold the center. Arguing about whether the fringe has a right to exist is fruitless, and it may even legitimize their views by engaging them. >... This means enrolling better >educated, more intelligent students in our schools, -- I believe this could be done if ACAOM set a minimum gpa for entry in to an accredited school. At present, there is no minimum. I've seen schools allowing in people with community college gpa's less than 2.0. This should not even be a possibility. Not only is this a problem for the profession, it's very unfair to the student. I believe it would also help for there to be specific prerequisite subjects set by ACAOM, (eg. credits for an East Asian language, anatomy and physiology, intro to statistics etc). Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Rory, I think you are right. The profession is split and neither of the two halves are going to go away. Unfortunately, I see this rift wideneing every day as one half of the profession pretty much treads water and the others are moving upward and onward. Like I would never attempt to legislate the New Agers away. Like I have a long record of support for freedom of choice in health care. On the one hand, I wish the other half of the profession would simply retire over time to be replaced by a whole new generation of smarter, better educated, more intellectually perspicacious practitioners. However, since the schools keep doing what they're doing, we keep allowing these people into the profession. While I agree with you specific suggestions on how to upgrade the schools (which I have consistently believed are the root of the problem in a practical sense), I don't see that happening because there is no good economic incentive for the schools to do so. Todd's, your, and my incentive is essentially ethical/academic. Your suggestion to simply keep trying to put out high quality Chinese medical materials is a good one. However, these materials, by and large, don't sell. (And I'm not talking about Blue Poppy materials per se here.) So their positive influence continues to affect a relatively small subset of the profession. It gets tiring and frustrating. Oh well, time to stop thinking about this shit and go ride my motorcycle, but thanks for the encouragement. I should know by now not to get sucked into these kinds of discussions. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2004 Report Share Posted May 28, 2004 Contrary to Todd's protestation, the new-agers do exist in the same world as the rest of us, and in our profession, whether we like it or not. >>>>>We are all arguing about this, I am now already beginning to see other insurance companies denying acup coverage for back pain (ie not work comp related), including in car accidents. As a matter of fact I now have several cases were the insurance company is now demanding money back for cases they paid in 2004. While many want to stay in the woo woo world their economic reality is about to change very rapidly. Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Roger, I WILL take the time to read your articles. i want to see what you have to say at length. But a question has come up for me as I've read the last few days' posts. What do people really mean when they say 'new age'? Do you really mean 'multiculturalism' or 'political correctness' when you say 'new age-ism'? Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought that 'new-age thought' in general wanted to lead people to more inner awareness and a deeper responsibility to self and world - a shift in consciousness. I'm not a new-age devotee, so please don't think I'm trying to defend myself here. And I know 'new-age' stuff can get creepy and shallow and lead to fuzzy thinking. But I'm wondering if people aren't scapegoating all things 'new age'. After all , the multi-national pharmaceutical corporations you mention in your post hardly put forth 'new age' ideas, do they? -roseanne s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 In terms of the schools and students. I see that students really don't have a good idea of what encompasses when they enter. (This was true for myself as well). Many come in of an interest vaguely in the culture through martial arts or in the New Age and come out with an appreciation of the depth of the Medicine. They become Doctors with all its responsibilities. The problematic students don't understand that and remain committed to the New Age and what many of us see as the periphery of the medicine. doug > > >... This means enrolling better > >educated, more intelligent students in our schools, > -- > I believe this could be done if ACAOM set a minimum gpa for entry in > to an accredited school. At present, there is no minimum. I've seen > schools allowing in people with community college gpa's less than > 2.0. This should not even be a possibility. Not only is this a > problem for the profession, it's very unfair to the student. > > I believe it would also help for there to be specific prerequisite > subjects set by ACAOM, (eg. credits for an East Asian language, > anatomy and physiology, intro to statistics etc). > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 At 2:52 PM +0000 5/29/04, wrote: >I see that students really don't have a good idea of what Chinese >Medicine encompasses when they enter. (This was true for myself as >well). Many come in of an interest vaguely in the culture through >martial arts or in the New Age and come out with an appreciation of >the depth of the Medicine. They become Doctors with all its >responsibilities. The problematic students don't understand that and >remain committed to the New Age and what many of us see as the >periphery of the medicine. -- Doug, Do you see a correlation between lower academic ability and new-agism, as Bob seemed to suggest? My observation has been that they are not necessarily related. Early on in the development of English language programs I think there was very little literature available, and quite problematic teaching. I think many felt a need for answers to real clinical problems for which their training didn't prepare them, and so sought those answers outside Chinese medicine because it was not obvious that answers were available within it, and yet they seemed compatible. Some of those people developed a " successful " style of practice and a belief system based on their experience, and are unwilling to do the work of reeducating themselves. Some of these people teach and are charismatic, and therefore develop followers amongst the uncritical. Oh dear! Now Todd will not be alone in having upset some people. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 Bob, A whole array of thoughts came to mind as I read your comments below. I've watched this process for almost 20 years now, in total disgust at what is happening, not only to the TCM profession, but what is happening to our country. The macrocosm is mirrored in the microcosm. Educational quality and students' abilities, generally and not just in TCM, have steadily declined to the point that reading, math, and reasoning skills are rapidly becoming non-existent for many. I've summarized my observations in an article: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2003-4.html Herbalist Review, Issue 2003 #4: The Dumbing Down of American Education: Implications for Herbal Education New-Age-ism now dominates not only TCM, but education generally, and much of public policy. It is no accident that whenever this happens for several generations in sequence, irreversible cultural decline sets in. People forget that the declining centuries of Rome were fraught with hundreds of spiritualistic, end-of-the-world cults. Likewise, in the 1930's Germany, many Germans and top Nazi party leaders were New Age Theosophists, astrology devotees, and Thule society members. Now we have the Baby Boomer crowd who have taken the self-indulgent rock-drug-sex craze of the 60's and embedded this feel-good, everything-goes philosophy into education, religion, politics, and culture. Such irresponsibility inevitably leads to fascism. When people fail to govern their own behavior, they will be governed by external powers. We are witnessing this very phenomena now. Within just the past 14 years, I have witnessed a dramatic decline in educational ability among American students. Few college graduates are capable of basic deductive reasoning. TCM pattern recognition skills depend directly on basic rules of logic - given a list of symptoms, what are the possibilities, how do we differentiate them, and when do we have enough evidence to make a decision? Many people no longer have these abilities. No amount of memorizing will remedy these deficiencies. I see many of the accredited schools attempt to distract from this stark fact by padding the curriculum with lots of impressive academic subjects - " doctoral " programs, even! However, a long list of memorized facts does not equate to wisdom. This is what happened to allopathic medicine in the early 20th century. The medical college accrediting and funding agencies actually demanded that the practical core courses of botany, phytochemistry, and clinical herbalism be removed from the curriculum so as to make doctors dependent on the synthetic chemical industry. Their academic, social, and financial status was improved to distract them from their new status as servants of the pharmaceutical companies. I realize that what I will say next is considered radical by many, but it is simply based on a study of history, one of my long-time interests: when civilizations go into decline, there are certain rules that must be followed for knowledge to be preserved: (1) They must separate themselves from the dominant culture and, to varying degrees, go underground. One cannot rely on bureaucracies or government agencies for help, as these are all caught up in the corruption of decline and are fighting for their own existence, regardless of consequences. (2) When the decline becomes so severe that functions of society begin to collapse, the knowledge traditions cloak themselves with an outer husk of a religious nature. For example, much of the knowledge from ancient Rome, Greece, and Egypt had been passed on to trusted people within isolated religious communities of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. These monastic communities survived the Dark Ages, and began cautiously releasing the knowledge in stages, especially beginning in the 11th and 12th centuries. (So while the people who preserve knowledge must remain clear-headed, they must also recognize when to use religion as a vehicle for storing and preserving knowledge - a very readable book of fiction that illustrates this idea is " Foundation Trilogy " , by Isaac Asimov.) (3) Attempts to prop up corrupt governments and social institutions (i.e., accredited professional schools whose curricula have been taken over by New-Age-ism) will only prolong the collapse. The most humane option is to withdraw all support and allow them to collapse of their own inertia. One of the reasons that the decline of the Roman Empire was so extreme and far-reaching is that it happened so slowly, over many centuries, that by the 4th century A.D., the knowledge and social infrastructure was devastated because no living persons remembered - except for a few secretive individuals and groups, like the monastic communities. Toynbee discusses this aspect at length - the worst possible outcome is to have a civilization congeal into empire, in which its institutions become fossilized, resistant to all change. When such fossilized institutions fail to adapt to change, the final collapse is severe and irrevocable. If you are interested in more background on these processes, see " A Study of History " by Arnold Toynbee. If you don't like reading weighty historical tomes, I highly recommend the " Foundation Trilogy " , by Isaac Asimov. Asimov wrote these books shortly after Toynbee's books were published in the 1950's, and they closely follow Toynbee's ideas, only applied to a fictional future galactic civilization. I've tried to apply these lessons from history in coming up with a solution to the problem, which is summarized in the following article: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2004-2.html Many of the recommendations are based on my observation that the cultural decline is much worse within the US than any other industrialized nation. I do not see a solution originating within the American TCM community, as the decline has proceeded too far and for too long. Most of my new students are foreigners, many of them MDs; they have a totally different perspective and a healthy enthusiasm for learning. If this situation is to be turned around, we need to look to foreigners for assistance. The cultural rot within our own country, like a metastasizing tumor, may have proceeded so far that the patient needs outside intervention. If foreign assistance fails to help, then I will retreat into a monastic community of my own creation. Anyone care to join me? ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org > " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 >Re: rigor > >I may be wrong, but what I think Todd is saying is that this >profession needs to decide whether we are a secular profession >providing health care in a multicultural milieu based on rational >principles and discourse, outcomes-based research, and a sound >knowledge of our historical development. Forget the word " science. " >That's a red herring. Are we/do we want to become a mature secular >health care profession, or are we a New Age spiritual path? (This is >not the same debate as the Confucian concern over whether medicine is >a big or little Dao.) > >I agree with Todd that confusion over this has negatively affected our >profession at every level: educational, financial, political, and even >societal. Confusion over this is absolutely understandable considering >how this profession evolved. We grew out of the Baby Boomers' Hessian >Journey to the East. So it's completely understandable that New Agism >has played a large part in our education and practice. However, I >think Todd is suggesting that we have reached a crossroads in that >evolution where we have to decide whether we want to be a part of the >dominant secular, humanistic health care milieu or whether we are >content to always be on the fringe. (I admit, I totally lose it >whenever I see the Acutonics people with large, enthusiastic crowds >around their booth at all of our professional conventions.) > >I think there is the very real possibility that we could become >integrated into the mainstream medical scene. (Please, let's not get >off track with arguing over all the shortcomings of that scene. If we >were part of it, we would have the possibility of making that scene >better.) I think that option is ours to blow. In general, it is my >experience that Chinese medicine is recognized as the " other " great >professional medicine in the world today, at least as it is practiced >in China. However, IMO, if we ever hope to attain the societal >credibility, status, and earnings of a doctor, we are going to have to >upgrade our education and practice by moving away from New Age " it's >all good " mumbo-jumbo and inexactitude and towards more intelligence, >rationality, and outcomes-based evidence. This means enrolling better >educated, more intelligent students in our schools, hiring better >educated, more intelligent teachers for those schools, adopting a >standard professional terminology and standards of care, involving >ourselves in research, etc. I for one think this would be a good >thing. This does not inevitably mean stifling personal creativity or >innovation. But it does mean thinking and practicing with a certain >intellectual maturity. > >Interestinly, last night I was reading a book review in this week's >Newsweek. The book predicts that our society is going down the tubes >(imagine that!). One of the key things the author of this book >credited with this devolution is professions' refusal/reluctance to >set and maintain educational, technical, and ethical standards among >their memberships. (According to one widely quoted definition of a >profession, setting and maintaining standards is one of the hallmarks >of a profession as opposed to a trade.) Again IMO, one of the reasons >that our profession does not set higher academic and intellectual >standards is that many/most of the political and educational leaders >of our profession themselves don't/can't/wouldn't meet those standards. > >Bob ---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/ Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2004 Report Share Posted May 29, 2004 I don't think its always a matter of academic ability although yes many times it is. Its just that some people " get " the medicine and some don't. Some will try to Westernize the medicine while others will forever hide in New Ageisms. I think Todd's idea is to make the schools an increasingly uncomfortable place for them to be. I've had a few students I'd like to flunk, all were into twisting the new age into the medicine while really not being able to do TCM. It's not a good fit. On the other had I'd like to think the smart ones are able to incorporate their firm knowledge of TCM concepts into their own spiritual frameworks. doug , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: > At 2:52 PM +0000 5/29/04, wrote: > >I see that students really don't have a good idea of what Chinese > >Medicine encompasses when they enter. (This was true for myself as > >well). Many come in of an interest vaguely in the culture through > >martial arts or in the New Age and come out with an appreciation of > >the depth of the Medicine. They become Doctors with all its > >responsibilities. The problematic students don't understand that and > >remain committed to the New Age and what many of us see as the > >periphery of the medicine. > -- > Doug, > > Do you see a correlation between lower academic ability and > new-agism, as Bob seemed to suggest? > > My observation has been that they are not necessarily related. Early > on in the development of English language programs I think there was > very little literature available, and quite problematic teaching. I > think many felt a need for answers to real clinical problems for > which their training didn't prepare them, and so sought those answers > outside Chinese medicine because it was not obvious that answers were > available within it, and yet they seemed compatible. Some of those > people developed a " successful " style of practice and a belief system > based on their experience, and are unwilling to do the work of > reeducating themselves. Some of these people teach and are > charismatic, and therefore develop followers amongst the uncritical. > > Oh dear! Now Todd will not be alone in having upset some people. > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2004 Report Share Posted May 30, 2004 At 3:35 AM +0000 5/30/04, wrote: >I think Todd's idea is to make the schools an increasingly >uncomfortable place for them to be. -- I think the place to start with that is a list of concrete examples of what it is you are trying to root out. Any suggestions? Rory -- 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.