Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 Anyone who thinks Deke Kendall's work is the scientization of TCM either: 1. has not read the book, which many of you have admitted in your posts 2. were offended by his tone and rhetoric and thus dismissed him out of hand 3. got lost in the scientific discussion and missed the actual subtlety and point of his thesis - which is to restore the full classical glory of acupuncture as it was conveyed in the nei jing. He uses science to ELEVATE CM, not diminish it. Let me give an example: Many of us have noticed that the chinese descriptions of conception, digestion and blood formation are remarkably similar to " discoveries " made in the west hundreds of years later. This prescient grasp of physiology and anatomy (they knew the GB held bile and bladder urine, the path of the bowels, etc.) would immediately lead any rational thinker to consider whether other aspects of CM theory were actually more akin to anatomy and physiology as well. Only a magical thinker who just assumed a priori that acupuncture was about energy and lines of flow would gloss over this issue. Knowing that known anatomical and physiological processes underly the function of the zang-fu, how far fetched is it to say that known anatomy underlies the channel system? I think everyone who has a more esoteric view of the channel system should ask themselves where they got this idea and what textual support there is for this point of view. Is this idea part of CM or was interjected by Americans who had preconceived notions of eastern spirituality and the apparent overlap with TCM BEFORE they ever studied CM, many of whom never gained access to chinese source material themselves to explore this supposed connection? I was such a person once upon a time and all my experiences to date have led to utter rejection of that position. This blind allegiance to the magical by so many in the field is essentially an unexamined facet of our collective professional psyche. It must be brought to the light of day or this shadow persona will destroy us. Kendall has forced the issue and I reiterate that this issue most definitely belongs on the tables of agencies. Agencies decide what we need to learn to get our degrees and licenses. How can they be removed from this debate? Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 , wrote: > Anyone who thinks Deke Kendall's work is the scientization of TCM > either: > > 1. has not read the book, which many of you have admitted in your posts > okay, i'll ante up my fifty bucks and read the book and give you an informed opinion when i'm done. > > > > I think everyone who has a more esoteric view of the channel system > should ask themselves where they got this idea and what textual support > there is for this point of view. Is this idea part of CM or was > interjected by Americans who had preconceived notions of eastern > spirituality and the apparent overlap with TCM BEFORE they ever studied > CM, many of whom never gained access to chinese source material > themselves to explore this supposed connection? not going to comment on DK b/c i haven't read the book... but a lot of my ideas on channel theory come from Japan, including non-translated sources, and there is a divergence of opinion there. Bear in mind some of the " Westernized " (or even more silly, " American " ) concepts you like to demonize probably come from there (cf Eckman, for example). And as far as scientizing OM theory goes, Sawada had a unique A & P view of the Sanjiao -- and by all accounts he distrusted WM from a young age. Matsumoto and Birch use ideas from Sawada as well as Manaka et al in their Hara Dx book. So A & P corollaries of channel theory are nothing new, really. What I object to is the idea of basing an entire doctoral curriculum on one book by someone with questionable translational skills and doing it without regard to the larger OM community, shutting them out of the process and marginalizing their arguments by labeling them as backward, magical-thinking (whatever that is), tuning-fork-waving new age freaks. But that's just me, I guess. robert hayden 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: > okay, i'll ante up my fifty bucks and read the book and give you an informed opinion > when i'm done. I borrowed mine from the library. no cash necessary. What I object > to is the idea of basing an entire doctoral curriculum on one book by someone with > questionable translational skills The entire curriculum is hardly based on this book. they will still be using the same herbal texts used in other schools. In addition, they will put more emphasis on channel based acupuncture than any other TCM school and doing it without regard to the larger OM > community, shutting them out of the process and marginalizing their arguments by > labeling them as backward, magical-thinking (whatever that is), tuning-fork-waving > new age freaks. But that's just me, I guess. first of all, I am NOT part of NOMAA or any organization, so I have no power to shut anyone out. however the sword cuts both ways. My original post merely asked why NOMAA has been left out of the larger process. they do not control any process, either. THEY are the outsiders who have been excluded. I was also very precise about who I would characterize as a magical thinker, which despite your sarcasm is a technical anthropological term with a distinct meaning. If you want to set up straw men and knock em down, go ahead, but it does not strengthen your case. BTW I said that the basis of rigor is " The study and application of chinese medical literature in chinese or faithfully translated and the application of modern science. " I have always felt that your style as gleaned from your posts exemplfiied the former approach, which I consider to be quite rigorus and not at magical. so if you thought my post was directed at those who practice like you, you are gravely mistaken. It was directed at those who use neither SCIENCE nor CLASSICs to guide them. they just make stuff up and cloak it in a facile version of eastern mysticism. Yes, I dismiss those who have no connection to any medical tradition or cannot produce objective proof of efficacy, yet claim to practice chinese medicine to line their pockets. They hurt all of us every time they open their mouths. Since very little of what I do has been proven, so I rely on the medical literature of china. TCM is not a form of magical thinking, but many people incorporate it into their preexisting frameworks thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 I think you are missing the point. It is not about Deke's book, but about the Dekeization of a state's educational process. David Molony In a message dated 5/26/04 12:35:02 PM, writes: > Anyone who thinks Deke Kendall's work is the scientization of TCM > either: > > 1. has not read the book, which many of you have admitted in your posts > > 2. were offended by his tone and rhetoric and thus dismissed him out > of hand > > 3. got lost in the scientific discussion and missed the actual > subtlety and point of his thesis - which is to restore the full > classical glory of acupuncture as it was conveyed in the nei jing. He > uses science to ELEVATE CM, not diminish it. > > Let me give an example: Many of us have noticed that the chinese > descriptions of conception, digestion and blood formation are > remarkably similar to " discoveries " made in the west hundreds of years > later. This prescient grasp of physiology and anatomy (they knew the > GB held bile and bladder urine, the path of the bowels, etc.) would > immediately lead any rational thinker to consider whether other aspects > of CM theory were actually more akin to anatomy and physiology as well. > Only a magical thinker who just assumed a priori that acupuncture was > about energy and lines of flow would gloss over this issue. Knowing > that known anatomical and physiological processes underly the function > of the zang-fu, how far fetched is it to say that known anatomy > underlies the channel system? > > I think everyone who has a more esoteric view of the channel system > should ask themselves where they got this idea and what textual support > there is for this point of view. Is this idea part of CM or was > interjected by Americans who had preconceived notions of eastern > spirituality and the apparent overlap with TCM BEFORE they ever studied > CM, many of whom never gained access to chinese source material > themselves to explore this supposed connection? I was such a person > once upon a time and all my experiences to date have led to utter > rejection of that position. This blind allegiance to the magical by so > many in the field is essentially an unexamined facet of our collective > professional psyche. It must be brought to the light of day or this > shadow persona will destroy us. Kendall has forced the issue and I > reiterate that this issue most definitely belongs on the tables of > agencies. Agencies decide what we need to learn to get our degrees and > licenses. How can they be removed from this debate? > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 , " " wrote: > I borrowed mine from the library. no cash necessary. i prefer to buy mine so i can have the option to burn it after i read it (joke). > > The entire curriculum is hardly based on this book. they will still be using the same herbal > texts used in other schools. In addition, they will put more emphasis on channel based > acupuncture than any other TCM school How do you know this? I see nothing about required texts in the document you pointed us to. > > > first of all, I am NOT part of NOMAA or any organization, You do seem to have taken a pretty strong position of advocacy for them. In addition, nobody from NOMAA seems to be only this list (curious, isn't it?) -- or if they are, they are not stepping forward to clarify matters. > I was also very precise about who I > would characterize as a magical thinker, which despite your sarcasm is a technical > anthropological term with a distinct meaning. If you want to set up straw men and knock > em down, go ahead, but it does not strengthen your case. Thank you for the clarification; I must admit to being unschooled in matters anthropological past an undergraduate class longer ago than I would care to admit. Apologies for my sarcasm, but i must confess you hit a nerve since I practice largely from an alternate OM stream to TCM (one which is largely based on non- " scientific " concepts but which has developed a reproducible methodology based on consensus) and consider myself a liberal Christian. I would humbly submit that you may wish to consider whether your case is strengthened by indiscriminate use of invective. Seems to me CHA used to be more useful and collegial; in the last year it seems to be increasingly given to name calling and airing of political views. It's your forum, of course, and you've managed to keep things going for five years now. For this you deserve a lot of credit. I personally am sad to see the profession so divided at such a crucial time. I will chime in when I'm done with the book. robert hayden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2004 Report Share Posted May 26, 2004 At 6:36 PM +0000 5/26/04, wrote: >The entire curriculum is hardly based on this book. they will still >be using the same herbal texts used in other schools. In addition, >they will put more emphasis on channel based acupuncture than any >other TCM school -- Sorry if i missed it, but I've looked and can't find any mention of a school in this discussion. Which school are you talking about? Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 The entire curriculum is hardly based on this book. they will still >be using the same herbal texts used in other schools. In addition, >they will put more emphasis on channel based acupuncture than any >other TCM school -- >>>>>>From what you posted there is no discussion of what is intended to be used, just general guidelines regarding hours for each topic. Which I think is expectable and I cant see anything wrong with it. Personally I agree with the emphasis on more modern science together with TCM training. It looked like they modeled the program on PRC. I also do not see any problem with having an alternative to the existing structure. My only concern is how things are being done. If the little Hoover commission is an example of what will result from their efforts we may end up with nothing Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 NOMAA's proposal has considerably fewer hours of biomedical science than does the program I teach in. The Master's program at Touro College has about 850 hours of biomedical sciences, in a program of 3390 hours. >>>>Interesting. How much of the 850 are clinically related and how much is basic sciences? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2004 Report Share Posted May 27, 2004 At 10:50 AM -0700 5/27/04, alon marcus wrote: >NOMAA's proposal has considerably fewer hours of biomedical science >than does the program I teach in. The Master's program at Touro >College has about 850 hours of biomedical sciences, in a program of >3390 hours. > > >>>>Interesting. How much of the 850 are clinically related and how >much is basic sciences? -- Alon, I can't really be bothered to count it out, but my guess is about 50/50. 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.