Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions at CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt perspective to this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was refreshing to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of hearing nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical about these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field take this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought with so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both in a synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of touch with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will be perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one of either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans believe literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism than they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to help the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona in medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept in all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be proven rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private sphere. A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for humanity. Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 One element of Heiner's presentation which interested me in his reference to spirit and emotions was his discussion of the layering of meanings via symbols and linked concepts, which creates creates enormous depth and resonance on many levels. Since imbalance and illness often begin and progress on levels not always immediately accessible or apparent, this layering can operate on subconscious levels for the patient and facilitate movement there. (And he made it clear that this does not have to be a " religious " context.) This process was something that initially attracted me to Chinese medicine, as I had been exposed to it, and was something which was usually missing in my school experiences. It was deeply absorbing to encounter it in Heiner's presentation. If he ever does a whole weekend, I want to be there. Pat ============================================================================== NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information; please advise the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that may affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ============================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Hi I completely agree with you that a lot of people in our field replace rational thought with so-called intuition, as you said. Its been a real frustration for me. A good example is when a school clinic partner would say, " The body knows what it needs " so that they could avoid figuring out the best acupuncture points. Argh! Then why did we bother to study this? Let's just put blind folds on and toss darts at people! However, I'm not so sure that I agree that focusing on spiritualism is going to be the death of TCM. First of all, I think that its too late---its already there. But also, I think that a fair amount of our target audience WANTS us to be " the alternative " medicine where the mind/body/spirit is consider as a whole. I think that spirit belongs in medicine, like it or not, and therefore it is good that we are the ones who fill that need where it is not filled elsewhere. I agree that it does turn many off though. But should we give in and neglect such an important aspect just because they are turned off? Perhaps some of them will be forced by desperation at some point to come to us and then perhaps it will open their minds. However, you make really good points about the danger of a " public God " . I think the difference is between bringing religion vs. spirituality to the practice. Ideally, spirituality without religion does not have dogma and preaching and an " us and them " attitude, which in my opinion is what makes religion so dangerous. Also it is not USED for political moves the way that religion is. I am first and foremost a rational thinker when it comes to this medicine. I take in the spiritual aspect second. If anything I error too far in this way, as most of my acupuncture/herbal friends could attest. But I've also had some pretty amazing spiritual-like experiences with TCM. For instance, now and then I have a dream telling me exactly what needs to be done--and sometimes I have never even studied the thing that I am dreaming about. Also, on the other side, my patients have had dreams about what I am going to do to them in the treatment more often than can be explained by chance. There's something to this spirituality in medicine, but I agree that it has to be approached very, very carefully. I don't think that we should diminish our medicine and give into the overly-rational approach of the modern world just to win them over. There's too much risk of permanently losing some of the richer aspects. But I also don't think that we should swing to the other side and neglect the intuitional/spiritual aspects. That's all in my humble opinion, which is an ever-evolving opinion, by the way...so who knows.... Laura , wrote: > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions at > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt perspective to > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was refreshing > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of hearing > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical about > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field take > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought with > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both in a > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said > that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of > religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. > Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of touch > with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will be > perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist > christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one of > either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans believe > literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the > remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism than > they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to help > the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona in > medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept in > all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be proven > rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend > itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of > modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private sphere. > A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for > humanity. > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 If God is not within the " scope " of Chinese Herbal Medicine, why do you feel the need to discuss such things in this forum? I agree with you that our profession should be kept out of the realm of " religion " . (Though perhaps for a slightly different set of reasons...) Please, can we just get back to speaking about Chinese Herbal Medicine? Adam Margolis , wrote: > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions at > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt perspective to > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was refreshing > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of hearing > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical about > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field take > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought with > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both in a > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said > that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of > religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. > Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of touch > with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will be > perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist > christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one of > either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans believe > literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the > remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism than > they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to help > the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona in > medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept in > all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be proven > rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend > itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of > modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private sphere. > A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for > humanity. > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 I second this. Pat Ethridge <pat.ethridge wrote: One element of Heiner's presentation which interested me in his reference to spirit and emotions was his discussion of the layering of meanings via symbols and linked concepts, which creates creates enormous depth and resonance on many levels. Since imbalance and illness often begin and progress on levels not always immediately accessible or apparent, this layering can operate on subconscious levels for the patient and facilitate movement there. (And he made it clear that this does not have to be a " religious " context.) This process was something that initially attracted me to Chinese medicine, as I had been exposed to it, and was something which was usually missing in my school experiences. It was deeply absorbing to encounter it in Heiner's presentation. If he ever does a whole weekend, I want to be there. Pat ============================================================================== NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information; please advise the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that may affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. ============================================================================== Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Pat Ethridge wrote: > One element of Heiner's presentation which interested me in his > reference > to spirit and emotions was his discussion of the layering of meanings > via > symbols and linked concepts, which creates creates enormous depth and > resonance on many levels. What are you or he trying to say here? Is this about metaphor? Can you give an example of this? -- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. -Adlai Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 It would be too complicated to go into! Buy the tape of the CHA conference. Pat On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Pat Ethridge wrote: > One element of Heiner's presentation which interested me in his > reference > to spirit and emotions was his discussion of the layering of meanings > via > symbols and linked concepts, which creates creates enormous depth and > resonance on many levels. What are you or he trying to say here? Is this about metaphor? Can you give an example of this? -- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. -Adlai Stevenson Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 , Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Pat Ethridge wrote: > > > One element of Heiner's presentation which interested me in his > > reference > > to spirit and emotions was his discussion of the layering of meanings > > via > > symbols and linked concepts, which creates creates enormous depth and > > resonance on many levels. > > What are you or he trying to say here? > > Is this about metaphor? Can you give an example of this? > > -- > I didn't attend the lecture but sounds to me very much like Jungian (Carl Jung, German Psychiatrist) psychological thinking which, of course, is a kind of synthesis of ancient cultural/religious traditions through the use of symbols and layers of meaning (which Jung discovered are common to all traditions) as they apply to the mind and behavior (this was not considered a religious approach that I know of). Symbols and layers of meaning-- think dream interpretation--things from the unconcious. Very interesting. takes this a step further by integrating the ills of the body as being related to emotions in their approach. Jung only went so far as the " hysterical " manifestations like sudden blindness I believe. Is anyone who attended the lecture familiar with Jung and did they percive any similarity as I have mentioned? Would love to hear more about it and it looks like I need to purchase the CHA tape of his lecture! thanks, shanna > Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. > -Adlai Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hi Laura and Todd: I've already said my piece on this subject so I'll not belabour my points already made. However, I would like to quote from one of my favorite books, the dictionary, to help with how we are dealing with this word " spirit " . spirit: 1. n. the intelligent or immaterial part of man as distinguished from the body: the animating or vital principle in living things: the moral nature of a man: a disembodied soul: a supernatural being, usually regarded as invisible but as having the power to become visible at will: a specified mental or emotional attitude characterizing words, actions, opinions ect. " she said it in a forgiving spirit " : a persona animated by a specified quality " he was one of the braver spirits " : the emotional attitude or frame of mind characteristic of a group of people " team spirit " : the essential character of something " he considered the spirit of the law as more important than the letter of the law: cheerful or assertive liveliness " full of spirit: mood or tempermental state " in high spirits " : liquor of high alcohol content: a volitile distillate: the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. 2. adj. of spirits or spiritualism " the spirit world " : (of lamps, engines, etc.) using alcohol as a fuel. 3. v.t. (with " off " , " away " ) to cause something to be removed unseen, with mysterious rapidity. Maybe what we have here is a disagreement on the use of the word " spirit " . I think Laura and I have been refering to the first entry on the first definition, " the intelligent or immaterial part of a man as distinguished from the body " while Todd may be referring to " a supernatural being, usually regarded as invisible but as having the power to become visible at will " and its relationship to spiritualism as practiced in theistic religions. I do agree with Laura that addressing the spirit or " intelligent, immaterial part of a person as distinguished from (not disembodied from) the body " as being very important in assessing and treating our patients. I agree with Todd that " supernatural beings " should not play a part in diagnosis or treatment. Regards, shanna , " heylaurag " <heylaurag@h...> wrote: > Hi > > I completely agree with you that a lot of people in our field replace > rational thought with so-called intuition, as you said. Its been a > real frustration for me. A good example is when a school clinic > partner would say, " The body knows what it needs " so that they could > avoid figuring out the best acupuncture points. Argh! Then why did > we bother to study this? Let's just put blind folds on and toss > darts at people! > > However, I'm not so sure that I agree that focusing on spiritualism > is going to be the death of TCM. First of all, I think that its too > late---its already there. But also, I think that a fair amount of > our target audience WANTS us to be " the alternative " medicine where > the mind/body/spirit is consider as a whole. I think that spirit > belongs in medicine, like it or not, and therefore it is good that we > are the ones who fill that need where it is not filled elsewhere. I > agree that it does turn many off though. But should we give in and > neglect such an important aspect just because they are turned off? > Perhaps some of them will be forced by desperation at some point to > come to us and then perhaps it will open their minds. > > However, you make really good points about the danger of a " public > God " . I think the difference is between bringing religion vs. > spirituality to the practice. Ideally, spirituality without religion > does not have dogma and preaching and an " us and them " attitude, > which in my opinion is what makes religion so dangerous. Also it is > not USED for political moves the way that religion is. > > I am first and foremost a rational thinker when it comes to this > medicine. I take in the spiritual aspect second. If anything I > error too far in this way, as most of my acupuncture/herbal friends > could attest. But I've also had some pretty amazing spiritual- like > experiences with TCM. For instance, now and then I have a dream > telling me exactly what needs to be done--and sometimes I have never > even studied the thing that I am dreaming about. Also, on the other > side, my patients have had dreams about what I am going to do to them > in the treatment more often than can be explained by chance. There's > something to this spirituality in medicine, but I agree that it has > to be approached very, very carefully. I don't think that we should > diminish our medicine and give into the overly-rational approach of > the modern world just to win them over. There's too much risk of > permanently losing some of the richer aspects. But I also don't > think that we should swing to the other side and neglect the > intuitional/spiritual aspects. That's all in my humble opinion, > which is an ever-evolving opinion, by the way...so who knows.... > > Laura > > > , > wrote: > > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions > at > > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt > perspective to > > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was > refreshing > > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of > hearing > > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical > about > > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field > take > > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought > with > > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both > in a > > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said > > that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of > > religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. > > Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of > touch > > with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will > be > > perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist > > christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one > of > > either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans > believe > > literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the > > remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism > than > > they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to > help > > the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona > in > > medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept > in > > all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be > proven > > rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend > > itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of > > modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private > sphere. > > A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for > > humanity. > > > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > > > > FAX: > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Laura, and all, I feel compelled to enter my two cents, here. I tend to be a very rational man. Logic is a very powerful tool. Rationality can be almost addictive in its ability to make very clear distinctions among things. And this 'making clear' so often feels like 'knowing'. However, I recently hit a transition point, and it has everything to do with my practice of this medicine. In the logic and Western philosophy courses I took over the last several years, it dawned on me that we really are virtually addicted to the rational mind. Rationality has become the gold standard. 'Good' seems to be equated with what is rational. My transition occured just after stepping outside of this 'Rationality as god' mindset. Now, I feel logic is one way of approaching understanding (the term 'understanding' normally implies a rational-type of knowing; I'm trying to use it in a broader sense, here). Logic is a tool, but it is only one of many. I don't believe there is anything innate about logic that makes it a superior tool (only against the standard of its own paradigm can it be 'better') . It has its strengths and it has its weaknesses. A strength would be its ability to make clear differentiations. A coresponding weakness would be its inevitable action of leading the investigator way from deeper truths by the very act of differentiating, and therefore separating and isolating, different aspects of a whole. (This is, of course, rooted in the belief that truth is in the whole. Knowledge of a 'thing', as separate from that whole, is necessarily inaccurate... from this perepctive). Another tool for understanding, one that bypasses the mind that only knows by separation and delineation, may be called 'direct knowing'. I borrow this term from Taoist texts. This may be what one means when they say 'intuition', or maybe not. My transition has been from only rationality to accepting of other approaches. I believe we can have accurate 'intuitive hits', and I believe they are just as valid (validity being determined by efficacy and existence of a system with which to repeat efficacy). I believe subjective expereinces count (thankfully, as all expereinces are subjective). Classically, I don't believe rationality was the only tool used. To the degree CM is rooted in Taoist philosophy, the 'direct knowing' was as important, if not more so. Many of our forephysicians were sages. They incorporated meditation, qi gong, and other such excerices into their practice to assist with their direct knowing, just as much as they studied, memorized, etc. Logic was only one of their tools in their practice. has said that we're not going to change each other's minds, that these discussions are more for those who have yet to come to conclusions. I agree to some degree. Obviously argument has no purpose, but this discussion of rationality has an important place. Where rationality claims innate superiority in the practice of Chinese herbology, I ask for explanation (be it through guidance to old posts, certain authors, or whatever). Where rationality claims to be rooted in the classics or tradition, I ask for citations. I suggest that rationality has real and significant drawbacks, especially in the practice of medicine, and that our being limited to it does, in fact, limit our abilities. I'm catching myself lumping together rationalism with other paradigms, in my mind. Perhaps an exact definition should be spelled out. For the record, I acknowledge strengths of the rational mind and its importance in our medicine. I need also state that not all claims of intuition do, in fact, refer to the 'direct knowing' I refered to, nor are they all genuine or legitimate. One could fake intuition or use it is as a 'cop out' just as easily as any other method. I enjoy these discussions. I believe I am open to learning. There's a lot I don't know and have never experienced. I've loved every logic and philosophy class I've ever taken (almost as much as my more clinically-oriented CM classes), and look forward to hearing new and different things. If this strays to far from the scope of this forum, please let me know. Though important to my practice, I'll honor restrictions on such discussion, here. --- John Aguilar Jr., L.Ac. Denver, Colorado heylaurag <heylaurag wrote: Hi I completely agree with you that a lot of people in our field replace rational thought with so-called intuition, as you said. Its been a real frustration for me. A good example is when a school clinic partner would say, " The body knows what it needs " so that they could avoid figuring out the best acupuncture points. Argh! Then why did we bother to study this? Let's just put blind folds on and toss darts at people! However, I'm not so sure that I agree that focusing on spiritualism is going to be the death of TCM. First of all, I think that its too late---its already there. But also, I think that a fair amount of our target audience WANTS us to be " the alternative " medicine where the mind/body/spirit is consider as a whole. I think that spirit belongs in medicine, like it or not, and therefore it is good that we are the ones who fill that need where it is not filled elsewhere. I agree that it does turn many off though. But should we give in and neglect such an important aspect just because they are turned off? Perhaps some of them will be forced by desperation at some point to come to us and then perhaps it will open their minds. However, you make really good points about the danger of a " public God " . I think the difference is between bringing religion vs. spirituality to the practice. Ideally, spirituality without religion does not have dogma and preaching and an " us and them " attitude, which in my opinion is what makes religion so dangerous. Also it is not USED for political moves the way that religion is. I am first and foremost a rational thinker when it comes to this medicine. I take in the spiritual aspect second. If anything I error too far in this way, as most of my acupuncture/herbal friends could attest. But I've also had some pretty amazing spiritual-like experiences with TCM. For instance, now and then I have a dream telling me exactly what needs to be done--and sometimes I have never even studied the thing that I am dreaming about. Also, on the other side, my patients have had dreams about what I am going to do to them in the treatment more often than can be explained by chance. There's something to this spirituality in medicine, but I agree that it has to be approached very, very carefully. I don't think that we should diminish our medicine and give into the overly-rational approach of the modern world just to win them over. There's too much risk of permanently losing some of the richer aspects. But I also don't think that we should swing to the other side and neglect the intuitional/spiritual aspects. That's all in my humble opinion, which is an ever-evolving opinion, by the way...so who knows.... Laura , wrote: > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions at > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt perspective to > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was refreshing > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of hearing > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical about > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field take > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought with > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both in a > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said > that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of > religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. > Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of touch > with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will be > perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist > christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one of > either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans believe > literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the > remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism than > they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to help > the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona in > medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept in > all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be proven > rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend > itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of > modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private sphere. > A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for > humanity. > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Shanna, I love your posts. They brighten up this dialog and make me smile. Thank you. shannahickle <shannahickle wrote: Hi Laura and Todd: I've already said my piece on this subject so I'll not belabour my points already made. However, I would like to quote from one of my favorite books, the dictionary, to help with how we are dealing with this word " spirit " . spirit: 1. n. the intelligent or immaterial part of man as distinguished from the body: the animating or vital principle in living things: the moral nature of a man: a disembodied soul: a supernatural being, usually regarded as invisible but as having the power to become visible at will: a specified mental or emotional attitude characterizing words, actions, opinions ect. " she said it in a forgiving spirit " : a persona animated by a specified quality " he was one of the braver spirits " : the emotional attitude or frame of mind characteristic of a group of people " team spirit " : the essential character of something " he considered the spirit of the law as more important than the letter of the law: cheerful or assertive liveliness " full of spirit: mood or tempermental state " in high spirits " : liquor of high alcohol content: a volitile distillate: the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. 2. adj. of spirits or spiritualism " the spirit world " : (of lamps, engines, etc.) using alcohol as a fuel. 3. v.t. (with " off " , " away " ) to cause something to be removed unseen, with mysterious rapidity. Maybe what we have here is a disagreement on the use of the word " spirit " . I think Laura and I have been refering to the first entry on the first definition, " the intelligent or immaterial part of a man as distinguished from the body " while Todd may be referring to " a supernatural being, usually regarded as invisible but as having the power to become visible at will " and its relationship to spiritualism as practiced in theistic religions. I do agree with Laura that addressing the spirit or " intelligent, immaterial part of a person as distinguished from (not disembodied from) the body " as being very important in assessing and treating our patients. I agree with Todd that " supernatural beings " should not play a part in diagnosis or treatment. Regards, shanna , " heylaurag " <heylaurag@h...> wrote: > Hi > > I completely agree with you that a lot of people in our field replace > rational thought with so-called intuition, as you said. Its been a > real frustration for me. A good example is when a school clinic > partner would say, " The body knows what it needs " so that they could > avoid figuring out the best acupuncture points. Argh! Then why did > we bother to study this? Let's just put blind folds on and toss > darts at people! > > However, I'm not so sure that I agree that focusing on spiritualism > is going to be the death of TCM. First of all, I think that its too > late---its already there. But also, I think that a fair amount of > our target audience WANTS us to be " the alternative " medicine where > the mind/body/spirit is consider as a whole. I think that spirit > belongs in medicine, like it or not, and therefore it is good that we > are the ones who fill that need where it is not filled elsewhere. I > agree that it does turn many off though. But should we give in and > neglect such an important aspect just because they are turned off? > Perhaps some of them will be forced by desperation at some point to > come to us and then perhaps it will open their minds. > > However, you make really good points about the danger of a " public > God " . I think the difference is between bringing religion vs. > spirituality to the practice. Ideally, spirituality without religion > does not have dogma and preaching and an " us and them " attitude, > which in my opinion is what makes religion so dangerous. Also it is > not USED for political moves the way that religion is. > > I am first and foremost a rational thinker when it comes to this > medicine. I take in the spiritual aspect second. If anything I > error too far in this way, as most of my acupuncture/herbal friends > could attest. But I've also had some pretty amazing spiritual- like > experiences with TCM. For instance, now and then I have a dream > telling me exactly what needs to be done--and sometimes I have never > even studied the thing that I am dreaming about. Also, on the other > side, my patients have had dreams about what I am going to do to them > in the treatment more often than can be explained by chance. There's > something to this spirituality in medicine, but I agree that it has > to be approached very, very carefully. I don't think that we should > diminish our medicine and give into the overly-rational approach of > the modern world just to win them over. There's too much risk of > permanently losing some of the richer aspects. But I also don't > think that we should swing to the other side and neglect the > intuitional/spiritual aspects. That's all in my humble opinion, > which is an ever-evolving opinion, by the way...so who knows.... > > Laura > > > , > wrote: > > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions > at > > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt > perspective to > > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was > refreshing > > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of > hearing > > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical > about > > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field > take > > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought > with > > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both > in a > > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Having said > > that, I still believe that presenting a public face that smacks of > > religion or spirituality or cult will be the death of our field. > > Regardless of your personal philosophy, I think you are out of > touch > > with the bulk of the general public if you think such a face will > be > > perceived in a kind way. Whether dealing with fundamentalist > > christians or scientific materialists (I do not consider myself one > of > > either group, BTW), this is a losing tactic. 50% of americans > believe > > literally in the bible. Another 25% are pretty devout. Of the > > remaining 25%, far more are influenced by scientific materialism > than > > they are by some kind of " new paradigm " thinking. If we want to > help > > the most people at all, god must be left out of our public persona > in > > medicine and all public affairs. god is the most divisive concept > in > > all of history. Even if it a valid concept, which can never be > proven > > rationally, it will always be a fracture point, since it does lend > > itself to agreement in the details. All the great advances of > > modernity have occurred since god was relegated to the private > sphere. > > A return to a public god is the worst thing I could imagine for > > humanity. > > > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > > > > FAX: > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 I also enjoyed Heiner's presentation, a different yet refreshing perspective on the classics: using the classical Chinese medical literature as a meditation on the order of the universe, and as a tool for self-cultivation. My conclusion, after hearing lectures by such individuals as Paul Unschuld, Heiner Fruehauf, and Deke Kendall, is that the classical medical literature is a mirror for different perspectives and schools of thought, and can be interpreted in a number of ways. The perspectives of the above authors are the socio-economic/anthropological (Unschuld), philosophical (Fruehauf), and physiological (Kendall). Because of the innate bias and temperment of the human being, these different perspectives are to be expected. It is my feeling that we should accept that different interpretations of classical medical texts are inevitable, and use these different perspectives to develop a more complete picture on the subject. On Jun 22, 2004, at 9:46 AM, wrote: > I really enjoyed Heiner Fruehauf talking about spirit and emotions at > CHa this past week. He brings a scholarly yet heartfelt perspective to > this topic so often lost in irrational emotionalism. It was refreshing > to get a little serious revival in this area after a year of hearing > nothing but gobbledygook on the topic. I have been quite cynical about > these matters because it is my firm belief that many in our field take > this approach to AVOID serious study. Replacing rational thought with > so-called intuition. Heiner does no such thing. He embraces both in a > synthsis that exceed either of the more narrow views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: Because of the innate bias and temperment > of the human being, these different perspectives are to be expected. > It is my feeling that we should accept that different interpretations > of classical medical texts are inevitable, and use these different > perspectives to develop a more complete picture on the subject. I agree. As long as the approaches evidence scholarship they all must be respected as pieces of the puzzle. I will still continue to reject that which is made up or that for which the promuglators can provide no evidence of efficacy or validity beyond their own clinical anecdotes. It is asking way too much of us to accept anecdotes without a detailed assessment of the the anecdoter (is that a word?). There is no reason merely having a license or being on this list gives someone credibility to make claims that fly in the face of both history and science. If such maverick ideas do indeed have validity, they will have to survive the light of science and/or history. If unwillng to submit one's ideas to science, then your only other alternative is waiting a few hundred years for cumulative proof and acceptance. To expect that because one is earnest or well meaning or financially successful, people should listen to your words despite having no access to chinese source materials nor having done any research or even a literature review suggests incredible hubris, IMO. No one person has the answer. We discover them together as a community through history and/or science. Anyone who thinks otherwise is beyond debate, since these are fundamental premises. If people disagree on initial premises, then the ensuing debate becomes meaningless. So those of you to whom I fail to respond, this is why. If an argument begins with the premise that isolated anecdotes tell us anything, I just have little to say in response. Those who read chinese often comment to me that they are surprised I don't. while I have studied the chinese language and medical terminology for over a decade, I still can't read a page on my own. However amongst those who really read chinese at a practical level, there is a lotof agreement on what is what. those who diverge fromthe fold are almost invariably those who do not read chinese. that alone is telling. The problem is obvious. If one reads chinese, then most of what one reads is in chinese. As one goes through the chinese literature itself, one is impressed by the agreement on many issues in herbology, the lack of mysticism, the emphasis on pragmatism, etc. If one only reads english, then one gets the impression that there is much greater diversity in medical thought and the mainstream chinese line is drowned in the morass of MSU that dominates the english presses. The reason people think I read chinese is because I know how to assess sources for accuracy and evidence for validity. I eschew the bulk of TCM literature in english as downright bogus. All I would ask of anyone who wants to engage with me is to provide evidence of efficacy (historical or scientific) or demonstrate enough of your own erudition to justify hearing your maverick words. New ideas are allowed inTCM. traditionally one had to demosntrate one's knowledge of the classics. In modern times, we can also use science to validate. It was never OK to claim authority w/o demonstrating one's command of the classics. Personally, I make no claims based upon anecdotes, nor do I pretend to be a scholar. I do as most of my predecessors have done. I stand on the shoulders of giants. 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.