The Future of Integrated Medicine (commentary on Kendall)

[Guest guest]

" Why does anyone care whether Chinese anatomy and physiology are

explained as energy flowing through meridians, or by the circulation

of blood, nutrients, other vital substances, and vital air (qi)

through the vascular system? The answer to that lies in the moral

obligation of every practitioner to provide each patient with the

latest medical understanding avavilable. The need to continually

search for the truth is the most fundamental principle of science and

medicine... Research so far shows that the true concepts of Chinese

Medicine operate under known physiological principles, involving the

complex organization of the neural, vascualar, endocrine, and somatic

systems, sustained by the circulation of nutrients, vital substances,

and oxygen from vital air. "

 

- Donald E, Kendall, " Dao of " (2002).

 

Kendall makes excellent points, but I believe he misses one key aspect.

 

I think people care about using anatomy/physiology as opposed to

" energy " concepts, apart from the mere functional clinical usefulness

of using the " energy " model as generally understood in Western TCM,

because the idea of Qi and Yin and Yang helps to connect us with some

sort of universal Spirit and sense of belonging. But we must

distinguish very carefully between the type of " scientism " that

explains something in material and physical terms and attempts to

reduce it to merely that and denies any reality to anything else, and

the type of science that looks for the mechanisms for exactly how

Spirit is allowed to operate in the manifest realm.

 

Let us imagine a hypothetical situation in the future (or near-future,

if Kendall is to be believed) where biomedical science had advanced to

the point where everything in TCM physiology was explained in

biomedical terms, in a non-reductionist way that took the big picture

and Bian Zheng into full account. The process would have meant,

inevitably, that some things TCM held to be true are thrown out, and

some things are added.

 

The point is, if a great majority of what the ancient Chinese

discovered so long ago, through their own senses and their

understandings of the relatedness of things on the micro and the macro

levels, is confirmed in physical mechanistic terms by the very latest

in scientific understanding, this actually has the effect of elevating

the Spirit rather than dragging it down. How could anyone continue to

believe in an uncaring world of dead particles bumping randomly into

each other, when the said dead particles accidentally reflect the

principles of Yin/Yang in the body/mind and its relationship to its

environment? Instead of, as we might have feared, science having the

effect of flattening everything into existential meaninglessness, it

would instead illuminate how all (even when modelled with precise

mathematical equations) is actually alive with the numinous!

 

At the present moment clearly, the predominate belief system in the

scientific community is not yet ready to encompass and be able to

accept such a reality. That itself is a very good reason to hold on

to the classical Qi physiological concepts, because they are the best

models we have to repeat the empirical experience of the Zhongyi that

precede us in treating those that seek our aid now. Since the

classics are written in premodern language, learning Qi physiology

properly on its own terms is also vital to get access to this wealth

of knowledge and experience. Also the fact is that Qi/Yin/Yang will

always be more accessible to the individual than the minutiae of

endocrine, neurological, connective tissue and vascular response

mechanisms, and therefore 1) always a useful lens with which to

translate clinical reality, 2) more understandable to the average

patient that wants to regulate their own life and 3) good news for the

aspiring practitioner that simply does not have the

intellectual/rational capacity to think in biomedical terms, but have

talents elsewhere that more than make up for it.

 

But holding onto classical Qi physiology does not and should not mean

turning a blind eye to the latest discoveries in science, and not

encouraging further understanding in this area. In my opinion, only

science has the power to translate the important insights of Chinese

Medicine into changing the way medicine is practiced on a societal or

even world scale - quasi-mystical and ethnocentric concepts, however

functional and " real " , do not.

 

If you want to have some sort of idea of what the kind of rigorous

science that has the capacity to fit Spirit, Qi, Yin/Yang and

consciousness into its framework could look like, I highly recommend

having a look at " Marriage of Sense and Soul " by Ken Wilber, and

looking into http://www.integralinstitute.org/ .

 

Cheers

Li

 

PS. My apologies if these ideas have been expressed before, I am new

here, have just started Kendall, and was suddenly inspired!

[Guest guest]

, " Lo Pan "

<lionel.y.chan@u...> wrote:

That itself is a very good reason to hold on

> to the classical Qi physiological concepts, because they are the best

> models we have to repeat the empirical experience of the Zhongyi that

> precede us in treating those that seek our aid now. Since the

> classics are written in premodern language, learning Qi physiology

> properly on its own terms is also vital to get access to this wealth

> of knowledge and experience.

>

> But holding onto classical Qi physiology does not and should not mean

> turning a blind eye to the latest discoveries in science, and not

> encouraging further understanding in this area.

 

Everything was well put. The only thing I would continue to clarify

for those who are unclear about Kendall's position is that he is not

at all a reductionist. He does not want to replace CM ideas with

western ideas. He is trying to show how all CM ideas already make

sense in terms of western science and goes even further to suggest

that CM can expand physiology rather than be reduced by it. From my

review of the book:

 

Deke Kendall proposes that the contents of the nei jing su wen are

largely based upon anatomy. Yet, ironically as I read Deke, I have

developed a newfound interest in classical acupuncture. While Deke may

be dismissed as a reductionist, I think he is actually a great example

of the trend espoused by zhang xi chun and embodied by jiao shu de.

Maintaining the spirit of CM while integrating with the west. Deke

most definitely accomplished that goal. His entire presentation of

physiology and anatomy is completely from the perspective of Western

Medicine serving Chinese, not vice-versa. He asserts that CM will be

proven to be real just as it is written, not by scrapping large parts

of the corpus to make it fit science (as the modern chinese did

somewhat in their state texts). He believes every word of nei jing and

he makes strong cases for pulse diagnosis and classical point

selection that never made sense to me before. Far from reducing CM to

prevailing reductionistic ideas, Deke shows that there is a different

way of understanding the neurovascular system and its role in health

and disease and the neijing details that. His model explains all the

effects of acupuncture satisfactorily and he attempts to ground his

ideas in a reading of the classics. Rather than reducing CM with his

model, Deke has actually paved the way for EXPANDING western science

to accommodate explanations of phenomena hitherto inconceivable. I

think work like Deke's is exactly what leads to a paradigm shift. The

structures of normal science are challenged from within and a more

expansive model is developed as a result.

 

[Guest guest]

Lo Pan wrote:

 

Hi Lo Pan and all,

 

I have yet to read this book " The Dao of " ,

 

But I do think about what Western Medicine is doing and the changes in

approaches as we go on and what I have already gleaned from Chinese

Medicine Theories. And the most helpful thing to me about TCM, is the

Wholism it constitutes. The Yin and Yang of things are like a compass

taking my perceptions through time, through the three dimensions of our

bodies, (interior and exterior, front and back etc..) Yin and Yang are

not absolute, they are aspects of a whole phenomena. This has been very

helpful in perceiving the human being. It is a whole, it has dynamic

accommodations, can help net the whole in meaningful ways that WM has

not been able to do yet. I speak more from my own experiences in my

body through Qigong and Taiji experiences and my everyday life, how the

map of yin and yang in its simplicity ( I didn't mean easy) provides for

a way to elegant, meaningful and effective responses to reality. (

Reality: Something that sometimes gives me the feeling everyone is from

another planet, but Yin Yang theory again helps me out a lot) Then there

is learning alot of useful patterns that humans have tendencies to get

involved in, not textbook, but at least very useful in guiding people

through the clinical realities.

 

I look forward to reading this book, I glanced at it while I was at

Redwing and saw some very exciting diagrams, and thought flow charts. I

hope there will be more opportunity to discuss it when I have had the

time to read it cover to cover. A.so, I do think it will be WM that

will gain the most out of the interchange and TCM will be the one

incorporating WM, not the other way around.

 

Rozz

 

>Kendall makes excellent points, but I believe he misses one key aspect.

>

>I think people care about using anatomy/physiology as opposed to

> " energy " concepts, apart from the mere functional clinical usefulness

>of using the " energy " model as generally understood in Western TCM,

>because the idea of Qi and Yin and Yang helps to connect us with some

>sort of universal Spirit and sense of belonging. But we must

>distinguish very carefully between the type of " scientism " that

>explains something in material and physical terms and attempts to

>reduce it to merely that and denies any reality to anything else, and

>the type of science that looks for the mechanisms for exactly how

>Spirit is allowed to operate in the manifest realm.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Lo Pan,

 

Just as in the TCM community, the scientific world is full of diverse

viewpoints. The mechanistic Newtonian concept of the world as a deterministic

sequence of dead particles bumping into each other has been long ago discarded

by physicists, but, unfortunately, seems to have persisted the longest within

the biomedical science community. I've found medical scientists to be among the

most dogmatic and hide-bound of all scientists - not unlike some TCM people I've

met. (I think a large part of this is driven by the influence of the

pharmacetical companies, whose profits would suffer by admitting a new

paradigm.)

 

If you take the broadest view of science, as a vigorous, contentious process of

debate about the nature of the universe, I think you'll find it has much to

offer the understanding of Qi, Yin, and all that other stuff.

 

The mathematician Godel proved that there will always exist truths which are

unprovable within a given system of axioms and rules of logic. If scientists

take this to heart, they should understand that there is no justification for

discarding any observations merely because they do not fit within a given scheme

of reductionist understanding.

 

---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

 

 

> Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:37:35 -0000

> " Lo Pan " <lionel.y.chan

>The Future of Integrated Medicine (commentary on Kendall)

>

>Let us imagine a hypothetical situation in the future (or near-future,

>if Kendall is to be believed) where biomedical science had advanced to

>the point where everything in TCM physiology was explained in

>biomedical terms, in a non-reductionist way that took the big picture

>and Bian Zheng into full account. The process would have meant,

>inevitably, that some things TCM held to be true are thrown out, and

>some things are added.

>

>The point is, if a great majority of what the ancient Chinese

>discovered so long ago, through their own senses and their

>understandings of the relatedness of things on the micro and the macro

>levels, is confirmed in physical mechanistic terms by the very latest

>in scientific understanding, this actually has the effect of elevating

>the Spirit rather than dragging it down. How could anyone continue to

>believe in an uncaring world of dead particles bumping randomly into

>each other, when the said dead particles accidentally reflect the

>principles of Yin/Yang in the body/mind and its relationship to its

>environment? Instead of, as we might have feared, science having the

>effect of flattening everything into existential meaninglessness, it

>would instead illuminate how all (even when modelled with precise

>mathematical equations) is actually alive with the numinous!

>

>At the present moment clearly, the predominate belief system in the

>scientific community is not yet ready to encompass and be able to

>accept such a reality.

 

 

---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

[Guest guest]

Rozz, Roger,

 

Thanks so much for the comments, it's so exciting to feel like I am

part of a living community. As a lowly final year student of TCM at

the University of Technology Sydney, the ability to actually use my

brain in relation to acupuncture and Bian Zheng herbology is a breathe

of fresh air.

 

I wrote my original post partly as a way to justify to myself that the

way we seem to accumulate and search for clinically approriate

knowledge is acceptable to my own intellectual standards. For most of

my degree I felt like I was forced to use half my brain, but I think I

finally understand a way around this.

 

Our faith in the classical framework is less to do with believing what

they say is the " truth " , rather than it is belief that the writers can

be trusted in their professional and intellectual integrity. They

were just like us, imperfect humans with imperfect perceptions limited

by time, place and culture, but with important observations that are

useful to us today when taken in context.

 

When we try really hard to make an accurate TCM diagnosis, we do so

not because we necessarily believe this model has any " reality "

independant of our own constructed concepts. We do so because we want

to be able to accurately use the clinical experience insights of

previous practitioners in what they describe, and thereby have a

better idea of what we should do with what is presenting right in

front of us, and hopefully build upon that solid foundation to come to

our own insights.

 

This is in fact what any good modern and philosophically informed

scientist will tell you too. It is unecessary to believe in " atoms "

or " gravity " or " quantum particles " or whatever. The only thing we

know is, this particular abstract conceptualisation is an excellent

model for the empirical reality we see and can test, and good at

predicting what happens when we do this to the system. It is a model

and only a model that can be torn down as soon as the evidence

reflects its inadequacies. All else is conjecture.

 

PS. Guys, my name is not Lo Pan! Lopan is a character from the movie

Big Trouble in Little China (and a horribly evil one at that)! My

name is , it has been a pleasure talking to you.

 

Cheers

Li

 

" No movement of qi are identical

Ancient and modern times differ;

Ancient formulas are helpless for modern diseases. "

 

-Zhang Hao-gu, Master, Jin/Yuan Dynasty

[Guest guest]

We do so because we want

to be able to accurately use the clinical experience insights of

previous practitioners in what they describe, and thereby have a

better idea of what we should do with what is presenting right in

front of us, and hopefully build upon that solid foundation to come to

our own insights.

>>>>At the same time this is the most dangerous path to take if not constantly

using a skeptical mind'

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Even a sceptical mind in not enough. You need to stay in dialogue

with a community of like-minded colleagues to keep you from delluding

yourself, which we are all capable of doing.

 

-Li

 

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> We do so because we want

> to be able to accurately use the clinical experience insights of

> previous practitioners in what they describe, and thereby have a

> better idea of what we should do with what is presenting right in

> front of us, and hopefully build upon that solid foundation to come to

> our own insights.

> >>>>At the same time this is the most dangerous path to take if not

constantly using a skeptical mind'

> Alon

>

>