Symposium reflections

[Guest guest]

I thought I'd give some thought to the direction(s) taken by our field

(Chinese medicine) as observed at Pacific Symposium 2004 that just

finished yesterday. I know that Bob Flaws inquired how things were

going at the Symposium from Todd a few days ago, I hope this will be

helpful.

 

First of all, I think Jack Miller and the PCOM crew do an excellent job

in organizing the Symposium every year, and this is in no way a

critique of their fine work in pulling off what is probably one of the

best such gathering of the minds in our profession. I think having

educational symposia separate from political events is an important

strength of this event as well. The Pacific Symposium simply reflects

the present 'state of the art' in our field.

 

Our profession seems to be moving in two directions at once. A good

percentage of the speakers seemed to be moving in what I call the

" human potential movement direction " . By this I mean taking a metaphor

from Chinese medicine, such as Five Phases, Qi, the 'landscape of the

body' via the channel system, and tacking on spiritual and personal

ideas from a primarily Western New Age landscape onto them.

 

I focused this time on attending lectures from such individuals, many

who I count among my friends. I heard lectures about wilderness hiking

and the landscape of the body, facial reading, and emotional trauma

affecting the channels ( a psychological approach). One prominent

lecturer stated at the beginning of their lecture that the realm of

Chinese medicine is like the wind (i.e. the energetic 'body'), and

Western medicine the earth or rocks (the physical body). In other

words, the physical body is not the realm of Chinese medicine, and what

it describes is an energetic system of channels and points, which

somehow is in space and floats around the body. One speaker again

stated the old saw that the Communist Chinese are 'killing' the

medicine.

 

These lectures were often quite inspiring. Speakers opened their

hearts and minds, and offered innovative ideas to the audience, such as

applying aromatherapy oils to acupuncture points as a treatment

modality. I actually find this idea to be quite exciting, but at best,

it is experimental! To offer a treatment system based on the use of

Western plant-based essential oils may be interesting and therapeutic,

and it may be based upon actual concepts of herbal moxabustion, but do

we really know all the qualities of these essential oils in terms of CM

treatment principles?

 

Next were the 'techniques' classes. There was a very good class on the

acupuncture treatment of cancer patients, but there was also a 'facial

rejuvenation' class that was packed.

 

Conversely, there were relatively few lectures on actual Chinese

medical subjects, specifically herbal medicine, and those were not that

well attended.

 

All in all, this Symposium got my mind working on one major question;

what is it we wish for this profession, and do we really want to

practice Chinese medicine (as a field)? Or do we wish to extract those

ideas we like from Chinese medicine, and reinterpret them as a new

corpus in the West by superimposing alternative spiritual and medical

ideas onto it?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

Thanks for the report. It was pretty much what I heard from Honora

when she got back. She said that classes by top-notch, serious,

professional CM teachers had only 15 students, while those teaching

dubious New Age stuff had 200 or more.

 

I think your use of the words " state of the art " is correct in your

characterization of the Pacific Symposium. I think it is an accurate

reflection of what our " profession " wants.

 

Too bad.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

At 4:50 PM +0000 11/9/04, Bob Flaws wrote:

>Thanks for the report. It was pretty much what I heard from Honora

>when she got back. She said that classes by top-notch, serious,

>professional CM teachers had only 15 students, while those teaching

>dubious New Age stuff had 200 or more.

>

>I think your use of the words " state of the art " is correct in your

>characterization of the Pacific Symposium. I think it is an accurate

>reflection of what our " profession " wants.

--

 

I'm not so sure. I remember in the early '90s organizing " serious " CM

seminars, and by and large they were very well attended in Northern

California, but the same events were not at all well attended in

Southern California. After several (rather costly) examples of this I

concluded the problem was with Southern California, rather than the

profession as a whole. Todd's experience with attendance at the CHA

conference may also bare this out.

 

Rory

--