scholars and clinicians

[Guest guest]

I have been listening to Bob Damone's CHA lecture. It was quite good

and includes quite a few rounds of interchange between Bob, Craig

Mitchell, Bob Flaws and . One of the points that came

up involved Bob quoting Volker Scheid. In essence, Bob and the others

were coming to the consensus that in order to understand classical

cases involves several criteria. A fine grasp of language, culture

and clinical experience to contextualize the material. A knowledge of

many contemporary and a detailed knowledge of formula dynamics. We

can hardly expect the average clinician to have thses skills (I don't).

 

And while some have argued here that we all must be such scholar

physicians, I would propose a counter argument. If one is incapable

of doing something themselves, aren't they better off following

someone greater than themselves. I am always thankful that I have the

words of these many others to enlighten me as I cannot enlighten

myself. And I try and remember that a little knowledge is always

dangerous. One is more likely to draw erroneous conclusions when

interpreting these cases without sufficient context and experience.

So the lack of such information in english does not really hinder

daily practice. The simplistic and incorrect application of classical

cases and texts is a far more serious problem I see every day in the

teaching clinic.

 

This is also one more reason to value the much derided TCM style of

education. It may not be as broad and inclusive of all of chinese

medical history as some might like, but it does reflect an important

consensus and one which continues to evolve. Never before in CM

history had such an opportunity for agreement and cooperation ever

existed. While some may not like the " standards " that emerged from

this discourse, it is the general consensus of historians that this

was an organic process influenced by nromal external factors, not an

imposed bastardized communist abberration. So when feeling the urge

to deviate from the standards in favor of one's own interpretations of

the classics, ask yourself something. What sort of person dances to

the beat of a different drummer? Geniuses and lunatics as far as I

can tell. To paraphrase a Holmesian cliche, if all choices are ruled

out but one, that the solution no matter how distasteful or

undesirable or bizarre is the one that remains. So are you a genius?

Me, I'm just smart enough to follow Mssrs. Damone and Flaws and

Mitchell.

 

[Guest guest]

On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:09 PM, wrote:

 

>

> I have been listening to Bob Damone's CHA lecture.  It was quite good

> and includes quite a few rounds of interchange between Bob, Craig

> Mitchell, Bob Flaws and .  One of the points that came

> up involved Bob quoting Volker Scheid.  In essence, Bob and the others

> were coming to the consensus that in order to understand classical

> cases involves several criteria.  A fine grasp of language, culture

> and clinical experience to contextualize the material.  A knowledge of

> many contemporary and a detailed knowledge of formula dynamics.  We

> can hardly expect the average clinician to have thses skills (I

> don't). 

 

Like all standards, we need to distinguish between 'entry level', and

'raising the bar'. Graduation from a CM school is clearly entry level

at this point. In my opinion, the reality of the scholar physician in

our generation is an ideal. Ralph Waldo Emerson said we need to 'hitch

our wagon to a star'. Aim high, and wherever you get, it will be

higher than you were before. In order to do this, one must take

post-graduate education, learn medical Chinese, and/or go study in an

Asian country. Or, teach oneself new things, as individuals like Alex

Tiberi have done. Each of the individuals you mention has particular

strengths, whether it be clinical experience, scholarly experience,

teaching experience, translation, or just plain intellectual breadth

and depth. I see it more rather than one person having everything (and

there are very few), that if the more developed teachers and

practitioners pool their skills and talents, this is what benefits the

profession. Education must continue after graduation from a school.

This is the first certainty we need to instill in our students and new

graduates. What was so great for me about the CHA forum was the

ability to interact with other teachers and scholars, some of which I

felt were more developed than myself in some areas, and share ideas

with them. This is how I am able to continue to be inspired and grow

as a teacher and practitioner.

>

 

 

>