The Western medical revolution (which will never come)

[Guest guest]

Of course I agree. The question is how do we develop an " indigenous " system that

isn't

influenced by our own New Age (and other) concepts? If is

non-static

and culturally influenced then how can we look at original Asian sources as our

Science

where we have even less idea of the cultural edifice that goes into it? Is

having " clear

sources " an oxymoron? I think the major dialectic will always be between Western

Science

and the New Age (whatever it is this week). Most of us are drawn to TCM because

it stands

in between those two tendencies quite well. And perhaps why, those of us on this

group

perhaps especially, many view with skepticism claims that the " taoist and

shamanic roots "

have been lost just as we cringe at TCM Westernization. It's as if medicine is a

tripod with

these three legs. I'm still going to encourage my patients who come in to get

" endorphonized " and look at the rainbows on my wall just as much I continue to

study

TCM takes on Hep C, diabetes and cancer. Just rambling....

doug

 

I am sorry if others disagree, but I think that

> the needs of Westerners will create, over time, a more indigenous

> system, not unlike what Korea and Japan have done. This Western

> system, however, needs to be based on clear sources from the Chinese

> texts and practice, not our own misconceptions about Chinese medicine

> influenced by ideas about the New Age and human potential movements.

>

>

> On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

>

> > I have often wondered where this myth came from. Chinese medicine has

> > never been a static system. It has always changed and adapted as new

> > information became available and as new cultural considerations came

> > into

> > play. Over time many aspects of what Unschuld calls the

> > " magico-religious "

> > have been marginalized from the mainstream practice of CM. Rather than

> > denigrating Communist China we should perhaps think a bit more

> > pragmatically. Were it not for Mao Ze Dong recognizing that without

> > CM the

> > mass population of China would have no medicine, we might have very

> > little

> > left of CM today, or, it would still be being practiced primarily

> > among the

> > Chinese communities in this country and not by the larger community of

> > practitioners that exists today. Remember - it was Kissinger and Nixon

> > (and James Reston who used acupuncture POST-surgically for pain relief

> > from

> > an appendectomy) that piqued the American interest - even though it was

> > being practiced in Taiwan and other communities with which we had

> > normal

> > relations.

[Guest guest]

Doug,

I think it is good we have these discussions. We need to think out

loud about where we think this profession is going. On one hand, it

has to be based on the Chinese (and Japanese/Korean) experience and

literature. On the other hand, we need to move forward. I agree there

is a dialectic between the more scientific and 'new age', I lean more

to the scientific, however, I don't want to see the profession become

too rigid at the same time.

 

 

On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:19 PM, wrote:

 

> Of course I agree. The question is how do we develop an " indigenous "

> system that isn't

> influenced by our own New Age (and other) concepts? If Chinese

> Medicine is non-static

> and culturally influenced then how can we look at original Asian

> sources as our Science

> where we have even less idea of the cultural edifice that goes into

> it? Is having " clear

> sources " an oxymoron? I think the major dialectic will always be

> between Western Science

> and the New Age (whatever it is this week). Most of us are drawn to

> TCM because it stands

> in between those two tendencies quite well. And perhaps why, those of

> us on this group

> perhaps especially, many view with skepticism claims that the " taoist

> and shamanic roots "

> have been lost just as we cringe at TCM Westernization. It's as if

> medicine is a tripod with

> these three legs. I'm still going to encourage my patients who come in

> to get

> " endorphonized " and look at the rainbows on my wall just as much I

> continue to study

> TCM takes on Hep C, diabetes and cancer. Just rambling....

> doug

[Guest guest]

I don't want to see the profession become

too rigid at the same time.

>>>>Agreed

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

It is interesting how we tend to believe what we hear from " authoritative

voices " without checking things out. How is that someone becomes an

authority? I have great respect for the work that individuals like Ted,

Giovanni, Dan Bensky, Bob Flaws, and others have done, but I sometimes

wonder is it just the publication of books that makes one an

authority? Why do we not look at the background of our authorities - and

why do we become so dogmatic in swearing by our authorities. It is

interesting, last year when Ken Rose critiqued the work of Ted Kaptchuk and

Dan Bensky it created such a furor. There work is good, but couldn't it be

better? Obviously it can if we look at the new edition of the MM - and

even that could be better! (By the way, if you don't know yet, Bai Bian Dou

was accidently left out of the MM. You can download it at Eastland's

website.) Anyway, I am very intrigued by how eager we are to create

authorities in our field, and how loathe we are to see them as real human

beings who make errors or who change their perspective. Much like the

guru(sifu)/student relationship. And yet, so often, students in this

field will not show the same respect to their teachers that they will to

someone whose book they have read - even if it is not a very good book or

the author really was not qualified to write it. Perhaps it is simply the

issue of the " known " vs. the " unknown " or the familiar vs the

non-familiar. Anyway, I guess if one wants to be an authority in this

field as in others one must publish, publish, publish. (at least its not

publish or perish!)

 

As for CM in this country. It cannot help but to adapt itself to our own

peculiar culture, and as we have seen just on this list, that " culture " is

very variable, going from the extreme " scientistic " perspective to the

extreme " new age " or " CM as spiritual medicine " perspective. What may

emerge may be very similar to what is seen in Asia: different " schools " or

" parties " following their path and, unfortunately, being fairly ignorant as

regards other paths. CM as it is practiced in the US is already very

different from CM as it is practiced in most of Asia. The concept of a

one-hour appointment, nice music, relaxing setting, etc., etc., are simply

not how this medicine is practiced in most of Asia, and, as we have

discussed before, for the most part there is a separation of acupuncture

and herbal therapeutics. As we move into hospital settings, it is likely

that our acupuncture treatments will begin to look more like what is seen

in Asia, i.e. shorter intakes, symptom focused treatments. As far as the

practice of herbal medicine goes, it will be much longer before this is

integrated into a hospital like setting, but it is important to remember

here too that different styles exist. One of my first teachers, an elderly

Hong Kong physician practicing in Seattle (whom I met thanks to Dan Bensky)

used to see 20 - 30 patients in a day. He never felt a pulse, and when he

spoke to the patient's in English, he probably did not understand 2/3 of

what they told him. But they were loyal, they cooked and drank their herbs

and they came from all over the country - and often got better! All this

is just to say that it is highly likely that we will continue to have many

different kinds of practice in this country, because this is a country that

supports heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. CM will change, and while

I, like you Z'ev, support a medicine that is based in the classics and in

its roots in China, other branches of this medicine are already out there -

and sadly, it is perhaps medicine based in its roots that has the least

" popular " appeal amongst practitioners (probably because it requires the

most thought, work, diligence, etc) - although the use of the word

" traditional " to describe oneself is in wide usage.

 

I have rambled.

 

Marnae

 

At 04:03 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:

 

>I first heard about this canonization from Ted Kaptchuk, both in public

>lectures and in the original introduction to the " Fundamentals of

> " by Wiseman, Ellis and Zmiewski published in the 80's

>(since deleted). This was also the essence of a panel discussion that

>was published in the Journal of several years ago with

>Ted and Giovanni. I know Giovanni has since rejected this point of

>view in a public lecture, I don't know where Ted stands on this now.

>It only goes to show how much people in our profession look to

>authoritative voices for their point of view instead of investigating

>for themselves. But people will need some Chinese language skills,

>perhaps, to do their own investigating.

>

>There are a number of new books that give a clearer perspective,

>including the Volker Scheid text " Traditional in

>Contemporary China " and a newer volume out later this year, and Kim

>Taylor's " Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist

>China " . I agree that the present emphasis on pattern differentiation

>in TCM has its roots in the Qing dynasty, and that the communists

>revived Chinese medicine and kept it alive (although credit should also

>be given to the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese societies as well). I

>don't think it means we need to create a clone of the mainland Chinese

>system in the West. I am sorry if others disagree, but I think that

>the needs of Westerners will create, over time, a more indigenous

>system, not unlike what Korea and Japan have done. This Western

>system, however, needs to be based on clear sources from the Chinese

>texts and practice, not our own misconceptions about Chinese medicine

>influenced by ideas about the New Age and human potential movements.

>

>

>On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

>

> > I have often wondered where this myth came from. Chinese medicine has

> > never been a static system. It has always changed and adapted as new

> > information became available and as new cultural considerations came

> > into

> > play. Over time many aspects of what Unschuld calls the

> > " magico-religious "

> > have been marginalized from the mainstream practice of CM. Rather than

> > denigrating Communist China we should perhaps think a bit more

> > pragmatically. Were it not for Mao Ze Dong recognizing that without

> > CM the

> > mass population of China would have no medicine, we might have very

> > little

> > left of CM today, or, it would still be being practiced primarily

> > among the

> > Chinese communities in this country and not by the larger community of

> > practitioners that exists today. Remember - it was Kissinger and Nixon

> > (and James Reston who used acupuncture POST-surgically for pain relief

> > from

> > an appendectomy) that piqued the American interest - even though it was

> > being practiced in Taiwan and other communities with which we had

> > normal

> > relations.

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's true in every field that those who write get recognized... an authority is

someone who

has authored... the best response to mediocore books are better ones.

doug

 

 

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> It is interesting how we tend to believe what we hear from " authoritative

> voices " without checking things out. How is that someone becomes an

> authority? I have great respect for the work that individuals like Ted,

> Giovanni, Dan Bensky, Bob Flaws, and others have done, but I sometimes

> wonder is it just the publication of books that makes one an

> authority? Why do we not look at the background of our authorities - and

> why do we become so dogmatic in swearing by our authorities. It is

> interesting, last year when Ken Rose critiqued the work of Ted Kaptchuk and

> Dan Bensky it created such a furor. There work is good, but couldn't it be

> better? Obviously it can if we look at the new edition of the MM - and

> even that could be better! (By the way, if you don't know yet, Bai Bian Dou

> was accidently left out of the MM. You can download it at Eastland's

> website.) Anyway, I am very intrigued by how eager we are to create

> authorities in our field, and how loathe we are to see them as real human

> beings who make errors or who change their perspective. Much like the

> guru(sifu)/student relationship. And yet, so often, students in this

> field will not show the same respect to their teachers that they will to

> someone whose book they have read - even if it is not a very good book or

> the author really was not qualified to write it. Perhaps it is simply the

> issue of the " known " vs. the " unknown " or the familiar vs the

> non-familiar. Anyway, I guess if one wants to be an authority in this

> field as in others one must publish, publish, publish. (at least its not

> publish or perish!)

>

> As for CM in this country. It cannot help but to adapt itself to our own

> peculiar culture, and as we have seen just on this list, that " culture " is

> very variable, going from the extreme " scientistic " perspective to the

> extreme " new age " or " CM as spiritual medicine " perspective. What may

> emerge may be very similar to what is seen in Asia: different " schools " or

> " parties " following their path and, unfortunately, being fairly ignorant as

> regards other paths. CM as it is practiced in the US is already very

> different from CM as it is practiced in most of Asia. The concept of a

> one-hour appointment, nice music, relaxing setting, etc., etc., are simply

> not how this medicine is practiced in most of Asia, and, as we have

> discussed before, for the most part there is a separation of acupuncture

> and herbal therapeutics. As we move into hospital settings, it is likely

> that our acupuncture treatments will begin to look more like what is seen

> in Asia, i.e. shorter intakes, symptom focused treatments. As far as the

> practice of herbal medicine goes, it will be much longer before this is

> integrated into a hospital like setting, but it is important to remember

> here too that different styles exist. One of my first teachers, an elderly

> Hong Kong physician practicing in Seattle (whom I met thanks to Dan Bensky)

> used to see 20 - 30 patients in a day. He never felt a pulse, and when he

> spoke to the patient's in English, he probably did not understand 2/3 of

> what they told him. But they were loyal, they cooked and drank their herbs

> and they came from all over the country - and often got better! All this

> is just to say that it is highly likely that we will continue to have many

> different kinds of practice in this country, because this is a country that

> supports heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. CM will change, and while

> I, like you Z'ev, support a medicine that is based in the classics and in

> its roots in China, other branches of this medicine are already out there -

> and sadly, it is perhaps medicine based in its roots that has the least

> " popular " appeal amongst practitioners (probably because it requires the

> most thought, work, diligence, etc) - although the use of the word

> " traditional " to describe oneself is in wide usage.

>

> I have rambled.

>

> Marnae

>

> At 04:03 PM 4/8/2005, you wrote:

>

> >I first heard about this canonization from Ted Kaptchuk, both in public

> >lectures and in the original introduction to the " Fundamentals of

> > " by Wiseman, Ellis and Zmiewski published in the 80's

> >(since deleted). This was also the essence of a panel discussion that

> >was published in the Journal of several years ago with

> >Ted and Giovanni. I know Giovanni has since rejected this point of

> >view in a public lecture, I don't know where Ted stands on this now.

> >It only goes to show how much people in our profession look to

> >authoritative voices for their point of view instead of investigating

> >for themselves. But people will need some Chinese language skills,

> >perhaps, to do their own investigating.

> >

> >There are a number of new books that give a clearer perspective,

> >including the Volker Scheid text " Traditional in

> >Contemporary China " and a newer volume out later this year, and Kim

> >Taylor's " Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist

> >China " . I agree that the present emphasis on pattern differentiation

> >in TCM has its roots in the Qing dynasty, and that the communists

> >revived Chinese medicine and kept it alive (although credit should also

> >be given to the Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese societies as well). I

> >don't think it means we need to create a clone of the mainland Chinese

> >system in the West. I am sorry if others disagree, but I think that

> >the needs of Westerners will create, over time, a more indigenous

> >system, not unlike what Korea and Japan have done. This Western

> >system, however, needs to be based on clear sources from the Chinese

> >texts and practice, not our own misconceptions about Chinese medicine

> >influenced by ideas about the New Age and human potential movements.

> >

> >

> >On Apr 8, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

> >

> > > I have often wondered where this myth came from. Chinese medicine has

> > > never been a static system. It has always changed and adapted as new

> > > information became available and as new cultural considerations came

> > > into

> > > play. Over time many aspects of what Unschuld calls the

> > > " magico-religious "

> > > have been marginalized from the mainstream practice of CM. Rather than

> > > denigrating Communist China we should perhaps think a bit more

> > > pragmatically. Were it not for Mao Ze Dong recognizing that without

> > > CM the

> > > mass population of China would have no medicine, we might have very

> > > little

> > > left of CM today, or, it would still be being practiced primarily

> > > among the

> > > Chinese communities in this country and not by the larger community of

> > > practitioners that exists today. Remember - it was Kissinger and Nixon

> > > (and James Reston who used acupuncture POST-surgically for pain relief

> > > from

> > > an appendectomy) that piqued the American interest - even though it was

> > > being practiced in Taiwan and other communities with which we had

> > > normal

> > > relations.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >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.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

I couldn't agree with you more. This may be a problem of education

in general, and perhaps since we are both involved with major schools,

we can try to address the problem at this level by exposing students

more to the history of Chinese medicine and the philosophies of the

great physicians who set the groundwork of what we practice today.

As Bob Dylan said, " don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters " .

 

 

On Apr 12, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

 

>

> Z'ev,

>

> It is interesting how we tend to believe what we hear from

> " authoritative

> voices " without checking things out. How is that someone becomes an

> authority? I have great respect for the work that individuals like

> Ted,

> Giovanni, Dan Bensky, Bob Flaws, and others have done, but I sometimes

> wonder is it just the publication of books that makes one an

> authority? Why do we not look at the background of our authorities -

> and

> why do we become so dogmatic in swearing by our authorities. It is

> interesting, last year when Ken Rose critiqued the work of Ted

> Kaptchuk and

> Dan Bensky it created such a furor. There work is good, but couldn't

> it be

> better? Obviously it can if we look at the new edition of the MM - and

> even that could be better! (By the way, if you don't know yet, Bai

> Bian Dou

> was accidently left out of the MM. You can download it at Eastland's

> website.) Anyway, I am very intrigued by how eager we are to create

> authorities in our field, and how loathe we are to see them as real

> human

> beings who make errors or who change their perspective. Much like the

> guru(sifu)/student relationship. And yet, so often, students in this

> field will not show the same respect to their teachers that they will

> to

> someone whose book they have read - even if it is not a very good book

> or

> the author really was not qualified to write it. Perhaps it is simply

> the

> issue of the " known " vs. the " unknown " or the familiar vs the

> non-familiar. Anyway, I guess if one wants to be an authority in this

> field as in others one must publish, publish, publish. (at least its

> not

> publish or perish!)