Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Z'ev, Yes I agree that if one takes bits and pieces from many systems and never learns one system fully then this can lead to weak medicine. But that is not what embracing plurality means, at least to me. One can embrace plurality and also be firmly grounded. Fundamentally, embracing plurality is not about advocating the use all the systems (by one person), but acknowledging different valid approaches. This prevents the " my way is right way " attitude that is prevalent in almost any field of human existence. Once one is open to other possibilities, and has grasped 1 system, i.e. TCM, then one can move on and look at another, like Kampo, SHL, NanJing, family lineage, or neijing (etc). This is precisely what many great doctors have done in the past. They will study various schools of thought, which many are just plain contradictory in certain aspects (theory and practice) and synthesize them. If it was just as easy as reading a TCM book, or studying one " system, " I doubt that modern lao yi sheng's would still advocate going back and studying the past doctors and methods. But since as Sharon points out, it is all CM, one will find overlap and well as differences. These differences are what excite me, but the overlap helps validate one's sense of truth. Clinically these differences can give us sometimes a completely opposite way to treat a patient that is not responding to the usual method in our repertoire. It can also give us a better first pick for treatment strategies that fits our patients better. In this way one can integrate material into one's system of practice intelligently. This diversity I feel is essential for Chinese medicine. Contrary to what many believe, there are some pretty radical (non-TCM) approaches in CM that are quite effective. I've seen extremely hot herbs given to a patient that clearly fits a blood heat pattern in TCM, based on NeiJing. Kampo formulas also seem to contradict many times what one would believe to be true. With such a variety of thought, diagnostic, and treatment modalities in Chinese medicine I also wonder why people believe that all of these doctors trained in a myriad of ways from family lineages to high-powered hospitals (not to mention 2000 years of history) all speak the same language to describe their experience. This is completely mind-boggling to me, and the main reason I believe that plurality in translation is essential if one even remotely wants to capture something more than the basic TCM thought process and hence language. In my limited experience dealing with Chinese doctors, on the surface they may all use Chinese language terminology, but their meanings can be vastly different. Yin fire is example in which the dictionary nor my basic understanding is just wrong, only through context can one figure out that they are not talking about anything related to LDY. I could easy say to that person, " hey you are wrong, see right here in the dictionary it says yinfire means XYZ, why don't you speak correctly " or I can say " hhmmm. I wonder why he speaks about it that way, and what does he really mean, maybe I can learn something. " Obviously with the latter there becomes a terminological difference than the norm. I see this so often. I think synthesizing is essential and routinely do so myself, but at the same time being open to multiple other angles and viewing things through another's system allows one to relish in the richness of human expression and truth. Regards, -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Monday, May 14, 2007 1:20 PM Re: Re:Pluralism in CM diagnosis Sharon, I agree, embracing plurality can lead to an 'anything goes' attitude that will lead to creative, unconventional, but diagnostic and treatment strategies rooted in fantasy. Eclecticism needs to be informed by deep study and the confirmation of clinical practice, otherwise it won't work. It will just be a superficial skimming of several styles, a lot of sound and fury leading to nothing. Since so many alternative health practitioners are quite eclectic and watered-down, it is something we need to watch out for. This is why I think there needs to be an emphasis on developing 'expert systems' of great physicians past and present in Chinese medicine. Jiao Shu-de's books have been presented in such a manner, I believe. On May 14, 2007, at 11:33 AM, sharon weizenbaum wrote: > sharon) Who could argue? Of course - yet - so easily this > plurality could be an excuse for doing what ever - a little of this, > a little of that. > > And what is being called forth as a synthesis could so easily be a > watering down, reifying, misleading " system " that calls itself TCM. > So, what to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2007 Report Share Posted May 15, 2007 Jason, I agree with everything you say, of course, but with the caveat that one must master a system before moving on. This thought comes up a lot concerning the process of Chinese medical education in the West, where I've seen too much exposure to alternative systems to TCM creates confusion in the earlier stages. At PCOM, people are toying with Worsley acupuncture seminars, for example. I also understand that students sometimes get frustrated with the perceived dryness of TCM, especially as befits acupuncture, and are looking for other approaches. It has to be handled delicately. One thing I do know, as Sharon has pointed out, is that most students and graduates cannot properly do a TCM diagnosis on a patient, or any other associated systematic approach. Something must be done to remedy this situation so that new practitioners are not just using a cookbook approach. Dan Bensky mentioned at a CHA symposium in San Diego a few years ago that if one is not exposed to SHL diagnosis and treatment, one will never be able to look at a case from another angle than TCM bian zheng. I heartily agree. That is one reason why I pushed for a required Shang Han Lun/Wen Bing course, and am teaching it year round here at PCOM. I also continue to work on my Nan Jing project, and will teach a workshop on Nan Jing pulse diagnosis here this summer. I really enjoyed Volker Scheid's Nan Jing seminar in Seattle last summer, and was intrigued to see how he developed a personal style out of the text that was different than Japanese styles I've experienced and studied, and how it is different from what I learned about Nan Jing from Michael Broffman. On May 15, 2007, at 6:38 AM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > Yes I agree that if one takes bits and pieces from many systems and > never > learns one system fully then this can lead to weak medicine. But > that is not > what embracing plurality means, at least to me. One can embrace > plurality > and also be firmly grounded. Fundamentally, embracing plurality is > not about > advocating the use all the systems (by one person), but acknowledging > different valid approaches. This prevents the " my way is right way " > attitude > that is prevalent in almost any field of human existence. > > Once one is open to other possibilities, and has grasped 1 system, > i.e. TCM, > then one can move on and look at another, like Kampo, SHL, NanJing, > family > lineage, or neijing (etc). This is precisely what many great > doctors have > done in the past. They will study various schools of thought, which > many are > just plain contradictory in certain aspects (theory and practice) and > synthesize them. If it was just as easy as reading a TCM book, or > studying > one " system, " I doubt that modern lao yi sheng's would still > advocate going > back and studying the past doctors and methods. But since as Sharon > points > out, it is all CM, one will find overlap and well as differences. > These > differences are what excite me, but the overlap helps validate > one's sense > of truth. Clinically these differences can give us sometimes a > completely > opposite way to treat a patient that is not responding to the usual > method > in our repertoire. It can also give us a better first pick for > treatment > strategies that fits our patients better. In this way one can > integrate > material into one's system of practice intelligently. This > diversity I feel > is essential for Chinese medicine. > > Contrary to what many believe, there are some pretty radical (non-TCM) > approaches in CM that are quite effective. I've seen extremely hot > herbs > given to a patient that clearly fits a blood heat pattern in TCM, > based on > NeiJing. Kampo formulas also seem to contradict many times what one > would > believe to be true. With such a variety of thought, diagnostic, and > treatment modalities in Chinese medicine I also wonder why people > believe > that all of these doctors trained in a myriad of ways from family > lineages > to high-powered hospitals (not to mention 2000 years of history) > all speak > the same language to describe their experience. This is completely > mind-boggling to me, and the main reason I believe that plurality in > translation is essential if one even remotely wants to capture > something > more than the basic TCM thought process and hence language. In my > limited > experience dealing with Chinese doctors, on the surface they may > all use > Chinese language terminology, but their meanings can be vastly > different. > Yin fire is example in which the dictionary nor my basic > understanding is > just wrong, only through context can one figure out that they are not > talking about anything related to LDY. I could easy say to that > person, " hey > you are wrong, see right here in the dictionary it says yinfire > means XYZ, > why don't you speak correctly " or I can say " hhmmm. I wonder why > he speaks > about it that way, and what does he really mean, maybe I can learn > something. " Obviously with the latter there becomes a terminological > difference than the norm. I see this so often. > > I think synthesizing is essential and routinely do so myself, but > at the > same time being open to multiple other angles and viewing things > through > another's system allows one to relish in the richness of human > expression > and truth. > > Regards, > > -Jason > > _____ > >> . > > 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.