Guest guest Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Hi Clinton and Z'ev and All, I had a somewhat heretical thought as I was reading your posts. If we very broadly describe what we do as an Energy Medicine, ie we are manipulating the energetic field of an organism in order to 'normalize' the flow of energy (this is, by the way, how I describe acupuncture to new patients), Western Medicine can be seen as a branch of . A very specific and limited branch, one that deals only with the physical presentations, and one that brings about limited subsequent energetic readjustments. OK, Z'ev, you might not like the term 'Energy Medicine' but I think it is a way for patients to get a handle on what we do. And admittedly this is a very simplistic view, but I rather like it. Can't you hear the MDs scream? Beata Booth ______________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Dear Beata, I don't know if I agree with this interpretation, as common as it may be. There is nothing in Chinese medical literature that supports the idea of manipulating an energetic field, because there is no separation of phenomena from symptomology in the medicine. I also don't know how you would define the 'energy' you manipulate to patients, what is its source, what is it composed of. On May 21, 2007, at 6:49 PM, coastacu wrote: > Hi Clinton and Z'ev and All, > > I had a somewhat heretical thought as I was reading your posts. If > we very broadly describe what we do as an Energy Medicine, ie we > are manipulating the energetic field of an organism in order to > 'normalize' the flow of energy (this is, by the way, how I describe > acupuncture to new patients), Western Medicine can be seen as a > branch of . A very specific and limited branch, one > that deals only with the physical presentations, and one that > brings about limited subsequent energetic readjustments. > OK, Z'ev, you might not like the term 'Energy Medicine' but I think > it is a way for patients to get a handle on what we do. And > admittedly this is a very simplistic view, but I rather like it. > Can't you hear the MDs scream? > > Beata Booth > ________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's > free from AOL at AOL.com. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Beata & Zev, First of all I would like to express my appreciation for this important discussion. I agree with Zev about the term 'energy'. This term is to vague to apply to what we are attempting to do with Acupuncture. In our medicine we talk about different types of Qi and the transformation and movement of that Qi. I see this Qi as an animating force that exists simultaniously with the physical world, and when we apply needles or hand therapy to the body it transforms the composition of the tissues which influences the flow and concentrations of Qi. An 'energy field' alone explains nothing. Phenomena and symptoms are not seperate entities as Z'ev pointed out. If there are symptoms and we come up with a TCM diagnosis, isn't it fair to say that there are unseen physiological processes going on in order to produce that pattern syndrome? The question is.....does Qi in the channels and organs have anything to do with those processes (metabolism, vascular pressure, respiration, immune mobilization, cellular production, excretion of waste products, endocrine regulation, action potential, Blood perfusion, sensory processing, action of receptors ect.) or is The Qi in the channels and organs something else entirely. I believe that Qi may be bioelectric, biomagnetic, geomagnetic, and solar in nature. I know that non of my claims are found in the classic texts and many may be in total disagreement to my suggestions, however, It is concerning to me that as healers we refuse to take into account the science of the western mind and the science of the eastern mind in order to obtain a better understanding of disease mechanisms and underlying processes going on inside the human body. So, how then do we explain to our patients what we are doing ? Are the terms 'energy' and 'Qi' interchangable? Will Chinese medicine allows us to superimpose scientific models over the theoretical structure in TCM? Or should we stay within the framework of Chinese medicine to preserve its intergity? Does superimposing science over tcm sabotage the future of CHinese medicine ?or does it allow the opportunity for the medicine to evolve? Many seem to be against this Idea. Maybe the public needs to be educated more on the medical terms and ideas that we use so that there would be no need to try and translate . ???????? CLint <zrosenbe wrote: Dear Beata, I don't know if I agree with this interpretation, as common as it may be. There is nothing in Chinese medical literature that supports the idea of manipulating an energetic field, because there is no separation of phenomena from symptomology in the medicine. I also don't know how you would define the 'energy' you manipulate to patients, what is its source, what is it composed of. On May 21, 2007, at 6:49 PM, coastacu wrote: > Hi Clinton and Z'ev and All, > > I had a somewhat heretical thought as I was reading your posts. If > we very broadly describe what we do as an Energy Medicine, ie we > are manipulating the energetic field of an organism in order to > 'normalize' the flow of energy (this is, by the way, how I describe > acupuncture to new patients), Western Medicine can be seen as a > branch of . A very specific and limited branch, one > that deals only with the physical presentations, and one that > brings about limited subsequent energetic readjustments. > OK, Z'ev, you might not like the term 'Energy Medicine' but I think > it is a way for patients to get a handle on what we do. And > admittedly this is a very simplistic view, but I rather like it. > Can't you hear the MDs scream? > > Beata Booth > ________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's > free from AOL at AOL.com. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Clinton and group, My personal experience is that patients have no trouble understanding what we are doing (with acupuncture and Chinese herbs) when I explain it to them with Chinese medicine terms. I see no reason nor need to try to integrate Western " energetic / new age " terminology. Furthermore, I am pretty much in 100% agreement with Z'ev, in that " integration " and " evolution " of our medicine is best carried out when one has a strong hold on the original Chinese concepts, theory, and to some extent classical works. I am sure there are always excepts, but the innovations and evolutions that I have seen from people who really do not know CM usually results in a poor medicine. Really almost everything I have heard in regard to CM's integration with modern physics or western (pseudo-)science is complete BS, but hey everyone has their opinion. - _____ On Behalf Of clinton bartok Friday, May 25, 2007 3:34 PM Re: pluralism Beata & Zev, First of all I would like to express my appreciation for this important discussion. I agree with Zev about the term 'energy'. This term is to vague to apply to what we are attempting to do with Acupuncture. In our medicine we talk about different types of Qi and the transformation and movement of that Qi. I see this Qi as an animating force that exists simultaniously with the physical world, and when we apply needles or hand therapy to the body it transforms the composition of the tissues which influences the flow and concentrations of Qi. An 'energy field' alone explains nothing. Phenomena and symptoms are not seperate entities as Z'ev pointed out. If there are symptoms and we come up with a TCM diagnosis, isn't it fair to say that there are unseen physiological processes going on in order to produce that pattern syndrome? The question is.....does Qi in the channels and organs have anything to do with those processes (metabolism, vascular pressure, respiration, immune mobilization, cellular production, excretion of waste products, endocrine regulation, action potential, Blood perfusion, sensory processing, action of receptors ect.) or is The Qi in the channels and organs something else entirely. I believe that Qi may be bioelectric, biomagnetic, geomagnetic, and solar in nature. I know that non of my claims are found in the classic texts and many may be in total disagreement to my suggestions, however, It is concerning to me that as healers we refuse to take into account the science of the western mind and the science of the eastern mind in order to obtain a better understanding of disease mechanisms and underlying processes going on inside the human body. So, how then do we explain to our patients what we are doing ? Are the terms 'energy' and 'Qi' interchangable? Will Chinese medicine allows us to superimpose scientific models over the theoretical structure in TCM? Or should we stay within the framework of Chinese medicine to preserve its intergity? Does superimposing science over tcm sabotage the future of CHinese medicine ?or does it allow the opportunity for the medicine to evolve? Many seem to be against this Idea. Maybe the public needs to be educated more on the medical terms and ideas that we use so that there would be no need to try and translate . ???????? CLint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Jason, One of the contexts that Chinese medicine is being investigated in China is in terms of its relationship to complexity theory. Apparently, a lot of interest there. In fact, I'll be meeting with a complexity post-doc in Santa Fe next month to discuss some potential collaborations. But this is done with experts in both disciplines, not as a pastiche. On May 25, 2007, at 5:42 PM, wrote: > Clinton and group, > > My personal experience is that patients have no trouble > understanding what > we are doing (with acupuncture and Chinese herbs) when I explain it > to them > with Chinese medicine terms. I see no reason nor need to try to > integrate > Western " energetic / new age " terminology. Furthermore, I am pretty > much in > 100% agreement with Z'ev, in that " integration " and " evolution " of our > medicine is best carried out when one has a strong hold on the > original > Chinese concepts, theory, and to some extent classical works. I am > sure > there are always excepts, but the innovations and evolutions that I > have > seen from people who really do not know CM usually results in a poor > medicine. Really almost everything I have heard in regard to CM's > integration with modern physics or western (pseudo-)science is > complete BS, > but hey everyone has their opinion. > > - > > _____ > > > On Behalf Of clinton > bartok > Friday, May 25, 2007 3:34 PM > > Re: pluralism > > Beata & Zev, > First of all I would like to express my appreciation for this > important > discussion. I agree with Zev about the term 'energy'. This term is > to vague > to apply to what we are attempting to do with Acupuncture. In our > medicine > we talk about different types of Qi and the transformation and > movement of > that Qi. I see this Qi as an animating force that exists > simultaniously with > the physical world, and when we apply needles or hand therapy to > the body it > transforms the composition of the tissues which influences the flow > and > concentrations of Qi. An 'energy field' alone explains nothing. > Phenomena and symptoms are not seperate entities as Z'ev pointed > out. If > there are symptoms and we come up with a TCM diagnosis, isn't it > fair to say > that there are unseen physiological processes going on in order to > produce > that pattern syndrome? The question is.....does Qi in the channels and > organs have anything to do with those processes (metabolism, vascular > pressure, respiration, immune mobilization, cellular production, > excretion > of waste products, endocrine regulation, action potential, Blood > perfusion, > sensory processing, action of receptors ect.) or is The Qi in the > channels > and organs something else entirely. I believe that Qi may be > bioelectric, > biomagnetic, geomagnetic, and solar in nature. I know that non of > my claims > are found in the classic texts and many may be in total > disagreement to my > suggestions, however, It is concerning to me that as healers we > refuse to > take into account the science of the western mind and the science > of the > eastern mind in > order to obtain a better understanding of disease mechanisms and > underlying > processes going on inside the human body. > So, how then do we explain to our patients what we are doing ? Are > the terms > 'energy' and 'Qi' interchangable? Will Chinese medicine allows us to > superimpose scientific models over the theoretical structure in > TCM? Or > should we stay within the framework of Chinese medicine to preserve > its > intergity? Does superimposing science over tcm sabotage the future of > CHinese medicine ?or does it allow the opportunity for the medicine to > evolve? Many seem to be against this Idea. Maybe the public needs > to be > educated more on the medical terms and ideas that we use so that > there would > be no need to try and translate . ???????? > > CLint > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Z'ev, Very exciting, if you have time I am sure we would all like a report, and as you mention, the key is, " experts. " I have no problem with innovation, if done intelligently. -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Friday, May 25, 2007 6:47 PM Re: pluralism Jason, One of the contexts that Chinese medicine is being investigated in China is in terms of its relationship to complexity theory. Apparently, a lot of interest there. In fact, I'll be meeting with a complexity post-doc in Santa Fe next month to discuss some potential collaborations. But this is done with experts in both disciplines, not as a pastiche. On May 25, 2007, at 5:42 PM, wrote: > Clinton and group, > > My personal experience is that patients have no trouble > understanding what > we are doing (with acupuncture and Chinese herbs) when I explain it > to them > with Chinese medicine terms. I see no reason nor need to try to > integrate > Western " energetic / new age " terminology. Furthermore, I am pretty > much in > 100% agreement with Z'ev, in that " integration " and " evolution " of our > medicine is best carried out when one has a strong hold on the > original > Chinese concepts, theory, and to some extent classical works. I am > sure > there are always excepts, but the innovations and evolutions that I > have > seen from people who really do not know CM usually results in a poor > medicine. Really almost everything I have heard in regard to CM's > integration with modern physics or western (pseudo-)science is > complete BS, > but hey everyone has their opinion. > > - > > _____ > > @ <%40> > [@ <%40> ] On Behalf Of clinton > bartok > Friday, May 25, 2007 3:34 PM > @ <%40> > Re: pluralism > > Beata & Zev, > First of all I would like to express my appreciation for this > important > discussion. I agree with Zev about the term 'energy'. This term is > to vague > to apply to what we are attempting to do with Acupuncture. In our > medicine > we talk about different types of Qi and the transformation and > movement of > that Qi. I see this Qi as an animating force that exists > simultaniously with > the physical world, and when we apply needles or hand therapy to > the body it > transforms the composition of the tissues which influences the flow > and > concentrations of Qi. An 'energy field' alone explains nothing. > Phenomena and symptoms are not seperate entities as Z'ev pointed > out. If > there are symptoms and we come up with a TCM diagnosis, isn't it > fair to say > that there are unseen physiological processes going on in order to > produce > that pattern syndrome? The question is.....does Qi in the channels and > organs have anything to do with those processes (metabolism, vascular > pressure, respiration, immune mobilization, cellular production, > excretion > of waste products, endocrine regulation, action potential, Blood > perfusion, > sensory processing, action of receptors ect.) or is The Qi in the > channels > and organs something else entirely. I believe that Qi may be > bioelectric, > biomagnetic, geomagnetic, and solar in nature. I know that non of > my claims > are found in the classic texts and many may be in total > disagreement to my > suggestions, however, It is concerning to me that as healers we > refuse to > take into account the science of the western mind and the science > of the > eastern mind in > order to obtain a better understanding of disease mechanisms and > underlying > processes going on inside the human body. > So, how then do we explain to our patients what we are doing ? Are > the terms > 'energy' and 'Qi' interchangable? Will Chinese medicine allows us to > superimpose scientific models over the theoretical structure in > TCM? Or > should we stay within the framework of Chinese medicine to preserve > its > intergity? Does superimposing science over tcm sabotage the future of > CHinese medicine ?or does it allow the opportunity for the medicine to > evolve? Many seem to be against this Idea. Maybe the public needs > to be > educated more on the medical terms and ideas that we use so that > there would > be no need to try and translate . ???????? > > CLint > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Jason, Frankly, I am insulted by your use of the term 'BS' to respond to my opinion. I never implied integrating anything by the way. What I am talking about here is using science (no one ever said anything about pseudoscience or whatever you think I am talking about) to understand disease, but chinese medicine to think about and to treat the disease. Science is rooted in fact not speculation. What you are saying to me is that I need to limit my options to get 'better results'. Have you performed trials comparing the use of chinese medicine alone to chinese medicine and science combined? Why do people have such a problem with the idea of expanding the thinking, reasoning and conceptual framework of the mind to treat disease? Believe me I firmly root my diagnosis and treatment based on the ancient chinese systems and revere the classics with all of my heart and mind, but for me to completely disregard traditional greek models is absolutly absurd to me. Sure , I understand and agree with you completely that our patients understand the terminology we use, but to act like we don't have anatomical structures and physiological processes taking place is a matter of opinion. But everyone is entitled to that.. right! Clint Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Clinton, I think you are misinterpreting my response. I am in no way saying that your opinion is BS, and I apologize for any offense taken. The following comments and critique are not directed at you or anyone in particular, but to the profession as a whole. But first I stand by my original statement that, " . almost everything I have heard in regard to CM's integration with modern physics or western (pseudo-)science is complete BS... " This statement refers to theories of integration that I have read and heard in lectures. I have not read everything, and am open to anything people have to present. I emphasize " pseudo-science " because I think there are some decent integration models with Western medical science with CM. Meaning I am excluding Western medical science from my above statement. I personally think the new-age philosophies that we often see meshed with CM are not that strong, and more about the story then the result. I am unclear about the statement, " Science is rooted in fact not speculation. " Does this imply that CM is not? I personally find much speculation in Western science (and CM) and find that both CM and Western Science are based in theory as well as their own " facts " . They view the world through different lenses. One is not more correct then the other, but both do have different strengths. They both are always evolving. Furthermore, since I have read nothing from you, I therefore have no opinion about the way you think or integrate. If you want to present something to the group then I am sure we will be happy to read it. The reason I feel that most " integrators " ideas are usually weak are mainly because the " integrator " usually doesn't really understand CM and many times these people don't really understand the physics / western sciences well and this is what turns it into pseudo science. One then ends up with a faddish new age pseudo-science mixed with a limited view of CM. Such perspectives that I have seen IMO have resulted in a weak medicine. Furthermore even if I think your opinion is complete BS, what does it matter? IMHO, people are too sensitive and have too much attachment to their ideas. Disagreeing (in any form) with another's idea, in such a forum, should be encouraged and if someone thinks something is compete BS they should say so. This is, as long as one does not attack the person or character of the individual. I find such attitudes healthy and people should not take it personally. If someone considers your idea BS and you have evidence that is contrary, then you can present it and let the group decide what they believe. Without some solid evidence then you and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I am curious, do others feel differently about this? In this situation, I only offer only my opinion and I will restate that I think that the development of new and integrated ideas in CM should only take place by individuals that are well versed in both sides of the equation. It is my experience that many Westerners who do these integrations really don't understand CM thoroughly and this weakens the medicine as well as many times portrays an incorrect image of what CM really is. The real question is, why do so many Westerners feel the need to do something different? To properly integrate: It is my belief that having years of study and clinical practice entitles one to consider if they are able to integrate and create new developments. Sheer years does not equate free reign to invent. In regard to this point, I follow the model of the Chinese. Throughout history doctors of CM study Chinese medicine for years, reading classic texts, studying previous doctors, studying with famous doctors, and seeing 1000-10000s of patients. Only after this, many times in their later years, they will start to develop some newer ideas, which are always firmly grounded in the past. Some of this (grounded in the past) is just a formality, but what it does do is to keep a continuity and truth to the medicine. I honestly believe that is one reason it is so strong and has survived for so long. I find it a bit pretentious when a student or recent grad thinks they know CM enough to " evolve " the medicine. Many times these people can't read Chinese have never really studied the past literature, and sometimes have only seen a handful of patients. First one must ask why they feel the desire to do this? I have asked some people and the answer is many times, because CM just isn't that good for Westerners we need a new medicine. I am quite certain that this not the medicine's fault, but the practitioner. Now don't get me wrong, if someone wants to create their personal spirit inspired medicine, then go for it. Many times this produces some amazing healing systems (that usually work for only themselves), but to call this CM is again IMHO, incorrect. This is where I have the problem. And yes I do think " limiting your options " will give you much better results. Who do you think gets the best results, " the Jack " or " the Master " I firmly believe that CM is a rich and vast ocean. Most people that don't get good results barely have scratched the surface. They feel they must try the latest seminar approach taking a little of this and then a little of that. If I get sick, please do not take me to that person. So I don't think anyone is saying ignore science or all the other systems of health out there. I of course acknowledge western physiology. I object to what I term as pseudo-science explanations about this and that.. this is usually not rooted in CM. It may work for them and I think there is value in everything. But what good does this do to the medicine as a whole? It pollutes it! Why because really there is no root. If, for example, someone is highly educated in psychology and CM and decides to integrate it, then great, this I would want to read. To sum up, I do think it is best to learn the medicine deeply first before integrating. This takes years. But maybe this is a Western educational system issue. Meaning people barely scratch the surface of CM in many schools and learn so many bits and pieces of various systems that they feel lost and feel they must start integrating " things that work " . What do others think about this phenomenon? You do not have to agree, but that is my opinion. Regards, -Jason _____ On Behalf Of clinton bartok Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:28 PM Re: pluralism Jason, Frankly, I am insulted by your use of the term 'BS' to respond to my opinion. I never implied integrating anything by the way. What I am talking about here is using science (no one ever said anything about pseudoscience or whatever you think I am talking about) to understand disease, but chinese medicine to think about and to treat the disease. Science is rooted in fact not speculation. What you are saying to me is that I need to limit my options to get 'better results'. Have you performed trials comparing the use of chinese medicine alone to chinese medicine and science combined? Why do people have such a problem with the idea of expanding the thinking, reasoning and conceptual framework of the mind to treat disease? Believe me I firmly root my diagnosis and treatment based on the ancient chinese systems and revere the classics with all of my heart and mind, but for me to completely disregard traditional greek models is absolutly absurd to me. Sure , I understand and agree with you completely that our patients understand the terminology we use, but to act like we don't have anatomical structures and physiological processes taking place is a matter of opinion. But everyone is entitled to that.. right! Clint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2007 Report Share Posted May 26, 2007 Furthermore even if I think your opinion is complete BS, what does it matter? IMHO, people are too sensitive and have too much attachment to their ideas. Disagreeing (in any form) with another's idea, in such a forum, should be encouraged and if someone thinks something is compete BS they should say so. This is, as long as one does not attack the person or character of the individual. I find such attitudes healthy and people should not take it personally. If someone considers your idea BS and you have evidence that is contrary, then you can present it and let the group decide what they believe. Without some solid evidence then you and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I am curious, do others feel differently about this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\ Amen - Saturday, May 26, 2007 7:12 PM RE: pluralism Clinton, I think you are misinterpreting my response. I am in no way saying that your opinion is BS, and I apologize for any offense taken. The following comments and critique are not directed at you or anyone in particular, but to the profession as a whole. But first I stand by my original statement that, " . almost everything I have heard in regard to CM's integration with modern physics or western (pseudo-)science is complete BS... " This statement refers to theories of integration that I have read and heard in lectures. I have not read everything, and am open to anything people have to present. I emphasize " pseudo-science " because I think there are some decent integration models with Western medical science with CM. Meaning I am excluding Western medical science from my above statement. I personally think the new-age philosophies that we often see meshed with CM are not that strong, and more about the story then the result. I am unclear about the statement, " Science is rooted in fact not speculation. " Does this imply that CM is not? I personally find much speculation in Western science (and CM) and find that both CM and Western Science are based in theory as well as their own " facts " . They view the world through different lenses. One is not more correct then the other, but both do have different strengths. They both are always evolving. Furthermore, since I have read nothing from you, I therefore have no opinion about the way you think or integrate. If you want to present something to the group then I am sure we will be happy to read it. The reason I feel that most " integrators " ideas are usually weak are mainly because the " integrator " usually doesn't really understand CM and many times these people don't really understand the physics / western sciences well and this is what turns it into pseudo science. One then ends up with a faddish new age pseudo-science mixed with a limited view of CM. Such perspectives that I have seen IMO have resulted in a weak medicine. Furthermore even if I think your opinion is complete BS, what does it matter? IMHO, people are too sensitive and have too much attachment to their ideas. Disagreeing (in any form) with another's idea, in such a forum, should be encouraged and if someone thinks something is compete BS they should say so. This is, as long as one does not attack the person or character of the individual. I find such attitudes healthy and people should not take it personally. If someone considers your idea BS and you have evidence that is contrary, then you can present it and let the group decide what they believe. Without some solid evidence then you and everyone else is entitled to their opinion. I am curious, do others feel differently about this? In this situation, I only offer only my opinion and I will restate that I think that the development of new and integrated ideas in CM should only take place by individuals that are well versed in both sides of the equation. It is my experience that many Westerners who do these integrations really don't understand CM thoroughly and this weakens the medicine as well as many times portrays an incorrect image of what CM really is. The real question is, why do so many Westerners feel the need to do something different? To properly integrate: It is my belief that having years of study and clinical practice entitles one to consider if they are able to integrate and create new developments. Sheer years does not equate free reign to invent. In regard to this point, I follow the model of the Chinese. Throughout history doctors of CM study Chinese medicine for years, reading classic texts, studying previous doctors, studying with famous doctors, and seeing 1000-10000s of patients. Only after this, many times in their later years, they will start to develop some newer ideas, which are always firmly grounded in the past. Some of this (grounded in the past) is just a formality, but what it does do is to keep a continuity and truth to the medicine. I honestly believe that is one reason it is so strong and has survived for so long. I find it a bit pretentious when a student or recent grad thinks they know CM enough to " evolve " the medicine. Many times these people can't read Chinese have never really studied the past literature, and sometimes have only seen a handful of patients. First one must ask why they feel the desire to do this? I have asked some people and the answer is many times, because CM just isn't that good for Westerners we need a new medicine. I am quite certain that this not the medicine's fault, but the practitioner. Now don't get me wrong, if someone wants to create their personal spirit inspired medicine, then go for it. Many times this produces some amazing healing systems (that usually work for only themselves), but to call this CM is again IMHO, incorrect. This is where I have the problem. And yes I do think " limiting your options " will give you much better results. Who do you think gets the best results, " the Jack " or " the Master " I firmly believe that CM is a rich and vast ocean. Most people that don't get good results barely have scratched the surface. They feel they must try the latest seminar approach taking a little of this and then a little of that. If I get sick, please do not take me to that person. So I don't think anyone is saying ignore science or all the other systems of health out there. I of course acknowledge western physiology. I object to what I term as pseudo-science explanations about this and that.. this is usually not rooted in CM. It may work for them and I think there is value in everything. But what good does this do to the medicine as a whole? It pollutes it! Why because really there is no root. If, for example, someone is highly educated in psychology and CM and decides to integrate it, then great, this I would want to read. To sum up, I do think it is best to learn the medicine deeply first before integrating. This takes years. But maybe this is a Western educational system issue. Meaning people barely scratch the surface of CM in many schools and learn so many bits and pieces of various systems that they feel lost and feel they must start integrating " things that work " . What do others think about this phenomenon? You do not have to agree, but that is my opinion. Regards, -Jason _____ On Behalf Of clinton bartok Saturday, May 26, 2007 2:28 PM Re: pluralism Jason, Frankly, I am insulted by your use of the term 'BS' to respond to my opinion. I never implied integrating anything by the way. What I am talking about here is using science (no one ever said anything about pseudoscience or whatever you think I am talking about) to understand disease, but chinese medicine to think about and to treat the disease. Science is rooted in fact not speculation. What you are saying to me is that I need to limit my options to get 'better results'. Have you performed trials comparing the use of chinese medicine alone to chinese medicine and science combined? Why do people have such a problem with the idea of expanding the thinking, reasoning and conceptual framework of the mind to treat disease? Believe me I firmly root my diagnosis and treatment based on the ancient chinese systems and revere the classics with all of my heart and mind, but for me to completely disregard traditional greek models is absolutly absurd to me. Sure , I understand and agree with you completely that our patients understand the terminology we use, but to act like we don't have anatomical structures and physiological processes taking place is a matter of opinion. But everyone is entitled to that.. right! Clint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 I have also seen articles appear in Chinese magazines about Chinese medicine and systems theories. Another area of convergence that seems worth exploring. When I was working as a psychomotor therapist with learning disabled children, I took courses in systems theory as practiced in psychotherapy. I had lengthy talks with the teacher about the similarities with Chinese medicine. Tom. > > Jason, > One of the contexts that Chinese medicine is being investigated > in China is in terms of its relationship to complexity theory. > Apparently, a lot of interest there. In fact, I'll be meeting with a > complexity post-doc in Santa Fe next month to discuss some potential > collaborations. But this is done with experts in both disciplines, > not as a pastiche. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 Jason: Having just finished school, albeit at a later stage in life, and after amassing much life experience working in both the healing and education fields, I tend to agree with your statements about people barely scratching the surface of CM before they rush out to learn more advanced systems. This is how it seems to work here in Israel where I have studied. Most of my classmates are already intrigued by Japanese acupuncture, or " Stems and Branches " acupuncture and are pursuing advanced studies in these fields. They go to workshops where they see amazingly quick results to all kinds of problems. I, on the other hand, feel that it is too soon for me to learn something new; since I know that there is still tons to learn in Chinese medicine, both from the ancient texts and practitioners of today. So, thank you for helping to reinforce my decision to stay on the mainstream path for the time being. Joyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 Jason, Thank you for the reply! I believe I follow you now and I agree with your statement about not understanding chinese medicine to the fullest. I know it takes some time, especially as a newcomber to the field, to learn and understand the vast array of information available on the subject. I also agree that some of these other healing modalities 'muddy up' the chinese medicine framework, and it becomes difficult for a person trying to integrate systems to grasp tcm at all. That is a completely valid point because it takes away from the integrity of tcm. I am in no way saying that one shouldn't totally emerse themselves in such an ancient and complete system as the chinese have developed. Sorry I may have taken your comments the wrong way. As a student I am curious to see what others who have more experience think about medicine in general. Thanks for the insight . Clint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 I agree with you Alon. On the other side, IF one wants their desenting opinion to be accepted it has to be said it such a way that the listerner can accept. Ed Kasper Santa Cruz CA. married with children ..... , " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus wrote: > > Furthermore even if I think your opinion is complete BS, what does it > matter? IMHO, people are too sensitive and have too much attachment to their > ideas. Disagreeing (in any form) with another's idea, in such a forum, > should be encouraged and if someone thinks something is compete BS they > should say so. This is, as long as one does not attack the person or > character of the individual. I find such attitudes healthy and people should > not take it personally. If someone considers your idea BS and you have > evidence that is contrary, then you can present it and let the group decide > what they believe. Without some solid evidence then you and everyone else is > entitled to their opinion. I am curious, do others feel differently about > this? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\ > Amen > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2007 Report Share Posted May 27, 2007 I studied applied quantum mechanics (material science and engineering) for my bachelors degree. I had the hardest time, it did not seem to make any sense. Finally I had a Eureka moment. I went to the teacher after the class and asked, " we are just guessing right? " and he replied yeah, pretty much and when it doesn't seem to work any more we change the guess. All the beautiful math that is used to describe most quantum mechanical interaction is limited in how it can be applied. There is not much that is specific that is universal and visa versa. All of those equations are dependent on the scale at which they are being applied (that is a bit of an overstatement but that is another discussion). I kinda see the differences between TCM and Western Med the same way. All science is based primarily on accurate observation, only after that can you have hypothesis and theory and opinion. The observations should not be subject to debate, I should say the observations should not be debatable because they should be obvious and apparent to anyone who looks in the same way. But how we look matters. Most of us know the story of the 7 blind guys describing the elephant from 7 different vantages and all giving completely different reports. They weren't lying they just weren't taking there perspective into account, nor the perspective of their fellow observers. I think similar things occur everyday in all fields. This underlies what I consider the primary distinction between TCM and Western Med. They use the Microscope we use the metaphor. Everything about the western system is designed to reduce the field observed, describe it really well, then like a pointillist reassemble it into a whole. Sometimes this works fantastically and sometimes it may even be right, be we still don't " know " it. TCM is in my opinion, as described by others, as more of a systems point of view, rather than describing each molecule and describing its vector of movement and the trillions of molecules suspended similarly, we say " hey, that white fluffy cloud looks like a bunny " . I don't believe wind truly enters the body, but Wind is a beautiful metaphor to describe what is occurring, it does not account for any biochemical detail but it does help to capture the macro effect. Those effects which present to an objective observer whether in 200 BC or 2000 AD. The problem occurs when we try to say this macro observation is this micro observation, sometimes yes sometimes no. The longer I practice (I am in year 8) the less I care about the western science that may or may not underly it. Grasping for a western foundation to this " new " traditional Chinese " quackery " is as natural as a child needing training wheels to start riding a bike, but eventually, hopefully, you get to where they are in your way and you do not need them. Before, (or more accurately since I already said it, after) I insult too many people I don't think this applies to those diseases that TCM doesn't treat well, but I will caveat this caveat with the observation that the longer I practice the shorter that list gets. Eventually we will track and trace and simultaneously record every anatomical and physiological and chemical pathway in the body and we will be able to comprehensively model and image that behavior in the body, then we will have a merging of the systems, but I doubt that will happen in my life time and I got into this medicine like any good Taoist, to live forever. Sincerely, Darby Valley > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2007 Report Share Posted May 28, 2007 Darby, All I can say is, " Well said! " I look forward to hearing more of you posts. Thomas " darby.valley " <darby wrote: snip>>> Before, (or more accurately since I already said it, after) I > insult too many people I don't think this applies to those diseases that > TCM doesn't treat well, but I will caveat this caveat with the > observation that the longer I practice the shorter that list gets. > Eventually we will track and trace and simultaneously record every > anatomical and physiological and chemical pathway in the body and we > will be able to comprehensively model and image that behavior in the > body, then we will have a merging of the systems, but I doubt that will > happen in my life time and I got into this medicine like any good > Taoist, to live forever. > > Sincerely, > > Darby Valley > > > 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.