Multiple systems and evaluating sources

[Guest guest]

After just receiving a nice private email from Michael I wanted to clarify

and outline a few things / ideas. Hopefully this will clear up some things

and help frame our future discussions. I would like to know on what aspects

people disagree.

 

 

 

1) There are many healing systems that work

 

2) CM is not necessarily the best system (for everyone), but we sure

like it a lot.

 

3) Most people (including myself) are not suggesting that we only study

classic texts to guide our practice, although these texts can give us great

insight. I think we also acknowledge that insights come from various

avenues, including personal experience etc.

 

 

 

Since this is the CHA, it only seems reasonable to frame our discussion

around CM and specifically herbs. This does not mean that Western or

Ayurvedic herbs do not work. However, if we are going to talk about things

like incorporating " other herbs " within a CM system, then we cannot blindly

accept one person's opinion. This questioning, is not personal, but a peer

reviewed process to help guarantee efficacy and accuracy of the information.

We should evaluate the source of the information (as Bob has suggested) and

the clinical situations that the data was acquired.

 

 

 

Michael clearly believes that we should incorporate many types of systems

into our healing practices. Such an eclectic approach therefore will lack

the depth of someone that focuses on one or two things. However, both

systems can render results. If one is going to forge such a path, one can

invariably make new connections, but also will most likely misinterpret what

CM actually says. He is okay with this. But since this is a CM discussion

board, it only makes sense to evaluate such content while looking through a

CM lens. If someone, for example, says X herb has this or that CM function,

get prepared to back it up with CM or some clinical proof.

 

 

 

Furthermore, we need to ask questions like our ganmao discussion. For

example, what is the efficacy of CM in the treatment of various diseases

(i.e. ganmao.) CM cannot treat everything, but I am pretty sure it is much

more effective than most of attain on a daily basis. Therefore one can

venture outward (other systems) to fill the gaps or look within (CM past and

present). It really is just personal preference.

 

 

 

But how do we evaluate efficacy in such situations? I now see that such

" questioning " is not for the thin skinned. However, I hope that people

realize that this is far from personal attacks. One of the reasons that

alterative medicine is not better accepted is because we do not routinely

ask such questions and we do come up with therapies that are just plain

bogus. Separating the wheat from the chaff seems imperative. This forum is

an excellent resource, with many great healers and minds to bounce off

ideas. I hope everyone can take a breath and not take the question of " How

do you know this? OR what is the source of this information " as a personal

attack.

 

 

 

As mentioned before there are many criteria for evaluating the source.

Experience is only one. Therefore very few people have all the notches, and

all are subject to inaccurate views. As a profession all information should

be properly evaluated. Just my opinion :-)

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Jason\My%20Documents\web%20stuff\Squa

re%20qin%20dai%20style%20chop%20(web).jpg>

 

 

 

tel:

<http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em

ail=>

www.Chinese Medicine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<http://www.plaxo.com/signature?src=client_sig_212_1_simple_sig> Want a

signature like this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

I am not sure if i missed anything but i have not seen any attacks in the

discussion. Have i missed a post? Bob's comment as to sources can be looked at

from many different angles all of which have strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

MAybe you could expound the the stregthens and weakness of Bob's post.

I personally thought overall it is something that our profession could

benefit more from. You?

 

-Jason

 

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Jason

> I am not sure if i missed anything but i have not seen any attacks

in the discussion. Have i missed a post? Bob's comment as to sources

can be looked at from many different angles all of which have

strengths and weaknesses.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason

The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm is the

investment can become so strong that one may not see outside the specific lens

developed form such an in depth study. It may also be difficult to admit to

limitation because of self interests, especially when subconscious. While we

all have a limited amount of time what we choose to learn affects our world

view. So like anything in this world there are always risks and benefits to any

choice one makes. There is no argument that the English speaking part of our

profession only has to gain from the sacrifices of the scholars that dive deeply

into Chinese materials and then choose to share it with us. Actually people like

me owe everything we know about CM to them. But i also believe that those of us

that choose to have a broader view see things that are not seen by those that

choose to focus. So in short the dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its

dangerous to dismiss people's observations

because of closely held beliefs.

Alon

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

Since this is addressed to me I will respond, although I don't think I ever

said that one should limit one's study to a single paradigm. That was never

my point. Even within CM, one who just studies SHL, IMO, misses the many

advancements from the later developments. Therefore I personally choose to

study widely (and deeply into in what really interests me). Therefore quite

simply, Alon, I agree!

 

 

 

Although one with a broader view (multiple systems) can see things that a

(too) focused person cannot, the opposite is of course also true. The sword

cuts both ways. Your point, though, is well taken.

 

 

 

However, viewpoint is one thing, clinical results are another. Anyone can

make up correlations and theory to explain cases (listen to the average CM

student), but does their solution work?

 

 

 

 

Therefore, there must be a balance, especially if one starts to try to

integrate different systems, or even build upon a single system (creating

something new). How can one build on something they really don't know? This

is really my beef. IMO, A jack of all trades, integrating everything they

know, is going to have difficulty coming up with something profound.

However, one who goes deep into the few things will have more chance of

success. I think this has a direct correlation to the clinic. In most

instances, I imagine that people with depth in a single or few areas of

expertise mostly get better results that one who knows a little homeopathy,

little chiro, little acupuncture, little naturopathic, little massage, etc..

and mixes it all together.

 

 

 

I bring my example again back to someone like Dan B. He has for sometime

now, been teaching an integrated approach to acupuncture and osteopathic

palpatory techniques. His depth in both is self-evident. Only through his

years and years of deep study has he been able to develop a style that

actually works clinically and most important can be taught and is

reproducible.

 

 

 

Too often we find " healers " like the guy in the van, who may have figured

something out that really works for him. Maybe it is from his

self-cultivation, maybe it is his personality, or maybe it is just something

he was born with. However, can this ability be reproduced in other people,

can they teach it to me? I don't ever discount what people have figured out

in the clinic, but what can we do with it?

 

 

 

This is one thing about CM theory and its tradition of thought that I like.

If one understands the terrain / map, one can create new ideas, in which

other people can follow and see if it works. It has a built in guide for

growth and development. If one doesn't not really understand the terrain /

theory (and just riffs), the map falls apart. Of course there will be holes

in the system, as with any, but the map enables one to follow a certain type

of thinking to test out a clinical idea. Of course there are many maps, i.e.

functional medicine, homeopathy etc.

 

 

 

What do others think?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:33 PM

 

Re:Multiple systems and evaluating sources

 

 

 

Jason

The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm is the

investment can become so strong that one may not see outside the specific

lens developed form such an in depth study. It may also be difficult to

admit to limitation because of self interests, especially when subconscious.

While we all have a limited amount of time what we choose to learn affects

our world view. So like anything in this world there are always risks and

benefits to any choice one makes. There is no argument that the English

speaking part of our profession only has to gain from the sacrifices of the

scholars that dive deeply into Chinese materials and then choose to share it

with us. Actually people like me owe everything we know about CM to them.

But i also believe that those of us that choose to have a broader view see

things that are not seen by those that choose to focus. So in short the

dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its dangerous to dismiss people's

observations

because of closely held beliefs.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason i basically agree with everything you say. There is only a

limited amount of time to study. At the same time i will say again, in

my experience many of the CM (as well as other types) practitioners i

have observed throughout the years, including some famous

practitioners in china and US have ignored some poor outcomes

continuing to use methods within CM as though something will

eventually change. If one only has a hammer everyone looks like a

nail. Since i observed this with several highly trained CM

practitioners i still believe such a single focus does has its own

dangers. At the same time superficial training obviously mostly leads

to limited ideas and probably clinical outcome in any system.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

Today I read a very profound section in a Kabbalistic text that

addresses this issue very well:

 

" There are two types of study: surface study (girsa) and in-depth

study (iyun). With surface study, one understands the subject matter

only at first glance. He flows quickly through the subject matter,

does not investigate all of its inner and outer parts except in a

passing fashion. Therefore, he will not come to know the concept in

its ultimate depth at all.

One who grasps the depth of a concept can explain it from many

angles. In other words, one must study the known explanations and

body of knowledge in order to reach its depths. Once he has done this

study and has reached the essential depths, he may be capable of

bringing out new explanations and insights, which were never

previously explained. " (The Gate of Unity, Rabbi Dov Ber).

 

 

On Feb 29, 2008, at 8:24 PM, wrote:

 

> Alon,

>

> Since this is addressed to me I will respond, although I don't think

> I ever

> said that one should limit one's study to a single paradigm. That

> was never

> my point. Even within CM, one who just studies SHL, IMO, misses the

> many

> advancements from the later developments. Therefore I personally

> choose to

> study widely (and deeply into in what really interests me).

> Therefore quite

> simply, Alon, I agree!

>

> Although one with a broader view (multiple systems) can see things

> that a

> (too) focused person cannot, the opposite is of course also true.

> The sword

> cuts both ways. Your point, though, is well taken.

>

> However, viewpoint is one thing, clinical results are another.

> Anyone can

> make up correlations and theory to explain cases (listen to the

> average CM

> student), but does their solution work?

>

> Therefore, there must be a balance, especially if one starts to try to

> integrate different systems, or even build upon a single system

> (creating

> something new). How can one build on something they really don't

> know? This

> is really my beef. IMO, A jack of all trades, integrating everything

> they

> know, is going to have difficulty coming up with something profound.

> However, one who goes deep into the few things will have more chance

> of

> success. I think this has a direct correlation to the clinic. In most

> instances, I imagine that people with depth in a single or few areas

> of

> expertise mostly get better results that one who knows a little

> homeopathy,

> little chiro, little acupuncture, little naturopathic, little

> massage, etc..

> and mixes it all together.

>

> I bring my example again back to someone like Dan B. He has for

> sometime

> now, been teaching an integrated approach to acupuncture and

> osteopathic

> palpatory techniques. His depth in both is self-evident. Only

> through his

> years and years of deep study has he been able to develop a style that

> actually works clinically and most important can be taught and is

> reproducible.

>

> Too often we find " healers " like the guy in the van, who may have

> figured

> something out that really works for him. Maybe it is from his

> self-cultivation, maybe it is his personality, or maybe it is just

> something

> he was born with. However, can this ability be reproduced in other

> people,

> can they teach it to me? I don't ever discount what people have

> figured out

> in the clinic, but what can we do with it?

>

> This is one thing about CM theory and its tradition of thought that

> I like.

> If one understands the terrain / map, one can create new ideas, in

> which

> other people can follow and see if it works. It has a built in guide

> for

> growth and development. If one doesn't not really understand the

> terrain /

> theory (and just riffs), the map falls apart. Of course there will

> be holes

> in the system, as with any, but the map enables one to follow a

> certain type

> of thinking to test out a clinical idea. Of course there are many

> maps, i.e.

> functional medicine, homeopathy etc.

>

> What do others think?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

>

> On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

> Friday, February 29, 2008 8:33 PM

>

> Re:Multiple systems and evaluating sources

>

> Jason

> The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm is the

> investment can become so strong that one may not see outside the

> specific

> lens developed form such an in depth study. It may also be difficult

> to

> admit to limitation because of self interests, especially when

> subconscious.

> While we all have a limited amount of time what we choose to learn

> affects

> our world view. So like anything in this world there are always

> risks and

> benefits to any choice one makes. There is no argument that the

> English

> speaking part of our profession only has to gain from the sacrifices

> of the

> scholars that dive deeply into Chinese materials and then choose to

> share it

> with us. Actually people like me owe everything we know about CM to

> them.

> But i also believe that those of us that choose to have a broader

> view see

> things that are not seen by those that choose to focus. So in short

> the

> dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its dangerous to dismiss

> people's

> observations

> because of closely held beliefs.

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

I remember my teachers would always talk about going back to re-read

the basics after practicing for a while. I would relate that to the

in-depth study you mention below - just adding that 'real-world'

experience helps to deepen the understanding of the material studied.

Changing knowledge from memorization to application.

 

Or, as our recent musical metaphors go, you appreciate the Blues much

better after experiencing the blues yourself. I thought back when

Kenny Wayne Sheppard was a blooming young artist and at 14 (ish)

sounded technically almost just like Stevie Ray Vaughn, just without

the soul. Because, really... what troubles does a 14 year old have... ;-)

 

 

Geoff

 

,

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason,

> Today I read a very profound section in a Kabbalistic text that

> addresses this issue very well:

>

> " There are two types of study: surface study (girsa) and in-depth

> study (iyun). With surface study, one understands the subject matter

> only at first glance. He flows quickly through the subject matter,

> does not investigate all of its inner and outer parts except in a

> passing fashion. Therefore, he will not come to know the concept in

> its ultimate depth at all.

> One who grasps the depth of a concept can explain it from many

> angles. In other words, one must study the known explanations and

> body of knowledge in order to reach its depths. Once he has done this

> study and has reached the essential depths, he may be capable of

> bringing out new explanations and insights, which were never

> previously explained. " (The Gate of Unity, Rabbi Dov Ber).

>

>

[Guest guest]

Geoff,

Good analogy indeed. . . .

 

 

On Mar 3, 2008, at 12:45 PM, G Hudson wrote:

 

> I remember my teachers would always talk about going back to re-read

> the basics after practicing for a while. I would relate that to the

> in-depth study you mention below - just adding that 'real-world'

> experience helps to deepen the understanding of the material studied.

> Changing knowledge from memorization to application.

>

> Or, as our recent musical metaphors go, you appreciate the Blues much

> better after experiencing the blues yourself. I thought back when

> Kenny Wayne Sheppard was a blooming young artist and at 14 (ish)

> sounded technically almost just like Stevie Ray Vaughn, just without

> the soul. Because, really... what troubles does a 14 year old

> have... ;-)

>

> Geoff

>

> ,

> <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > Jason,

> > Today I read a very profound section in a Kabbalistic text that

> > addresses this issue very well:

> >

> > " There are two types of study: surface study (girsa) and in-depth

> > study (iyun). With surface study, one understands the subject matter

> > only at first glance. He flows quickly through the subject matter,

> > does not investigate all of its inner and outer parts except in a

> > passing fashion. Therefore, he will not come to know the concept in

> > its ultimate depth at all.

> > One who grasps the depth of a concept can explain it from many

> > angles. In other words, one must study the known explanations and

> > body of knowledge in order to reach its depths. Once he has done

> this

> > study and has reached the essential depths, he may be capable of

> > bringing out new explanations and insights, which were never

> > previously explained. " (The Gate of Unity, Rabbi Dov Ber).

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason, Zev, Alon, et all,

 

I just came back from another intensive weekend study with Mazin Al

khafaji and wanted to share a couple thoughts related to this thread,

albeit through a somewhat jet lagged body :-)

 

What I like about Mazin and why I spend so much time and money and

energy flying to train with him is that he is one of those true

teachers who is also a great clinician. Mazin actually ONLY teaches

on what he has direct clinical experience with. He does not even give

an opinion on any herb, disease, pattern, ect, unless he has direct

repeated clinical experience with the topic. And he is humble enough

to say when he does not understand a topic well enough. He is not

afraid after almost 30 years of experience to say that he doesn't

know the answer or that he does not treat enough of these types of

problems to have a proper opinion. This I greatly respect. His

classes are always packed and full. His clinic is the same, booked

months in advance.

 

Mazin is also someone who only focuse on a few areas of health,

primarily dermatology, allergy, and autoimmune disease. He has vast

experience in these areas, both in translating the chinese sources

(journals, books from famous doctors) and well documented clinical

results. When he teaches, everything he shares is, IMO, 100% useable

in clinic instantly. The teachings are deep, but yet simple enough to

be able to reproduce to acheive good results.

 

One of the many pearls I walked away with this weekend came to me

while having Margarettas with Mazin (after class on friday night).

The first round of drinks were very sweet. Mazin went on to show how

one ingredient in an Rx can either make or break a perscription,

saying if they would change the ratio of the ingredients in the drink

it would be different. So with the second round of drinks we ordered

the same, but this time he asked the bar tender to make the drink

exactly the way he asked, with the proportions he stated. The drink

that came back was like a totally different drink, more balanced and

tart. Same ingredients, but comopletely different sensual experience.

Mazin said this is the same for our herbal prescriptions. The dose of

one herb within a single formula can make or break our clinical

outcome. It is only by knowing the foundation well enough, the main

ingredients of the Margarreta, that we can then play with the minor

adjustments to it, and thus make for a completely different outcome.

This applies to herbs (dosage, dry fried? salt soaked and fried,

charred, ect), diagnosis.... everything.

 

It is this area that I strive to become better in. Knowing the depths

of very specific diseases and their patterns, knowing the specifics

of the herbs used to treat the many different manifestions of that

specific and narrow disease, and knowing the prognosis and type of

clinical outcome to expect and when. To me it is only by focusing in

these narrow ways that we can discover the answers and gain enough

confidence to treat and/ or teach.

 

Trevor

 

 

 

 

, alon marcus

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Jason i basically agree with everything you say. There is only a

> limited amount of time to study. At the same time i will say again,

in

> my experience many of the CM (as well as other types) practitioners

i

> have observed throughout the years, including some famous

> practitioners in china and US have ignored some poor outcomes

> continuing to use methods within CM as though something will

> eventually change. If one only has a hammer everyone looks like a

> nail. Since i observed this with several highly trained CM

> practitioners i still believe such a single focus does has its own

> dangers. At the same time superficial training obviously mostly

leads

> to limited ideas and probably clinical outcome in any system.

>

>

>

> 400 29th St. Suite 419

> Oakland Ca 94609

>

>

>

> alonmarcus

>