Esoteric Herbology Book?

December 27, 2009

Who cares about academic credentials in a Chinese medicine teacher? Might it

be people who are unable or unwilling to evaluate cogency and coherence for

themselves? I've studied with Jeffrey Yuen for fifteen years and I'd put the

education I've pursued through that process up against all the credentials

in China.

I'd like to know just what about Jeffrey Yuen's teachings Mr. Flaws thinks

" don't ring true. " Within a week of starting TCM school (more than twenty

five years ago), I realized there was something wrong. I didn't know what it

was at the time, but the clinical system I was learning didn't " ring true "

to me as someone who had done graduate work at UC Berkeley in the

methodology of science and had already been interested in T'ao Te Ch'ing and

Chuang Zi for several years. For many years I blamed the gaping weaknesses

of modern TCM on the communists, but have since learned they only added

another layer of systematic shallowness to the already fading vitality of

Chinese medical thinking.

Twenty five years later, I see that academic scholars such as Volker Scheid

have documented that modern TCM is a " made up " tradition. Scheid chose to

follow his anthropological training to find scholarly truths about Chinese

medicine; I chose to follow my philosophical training to find cogency in the

practice of Chinese medicine. In the end, I believe Chinese medicine is

applied clinical philosophy, which conforms to standards of truth that are

different from modern scholarship or western science. No " fact " of Chinese

medicine is true simply because one can read it in a book -- even an old

one, and they certainly can't be proven in double blind studies. On the

other hand, anything can be true if a practitioner can make it work in an

individual patient. There are no universal truths in Chinese medicine, only

a nearly infinite variety of specific ones, and we as practitioners are

challenged for find what is true for each individual patient. That's one of

the reasons there have been SO MANY contrary historical traditions in CM,

and certainly why we serve our patients poorly when we limit our perspective

to the modern doctrine.

We have grave problems in Chinese medical education in this country and

throughout the modern world. Jeffrey's teachings are hard to follow, and

frankly I don't think many modern people do well with them, because Jeffrey

doesn't teach like a University professor. Yet, they also offer

practitioners the opportunity to " crack the code " and sort out how to

disentangle an individual's struggle with unresolved pathogenic factors,

rather than simply trying to control their expression. While that clinical

standard of managing disease may be familiar to modern people familiar with

western medicine, it is NOT the highest focus of Chinese medicine.

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

December 28, 2009

Michael,

from historical records, external essential oil therapy began thousands of

years ago

with ritualistic initiatory rites (the an-ointment) of initiates, priests

and priestesses etc.)

This is written in the bible for instance... 12 fragrant oils that were

used for anointing the high priest, along with the 12 precious stones on the

priest's breast plate.

External application of essential oils is prevalent in Mesopotamia, Egypt,

Greece, Rome, India and China, to name a few. Some of the more famous ones

are the resins of frankinscense and myrrh, the cedars of Lebanon, rose oils

etc... These were used for ritualistic artifacts, skin, hair and feet ...

as well as personal hygiene (perfumes to cover up weeks to months of not

taking baths). Smelling is an essential part of classical diagnosis and

was much more useful when you could smell someone's body odor from 5 feet

away.

But, maybe we're talking about essential oils in vials; the ones that were

quintessentially distilled in post-medieval age Europe. Those were

developed by alchemists who were searching for something to turn lead into

gold ie. eternal life or enlightenment. They would have been ingesting

these substances internally, in order to transform their internal terrain.

Again, essential oils has scientific and medical merit, but the application

to specific acu-points is a hybrid methodology that has no precedent as far

as we can tell. It will take a lot of time and money to either validate it

or debunk it. For right now, at least it makes the patient and the

treatment room smell better.

At worst, it amplifies the idea of acupuncture as spa medicine (soft and

fuzzy).

K

On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Michael Tierra <mtierrawrote:

>

> It is my understanding that essential oil therapy as developed in Europe (I

> think it was France) was based on ingesting these aromatic oils. It's

> watered down version was exported elsewhere including the US where

> prohibitions were established based on the danger of ingesting concentrated

> volatile oils without proper and informed guidance. So most of us have come

> to think that aromatherapy is somehow smelling an oil, putting it on the

> skin or on an acupuncture point. This is fabrication with no basis in fact

> or relative efficacy.

December 28, 2009

On Dec 24, 2009, at 1:47 PM, trevor_erikson wrote:

> Blood coming out of the mouth is exactly that, blood coming out of

> the mouth. Sure it can be from many different things going on within

> the body, but the main symptom/ pathology of blood being ejected

> from the mouth is what it is. I find it hard to believe that the

> Chinese were making a parable out of an obvious symptom.

Please note that I am not demanding that anyone change their

orientation or beliefs; there does seem to be a significant

temperamental bias involved. But there has been for too many years a

rift of disdain between those in the Chinese medicine community who

are operating from the belief that vomiting blood is exactly that, and

those who are operating from the belief that these sorts of terms are

fractal signifiers.

Believe as you wish, so long as you proceed with rigor (and I am sure

that you do). But if you want to have insight into how the " other

half " is thinking, try beginning with the assumption that the blood

from the mouth means " something like " blood from the mouth, and reason

forward with rigor from there. Suddenly Jeffrey Yuen will be making a

whole lot more sense (as will other correlative thinkers).

I do not believe that, as a community, we need to convince each other

of anything; but I do believe that it is worth striving to be

intelligible to each other.

From the bastard hybrid heretic of both camps---

Thea Elijah

December 28, 2009

On Dec 27, 2009, at 1:42 AM, trevor_erikson wrote:

> HI Thea,

>

> I am still not very clear what the point or meaning is behind seeing

> a symptom as a signifier rather than a parameter?

>

Yes. I promise, I am in the throes of responding to this, and in the

meanwhile wish only to assure you that I do not disagree with your

methodology and way of thinking as being clinically valid and worth

pursuing. I am not here to insult good work or refute common sense.

> So like I mentioned, what is the point of calling " Tu Xue " anything

> different than blood ejection from the mouth?

>

Hopefully I will be able to illuminate more clearly what Elisabeth

Rochat de la Valle thought the point was (or die trying!). If I do,

it will allow much more inter-intelligibility between how different

groups within our field think and work. That is my only aim.

Thea Elijah

p.s. likely I will quote this from your correspondence in my own

response-- it's a brilliantly simply stated case for the economy and

clarity of organizing clinical descriptors fractally:

In Unshuld's work on the history of pharmaceutics, he points out very

clearly that a major theme throughout the history of the Ben Cao

scholarly tradition was to figure out easier methods to organize the

work. This was for the purpose of having an easier and quicker

reference to any herb or symptom in question, within a clinical setting.

Basically it became very apparent as the Ben Cao grew in size that

Doctors had be able to access the information within it with as much

ease as possible, otherwise they risked the dubious task of spending

hours researching a topic that could otherwise be figured out within

minutes. By Tu Xue meaning anything different than what it is would

lead to vast confusion amongst the busy Doctors needing to write

formulas on the fly, perhaps upwards of two hundred of them a day!. So

again, clearly defined terminology meaning something other than the

obvious really does not make any practical sense.

>

> If a patient comes to me who is vomiting blood, then I need to

> figure out why it is happening and then make it stop. Plain and

> simple. There really is no mystery here. I am not going to have time

> to philosophize anything different. I need to constantly refine my

> knowledge base for the purpose of effecting the best change, as

> quickly as possible.

>

> In Unshuld's work on the history of pharmaceutics, he points out

> very clearly that a major theme throughout the history of the Ben

> Cao scholarly tradition was to figure out easier methods to organize

> the work. This was for the purpose of having an easier and quicker

> reference to any herb or symptom in question, within a clinical

> setting.

>

> Basically it became very apparent as the Ben Cao grew in size that

> Doctors had be able to access the information within it with as much

> ease as possible, otherwise they risked the dubious task of spending

> hours researching a topic that could otherwise be figured out within

> minutes. By Tu Xue meaning anything different than what it is would

> lead to vast confusion amongst the busy Doctors needing to write

> formulas on the fly, perhaps upwards of two hundred of them a day!.

> So again, clearly defined terminology meaning something other than

> the obvious really does not make any practical sense.

>

> Anyways, Happy holidays everybody! I am enjoying the discussions

> here.... in between family outings, dinners, and an actual break

> from clinical life :-)

>

> Trevor

>

December 28, 2009

Thea,

Thank you the lengthy presentation on your philosophy on teaching styles

etc. However I do not find such a discussion that relevant in deciphering

this issue about how to interpret, read, and use classical texts (correctly

- see below clarification). Such a presentation could be construed as some

justification for allowing people to make stuff up to fit their perspective.

Again I could be misinterpreting the intention of the post.

Please do not take offense, for I greatly enjoy and pretty much agree with

most of your 'essay', but I think it does skirt the issue a bit. Let's

explore a couple of issues.

First, maybe we have different goals in using / 'interpreting' classic

texts. If our intention is merely to use them as poetic / metaphoric

diatribes to help enhance our teaching and clinical practice, pulling

interesting quotes to supports our beliefs, and giving us inspiration, then

that is fine. I have no problem with that, but let us be clear that this is

our intention. If this is how one approaches these texts, there is little

debate, because really anything goes. But when someone says this term was

meant to mean this or that then I assume that is not the goal.

Therefore, if our intention is to try to grasp how ancient doctors thought

about the human body in physiology and disease and consequently how they

prescribed medicine than this is a entirely different ballgame. This has

nothing to do with what is correct or incorrect with our current

understanding or what we belief philosophically, but merely a neutral

investigative process with a certain goal, find the truest meaning. This

requires a certain skill set and classical Chinese language is certainly

part of it.

If we choose the later, and in the process suggest that Chinese historical

record has it wrong, we need more data than just, " we have to be flexible

with the classics AND I think this or that. " This just does not cut it.

(BTW- I am not saying you are presenting this point of view).

Quite simply, if one finds a classical text / quote that supports there view

and this helps them understand their clinical experience better, this is

great, but it is not a substitute for using anthropological, linguistic, and

historical knowledge in figuring out what these texts were trying to say.

I hope it is clear that these are two different issues, with somewhat

opposing methodologies.

If we are talking about the latter, then maybe the simplest is this, can you

present some bit of evidence that classic texts used terms such as 'tu xue'

as something metaphorical and not literal? If this is true it should easily

be found in some Chinese source, no?

Let us get to the nitty gritty. Can you supply the passage in question so we

can investigate this. If not, is there another passage that such terms were

presented to have metaphorical meanings where we usually think of them as

literal?

I think of one of the oldest herbal texts, the SHL. There is more

commentary written on this then almost any other text. Previous doctors

words tell us a lot. I would be surprised if we found out that all these

doctors had it wrong when talking concretely about symptoms etc.

If we are talking about the former, and give little credence to what the

original authors really meant (and that is ok), then I have nothing more to

add. Say what you will.

-Jason

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

..

Please note that I am not demanding that anyone change their

orientation or beliefs; there does seem to be a significant

temperamental bias involved. But there has been for too many years a

rift of disdain between those in the Chinese medicine community who

are operating from the belief that vomiting blood is exactly that, and

those who are operating from the belief that these sorts of terms are

fractal signifiers.

Believe as you wish, so long as you proceed with rigor (and I am sure

that you do). But if you want to have insight into how the " other

half " is thinking, try beginning with the assumption that the blood

from the mouth means " something like " blood from the mouth, and reason

forward with rigor from there. Suddenly Jeffrey Yuen will be making a

whole lot more sense (as will other correlative thinkers).

I do not believe that, as a community, we need to convince each other

of anything; but I do believe that it is worth striving to be

intelligible to each other.

From the bastard hybrid heretic of both camps---

Thea Elijah

December 29, 2009

John

I hear you, as far as what you are saying about LI 16.

I am not yet clear how to reconcile Elisabeth's commentary and your

own. You reference sinologists who do not seem to agree with

Elisabeth. With all due respect, knowing nothing about who these

sinologists are or what their orientation might be, I'm not (yet)

willing to believe that Elisabeth's explication and understanding was

just plain for the birds. I respect Elisabeth as an authority in this

field, as your sinologist friends may also be. I do believe that she

was saying something that had strong meaning to convey about how to

read the text.

Suzette Hadin-Elgin, in her excellent book " The Gentle Art of Verbal

Self-Defense, " advises that when others speak, we listen from this

perspective: If what this other person were saying was true, what

might it be true OF? " In this way, we listen with the intention of

understanding the intent of the communication, and there is less

likelihood of degeneration of semantically based contention.

It strikes me that, Chinese medical history being what it is, any

example I could have chosen could be reasonable expected to generate

an alternate view from some sinologist other than Elisabeth. Perhaps

to reduce confusion we can express the main proposition as an equation:

When the Chinese say x, they do not mean x; they mean something like x.

I am further understanding from your (and other people's) references

to the great exactness and specificity of Chinese terms that when I

say " something like, " you may be taking me to meaning " something fuzzy

and inexact. " Especially after my last post, I fear you may think

that I mean " something ambiguous. "

I have spoken of these things before in other company, and been

clearly understood, but I am in the midst of learning now how to

present clearly to this particular group with its particular

orientations. Let me assure you that by " something like " I do not

mean, and I am certain that Elisabeth does not mean, something vague,

imprecise, or ambiguous. She means " something like " in the spirit of

the fractal thinking demonstrated blatantly in Su Wen chapter 5. She

means " something like " in the spirit of gan ying from Huinan Zi

chapter 6: all lute strings that vibrates in exact resonance with

this lute string.

The brilliance of Chinese descriptors is that they are BOTH

analytically and analogically exact. To read them only one way or the

other is to miss half the picture-- but even with half the picture

missing they are so clear that it works out anyway. It's just that

with only the analytical component, Jeffrey Yuen doesn't make sense.

OK, now I am wandering into my last piece of my essay, so I'd better

go to it.

Thea Elijah

December 29, 2009

Nice response, Jason.

Bob

, " " wrote:

>

> Thea,

>

> Thank you the lengthy presentation on your philosophy on teaching styles

> etc. However I do not find such a discussion that relevant in deciphering

> this issue about how to interpret, read, and use classical texts (correctly

> - see below clarification). Such a presentation could be construed as some

> justification for allowing people to make stuff up to fit their perspective.

> Again I could be misinterpreting the intention of the post.

>

> Please do not take offense, for I greatly enjoy and pretty much agree with

> most of your 'essay', but I think it does skirt the issue a bit. Let's

> explore a couple of issues.

>

> First, maybe we have different goals in using / 'interpreting' classic

> texts. If our intention is merely to use them as poetic / metaphoric

> diatribes to help enhance our teaching and clinical practice, pulling

> interesting quotes to supports our beliefs, and giving us inspiration, then

> that is fine. I have no problem with that, but let us be clear that this is

> our intention. If this is how one approaches these texts, there is little

> debate, because really anything goes. But when someone says this term was

> meant to mean this or that then I assume that is not the goal.

>

> Therefore, if our intention is to try to grasp how ancient doctors thought

> about the human body in physiology and disease and consequently how they

> prescribed medicine than this is a entirely different ballgame. This has

> nothing to do with what is correct or incorrect with our current

> understanding or what we belief philosophically, but merely a neutral

> investigative process with a certain goal, find the truest meaning. This

> requires a certain skill set and classical Chinese language is certainly

> part of it.

>

> If we choose the later, and in the process suggest that Chinese historical

> record has it wrong, we need more data than just, " we have to be flexible

> with the classics AND I think this or that. " This just does not cut it.

> (BTW- I am not saying you are presenting this point of view).

>

> Quite simply, if one finds a classical text / quote that supports there view

> and this helps them understand their clinical experience better, this is

> great, but it is not a substitute for using anthropological, linguistic, and

> historical knowledge in figuring out what these texts were trying to say.

>

> I hope it is clear that these are two different issues, with somewhat

> opposing methodologies.

>

> If we are talking about the latter, then maybe the simplest is this, can you

> present some bit of evidence that classic texts used terms such as 'tu xue'

> as something metaphorical and not literal? If this is true it should easily

> be found in some Chinese source, no?

>

> Let us get to the nitty gritty. Can you supply the passage in question so we

> can investigate this. If not, is there another passage that such terms were

> presented to have metaphorical meanings where we usually think of them as

> literal?

>

> I think of one of the oldest herbal texts, the SHL. There is more

> commentary written on this then almost any other text. Previous doctors

> words tell us a lot. I would be surprised if we found out that all these

> doctors had it wrong when talking concretely about symptoms etc.

>

> If we are talking about the former, and give little credence to what the

> original authors really meant (and that is ok), then I have nothing more to

> add. Say what you will.

>

> -Jason

>

> On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

>

> .

>

> Please note that I am not demanding that anyone change their

> orientation or beliefs; there does seem to be a significant

> temperamental bias involved. But there has been for too many years a

> rift of disdain between those in the Chinese medicine community who

> are operating from the belief that vomiting blood is exactly that, and

> those who are operating from the belief that these sorts of terms are

> fractal signifiers.

>

> Believe as you wish, so long as you proceed with rigor (and I am sure

> that you do). But if you want to have insight into how the " other

> half " is thinking, try beginning with the assumption that the blood

> from the mouth means " something like " blood from the mouth, and reason

> forward with rigor from there. Suddenly Jeffrey Yuen will be making a

> whole lot more sense (as will other correlative thinkers).

>

> I do not believe that, as a community, we need to convince each other

> of anything; but I do believe that it is worth striving to be

> intelligible to each other.

>

> From the bastard hybrid heretic of both camps---

>

> Thea Elijah

>

December 29, 2009

Thea,

I referenced only from " A Manual of Acupuncture " by Deadman, Al-Khafaji and

Baker, which is highly regarded in most circles, including classical ones,

since all of the information can be sourced from one of the classical texts.

I like reading Elisabeth's books and respect her interpretations of the

philosophical chapters of the Nei jing ie. Su wen 8, Ling shu 8 etc. My

position is that medical terminology might have less room to interpret

freely, since the metaphors seem very specific. If vomiting blood can be

interpreted to mean vomiting anything, than damp-heat could be interpreted

to mean phlegm-fire, which it is not.

I'm just wondering if we respect the classics, how much room are we given to

re-interpret them? It took a lot of people replicating the experiment over

centuries to publish the functions in a text-book. Of course, parables and

koans can mean the universe, but this seems more applicable to philosophy,

not needling a point in order to see a change in the patient's physiology.

Let me know if I'm wrong... I mean how strong is our intention that we

can change the function of an acupuncture point? How much poetic license

are we allowed before we aren't really following our ancestors' footsteps,

but have cleared a whole new trail in a new direction?

What I do like about J. Yuen's interpretation of point names for point

functions is that this context gives richer meaning to the needling. It

makes the experience deeper for both sides and makes the functions more

clear, not less clear, in a paradigmatic sort of way.

Respectfully,

K

December 29, 2009

Thea,

In the past when we've had these discussions, I've gone directly to such

individuals as Paul Unschuld or Heiner to clarify points of contention. Would

it be possible for you to contact Elisabeth and have her explanation posted

here?

Thank you,

On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Thea Elijah wrote:

> John

>

> I hear you, as far as what you are saying about LI 16.

>

> I am not yet clear how to reconcile Elisabeth's commentary and your

> own. You reference sinologists who do not seem to agree with

> Elisabeth. With all due respect, knowing nothing about who these

> sinologists are or what their orientation might be, I'm not (yet)

> willing to believe that Elisabeth's explication and understanding was

> just plain for the birds. I respect Elisabeth as an authority in this

> field, as your sinologist friends may also be. I do believe that she

> was saying something that had strong meaning to convey about how to

> read the text.

>

> Suzette Hadin-Elgin, in her excellent book " The Gentle Art of Verbal

> Self-Defense, " advises that when others speak, we listen from this

> perspective: If what this other person were saying was true, what

> might it be true OF? " In this way, we listen with the intention of

> understanding the intent of the communication, and there is less

> likelihood of degeneration of semantically based contention.

>

> It strikes me that, Chinese medical history being what it is, any

> example I could have chosen could be reasonable expected to generate

> an alternate view from some sinologist other than Elisabeth. Perhaps

> to reduce confusion we can express the main proposition as an equation:

>

> When the Chinese say x, they do not mean x; they mean something like x.

>

> I am further understanding from your (and other people's) references

> to the great exactness and specificity of Chinese terms that when I

> say " something like, " you may be taking me to meaning " something fuzzy

> and inexact. " Especially after my last post, I fear you may think

> that I mean " something ambiguous. "

>

> I have spoken of these things before in other company, and been

> clearly understood, but I am in the midst of learning now how to

> present clearly to this particular group with its particular

> orientations. Let me assure you that by " something like " I do not

> mean, and I am certain that Elisabeth does not mean, something vague,

> imprecise, or ambiguous. She means " something like " in the spirit of

> the fractal thinking demonstrated blatantly in Su Wen chapter 5. She

> means " something like " in the spirit of gan ying from Huinan Zi

> chapter 6: all lute strings that vibrates in exact resonance with

> this lute string.

>

> The brilliance of Chinese descriptors is that they are BOTH

> analytically and analogically exact. To read them only one way or the

> other is to miss half the picture-- but even with half the picture

> missing they are so clear that it works out anyway. It's just that

> with only the analytical component, Jeffrey Yuen doesn't make sense.

>

> OK, now I am wandering into my last piece of my essay, so I'd better

> go to it.

>

> Thea Elijah

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

December 29, 2009

Dear Group,

I rarely post, but thought I'd add my 2 cents, for what it's worth....

I've spent many years in China, am quite fluent in Chinese, and have studied a

lot of classical texts in Chinese. Still, I hardly consider myself an expert,

but have studied with many real experts. As for the true meaning of any given

term in a classical text, I suppose that is always up for debate, although I

tend to side with folks like Jason who prefer to defer to what has been said by

famous commentators throughout the centuries. I trust their interpretations more

than most because they generally had a very deep knowledge of not only Chinese

Medicine, but of language, culture, history, philosophy, etc., and this enabled

them to get closer to the original meaning than I think most of us, especially

us non-native speakers, can get on our own.

In any case, I think what is most important is not whether tu-xue/ " spitting

blood " literally means coughing or vomiting of blood or not, but what is the

pathomechanism behind the term. (That said, I do think that precise meaning of

terms is an important point, and I tend to think it's pretty straight forward,

that tu xue means blood coming out of the mouth, but in the end, it's really the

pathomechanism that is most important.) Ultimately, tu-xue is just a symptom,

and one that can be the result of many many different pathomechanisms, heat or

cold, excess or deficiency, interior or exterior, etc. In the instance Thea

described, it sounds like Elizabeth was saying that what's more important than

actual vomiting or coughing of blood is the pathomechanism, and in that

particular clause she described it as implying a type of liver and stomach

disharmony, or something like that. We don't have the source text, so we can't

comment on that interpretation, but it is an entirely plausible explanation.

Of course, it would be a serious mistake to consider tu-xue to always mean the

same thing (liver stomach disharmony), and I kind of doubt that's what Thea or

Elisabeth is trying to say. Only through careful analysis of a source text can

we tease out the pathomechanism that is causing the symptom (and, lucky for us,

in most cases this work has already been done so we can go straight ahead and

read that).

By looking beyond mere symptoms and analysing pathomechanism the use of formulas

and/or herbs can be expanded beyond the indications that are listed in source

texts. For example, Jin Gui Yao Lue's Huang Tu Tang in the source text is

indicated for, among other things, " tu xue " , but it's use has been expanded

beyond this because the pathomechanism for which the formula was designed can

present with symptoms other than tu-xue. So, we need to know what tu-xue or any

other symptom is an indicator of (what's the pathomechanism), then this formula

can be used when similar pathomechanisms present to us in clinic.

I personally think this is the main point to keep in mind in this discussion.

Respectfully,

Greg

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Thea,

> In the past when we've had these discussions, I've gone directly to such

individuals as Paul Unschuld or Heiner to clarify points of contention. Would

it be possible for you to contact Elisabeth and have her explanation posted

here?

>

> Thank you,

>

> On Dec 29, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Thea Elijah wrote:

>

> > John

> >

> > I hear you, as far as what you are saying about LI 16.

> >

> > I am not yet clear how to reconcile Elisabeth's commentary and your

> > own. You reference sinologists who do not seem to agree with

> > Elisabeth. With all due respect, knowing nothing about who these

> > sinologists are or what their orientation might be, I'm not (yet)

> > willing to believe that Elisabeth's explication and understanding was

> > just plain for the birds. I respect Elisabeth as an authority in this

> > field, as your sinologist friends may also be. I do believe that she

> > was saying something that had strong meaning to convey about how to

> > read the text.

> >

> > Suzette Hadin-Elgin, in her excellent book " The Gentle Art of Verbal

> > Self-Defense, " advises that when others speak, we listen from this

> > perspective: If what this other person were saying was true, what

> > might it be true OF? " In this way, we listen with the intention of

> > understanding the intent of the communication, and there is less

> > likelihood of degeneration of semantically based contention.

> >

> > It strikes me that, Chinese medical history being what it is, any

> > example I could have chosen could be reasonable expected to generate

> > an alternate view from some sinologist other than Elisabeth. Perhaps

> > to reduce confusion we can express the main proposition as an equation:

> >

> > When the Chinese say x, they do not mean x; they mean something like x.

> >

> > I am further understanding from your (and other people's) references

> > to the great exactness and specificity of Chinese terms that when I

> > say " something like, " you may be taking me to meaning " something fuzzy

> > and inexact. " Especially after my last post, I fear you may think

> > that I mean " something ambiguous. "

> >

> > I have spoken of these things before in other company, and been

> > clearly understood, but I am in the midst of learning now how to

> > present clearly to this particular group with its particular

> > orientations. Let me assure you that by " something like " I do not

> > mean, and I am certain that Elisabeth does not mean, something vague,

> > imprecise, or ambiguous. She means " something like " in the spirit of

> > the fractal thinking demonstrated blatantly in Su Wen chapter 5. She

> > means " something like " in the spirit of gan ying from Huinan Zi

> > chapter 6: all lute strings that vibrates in exact resonance with

> > this lute string.

> >

> > The brilliance of Chinese descriptors is that they are BOTH

> > analytically and analogically exact. To read them only one way or the

> > other is to miss half the picture-- but even with half the picture

> > missing they are so clear that it works out anyway. It's just that

> > with only the analytical component, Jeffrey Yuen doesn't make sense.

> >

> > OK, now I am wandering into my last piece of my essay, so I'd better

> > go to it.

> >

> > Thea Elijah

> >

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

December 30, 2009

THANK YOU

yes

I do not have your level of experience n communicating such ideas

clearly in language that this group would understand, and I am

grateful for your commentary.

This is very helpful to the direction in which I am (slowly but

surely) headed:

> By looking beyond mere symptoms and analysing pathomechanism the use

> of formulas and/or herbs can be expanded beyond the indications that

> are listed in source texts. For example, Jin Gui Yao Lue's Huang Tu

> Tang in the source text is indicated for, among other things, " tu

> xue " , but it's use has been expanded beyond this because the

> pathomechanism for which the formula was designed can present with

> symptoms other than tu-xue. So, we need to know what tu-xue or any

> other symptom is an indicator of (what's the pathomechanism), then

> this formula can be used when similar pathomechanisms present to us

> in clinic.

>

> I personally think this is the main point to keep in mind in this

> discussion.

>

Thea Elijah

>

December 30, 2009

On Dec 28, 2009, at 7:11 PM, wrote:

> Thea,

>

> Thank you the lengthy presentation on your philosophy on teaching

> styles

> etc. However I do not find such a discussion that relevant in

> deciphering

> this issue about how to interpret, read, and use classical texts

> (correctly

> - see below clarification).

>

see below

> Such a presentation could be construed as some

> justification for allowing people to make stuff up to fit their

> perspective.

> Again I could be misinterpreting the intention of the post.

>

Yup, that is definitely misinterpreting the intention of the post.

Thanks for asking.

Part of why I wrote about teaching style first is because of the issue

of pacing and how it effects cognitive modes and the search for

understanding. For instance, much of this discussion is moving much

too fast for me. I have now in my drafts folder more emails from CHA

than I could respond to with anything approaching competence in at

least a month. I can give a half-assed reply to all of them swiftly,

or I can SLOW DOWN. It is like the printer for my computer: there is

SPEED, and there is QUALITY. I will play chess but I will not fence;

in a fencing match I am sure all of you could cut me to pieces

swiftly. In a chess match I am likely to be able to hold my own. I

am the tortoise, not the hare.

Moreover, since we are discussing cognitive modes (did you know that

we are discussing cognitive modes?) I will comment that there are

cognitive modes--and thus insights-- that cannot be accessed swiftly.

Analysis is a swift cognitive mode, razor mind in action. It's

wonderful, but its downfall is that hey, you previously wrote me an

email on 12/23 which deeply excited me and to which I have had NO TIME

to reply -- and now we have come to this, me feeling like you want me

to hurry up and put up or shut up so you can make a swift analysis and

be done with it. Is this the case, or am I imagining impatience, and

merely bringing this rushed feeling upon myself?

I still look forward to responding to that first response from you--

if I could press PAUSE on the of that intellectual

moment, I would be so delighted, because that post felt like an

opportunity to enter into a great challenging exploration, and I would

not like to lose that opportunity due to a lack of rapport around

timing. For me, it might take months for such an exploration to

unfold-- and I would not mind, given the fullness of my practice,

teaching and family life. Once I feel that I must prove myself

swiftly or be dismissed, all joy goes out of it-- and this could be

such a good and worthy frackas rather than a stressful one. I love

discussion-- I do not love debate. Much of the difference between

the two is reflected in pacing. At speed, all I can do is debate:

from my already established position, I launch arguments at your

position; or I respond to the arguments that you launch at my position

from yours. For me what makes a discussion worthwhile is the time

spent opening to the unknown together, remaining in uncertainty, and

allowing the other person's words, questions and challenges to move

inside of me, awaken me, change me perhaps. Do you enjoy that kind of

discussion-- where there is time for digestion to take place-- and

mulling and considering-- or do you prefer debate, which does not

expect or allow for anyone to sit in the unknown and ambiguous for all

the potentially rich subtlety of insight that only this can bring?

That's part of why I wrote about teaching style.

In any case, if what I have to say is bullshit, it will still be

bullshit if it takes more time to be expressed; no fear that patience

will impair our analytical faculties. On the other hand, if what I am

trying to say has some merit as yet ungrasped-- because the words are

still only half way out of my mouth-- will ours mind remain open long

enough to find out?

I have been searching for a valid post-Newtonian definition of the

word " objective. " I am suspecting that this quality of truth which is

independent of time and rush, and our ability to remain open to it

regardless of the pacing of its unfoldment, has something to do with

objectivity.

I cannot match your pace-- but this is no problem for an objective

listener. It is all the same in time, and there is no intellectual

emergency taking place here, no reason for urgency.

Moreover, there are cognitive states relevant to assessment of truth

which cannot be accessed at high speeds or in a predominantly

analytical mode. I'm sure there is brain research on this-- some of

you may know it better than I -- I only know the experience, and know

it well. Analogical thought is slower-paced than analytical thought.

Actually, it is frequently not ultimately slower-- sometimes it seems

to come in a flash, much faster in fact than analysis (I have

referenced gan ying)-- but its pace is unhurried and its physiology

relaxed. I prize this unhurried state as central to my best

cognition, and I strongly suspect that what I am trying to say is not

capable of being grasped at analytical warp speed.

Think of listening to music. One might listen in analytical mode, and

surely this is very worthwhile and may yield brilliant insight of a

particular sort-- there is no denying it. But there is another form

of insight associated with the analogical mind, which is only

accessible if you put down the razor blade--- you can always pick it

back up again, and in fact rigor demands that you do!---- and at

least for a while, let your whole physiology shift with you into the

slower or at least more relaxed mode of contemplation, wherein one may

grasp 1) the sense of a whole that is greater than the sum of its

parts, and 2) a sense of a " thread of essence " to that whole.

I have been using the example of listening to music this way, but it

might be sitting with a person that way (why not sit with ME that way,

and I shall surely return the favor!), or reading John Keats' Ode on a

Grecian Urn that way. Afterwards, one must use analytical faculties

to translate this sense-of-the-whole and also this sense-of-essence-

thread into words and categories, but that comes SECOND. Side by

side, what one discovers in this mode must be compared, for reality

check, with what one has discovered in a purely analytical mode.

Thus I am going to take my time. I am assuming that if we do not let

the impatience which can easily accompany the unrelenting analytical

mode defeat our open-minded objective state, then the speed of my

reply will in no way influence your evaluation of its content. I

invite us all to listen to music, walk in the woods, and sit with out

clients engaging the FULL range of our cognitive capacities. It could

make the world a better place, or at least this list serve a better

place. (I'm laughing-- at the very least it would make this list

serve a better place for the likes of me!)

Now I am going to go forget about all of you for a while, until I am

relaxed and loose enough to write only from silence and centeredness.

Because I value our discourse.

good day to you vocal and silent multitudes---

Thea Elijah

>

December 30, 2009

On Dec 29, 2009, at 7:20 PM, wrote:

> Thea,

> In the past when we've had these discussions, I've gone directly

> to such individuals as Paul Unschuld or Heiner to clarify points of

> contention. Would it be possible for you to contact Elisabeth and

> have her explanation posted here?

I will go about it, but I have no assurance that it will happen

quickly. We have not been in touch for about 5 years now, maybe 6,

and I'm a little shy to bust in out of nowhere with an intellectual

demand. I'm going to re-connect through a mutual friend first.

I also have reason to write to Heiner, and will see if he is

interested in putting anything in writing for public consumption on

the subject. He has not responded to an inquiry from me sent just

before the holidays, so this also may take time.

Thea Elijah

>

December 30, 2009

On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:55 PM, wrote:

> If vomiting blood can be

> interpreted to mean vomiting anything, than damp-heat could be

> interpreted

> to mean phlegm-fire, which it is not.

>

This is absolutely not what I am saying-- perhaps our posts crossed,

where I explained that " something like " does not mean something vague,

inexact or ambiguous.

see recent previous post to you

>

> I'm just wondering if we respect the classics, how much room are we

> given to

> re-interpret them? It took a lot of people replicating the

> experiment over

> centuries to publish the functions in a text-book. Of course,

> parables and

> koans can mean the universe, but this seems more applicable to

> philosophy,

> not needling a point in order to see a change in the patient's

> physiology.

> Let me know if I'm wrong... I mean how strong is our intention that we

> can change the function of an acupuncture point? How much poetic

> license

> are we allowed before we aren't really following our ancestors'

> footsteps,

> but have cleared a whole new trail in a new direction?

>

I am in NO WAY suggesting that the indication in the text books are

not literally valid. I am saying that they are not ONLY literally

valid.

>

> What I do like about J. Yuen's interpretation of point names for point

> functions is that this context gives richer meaning to the needling.

> It

> makes the experience deeper for both sides and makes the functions

> more

> clear, not less clear, in a paradigmatic sort of way.

>

Indeed.

His work is a perfect example of " something like " as clarification

through expanding the fractal.

This is a nugatory response and I know it-- written hastily between

clients-- written only to dispel false notions, not giving you

anything substantial, I know. That's all I can do on the fly. I am

working on a substantial piece.

Thea Elijah

>

> Respectfully,

> K

>

December 30, 2009

Well, of course if you want to go back that far. I'm referring to the

current aromatherapy which began in Europe and involved ingesting essential

oils. This obviously will have systemic effects and can be poisonous in the

wrong dose. Thus when it came to the US is was quickly adopted as a healing

modality but because of legal restrictions - leaving out directly ingesting

the oils. In other words it got seriously watered down from a therapy that

had a limited range of application to a hyped up system widely

commercialized in the US without any significant factual basis of efficacy

for the claims that are made. I'm not the only one claiming hype in

reference to aromatherapy. The following is from an aromatherapy website -

http://www.aromaweb.com/articles/hype.asp -- and i pretty much agree with

all of this.

Acupuncture points - well it probably has an effect, for that matter

scratching a point has an effect - the question is how much and what is the

most effective. I don't think that beyond the basic heating and stimulating