research methodology and experimental design

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

 

My beef is not that if Chinese medicine can be a " calling to service, for

humanity " -- of course it can. And of course there can be much more than

just sticking needles in and writing formulas. However, Thomas's inquiry is

important. For one, as much as you, myself, or anyone else likes, Chinese

medicine does not have to be practiced with this " S " pirit(ual) slant to be

effective and to help people on many levels. This is for certain. My real

investigation here is what classic authors (e.g. Nei Jing) were really

talking about. Hence, I still believe that many lines in seminal texts such

as the Nei Jing are incorrectly interpreted.

 

For the record, I have no argument that there were doctors within history

that had these " S " pirit ideas. My main problem is with Lonny presenting the

idea that all texts and all language were coming from the point of view of

" S " pirit.

 

BTW, Thanks John K. for posting this great excerpt. There is no doubt that

Chinese medicine is filled with usages of the word shen (sprit). But

honestly, I do not trust the translations (or the interpretations) presented

because of the obvious issues I have already expressed. We would definitely

need to see the original characters and some commentary to make a correct

judgment. Too many Westerners superimpose their belief system when they

translate. In addition, as I pointed out, the word shen (spirit) cannot be

assumed to mean something spiritual (or even some greater service to

humanity as Z'ev suggests) in the sense that we understand the word.

 

For example, you quote " as long as the spirit and qi are there, the body is

healthy and strong. " This sounds like just basic Chinese medicine to me. We

talk about the shen of the complexion, the pulse, the tongue etc..

 

That is not to say that there are not texts out there that have some deeper

meaning. However, merely reading the words (e.g. shen and ming) , especially

without Chinese language skills, is destined to have error. However, I am

completely open to exploring this idea further. It seems like the most

logical way to pursue this is through the NeiJing. A) because most everyone

has access to the original characters. B) because we can look up commentary

and find out how great thinkers, philosophers, and doctors thought about

this issue throughout history. Let's present some key passages, as I did,

that we think have some spiritual/ supernatural meaning.

 

For the record, Z'ev, we have the ability to access commentaries that

significantly pre-date, as you say " The materialistic biases of modern

communist " so this is a moot and only distracting point. Actually any

discussion that does not involve core source material/commentaries is not

only questionable, but fundamentally non-academic.

 

The reason I quoted Chace & Bensky is because they are doing serious

research and presenting merely what they find, it has nothing to do with

their opinion. I value this approach much more than a biased perspective

just trying to prove a point. Actually this discussion seems very similar to

Thea's previously (which I still welcome some examples for).

 

In my opinion, the only way to actually assess the matter is to present

actual examples. Hence, my suggestion is to look at specific passages from

the NeiJing that discuss these ideas. Without presenting the passages and

the Chinese characters one can say whatever they want. I have already

presented specific passages and commentary in my previous posts. If anyone

needs the Chinese to what I posted please let me know. If someone has

commentary that presents a different point of view for these passages then

please present them. Otherwise there is no argument. However, as it stands

for me, it is very clear that classic Chinese medicine offers did use the

term Spirit (shen) to mean something as simple as the body's correct qi,

nothing more nothing less.

 

Finally, my point is not about " majority rules. " More accurately, it is

about presenting data in an academic and rigorous (and non-biased) way. In

general, a consensus shows that the point is valid. However, to show that an

alternate point is valid takes much more than just saying that it isn't so,

because everyone is entitled to an opinion. In my opinion, one must present

some commentary along with the original passage for us to truly evaluate it.

 

 

How do others see a proper investigation of this topic carried out?

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:21 AM

 

Cc: Sabine Wilms; Y Seidman

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

Woah, hold on a minute guys. . .

 

I see a lot of room for bias in this discussion.

 

Let's remember that in socialist societies, there is no such thing at the

official level as a 'spirit'. The materialistic biases of modern

communist/socialist countries makes it more 'politically correct' to avoid

discussion of such a thing, except perhaps in an academic, safe milieu.

 

" Spirit " doesn't have to mean something metaphysical, beyond this world,

invisible, immortal.

 

Compassion, serving others, integrity, are part of the 'spiritual' nature of

humanity. It is not just a materialistic, automatic reflex conditioned by

evolution.

 

Yes, the opening chapters of the Su Wen provide a guidebook for living with

the seasons.

 

Or as Sun Si-miao said (and I checked several translations and the Chinese),

" if you do not read the Nei Jing you will not know the virtue of mercy,

sorrow, happiness, giving " .

 

I'm reading a little book called " Yojokun " by a Japanese neo-Confucian

physician, Kaibara Ekiken. It is all about how to live in harmony with

nature, season, family, environment, eat right, sleep right, manage

emotions, etc. with the goal of preservation and length of life.

 

" Yang Sheng " or nourishing life is about maintaining one's bodily and

emotional health, which in Confucian philosophy is the cornerstone of a

healthy family and society. The continuation of life through healthy

children, descendants, who will continue the life of one's family, culture

and society.

 

Therefore, the physician in Chinese medicine is more than a technician

relieving symptoms, he/she is maintaining life, which is precious.

 

At its best, Chinese medicine can be a calling to service, for humanity, and

if one so believes, to G-d. . . .

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:47 AM, wrote:

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

The issue is not if these (below) ideas that you present are important. If

that is the only question, there is actually no answer. It is only an

individual preference. However if we are trying to figure how Chinese

physicians thought then we have something to talk about.

 

Did they consider shen something like " G-D " or was it merely harmony with

the seasons. Whatever our thesis is we should try to define what we are

actually talking about. I think everyone has a completely different idea of

this spirit concept. I see Lonny way on one side, and maybe Bob somewhere on

the other side. In my opinion passages have different meanings for shen

hence we must look at the individual passages. Therefore maybe you or others

can explain what exactly you feel shen means within a context of a Chinese

passage. Is that unreasonable?

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:21 AM

 

Cc: Sabine Wilms; Y Seidman

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

Woah, hold on a minute guys. . .

 

I see a lot of room for bias in this discussion.

 

Let's remember that in socialist societies, there is no such thing at the

official level as a 'spirit'. The materialistic biases of modern

communist/socialist countries makes it more 'politically correct' to avoid

discussion of such a thing, except perhaps in an academic, safe milieu.

 

" Spirit " doesn't have to mean something metaphysical, beyond this world,

invisible, immortal.

 

Compassion, serving others, integrity, are part of the 'spiritual' nature of

humanity. It is not just a materialistic, automatic reflex conditioned by

evolution.

 

Yes, the opening chapters of the Su Wen provide a guidebook for living with

the seasons.

 

Or as Sun Si-miao said (and I checked several translations and the Chinese),

" if you do not read the Nei Jing you will not know the virtue of mercy,

sorrow, happiness, giving " .

 

I'm reading a little book called " Yojokun " by a Japanese neo-Confucian

physician, Kaibara Ekiken. It is all about how to live in harmony with

nature, season, family, environment, eat right, sleep right, manage

emotions, etc. with the goal of preservation and length of life.

 

" Yang Sheng " or nourishing life is about maintaining one's bodily and

emotional health, which in Confucian philosophy is the cornerstone of a

healthy family and society. The continuation of life through healthy

children, descendants, who will continue the life of one's family, culture

and society.

 

Therefore, the physician in Chinese medicine is more than a technician

relieving symptoms, he/she is maintaining life, which is precious.

 

At its best, Chinese medicine can be a calling to service, for humanity, and

if one so believes, to G-d. . . .

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:47 AM, wrote:

[Guest guest]

Jason,

Just to stick to the point, I was referring specifically to the comments of

Thomas' teacher, not pre-modern texts. We need to look at the context of how

people are raised within particular societies and the biases of that society,

and also the risks of taking alternative viewpoints within such societies. I

don't to a simplistic " the communists changed the medicine " view any

more than you do, the reality is far more complex than that, but people are

influenced by the societies they live in and most of the time want to be

'politically correct', that's all. .

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

> For the record, Z'ev, we have the ability to access commentaries that

> significantly pre-date, as you say " The materialistic biases of modern

> communist " so this is a moot and only distracting point. Actually any

> discussion that does not involve core source material/commentaries is not

> only questionable, but fundamentally non-academic.

>

> The reason I quoted Chace & Bensky is because they are doing serious

> research and presenting merely what they find, it has nothing to do with

> their opinion. I value this approach much more than a biased perspective

> just trying to prove a point. Actually this discussion seems very similar to

> Thea's previously (which I still welcome some examples for).

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree, thanks for clarifying.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:23 AM

 

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

Just to stick to the point, I was referring specifically to the comments of

Thomas' teacher, not pre-modern texts. We need to look at the context of how

people are raised within particular societies and the biases of that

society, and also the risks of taking alternative viewpoints within such

societies. I don't to a simplistic " the communists changed the

medicine " view any more than you do, the reality is far more complex than

that, but people are influenced by the societies they live in and most of

the time want to be 'politically correct', that's all. .

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

> For the record, Z'ev, we have the ability to access commentaries that

> significantly pre-date, as you say " The materialistic biases of modern

> communist " so this is a moot and only distracting point. Actually any

> discussion that does not involve core source material/commentaries is not

> only questionable, but fundamentally non-academic.

>

> The reason I quoted Chace & Bensky is because they are doing serious

> research and presenting merely what they find, it has nothing to do with

> their opinion. I value this approach much more than a biased perspective

> just trying to prove a point. Actually this discussion seems very similar

to

> Thea's previously (which I still welcome some examples for).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think we need to distinguish between relieving suffering and " giving hope " ...

meaning that we have a key to that suffering that is beyond the patient. The

former is to risk a religious point of view. Therefore I have to agree with both

Z'ev and Jason.

Doug

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

66

 

Sorry for the use of the word " better " , it was more of a joke... however,

I'm not sure what Chinese medicine you have studied, but from my experience

in my clinic and as well as watching numerous doctors in China CM (yes

addressing patterns) gets much more than just " short-term amelioration of

symptoms "

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Steven Alpern

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:58 AM

 

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

 

This talk of " better " is tedious and distracting. Indeed, what does it even

mean? What is the mark of a " good " treatment? Is it the

balancing/ameliorization of symptoms and signs, or the mobilization of wei

qi?

 

I submit that I started really learning Chinese medicine, when I clearly

understood that it was the latter, yet my entire training and most of what

I've seen in writing about CM points to the former. I find this disturbing,

and believe that CM has SO MUCH more to offer than I was taught in

acupuncture school. Clearly, there have been (and are currently) very

inspired and inspiring physicians and teachers. However, I find the clinical

methodology of modern TCM, which focuses so much on classifying patients

into symptom-sign complexes, inadequate. Of course, the best practitioners

and teachers of either race (or frankly either linguistic group) can

penetrate through the limitations of that basic methodology, yet I believe

we need to honestly ask ourselves as a profession how often or widely is

that ideal realized? Might we also ask if there might be some other ideas

from the history of CM (like extensive use of the five systems of channels)

that we'd add to the modern doctrine to help us practice CM more incisively?

 

So, what happens when a practitioners successfully stimulates the

mobilization of wei qi in a patient? Sometimes, when the symptoms are the

direct result of the patient's struggle with blockage, they just get better.

However, when the patient's condition is the expression of a more entangled

situation with multiple layers of pathogenic factor and " coping response, "

mobilizing wei qi can easily stimulate a " healing event " -- where the

patient's embodied spirit actively confronts some stagnation it had

previously tolerated, and pushes it out. These " healing events " are

generally symptomatic, and can be quite unpleasant. Yet, I submit they are

the mark of " good " treatments, as they stimulate profound healing rather

than short-term amelioration of symptoms, which BTW is the standard

promulgated when we " take our lead " from western medicine. We can do better

than that, MUCH better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

A very important and deep question. The Nei Jing dictionary definitions of

'shen' seem to allow for a wide variety of definitions of shen in the Nei Jing

corpus, just as 'spirit' has a wide range of definitions in the English

language.

 

For me, one of the beautiful things about Chinese medicine is that it leaves

questions of G-d and spirit quite open-ended, and can be adapted by

'spiritualists' and materialists alike. I find great resonance with the

philosophical foundations of the medicine, whether from Confucian or Taoist

sources, especially meditations on nature, season, harmony between self and

world, etc., and their implications for health. They are important aspects of

both my lifestyle and my professional practice. However, as a Jew, I find no

conflict (in Chinese medicine) with my personal beliefs or practices, and

Judaism prohibits advertising one's path or trying to 'convert' anyone. But

being Jewish cannot help but color my approach to Chinese medicine (or as Misha

Cohen calls it " chicken soup chinese medicine " , although in my case I don't eat

chicken soup).

 

I think that is why this discussion is so interesting.

 

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:17 AM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> The issue is not if these (below) ideas that you present are important. If

> that is the only question, there is actually no answer. It is only an

> individual preference. However if we are trying to figure how Chinese

> physicians thought then we have something to talk about.

>

> Did they consider shen something like " G-D " or was it merely harmony with

> the seasons. Whatever our thesis is we should try to define what we are

> actually talking about. I think everyone has a completely different idea of

> this spirit concept. I see Lonny way on one side, and maybe Bob somewhere on

> the other side. In my opinion passages have different meanings for shen

> hence we must look at the individual passages. Therefore maybe you or others

> can explain what exactly you feel shen means within a context of a Chinese

> passage. Is that unreasonable?

>

> -Jason

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It was a joke... anyway I do consider clinical experience an important part

in becoming a good doctor. Do you not?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Lonny

 

 

I bet your teacher can write a formula (or insert

a needle) better than anyone on the list.

 

Lonny: On what data is this conclusion based? Are you saying that clinical

experience is primary?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason et. al.:

 

I'm pleased to have a discussion about the merits of various ideas, and hope

that the somewhat impersonal nature of this medium doesn't lead to a certain

course quality in our conversation. My original statement about the

" short-term amelioration of symptoms " was clearly not aimed broadly at the

practice of modern Chinese medicine in general, but rather at the " lowest

common denominator " of the profession. I said:

 

" However, when the patient's condition is the expression of a more entangled

situation with multiple layers of pathogenic factor and " coping response, "

mobilizing wei qi can easily stimulate a " healing event " -- where the

patient's embodied spirit actively confronts some stagnation it had

previously tolerated, and pushes it out. These " healing events " are

generally symptomatic, and can be quite unpleasant. Yet, I submit they are

the mark of " good " treatments, as they stimulate profound healing rather

than short-term amelioration of symptoms, which BTW is the standard

promulgated when we " take our lead " from western medicine. We can do better

than that, MUCH better. "

 

Mind you, I'm not entirely opposed to cooperating with western medicine,

though I feel strongly that we hold our heads high and take the best of

Chinese medicine to that encounter. Many of the current models of " integral

medicine " as unsatisfying to me, because CM practitioners are not given

space to do their best work to enliven and stimulate the healing potential

of the embodied spirit in their patients. I don't believe that Chinese

medicine practitioners need be subsidiary to any other medical paradigm. Why

allow the money and power of western medicine to put us in such a position?

Yet, we must always strive to do our work well, which by the way Jason, I'd

say your posts demonstrate your hard work to learn and practice CM well.

While I still believe that the modern doctrine has some content and

structural weaknesses, practiced well I agree that it's far better than

" short-term amelioration of symptoms. " Indeed, in the previous paragraph I'd

written:

 

" Clearly, there have been (and are currently) very inspired and inspiring

physicians and teachers. However, I find the clinical methodology of modern

TCM, which focuses so much on classifying patients into symptom-sign

complexes, inadequate. Of course, the best practitioners and teachers of

either race (or frankly either linguistic group) can penetrate through the

limitations of that basic methodology, yet I believe we need to honestly ask

ourselves as a profession how often or widely is that ideal realized? "

 

So Jason, I hope you'll agree that we want more inspired teachers and

practitioners. I firmly believe that most of the passionate people who

participate on this board (either posting or just reading) work very hard to

be in that group of inspired practitioners and teachers, though the bare

minimum requirements of getting through school and passing licensing exams

only requires basic working knowledge of symptom-sign complexes. Can we also

agree that we need to continue improving the Chinese medicine portion of the

education in acupuncture schools so that we will have a larger share of our

profession practicing at a high level, regardless of the specific clinical

methodology one chooses to use? My main suggestion during the past few weeks

has focused on the question that followed that excerpt in the original

posting:

 

" Might we also ask if there might be some other ideas from the history of CM

(like extensive use of the five systems of channels) that we'd add to the

modern doctrine to help us practice CM more incisively? "

 

Of course, I understand that some are attached to the idea that in the

middle of the twentieth century the Chinese government scientifically chose

to include all of the important ideas of Chinese medicine throughout it's

long and varied history in the modern doctrine. I've not said it's an

entirely bad or false doctrine, only that I find it incomplete and not

entirely satisfactory. Many learn to practice with the modern clinical

doctrine very well, and it has the obvious benefit of being a fairly

straight-forward clinical methodology, which is especially suited for those

that don't wish to engage the type of applied clinical philosophy that I

favor. There are many paths up the mountain.

 

Jason asked what type of Chinese medicine I've studied -- the answer is that

about 25 years ago I studied modern TCM, like everyone else that needs to

pass a licensing exam in the U.S. As many of you know from my previous

posts, I've been studying (and working hard to understand and implement)

Jeffrey Yuen's teachings for sixteen years. That work can be quickly summed

us as focus on learning to unblock the intrinsic movement of wei qi to

generate healing, rather than seeking specifically to balance pathological

expressions. Believe it or not, that approach, which I take to be inspired

by Neijing, is quite different from modern TCM. In the end, I've never said

that everyone needs to practice as I do, though I believe quite strongly

that my approach is both clinically valuable (thus deserving a voice) and

authentically Chinese.

 

Peace and blessings,

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

Keep in mind, my teacher is 82, which means he was born in 1927. He is a party

member by necessity only, and he stated that his teachers never discussed this

as part of their teaching (direct teaching ran from 1945-1957). He clearly

states that at his age he has nothing holding him back from saying anything he

wants and teaching everything he knows.

 

Although it is possible that there is a cultural influence that he is not

stating, or perhaps aware of, I really don't think so.

 

Also, I want to be clear that I do believe that big " S " spirit is important to

the practice of medicine. But, I also believe that it is an individual's path

that is, in fact, VERY individual. Although I have a practice, which is

admittedly not as consistent as I would like, I would NEVER suggest that that

path, or any path for that matter, is necessary for a patient's recovery from

illness. This is a personal and individual choice that I believe MUST be

respected. The main reason I believe it is important to the practice of medicine

is to maintain one's own health and balance in the face of so much imbalance

being poured into your lap on a daily basis, especially in the West (N. America)

where so many patients seem to be lost in an ocean of ideas about so many things

including but not limited to: religion, spirituality, diet, child-rearing, etc,

etc, etc. Here in China I find far less of the emotional/spiritual dumping by

patients, not that is doesn't happen, but just a lot less. AND, I don't believe

it is so much because of a Communist white-washing as much as a cultural

unity/lineage/tradition and family support system that is all but absent in the

West (N. America).

 

For those who have never lived here, there are many many people here who have a

spiritual path, it is just not something that people talk about a lot. There are

many teachers openly teaching Buddhism and even Daoism, there are seminars,

videos, etc. that are, as far as I can tell, pretty authentic. The " official "

white-washing of spirituality has mostly fallen by the way-side and no one

really seems to care what the " official " policy is.

 

AND, certainly in a place like Taiwan, where Gabe is, there has never been a

white-washing of spiritual/religious beliefs, so if the teachers there don't

seem to get it then what is one to believe?

 

In Good Health,

Thomas

 

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason,

> Just to stick to the point, I was referring specifically to the comments of

Thomas' teacher, not pre-modern texts. We need to look at the context of how

people are raised within particular societies and the biases of that society,

and also the risks of taking alternative viewpoints within such societies. I

don't to a simplistic " the communists changed the medicine " view any

more than you do, the reality is far more complex than that, but people are

influenced by the societies they live in and most of the time want to be

'politically correct', that's all. .

>

>

> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

[Guest guest]

Many of the current models of " integral

medicine " as unsatisfying to me, because CM practitioners are not given

space to do their best work to enliven and stimulate the healing potential

of the embodied spirit in their patients.

 

Lonny: Steve, I think we need to make the all important distinction between

" integral medicine " and " integrative medicine " . I will make the case that

" integral medicine " doesn't actually exist yet. Such a medicine would take into

accounts all quadrants of development including the evolution of the collective.

What we are really seeing is just " integrative " medicine which is filled with

artificial hierarchy. From an integral view, no drug or surgery should every

occur, accept in life saving circumstances, until a full course of CM has failed

to produce results. " Integrative medicine, at this point is little more than the

scientization of holistic medicine on the terms of reductionist and mechanistic

models. It's being driven in large part by Orange meme financial incentives and

not by anything higher.

 

But " integral " medicine, on the terms of realizing the higher implications in

practice pointed to by Sri Aurobindu who wrote about " integral " 100 years ago in

an evolutionary context spanning the highest confluence of both East and West,

is where the action is. As I think we are only starting to see the first dawning

of the possibility of such a medicine.Intevrative medicine could be vehicle,

but as of now it's divorced from any real philosophically enlightened motive.

[Guest guest]

Yes, sorry. I meant integrative medicine.

 

Steve

 

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Lonny <revolution wrote:

 

>

>

> Many of the current models of " integral

> medicine " as unsatisfying to me, because CM practitioners are not given

> space to do their best work to enliven and stimulate the healing potential

> of the embodied spirit in their patients.

>

> Lonny: Steve, I think we need to make the all important distinction between

> " integral medicine " and " integrative medicine " . I will make the case that

> " integral medicine " doesn't actually exist yet. Such a medicine would take

> into accounts all quadrants of development including the evolution of the

> collective. What we are really seeing is just " integrative " medicine which

> is filled with artificial hierarchy. From an integral view, no drug or

> surgery should every occur, accept in life saving circumstances, until a

> full course of CM has failed to produce results. " Integrative medicine, at

> this point is little more than the scientization of holistic medicine on the

> terms of reductionist and mechanistic models. It's being driven in large

> part by Orange meme financial incentives and not by anything higher.

>

> But " integral " medicine, on the terms of realizing the higher implications

> in practice pointed to by Sri Aurobindu who wrote about " integral " 100 years

> ago in an evolutionary context spanning the highest confluence of both East

> and West, is where the action is. As I think we are only starting to see the

> first dawning of the possibility of such a medicine.Intevrative medicine

> could be vehicle, but as of now it's divorced from any real philosophically

> enlightened motive.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thomas,

I certainly agree with you that an individual's spiritual path is personal

and individual. There are careful boundaries that need to be followed, but

certainly inspiring our patients and ourselves is an important part of our

endeavor. As you point out, patients are different generally speaking in China

and the U.S., and therefore we need different skill sets for different

situations.

 

“Unlike a psychotherapist who tries to bring the patient into contact

with his or her ‘true feelings or conflict’ that are supposedly

suppressed or denied by the patient, a zhongyi doctor has no interest

in any unconscious or ‘true’ feelings. What is important to

zhongyi counseling…is to help the patient develop

an adaptive attitude and perspective in order to better adjust to His or her

social environment” (Zhang 2007: 125)

 

This quotation from an anthropological text on Chinese medical psychiatry

that was previously discussed (I have the book, just can't find it to get the

title), illustrates potentially a major difference between the practice of

Chinese medicine in modern-day China and the West. I know I am generalizing,

but our patients are interested in the relationship of their 'true' feelings to

their health and physiological symptoms, therefore a different approach may be

necessary. I know that is often true in my practice.

 

We need to find a way of practice that responds to our patients' needs, but

is still true to the vast history and source materials of the medical tradition.

.. .

 

 

On Mar 2, 2010, at 6:44 PM, Thomas wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> Keep in mind, my teacher is 82, which means he was born in 1927. He is a party

member by necessity only, and he stated that his teachers never discussed this

as part of their teaching (direct teaching ran from 1945-1957). He clearly

states that at his age he has nothing holding him back from saying anything he

wants and teaching everything he knows.

>

> Although it is possible that there is a cultural influence that he is not

stating, or perhaps aware of, I really don't think so.

>

> Also, I want to be clear that I do believe that big " S " spirit is important to

the practice of medicine. But, I also believe that it is an individual's path

that is, in fact, VERY individual. Although I have a practice, which is

admittedly not as consistent as I would like, I would NEVER suggest that that

path, or any path for that matter, is necessary for a patient's recovery from

illness. This is a personal and individual choice that I believe MUST be

respected. The main reason I believe it is important to the practice of medicine

is to maintain one's own health and balance in the face of so much imbalance

being poured into your lap on a daily basis, especially in the West (N. America)

where so many patients seem to be lost in an ocean of ideas about so many things

including but not limited to: religion, spirituality, diet, child-rearing, etc,

etc, etc. Here in China I find far less of the emotional/spiritual dumping by

patients, not that is doesn't happen, but just a lot less. AND, I don't believe

it is so much because of a Communist white-washing as much as a cultural

unity/lineage/tradition and family support system that is all but absent in the

West (N. America).

>

> For those who have never lived here, there are many many people here who have

a spiritual path, it is just not something that people talk about a lot. There

are many teachers openly teaching Buddhism and even Daoism, there are seminars,

videos, etc. that are, as far as I can tell, pretty authentic. The " official "

white-washing of spirituality has mostly fallen by the way-side and no one

really seems to care what the " official " policy is.

>

> AND, certainly in a place like Taiwan, where Gabe is, there has never been a

white-washing of spiritual/religious beliefs, so if the teachers there don't

seem to get it then what is one to believe?

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven,

 

 

 

Thanks for your clarification I now understand your point of view a little

better. I certainly agree with you that Chinese medicine practitioners need

not be subsidiary to any other medical paradigm. I also agree that we need

more inspired teachers and practitioners. The level of education in many

schools is very basic and it is a shame that so many people confuse this low

level practice of Chinese medicine to be equivalent to the full potential of

TCM. Merely putting people into boxes can be very frustrating for many

people. I remember when I was in school I wrote multiple papers criticizing

TCM for this very reason. However, it was coming from a place of ignorance

and the more I learned how to use the tools of TCM (by studying with senior

doctors) the more I understood how to utilize its full potential.

 

 

 

As far as your idea about protective qi I can see your point in regard to

acupuncture, but I do not know how this fits into herbal theory.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Steven Alpern

Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:17 PM

 

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

 

 

 

 

Jason et. al.:

 

I'm pleased to have a discussion about the merits of various ideas, and hope

that the somewhat impersonal nature of this medium doesn't lead to a certain

course quality in our conversation. My original statement about the

" short-term amelioration of symptoms " was clearly not aimed broadly at the

practice of modern Chinese medicine in general, but rather at the " lowest

common denominator " of the profession. I said:

 

" However, when the patient's condition is the expression of a more entangled

situation with multiple layers of pathogenic factor and " coping response, "

mobilizing wei qi can easily stimulate a " healing event " -- where the

patient's embodied spirit actively confronts some stagnation it had

previously tolerated, and pushes it out. These " healing events " are

generally symptomatic, and can be quite unpleasant. Yet, I submit they are

the mark of " good " treatments, as they stimulate profound healing rather

than short-term amelioration of symptoms, which BTW is the standard

promulgated when we " take our lead " from western medicine. We can do better

than that, MUCH better. "

 

Mind you, I'm not entirely opposed to cooperating with western medicine,

though I feel strongly that we hold our heads high and take the best of

Chinese medicine to that encounter. Many of the current models of " integral

medicine " as unsatisfying to me, because CM practitioners are not given

space to do their best work to enliven and stimulate the healing potential

of the embodied spirit in their patients. I don't believe that Chinese

medicine practitioners need be subsidiary to any other medical paradigm. Why

allow the money and power of western medicine to put us in such a position?

Yet, we must always strive to do our work well, which by the way Jason, I'd

say your posts demonstrate your hard work to learn and practice CM well.

While I still believe that the modern doctrine has some content and

structural weaknesses, practiced well I agree that it's far better than

" short-term amelioration of symptoms. " Indeed, in the previous paragraph I'd

written:

 

" Clearly, there have been (and are currently) very inspired and inspiring

physicians and teachers. However, I find the clinical methodology of modern

TCM, which focuses so much on classifying patients into symptom-sign

complexes, inadequate. Of course, the best practitioners and teachers of

either race (or frankly either linguistic group) can penetrate through the

limitations of that basic methodology, yet I believe we need to honestly ask

ourselves as a profession how often or widely is that ideal realized? "

 

So Jason, I hope you'll agree that we want more inspired teachers and

practitioners. I firmly believe that most of the passionate people who

participate on this board (either posting or just reading) work very hard to

be in that group of inspired practitioners and teachers, though the bare

minimum requirements of getting through school and passing licensing exams

only requires basic working knowledge of symptom-sign complexes. Can we also

agree that we need to continue improving the Chinese medicine portion of the

education in acupuncture schools so that we will have a larger share of our

profession practicing at a high level, regardless of the specific clinical

methodology one chooses to use? My main suggestion during the past few weeks

has focused on the question that followed that excerpt in the original

posting:

 

" Might we also ask if there might be some other ideas from the history of CM

(like extensive use of the five systems of channels) that we'd add to the

modern doctrine to help us practice CM more incisively? "

 

Of course, I understand that some are attached to the idea that in the

middle of the twentieth century the Chinese government scientifically chose

to include all of the important ideas of Chinese medicine throughout it's

long and varied history in the modern doctrine. I've not said it's an

entirely bad or false doctrine, only that I find it incomplete and not

entirely satisfactory. Many learn to practice with the modern clinical

doctrine very well, and it has the obvious benefit of being a fairly

straight-forward clinical methodology, which is especially suited for those

that don't wish to engage the type of applied clinical philosophy that I

favor. There are many paths up the mountain.

 

Jason asked what type of Chinese medicine I've studied -- the answer is that

about 25 years ago I studied modern TCM, like everyone else that needs to

pass a licensing exam in the U.S. As many of you know from my previous

posts, I've been studying (and working hard to understand and implement)

Jeffrey Yuen's teachings for sixteen years. That work can be quickly summed

us as focus on learning to unblock the intrinsic movement of wei qi to

generate healing, rather than seeking specifically to balance pathological

expressions. Believe it or not, that approach, which I take to be inspired

by Neijing, is quite different from modern TCM. In the end, I've never said

that everyone needs to practice as I do, though I believe quite strongly

that my approach is both clinically valuable (thus deserving a voice) and

authentically Chinese.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric

 

After asking a few classmates and seeing their reactions and listening to their

responses last week definitely saved me from loosing some serious face this

weekend. I did some research in our library and could not find anything relating

to 养命 in the context that Lonny fantasies it to be. Everyone of my

classmates that I talked to all agree that the meaning of 养命relates to the

extension of life. I also looked at multiple dictionaries and half a dozen

commentaries, all the same.

Gabe Fuentes

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

smilinglotus <smilinglotus

 

Tue, March 2, 2010 9:41:19 AM

Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

 

, Gabriel Fuentes <fuentes120@ ...>

wrote:

> Hi Thomas

> I've been asking some of the same questions around my school regarding

this topic, you should see the looks I get. I think this topic is only

well known amongst a few Guru like western teachers. There are a few

Neijing scholars coming to our school for some lectures this weekend,

I'll put forward some of these questions again. I hope I don't get laugh

out of the room.

 

Gabe, I know you know this, but just be careful about how you ask so that you

don't embarrass yourself. Chinese doctors are impressed when Westerners ask

questions that demonstrate that we have diligently studied authentic Chinese

medicine, and they can get pessimistic when Western students ask fluffy

questions that make them wonder what on earth passes for CM in the West. When I

lived in Taiwan I heard no end of rants from doctors like Feng Ye who had no

patience for Western students because of their tendency to ask questions that

demonstrated a shallow understanding of Chinese medicine, especially when the

questions were trying to impose Western notions of spirituality onto Chinese

medicine. Westerners that go East looking to prove their preconceived notions

rather than being open to whatever reality they find can be a sore spot for many

doctors like Feng Ye. In the past, lots of Westerners went to Asia with very

minimal training, and their lack of

informed questions gave us a really bad rap as a group. I remember that Feng Ye

was saying that his team eventually stopped taking Western students because they

were so sick of what he called the " Between Heaven and Earth " level of

education. Face is important in Chinese society, and we all suffer the

consequences of the bad impression that many Western students make when they

travel East. Besides, Chinese philosophy is already extremely sophisticated, so

there is no need to impose Western spirituality onto it.

 

If you ask a Neijing scholar a question that demonstrates insight into Chinese

culture, philosophy, medicine and history, they will be truly happy to share

their knowledge. If you ask them something that just makes them shake their head

in disbelief, we all suffer the consequences. As a community, we need to ask

questions that gain the respect of our Chinese teachers. Every time a Western

student asks a question that frustrates the teacher, we collectively lose face

and have to work that much harder to earn the respect of the Chinese experts. In

a field that has so much fascinating knowledge to learn, there is no point in

wasting time by asking an embarrassing question that will make the doctor think

you never made it past the Barnes and Noble understanding of CM.

 

I'm going to stay out of the fray on this discussion, but I'd like to thank

Jason, Trevor, Thomas, etc. for their excellent posts.

 

Eric