Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & Z'ev

 

Z'ev wrote:

> I am not concerned here about the clinical efficacy of the Seven

> Dragons treatment, ...

 

Z'ev, though many (maybe most) on this list use TCM as their first-

line Tx, many of us use concepts and paradigms from other

traditions (including WM) also.

 

IMO, the clinical efficacy of any Tx protocol is paramount, EVEN IF

THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED HISTORY OR EXPLANATION OF

THE METHOD.

 

If a TRUSTED colleague told me that he/she got exceptional

results from sprinkling Guinness-froth with a white-blackbird's wing

on acute herpes lesions, I would probably try that myself if my

initial attempts with other Tx failed.

 

If the " off-the-wall " method " worked well " for me, I would try it again

in several other cases and make up my own mind as to how it

compared with other methods of Tx that I had tried in the past.

 

> ... but how medical information is communicated in our profession.

 

Z'ev, I sympathise with this view. I agree that all of the sciences

require careful documentation and critical interpretation of the

literature, past and present. I also acknowledge that there are

many loopy people and con-artists in the area of holistic medicine.

Their claims for the success of their protocols are highly dubious,

to put it kindly. That is why I used the term " TRUSTED colleague "

in my paragraph 3, above.

 

> At times, our profession seems like a free for all, where anything

> goes, and everything is accepted.

 

The fact that our discussions touch on an enormously wide range

of topics does not imply that each writer / topic is given equal

" credibility rating " by some or all members on the List.

 

> Clearly, issues of spirit or demon possession are in the history of

> Chinese medicine, and treatments for these are in, for example, Sun

> Simiao's Qian Jin Yao Fang.

 

Those issues are also in the history of many other cultures and

religions.

 

> I am more concerned about accurate translation and depiction of

> concepts in Chinese medicine.

 

I agree that CM data (in Chinese) need careful translation,

depiction, AND TRANSMISSION to future generations. However, I

am not overly concerned about being rigidly faithful to CM to the

exclusion of other ideas. For me, CM it is only a part of a much

larger concept of integrative medicine.

 

For example, Neural Therapy (NT) and Trigger Point (TP) therapy fit

very neatly into needle-therapy alongside Chinese AP. This is

despite tha fact that the NT & TP concepts were developed in the

west quite independently of AP concepts. IMO, many

acupuncturists confuse Ahshi Points (a definite part of TCM AP)

and TPs. These are NOT the same.

 

All ACTIVE and some LATENT TPs are Ahshi points, but the

reverse is not the case. Stimuli to (such as digital pressure on, or

needling of) TPs refers a reaction (pain, or other) to the target

(referred) area. Pressure on many Ahshi Pts ( " local pain points " or

referred painful points) does not do so.

 

The Logo of IVAS (Intnl Vet AP Soc) was written in Chinese

calligraphy by a friend and colleague, Prof. Dr. Lin Jen-hsou,

National Taiwan University, Taipei. Its translation reads: “It matters

not if medicine is old or new / so long as it brings about a cure. / It

matters not if theories be Eastern or Western / so long as they

prove to be true.”

 

I believe this, as do many others. The medicine of the future will, I

hope, combine the best of all traditions.

 

> If we don't know what 'aggressive energy' means, or what the

> original Chinese characters or concepts are, or where the " Seven

> Dragons " comes from, we have only the modern teacher to trust. We

> have to 'believe', rather than understand. This, my friends, is

> very poor scholarship. Poor scholarship leads to poor transmission

> of medicine to future generations of practitioners.

 

I agree that clear definitions, preferably referenced back to their

source(s), are desirable. I also agree that high scholarship is

desirable to ensure accurate transmission of the important

concepts to future students and practitioners. But most of us are

not scho;ars or academics. We are only practitioners doing the

best that we can with our very limited knowledge and experience.

Practitioners & students have little future without the thinkers,

academics and scholars, but the thinkers, academics and scholars

have little future without the practitioners & students!

 

We are all in this together, and we need all sorts in the group, if

only to keep the discussions interesting!

 

> Would you study any modern subject, from physics to metaphysics,

> without clear definitions of terminology? Without sources? How

> would you then understand the subject matter?

 

Z'ev, I agree with you here.

 

> Why obscure the core concepts of a system of medicine without

> explaining them?

 

Some of us would say that the core concept of all medicine and

healing is that God loves His/Her Creation and is the source of all

healing. IMO, all true healers consciously or unconsciously place

themselves in the service of God and humanity (and animals also).

And, as discussed elsewhere, that Yi (directed Intention) is the

root of healing. Technical knowledge and specific techniques used

to heal (AP, herbs, etc), or to alleviate symptoms (hormones,

psychotropics, steroids, etc) are peripheral to the core!

 

> If you cannot say clearly what seven dragons are, aggressive

> energy, or possession are in the context of Chinese medicine or the

> Chinese language, what on earth are you talking about?

 

I leave it to others, especially of the Worsley School, to answer

that, but I hazard a guess that some of these concepts / entities

are not of this earth!

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "

[Guest guest]

On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:05 PM, wrote:

 

> Hi All, & Z'ev

>

>

> Z'ev, though many (maybe most) on this list use TCM as their first-

> line Tx, many of us use concepts and paradigms from other

> traditions (including WM) also.

>

> IMO, the clinical efficacy of any Tx protocol is paramount, EVEN IF

> THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED HISTORY OR EXPLANATION OF

> THE METHOD.

>

> If a TRUSTED colleague told me that he/she got exceptional

> results from sprinkling Guinness-froth with a white-blackbird's wing

> on acute herpes lesions, I would probably try that myself if my

> initial attempts with other Tx failed.

 

Perhaps my statement was slightly misunderstood; what I meant here was

that I was not questioning the clinical efficacy in my argument, but

the terms used in an attempt to explain what was going on. We

shouldn't just assume that people understand terms such as 'aggressive

energy' or 'dragons'.

>

> gions.

>

>> I am more concerned about accurate translation and depiction of

>> concepts in Chinese medicine.

>

> I agree that CM data (in Chinese) need careful translation,

> depiction, AND TRANSMISSION to future generations. However, I

> am not overly concerned about being rigidly faithful to CM to the

> exclusion of other ideas. For me, CM it is only a part of a much

> larger concept of integrative medicine.

>

> For example, Neural Therapy (NT) and Trigger Point (TP) therapy fit

> very neatly into needle-therapy alongside Chinese AP. This is

> despite tha fact that the NT & TP concepts were developed in the

> west quite independently of AP concepts.

 

>

I have no problem with your use of other modalities. But I think to do

Chinese medicine justice, we need to see it a system of medicine, not a

technique such as TP therapy, NAET, NT, etc.

 

I think some of the problem comes with the different criteria for the

practice of internal, herbal medicine and acupuncture. Acupuncture has

much more variation in criteria for its practice than herbal medicine

in China.

 

> The Logo of IVAS (Intnl Vet AP Soc) was written in Chinese

> calligraphy by a friend and colleague, Prof. Dr. Lin Jen-hsou,

> National Taiwan University, Taipei. Its translation reads: “It matters

> not if medicine is old or new / so long as it brings about a cure. / It

> matters not if theories be Eastern or Western / so long as they

> prove to be true.”

>

> I believe this, as do many others. The medicine of the future will, I

> hope, combine the best of all traditions.

 

Eclecticism without proper scholarship, or proper training for that

matter, cannot survive. As it is, the access of a large majority of

practitioners of Chinese medicine lacks a sense of history and access

to original texts in Chinese or other Asian languages.

>

>> If we don't know what 'aggressive energy' means, or what the

>> original Chinese characters or concepts are, or where the " Seven

>> Dragons " comes from, we have only the modern teacher to trust. We

>> have to 'believe', rather than understand. This, my friends, is

>> very poor scholarship. Poor scholarship leads to poor transmission

>> of medicine to future generations of practitioners.

>

> I agree that clear definitions, preferably referenced back to their

> source(s), are desirable. I also agree that high scholarship is

> desirable to ensure accurate transmission of the important

> concepts to future students and practitioners. But most of us are

> not scho;ars or academics. We are only practitioners doing the

> best that we can with our very limited knowledge and experience.

> Practitioners & students have little future without the thinkers,

> academics and scholars, but the thinkers, academics and scholars

> have little future without the practitioners & students!

 

Even practitioners need to have some scholarship and academic training,

Phil. If we aspire to be physicians rather than technicians, according

to Paul Unschuld, we must know the historical literature, terms, and

concepts of our profession. There are, of course, degrees of how much

academic proficiency will be necessary.

>

> We are all in this together, and we need all sorts in the group, if

> only to keep the discussions interesting!

 

Agreed.

>

>>

>

> Some of us would say that the core concept of all medicine and

> healing is that God loves His/Her Creation and is the source of all

> healing. IMO, all true healers consciously or unconsciously place

> themselves in the service of God and humanity (and animals also).

> And, as discussed elsewhere, that Yi (directed Intention) is the

> root of healing. Technical knowledge and specific techniques used

> to heal (AP, herbs, etc), or to alleviate symptoms (hormones,

> psychotropics, steroids, etc) are peripheral to the core!

>

 

Beautiful. I am going to remember this statement. You've synthesized

some profound concepts in a very poetic and practical manner.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<@e...> wrote:

> Hi All, & Z'ev

>

> Z'ev wrote:

> > I am not concerned here about the clinical efficacy of the Seven

> > Dragons treatment, ...

>

> Z'ev, though many (maybe most) on this list use TCM as their first-

> line Tx, many of us use concepts and paradigms from other

> traditions (including WM) also.

>

> IMO, the clinical efficacy of any Tx protocol is paramount, EVEN IF

> THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED HISTORY OR EXPLANATION OF

> THE METHOD.

>

> If a TRUSTED colleague told me that he/she got exceptional

> results from sprinkling Guinness-froth with a white-blackbird's wing

> on acute herpes lesions, I would probably try that myself if my

> initial attempts with other Tx failed.

 

I think the key statement is " with other Tx failed " - Of course we all

would try anything we nothing else works. That is where most people

are at that come to alternative medicine. But the fact remains that

we as medical community are not looking for that fridge idea that may

or may not cure that difficult case that nothing else works on, but

treatments that can consistently be reproduced to cure a LARGE

percentage of patients. That is where the question I ask you comes in:

 

 

>

> The Logo of IVAS (Intnl Vet AP Soc) was written in Chinese

> calligraphy by a friend and colleague, Prof. Dr. Lin Jen-hsou,

> National Taiwan University, Taipei. Its translation reads: " It matters

> not if medicine is old or new / so long as it brings about a cure. / It

> matters not if theories be Eastern or Western / so long as they

> prove to be true. "

 

HOW do we know what is true and efficacious? I am all for

integration, but how to we figure out was really is working and not a)

i.e. charisma of the practitioner, or b) placebo (belief of the

patient)? Etc… Yes I think that we should use these to our advantage,

but this does not reproduce medicine that can be passed on…

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I am concerned when I see practitioners casually overlaying modern

conceptual constructs onto ideas from hundreds of years ago without

pause for breadth. But by definition, one can only see things from

within one's own paradigm.

 

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to use common

terms like 'aggressive energy' which may be unknown to practitioners

trained in different schools. Personally, from an English point of

view, I have to mentally " translate " a lot of the US terminology (like

'repletion')into the English terms I'm familiar with. But I don't

expect an identical uniform terminology worldwide.

 

But as for us all becoming scholars of ancient Chinese texts, I think

that's pie in the sky. Z'ev complains about being in the position of

having only the modern teacher to trust, but that is exactly the

position most practitioners are in, re literary sources. We trust Paul

Unschuld, Volker Scheid, Donald Harper etc to translate the ideograms

as accurately as possible with regard to the philosophical and

religious constructs of the time. However, it is not a precise

science, and whatever is translated is only a small proportion of 2500

years of oriental medical thinking, firstly because only surviving

manuscripts can be translated, and secondly, it pays no regard to the

generations of oral transmission of medical thinking, often among

families of healers, working outside courtly circles. This leads to

an inbuilt bias towards an academic understanding of ancient healing

traditions because the only source that scholars can use are

manuscripts. History used to be taught like this - the 'Tudors and

Stuarts' was taught as if the whole history of Great Britain was about

what a few Kings and Queens got up to - it's easy to do because it's

documented. But it tells us very little about what life was like for

the millions that lived in those times.

 

In terms of English literature, I'm in the same position of having to

trust respected scholars about older works. Although I went to the

same grammar school as Shakespeare, there are many words and concepts

in his plays that I don't always understand. That's only 400 years

old! Go back to Chaucerian tales of the 1300s and the " English " is

like another language.

 

Is it really realistic to expect a westerner to first grasp modern

Chinese and writing, and then be able to go back in time across all

the different words, conceptual frameworks, geographical variations

spanning 2000 years?

 

So what I'm saying is that although some historical perspective is

important, we shouldn't allow the practice of oriental healing

modalities to be taken over by academics and turned into some huge

scholarly exercise. IMO that is not the nature of OM, anymore than

learning a martial art is.

 

Best wishes,

 

Godfrey Bartlett

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

Perhaps my statement was slightly misunderstood; what I meant here was

that I was not questioning the clinical efficacy in my argument, but

the terms used in an attempt to explain what was going on. We

shouldn't just assume that people understand terms such as 'aggressive

energy' or 'dragons'.

 

Eclecticism without proper scholarship, or proper training for that

matter, cannot survive. As it is, the access of a large majority of

practitioners of Chinese medicine lacks a sense of history and access

to original texts in Chinese or other Asian languages.

 

> If we don't know what 'aggressive energy' means, or what the

> original Chinese characters or concepts are, or where the " Seven

> Dragons " comes from, we have only the modern teacher to trust. We

> have to 'believe', rather than understand. This, my friends, is

> very poor scholarship. Poor scholarship leads to poor transmission

> of medicine to future generations of practitioners.

[Guest guest]

I think Godfrey made some very valid points. Oral history is a vital part of the

true history of OM tradition and the original meaning of specific words are so

sensitive to the cultural concepts of each particular time. - Matt Bauer

-

acu_qichina

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, July 03, 2004 6:33 AM

Re: Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

 

 

Hi,

I am concerned when I see practitioners casually overlaying modern

conceptual constructs onto ideas from hundreds of years ago without

pause for breadth. But by definition, one can only see things from

within one's own paradigm.

 

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to use common

terms like 'aggressive energy' which may be unknown to practitioners

trained in different schools. Personally, from an English point of

view, I have to mentally " translate " a lot of the US terminology (like

'repletion')into the English terms I'm familiar with. But I don't

expect an identical uniform terminology worldwide.

 

But as for us all becoming scholars of ancient Chinese texts, I think

that's pie in the sky. Z'ev complains about being in the position of

having only the modern teacher to trust, but that is exactly the

position most practitioners are in, re literary sources. We trust Paul

Unschuld, Volker Scheid, Donald Harper etc to translate the ideograms

as accurately as possible with regard to the philosophical and

religious constructs of the time. However, it is not a precise

science, and whatever is translated is only a small proportion of 2500

years of oriental medical thinking, firstly because only surviving

manuscripts can be translated, and secondly, it pays no regard to the

generations of oral transmission of medical thinking, often among

families of healers, working outside courtly circles. This leads to

an inbuilt bias towards an academic understanding of ancient healing

traditions because the only source that scholars can use are

manuscripts. History used to be taught like this - the 'Tudors and

Stuarts' was taught as if the whole history of Great Britain was about

what a few Kings and Queens got up to - it's easy to do because it's

documented. But it tells us very little about what life was like for

the millions that lived in those times.

 

In terms of English literature, I'm in the same position of having to

trust respected scholars about older works. Although I went to the

same grammar school as Shakespeare, there are many words and concepts

in his plays that I don't always understand. That's only 400 years

old! Go back to Chaucerian tales of the 1300s and the " English " is

like another language.

 

Is it really realistic to expect a westerner to first grasp modern

Chinese and writing, and then be able to go back in time across all

the different words, conceptual frameworks, geographical variations

spanning 2000 years?

 

So what I'm saying is that although some historical perspective is

important, we shouldn't allow the practice of oriental healing

modalities to be taken over by academics and turned into some huge

scholarly exercise. IMO that is not the nature of OM, anymore than

learning a martial art is.

 

Best wishes,

 

Godfrey Bartlett

[Guest guest]

On Jul 3, 2004, at 6:33 AM, acu_qichina wrote:

 

> Hi,

> I am concerned when I see practitioners casually overlaying modern

> conceptual constructs onto ideas from hundreds of years ago without

> pause for breadth. But by definition, one can only see things from

> within one's own paradigm.

 

But it is worse if one cannot even relate to the original paradigm one

is studying. Otherwise, what business do we have studying it in the

first place.

>

> However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to use common

> terms like 'aggressive energy' which may be unknown to practitioners

> trained in different schools. Personally, from an English point of

> view, I have to mentally " translate " a lot of the US terminology (like

> 'repletion')into the English terms I'm familiar with. But I don't

> expect an identical uniform terminology worldwide.

 

Whether the terminology is uniform or not is one issue. Allowing a

student/practitioner of Chinese medicine access to the original

teachings is another. No subject or course of study with academic

knowledge rejects glossaries and dictionaries to explain the

terminology being used. If we cannot explain 'aggressive energy', its

source in the Chinese literature, or communicate it to others outside

our little elite group, than we are not practicing a medicine for the

general public.

 

>

> But as for us all becoming scholars of ancient Chinese texts, I think

> that's pie in the sky. Z'ev complains about being in the position of

> having only the modern teacher to trust, but that is exactly the

> position most practitioners are in, re literary sources. We trust Paul

> Unschuld, Volker Scheid, Donald Harper etc to translate the ideograms

> as accurately as possible with regard to the philosophical and

> religious constructs of the time. However, it is not a precise

> science, and whatever is translated is only a small proportion of 2500

> years of oriental medical thinking, firstly because only surviving

> manuscripts can be translated, and secondly, it pays no regard to the

> generations of oral transmission of medical thinking, often among

> families of healers, working outside courtly circles.

 

This completely misses the point. Not everyone has to be a Ph. D.

scholar to have access to the core concepts of Chinese and Asian

medicine. One simply needs dictionaries, glossaries and source texts

with adequate footnoting to explain the relationship and choice of

terms in English to their original sources in English. This is

intellectual honesty, no more, no less. Students of any tradition,

oral or otherwise, have a right to know the sources of what they are

studying, and the tools to examine those teachings further.

 

 

>

> So what I'm saying is that although some historical perspective is

> important, we shouldn't allow the practice of oriental healing

> modalities to be taken over by academics and turned into some huge

> scholarly exercise. IMO that is not the nature of OM, anymore than

> learning a martial art is.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Godfrey Bartlett

>

>

Godfrey, I don't think you need to fear any takeover of the oriental

medical profession any time soon. However, the practice of acupuncture

and Chinese herbal medicine does require some intellectual study and

scholarship, always has, and always will. It is pointless to think

otherwise.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Matt,

The very statement that oral traditions are valid and that meanings

are sensitive to era can only be determined with scholarship. Without

critical faculties, one cannot determine what is authentic and what is

not. All students and practitioners should have the tools and the

right to know what sources their knowledge base comes from, who is

interpreting them, and an explanation for the interpretation.

 

 

On Jul 3, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Matt Bauer wrote:

 

> I think Godfrey made some very valid points. Oral history is a vital

> part of the true history of OM tradition and the original meaning of

> specific words are so sensitive to the cultural concepts of each

> particular time. - Matt Bauer

> -

[Guest guest]

On Jul 3, 2004, at 9:11 PM, wrote:

 

> One simply needs dictionaries, glossaries and source texts

> with adequate footnoting to explain the relationship and choice of

> terms in English to their original sources in English.

>

Sorry, this is a typo. The last word should be Chinese, not English.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Godfrey,

 

I agree with you on the many points you've raised. I too studied both

Shakespeare and Chaucer. It's funny how different they are with Chaucer's

work having a dictionary at the back. I believe that Chaucer is only taught,

no that its an academic marvel, because with it's slap-stick, sarcasm and

swearing, it surely isn't, but rather because its the only text to have

survived that period. This brings me to the point that I wish to make,

literature, especially in ancient times, was written by those with the funds

to do so, the need to make a name for themselves, (we all wish to further

our subject's development but also our name), and what actually survived

over time. Therefore, a large amount of important and possibly more useful

information never made it into print. More so, it was handed down by oral

tradition, with a large amount of that, as with literature sources, also

being lost over time. What we are left with today, I believe, is a small

fragment of what was.

 

It is up to us today, through journals, conferences, practical observation

of patients and forums such as this, to amass information from all areas,

and not just the classics and have it securely documented in the digital

age. Of course, as Zev makes a point of, we need to be careful of our

sources, and our readiness to accept certain information as fact. As RCT's

are lacking in our area, this will be difficult to accomplish. Editors of

journals call the shots as to what 'looks' real and what isn't. Until a

solution is found to verify TCM treatments and theory, we'll just have to

argue them out.

 

Kind regards

 

Attilio

 

www.chinesedoctor.co.uk <http://www.chinesedoctor.co.uk/>

 

 

acu_qichina [acu]

03 July 2004 14:33

Chinese Medicine

Re: Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

 

 

Hi,

I am concerned when I see practitioners casually overlaying modern

conceptual constructs onto ideas from hundreds of years ago without

pause for breadth. But by definition, one can only see things from

within one's own paradigm.

 

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to use common

terms like 'aggressive energy' which may be unknown to practitioners

trained in different schools. Personally, from an English point of

view, I have to mentally " translate " a lot of the US terminology (like

'repletion')into the English terms I'm familiar with. But I don't

expect an identical uniform terminology worldwide.

 

But as for us all becoming scholars of ancient Chinese texts, I think

that's pie in the sky. Z'ev complains about being in the position of

having only the modern teacher to trust, but that is exactly the

position most practitioners are in, re literary sources. We trust Paul

Unschuld, Volker Scheid, Donald Harper etc to translate the ideograms

as accurately as possible with regard to the philosophical and

religious constructs of the time. However, it is not a precise

science, and whatever is translated is only a small proportion of 2500

years of oriental medical thinking, firstly because only surviving

manuscripts can be translated, and secondly, it pays no regard to the

generations of oral transmission of medical thinking, often among

families of healers, working outside courtly circles. This leads to

an inbuilt bias towards an academic understanding of ancient healing

traditions because the only source that scholars can use are

manuscripts. History used to be taught like this - the 'Tudors and

Stuarts' was taught as if the whole history of Great Britain was about

what a few Kings and Queens got up to - it's easy to do because it's

documented. But it tells us very little about what life was like for

the millions that lived in those times.

 

In terms of English literature, I'm in the same position of having to

trust respected scholars about older works. Although I went to the

same grammar school as Shakespeare, there are many words and concepts

in his plays that I don't always understand. That's only 400 years

old! Go back to Chaucerian tales of the 1300s and the " English " is

like another language.

 

Is it really realistic to expect a westerner to first grasp modern

Chinese and writing, and then be able to go back in time across all

the different words, conceptual frameworks, geographical variations

spanning 2000 years?

 

So what I'm saying is that although some historical perspective is

important, we shouldn't allow the practice of oriental healing

modalities to be taken over by academics and turned into some huge

scholarly exercise. IMO that is not the nature of OM, anymore than

learning a martial art is.

 

Best wishes,

 

Godfrey Bartlett

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Z'ev,

 

I am a big supporter of those in the OM field becoming more educated about the

roots of this healing system. That's why I did the interviews with Dr. Unschuld

for Acupuncture Today.The logical starting point for this, as you stress, is the

available literature, especially the classic texts. The points I wished to agree

with Godfrey on, were that even the best scholarship can only give us a fraction

of what the real story might have been. We will likely never know much of what

we would like to know about the " true roots " of this healing system. I am all

for educated speculation, but, just as you stress that we should be able to

trace our claims back to specific sources, we should also acknowledge that even

with these sources, we are only interpreting them to the best of our ability. I

should also say that I strongly agree with you Z'ev, about clarifying recently

developed hybrid variations of classic theories/techniques from those that have

been used for centuries. I find this especially important clinically when a

patient comes back and states that they think a certain treatment did them some

harm. In an earlier post, the issue was raised about a specific technique

causing more than one person to feel quite disjointed (or words to that effect).

The reply from one who practiced that technique was that they had not heard of

that happening before with that technique. This is the price we pay for

developing new, hybrid techniques: we do not have the centuries of experience

treating tens of thousands of patients to fall back on. One of the greatest

safety-nets we have in traditional OM, is the ability to put suspected adverse

effects of our treatment into perspective - the perspective of generations of

practitioners treating large numbers of patients. It is not only a matter of

correct scholarship and identifying your sources (I am sure you know this), it

is also the clinical reality that when you practice techniques invented 20 or

even 50 years ago, this does not afford you the insights - especially about

possible adverse effects - as those that have been in practice for centuries. I

am not opposed to developing new techniques - I just agree with you that we

should keep their genealogy straight in our own heads and with our patients.

Matt Bauer

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, July 03, 2004 9:20 PM

Re: Re: Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

 

 

Matt,

The very statement that oral traditions are valid and that meanings

are sensitive to era can only be determined with scholarship. Without

critical faculties, one cannot determine what is authentic and what is

not. All students and practitioners should have the tools and the

right to know what sources their knowledge base comes from, who is

interpreting them, and an explanation for the interpretation.

 

On Jul 3, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Matt Bauer wrote:

 

> I think Godfrey made some very valid points. Oral history is a vital

> part of the true history of OM tradition and the original meaning of

> specific words are so sensitive to the cultural concepts of each

> particular time. - Matt Bauer

[Guest guest]

Which classical text's would you recommend to learn more about classical TCM and

acupuncture. Thanks

 

Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:Hi Z'ev,

 

I am a big supporter of those in the OM field becoming more educated about the

roots of this healing system. That's why I did the interviews with Dr. Unschuld

for Acupuncture Today.The logical starting point for this, as you stress, is the

available literature, especially the classic texts. The points I wished to agree

with Godfrey on, were that even the best scholarship can only give us a fraction

of what the real story might have been. We will likely never know much of what

we would like to know about the " true roots " of this healing system. I am all

for educated speculation, but, just as you stress that we should be able to

trace our claims back to specific sources, we should also acknowledge that even

with these sources, we are only interpreting them to the best of our ability. I

should also say that I strongly agree with you Z'ev, about clarifying recently

developed hybrid variations of classic theories/techniques from those that have

been used for centuries. I find this

especially important clinically when a patient comes back and states that they

think a certain treatment did them some harm. In an earlier post, the issue was

raised about a specific technique causing more than one person to feel quite

disjointed (or words to that effect). The reply from one who practiced that

technique was that they had not heard of that happening before with that

technique. This is the price we pay for developing new, hybrid techniques: we do

not have the centuries of experience treating tens of thousands of patients to

fall back on. One of the greatest safety-nets we have in traditional OM, is the

ability to put suspected adverse effects of our treatment into perspective - the

perspective of generations of practitioners treating large numbers of patients.

It is not only a matter of correct scholarship and identifying your sources (I

am sure you know this), it is also the clinical reality that when you practice

techniques invented 20 or even 50 years ago, this

does not afford you the insights - especially about possible adverse effects -

as those that have been in practice for centuries. I am not opposed to

developing new techniques - I just agree with you that we should keep their

genealogy straight in our own heads and with our patients. Matt Bauer

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, July 03, 2004 9:20 PM

Re: Re: Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

 

 

Matt,

The very statement that oral traditions are valid and that meanings

are sensitive to era can only be determined with scholarship. Without

critical faculties, one cannot determine what is authentic and what is

not. All students and practitioners should have the tools and the

right to know what sources their knowledge base comes from, who is

interpreting them, and an explanation for the interpretation.

 

On Jul 3, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Matt Bauer wrote:

 

> I think Godfrey made some very valid points. Oral history is a vital

> part of the true history of OM tradition and the original meaning of

> specific words are so sensitive to the cultural concepts of each

> particular time. - Matt Bauer

[Guest guest]

The Nan-Jing would have to be considered the single most important text for an

understanding of classic yin/yang & Five Phase theory closely followed by the

Huang Di Nei Jing. Paul Unschuld's Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen, Nature Knowledge,

Imagery in an Ancient Chinese Medical Text, is his take on the complex factors

that underlie the production of this work. His actual translation will soon

follow but his current book offers fascinating and authoritative opinions on the

historic context of the Nei Jing. - Matt Bauer

-

Brian Hardy

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, July 04, 2004 2:53 PM

Re: Re: Hearsay?/ Dragons Treatment & Scholarship

 

 

Which classical text's would you recommend to learn more about classical TCM

and acupuncture. Thanks

 

Matt Bauer <acu.guy wrote:Hi Z'ev,

 

I am a big supporter of those in the OM field becoming more educated about the

roots of this healing system. That's why I did the interviews with Dr. Unschuld

for Acupuncture Today.The logical starting point for this, as you stress, is the

available literature, especially the classic texts. The points I wished to agree

with Godfrey on, were that even the best scholarship can only give us a fraction

of what the real story might have been. We will likely never know much of what

we would like to know about the " true roots " of this healing system. I am all

for educated speculation, but, just as you stress that we should be able to

trace our claims back to specific sources, we should also acknowledge that even

with these sources, we are only interpreting them to the best of our ability. I

should also say that I strongly agree with you Z'ev, about clarifying recently

developed hybrid variations of classic theories/techniques from those that have

been used for centuries. I find this

especially important clinically when a patient comes back and states that they

think a certain treatment did them some harm. In an earlier post, the issue was

raised about a specific technique causing more than one person to feel quite

disjointed (or words to that effect). The reply from one who practiced that

technique was that they had not heard of that happening before with that

technique. This is the price we pay for developing new, hybrid techniques: we do

not have the centuries of experience treating tens of thousands of patients to

fall back on. One of the greatest safety-nets we have in traditional OM, is the

ability to put suspected adverse effects of our treatment into perspective - the

perspective of generations of practitioners treating large numbers of patients.

It is not only a matter of correct scholarship and identifying your sources (I

am sure you know this), it is also the clinical reality that when you practice

techniques invented 20 or even 50 years ago, this

does not afford you the insights - especially about possible adverse effects -

as those that have been in practice for centuries. I am not opposed to

developing new techniques - I just agree with you that we should keep their

genealogy straight in our own heads and with our patients. Matt Bauer

[Guest guest]

Hi Brian

 

--- Brian Hardy <mischievous00> wrote:

> Which classical text's would you recommend to learn more about

classical TCM and acupuncture. Thanks

 

Besides SuWen and LingShu I would recommend Jia Yi Jing or " The

systematic classic of acupuncture and moxibustion " from Huang-Fu Mi

by Blue Poppy Press. Hard to come by but still available from

www.satas.be .

Besides this one I recommend all the other translations from Blue

Poppy Press from the great masters series.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin