Statements of fact-Zev

[Guest guest]

" I'll play it first, and explain it to you later " -Miles Davis

 

<<

 

ZEV: If you are studying a system of medicine, it must be based on

 

certain principles. The principles of qi, yin and yang, no matter what

 

one believes, is the core of Chinese medical theory, all schools. If

 

you substitute something else, it is no longer Chinese medicine.

 

 

Lon: A great point that is potentially really exciting to look into. Worsley,

for some reason (ignorance and insecurity I think or the old Chinese pathos

of needing to ascribe your insights to something that predates you to give them

wieght) felt compelled to claim he was teaching " Classical Acupuncture. " An

assertion that any thoughtful person in the field can see isn't so. it's sad in

a way because its a direct denial of the value of his own true experience.

I've provided all the groundwork to put people onto my sources but I never

suggest that my insights are or were the insights of the ancient Chinese.

Frankly, I couldn't know or care. If someone said to me " what your doing isn't

TCM " " I'd shrug and say 'fine, no problem. "

 

 

Zev: " Statements of fact " are simply principles on which one bases one's

 

diagnosis and treatment. Without principle, how do you decide what to

 

do in clinic? How do you communicate what you do with other

 

practitioners? >>

 

Lon: Zev and I often articulate different perspectives on this issue but I

suspect we are not really far apart although our emphasis is different. In terms

of teaching the medicine and writing about the medicine it is imperative to

elaborate principles. Integrity, honesty, humility, and generosity are issues

here.

However, in the treatment room, in the actual living practice of the art,

the context is wholly different. Here its not " classical " anything but, at

least in my own experience, " free Jazz " . Its always new, totally engaging, mind

blowing, and at its best, always spontaneous and prior to thought. The

principles of CM, the categories, the history, just don't exist here. I only

ever

*resort* to them if the patient isn't thriving in the clinical context. And, in

the highest level of practice, its not a question of assimilating and

" transcending " the principles of CM but rather of going further.

Without grounding and serious study a practitioner can fool him or

herself into thinking that their own thoughts and feelings justify anything they

do

clinically. Rather then being free to express something greater than the

theory of the medicine itself, their just off in narcissistic lala land. Yet

this

clinical freedom Im talking about-the place where the medicine has always

grown in the hands of its most inspired practitioners-is always beyond, and free

from, history.

[Guest guest]

Hi Lon,

 

In general I find your thoughts very interesting and illuminating.

Thank you for sharing them with me and giving me something to think

about today.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Lon,

I think Heiner Fruehauf expresses it very will in the introduction

to your own book, " The Clinical Practice of " :

 

(quote from Guo Yong, in " Supplementation of What Has Been Lost from

the Shang Han Lun " ):

Zhang Zhongjing's art stems from academic learning, while Hua Tuo's

was the gift of enlightenment. Realistically, therefore, academic

instruction needs to begin with those essential details that can be a

standard for generations of physicians. The archetype for this style

of transmission, is, of course, Zhang Zhongjing. His way within the

Dao of medicine is the way of the constant. Hua Tuo, on the other

hand, exemplifies the way of change that puts the constant to use. "

 

So, we do agree on this. However, I know very few practitioners who

are truly schooled enough in such seminal texts as the Shang Han Lun,

Nan Jing, or Nei Jing. So how can we claim creativity without this

base?

 

 

On Jul 22, 2004, at 8:03 AM, Spiritpathpress wrote:

 

> Zev: " Statements of fact " are simply principles on which one bases

> one's

>

> diagnosis and treatment. Without principle, how do you decide what to

>

> do in clinic? How do you communicate what you do with other

>

> practitioners? >>

>

> Lon: Zev and I often articulate different perspectives on this issue

> but I

> suspect we are not really far apart although our emphasis is

> different. In terms

> of teaching the medicine and writing about the medicine it is

> imperative to

> elaborate principles. Integrity, honesty, humility, and generosity are

> issues

> here.

> However, in the treatment room, in the actual living practice of

> the art,

> the context is wholly different. Here its not " classical " anything

> but, at

> least in my own experience, " free Jazz " . Its always new, totally

> engaging, mind

> blowing, and at its best, always spontaneous and prior to thought. The

> principles of CM, the categories, the history, just don't exist here.

> I only ever

> *resort* to them if the patient isn't thriving in the clinical

> context. And, in

> the highest level of practice, its not a question of assimilating and

> " transcending " the principles of CM but rather of going further.

> Without grounding and serious study a practitioner can fool him or

> herself into thinking that their own thoughts and feelings justify

> anything they do

> clinically. Rather then being free to express something greater than

> the

> theory of the medicine itself, their just off in narcissistic lala

> land. Yet this

> clinical freedom Im talking about-the place where the medicine has

> always

> grown in the hands of its most inspired practitioners-is always

> beyond, and free

> from, history.