Guest guest Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Dear Group, When I logged onto this group and I could not believe my eyes. People freely quote paranoid statistics, freely make up theory, and exchange anecdotal evidence like old folk healers. NOW, before everyone freaks out, I am not judging, because this is (those peoples) way. But People did not question these things, everything was nice and good because everyone was `sharing'. I started too question these things, and I met much much resistance. `How dare you question what I say'… I offered sources for more correct information (i.e. Phlegm), and I was met with `We don't read or need books, and we were all trained differently so that my view is just as right as yours.' My personal integrity was challenged with `and he questioned this topic (yinfire) since a student…' woooooo…. I am really trying to be open to this idea. But here is my observation, which is well worth considering: People who are from China, or westerners who are fairly educated in CM, will of course argue about minor issues, best treatment, differences in diagnosis etc. But it has always been clear to me that those people always have a foundational understanding to work on and discuss. Their framework is consistent, allowing for proper discourse. Again there may be minor differences in theoretical understanding, but as a whole I am quite impressed with the consistency. Quite the opposite happens with many Westerners. Many take the phrase 10 doctors 10 treatments to the point where that must meen that you can do anything you want. These people (usually never really read that much, and went to schools were idiosyncratic ideas were propagated) usually had very different views of the basic principles. It is alright to just feel….IS this a problem? That is what should be discussed, I think so, without so guidelines, the free for all attitude that is created makes it impossible to talk beyond just anecdotal results, theory is useless, and IMO, puts us back to folk healers. In all fairness much of this is because of an emphasis in `acupuncture thinking', which by nature pays less attention to theory than an herbalist. Acupuncturists find meridians in different lines, find points in drastically different locations, use different theory to choose points, use different techniques to manipulate the needle, insert to different depths (deep to no insertion at all), there really is no right way. I can't think of any statement of fact when it comes to acupuncture. I would have to say, I would be surprised if all of these work equally, but I am pretty sure `success' is most dependent on the practitioner than anything else. These (acu) environments are breeding grounds for people just MSU. And maybe everyone is alright with that, especially from an acupuncture perspective. With this comes an acceptance for any type of therapy out there. `Hey I used tuning forks to cure migraines last night' maybe you should try it…'- I used a GB flush to cure a stomach ache , ok I will do the same. No real evaluation process, just passing around information. Let me reiterate, this is fine, this is what people here seem to like. Herbalism, on the hand, because they can cause more harm, usually treat more serious diseases, and as we know treats most internal medicine cases in modern China, has a much more structured theoretical system. I would say the majority of books and information and research is on herbs (my observation). People (herbalists) are very critical and like to evaluate things from many angles. They are less likely to blindly follow a protocol without serious research, historical use, strong theoretical basis etc. So the problem is this: taking that making stuff up (MSU) acupuncture mentality and applying to herbs and the majority of CM theory, just does not work. The two worlds do not mesh to well. As many true `acupuncturists' will state they are disgraced at the TCM version of acupuncture. They will say, herbalizing acupuncture is its downfall, etc. and I agree. But within specific acupuncture systems (i.e. TCM, toyohari etc) there are also set rules or `statements of fact', and this is integral to that system. Although those rules may contradict many other systems. Therefore, I think it is important when one states ideas, facts, theories, etc we be clear what (system) we are talking about, and hopefully have more tolerance for others. But certain blanket statements for CM as a whole, IMO, should always be confronted or challenged, like all phlegm has heat. Maybe in Dr. K's specific acupuncture system this is true, so that should be stated. In mainstream CM theory it is not. We have two different opinions, ok. But when someone says, Because of that on should never Moxa phlegm. This, without qualifying what system we are discussing, is clearly wrong, because other systems do Moxa phlegm (this is a fact). Therefore widening one's view through discourse (one of the qualities of Shanna's website post) occurs when we see the reality on how other systems view things. This was my point from the beginning. There is a truth, it is Moxa can be used for phlegm. (Big picture). A minor truth (but falsity in the big picture), confined within a specific system, might be `you cannot moxa phlegm' It is a matter of perspective. I see at least some good has come out of this ruckus, the moderator now requires sources for any stats. I might not (or haven't yet) supplied the group with anecdotal treatments, but I have supplied you all with much to think about philosophically and hopefully evaluate our profession and how view to information, facts, non-facts etc. The mere fact that you are reading this, demonstrates that people read posts no matter what tactic one uses. (which I am quite surprised because of the length of this post – or maybe you skipped to the bottom ). So, instead of being so sensitive towards a few words, let's look at some real problems that may or may not exist, and if they do, some solutions. If someone calls me an oil can, do I get mad? No, because I know I am not an oil can. Comments are welcome; this is of course only 1 side and only my observations. I would like to hear the other… - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Jason Great post. Very intelligent, well-spoken, passionate and non- condescending. I agree with you whole-heartedly that we shouldn't be making things up. I'll certainly be more careful of this in the future. Like I said, I never took exception to your knowledge about moxa and phlegm, only the way you would bash others instead of entering into a dialogue. As you can see from the website on dialogue, it is important to be open and non-contentious when having one. This doesn't mean you can't get your point accross which you have so eloquently, intelligently and kindly done below. I think our dialogue on dialogue has been quite fruitful as well. Thanks for taking the time to read the website information and for adjusting your tone. I think you needn't worry that others won't listen unless you get nasty. You may know that you aren't an oil can and Michael Jordan may know that he's not a crumby basketball player, but I think I can safely say that none of us in this group is Zhang Zhong Jing or Li Dong Yuan so care with your approach is appreciated and well worth the extra consideration. It will make you a superior practitioner, reseacher and academician in the long run. With High Respect, Shanna Chinese Medicine , " " wrote: > Dear Group, > > When I logged onto this group and I > could not believe my eyes. People freely quote paranoid statistics, > freely make up theory, and exchange anecdotal evidence like old folk > healers. NOW, before everyone freaks out, I am not judging, because > this is (those peoples) way. But People did not question these > things, everything was nice and good because everyone was `sharing'. > I started too question these things, and I met much much resistance. > `How dare you question what I say'… I offered sources for more correct > information (i.e. Phlegm), and I was met with `We don't read or need > books, and we were all trained differently so that my view is just as > right as yours.' My personal integrity was challenged with `and he > questioned this topic (yinfire) since a student…' woooooo…. I am > really trying to be open to this idea. But here is my observation, > which is well worth considering: > > People who are from China, or westerners who are fairly educated in > CM, will of course argue about minor issues, best treatment, > differences in diagnosis etc. But it has always been clear to me that > those people always have a foundational understanding to work on and > discuss. Their framework is consistent, allowing for proper > discourse. Again there may be minor differences in theoretical > understanding, but as a whole I am quite impressed with the > consistency. Quite the opposite happens with many Westerners. Many > take the phrase 10 doctors 10 treatments to the point where that must > meen that you can do anything you want. These people (usually never > really read that much, and went to schools were idiosyncratic ideas > were propagated) usually had very different views of the basic > principles. It is alright to just feel….IS this a problem? That is > what should be discussed, I think so, without so guidelines, the free > for all attitude that is created makes it impossible to talk beyond > just anecdotal results, theory is useless, and IMO, puts us back to > folk healers. > > In all fairness much of this is because of an emphasis in `acupuncture > thinking', which by nature pays less attention to theory than an > herbalist. Acupuncturists find meridians in different lines, find > points in drastically different locations, use different theory to > choose points, use different techniques to manipulate the needle, > insert to different depths (deep to no insertion at all), there really > is no right way. I can't think of any statement of fact when it comes > to acupuncture. I would have to say, I would be surprised if all of > these work equally, but I am pretty sure `success' is most dependent > on the practitioner than anything else. > > These (acu) environments are breeding grounds for people just MSU. > And maybe everyone is alright with that, especially from an > acupuncture perspective. With this comes an acceptance for any type > of therapy out there. `Hey I used tuning forks to cure migraines last > night' maybe you should try it…'- I used a GB flush to cure a stomach > ache , ok I will do the same. No real evaluation process, just > passing around information. Let me reiterate, this is fine, this is > what people here seem to like. > > Herbalism, on the hand, because they can cause more harm, usually > treat more serious diseases, and as we know treats most internal > medicine cases in modern China, has a much more structured theoretical > system. I would say the majority of books and information and > research is on herbs (my observation). People > (herbalists) are very critical and like to evaluate things from many > angles. They are less likely to blindly follow a protocol without > serious research, historical use, strong theoretical basis etc. So > the problem is this: taking that making stuff up (MSU) acupuncture > mentality and applying to herbs and the majority of CM theory, just > does not work. The two worlds do not mesh to well. As many true > `acupuncturists' will state they are disgraced at the TCM version of > acupuncture. They will say, herbalizing acupuncture is its downfall, > etc. and I agree. But within specific acupuncture systems (i.e. TCM, > toyohari etc) there are also set rules or `statements of fact', and > this is integral to that system. Although those rules may contradict > many other systems. > > Therefore, I think it is important when one states ideas, facts, > theories, etc we be clear what (system) we are talking about, and > hopefully have more tolerance for others. But certain blanket > statements for CM as a whole, IMO, should always be confronted or > challenged, like all phlegm has heat. Maybe in Dr. K's specific > acupuncture system this is true, so that should be stated. In > mainstream CM theory it is not. We have two different opinions, ok. > But when someone says, Because of that on should never Moxa phlegm. > This, without qualifying what system we are discussing, is clearly > wrong, because other systems do Moxa phlegm (this is a fact). > Therefore widening one's view through discourse (one of the qualities > of Shanna's website post) occurs when we see the reality on how other > systems view things. This was my point from the beginning. There is > a truth, it is Moxa can be used for phlegm. (Big picture). A minor > truth (but falsity in the big picture), confined within a specific > system, might be `you cannot moxa phlegm' It is a matter of perspective. > > I see at least some good has come out of this ruckus, the moderator > now requires sources for any stats. I might not (or haven't yet) > supplied the group with anecdotal treatments, but I have supplied you > all with much to think about philosophically and hopefully evaluate > our profession and how view to information, facts, non-facts etc. The > mere fact that you are reading this, demonstrates that people read > posts no matter what tactic one uses. (which I am quite surprised > because of the length of this post – or maybe you skipped to the > bottom ). So, instead of being so sensitive towards a few words, > let's look at some real problems that may or may not exist, and if > they do, some solutions. If someone calls me an oil can, do I get > mad? No, because I know I am not an oil can. > > Comments are welcome; this is of course only 1 side and only my > observations. I would like to hear the other… > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2004 Report Share Posted July 23, 2004 Jason, You have expressed what I've often felt about the acupuncture world in general. The term I use often is " woo-woo " which just summarizes all the strange and often unproved therapies that practitioners apply to their patients based on what they " feel " . The laying on of crystals on shakras, qigong that more resembles prayer, reiki, aroma therapy, etc. I don't claim to know if these therapies are " real " or not, but what I do know is that I would no more apply them to a patient than fly to the moon. It may feel " right " for some practitioners, but it doesn't fit me at all. I realize that the above-mentioned therapies are not the same as the variant CM practices that are out there, but I hate seeing them mixed in with our medicine because I feel that make us look like a bunch of s and we lose the respect of much of the medical profession and the more classically trained CM pra ctitioners. Frankly, I've often been quite confused by the wide variations of style and information; it's a bit overwhelming. I'll admit my limitations in the world of " internal " medicine practice. Prior to being an acupuncturist, I was in sports medicine/physical therapy for 15 years. Therefore, my practice is naturally orthopedic or musculo-skeletal in nature and I like that because it is very clear and the variances are clearly defined. Channel theory is not nearly as diverse, IMO, than most other aspects of CM. I realize you've caught a lot of flak for your demands for substantiation of treatments and theories, but I certainly understand where you are coming from and am glad that the outcome of all of this will likely result in raising the bar for this forum. I think mostly though, it was the tone in which you presented your question/comments that ruffled the most feathers. But, I gathered that came out of frustration which I completely understand and appreciate. Thanks for your post. Barbara Beale, MS, ATC, MAcOM, LAc [] Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:24 AM Chinese Medicine Systems , reality, true, and MSU Dear Group, When I logged onto this group and I could not believe my eyes. People freely quote paranoid statistics, freely make up theory, and exchange anecdotal evidence like old folk healers. NOW, before everyone freaks out, I am not judging, because this is (those peoples) way. But People did not question these things, everything was nice and good because everyone was `sharing'. I started too question these things, and I met much much resistance. `How dare you question what I say'. I offered sources for more correct information (i.e. Phlegm), and I was met with `We don't read or need books, and we were all trained differently so that my view is just as right as yours.' My personal integrity was challenged with `and he questioned this topic (yinfire) since a student.' woooooo.. I am really trying to be open to this idea. But here is my observation, which is well worth considering: People who are from China, or westerners who are fairly educated in CM, will of course argue about minor issues, best treatment, differences in diagnosis etc. But it has always been clear to me that those people always have a foundational understanding to work on and discuss. Their framework is consistent, allowing for proper discourse. Again there may be minor differences in theoretical understanding, but as a whole I am quite impressed with the consistency. Quite the opposite happens with many Westerners. Many take the phrase 10 doctors 10 treatments to the point where that must meen that you can do anything you want. These people (usually never really read that much, and went to schools were idiosyncratic ideas were propagated) usually had very different views of the basic principles. It is alright to just feel..IS this a problem? That is what should be discussed, I think so, without so guidelines, the free for all attitude that is created makes it impossible to talk beyond just anecdotal results, theory is useless, and IMO, puts us back to folk healers. In all fairness much of this is because of an emphasis in `acupuncture thinking', which by nature pays less attention to theory than an herbalist. Acupuncturists find meridians in different lines, find points in drastically different locations, use different theory to choose points, use different techniques to manipulate the needle, insert to different depths (deep to no insertion at all), there really is no right way. I can't think of any statement of fact when it comes to acupuncture. I would have to say, I would be surprised if all of these work equally, but I am pretty sure `success' is most dependent on the practitioner than anything else. These (acu) environments are breeding grounds for people just MSU. And maybe everyone is alright with that, especially from an acupuncture perspective. With this comes an acceptance for any type of therapy out there. `Hey I used tuning forks to cure migraines last night' maybe you should try it.'- I used a GB flush to cure a stomach ache , ok I will do the same. No real evaluation process, just passing around information. Let me reiterate, this is fine, this is what people here seem to like. Herbalism, on the hand, because they can cause more harm, usually treat more serious diseases, and as we know treats most internal medicine cases in modern China, has a much more structured theoretical system. I would say the majority of books and information and research is on herbs (my observation). People (herbalists) are very critical and like to evaluate things from many angles. They are less likely to blindly follow a protocol without serious research, historical use, strong theoretical basis etc. So the problem is this: taking that making stuff up (MSU) acupuncture mentality and applying to herbs and the majority of CM theory, just does not work. The two worlds do not mesh to well. As many true `acupuncturists' will state they are disgraced at the TCM version of acupuncture. They will say, herbalizing acupuncture is its downfall, etc. and I agree. But within specific acupuncture systems (i.e. TCM, toyohari etc) there are also set rules or `statements of fact', and this is integral to that system. Although those rules may contradict many other systems. Therefore, I think it is important when one states ideas, facts, theories, etc we be clear what (system) we are talking about, and hopefully have more tolerance for others. But certain blanket statements for CM as a whole, IMO, should always be confronted or challenged, like all phlegm has heat. Maybe in Dr. K's specific acupuncture system this is true, so that should be stated. In mainstream CM theory it is not. We have two different opinions, ok. But when someone says, Because of that on should never Moxa phlegm. This, without qualifying what system we are discussing, is clearly wrong, because other systems do Moxa phlegm (this is a fact). Therefore widening one's view through discourse (one of the qualities of Shanna's website post) occurs when we see the reality on how other systems view things. This was my point from the beginning. There is a truth, it is Moxa can be used for phlegm. (Big picture). A minor truth (but falsity in the big picture), confined within a specific system, might be `you cannot moxa phlegm' It is a matter of perspective. I see at least some good has come out of this ruckus, the moderator now requires sources for any stats. I might not (or haven't yet) supplied the group with anecdotal treatments, but I have supplied you all with much to think about philosophically and hopefully evaluate our profession and how view to information, facts, non-facts etc. The mere fact that you are reading this, demonstrates that people read posts no matter what tactic one uses. (which I am quite surprised because of the length of this post - or maybe you skipped to the bottom ). So, instead of being so sensitive towards a few words, let's look at some real problems that may or may not exist, and if they do, some solutions. If someone calls me an oil can, do I get mad? No, because I know I am not an oil can. Comments are welcome; this is of course only 1 side and only my observations. I would like to hear the other. - Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear. http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 Well Jason, you did put a lot into this. I would agree that people have different valid trainings, and even students from same stream, learning elbow to elbow, may come away with something different, but hopefully not wrong. And there is right and wrong. But I for one have to put away my ego or fear in order to ask questions that show weak spots in my understanding, or even places of incorrect assumption, in order to learn.(eg, the emotional imbalance component in yin fire. I am so glad to learn more about it, so much falls into place becuase of a little knowledge. I've been working in this for a long time, and the thrill of discovery is still such a blessing. There is always more to learn, always.) More than one person has said how they are afraid to post to group because they feel they may be ridiculed or 'ripped a new one'. I think if we all are just gentler with each other, this will continue to be a fantastic place. I didn't really see anyone attacking anybody else too strongly(maybe I missed it), but it is easy to get a wrong impression, esp when one feels vulnerable. As far as paranoid statistics go, I'll just let it go, things are bad but I don't want to fight about it. When I want to fight, I'll join the army. < wrote: Dear Group, When I logged onto this group... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.