The place of research in TCM (an idea)

[Guest guest]

mmilotay wrote:

> Good ol' Spiro Agnew. Now on that note, remember listers, the list is

> non-political.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Mark (list owner)

>

> Quoting petetheisen <petetheisen:

>

>>Hi Dr. Porter!

>>

>>Wow, deja vu all over again! Too many old liberal arts grads in TCM.

>>

>> " . . . the principal infatuations of today revolve around the social

>>sciences, those disciplines that can accommodate any opinion and about

>>which the most reckless conjecture cannot be discredited. "

>>

>>Bragging rights to whoever can identify the source. Won't be that hard.

 

Hi Mark!

 

You get the bragging rights. Political? Who us?

 

Regards,

 

Pete

[Guest guest]

mike Bowser wrote:

 

Hi Mike!

 

Inline, snips here and there:

 

> I am not sure of what you speak

 

My point was that Dr. Porter was echoing a very old idea, actually

predating the widespread adoption of TCM in the states, expressed in

this quote from May 22, 1970.

 

<http://www.geocities.com/pacific_future/speech_agnew220570.html>

 

While I was in TCM school some 10 years ago I got the distinct

impression that some of the students indeed were in TCM school " to

proclaim, rather than to learn " .

 

I think there are a number of people in practice who think *they* set

the standards, but I don't have anyone on this list in mind as I think

this. *I* think the standards need to be based on the classics, but then

continuously tested on a case by case basis and also in whatever

research is *properly* done, and *properly* reported.

 

> the same old conservative rhetoric about how wonderful things are

> while they continue to decline.

 

Which " conservatives " use this rhetoric? (you can off-list that part if

you wish, or put it on the political list)

 

> I think that we have become stagnant or conservative within our

> profession as well.

 

Some of us indeed have, don't think I want to name names or mention

specific philosophies here. It is posible to be a stagnant liberal, by

the way. Liberals in any profession who have been liberal for a long

time are the most violently reactionary people you can imagine when they

are trying to " conserve " something they helped push back in the day -

something that used to be the latest thing ever *then*, whether it has

worked out or not over the years. If anyone wants examples, ask me on

the political list.

 

> The one thing that we have not done well is to provide support for

> individual choice (professional practice) and yet move the profession

> forward as a whole.

 

Here in Florida there may be a little *too* much individual choice,

" forward " thinking and integrative education while the classics are

hardly ever mentioned. Every day I get invitations to seminars that

appear to have *nothing* to do with TCM.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

 

>>> seems to be a distinct speaking in this group towards letting

>>> everyone " go their own way " and that every opinion or proposition

>>> is okay if everyone has their own truth.

 

>> Wow, deja vu all over again! Too many old liberal arts grads in

>> TCM.

>>

>> " . . . the principal infatuations of today revolve around the

>> social sciences, those disciplines that can accommodate any opinion

>> and about which the most reckless conjecture cannot be

>> discredited. "