Needling ORDER and Method... (Don)

May 19, 2006

Wed, 17 May 2006 06:18:42 0000, " daomsnow " <don83407 wrote:

> I have many students that believe the

practitioner's intention to be important in

acupuncture. However, I don't at all share that

view. If I treat someone and they or I MUST

believe it (or intend it to work), then we are not practicing medicine at all.

Your statement appears to posit acupuncture as a

modality of WM, The connotation of the use of the

word " medicine " reflects that bias. (Not that

that bias isn't also expressed in contemporary

TCM (in the narrow sense) ideology.) The grammar

also implies a straw-dog

argument " believe/intend " as mutually exclusive

to " practicing medicine, " and repeated later in

the juxtaposition of " true medicine " and " faith

healing. " Your first statement notes that some

believe intentionality to be " important " . You

than reframe that into the position that

intentionality is categorically necessary

( " MUST " ). Which makes it easier to draw your

conclusion. Furthermore, " If I treat… then WE… "

More accurate might be to say that if you felt

you HAD TO believe/intend, then you would

feel/believe that you would not be practicing medicine.

> If one has to believe in it to work, then we

are practicing nothing but faith healing. And

that is not what I practice, nor do I believe it is what any of us practice.

(The Lone Ranger and Tonto found themselves once

surrounded by hostile Indians. The Lone Ranger to

Tonto: " Looks like we've had it, my friend. "

Tonto to the Lone Ranger: " What do you mean 'we', white man? " )

If your understanding is that the concept of

intentionality is reducible to faith healing,

then you're hardly in a position to speak for the

entire community of Oriental/Asian medicine.

" Intentionality " is a sophisticated notion,

developed notably in the 19th-20th Century

schools of phenomenological philosophy. And is a

key concept in areas of study like cultural

history. And one could say, in this field and

this time, we are living a chapter of comparative cultural history.

I would be curious to hear your critique of the

article: (I think it can be found on the internet):

Bensky, D., Scheid, V.; MEDICINE AS SIGNIFICATION

- MOVING TOWARDS HEALING POWER IN THE CHINESE

MEDICAL TRADITION; in the European Journal of

Oriental Medicine.European Journal of Oriental Medicine, 2 (6), 32 40

Antibiotic pharmacology (the strep and

amoxycillan) is a dramatic example. Like ER

(military) medicine, it has quasi mythic status

in our society. A medicine? Assuredly. The (only)

true medicine? Hardly. Hence the puzzling nature of your conclusion:

>We practice Oriental Medicine; a true medicine.

Your message reflects some pretty strong bias. We

all have some sort of bias. Identifying that as

representative of the community of Oriental/Asian

medicine, in all its diversity, is another

matter. Comes across as more a belief system.

As Paul Unschuld demonstrates, in both ancient

and modern eras, and in both Asian and Western

medical traditions, pluralism of medical systems

and healing arts tends to prevail -- a sort of

premise of social/cultural well-being.

May 19, 2006

Amen

-

" " <

Friday, May 19, 2006 11:55 AM

Re: Needling ORDER and Method... (Don)