Wki / pedia etc. - some motivational perspective

[Guest guest]

from somewhere in the MediaWiki main page, a

distinction between " encyclopedic content " and " discussions surrounding it "

 

(Wikipedia made the major media a month or two

ago after a prominently published researched

comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia

Britannica (online), giving the former the edge.

Britannica countered with research/article

aggressively criticizing that result they've got

a somewhat vested interest. Several major media

subsequently published overviews of the wikipedia phenomenon in general.)

 

The encyclopedic function is clearly useful, but

basically a reference-work function. (Greek

'enkyklios' in the great circle (of arts and

sciences similar scope to the Latinate

'universum'), and 'pedeia' having to do with

education, at root with children; as in

'pedagogic', from the Greek for, basically,

'herding children'.) What I find interesting is

the discussion aspect, but with organizational,

archived and retrievable apparatus. In this TCM

forum we have the process / discussion aspect,

but often rehash stuff previously aired, and lack

reasonable access to the history of what we've

written. I see the wiki as aiding in forming a

sustained body of information as the basis for

more productive discussion and process. And the

framework doesn't seem, at least in

practice, to support the more traditional

list-serv " thread " function, which helps organize process as well as data.

 

(From Wikipedia site) “…wiki, which means that

anyone with access to an Internet-connected

computer can edit, correct, or improve

information throughout the encyclopedia…”

 

The beauty of the wiki concept lies also in the

participational aspect. This somehow relates for

me to Volker Scheid's characterization of the

contemporary reality of CM a rich fabric of

individuals, each working from a " synthesis " of

" pluralistic " influences, including lineage,

training, networking, institutions, client bases,

etc. I.e. putting our heads together, standing on

the shoulders of " the ancients " , and of each other.

 

Simply an encyclopedia of TCM strikes me as

boring, useful for occasional reference after the

period of schooling and initial clinical

apprenticeship into the field. What's exiting is

the sharing of interpretation and

reinterpretation of the traditions, as well as

the schooling, in the face of growing experience,

and the theoretical, philosophical growth along

the way. When we approach that in this forum, I

feel that we are doing what the " four great

masters " were doing among themselves each was

teacher / student / colleague / challenger of

each other, exploring depths of understanding

Han, Tang, etc. classics in light of

Song-Jin-Yuan realities. Where orthodox TCM might

be compared with (perhaps as a pale shadow of)

the Imperial Academy of that time, the various

" schools " (e.g. 4 great masters) of the time are

also approximated today TCM itself, the Worsley

school, the followings of Kiiko Matsumoto,

Jeffery Yuen, (that come to my mind) and many

more. And these are also developmental processes,

rather than just databases of interpretation teaching material.

 

In our time, like Z'ev mentioned, to possibly

flesh out an understanding of " Western herbs and

supplements " in a CM framework. Like Jeffery Yuan

has done with essential oils (and has lectured in

the direction of doing the same for the broader

field of (modern) supplements in general). The

Shen-Hammer school actively works on

re-interpretation of classical pulse qualities

(named/labeled sensations) into diagnostic

language matching what is seen developing now in

patient populations. Just for a couple of example

areas with which I am familiar.

 

More as to the participational aspect, and

specifically relating to the issue of moderating.

The way Wikipedia evolved, and is now run, is

probably instructional. Issues include neutrality

of " moderating " , vs something that one might call

" ownership " . As I understand it, in Wikipedia

some effort goes into curbing outright

abuses garbage, spam, attempts to obliterate

opposing or alternative views, etc. And some

sense of otherwise letting the authors work

things out themselves (free-form peer review?),

according to some sense of reasonableness,

tolerance and maturity. We've had our share of

clashes in this forum, misinterpretations,

" flamming " , etc., but actually much less, I find, as time goes on.

 

In addition to the nuts-and-bolts (servers,

platforms, implementation, costs, etc.), some

discussion of guidelines for the content process,

meta-rules for moderation,

participatory organizational aspects, etc. would

probably be worthwhile. And potentiating it

overall as a process as much as an edifice. CM as

living, expressing its jing through time.

 

 

----------

 

 

 

 

 

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/597 - Release 12/21/2006 6:45

PM

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chris,

 

You raise some good points. What worries me the most is the issue of

different schools of thinking, different terminology, different

interpretation of teachings, etc. It's a major mine field and goes

back to the root problems of Chinese medicine's long history and

development in the west. These problems would have to be sorted out

first before anything can be started.

 

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Chinese Medicine ,

< wrote:

>

> from somewhere in the MediaWiki main page, a

> distinction between " encyclopedic content " and " discussions

surrounding it "

>

> (Wikipedia made the major media a month or two

> ago after a prominently published researched

> comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia

> Britannica (online), giving the former the edge.

> Britannica countered with research/article

> aggressively criticizing that result they've got

> a somewhat vested interest. Several major media

> subsequently published overviews of the wikipedia phenomenon in

general.)

>

> The encyclopedic function is clearly useful, but

> basically a reference-work function. (Greek

> 'enkyklios' in the great circle (of arts and

> sciences similar scope to the Latinate

> 'universum'), and 'pedeia' having to do with

> education, at root with children; as in

> 'pedagogic', from the Greek for, basically,

> 'herding children'.) What I find interesting is

> the discussion aspect, but with organizational,

> archived and retrievable apparatus. In this TCM

> forum we have the process / discussion aspect,

> but often rehash stuff previously aired, and lack

> reasonable access to the history of what we've

> written. I see the wiki as aiding in forming a

> sustained body of information as the basis for

> more productive discussion and process. And the

> framework doesn't seem, at least in

> practice, to support the more traditional

> list-serv " thread " function, which helps organize process as well

as data.

>

> (From Wikipedia site) " …wiki, which means that

> anyone with access to an Internet-connected

> computer can edit, correct, or improve

> information throughout the encyclopedia… "

>

> The beauty of the wiki concept lies also in the

> participational aspect. This somehow relates for

> me to Volker Scheid's characterization of the

> contemporary reality of CM a rich fabric of

> individuals, each working from a " synthesis " of

> " pluralistic " influences, including lineage,

> training, networking, institutions, client bases,

> etc. I.e. putting our heads together, standing on

> the shoulders of " the ancients " , and of each other.

>

> Simply an encyclopedia of TCM strikes me as

> boring, useful for occasional reference after the

> period of schooling and initial clinical

> apprenticeship into the field. What's exiting is

> the sharing of interpretation and

> reinterpretation of the traditions, as well as

> the schooling, in the face of growing experience,

> and the theoretical, philosophical growth along

> the way. When we approach that in this forum, I

> feel that we are doing what the " four great

> masters " were doing among themselves each was

> teacher / student / colleague / challenger of

> each other, exploring depths of understanding

> Han, Tang, etc. classics in light of

> Song-Jin-Yuan realities. Where orthodox TCM might

> be compared with (perhaps as a pale shadow of)

> the Imperial Academy of that time, the various

> " schools " (e.g. 4 great masters) of the time are

> also approximated today TCM itself, the Worsley

> school, the followings of Kiiko Matsumoto,

> Jeffery Yuen, (that come to my mind) and many

> more. And these are also developmental processes,

> rather than just databases of interpretation teaching material.

>

> In our time, like Z'ev mentioned, to possibly

> flesh out an understanding of " Western herbs and

> supplements " in a CM framework. Like Jeffery Yuan

> has done with essential oils (and has lectured in

> the direction of doing the same for the broader

> field of (modern) supplements in general). The

> Shen-Hammer school actively works on

> re-interpretation of classical pulse qualities

> (named/labeled sensations) into diagnostic

> language matching what is seen developing now in

> patient populations. Just for a couple of example

> areas with which I am familiar.

>

> More as to the participational aspect, and

> specifically relating to the issue of moderating.

> The way Wikipedia evolved, and is now run, is

> probably instructional. Issues include neutrality

> of " moderating " , vs something that one might call

> " ownership " . As I understand it, in Wikipedia

> some effort goes into curbing outright

> abuses garbage, spam, attempts to obliterate

> opposing or alternative views, etc. And some

> sense of otherwise letting the authors work

> things out themselves (free-form peer review?),

> according to some sense of reasonableness,

> tolerance and maturity. We've had our share of

> clashes in this forum, misinterpretations,

> " flamming " , etc., but actually much less, I find, as time goes on.

>

> In addition to the nuts-and-bolts (servers,

> platforms, implementation, costs, etc.), some

> discussion of guidelines for the content process,

> meta-rules for moderation,

> participatory organizational aspects, etc. would

> probably be worthwhile. And potentiating it

> overall as a process as much as an edifice. CM as

> living, expressing its jing through time.

>

>

> ----------

>

>

>

>

>

> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.26/597 - Release Date:

12/21/2006 6:45 PM

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The best part of a wiki is the ability to make more than one path of thinking

available. Wiki's

are organic, i.e. grow over time taking shape.

 

Long term it is even technically possible to manage filters so that deficiency

become vacuity,

etc. based on readers choice.

 

The best way to have a successful wiki is to plant seeds and invite people to

enjoy the

garden.

 

David Botton

 

> You raise some good points. What worries me the most is the issue of

> different schools of thinking, different terminology, different

> interpretation of teachings, etc.

[Guest guest]

Hi Attilio, Chris & All,

 

Re Acupuncture & Wki / pedia etc, IMO this would be a valuable

resource, provided that the initial (CORE) data are sound, and practitioners

& scholars around the world then add data to give more detail and

applications.

 

However, easy mounting of data on WWW is a two-edged sword, by which

garbage can be displayed side by side with top quality data. The GIGO Law

[Garbage In = Garbage Out) operates supreme on WWW and the problem

for the user is to be able to distinguish the garbage from the gold.

 

Peer review, ultimately decided by expert moderators or referees, is

probably the best way to protect users from unnecessary exposure to

garbage.

 

IMO the displayed data need to be of two types:

 

(a) CORE DATA,

and

(b) COMMENTARY FILES

 

(a) CORE DATA FILES: Responsibility for CORE DATA must lie with a

SPECIFIC TEAM of experts in the field (Moderators).

 

Moderators alone can edit / remove / amend mounted content on the CORE

DATA FIles. Part of the MODERATORS' functions would include periodic

assessment of the COMMENTARY files, to remove or correct incorrect

data, and/or move top quality data from the COMMENTARY area to the

CORE area.

 

This List has people with huge amounts of stored (digital) data on AP / TCM

herbs. If those of us with such data (whether edited fully to our satisfaction

or not) could agree to send the data to the Moderator(s), they could work

through the data to construct CORE DATA which could be expanded /

updated later.

 

(b) COMMENTARY FILES: On submission of their name, address &

qualifications, any acupuncturist / TCM herbalist should be allowed to post

data to a " Commentary Area " , whose individual files link to the relevant

file(s) in the CORE AREA.

 

For example, files in the CORE AREA for acupoint Hegu-LI04, or herb

Heshouwu-Rx Polygoni multiflori could link to relevant files in the

COMMENTARY AREA for that acupoint or herb, respectively, and vice-

versa.

 

(d) AUTHOR FILES: Traceability of the source of the data would be by

linking to the authors' codes and status, in an AUTHOR MASTER FILE that

lists:

 

Author's Name, Address, Code (M1 to Mn for Moderator 1 to n; Q1 to Qn

Qualified Practitioner 1 to n).

 

To make it easy for regular contributors to add data, thsy should register

with the Moderators and receive a unique PIN (Practitioner Input Number),

linked to their email address. After registration, regular contributors need

only cite their PIN and email address with each data input.

 

Preliminary acceptance of their data would be conditional on confirmation of

their input from their email address. This means that data input from dialog

forms on the site would be returned automatically (by the server) to the

practitioner's email address and would not be added to the COMMENTARY

area until the alleged sender returns a " Data were sent by me " Message

back to the server.

 

(e) Other MASTER (MENU) FILES: These files should list the names and

links to the following files:

AUTHOR MASTER FILES

ACUPOINT FILES

SINGLE HERB FILES

HERBAL FORMULA FILES

etc?

 

Where do we go from here? It would take much organisation and ongoing

work from the MODERATORS to maintain and update this resource.

 

Who will moderate the data?

Who will set up, monitor and amend the MASTER FILES, as in (e), above?

 

Best regards,

 

[Guest guest]

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:53:37 -0000 " "

<attiliodalberto wrote:

>>What worries me the most is the issue of different schools of

thinking, different terminology, different interpretation of

teachings, etc. It's a major mine field and goes back to the root

problems of Chinese medicine's long history and development in the west.

 

That's so well put, describing the breadth of CM discourse. But it

highlights -– the " worries me " , " mine field " , " root problems " – some

kind of expectation or precondition on the nature of the discourse.

 

The interpretation of " root problems " in CM I would suggest actually

arise largely from the Western perspective. And that a major challenge

in the field is broadening understanding and appreciation of the

different schools, terminology and interpretations as the real

treasure of CM.

 

By " from a Western perspective " I mean a number of angles. First the

PRC's effort to define, out of a rich tapestry of historical

traditions, a unitary, consistency based medical theory ( " TCM " ) that's

clearly a me-too reaction to contemporary Western medicine. Secondly,

the thrust of Paul Unschuld's monumental and uniquely influential

contributions to our view of the history of CM is also wrought with

contentious value-judgements and biases, which are endemic to the

practice of Western historical science (1). Thirdly, the same root

cultural bias is present to some degree in most of us with Western

educations, and surfaces regularly in discussions in this forum – this

(mine) being the (only) true meaning (interpretation) of this or that

issue in CM ( " shao-yang pivot " comes to mind).

 

In spite of what may appear (above) as criticism of Paul Unschuld, I

would express my great respect for his efforts by citing him to

support the argument for open investigation of apparent traditional

differences or conflicts. Namely, he has noted, in more than one

context, that the enduring value medical traditions in both Asian and

Western cultures closely associate with the plurality of systems and

practices each has to offer (2).

 

And again, to cite the two contemporary masters I've had the good

fortune of spending quality time with. Dr. Leon Hammer, while at times

contentious when it comes to accurate depiction of his own (and Dr.

Shen's lineage) pulse system, has repeatedly stated that there are

multiple master-level and clinically valid pulse diagnostic systems,

which are not overtly consistent with each other (3). And Jeffery

Yuen, who characterizes CM as containing infinite possibilities

(nuanced theoretical viewpoints of physiology, diagnosis and therapy) (4).

 

A new thought to metaphorically illustrate the cultural difference. In

the roots of Western spirit/thought, the nature of problem/conflict

can be seen in the image of the dragon or monster. The tendency is to

kill it, obliterate, conquer the problem. The Miniator had to be

killed; Medusa's head chopped off; David's dispatching Goliath; both

St. George (in Anglo-Saxon myth) and Siegfried (Germanic myth) both

triumphed by killing the dragon. My sense of the underlying ambition

of Asian spirit/thought is that the challenge is to " ride the dragon " !

 

 

 

References:

(1) Volker Scheid, " in Contemporary China – Plurality

and Synthesis " , 2002. Part I: and the Problem of

Plurality. The discussion here takes great pains to recognize and get

beyond inherent biases of Western thought, as found in the descriptive

sciences (anthopology, enthnography, cultural history etc.) to form a

better framework for better understanding Chinese medicine. Antidote,

e.g., to multiple passages in Paul Unschuld's " Medicine in China: A

History of Ideas " (1985), " " (1998), and " Was Ist

Medizin? " (2002) where he interprets Chinese medical theory as

becoming stagnant or bankrupt, using basically Western ideas/biases as

benchmark. The volume on the SuWen (2005) is also wrought with

judgements to the effect that such-and-such idea " has no basis in

empirical reality. " He also depicts much of modern Western

interpretation of Chinese medicine based in the biases of culturally

projected fantasy.

 

(2) In a workshop in California, a couple of years ago, Dr. Unschuld

somewhat candidly advised attendees that to really capture and

preserve the richness of traditions in CM, we should focus on small

specialized study programs, with masters in various aspects and

schools of tradition; and an overall standardized Western-style

curriculum would spell the death of that legacy. Also during that

workshop, and throughout the book " Was Ist Medizin " (unfortunately

only available in German) he depicts various " healing practices " , in

the history of both East and West, as theoretically problematic, but

practically efficacious for various individuals and groups. And,

referring to the coexistence of such practices with what he considers

genuine medical systems (again, East and West) in social / cultural

pluralities which, particularly in terms of Western social values,

best answer society's health needs.

 

(3) A good example of both trains of thought I refer to can be found

in Dr. Leon Hammer's, " Tradition and Revision " ; from Clinical

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine; Vol. 3 No. 1, 2002; also available

online at:

http://www.yaviah.addr.com/articles/hammer-traditionrevision.pdf

 

(4) Jeffery Yuen – various lectures at the American University of

Complementary Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif., USA, 2003-2006. He also

recently depicted Chinese medicine as quintessentially interpretive,

in contradistinction to WM's rigid focus on consistency. (Another

topic, but it can be argued that WM is more of an interpretive

process, albeit focusing on " evidence " , then many of its apologists

would be prepared to admit.)

[Guest guest]

Chris,

I also don't see the different interpretations of phenomena in

Chinese medicine as a mine field. It reminds me more of the pilpul/

debate aspects of Talmudic scholarship, where debate for the sake of

uncovering knowledge is the key.

 

While I support and personally study and investigate more

classical approaches than modern TCM, I did want to defend some

aspects of it.

 

The many schools and approaches of Chinese medicine, and those

versions exported to Japan, Korea and SE Asia, were able to survive

and flourish because of the intellectual, social and political

climate of these pre-modern cultures that had no problem with

different flavors of expression in medicine. Medicine was just

medicine/yi, this was before zhong yi/Chinese medicine was coined as

a descriptive to distinguish it from xi yi/Western medicine.

 

Of course, since the late 19th century, the influence of modern

science and biomedicine has had a tremendous impact on all aspects of

Asian culture, including medicine. TCM was a response to this trend,

an attempt to create a coherent and consistent body of data and a

more uniform profession. As we know, there are plusses and minuses

to this attempt, but without it, there would be no CM profession left

to speak of.

 

The licensing and educational institutions of Chinese medicine,

both in the West and China, are built on models of proficiency that

needed to be determined by a cirriculum that has been standardized.

It would be difficult to have any type of unified educational system

otherwise.

 

I don't see the mass deconstruction of TCM as possible or

desirable. Instead, I see one of the present trends in China, and

hopefully soon in the West, to open up to and study classical sources

of Chinese medicine and propagate them. Hopefully, new expressions

and a more eclectic realm of possibilities will emerge.

 

 

On Dec 24, 2006, at 12:10 PM, chris_macie wrote:

 

> Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:53:37 -0000 " "

> <attiliodalberto wrote:

> >>What worries me the most is the issue of different schools of

> thinking, different terminology, different interpretation of

> teachings, etc. It's a major mine field and goes back to the root

> problems of Chinese medicine's long history and development in the

> west.

>

> That's so well put, describing the breadth of CM discourse. But it

> highlights -– the " worries me " , " mine field " , " root problems " – some

> kind of expectation or precondition on the nature of the discourse.

>

> The interpretation of " root problems " in CM I would suggest actually

> arise largely from the Western perspective. And that a major challenge

> in the field is broadening understanding and appreciation of the

> different schools, terminology and interpretations as the real

> treasure of CM.

>

> By " from a Western perspective " I mean a number of angles. First the

> PRC's effort to define, out of a rich tapestry of historical

> traditions, a unitary, consistency based medical theory ( " TCM " ) that's

> clearly a me-too reaction to contemporary Western medicine. Secondly,

> the thrust of Paul Unschuld's monumental and uniquely influential

> contributions to our view of the history of CM is also wrought with

> contentious value-judgements and biases, which are endemic to the

> practice of Western historical science (1). Thirdly, the same root

> cultural bias is present to some degree in most of us with Western

> educations, and surfaces regularly in discussions in this forum – this

> (mine) being the (only) true meaning (interpretation) of this or that

> issue in CM ( " shao-yang pivot " comes to mind).

>

> In spite of what may appear (above) as criticism of Paul Unschuld, I

> would express my great respect for his efforts by citing him to

> support the argument for open investigation of apparent traditional

> differences or conflicts. Namely, he has noted, in more than one

> context, that the enduring value medical traditions in both Asian and

> Western cultures closely associate with the plurality of systems and

> practices each has to offer (2).

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chris, Zev & All,

 

There is not much i can say in reply. I'm happy to announce, probably

prematurely, that David Botton has taken on the project and

registered the name i suggested, tcmpedia as a domain name. It'll be

for him to work out how this pedia will play out. I believe the site

will be operational in about a week. I'll be interested to see what

happens.

 

As a foot note, I've wanted for some years to tell members that I do

not approve of the name TCM. In retrospect, I wish I had named this

forum CM instead. TCM is more of a political name with false

ambitions of portraying itself as Chinese medicine when it is far

from it.

 

Attilio

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Chinese Medicine , " chris_macie "

< wrote:

>

> Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:53:37 -0000 " "

> <attiliodalberto wrote:

> >>What worries me the most is the issue of different schools of

> thinking, different terminology, different interpretation of

> teachings, etc. It's a major mine field and goes back to the root

> problems of Chinese medicine's long history and development in the

west.

>

> That's so well put, describing the breadth of CM discourse. But it

> highlights -– the " worries me " , " mine field " , " root problems " – some

> kind of expectation or precondition on the nature of the discourse.

>

> The interpretation of " root problems " in CM I would suggest actually

> arise largely from the Western perspective. And that a major

challenge

> in the field is broadening understanding and appreciation of the

> different schools, terminology and interpretations as the real

> treasure of CM.

>

> By " from a Western perspective " I mean a number of angles. First the

> PRC's effort to define, out of a rich tapestry of historical

> traditions, a unitary, consistency based medical theory ( " TCM " )

that's

> clearly a me-too reaction to contemporary Western medicine.

Secondly,

> the thrust of Paul Unschuld's monumental and uniquely influential

> contributions to our view of the history of CM is also wrought with

> contentious value-judgements and biases, which are endemic to the

> practice of Western historical science (1). Thirdly, the same root

> cultural bias is present to some degree in most of us with Western

> educations, and surfaces regularly in discussions in this forum –

this

> (mine) being the (only) true meaning (interpretation) of this or

that

> issue in CM ( " shao-yang pivot " comes to mind).

>

> In spite of what may appear (above) as criticism of Paul Unschuld, I

> would express my great respect for his efforts by citing him to

> support the argument for open investigation of apparent traditional

> differences or conflicts. Namely, he has noted, in more than one

> context, that the enduring value medical traditions in both Asian

and

> Western cultures closely associate with the plurality of systems

and

> practices each has to offer (2).

>

> And again, to cite the two contemporary masters I've had the good

> fortune of spending quality time with. Dr. Leon Hammer, while at

times

> contentious when it comes to accurate depiction of his own (and Dr.

> Shen's lineage) pulse system, has repeatedly stated that there are

> multiple master-level and clinically valid pulse diagnostic systems,

> which are not overtly consistent with each other (3). And Jeffery

> Yuen, who characterizes CM as containing infinite possibilities

> (nuanced theoretical viewpoints of physiology, diagnosis and

therapy) (4).

>

> A new thought to metaphorically illustrate the cultural difference.

In

> the roots of Western spirit/thought, the nature of problem/conflict

> can be seen in the image of the dragon or monster. The tendency is

to

> kill it, obliterate, conquer the problem. The Miniator had to be

> killed; Medusa's head chopped off; David's dispatching Goliath; both

> St. George (in Anglo-Saxon myth) and Siegfried (Germanic myth) both

> triumphed by killing the dragon. My sense of the underlying ambition

> of Asian spirit/thought is that the challenge is to " ride the

dragon " !

>

>

>

> References:

> (1) Volker Scheid, " in Contemporary China –

Plurality

> and Synthesis " , 2002. Part I: and the Problem of

> Plurality. The discussion here takes great pains to recognize and

get

> beyond inherent biases of Western thought, as found in the

descriptive

> sciences (anthopology, enthnography, cultural history etc.) to form

a

> better framework for better understanding Chinese medicine.

Antidote,

> e.g., to multiple passages in Paul Unschuld's " Medicine in China: A

> History of Ideas " (1985), " " (1998), and " Was Ist

> Medizin? " (2002) where he interprets Chinese medical theory as

> becoming stagnant or bankrupt, using basically Western ideas/biases

as

> benchmark. The volume on the SuWen (2005) is also wrought with

> judgements to the effect that such-and-such idea " has no basis in

> empirical reality. " He also depicts much of modern Western

> interpretation of Chinese medicine based in the biases of culturally

> projected fantasy.

>

> (2) In a workshop in California, a couple of years ago, Dr. Unschuld

> somewhat candidly advised attendees that to really capture and

> preserve the richness of traditions in CM, we should focus on small

> specialized study programs, with masters in various aspects and

> schools of tradition; and an overall standardized Western-style

> curriculum would spell the death of that legacy. Also during that

> workshop, and throughout the book " Was Ist Medizin " (unfortunately

> only available in German) he depicts various " healing practices " , in

> the history of both East and West, as theoretically problematic, but

> practically efficacious for various individuals and groups. And,

> referring to the coexistence of such practices with what he

considers

> genuine medical systems (again, East and West) in social / cultural

> pluralities which, particularly in terms of Western social values,

> best answer society's health needs.

>

> (3) A good example of both trains of thought I refer to can be found

> in Dr. Leon Hammer's, " Tradition and Revision " ; from Clinical

> Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine; Vol. 3 No. 1, 2002; also

available

> online at:

> http://www.yaviah.addr.com/articles/hammer-traditionrevision.pdf

>

> (4) Jeffery Yuen – various lectures at the American University of

> Complementary Medicine, Los Angeles, Calif., USA, 2003-2006. He also

> recently depicted Chinese medicine as quintessentially interpretive,

> in contradistinction to WM's rigid focus on consistency. (Another

> topic, but it can be argued that WM is more of an interpretive

> process, albeit focusing on " evidence " , then many of its apologists

> would be prepared to admit.)

>

[Guest guest]

I've already set up the start of the site and will start loading my personal

content on to it

to get it started. The look of the site can certainly be improved over time, but

it is the

content that will make the difference.

 

As I complete uploading sections of it I'll post here in the hopes to inspire

others to edit,

change and add to what is up.

 

Regarding your foot note it would be worth while to write up the history of

" TCM " and

discuss the plurality of CM that exists and add it to the wiki.

 

If any one is uncomfortable with adding things directly to the wiki feel free to

e-mail me

and I will add it for you.

 

David Botton

 

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

<attiliodalberto wrote:

>

> Chris, Zev & All,

>

> There is not much i can say in reply. I'm happy to announce, probably

> prematurely, that David Botton has taken on the project and

> registered the name i suggested, tcmpedia as a domain name. It'll be

> for him to work out how this pedia will play out. I believe the site

> will be operational in about a week. I'll be interested to see what

> happens.

>

> As a foot note, I've wanted for some years to tell members that I do

> not approve of the name TCM. In retrospect, I wish I had named this

> forum CM instead. TCM is more of a political name with false

> ambitions of portraying itself as Chinese medicine when it is far

> from it.

>

> Attilio

> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com