Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 Indeed, most of what we do is nonsense. Most of TCM is nonsense. Pulses, tongues, etc. all provoke wide disagreement, and there are so many differing schools and traditions as to make any claims regarding superiority of technique or interpretation laughable. The art of Chinese medicine is figuring out that which is not complete BS. But of course, this differs for every practitioner... face it: we're voodoo doctors who somehow make people better even though everyone is doing things differently. Sure, let's have fun discussions about phlegm misting the orifices or whatever, but don't mistake it for science, since it is not in the nature of healing to be able to faithfully reproduce results. Anyone getting all hot under the collar really needs to look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves whether they belong to a religion called TCM, because otherwise there is no defensible reason to get shrill over a pre-scientific loose set of theories over two thousand years old that comes to us as an admixture of clinical wisdom and Chinese cultural hogwash. In other words, just because you have a tidy explanation of all the humoral processes that would allow you to fly doesn't mean you can. -Ben Hawes, L.Ac. Re: Facelift Acupuncture: fact or fallacy? <Chinese Medicine/message/25005;_ylc=X\ 3oDMTJyc2N1a3EwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzk0OTU5NzcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwODE0BG1zZ\ 0lkAzI1MDA1BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExODIxNTY1MTQ-> Posted by: " c_s_tcm " c_s_tcm <c_s_tcm?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Facelift%20Acupuncture%3A%20fact%\ 20or%20fallacy%3F> c_s_tcm <http://profiles./c_s_tcm> Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:04 am (PST) Hi Attilio, hope you are well. Bridges book, and her lectures are full of ancedotes and stories of how she applies face reading to life and to help her clients " recognise their issues " , making her a very interesting and engaging speaker. I possibly made a bad choice in choosing the example i did of how face reading could be applied to FRA, (the conversation i quoted was a chat with a friend about the subject, not during an acu consultation) We all do face reading to a certain extent every day with those we meet and in order to read emotions and gauge how others are feeling, I think it is interesting to develop the skill and use it to help give FRA clients a more positive opinion of their wrinkles and lines. It may not be the most high-brow academic aspect of chinese medicine- much of the subject is light-hearted and fun - for example large fleshy earlobes are said to represent old age luck (lots of money or rich children to look after you in old age!) I was wondering, If you belive the topic to be " new age nonsense " - or traditional old nonsense, given its long history throughout Chinese culture, diviniation, diagnosis, use in match-making etc, why promote the book for sale in your bookshop??!! kind regards Christine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 When I read this e-mail, with its use of terms such as 'nonsense', 'religion' and 'cultural hogwash', I feel like I've just picked up a quackbuster's screed. Do you feel that modern medicine is " scientific " , and Chinese medicine is not? If you look at one specific aspect of Chinese medicine, herbal medicine or zhong yao/Chinese medicinals, we are dealing with specific substances with specific effects used in combination to treat systemic imbalances and illnesses. This information has been collected over millenia, and most of the 'ancient formulas' have survived, largely because they work. The theoretical foundations co- evolved with the clinical aspect, and they are clearly inseparable. The Chinese are very practical people. Warm disease and cold damage theory was developed not as a mental parlor game, but as criteria to understand and treat serious epidemic diseases. Pulse and tongue diagnosis have been developed and confirmed over a very long period, and despite differences in schools and approaches, there are basic criteria and agreements over what can be obtained from these methods. You may want to look at the Chinese 'cultural hogwash' a little more deeply before condemning it in this fashion. Or define what you are saying with a little more clarity. On Jun 18, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. wrote: > > Indeed, most of what we do is nonsense. Most of TCM is nonsense. > Pulses, > tongues, etc. all provoke wide disagreement, and there are so many > differing schools and traditions as to make any claims regarding > superiority of technique or interpretation laughable. The art of > Chinese > medicine is figuring out that which is not complete BS. But of course, > this differs for every practitioner... face it: we're voodoo > doctors who > somehow make people better even though everyone is doing things > differently. Sure, let's have fun discussions about phlegm misting the > orifices or whatever, but don't mistake it for science, since it is > not > in the nature of healing to be able to faithfully reproduce results. > Anyone getting all hot under the collar really needs to look at > themselves in the mirror and ask themselves whether they belong to a > religion called TCM, because otherwise there is no defensible > reason to > get shrill over a pre-scientific loose set of theories over two > thousand > years old that comes to us as an admixture of clinical wisdom and > Chinese cultural hogwash. In other words, just because you have a tidy > explanation of all the humoral processes that would allow you to fly > doesn't mean you can. > -Ben Hawes, L.Ac. > > Re: Facelift Acupuncture: fact or fallacy? > > <Chinese Medicine/message/ > 25005;_ylc=X3oDMTJyc2N1a3EwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzk0OTU5NzcEZ3Jwc3B > JZAMxNzA1MDYwODE0BG1zZ0lkAzI1MDA1BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzExO > DIxNTY1MTQ-> > > Posted by: " c_s_tcm " c_s_tcm > > <c_s_tcm?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Facelift% > 20Acupuncture%3A%20fact%20or%20fallacy%3F> > c_s_tcm <http://profiles./c_s_tcm> > > Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:04 am (PST) > > Hi Attilio, hope you are well. > > Bridges book, and her lectures are full of ancedotes and stories of > how she applies face reading to life and to help her > clients " recognise their issues " , making her a very interesting and > engaging speaker. > > I possibly made a bad choice in choosing the example i did of how > face reading could be applied to FRA, (the conversation i quoted was > a chat with a friend about the subject, not during an acu > consultation) We all do face reading to a certain extent every day > with those we meet and in order to read emotions and gauge how others > are feeling, I think it is interesting to develop the skill and use > it to help give FRA clients a more positive opinion of their wrinkles > and lines. > > It may not be the most high-brow academic aspect of chinese medicine- > much of the subject is light-hearted and fun - for example large > fleshy earlobes are said to represent old age luck (lots of money or > rich children to look after you in old age!) > > I was wondering, If you belive the topic to be " new age nonsense " - > or traditional old nonsense, given its long history throughout > Chinese culture, diviniation, diagnosis, use in match-making etc, why > promote the book for sale in your bookshop??!! > > kind regards > > Christine > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 Can you give a few examples of how chinese medicine uses faith healing, please refer to the classics or authentic sources. thanks, david -- In Chinese Medicine , Pete Theisen <petetheisen wrote: > > On Monday 18 June 2007 12:39, wrote: > > I feel like I've just picked up a quackbuster's screed. > > > > Do you feel that modern medicine is " scientific " , and Chinese > > medicine is not? > > Hi Z'ev! > > Both modern and TCM fairly often amount to faith healing, not that I consider > this bad. Repeatability is not necessarily evidence of science if the healing > mechanism is belief - unless the study seeks to measure belief. > > That said, my own thoughts of " nonsense " is not so much the quality of the > content as the clarity of the presentation. I have a personal bias that > judges confusing explanations as devious, if not outright false. > > I have some formulas in my kit that work as I expect, (I thouroughly > differentiate) and some that don't. If there were not some element of > nonsense in this they would all work. A life's work to know the difference. > -- > Regards, > > Pete > http://www.pete-theisen.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 On Monday 18 June 2007 11:07, Benjamin Hawes, L.Ac. wrote: > Indeed, most of what we do is nonsense. Hi Benjamin! Rofl! I have often thought the same thing! -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 18, 2007 Report Share Posted June 18, 2007 On Monday 18 June 2007 12:39, wrote: > I feel like I've just picked up a quackbuster's screed. > > Do you feel that modern medicine is " scientific " , and Chinese > medicine is not? Hi Z'ev! Both modern and TCM fairly often amount to faith healing, not that I consider this bad. Repeatability is not necessarily evidence of science if the healing mechanism is belief - unless the study seeks to measure belief. That said, my own thoughts of " nonsense " is not so much the quality of the content as the clarity of the presentation. I have a personal bias that judges confusing explanations as devious, if not outright false. I have some formulas in my kit that work as I expect, (I thouroughly differentiate) and some that don't. If there were not some element of nonsense in this they would all work. A life's work to know the difference. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 19, 2007 Report Share Posted June 19, 2007 On Monday 18 June 2007 16:32, flyingstarsfengshui wrote: > Can you give a few examples of how chinese medicine uses faith > healing, please refer to the classics or authentic sources. Hi David! It isn't in the classics or " authentic " sources, it is in your own clinical practice. It is the patient who gets better from your treatment, even when you haven't a clue what is wrong with her (nearly all my patients are women). Oh sure, you do a differentiation and find she has all kinds of things going on. Then you give her a very general treatment and she fairly jumps off the table afterward, raving about how much you have helped her, returns for treatment after treatment, pays you a lot of money, and tells all her friends about how wonderful you are. On objective examination, you find no difference in her condition after the treatment, but she feels a great improvement. The value to her is that she feels better, and you should value this as well. But you also wonder, or should wonder. -- Regards, Pete http://www.pete-theisen.com/ 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.