Guest guest Posted October 21, 2007 Report Share Posted October 21, 2007 Hi Chris, Great to see that someone has at last diverted from Shen Hun Po and getting to what seems to be the crux of the various opinions that have arisen. Personally i put myself more on the purist side of the fence. my reasons for this are because it is the language, culture and philosophies of the various Chinese classics that i fell in love first ( I am also a linguist). However, like the rest of you i am sure the most important thing to me now is getting results in my practice. As a purist and a linguist i believe that most of the answers and skills we need as Dr's are by and large there in the classics and i enjoy discovering these. On the other hand though there is nothing wrong with developing new theories and indeed it should be promoted if TCM is to gain any ground with regards to its credibility (should it need, i think its history speaks for it). We can also see through the development of TCM though over time, that certain theories have been developed and kept or discarded depending on how true they hold up to be in practice. I'm all for new theories, ideas and techniques but we can't just make them up. Well, that is, we can make them up but not keep them if they prove useless. Through being a linguist as well i have come to realize more than those i have met, that the western mind is rather feeble when it comes to considering Chinese language, culture, philosophy and TCM. We really do think differently, its like our thoughts are on a different rail track, we can see the other but not change the tracks so easily. My teacher in China always said though, " I teach you all i know. You learn something new, you teach me all you know " . This is a sign of the times. The west does have TCM in its hands now and we will do with it what we may. I hope though we can develop it further in honour of its past and progeny. I often ask myself, do we need to develop new chapters for the classics when so many of us don't even know them all as they stand? TCM literature, classical that is, is vast and dense and so so rich. I have read so much stuff of modern writers/Dr's that is just a reiteration of old. it makes it more accessible for us but not better or new. SO, maybe I'm a progressing purist!?!?! I think we all are, just some of us are more stuck with sense of duty and honour to the classics and feel we are not worthy of adding to it yet but if some are, then go for it. Dan Christopher Vedeler <vedeler wrote: Some of the recent discussion has sparked a question for me. It seems that like in many bodies of knowledge our medicine can be split into two camps. The purists and the pragmatists or the conservatives and the progressives. The purists seek to deepen their understanding of the classics and wish to practice in a way that is consistent with how the medicine has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years. The pragmatists seek to explore areas where the medicine actually gets clinical results and seeks to practice the medicine in a way that is consistent with the dominate scientific culture of today. I understand that seeking clinical results and understanding the classics is not mutually exclusive, but in my experience with my peers one tends to take priority over the other depending on which camp they align themselves with. Assuming this is at all a meaningful distinction, which camp do you consider yourself to be in and why? Chris Vedeler www.oasisacupuncture.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 The classical which does get clinical results.Sincerely,Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology : vedeler: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 06:06:30 -0700Purist vs. Pragmatist Some of the recent discussion has sparked a question for me. It seems that like in many bodies of knowledge our medicine can be split into two camps. The purists and the pragmatists or the conservatives and the progressives.The purists seek to deepen their understanding of the classics and wish to practice in a way that is consistent with how the medicine has been practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years. The pragmatists seek to explore areas where the medicine actually gets clinical results and seeks to practice the medicine in a way that is consistent with the dominate scientific culture of today.I understand that seeking clinical results and understanding the classics is not mutually exclusive, but in my experience with my peers one tends to take priority over the other depending on which camp they align themselves with.Assuming this is at all a meaningful distinction, which camp do you consider yourself to be in and why?Chris Vedelerwww.oasisacupuncture.com _______________ Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by today. http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagl\ ine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 I guess I am pragmatic purist with a progressive approach! The Japanese have a saying " Use the past to shed light on the future! " And basically this is my approach. I base my clinical work on the Nan Ching, which for me is one of the most profound books ever written. The Nan Ching clearly broke of with the older paradigm, but used it as a base. It transcended and included the previous paradigm, that IMHO was on a level that has not been seen since! So with Suwen, Ling Shu, Jia Yi Ching, Shang Han Lun, Pi Wei Lun and the Tao Te Ching as perspectives, I study the Nan Ching again and again, see where it takes my practice - everytime I read it new inspiration hits. If a current understanding doesn't work in the clinic producing speedy, lasting results in all " levels " (Jing, Qi and Shen), then back to the Nan Ching to study again - It must be clinically effecient, and it must help my clinets to help themselves! (I am always working towards my clients independence of me taking responsibility for themselves becoming increasingly more whole). The progressive part comes from the Integral " world " view, with the ancient enlightent knowing (not knowledge) as it comes forward in the Nan Ching.... and CM - which is actually in it's nature Integral covering all aspects of human nature and pathology from Subjective (the experiential knowing, arts, spiritual, the mind, the conscious Self that has the potentiale to become from being: The Shen) over Intersubjective (culture, morals, justice, communication, social interaction, authentic thinking: transformational process in becoming, the Jingluo: The Qi) to the Objective (knowledge, nature, the material manifestations of human action: Love and compassion, the physical world which is accessible through science: The Jing). A motto for me in this way based on the vast depths of the Nan Ching is Differentiate, Integrate, Transcend and include - in the Spirit of Integral thinking (Ken Wilber and, especially, Yaushiko Genku Kimura). Differentiate: Diagnosis based the principle that the Yang moves the Yin (Shen as the vital principle). The Shen as activator through Qi (emotion) of Jing. The Qi movement most blocked Integrate: Therapy based on creating consciousness through awareness (counceling) of block during needle-/bodywork to remove block. Transcend and include: Homework for the client to keep the block away - stay free of stagnation to live to fulfil one's potential staying healthy and ultimately free to become! .......conservative I am not, but I appreciate both the knowledge and the knowing left us as a base from which we can all act with integrity and vision in our evolution! Thomas 2007/10/21, Christopher Vedeler <vedeler: > > Some of the recent discussion has sparked a question for me. It seems > that like in many bodies of knowledge our medicine can be split into two > camps. The purists and the pragmatists or the conservatives and the > progressives. > > The purists seek to deepen their understanding of the classics and wish > to practice in a way that is consistent with how the medicine has been > practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years. The pragmatists seek > to explore areas where the medicine actually gets clinical results and > seeks to practice the medicine in a way that is consistent with the > dominate scientific culture of today. > > I understand that seeking clinical results and understanding the > classics is not mutually exclusive, but in my experience with my peers > one tends to take priority over the other depending on which camp they > align themselves with. > > Assuming this is at all a meaningful distinction, which camp do you > consider yourself to be in and why? > > Chris Vedeler > www.oasisacupuncture.com > > -- Althea Akupunktur " Dit liv... Dit potentiale! " Albanigade 23A, Kld. 5000 Odense C Denmark Tlf.: (+45) 31 25 92 26 www.ditlivditpotentiale.dk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Beautiful, Thomas! Thank you for the inspiration. I also find these books to be the main inspiration in my practice, especially the Nan Jing. . . On Oct 21, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Thomas Sørensen wrote: > The Nan Ching clearly broke of with the older paradigm, but used it > as a > base. It transcended and included the previous paradigm, that IMHO > was on a > level that has not been seen since! > > So with Suwen, Ling Shu, Jia Yi Ching, Shang Han Lun, Pi Wei Lun > and the Tao > Te Ching as perspectives, I study the Nan Ching again and again, > see where > it takes my practice - everytime I read it new inspiration hits. If a > current understanding doesn't work in the clinic producing speedy, > lasting > results in all " levels " (Jing, Qi and Shen), then back to the Nan > Ching to > study again - It must be clinically effecient, and it must help my > clinets > to help themselves! (I am always working towards my clients > independence of > me taking responsibility for themselves becoming increasingly more > whole). Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2007 Report Share Posted October 22, 2007 Chris, A number of years ago, a great medical historian, Harris Coulter wrote a three part history of medicine in the West called " Divided Legacy " . In this book, two currents in medicine are established, the 'rationalist' based on 'abstract and eternal principles', and the 'empiricist', based on 'facts and statistics'. It is not that far off from the purist/pragmatist divide you mention here. My own opinion is that the purist/pragmatist divide was a relatively minor issue historically in China. The Chinese culture has always been essentially pragmatic, and Chinese medicine in all source texts always has emphasized the unity of theory and clinical effectiveness. Cold damage and warm disease theories are both quite elaborate 'systems theories', but were designed to treat real-time disease in populations suffering from epidemics. I don't think that the modern 'debate' holds too much water, if you ask me. Yes, many practitioners practice good acupuncture without much knowledge of Chinese medical theory. But the same is not true of Chinese herbal medicine. The herbal treatments, based on complex interactions of multiple ingredients, is wedded to classical Chinese medical theory and cannot be separated from it. Acupuncture, in my opinion, also benefits greatly from studying the classical texts such as the Su Wen, Ling Shu, Nan Jing and Jia Yi Jing, but there are so many new approaches such as Korean Hand Acupuncture, Abdominal Acupuncture, Voll Electoacupuncture, etc., that this can be disputed. Paul Unschuld has discussed this in detail in his seminars and writings. He teaches that without a knowledge of classical sources of Chinese medicine, that one cannot be a true physician within the Chinese medical tradition, that one remains a technician. It is not enough just to gather point and herb prescriptions from textbooks, one needs to understand the source of these treatments, and how to creatively apply the continuous body of work that has been developed over the centuries. This art of applying historical medical sources and experience has been lost to Western medicine, why should we sacrifice it in the name of " progress " in Chinese medicine, a tradition we've barely begun to understand in the West? Writing from the big brown smoke of San Diego, On Oct 21, 2007, at 6:06 AM, Christopher Vedeler wrote: > Some of the recent discussion has sparked a question for me. It seems > that like in many bodies of knowledge our medicine can be split > into two > camps. The purists and the pragmatists or the conservatives and the > progressives. > > The purists seek to deepen their understanding of the classics and > wish > to practice in a way that is consistent with how the medicine has been > practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years. The pragmatists seek > to explore areas where the medicine actually gets clinical results and > seeks to practice the medicine in a way that is consistent with the > dominate scientific culture of today. > > I understand that seeking clinical results and understanding the > classics is not mutually exclusive, but in my experience with my peers > one tends to take priority over the other depending on which camp they > align themselves with. > > Assuming this is at all a meaningful distinction, which camp do you > consider yourself to be in and why? > > Chris Vedeler > www.oasisacupuncture.com > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Thomas, That was a wonderful post. I am very happy to see another practitioner using an integral perspective to make sense of all this. I have come to the same conclusions regarding jing, qi, shen and there correltaion to Wilbers 4 quads. Wilbers model definetley clarified things for me in this regard. I find that, when coming from and integral perspective, I am open to studying pre-modern, modern and post modern sources to help my clinical skills. While consulting the classsics is often my first choice, I don't stop there. Modern research and post-modern cultural/relational aspects are also useful . It often seems people identify with one of these " camps " and are locked in a battle with all of the others: classical vs progressive, research vs. intuition, post-modern realitivity vs. traditional laws, abstract theory vs. clinical application, etc. Integral theory maintains these are all partial truths (sorry Z'ev) and that there integration is primary. In keeping with Integral thought, what do you think about structural development/evolution in regards to OM. Do you feel evolution up the spiral correlates with more compassion, wider embrace of understanding and better clinical skills? How does this impact a classical text vs. more modern and post-modern approaches? Its very clear to me that OM is not something that is just laying around out there waiting to be understood. It is made sense of by the psychological structure of the person/culture attempting to understand it. This can be said about anything. Research shows clear indicators that perspectives evolve and end up embracing more and developing more informed understandings about reality. What does this mean for an western practitioner at a (green) post-modern structure of development who is attempting to understand a largely (blue)traditional text from another culture? " I guess I am pragmatic purist with a progressive approach! " NICE!!!!!! Dave V. Chinese Medicine , " Thomas Sørensen " <aikinohari wrote: > > I guess I am pragmatic purist with a progressive approach! > > The Japanese have a saying " Use the past to shed light on the future! " And > basically this is my approach. > > I base my clinical work on the Nan Ching, which for me is one of the most > profound books ever written. > > The Nan Ching clearly broke of with the older paradigm, but used it as a > base. It transcended and included the previous paradigm, that IMHO was on a > level that has not been seen since! > > So with Suwen, Ling Shu, Jia Yi Ching, Shang Han Lun, Pi Wei Lun and the Tao > Te Ching as perspectives, I study the Nan Ching again and again, see where > it takes my practice - everytime I read it new inspiration hits. If a > current understanding doesn't work in the clinic producing speedy, lasting > results in all " levels " (Jing, Qi and Shen), then back to the Nan Ching to > study again - It must be clinically effecient, and it must help my clinets > to help themselves! (I am always working towards my clients independence of > me taking responsibility for themselves becoming increasingly more whole). > > The progressive part comes from the Integral " world " view, with the ancient > enlightent knowing (not knowledge) as it comes forward in the Nan Ching.... > and CM - which is actually in it's nature Integral covering all aspects of > human nature and pathology from Subjective (the experiential knowing, arts, > spiritual, the mind, the conscious Self that has the potentiale to become > from being: The Shen) over Intersubjective (culture, morals, justice, > communication, social interaction, authentic thinking: transformational > process in becoming, the Jingluo: The Qi) to the Objective (knowledge, > nature, the material manifestations of human action: Love and compassion, > the physical world which is accessible through science: The Jing). > > A motto for me in this way based on the vast depths of the Nan Ching is > Differentiate, Integrate, Transcend and include - in the Spirit of Integral > thinking (Ken Wilber and, especially, Yaushiko Genku Kimura). > > Differentiate: Diagnosis based the principle that the Yang moves the Yin > (Shen as the vital principle). The Shen as activator through Qi (emotion) of > Jing. The Qi movement most blocked > > Integrate: Therapy based on creating consciousness through awareness > (counceling) of block during needle-/bodywork to remove block. > > Transcend and include: Homework for the client to keep the block away - stay > free of stagnation to live to fulfil one's potential staying healthy and > ultimately free to become! > > ......conservative I am not, but I appreciate both the knowledge and the > knowing left us as a base from which we can all act with integrity and > vision in our evolution! > > Thomas > > > > 2007/10/21, Christopher Vedeler <vedeler: > > > > Some of the recent discussion has sparked a question for me. It seems > > that like in many bodies of knowledge our medicine can be split into two > > camps. The purists and the pragmatists or the conservatives and the > > progressives. > > > > The purists seek to deepen their understanding of the classics and wish > > to practice in a way that is consistent with how the medicine has been > > practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years. The pragmatists seek > > to explore areas where the medicine actually gets clinical results and > > seeks to practice the medicine in a way that is consistent with the > > dominate scientific culture of today. > > > > I understand that seeking clinical results and understanding the > > classics is not mutually exclusive, but in my experience with my peers > > one tends to take priority over the other depending on which camp they > > align themselves with. > > > > Assuming this is at all a meaningful distinction, which camp do you > > consider yourself to be in and why? > > > > Chris Vedeler > > www.oasisacupuncture.com > > > > > > > > -- > Althea Akupunktur > " Dit liv... Dit potentiale! " > > Albanigade 23A, Kld. > 5000 Odense C > Denmark > > Tlf.: (+45) 31 25 92 26 > > www.ditlivditpotentiale.dk > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 Hey Dave, So Integral theory is itself a partial truth too, then? I wonder what it is missing. He seems to think he has covered all of the bases up until this point in time. If I may try to speak along the lines of what Z'ev what saying (tho it surprises me that there is still misunderstanding): practice your horse stance, because if you don't practice your horse stance there is no way you'll be able to progress to any of the other levels in a competent way. Master your basics. Know them thoroughly. Only from a solid base can you build a worthwhile structure. Progressing otherwise is ignorant, rash and dishonest. Why don't the physios I know get as good results as I do with acu? Well, because their ma bu is very weak, obviously. Is there actually an issue with this principle? Can anyone point to a flaw in this principle based on evidence, rather than emotional attachment to romanticised notions of what science is? Hugo dmvitello01 <dmvitello Chinese Medicine Wednesday, 24 October, 2007 12:04:41 PM Re: Purist vs. Pragmatist theory vs. clinical application, etc. Integral theory maintains these are all partial truths (sorry Z'ev) and that there integration is primary. > Albanigade 23A, Kld. > 5000 Odense C > Denmark > > Tlf.: (+45) 31 25 92 26 > > www.ditlivditpotent iale.dk > > > 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.