Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles of

[Guest guest]

I am not sure I totally agree Hugo. I am a chiropractor and I do not think

we have achieved much solidarity. I've been reading these threads and would

say that chiropractic boards and discussions are the same or even worse.

There are so many turf wars and my way is better, etc. We don't even have

an ancient medicine to derive from - being only 110 years old and defined by

one family has made it very easy to 'branch off'. I think the perception of

solidarity and the more densely placed offices is more a result of politics,

lobby power and -yes- restricting our scope of practice, well, more

accurately choosing a definition that fits the AMA's ideals a little more

and finally adding enough medical education in the schools to award us the

status of 'gateway practitioners' - the ability to see people and know when

to refer them to an MD (they actually like when that happens). So we are

all still adjusting spines to appease scopes of practice but we still all do

it for our own reasons and we debate about them and some fit together OK and

some are totally contradictory. And for some reason - as long as we put an

adjustment to the spine in there we can still recommend/sell any supplement

or herb, adjust extremities, do muscle work, do PT, use PT equipment, order

labs, order imaging, (some are even starting general practice chiropractic

to work on all kinds of health issues - getting paid by insurance for that

will never fly though), etc. I think it goes a little something like this -

to correct spinal misalignments (then define that) and any auxiliary work

deemed necessary to maintain that correction (this is where the freedom

comes in)

 

 

 

The weird thing is, that people get better either way and that I am sure has

been discussed many times on this board. For whatever reason - intention,

patients getting to the right person at the right time, placebo, etc. etc.

etc.

 

 

 

I hope TCM does not limit its scope of practice. I hope the public finds

the benefit, schools grow and improve, practitioner numbers and lobbyist

numbers increase and a clearly defined scope is presented and accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

>>

 

Mystir also made the comment that " there is a chiropractor on every

corner.... "

 

We need to remember something really important: one of the major things " the

chiropractors " had to do in order to achieve the solidarity that they now

enjoy was TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

Let me say that again:

 

Chiropractors now enjoy solidarity because THEY HAVE ACCEPTED A SEVERELY

RESTRICTED SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

It was a political decision that was made in order to survive as a

profession. To mark out turf, concessions need to be made.

 

I truly hope that we can find a different way in the end, although as it is,

we are losing acupuncture.

 

I hope that we, as a profession, can do better since we are one of the

groups in possession of a truly different paradigm from western medicine. As

such, we have the potential power to do something different. But we have to

do it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Hugo

 

>>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chiros scope is dependent on the states they practice. In many states

they have not had to limit anything within their traditional practices.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 Hi. Exactly. In Florida,( i think, I could be wrong),  you cannot let blood

heat/stagnation out with plum blossom needle. No blood techniques. Some American

states are more rigid. Some more open, allow 4 pillars and herbs, some only

needle, some w electro device.

 What is the ground we are fighting for. Manipulation of meridian systems, I

think. The qi channels and classics anthologies are our uniqueness in world

medicine. And it is so open.

 The ancients were so brilliant and kind and methodical, that we now appreciate

their unbroken legacy that survives to us today.  Classical acupuncture, chen,

tui-na, EFT therapy, light, sound, qikung breath...on and on.

 What do we have in common? Energy streams in the human body, and an ancient

encyclopedia of knowledge of these things.

 What is special about acupuncturists and chinese hebalists? These two were

always brother and sister.

 

 

--- On Wed, 2/4/09, alon marcus <alonmarcus wrote:

alon marcus <alonmarcus

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

styles of

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, February 4, 2009, 12:09 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chiros scope is dependent on the states they practice. In many

states

 

they have not had to limit anything within their traditional practices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

 

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

 

 

www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com

 

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) net

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Group,

 

I'm going to have to dig my heels in on this one. As long as we are

unwilling to move beyond this pluralistic stance of – no judgments,

I'm ok, your ok, every approach is equal, etc- we will simply increase

our breath and lack in depth. It is crucial that as we progress that

honest assessments, analysis and yes- judgments be made about the

various styles and what they are effective at treating and what they

are not. This apparently is going to be very painful, as many egos

will be hurt.

 

Many experienced practitioners have noted that treating deeper aspects

of the patient- be it 5E, pattern ID, or even structural issues- is

key to healing. IMO, John K's statement hits the point. This is just

not part of the T/T/C protocol. Sure we can start to pull together

some correlations, but they way the material is presented its just not

the case.

 

The opinions of experienced practitioners who do not have a strong

personal identification with any particular method are crucial to

these discussions, less so is the practitioner who just took a weekend

course from a charismatic teacher, and is jazzed about their new

method. Put any method into practice for a long enough period and you

will see its limitations, if you are completely honest with yourself.

That is why this exploration is so crucial.

 

It's interesting to see how Lonny's pithy statement has not only

caused our wheels to spin and look at our own values but has also

caused so much anger.

 

Its also interesting that when a style is challenged words like envy,

cheap shots, and practical success come about.

 

I truly hope we can start to integrate within our field, and this will

mean assessing various approaches as we are doing here. We are all

doing this to benefit the profession and our patient's right?

 

As a wise man once said:

 

" The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm (or

style) is the investment can become so strong that one may not see

outside the specific lens developed form such an in depth study. It

may also be difficult to admit to limitation because of self

interests, especially when subconscious. While we all have a limited

amount of time what we choose to learn affects our world view. So like

anything in this world there are always risks and benefits to any

choice one makes…..But i also believe that those of us that choose to

have a broader view see things that are not seen by those that choose

to focus. So in short the dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its

dangerous to dismiss people's observations because of closely held

beliefs. " (Alon Marcus)

 

Sincerely,

David Vitello

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon and all:

 

Alon, I am not sure what you are referring to, could you point me to some

references? Perhaps you are referring to more recent history. I am referring to

the initial battles which were decisive in establishing the balance of power

between these systems.

 

 

My point regards the general dynamic that is present when professions fight for

turf:

 

Therefore, my reading on the topic indicates that what occurred were absolutely

titanic battles for survival between the " regulars " and the " irregulars " .

It seems self-evident to me that a battle for survival does not occur without

there being casualties - we do not emerge unscathed or whole. I mean, even

*western medicine* did not emerge whole! For instance, it was not able to

achieve its goal of annihilating chiropractic (or osteopathy, naturopathy and so

on).

My personal experience with regulation here in Ontario has been enlightening as

well. The turf war is vicious. The attempt by the Ontario College of Physicians

and Surgeons to absorb and control TCM practice in Ontario did not succeed BY A

HAIR, people. In fact, the main reason that we were saved from regulation by the

OCPS (ie. only MDs do acup) is because we had one outspoken government member

fairly high up who opposed the college's aims. If he hadn't been there...

It was a constant process of backroom deals and things being forced through

parliament without due process. Lost in the shuffle of papers, you know.

 

 

These turf wars occur with every profession. Firefighters and paramedics have

had their ongoing turf war for a long time for example.

 

" This highlights the need for the CAM practitioner groups to find a way to

'fit' into the existing system of professions. The history of chiropractors in

Ontario suggests that CAM practitioner groups may need to accommodate

their practice (and perhaps their philosophy of care) to fit into the

conventional

healthcare system if they hope to attain their stated goal of statutory

regulation. "

(Boon 2004)

 

Remember that these are super-conservative journal articles. " may need to

accomodate their practice " does not imply that this accomodation is minor or

bordering on irrelevant. It is mentioned, therefore it is highly relevant.

 

" Chiropractors significantly narrowed their scope of practice during their bid

for

state-sanctioned self-regulation. This strategy, which was successful for them,

is

detailed in several recent dissertations, for example, Boon (1996: 290) and

Biggs

(1989). "

(Boon 2004)

 

Compromise is par for the course. For example, for homeopaths to survive as a

distinct profession, they will have to *prove harm*. So the rhetoric needs to

change to describe a medical system that is immensely mild and carries so little

risk of harm, to a restatement that it *can* cause harm IN ORDER TO achieve

regulation as a distinct health profession and therefore achieve

self-definition.

 

Again, this is about *fitting* an existing government standard.

 

This is all a procrustean bed thing, as I have already mentioned.

 

In the research that examines these turf wars, there are 4 points that describe

the battle (per Kelner et al. 2006):

 

(1) the trait functionalist approach which assesses a group in terms of how many

professional traits (such as standards of education) they possess.

 

(2) the concept of social closure which points to the efforts of a group to

limit access to a selected few and exclude outsiders through credentialing,

certification and developing a group identity.

 

(3) the system of professions perspective which sees each group jockeying with

other groups in the system for power and jurisdiction.

 

(4) the notion of countervailing powers which points to the ways in which groups

in the larger society pursue their own interests and try to constrain each other

as they struggle for prestige, power, markets and money.

 

Note that there is nothing up there that says " Science " . Science has no role in

this - it is *entirely* about what is referred to as " cultural authority " .

 

 

One of the things that happened here in Ontario, seems like a small thing, and

it might even be viewed as good by some, but anyway: once the new TCM college is

founded, entry prerequisite will be three years of university. This is going to

create an even bigger problme where, as Emmanuel mentioned, the learning curve

will be steeper for a longer period as students try to integrate what they

learned in university with ...what this will do is create weaker

practitioners. It's a similar strategy as was used with First Nations here in

Canada....residential schools, devaluing of their cultural principles and ways

of being, and then the newly-civilised First Nations population spends thirty,

forty, fifty years trying to unlearn what they were taught in school, and

struggling to reconnect with what their heart knew to be true. Lives wasted.

 

There's a proverb in Chinese that goes, " If you are going to learn Chinese

Medicine, learn FIRST " .

 

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

alon marcus <alonmarcus

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 4 February, 2009 0:09:12

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of

 

 

Chiros scope is dependent on the states they practice. In many states

they have not had to limit anything within their traditional practices.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com

alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) net

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Brian!

 

--Brian-

 

I think the perception of

solidarity and the more densely placed offices is more a result of politics,

lobby power and -yes- restricting our scope of practice, well, more

accurately choosing a definition that fits the AMA's ideals a little more

and finally adding enough medical education in the schools to award us the

status of 'gateway practitioners' - the ability to see people and know when

to refer them to an MD (they actually like when that happens).

---

 

Yes, this is what I am basing my points on. Infighting occurs everywhere in

every type of family.

 

There is a solid, defined political presence for Chiropracty.

 

--Brian-

I hope TCM does not limit its scope of practice. I hope the public finds

the benefit, schools grow and improve, practitioner numbers and lobbyist

numbers increase and a clearly defined scope is presented and accepted.

---

 

I don't believe it is necessary for us to compromise excessively, some battles

have been lost already, but if we stop buying into the game, and make our own

game, our patients will follow us, and we will be able to represent a

counter-paradigm.

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Brian Harasha <bharasha

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, 3 February, 2009 23:54:48

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

styles of

 

 

I am not sure I totally agree Hugo. I am a chiropractor and I do not think

we have achieved much solidarity. I've been reading these threads and would

say that chiropractic boards and discussions are the same or even worse.

There are so many turf wars and my way is better, etc. We don't even have

an ancient medicine to derive from - being only 110 years old and defined by

one family has made it very easy to 'branch off'. So we are

all still adjusting spines to appease scopes of practice but we still all do

it for our own reasons and we debate about them and some fit together OK and

some are totally contradictory. And for some reason - as long as we put an

adjustment to the spine in there we can still recommend/sell any supplement

or herb, adjust extremities, do muscle work, do PT, use PT equipment, order

labs, order imaging, (some are even starting general practice chiropractic

to work on all kinds of health issues - getting paid by insurance for that

will never fly though), etc. I think it goes a little something like this -

to correct spinal misalignments (then define that) and any auxiliary work

deemed necessary to maintain that correction (this is where the freedom

comes in)

 

The weird thing is, that people get better either way and that I am sure has

been discussed many times on this board. For whatever reason - intention,

patients getting to the right person at the right time, placebo, etc. etc.

etc.

 

I hope TCM does not limit its scope of practice. I hope the public finds

the benefit, schools grow and improve, practitioner numbers and lobbyist

numbers increase and a clearly defined scope is presented and accepted.

 

>>

 

Mystir also made the comment that " there is a chiropractor on every

corner.... "

 

We need to remember something really important: one of the major things " the

chiropractors " had to do in order to achieve the solidarity that they now

enjoy was TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THEIR SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

Let me say that again:

 

Chiropractors now enjoy solidarity because THEY HAVE ACCEPTED A SEVERELY

RESTRICTED SCOPE OF PRACTICE.

 

It was a political decision that was made in order to survive as a

profession. To mark out turf, concessions need to be made.

 

I truly hope that we can find a different way in the end, although as it is,

we are losing acupuncture.

 

I hope that we, as a profession, can do better since we are one of the

groups in possession of a truly different paradigm from western medicine. As

such, we have the potential power to do something different. But we have to

do it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Hugo

 

>>

 

 

[Guest guest]

David -

I've looked back through this thread and I don't see where anyone has

implied that all approaches are equal, I'm OK, You're OK or that there is a

problem with judging various styles of acupuncture. And " TCM " has been

solidly pluralistic since its creation sixty years ago. My objection was to

repeated misrepresentations of one style of treatment and judging/smearing

the character of those who have integrated it into their practices. I think

assessment of all styles is a good thing, but your linking of proponents of

Tan's system with Scientology goes way beyond assessing a style and ventures

into character assassination. That is IMO a cheap shot.

 

I'm not sure if you're referring to me with your comment about practitioners

being jazzed about their recent weekend seminar, but I am an experienced

practitioner and was first introduced to Tan-style acupuncture nine or ten

years ago.

 

I agree that honest assessments are necessary and my initial objection was

to practitioners misrepresenting this style as having no need for diagnosis

and saying that the underlying disorders/deeper issues are never remedied.

That's NOT a correct or honest assessment.

 

Maybe it will help if I clarify what I'm trying to express a little better.

I do not feel that T/C/T treatments are an end-all or be-all, they are

merely one of the tools I - and most other practitioners who utilize this

style - employ. But they should not be held up to ridicule any more than

5E or other systems should be. I have seen some of the same sort of

low-level attacks leveled at 5E before and, even though I apply far fewer 5E

style modalities in my clinic and my familiarity with that system is far

from complete, these attacks made me equally uncomfortable. I'm not

suggesting that all modalities are created equal or that we're all OK or

that we all just need to get along. And, as others have suggested here,

infighting is common in all professions. But IMO we need to try and rein in

some of the baseless derogation going on here long enough to at least pull

together and try and halt the ongoing co-optation (dry needling!) of our

profession by practitioners in other fields.

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:51 AM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote:

 

> Dear Group,

>

> I'm going to have to dig my heels in on this one. As long as we are

> unwilling to move beyond this pluralistic stance of – no judgments,

> I'm ok, your ok, every approach is equal, etc- we will simply increase

> our breath and lack in depth. It is crucial that as we progress that

> honest assessments, analysis and yes- judgments be made about the

> various styles and what they are effective at treating and what they

> are not. This apparently is going to be very painful, as many egos

> will be hurt.

>

> Many experienced practitioners have noted that treating deeper aspects

> of the patient- be it 5E, pattern ID, or even structural issues- is

> key to healing. IMO, John K's statement hits the point. This is just

> not part of the T/T/C protocol. Sure we can start to pull together

> some correlations, but they way the material is presented its just not

> the case.

>

> The opinions of experienced practitioners who do not have a strong

> personal identification with any particular method are crucial to

> these discussions, less so is the practitioner who just took a weekend

> course from a charismatic teacher, and is jazzed about their new

> method. Put any method into practice for a long enough period and you

> will see its limitations, if you are completely honest with yourself.

> That is why this exploration is so crucial.

>

> It's interesting to see how Lonny's pithy statement has not only

> caused our wheels to spin and look at our own values but has also

> caused so much anger.

>

> Its also interesting that when a style is challenged words like envy,

> cheap shots, and practical success come about.

>

> I truly hope we can start to integrate within our field, and this will

> mean assessing various approaches as we are doing here. We are all

> doing this to benefit the profession and our patient's right?

>

> As a wise man once said:

>

> " The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm (or

> style) is the investment can become so strong that one may not see

> outside the specific lens developed form such an in depth study. It

> may also be difficult to admit to limitation because of self

> interests, especially when subconscious. While we all have a limited

> amount of time what we choose to learn affects our world view. So like

> anything in this world there are always risks and benefits to any

> choice one makes…..But i also believe that those of us that choose to

> have a broader view see things that are not seen by those that choose

> to focus. So in short the dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its

> dangerous to dismiss people's observations because of closely held

> beliefs. " (Alon Marcus)

>

> Sincerely,

> David Vitello

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hugo

I cant say i am any expert n chiro history. But the " regular and irregulars " are

fights between chiros and kind of the fight we have between traditionalists and

modern integratives. I was talking about current scope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

How does Tan's system have anything to do with Scientology?

Tan is a Feng shui expert and smart acupuncturist and business man.

What's wrong with making money if what you're doing helps others?

There are plenty of other people out there making money from other people's

and the environment's demise.

If any of those acu-gurus says that their completely unconditionally

altruistic in their motives to do travelling CEU classes,

they're full of sxxt. They want to live the good life and get respect from

their peers.

 

David Singer (practice management guru) is a scientologist and has brought a

lot of chiropractors into their fold.

Lonny Jarrett (5E guru) is an adherent of Andrew Cohen's " evolutionary

enlightenment " which uses the " spiral dynamics " model

and has brought a lot of acupuncturists into their fold.

Am I missing something here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyuwrote:

 

> David -

> I've looked back through this thread and I don't see where anyone has

> implied that all approaches are equal, I'm OK, You're OK or that there is a

> problem with judging various styles of acupuncture. And " TCM " has been

> solidly pluralistic since its creation sixty years ago. My objection was

> to

> repeated misrepresentations of one style of treatment and judging/smearing

> the character of those who have integrated it into their practices. I

> think

> assessment of all styles is a good thing, but your linking of proponents of

> Tan's system with Scientology goes way beyond assessing a style and

> ventures

> into character assassination. That is IMO a cheap shot.

>

> I'm not sure if you're referring to me with your comment about

> practitioners

> being jazzed about their recent weekend seminar, but I am an experienced

> practitioner and was first introduced to Tan-style acupuncture nine or ten

> years ago.

>

> I agree that honest assessments are necessary and my initial objection was

> to practitioners misrepresenting this style as having no need for diagnosis

> and saying that the underlying disorders/deeper issues are never remedied.

> That's NOT a correct or honest assessment.

>

> Maybe it will help if I clarify what I'm trying to express a little better.

> I do not feel that T/C/T treatments are an end-all or be-all, they are

> merely one of the tools I - and most other practitioners who utilize this

> style - employ. But they should not be held up to ridicule any more than

> 5E or other systems should be. I have seen some of the same sort of

> low-level attacks leveled at 5E before and, even though I apply far fewer

> 5E

> style modalities in my clinic and my familiarity with that system is far

> from complete, these attacks made me equally uncomfortable. I'm not

> suggesting that all modalities are created equal or that we're all OK or

> that we all just need to get along. And, as others have suggested here,

> infighting is common in all professions. But IMO we need to try and rein

> in

> some of the baseless derogation going on here long enough to at least pull

> together and try and halt the ongoing co-optation (dry needling!) of our

> profession by practitioners in other fields.

>

> Kim Blankenship

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:51 AM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote:

>

> > Dear Group,

> >

> > I'm going to have to dig my heels in on this one. As long as we are

> > unwilling to move beyond this pluralistic stance of – no judgments,

> > I'm ok, your ok, every approach is equal, etc- we will simply increase

> > our breath and lack in depth. It is crucial that as we progress that

> > honest assessments, analysis and yes- judgments be made about the

> > various styles and what they are effective at treating and what they

> > are not. This apparently is going to be very painful, as many egos

> > will be hurt.

> >

> > Many experienced practitioners have noted that treating deeper aspects

> > of the patient- be it 5E, pattern ID, or even structural issues- is

> > key to healing. IMO, John K's statement hits the point. This is just

> > not part of the T/T/C protocol. Sure we can start to pull together

> > some correlations, but they way the material is presented its just not

> > the case.

> >

> > The opinions of experienced practitioners who do not have a strong

> > personal identification with any particular method are crucial to

> > these discussions, less so is the practitioner who just took a weekend

> > course from a charismatic teacher, and is jazzed about their new

> > method. Put any method into practice for a long enough period and you

> > will see its limitations, if you are completely honest with yourself.

> > That is why this exploration is so crucial.

> >

> > It's interesting to see how Lonny's pithy statement has not only

> > caused our wheels to spin and look at our own values but has also

> > caused so much anger.

> >

> > Its also interesting that when a style is challenged words like envy,

> > cheap shots, and practical success come about.

> >

> > I truly hope we can start to integrate within our field, and this will

> > mean assessing various approaches as we are doing here. We are all

> > doing this to benefit the profession and our patient's right?

> >

> > As a wise man once said:

> >

> > " The main weakness in limiting ones studies to a single paradigm (or

> > style) is the investment can become so strong that one may not see

> > outside the specific lens developed form such an in depth study. It

> > may also be difficult to admit to limitation because of self

> > interests, especially when subconscious. While we all have a limited

> > amount of time what we choose to learn affects our world view. So like

> > anything in this world there are always risks and benefits to any

> > choice one makes…..But i also believe that those of us that choose to

> > have a broader view see things that are not seen by those that choose

> > to focus. So in short the dialog must continue so we can all grow. Its

> > dangerous to dismiss people's observations because of closely held

> > beliefs. " (Alon Marcus)

> >

> > Sincerely,

> > David Vitello

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hugo,

 

I agree with Z'ev that you have specifically stated the case. I've been happy

to be vilified in the past for making all of your points. Specifically your

notations:

 

> " What we buy into:

> STANDARDS - the average man whom I know does exist, yessiree

> EVIDENCE - ignoring that interpretation plays with evidence the way

> a cat flirts with a mouse. Meaning " tears it into ribbons " .

> UNBIASED OBJECTIVITY - obscenely forgetting that consciousness

> ALWAYS remains. "

 

and most especially this:

 

> " We are not a naive profession except in terms of our regard for

> medical science. "

 

I would add that in the public at large there is a general naivety with regard

for healthcare that causes your Canadian culture as well as John's, Z'ev's and

my own U.S. culture to quite literally buy into managed healthcare ... managed

by private corporations in our case and by government agencies in your case. I

see it as a means by which the public can remain largely naive of lifestyle

practices. The counterpoint would be to pay to learn lifestyle practices.

 

Good faith is best performed by your own daily practices, Hugo. It's my view

that great performances are examples of great practices. Good faith would be

bringing your own daily practices into the clinical setting and performing your

work with patients as you would practice your own practices. And when ever

possible, good faith is giving your patients homework ... something valuable for

their money.

 

Currently Liu Ming is teaching Chinese medical history at the AIMC school in

Berkeley. I love it. I wonder if people are ready for him. Among other

things, he regularly teaches " from texts that have never been written. " Ahhh

.... the oral tradition. So what exactly is history?

 

It's my observation that " Life will find a way " , and we can serve life or not

.... in the context or outside of the context of professional settings. I don't

expect to find Chinese medicine where healthcare managers designate that it is

to be found ... though I'll be pleasantly surprised if turns up. I didn't

expect that Liu Ming would teach classes at AIMC, but it's great that it seems

to be happening for awhile.

 

I have a sense, Hugo, that your faith will restore itself. (^; The outer shell

of professional expectations is not the nourishment.

 

Respectfully,

 

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" The highest purpose of medicine is rectification of the soul for the

sake of cultural change, and for the sake of evolution itself. Every

other goal, as significant as they may, comes after. "

 

I'm a little confused with the meaning of " culture " here. Culture is a group

phenomenon, to my way of thinking. For example, we don't speak of Billy Joel

culture, because BJ is just one and there needs to be a group for culture to

exist.

 

Such an understanding of culture, makes it very difficult for me to understand

what the function of soul could mean here, as I'm guessing that what you're

referring to is something possessed by the individual.

 

Evolutionarily speaking, the individual matters very little. There is more

concern with population sets. I've raised my concerns about the AC use of

evolution in the past. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

process, rather an adaptative one. For example, if we observe the changes of

the earth over the millennia, it appears that the earth has undergone change,

changes to which beings inhabiting it have had to adjust to. This type of

evolution does not connote the type of raised consciousness that Andrew Cohen

and many many others suggest when they use the word " evolution. "

 

The plot thickens. The Vedantists and some Buddhists, if my understanding is

correct, aver that there is no soul, something that can be construed as

permanent and partless from the whole--the one. This seems to be the nub of the

Hawaiian practice (the name of which inexcusably escapes me) where the

practitioner actually works upon the elements exhibited by patients within

themselves. I recall reading one such case where a practitioner successfully

treated five px in a facility for the criminally insane by only reading their

case histories. Similar type of connections are exploited in Emotional Freedom

Techniques for remote healings.

 

Seems like if our goal is the elevation of consciousness, assuming such a thing

exist and is favorable, our best bet is just working on ourselves.

 

 

cheers,

y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

[Guest guest]

There is nothing but the soul, it is immortal, whether as a sad lurking ghost,

or a angelic positive spirit, everytime conciousness returns from the storm, it

anchors from it's heart into every incarnation. Egolessness is not soulessness.

Phowa or Chod, or Vajra visualization, even human love transcends and amplifies

and epitomizes the orientation of what is day to day life, made poignant when it

is cut off suddenly, and definitely. Love is the heart, the heart is

enlightenment.

 

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Yangchu Higgins <ycmgh wrote:

Yangchu Higgins <ycmgh

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, February 7, 2009, 8:53 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" The highest purpose of medicine is rectification of the soul for the

 

sake of cultural change, and for the sake of evolution itself. Every

 

other goal, as significant as they may, comes after. "

 

 

 

I'm a little confused with the meaning of " culture " here. Culture is a group

phenomenon, to my way of thinking. For example, we don't speak of Billy Joel

culture, because BJ is just one and there needs to be a group for culture to

exist.

 

 

 

Such an understanding of culture, makes it very difficult for me to understand

what the function of soul could mean here, as I'm guessing that what you're

referring to is something possessed by the individual.

 

 

 

Evolutionarily speaking, the individual matters very little. There is more

concern with population sets. I've raised my concerns about the AC use of

evolution in the past. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

process, rather an adaptative one. For example, if we observe the changes of

the earth over the millennia, it appears that the earth has undergone change,

changes to which beings inhabiting it have had to adjust to. This type of

evolution does not connote the type of raised consciousness that Andrew Cohen

and many many others suggest when they use the word " evolution. "

 

 

 

The plot thickens. The Vedantists and some Buddhists, if my understanding is

correct, aver that there is no soul, something that can be construed as

permanent and partless from the whole--the one. This seems to be the nub of the

Hawaiian practice (the name of which inexcusably escapes me) where the

practitioner actually works upon the elements exhibited by patients within

themselves. I recall reading one such case where a practitioner successfully

treated five px in a facility for the criminally insane by only reading their

case histories. Similar type of connections are exploited in Emotional Freedom

Techniques for remote healings.

 

 

 

Seems like if our goal is the elevation of consciousness, assuming such a thing

exist and is favorable, our best bet is just working on ourselves.

 

 

 

cheers,

 

y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wanted to say YangChu, I don't disagree, but maybe don't understand. Working

on ourselves is working on our experiences, and how we process all that. Sooner

or later, we drop the suit and the car, and become the best potent lover, the

rain, the sprouts, the sun. And every morning we can feel our lover breathe, and

dream, kissing her awake to the best possible world. our family, our loves, our

children, their realations and on. Free and safe, with the armor of God,

unkillable love, to stimulate our qi, and summon a beam from the

incomprehensibility of, as you say, millenia.

 

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, mystir <ykcul_ritsym wrote:

mystir <ykcul_ritsym

Re: Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung

styles of

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, February 7, 2009, 9:13 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing but the soul, it is immortal, whether as a sad

lurking ghost, or a angelic positive spirit, everytime conciousness returns from

the storm, it anchors from it's heart into every incarnation. Egolessness is not

soulessness. Phowa or Chod, or Vajra visualization, even human love transcends

and amplifies and epitomizes the orientation of what is day to day life, made

poignant when it is cut off suddenly, and definitely. Love is the heart, the

heart is enlightenment.

 

 

 

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Yangchu Higgins <ycmgh > wrote:

 

Yangchu Higgins <ycmgh >

 

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of

 

 

 

Saturday, February 7, 2009, 8:53 PM

 

 

 

" The highest purpose of medicine is rectification of the soul for the

 

 

 

sake of cultural change, and for the sake of evolution itself. Every

 

 

 

other goal, as significant as they may, comes after. "

 

 

 

I'm a little confused with the meaning of " culture " here. Culture is a group

phenomenon, to my way of thinking. For example, we don't speak of Billy Joel

culture, because BJ is just one and there needs to be a group for culture to

exist.

 

 

 

Such an understanding of culture, makes it very difficult for me to understand

what the function of soul could mean here, as I'm guessing that what you're

referring to is something possessed by the individual.

 

 

 

Evolutionarily speaking, the individual matters very little. There is more

concern with population sets. I've raised my concerns about the AC use of

evolution in the past. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

process, rather an adaptative one. For example, if we observe the changes of

the earth over the millennia, it appears that the earth has undergone change,

changes to which beings inhabiting it have had to adjust to. This type of

evolution does not connote the type of raised consciousness that Andrew Cohen

and many many others suggest when they use the word " evolution. "

 

 

 

The plot thickens. The Vedantists and some Buddhists, if my understanding is

correct, aver that there is no soul, something that can be construed as

permanent and partless from the whole--the one. This seems to be the nub of the

Hawaiian practice (the name of which inexcusably escapes me) where the

practitioner actually works upon the elements exhibited by patients within

themselves. I recall reading one such case where a practitioner successfully

treated five px in a facility for the criminally insane by only reading their

case histories. Similar type of connections are exploited in Emotional Freedom

Techniques for remote healings.

 

 

 

Seems like if our goal is the elevation of consciousness, assuming such a thing

exist and is favorable, our best bet is just working on ourselves.

 

 

 

cheers,

 

 

 

y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I have not been made aware of the fact that there is only the soul. I have no

basis for making this statement nor have I found it to be true in my experience.

 

The Yi Jing, more precisely, the trigram is comprised of three lines not one.

Saying that all is soul, seems to me to contradict the veracity of Fu Xi's

findings. These observations seem to suggest that in addition to soul, what

seems to be equated with shen 神, are at least two other levels of increasing

substance in this earthly realm.

 

The gist of the balance method, consequently, in some sense in harmonizing these

varying levels.

 

cheers,

y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

Los Angeles, Estados Unitos

[Guest guest]

In some traditions, there is a differentiation between " Over-soul " , which

has correlations to " Brahman " ie. God

and a " personal soul " , which is a reflection of the greater, but just a drop

in the bucket, so to speak.. " Atman " .

This personal soul is immortal in that it draws its source from the Ground

of Being,

but is transient in that it is subject to the laws of change, karma and

impermenance.

In exoteric Christianity, this personal soul is eternal (saved or damned in

the next world), but has impermanenence in the sense that the notion of

reincarnation has been eliminated from this world, the one that we're

communing with each other at this moment.

 

If we're talking about the Over-soul (sole / one / whole/ complete entity),

then I'm not sure that Daoism or Buddhism or Confucianism really embraces

this. There is the Dao, which has less of an ontological existence, while

serving as a moral and philosophical way of becoming. It seems that in

religious Daoism, " Wu ji " , the state of emptiness, is more akin to the

" Creator " , since Yin and Yang formed from this chaotic enigmatic

singularity.

There is discussion in some circles whether time is a dragon eternally

chasing its own tail or if there is a cyclindrical stairwell that ascends to

an evolutionary apex. Traditional daoism has d to the former,

while spiral dynamics seems to to the latter (ladder).

 

In any case, zen says that it's not one and it's not two. Instead of

arguing about what is the truth, we could be listening to distant sounds of

waves crashing on a volcanic beach formed by the stirring of fire and ice.

 

K.

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Yangchu Higgins <ycmgh wrote:

 

>

> I have not been made aware of the fact that there is only the soul. I have

> no basis for making this statement nor have I found it to be true in my

> experience.

>

> The Yi Jing, more precisely, the trigram is comprised of three lines not

> one. Saying that all is soul, seems to me to contradict the veracity of Fu

> Xi's findings. These observations seem to suggest that in addition to soul,

> what seems to be equated with shen ¿À, are at least two other levels of

> increasing substance in this earthly realm.

>

> The gist of the balance method, consequently, in some sense in harmonizing

> these varying levels.

>

> cheers,

> y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

> Los Angeles, Estados Unitos

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

www.tcmreview.com

 

The Four Reliances:

Do not rely upon the individual, but rely upon the teaching.

As far as teachings go, do not rely upon the words alone, but rely upon the

meaning that underlies them.

Regarding the meaning, do not rely upon the provisional meaning alone, but

rely upon the definitive meaning.

And regarding the definitive meaning, do not rely upon ordinary

consciousness, but rely upon wisdom awareness.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

process, rather an adaptative one.

 

 

Lonny: Greetings Yangchu. Great questions and I'd love to have the

discussion some day. Forget evolution in the Darwinian sense because

both Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sri Aurobindu had moved far beyond

him by the early 1900's. Darwin made initial observations about

physical evolution and I'm discussing the interior dimension of the

process as driven by consciousness......not primarily as an " adaption "

but as a willed and driving force.

 

It should be easy for anyone who understands the basic principles

of holistic medicine to grasp that significant change in an individual

can powerfully effect the whole. Why? Because there is no separation

as you say. When an individual adopts a radically new perspective and

makes different choices culture changes instantly. No different than

the principles of either CM or homeopathy.

 

Simply put, I'd suggest that the soul is the deepest part of the

best part of ourselves. From a CM perspective we can say that soul is

the horizontal axis (Wood/metal) and that spirit is the vertical axis

(water/fire) and that the soul is that relative part of us

(horizontal) that longs to merge with the absolute (vertical. It is

our duty to purify the relative in the absolute through the

application of will. Wod burns in fire, metal dissolves in water.

Through will water and fire merge into one leaving only integrity

(what was earth but is now a single point).

 

I agree that the soul isn't separate in any way and there is

probably only One though we each have individual responsibility for

the rectification of what we have access to in our life time.

 

Through making a single different choice culture is changed in

one's heart in an instant. Thank you as ever for your insightful

questions. Maybe we should do a conference call sometime on evolution,

consciousness, and CM?

Warm regards, Lon

[Guest guest]

I think it's important that, from an integral point of view the modern

practitioner has to be conversant with both Eastern and Western

concepts of things like " soul " AND has to at once synthesize them, and

transcend them to have a real living experience within one's self

beyond mere ideas and theory. After all, things are evolving and soul

isn't necessarily what it used to be. My Own experience in that a

voice, the conscience, emanates from the deepest and best part of

myself. It calls me to act with integrity as soon as I recognize what

must be done. It's not interested how I feel about it. It wants the

gap closed between recognition and action instantly. This depth I

experience as the soul. I am responsible for it's purification and the

more I give to it the more depth is developed beyond mind. And, as I

believe John koko may have pointed out, this depth is in some way

synonomous with the unborn ground of being. Incarnated it has to do

with that ground expressed through jing as immanent potential pressing

to be expressed.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " sppdestiny "

<Revolution

wrote:

>

> Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

> process, rather an adaptative one.

>

>

> Lonny: Greetings Yangchu. Great questions and I'd love to have the

> discussion some day. Forget evolution in the Darwinian sense because

> both Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sri Aurobindu had moved far beyond

> him by the early 1900's. Darwin made initial observations about

> physical evolution and I'm discussing the interior dimension of the

> process as driven by consciousness......not primarily as an " adaption "

> but as a willed and driving force.

>

> It should be easy for anyone who understands the basic principles

> of holistic medicine to grasp that significant change in an individual

> can powerfully effect the whole. Why? Because there is no separation

> as you say. When an individual adopts a radically new perspective and

> makes different choices culture changes instantly. No different than

> the principles of either CM or homeopathy.

>

> Simply put, I'd suggest that the soul is the deepest part of the

> best part of ourselves. From a CM perspective we can say that soul is

> the horizontal axis (Wood/metal) and that spirit is the vertical axis

> (water/fire) and that the soul is that relative part of us

> (horizontal) that longs to merge with the absolute (vertical. It is

> our duty to purify the relative in the absolute through the

> application of will. Wod burns in fire, metal dissolves in water.

> Through will water and fire merge into one leaving only integrity

> (what was earth but is now a single point).

>

> I agree that the soul isn't separate in any way and there is

> probably only One though we each have individual responsibility for

> the rectification of what we have access to in our life time.

>

> Through making a single different choice culture is changed in

> one's heart in an instant. Thank you as ever for your insightful

> questions. Maybe we should do a conference call sometime on evolution,

> consciousness, and CM?

> Warm regards, Lon

>

[Guest guest]

--- I

 

 

One day, doing Qi Gong in Bei Jing with my teacher, Zhang Yu Fei, he instructed

us to

visualize our bodies standing with 3 envelopes: at the center: the dense

physical body,

then the qi, then the shen (sensations, feelings) and the 3rd, beyond, wich he

called Yi or

consciousness.

 

I came to imagine the shen/spirit as integration of the elementals Hun, Po,

etc..

The realized shen (being in harmony) manifesting the higher qualities of the

fire element:

generosity, courage, compassion, joy etc... and beyond that, the consciousness

(Yi) as

being the witness of these feelings, aspirations.

 

This concept of consciousness seems to me similar to the concept of soul,

individual or

collective. Concept which is probably more western than Chinese.

 

What do you think?

 

 

n Chinese Medicine , " sppdestiny " <Revolution

wrote:

>

> Evolution in the Darwinian sense is not a progressive

> process, rather an adaptative one.

>

>

> Lonny: Greetings Yangchu. Great questions and I'd love to have the

> discussion some day. Forget evolution in the Darwinian sense because

> both Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Sri Aurobindu had moved far beyond

> him by the early 1900's. Darwin made initial observations about

> physical evolution and I'm discussing the interior dimension of the

> process as driven by consciousness......not primarily as an " adaption "

> but as a willed and driving force.

>

> It should be easy for anyone who understands the basic principles

> of holistic medicine to grasp that significant change in an individual

> can powerfully effect the whole. Why? Because there is no separation

> as you say. When an individual adopts a radically new perspective and

> makes different choices culture changes instantly. No different than

> the principles of either CM or homeopathy.

>

> Simply put, I'd suggest that the soul is the deepest part of the

> best part of ourselves. From a CM perspective we can say that soul is

> the horizontal axis (Wood/metal) and that spirit is the vertical axis

> (water/fire) and that the soul is that relative part of us

> (horizontal) that longs to merge with the absolute (vertical. It is

> our duty to purify the relative in the absolute through the

> application of will. Wod burns in fire, metal dissolves in water.

> Through will water and fire merge into one leaving only integrity

> (what was earth but is now a single point).

>

> I agree that the soul isn't separate in any way and there is

> probably only One though we each have individual responsibility for

> the rectification of what we have access to in our life time.

>

> Through making a single different choice culture is changed in

> one's heart in an instant. Thank you as ever for your insightful

> questions. Maybe we should do a conference call sometime on evolution,

> consciousness, and CM?

> Warm regards, Lon

>

[Guest guest]

" Foo-foo. " ?

 

Whoa-whoa, I proclaim. Whatever happened to " woo-woo " ? Is this a part of the

" change " we're to expect with the new administration?

 

Speaking honestly, if you're not making in difference in the patient's life, I

think whatever you're doing is hooey, but who's to say it won't lead to looey

and the much-venerated dooey?

 

Grand mental pirouettes to protect fleeting sense of inflated self. I do them

on Mondays by making sure patients only feel 15% better. Strangely by Thursday

I have reverted; they may be feeling as much as 87.2% better. But can

Thursday's definition of better be equated with the tyranny of Monday? Alas.

How can we reconcile these endless profundities.

 

Evolution. Synergy. Evonergy. Nombre? " Woo-foo " , the perfected combination of

egofied-egolessness. You just can't get any more legit than Woo-foo, so stop

tryin'.

 

best,

y.c. EFT-ADV, LAc

Los Angeles, Estados Unito

[Guest guest]

Indeed. I did the same thing. Within two weeks of trying out

Tan/Tung exclusively, I changed to that system for 95% of my

patients. the results were so much better. and that was after six

years of TCM style. that said, I still do local needling for very

specific things, mostly inflamed tendons / fascia and knee OA, that

seem to do much better with local EA or local treatment (but

sometimes Tan/Tung is still better!).

 

Ben

 

 

Re: Response to the recent thread regarding Tan/Chen/Tung styles

of

<Chinese Medicine/message/32087;_ylc=X\

3oDMTJyYnAzNnJvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzk0OTU5NzcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwODE0BG1zZ\

0lkAzMyMDg3BHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzEyMzQzNzY2NDM->

 

 

 

Posted by: " " acukath

<acukath?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Response%20to%20the%20recent%20thre\

ad%20regarding%20Tan%2FChen%2FTung%20styles%20of%20>

acukathb <http://profiles./acukathb>

 

 

Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:41 pm (PST)

 

 

 

actually, i haven't done a TCM style tx since prior to labor day,

i'm now

doing 100% Tan. i find it's more interesting and mental, less labor

intensive, and i'm getting superior and faster results with fewer

needles.

this includes disc issues. i had a serious lumbar/sacral injury several

years ago involving the discs. i had been tx with tcm style. it's

improved, but Slowly. distal needling has offered amazing improvement.

 

kath

 

--

ATTENTION: Protected by Federal Law!

The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential health care

information that is legally privileged and intended for the below-named

individual or entity only. The recipient of this document is prohibited from

disclosing its contents and is required by law to destroy this information once

authorized fulfillment is complete. If you have received this transmission in

error, please contact sender immediately.