Religion, Esoterica and Values - Back (almost) to the original issue

[Guest guest]

Lonny Jarrett: The issue here isn't whether or not you make judgments

because you do

and one cannot live, or practice CM without doing so. The only issue

is how subtle, refined, and conscious are the judgments being made?

The original issue some days ago concerned a handful of practitioners

criticizing T/C/T-style acupuncture and incorrectly stating that it is only

useful for superficial pain relief and does not address deeper problems.

This then somehow evolved into a critique of the moral values of T/C/T

practitioners and then morphed further into a discussion about the apparent

superiority of - and necessity of utilizing - the personal values and

judgments associated with, and demonstrated by, adherents of the Spiral

Dynamics theory (google: proselytizing). Now based on an admittedly cursory

examination of SD, it appears to me to be a post-modern updating of

Nietzsche's übermensch concept (a goal humanity can set for itself - all

human life is given meaning by how it advances a new generation of humans)

crossed with the Homeland Security Threat Advisory system. This theory may

be of use to marketers and business managers but it doesn't strike me

personally as very profound or as anything I especially need in order to

treat patients - but if it works for others, that's terrific and more power

to them.

 

But back to my question of last week: I'm not saying that we shouldn't

examine, discuss or argue about aspects of our profession, or that we all

just need to get along, but how does judging the values, judgment and morals

of practitioners utilizing a classic acupuncture modality in any way further

anything or help our profession evolve? Is an argument/discussion along

these lines not better suited to a different type of forum? Thoughts?

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Kim, can you sleep over my place with me tonight? oops

 

--- On Thu, 2/12/09, Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyu wrote:

Kim Blankenship <kuangguiyu

Re: Religion, Esoterica and Values - Back (almost) to the

original issue

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, February 12, 2009, 7:18 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lonny Jarrett: The issue here isn't whether or not you make

judgments

 

because you do

 

and one cannot live, or practice CM without doing so. The only issue

 

is how subtle, refined, and conscious are the judgments being made?

 

The original issue some days ago concerned a handful of practitioners

 

criticizing T/C/T-style acupuncture and incorrectly stating that it is only

 

useful for superficial pain relief and does not address deeper problems.

 

This then somehow evolved into a critique of the moral values of T/C/T

 

practitioners and then morphed further into a discussion about the apparent

 

superiority of - and necessity of utilizing - the personal values and

 

judgments associated with, and demonstrated by, adherents of the Spiral

 

Dynamics theory (google: proselytizing) . Now based on an admittedly cursory

 

examination of SD, it appears to me to be a post-modern updating of

 

Nietzsche's übermensch concept (a goal humanity can set for itself - all

 

human life is given meaning by how it advances a new generation of humans)

 

crossed with the Homeland Security Threat Advisory system. This theory may

 

be of use to marketers and business managers but it doesn't strike me

 

personally as very profound or as anything I especially need in order to

 

treat patients - but if it works for others, that's terrific and more power

 

to them.

 

 

 

But back to my question of last week: I'm not saying that we shouldn't

 

examine, discuss or argue about aspects of our profession, or that we all

 

just need to get along, but how does judging the values, judgment and morals

 

of practitioners utilizing a classic acupuncture modality in any way further

 

anything or help our profession evolve? Is an argument/discussion along

 

these lines not better suited to a different type of forum? Thoughts?

 

 

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The original issue some days ago concerned a handful of practitioners

criticizing T/C/T-style acupuncture and incorrectly stating that it is

only

useful for superficial pain relief and does not address deeper problems.

 

 

Lonny: For the record I NEVER said this and the history here will

verify that. Others, however, argued that " if pain goes away for good

the only reasonable conclusion is that the underlying symptom has been

addressed. " And I stated that this point of view is naive and without

merit. I also stated that Dr. Tan's system having a better result than

an integrated TCM diagnosis would depend on one's values regarding

what constituted a " better " result. The use of the term " values " then

seems to have created a bit of a stir.

 

To quote: " My assessment has nothing to do with how any given

practitioner might apply what they know of the system in context of

the overall value sphere of his or her clinical practice. I know

plenty of superficial, pretentious, 5E practitioners and I've known

plenty of practitioners who exemplify depth in very many traditions. "

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

For the record, I NEVER said that you were one of the practitioners who

stated that T/C/T treatments do not address deeper issues. As should be

apparent from my post - which led off with one of your quotes critiquing and

questioning the consciousness and judgment of your peers - and the thrust of

the post - which is about the usefulness of said criticism - my concern is

with what I feel is your heavy-handed and divisive use of a hierarchical

human development theory to judge individuals' personal values and judgment

in a discussion regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture modalities.

 

Kim Blankenship

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:39 PM, sppdestiny <Revolution wrote:

 

> The original issue some days ago concerned a handful of practitioners

> criticizing T/C/T-style acupuncture and incorrectly stating that it is

> only

> useful for superficial pain relief and does not address deeper problems.

>

> Lonny: For the record I NEVER said this and the history here will

> verify that. Others, however, argued that " if pain goes away for good

> the only reasonable conclusion is that the underlying symptom has been

> addressed. " And I stated that this point of view is naive and without

> merit. I also stated that Dr. Tan's system having a better result than

> an integrated TCM diagnosis would depend on one's values regarding

> what constituted a " better " result. The use of the term " values " then

> seems to have created a bit of a stir.

>

> To quote: " My assessment has nothing to do with how any given

> practitioner might apply what they know of the system in context of

> the overall value sphere of his or her clinical practice. I know

> plenty of superficial, pretentious, 5E practitioners and I've known

> plenty of practitioners who exemplify depth in very many traditions. "

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

what I feel is your heavy-handed and divisive use of a hierarchical

human development theory to judge individuals' personal values and

judgment

in a discussion regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture modalities.

 

 

Lonny: " Heavy handed " ?

 

1. I initially wrote ONE sentence! I elaborated because I was asked to

after 50 replies.

 

2. Are we, or are we not, practicing " holistic " and " Integral "

medicine? If we are, than physical improvement represents only one

dimension of the efficacy of treatment. And cessation of pain and

improvement of feeling states represents another. But at least equally

important are objective changes in behavior as based on values.

 

It is my contention, in fact, that evolution and development of

values as evidenced in personal integrity and demonstrated through

more wholesome behavior are the ONLY meaningful parameters with which

one can asses any tradition of healing that purports to treat the

" mind " or " spirit. " And no tradition can claim to be " holistic " or

" integral " if it does not purport to do so. Further, if a tradition

does not explicitly address the interior dimension of the human being

(soul, mind, spirit, will, intention, objectivity, perspective) then

it is by definition materialistic and is suppressing symptoms

regardless of how technically evolved it may be or the sophistication

of its transliteration system.

 

I am all for the rigorous practice of CM and I have no problem

with any tradition in particular. I know people of depth who practice

facial acupuncture and I know people whose " spiritual " practice of

medicine is based on 5% good intentions and 95% pretense. I have

published two texts elaborating a serious integral tradition of

practice that transparently conveys all my influences, thinking,

clinical abilities and limitations, and my vision.

 

The evolution of value systems, personal integrity, and improved

behavior are the heart and soul of the tradition that I'm teaching. If

your not interested that's fine. But I don't think you have a leg to

stand on in the claim that what I'm discussing is not germane to the

practice of the medicine. My position is that it's not just germane

but central and that RIGHT NOW nothing could be more important.

 

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

Hi Lonny and all:

 

Since Lonny likes values:

 

--Lonny-

 

" Heavy handed " ?

1. I initially wrote ONE sentence! I elaborated because I was asked to

after 50 replies.

---

 

Describing you as heavy handed is not a minority opinion, and placing the term

in scare quotes and behaving in an astonished fashion doesn't undo the

heavy-handed prose that you (once again) proceeded to engage in, as witnessed by

the entire list. It's like constantly being lectured at. I am guilty of that at

times, and so I recognise it when someone else does it too.

 

It probably frustrates a lot of people being forced into a position of " for

Lonny or against Lonny " because Lonny's projections are so forceful that some

will feel " if I don't resist, I may be subsumed " . I also believe that a lot of

people perceive that you have something of value to share, and yet, at the same

time, perceive that you can't possibly know it all - which you don't claim to,

and yet you do the next best thing, which is to never (? I don't recall you

ever) back down or admit that someone has something over you, in effect placing

yourself in the topmost position whether it is what you " intended " to do or not.

It sounds _as if_ you know it all.

 

You keep talking about values, and I wonder if you actually believe that people

here don't know that they do have values?! Maybe you don't realise that people

are willing to discuss their values in a manner that is less obtrusive, more

indirect and yes, subtle. It's like old masters meeting and not looking

eachother in the eye, yet each having full attention each on the other. It's

less divisive, its less threatening, and (my value) it is more classy, and less

coldly clinical.

 

--Lonny-

2. Are we, or are we not, practicing " holistic " and " Integral " medicine?

---

 

Your rhetoric often involves the polarisation of issues.. Makes it easy for

you.

 

--Lonny-

It is my contention, in fact, that evolution and development of

values as evidenced in personal integrity and demonstrated through

more wholesome behavior are the ONLY meaningful parameters with which

one can asses any tradition of healing that purports to treat the

" mind " or " spirit.

---

 

Let me polarise something for you. Reality either is, or is not, Integral. If

it is not, YOU are going to make it so? And if it is, WHAT is it you are doing?

 

Fortunately, things are not that black or white. There are weak effects and

there are strong effects. You seem to be biased towards the strongest possible

effects using this system. Ok, that's your way, right now. Can it be

everybody's?

 

What I actually wonder is what the reason is for your use of the term " values "

rather than " morals " . I wonder what would happen in this forum if you began to

challenge people's morals. I would like it if you ran that experiment. My

feeling is that you use " value " as a screen and shield. Maybe you could run with

it Lonny- just use " morals " .

 

--Lonny-

published two texts elaborating a serious integral tradition of

practice that transparently conveys all my influences, thinking,

clinical abilities and limitations, and my vision.

---

 

That's interesting, because I have never had any feeling of " transparency " when

it comes to your writings in this forum. Again, Lonny, just saying that you are

transparent, don't make it so.

I have never seen you describe your influences here in this forum. Saying that

you are influenced by SD or even CM is trite, because it brings no one any

closer to see Lonny Jarret the (very) human being. I'm also interested in

knowing what your limitations are.

 

You know, in the interests of change, and since you did put the ball in the

court: why _don't_ you *transparently* tell us about your influences and

limitations? Nothing in depth, ok? I'm not _that_ interested - but it'd be nice

to know about this human being who only seems able to write reams of impersonal

unrevealing prose - essentially *expositions of his system* rather than attempts

to connect with other humans.

 

Wondering how this will go over,

 

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org