Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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. " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 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 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.