What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

[Guest guest]

The profession seems to be revisioning itself and searching for a new name.

Apparently, the word " oriental " has been taken to be an ethnic slur. I never

knew this and find it interesting as I have known many Asians as members of the

AAAOM and other state societies with the word " oriental " in the title and never

mentioned this, at least not to me. This seems to be political correctness at

it's worst and I suspect is serving other agendas. Here are my preliminary

thoughts on the subject.

 

The most popular alternative being offered at the moment is " East Asian

Medicine " . This name recognizes that Acupuncture etc. are not from India or

Iraq. It also is inclusive of the contribution of countries such as Japan,

Korea, and Vietnam.

 

I have mixed feelings about the term " East Asian Medicine " . It seems to me

that if we want to acknowledge the source of the medicine, then we should call

what we do " Chinese medicine. " Were any of the classics written in a language

other than Chinese? I understand the nationalistic pride of a Japanese or Korean

who says, " I don't practice Chinese medicine, I practice Japanese/Korean

medicine " . But I think we have to recognize nationalism and ethnic pride for

what they are and that we shouldn't reward them in the name of inclusivity.

 

It always struck me that Gichin Funakoshi changed the characters for karate from

those meaning " Chinese Hand " to " Empty Hand " out of ethnic pride. The Koreans

made a big deal out of the legendary Hwarang warriors to suggest that they had

independantly discovered the martial arts. My 9th dan Korean master instructor

used to laugh and say there wasn't the slightest shred of evidence that the

martial arts originated anywhere but in China.

 

California and Washington have apparently rushed to pass legislation to change

the name without exercising the slightest bit of intelligence. Apparently people

are terrified of engaging in rational inquiry for fear of being labeled racist " .

And apparently, message parlors, rug dealerships, and restaurants can still use

the name " oriental " . Surprisingly the term was only deemed to be derogatory when

applied to the practice of medicine.

 

Admittedly this isn't a topic I know much about, but I will note that not a

single person of Asian descent has ever mentioned to me in 30 years that term

was racist. If indeed the term is racist, the meager evidence of which exists,

as far as I know on one wiki page, then we shouldn't use it. But the term " East

Asian Medicine " is ponderous, and caters to political correctness and not

sanity.

 

 

 

If we want to acknowledge the contributions of culture to the ongoing

development of the medicine as it's spread globally I think it's clear that many

of the most significant advancements in the medicine have been made in the West

in the last 50 years. The simple fact is, that Chinese medicine has evolved to

become a global medicine since the Han Dynasty. Its migration throughout Asia

formed the logical route of its expansion in a world without mass media. But

it's Journey through the different cultures of Asia were just temporary resting

points on it's route to become the most sophisticated holistic/integral medicine

on planet earth.

 

If we are to choose a name that acknowledges the medicine's past and its

source we should simply call it " Chinese medicine " and if we want to choose a

name that acknowledges what this medicine is now and will be in the future, then

we should come together as a community and chose a name together that reflects

the evolution of the medicine in our own hands and as a world medicine. Sure,

this might mean stretching a bit, being patient, and working with each other but

that can only come to the good. I'd like to think we as a profession have

matured enough to take on such a task.

 

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

Hi Lonny:

 

I agree that " East Asian Medicine " glosses over some historical facts and may

cause a weakening of our medicine by generalising it too much and inaccurately.

 

The concern with " Oriental " as I have come to understand it is not really

something that an ethnic Chinese would neccessarily pick up on, just like the

latin-american spanish " gringo " is not something a white north american would

pick up on, even though it is one of the worst epithets a latinamerican can

launch against a north american white.

The concern with Orientalism comes from " non-naive " ethnic asians and really

started with Said in the late 70s. This work (Orientalism, E. Said, 1978) was a

central part of the post-colonialist explosion which depended on the

accumulation of sufficient numbers of ethnic (non-western european) scholars in

the social sciences speaking english that a critique of " white thinking " could

be voiced clearly and consistently in english.

Orientalism is the co-optation of the representation of many peoples. It is a

term chosen and defined by european explorers and thinkers to mean what *they*

wanted it to mean, without the participation of the peoples so being named. In

that sense it is a misrepresentation and, at times, it is racist. It is no

different from calling First Nations members " Indians " . Really, what it comes

down to, is it's just kind of stupid.

That said, I don't see a problem with reclaiming the words " orient " and

" oriental " and using them to name our medicine, but I would hope that we can

become aware of the trajectory of the term in order to avoid pitfalls that the

use of the word may trigger, both in ourselves and in others.

Reclamation of labels is a time - honoured tradition of any people who have

experienced domination.

 

Hugo

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

David is correct.

 

In Florida as one of those states.....it is traditional Chinese medical

concepts AND modern Oriental medical techniques..... and not about to change.

 

Since the Chinese have their two power seats on the Board of Acupuncture

for the past 29 years they would have screamed a long time ago if they

considered it an insult.

 

Even Wu Laoshi has no problem with either the term Chinese medicine or

Oriental medicine and I would think that an individual who started studying

this medicine in the ancient Chinese language at 15 and now after 60 years of

practice would have commented about changing either word.

 

Yes....some states need to get a grip.

 

Richard Freiberg

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/11/2009 7:45:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

acuman1 writes:

 

 

 

 

Every 10 years or so, this PC deal comes up again. Admittedly, there are

more graduates of the Berkeley Asian studies program to complain about

" Oriental " , but the word has not been in use in this way or a problem for about

a hundred years and no one in living memory recalls its being used in a

negative connotation that I have ever met or heard of. If such a thing is

such a big thing in reality, then I guess Mick Jagger is gong to have to

change his name because I'm Irish.

If precision is what is called for, perhaps " East Asian Ethno-Medicine " or

EAEM, but DEAEM sound like a anti-drug agency rallying call for a doctoral

designation. Asian includes Korea to Siberia to Turkey to India.

Simply, it has been Oriental Medicine since its inception. Someday the

west coast will get a grip and drop some absurd legislation. The closest

alternative is what the Chinese call it, which is , but if I am

to be a Doctor of or a Doctor, patients

wonder why I am not Chinese. Its difficult enough that they wonder why I'm

not Oriental. It is already in legislatin in many states as Oriental

Medicine, by the way.

David Molony

 

On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29:27 PM, Lonny <_Revolution_

(Revolution) > wrote:

 

As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some

then " East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's

history. Some claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a

result of Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed

originally in the Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial

contributions from other cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems

to

me that language counts for a lot.

 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hugo,

 

If Oriental is, in fact, racist then we shouldn't used it. On the other hand

calling it " East Asian " is going too far in the other direction. It actually is

" Chinese medicine " historically, isn't it? And it actually isn't " Chinese "

medicine any more. So, I think a lot more thought has to be given as to whether

we want to honor history or acknowledge the present and create the future with

intelligence rather than with knee jerk emotional responses inculcated with

political correctness. -Lonny

[Guest guest]

“Traditional East Asian Medicine” or “Traditional

Chinese Medicin” would sound better :-)

 

Stefano Marcelli

Italy

 

---

The most popular alternative being offered at the

moment is " East Asian Medicine " .

 

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

I think we want to stay away from the term " traditional " since we are

practitioners of a living medicine and not anthropologists.

 

I just had a long talk With George Whiteside, president of the Washington State

professional society. He discussed with me the need to name the medicine we

practice so that it becomes clear that we aren't just technicians. It's true

that " acupuncturist " can sound like we are technicians who insert needles.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some then

" East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's history. Some

claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a result of

Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed originally in the

Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial contributions from other

cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems to me that language

counts for a lot.

 

However the bigger issue to me is what is the medicine now and what future

do we envision for it? Clearly it is now a world medicine being practiced at

many different cultural levels of development and value systems. Is it:

 

 

 

1. Holistic? Not necessarily! Most people don't practice it that way.

 

2. Integral? Even less people practice it that way (How many 10 people? 20?)

 

 

 

What term or phrase would portray what it is we do? I suspect that calling it

" East Asian " Medicine might be politically expedient in states like Washington

that have to update their limited scopes of practice. WDYT? Can anyone come up

with a term or phrase that relates to what the medicine is that isn't too small?

[Guest guest]

Every 10 years or so, this PC deal comes up again. Admittedly, there are more

graduates of the Berkeley Asian studies program to complain about " Oriental " ,

but the word has not been in use in this way or a problem for about a hundred

years and no one in living memory recalls its being used in a negative

connotation that I have ever met or heard of.  If such a thing is such a big

thing in reality, then I guess Mick Jagger is gong to have to change his name

because I'm Irish.

If precision is what is called for, perhaps " East Asian Ethno-Medicine " or EAEM,

but DEAEM sound like a anti-drug agency rallying call for a doctoral

designation. Asian includes Korea to Siberia to Turkey to India. 

Simply, it has been Oriental Medicine since its inception. Someday the west

coast will get a grip and drop some absurd legislation. The closest alternative

is what the Chinese call it, which is , but if I am to be a

Doctor of or a Doctor, patients wonder why I

am not Chinese. Its difficult enough that they wonder why I'm not Oriental. It

is already in legislatin in many states as Oriental Medicine, by the way.

David Molony

 

 

On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:29:27 PM, Lonny <Revolution wrote:

 

As far as I'm concerned, since " Oriental " apparently is offensive to some then

" East Asian medicine " is fine if we want a term that honors it's history. Some

claim that the notion that the medicine originated in China is a result of

Chinese imperialism and the fact of it having been expressed originally in the

Chinese language but that, in fact, there were initial contributions from other

cultures. I have no idea if that's true. Anyone? Seems to me that language

counts for a lot.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

What about " integrative Chinese medicine " ?

since what we study in school is not " classical " or " traditional " , except in

the sense that it is part of a tradition that is about 60 years old.

It is not entirely " holistic " or " integral " , but is " integrative " in the

sense that we study

schools as diverse as Japanese meridian therapy, Korean 4 needle technique,

Allopathic pharmacology and anatomy/physiology.

 

`K

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

John,

 

I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to

find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. Many

of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the West in

the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced according to many

different value systems across cultures at different levels of development. It's

interesting to consider who we are and what we are really doing. Most of us

aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine.

[Guest guest]

How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

Revolution

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

John,

 

I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to find

a name that references it's present and future rather than its past. Many of the

most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the West in the last

60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced according to many different

value systems across cultures at different levels of development. It's

interesting to consider who we are and what we are really doing. Most of us

aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

" Global " ? GCM?

 

I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people who

developed the classics which are the foundation of

Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

we've got.

 

K

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Revolution

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> John,

>

> I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to

> find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the

> West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we

> are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine.

 

[Guest guest]

Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is the

style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral medicine. I

apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our TCM using

specific methodology. But as far as my patients are concerned, I practice

medicine because they get better very quickly. Oh semantics...

 

 

 

Don

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

johnkokko

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

" Global " ? GCM?

 

I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people who

developed the classics which are the foundation of

Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

we've got.

 

K

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

>

>

>

> Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Revolution

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> John,

>

> I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is to

> find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in the

> West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what we

> are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese " medicine.

 

[Guest guest]

Yes... we all practice medicine,

but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

 

Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

of changes.

That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

and comprehensive name for what we do.

 

K

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> TCM using specific methodology. But as f

 

r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> very quickly. Oh semantics...

>

>

>

> Don

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> " Global " ? GCM?

>

> I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> who

> developed the classics which are the foundation of

> Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> we've got.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> >

> >

> >

> > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Revolution

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > John,

> >

> > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> to

> > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> the

> > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> we

> > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

richard writes:

 

 

>

> I wonder what others think.

>

> Richard James

>

 

The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

medical thought process that is

based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of

using sense

and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while

recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

 

The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing

and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and understood

by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing

are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to

change results.

 

Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is

they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some

integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new view

on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many

have

gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools

used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and

the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

 

But, that is just me.

 

David Molony

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yes, definitions. Who defines what is being discussed? I practice integral

medicine no matter what one may believe. That's what I call it and that is what

my patients believe and that's what I do. I don't follow any " man " such a

Lonny, Master Tong, etc. I follow my own path in finding the answers to our

wonderful medicine and I make it what I will. This is what I do. If I followed

a particular man or style, then that's what I would be doing. But I practice

Dr. Snow's Acupuncture and Integrated Medical Systems.

 

I make a mid-six figure income doing what I do so I'm doing something right. I

went the extra mile and earned the DAOM, MPH, MS, etc. so I am relatively

educated. And no matter what anyone says about that degree (esp. those that

haven't actually done it), we delved into the classics at a much deeper level

that the master's program. I'm a better practitioner for it. And most of all,

I have a very high success in treatment rate which is why I have a booming

practice. One is a technician until he makes the medicine his own. That

applies to martial arts as well. I've seen many so-called masters that were not

because they did not make the art a part of themselves.

 

 

 

Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine

johnkokko

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:24:06 -0800

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes... we all practice medicine,

but " integral " and " integrative " medicine are 2 different birds.

 

Very few people practice " integral " medicine, as Lonny can elaborate on.

We all practice some form of " integrative " medicine, because that's what we

learned in schools... a combination of many styles derived from 2 millennia

of changes.

That's why I opted for " integrative Chinese medicine " being the most honest

and comprehensive name for what we do.

 

K

 

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

 

>

> Actually, what we practice is medicine. What you appear to want defined is

> the style, type, or founding root of what we do. I practice integral

> medicine. I apply TCM/OM theory to MET and SCENAR then combine it with our

> TCM using specific methodology. But as f

 

r as my patients are concerned, I practice medicine because they get better

> very quickly. Oh semantics...

>

>

>

> Don

>

>

>

> Chinese Medicine

> johnkokko

> Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:12:13 -0800

> Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

> Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

> Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

> " Global " ? GCM?

>

> I actually like calling what we do Chinese medicine,

> because it gives credit to the myriad of tribes/clans/villages of people

> who

> developed the classics which are the foundation of

> Korean/Japanese/Vietnamese/European/American acupuncture and formula

> systems. We can break down the word " Chinese " , which is probably not

> sufficient to describe these originators, since even today, China

> geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

> we've got.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Donald Snow <don83407 wrote:

>

> >

> > How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

> >

> >

> >

> > Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, LAc

> >

> >

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Revolution

> > Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:18:12 +0000

> > Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > John,

> >

> > I'm happy calling it Chinese medicine. But I think the real challenge is

> to

> > find a name that references it's present and future rather than its past.

> > Many of the most significant advances in the medicine have been made in

> the

> > West in the last 60 years. It's a global medicine now being practiced

> > according to many different value systems across cultures at different

> > levels of development. It's interesting to consider who we are and what

> we

> > are really doing. Most of us aren't, in fact, practicing " Chinese "

> medicine.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I would like to add a different dimension to this thread, if I may. I am new

here, so please forgive me if I am going over old stuff. I note from the

earlier contributions that the debate seems to be seeking a title that can be

used in common to label what (all) practitioners of TCM do. My concern is that

this tendency, although desired by the rule-makers, is counter to the creative

development and diversification of our practice.

 

I am registered with the British Acupuncture Council, and also with the General

Medical Council. Thus I am commonly labelled as either a `Traditional

Acupuncturist' or a `Medical Acupuncturist'. But neither fits what I do. The

tradition I grew up in was scientism and atheism. I was then exposed to the

European traditions of acupuncture and Humanistic/Transpersonal Psychology, and

my work draws heavily on them. I have since, of course, been exposed to " TCM "

but it has not influenced my work as much as the others (I do not use herbs,

just as I do not use pharmaceuticals in my practice – I prefer to avoid putting

chemicals into people). I am also very much inspired by the `holistic' tendency

in modern practice, with its roots in post-modernism and systems theory.

Similarly, I look to developments in many areas of exploration to inform my work

(and the development of the profession) in the future, such as: narrative

medicine; neurophysiology; chaos and complexity theory; and new developments in

the understanding of connective tissue, to name a few. And I would include new

developments in our understanding of `Qi energetics' in that.

 

In the light of this I recently used the title `Holistic Western Acupuncture'

for a workshop I ran, and next Spring I am giving a talk " Holistic Western

Acupuncture: what's in a name? " . Now I found myself being berated for an insult

to the Chinese. I was told that the phrase `Western Acupuncture' is a

contradiction and inherently insulting. " You can't win " I told myself! I had

thought that it would be more insulting to use the title `Chinese acupuncture'

for what I do, since it clearly is not that. Clearly what I do is acupuncture –

I use the insertion of needles for therapeutic purposes, guided partly by ideas

of meridians, Qi, etc. By using the description `holistic western' I sought to

distinguish between what I do and what is offered both in the Chinese tradition

(with its historical and cultural implications), and in Medical Acupuncture

(which is essentially reductionistic in its approach). I suppose I am an

empiricist rather than a traditionalist, in that I value what works, rather than

dogma. However I have no wish to insult any of the traditions, which I see as

valued sources of inspiration.

 

I wonder what others think.

 

Richard James

[Guest guest]

Since has been practicing in America, may we call it "

American- " ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The fuss is just that.... " something to FUSS about " .

 

Richard Freiberg

 

 

 

 

In a message dated 12/13/2009 4:08:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

zrosenbe writes:

 

I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good

enough, and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese

it is 'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal

medicine is called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand

that it is the same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same

classical texts such as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which

were written and developed in China.

 

As far as indigenous forms of medicine go, if one practices " Japanese

acupuncture " , " Korean hand acupuncture " , " Tibetan medicine " , etc., why not just

say so? Rather than come up with some clumsy name to try to explain it

all. .

 

Z'ev Rosenberg

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is fine for me, as well, as it means the same as Oriental Medicine. I

just hate to give in to the PC police...., and it is easier to mentally

trademark Oriental Medicine than it is , plus if one is called a

doctor, like in the days of the OMD, people want you to be

Chinese or are surprised when you aren't.

David Molony

 

In a message dated 12/13/09 4:08:15 PM, zrosenbe writes:

 

 

> I don't understand the fuss.  " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good

> enough, and that's what I will continue to call what I practice.  In Chinese

> it is 'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal

> medicine is called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand

> that it is the same in Korea.  The origins of the medicine are in the same

> classical texts such as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which

> were written and developed in China.

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional Chinese

Medicine " AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about AND it

has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes to TCM.

As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at lunch

and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to make

themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine proudly

exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a

Traditional formula! " .

 

Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and it

makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact that

a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?!

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine , acuman1 wrote:

>

>

> In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

> richard writes:

>

>

> >

> > I wonder what others think.

> >

> > Richard James

> >

>

> The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

> medical thought process that is

> based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

> political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms of

using sense

> and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes while

> recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

>

> The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing

> and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

> observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood

> by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

> Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing

> are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

> their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to

> change results.

>

> Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

> different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

> other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it is

> they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

> different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them, some

> integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

> anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new

view

> on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

> observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them, many

have

> gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools

> used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang, and

> the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

>

> But, that is just me.

>

> David Molony

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 Hi Donald.

 That name has occurred to me in the past. Another name that has occurred to me

is " human medicine " . If we wanted to be snippy we could call it " real medicine " .

 

 I do not agree with Lonny that most of us are not practicing " Chinese

medicine " . He's totally wrong on that one.

 

 Hugo

 

--Donald-

 How about naming our medicine modern " Global Medicine? "

---

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 Hi John:

 

--John-

Global medicine sounds too " global " ,

Chinese medicine might sound too " local " .

" Global " ? GCM?

---

 

 GCM isn't too bad, you know. In our modern world, anything that breaks down

into a three letter acronym will be successful (and especially if you are

Singaporean). I like GCM.

 

 On a side note, my personal problem with " Chinese " is the " -ese " part. Not

Canadian, but Canadese. Not French, but Francese (very close to how they use it,

actually). Not United states-ian, but United States-ese.

 

 Maybe it works though, because like John says, it has been a collaboration

amongst a wide group of ethnicities, so it's not exactly " China medicine " but

rather " Chin-eeese medicine " .

 

--John-

 describe these originators, since even today, China

geographically holds over 50 distinct ethnic groups, but it's the best that

we've got.

---

 

  It's closer to 90 if we take the ethnic people's own definitions rather than

the government's decisions based on misunderstanding and convenience. Just

taking your point further in terms of how many different types of people have

contirbuted to GCM.

 

 Hugo

 

________________________________

 

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 Hi all:

 

--Donald-

Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.  

---

 

 I have several.

 

 Hugo

(your points are well taken)

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't understand the fuss. " Chinese medicine " in my opinion is good enough,

and that's what I will continue to call what I practice. In Chinese it is

'zhong-yi', which means Chinese medicine, in Japanese the herbal medicine is

called " Kanpo " or medicine of the Han (people), and I understand that it is the

same in Korea. The origins of the medicine are in the same classical texts such

as the Su Wen, Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, all of which were written and

developed in China.

 

As far as indigenous forms of medicine go, if one practices " Japanese

acupuncture " , " Korean hand acupuncture " , " Tibetan medicine " , etc., why not just

say so? Rather than come up with some clumsy name to try to explain it all. .

 

 

On Dec 13, 2009, at 11:50 AM, heylaurag wrote:

 

> I think its a shame that we are moving away from the term, " Traditional

" AKA: TCM. Its a term that laypeople feel proud to know about

AND it has the added bonus of being easy to shorten for conversational purposes

to TCM. As a friend from Alaska once told me, " People around here sit around at

lunch and discuss TCM like other circles pretentiously discuss Kierkagaard to

make themselves look cool " . I have on many occasions heard patients of mine

proudly exclaim, upon receiving their first herbal fromula, " Cool! I'm getting a

Traditional formula! " .

>

> Yes, it has evolved beyond Chinese medicine. But our roots come from TCM and

it makes sense to honor that--and it also makes sense to make use of the fact

that a fair amount of laypeople already relate to that term. We aren't doing

ourselves any favors by confusing people with a constantly changing name. What

kind of business sense is that?!

>

> Chinese Medicine , acuman1 wrote:

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 12/13/09 12:42:58 PM,

> > richard writes:

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I wonder what others think.

> > >

> > > Richard James

> > >

> >

> > The reason I choose to use Oriental Medicine is because it is about a

> > medical thought process that is

> > based on a science, not the " science " that is presently the

> > political/cultish form of biomedicine now in vogue, but a science in terms

of using sense

> > and mechanical observation of actions and reactions to predict outcomes

while

> > recognizing that one must deal with the inherent flexibility of nature.

> >

> > The science of Oriental Medicine (in caps because it is a distinctive thing

> > and not a description, sort of a trademark, har) has the flexibility to

> > observe nature and report on it in a way that can be transferred and

understood

> > by groups of people. Now, there are different philosophical groups within

> > Oriental Medicine, but I think that these differences in thought processing

> > are an advantage, because those in the different groups are consistent in

> > their processes or perceptions of what it is they are observing and using to

> > change results.

> >

> > Am I making this up? I'm just observing, from my own perspective, how the

> > different folks use the tools of Oriental Medicine and interact with each

> > other when they are not trying to exclude each other. Everyone does what it

is

> > they are doing because they think it is the best way to do it. Some learn

> > different models, but choose one because it seems to work best for them,

some

> > integrate different models, and some just pick one and run with it. Is

> > anyone wrong? Only to each other. Just as Richard James is developing a new

view

> > on how the medicine works for him and trying to make sense of his

> > observations and to share these with others to see how it works for them,

many have

> > gone before, and these all are Oriental Medicine because of the basic tools

> > used and the utilization of tools of observation such as Qi, yin and yang,

and

> > the interconnectedness of the body via meridians.

> >

> > But, that is just me.

> >

> > David Molony

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hey there fellow practitioners

 

Here's a koan for you: Who put the Chi in the word Chinese?

 

Don't we , at heart and root, practice Chi Medicine/Healing/Health Care?

 

For you consideration!

 

Turiya Hill, L.Ac.

 

-

Hugo Ramiro

Chinese Medicine

Sunday, December 13, 2009 12:25 PM

Re: What's in a Name? The Future of the Medicine.

 

 

 

Hi all:

 

--Donald-

Well, these are only my opinions and I guess we all have one.

---

 

I have several.

 

Hugo

(your points are well taken)

 

 

________________________________

Hugo Ramiro

http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com

http://www.middlemedicine.org