Another play

May 3, 2010

Don,

I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our

biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed

for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer

whole.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages

and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior?

If we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less

education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of

education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this

country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or

thirty years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really

masters at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority

does not necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all

study the same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide

what the " core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn

on your own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you

graduate, don't stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who

is to tell you or me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must

not learn for the good of our patient?

>

> Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous

writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom.

What should we base our hierarchy on?

>

> Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do

is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I,

for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I

practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book.

I develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories

developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people,

imperfect humans just like you and me.

>

> So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone

actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on?

>

> Again my two cents.

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Revolution

> Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000

> Re: Another play

>

> I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has

no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

>

> The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view

that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

>

> The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE

solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's

opinion up to the most qualified.

>

> This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point

of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But

the Truth never reflects compromise.

>

> The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of

value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

>

> From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then

within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with

preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of

pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship

including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are

motivated by the bottom line.

May 3, 2010

R,

I do not think that the medical, PT or any other health care profession seeks

votes from the public, which it serves, prior to making many of the changes they

make. I think it is an implied directive that changes you make should look out

for the best interest of the patients we serve. BTW, I fail to see how an

increase in education, both clinical and theoretical, will harm the public. I

would think it would improve our ability to diagnose and treat patient, thereby,

improving efficacy. The issue of education lies at the middle of this issue

and yet what is enough hours?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 13:15:45 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

M

Alright......so let's use reasoning.

What is the world of numbers of stakeholders in/for the AOM profession?

Stakeholder category is supposed to include patients according to USDE.

If there are 25,000 licensees, 5,000 students, 2,000

teachers/administrators etc. then there might be an estimated 500,000 patients.

To gain CONSENSUS of over 530,000 individuals in the literal sense would

be impossible.

Agreed?

Then what would be a hypothetical reasonable number for CONSENSUS?

If the figures were 3,000 with 2,000 against......and ACAOM could throw out

(according to an interpretation of the USDE statement) then would 1,000

for FPD be CONSENSUS?

Because that's what it appears has transpired.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

Maybe we should state that is an assumption and work from that as opposed

to it being regarded as fact.

May 3, 2010

R

You misrepresent my position. I saw some nice photos of Jessica and some paper,

nothing more. As one that has been through legal battles, I think we can agree

that this means nothing. It is not even a photo of actual signatures. I mean

no disrespect but where is the proof?

I do share some concern about how Mr. Biggs has left but, at this point, it is

meaningless speculation. I hope we learn of this as well.

The FPD is not being crammed down anyone's throats, there is even discussion of

keeping the master as entry but allowing, those that want, to get a FPD instead.

I think this is acceptable. There is no discussion of changing state laws

either. Failure to allow the FPD only puts us on a path where those that know

little about a doctorate and what it represents, are making decisions for the

entire profession. Talk about inappropriate.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 13:04:31 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

M

You like to repeat previous discussions?

Obviously you don't trust other's statements of FACT.

I do.

Jessica hand delivered 2000+ signatures AGAINST the FPD.

I didn't see/hear Dort Bigg deny that he received those 2000+ signatures

and he had the chance to respond in this forum.

Also......I find it curious that both Mr Bigg and the Assistant ED have

left ACAOM in a hurry.

Possibly one day we will find out what was up with that.

How one goes about change is as important as the change.

It appears that just because it may be good ...you wouldn't mind if it was

just shoved down everyone's throats.

Is that true?

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/1/2010 12:55:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

R,

You are assuming that the 2000 signatures exist. Maybe we should state

that is an assumption and work from that as opposed to it being regarded as

fact. I have not seen these, have you?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

CC: habeas_1

acudoc11

Sat, 1 May 2010 12:24:30 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

Thanks for your reply.

Glad someone had the interest.

Your government (USDE) has just spoken on the issue in response to many

stakeholders concerns:

" You also address your ongoing concerns regarding the first

professional degree and the use of the word " consensus. " Again, this is a

professional disagreement and does not involve ED (Education Department).

However, it should be noted that while the agency is required to invite

input from

its communities of interest in the standards review process and to

demonstrate consideration of the input, the agency is not required to

accept all

input or to have consensus by the entirety of the profession. "

Yes.,....if there are at least 30,000 stakeholders it would a stretch to

believe that in order to move the FPD forward the profession would need

ALL

30,000. But on the other end of the spectrum 900 for and 2000 against does

not make for consensus.

It appears that according to the USDE and this process, ACAOM could have

received 1000 responses with 700 AGAINST the FPD and not taken into

account

those 700 and arrived at CONSENSUS.

I guess no one ever said that citizens of the USA were guaranteed honesty,

ethical standards or morality.

Why even bother to go through the process when the con doesn't even appear

right.

It's like what used to be referred to as justice. Not only is there NO

justice we do not even get the appearance of justice in the courts

anymore.

In a message dated 5/1/2010 8:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

Revolution writes:

I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input

into a process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True,

the

American Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the

chance

to speak. But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the

decision. The modern notion of consensus seems to have roots in the

Quaker

tradition of sitting in a circle where everyone can speak freely and no

one is

judged.

The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to

be solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the

COMPROMISE solution that takes into account all input from the least

qualified

person's opinion up to the most qualified.

This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather

a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every

point of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points

of

view. But the Truth never reflects compromise.

The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition

of hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make

decisions regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have

a

hierarchy of value systems so we could assess the relative development

and merit

of individual's motivations and value systems.

From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would

be senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers

third. Then within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those

concerned

with preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in

terms of pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity

for

scholarship including the language. After that would come those whose

primary interests are motivated by the bottom line.

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

________

The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with

Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar & ocid=PID28

326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5

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

---

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

May 3, 2010

There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who

should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial

art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills.

Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just

making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something

we recognize.

May 3, 2010

R,

Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear. I will expect no more

dead horses then about our associations, schools and the FPD.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 14:57:06 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

M

This has been discussed many times before and unnecessary to repeat which

apparently you like to do.

No need to beat the dead horse.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/3/2010 1:39:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

R,

I do not think that the medical, PT or any other health care profession

seeks votes from the public, which it serves, prior to making many of the

changes they make. I think it is an implied directive that changes you make

should look out for the best interest of the patients we serve. BTW, I fail

to see how an increase in education, both clinical and theoretical, will

harm the public. I would think it would improve our ability to diagnose and

treat patient, thereby, improving efficacy. The issue of education lies

at the middle of this issue and yet what is enough hours?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

May 3, 2010

R,

I would give much more credibility to an organization that posts its results

anytime over an individual with a nice photo. I am unsure as to how you would

expect someone to win this kind of argument in a court of law, without actual

proof. The same can be stated for your issue with Mr. Bigg. If you have proof

of wrong-doing then great, let's all see it. If not, then we should not be

speculating upon it. All I have been asking for, is to show us the proof of

wrongdoing so all of us can have an open and informed discussion.

I was referring to individuals with a political agenda that seek to prevent the

FPD at all costs. From one that has completed an actual doctorate, I can agree

with Don, it provided a much deeper educational experience. Legislating one

does not even come close.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

CC: hkaltsas

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 14:55:48 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

M

And you misrepresent mine.

On ACAOM's website there exists an undated (with a generic date of

February 2010) notice posted with no PROOF of anything. Just a statement.

Where's

that PROOF?

Furthermore...until it's unraveled as to what happened to BOTH Dort Bigg

and the Assistant ED Lori Schroeder this should ALL come to a standstill.

ACAOM has a lot to answer.

Show the PROOF of that process along with documents and meeting minutes

and which school owners on the board voted for the FPD..... before we even

discuss Jessica's proof.

On this we can agree.....ALL of it MEANS NOTHING.

This is not the first time ACAOM has been in such question.

In 2004 there was another imbroglio.

And from what I understand from Harvey Kaltsas there was yet another one

back in 1995.

Yes...you are right...the schools who are represented on such a Board are

speaking for the FPD and who know little about how it affects the

profession other than self interests in charging big bucks.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc Ap LAc

In a message dated 5/3/2010 2:02:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

R

You misrepresent my position. I saw some nice photos of Jessica and some

paper, nothing more. As one that has been through legal battles, I think

we can agree that this means nothing. It is not even a photo of actual

signatures. I mean no disrespect but where is the proof?

I do share some concern about how Mr. Biggs has left but, at this point,

it is meaningless speculation. I hope we learn of this as well.

The FPD is not being crammed down anyone's throats, there is even

discussion of keeping the master as entry but allowing, those that want, to get

a

FPD instead. I think this is acceptable. There is no discussion of

changing state laws either. Failure to allow the FPD only puts us on a path

where

those that know little about a doctorate and what it represents, are

making decisions for the entire profession. Talk about inappropriate.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

May 3, 2010

At this point in time, I find the ACAOM position solid. If things change, I

will re-evaluate it then.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 15:08:07 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

Let's SEE the proof of CONSENSUS before judging anything else.

In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear.

May 3, 2010

Lonny,

Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that a group of OM elders would do any

better then recent graduates at running the profession. There are so many

facets to this issue that we cannot limit our vision to simply OM

experience/education. There are many practitioners that are getting more then

one degree, in order to better work inside the profession (John Chen PharmD,

Tran Viet Tzung MD, Dan Bensky DO) to name but a few.

I have noticed that a lack of basic knowledge in organizations, legislation,

even politics has created real problems for us (large master's program, poor

license regulations, scope of practice).

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

Revolution

Mon, 3 May 2010 19:03:54 +0000

Re: Another play

There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those

who should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and

martial art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level

skills.

Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just

making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something

we recognize.

_______________

The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

May 3, 2010

R,

Good luck with that.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 15:30:48 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

And until such time as I SEE all the PROOF and ACAOM answers all the

questions........my position remains the same and won't change.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:19:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

At this point in time, I find the ACAOM position solid. If things change,

I will re-evaluate it then.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 15:08:07 -0400

Re: TCM - Re: Another play

Let's SEE the proof of CONSENSUS before judging anything else.

In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:05:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

Often convenient to deny things we do not want to hear.

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

________

The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:W

L:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3

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

---

Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine

and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia

To change your email delivery settings, click,

and adjust

accordingly.

Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

requires prior permission from the author.

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

May 3, 2010

R,

I trust that our association is working for us (even made up of some LAc's) and

you do not. That is what it really comes down to.

I do not perceive Mr. Bigg or even ACAOM as if they are conducting themselves

inappropriately.

In the future, that may change.

Schools decided the direction that they took many years ago. Some areas of the

profession are not up to our vote. We cannot be involved in every area, much

like our govt.

An entry level degree does not need regional accreditation unless you were

planning to have a FPD. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

We definitely have an interesting profession, don't we? Thank you for noticing

what I have been saying for quite awhile on the way

our profession has created itself.

Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then complain?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 15:28:03 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

M

I never claimed that Mr Bigg or ACAOM was into any wrong doing.

That's the difference between us. I don't trust blindly.

I want to see PROOF from all including these so called national orgs.

And neither should you be speculating that FPD is done deal and that all

the PROOF has been received..

We go back to the source of the computation...which is ACAOM and let's SEE

the PROOF.

WHY do you want to except their word BLINDLY?

It is of course unreasonable to calculate every patient into the figures.

It is interesting to see that after 40 years NOW there is this

school-cottage-industry PUSH for FPD.

This profession should have been brought through the regionally accredited

2 year colleges and then moved up from there to 4 yr regionally accredited

colleges for entry level degree.

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/3/2010 3:18:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

I would give much more credibility to an organization that posts its

results anytime over an individual with a nice photo. I am unsure as to how

you

would expect someone to win this kind of argument in a court of law,

without actual proof. The same can be stated for your issue with Mr. Bigg. If

you have proof of wrong-doing then great, let's all see it. If not, then

we should not be speculating upon it. All I have been asking for, is to

show us the proof of wrongdoing so all of us can have an open and informed

discussion.

I was referring to individuals with a political agenda that seek to

prevent the FPD at all costs. From one that has completed an actual doctorate,

I

can agree with Don, it provided a much deeper educational experience.

Legislating one does not even come close.

May 3, 2010

R,

That is simply not true and I plan to continue doing more. I have been asked to

lend some help on the FPD issue and I think I will do so. The fact is that our

profession likes to complain while avoiding involvement, that is human nature

but does not help overcome our problems. Status quo is not a solution to our

problems and never has been. A better attitude, is what have we done today?

So what are your solutions that help us move forward?

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

Chinese Medicine

acudoc11

Mon, 3 May 2010 16:21:30 -0400

Re: Re: Another play

There you go again making accusations while ignoring the FACTS.

I have done more for the profession than I see you have.

So why don't you Do something constructive?

Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

In a message dated 5/3/2010 4:10:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

naturaldoc1 writes:

Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then

complain?

May 3, 2010

I pay my professional dues every year. I do try to financially support our

organizations unless they are doing something I am strongly against. And at

this time they get a C+ or B-.

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 3 May 2010 20:54:13 +0000

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> R,

>

> That is simply not true and I plan to continue doing more. I have been asked

to lend some help on the FPD issue and I think I will do so. The fact is that

our profession likes to complain while avoiding involvement, that is human

nature but does not help overcome our problems. Status quo is not a solution to

our problems and never has been. A better attitude, is what have we done today?

>

> So what are your solutions that help us move forward?

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> acudoc11

> Mon, 3 May 2010 16:21:30 -0400

> Re: Re: Another play

>

There you go again making accusations while ignoring the FACTS.

>

> I have done more for the profession than I see you have.

>

> So why don't you Do something constructive?

>

> Richard A Freiberg OMD DAc AP LAc

>

> In a message dated 5/3/2010 4:10:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

>

> naturaldoc1 writes:

>

> Now maybe a better question is what are you going to do other then

>

> complain?

>

May 3, 2010

Yes, I agree with you here. It appears that it's the seniors that have been

running the organization all along and folks just aren't happy with the

direction they have taken in the past and now.

Don Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 3 May 2010 19:29:33 +0000

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> Lonny,

>

> Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that a group of OM elders would do

any better then recent graduates at running the profession. There are so many

facets to this issue that we cannot limit our vision to simply OM

experience/education. There are many practitioners that are getting more then

one degree, in order to better work inside the profession (John Chen PharmD,

Tran Viet Tzung MD, Dan Bensky DO) to name but a few.

>

> I have noticed that a lack of basic knowledge in organizations, legislation,

even politics has created real problems for us (large master's program, poor

license regulations, scope of practice).

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Revolution

> Mon, 3 May 2010 19:03:54 +0000

> Re: Another play

>

There are many parameters and attributes to consider when choosing those who

should make up the heirarchy. I know many practitioners in both AOM and martial

art with many years of clinical or martial experience with low level skills.

>

> Lonny: Don, I think there are many people who can contribute a lot. I'm just

making the point that hierarchy isn't something that we choose, it's something

we recognize.

>

_______________

> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with

Hotmail.

>

http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount & ocid=PID28326::\

T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4

>

May 3, 2010

That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about

today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there

are those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine.

We should be teaching the complete medicine.

Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics. Just

enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I don't

think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for those who

want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the master's

might have been lacking.

Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do

they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from

the beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining

will change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to

mold what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and

guiding things as they become.

Sincerely,

Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

Chinese Traditional Medicine

naturaldoc1

Mon, 3 May 2010 17:31:56 +0000

RE: Re: Another play

Don,

I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of our

biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and allowed

for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no longer whole.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages and

use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If we

think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less education

than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of education

today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this country. Also, I

know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty years that, when

you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters at all because

they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not necessarily mean

skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the same medicine?

Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the " core " is and they

teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your own. Then go back to

school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't stop. There is a

lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or me what we must

learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the good of our

patient?

>

> Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous

writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom.

What should we base our hierarchy on?

>

> Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to do

is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I, for

one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I practice

my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I develop

the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories developed in

the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect humans just

like you and me.

>

> So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone

actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on?

>

> Again my two cents.

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

> Chinese Medicine

> Revolution

> Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000

> Re: Another play

>

> I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one has

no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

>

> The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the view

that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

>

> The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE

solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's

opinion up to the most qualified.

>

> This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point

of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But

the Truth never reflects compromise.

>

> The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of

value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

>

> From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then

within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with

preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of

pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship

including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are

motivated by the bottom line.

May 3, 2010

Don,

It is hard to have a conversation when people lack the education to be informed

on the issue. I also agree that schools are just following what those of us in

the profession have set them up to do, they teach to a certain level. We seem

to forget that we our a part of the problem.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 3 May 2010 16:22:35 -0500

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about

today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there

are those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine.

We should be teaching the complete medicine.

>

> Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics.

Just enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I

don't think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for

those who want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the

master's might have been lacking.

>

> Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do

they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from

the beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining

will change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to

mold what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and

guiding things as they become.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

>

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> naturaldoc1

> Mon, 3 May 2010 17:31:56 +0000

> RE: Re: Another play

Don,

>

> I would say that many did not get the same education and therein lies one of

our biggest issues. We have encouraged a separation of our profession and

allowed for small focal programs that teach a modality to exist. We are no

longer whole.

>

> Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

>

> > Chinese Traditional Medicine

> > don83407

> > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:18:22 -0500

> > RE: Re: Another play

> >

> > That's right! But who is best equiped? Some want to live in the dark ages

and use age or seniority. Based on what? Because you yourself are a senior? If

we think for a moment we realize that many of our " seniors " had far less

education than the current Masters. And we are currently decrying the lack of

education today, when it was far less in the not so distant past in this

country. Also, I know many martial arts " masters " that have trained 20 or thirty

years that, when you cross hands with them, you find they are not really masters

at all because they are on the ground at your feet. Age or seniority does not

necessarily mean skill. By the way. What is the core? Did we not all study the

same medicine? Some more or less? The schools and the state decide what the

" core " is and they teach it. If you want more, do what I did and learn on your

own. Then go back to school and learn even more. And when you graduate, don't

stop. There is a lifetime of learning in our medicine and who is to tell you or

me what we must learn? Or, just as importantly, what we must not learn for the

good of our patient?

> >

> > Yes, there is a hierarchy. My opinion is different than that of the previous

writer. If seniority does not necessarily mean skill or knowledge or wisdom.

What should we base our hierarchy on?

> >

> > Why go to school and attain higher education and skill when all you have to

do is outlive or become more senior than the current batch of practitioners? I,

for one, am not living 200 or 2000 years ago. I live now, and in the now. I

practice my medicine now. I use the past as a guideline, but not a cook book. I

develop the protocols and methodologies based on the knowledge and theories

developed in the past. But who developed these theories? Men, people, imperfect

humans just like you and me.

> >

> > So the question is still out there. Who are the judges? And when someone

actually attempts to answer the question, what are you basing your answer on?

> >

> > Again my two cents.

> >

> > Don J. Snow, DAOM, MPH, L.Ac.

> >

> > Chinese Medicine

> > Revolution

> > Sat, 1 May 2010 12:38:06 +0000

> > Re: Another play

> >

> > I wouldn't refer to these discussions as a " game, " unless, of course, one

has no sincere interest in changing culture and merely likes to yap.

> >

> > The idea of " consensus " is a egalitarian, pluralistic notion based on the

view that all perspectives are equal and that everyone should have input into a

process. It's based in the failure to recognize hierarchy. True, the American

Indians did purportedly sit in a circle and everyone had the chance to speak.

But their was hierarchy ad the elders and Chief made the decision. The modern

notion of consensus seems to have roots in the Quaker tradition of sitting in a

circle where everyone can speak freely and no one is judged.

> >

> > The problem of course is when there is a serious task at hand that has to be

solved. Rather than seek the BEST solution, egalitarians look for the COMPROMISE

solution that takes into account all input from the least qualified person's

opinion up to the most qualified.

> >

> > This solution never reflects the best response based on Truth but rather a

compromise based on " honoring " the feelings of " sensitive " people. Every point

of view is considered equal because, after all, they are all points of view. But

the Truth never reflects compromise.

> >

> > The only way to transcend this nightmare is to re-institute a recognition of

hierarchy based on the assessment of who is best equipped to make decisions

regarding the future of the profession? We'd also have to have a hierarchy of

value systems so we could assess the relative development and merit of

individual's motivations and value systems.

> >

> > From my perspective the top of the hierarchy in terms of experience would be

senior practitioners with scholars ranking second and policy makers third. Then

within each group the top of the hierarchy would be those concerned with

preserving the core holistic, heart and soul of the profession in terms of

pulse, hara, and tongue diagnosis (for example) and the capacity for scholarship

including the language. After that would come those whose primary interests are

motivated by the bottom line.

> >

May 3, 2010

Touchet'

don

Chinese Traditional Medicine

naturaldoc1

Mon, 3 May 2010 21:37:45 +0000

RE: Re: Another play

Don,

It is hard to have a conversation when people lack the education to be informed

on the issue. I also agree that schools are just following what those of us in

the profession have set them up to do, they teach to a certain level. We seem to

forget that we our a part of the problem.

Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc

> Chinese Traditional Medicine

> don83407

> Mon, 3 May 2010 16:22:35 -0500

> RE: Re: Another play

>

> That is so true Michael. And look at all these folks who are unhappy about

today's education. Shoot, 15 years ago they barely got two years. Then there are

those that only take acupuncture. That's only a modality, not the medicine. We

should be teaching the complete medicine.

>

> Another thing people forget. The school's mandate is to teach the basics. Just

enough to pass the exams. Their mandate isn't to teach " everything. " I don't

think any school could do that. However, we do have the doctorate for those who

want more formal schooling with more depth in those areas where the master's

might have been lacking.

>

> Personally, I think the schools are doing what they were designed to do. Do

they have issues? Of course, we all do. Should it have been a doctorate from the

beginning? Absolutely!! But it didn't happen and no amount of complaining will

change the past. However, the future is something else. We may be able to mold

what happens in the future by being concious of the now, and changing and