Patterns & WM lab tests

[Guest guest]

 

 

>

> Two things come to my mind in light of this.

 

More than two.

>

> 1. The importance of learning chinese language is then all about

> gaining access to more information. It is not about gaining a deeper

> understanding of chinese culture and philosophy in order to enhance

> one's understanding of the medicine.

 

I think of a continuum (and here I have the

literal definition of continuum in mind,

" A continuous extent, succession, or whole,

no part of which can be distinguished

from neighboring parts except by arbitrary division " )

that begins with yin1 and yang2 and qi4

(i.e. the most basic order or principle -li3 -

of existence) and proceeds through successive

levels of aggregation and refinement. Along

this continuum we find: stimuli, sensations,

data, information, knowledge, understanding,

and wisdom. Any individual can choose and

ultimately does determine where he or she

will be positioned along this continuum

at any given moment on any given subject.

Gaining information is not an end in and

of itself. One gains information in order to

do something.

 

We are generally free to choose how we interrelate

with others, and this goes for doctors and

patients of any given school of medicine.

That's why it's important that we engage

in these expositions of our various insights.

How else can we know what each of us really

thinks and feels? And lacking such knowledge

our various associations cannot be well informed.

In the end, I don't think of it as a matter

of right and wrong, rather just varieties

of experience, personal preferrences and

predilections.

>

> 2. that philosophy can lead one down erroneous paths if one gives

it

> primacy over clinical consensus.

 

Well, anything can lead anywhere. By this

point in the discussion there are so many

loaded...or unloaded words and phrases that

it's become challenging to know who is saying

what. Primacy? Certainly the final arbiter

of medical knowledge and skill is clinical

results. But according to the long established

values of Chinese medicine, the superior doctor

treats his patients before they get sick. Certainly

you can't measure such results in the clinic, as

healthy people seldom visit the clinic.

 

I wonder, do people think that this whole

treat your patients before they get sick

schtick is just nonsense too?

 

I have never thought or suggested that

we evaluate medical skills on the basis of

their fidelity to philosophical concepts.

The priimary importance of understanding both

language and philosophy, all arguments

to the contrary notwithstanding, is that

without such understanding, the medical

terms remained un-defined or perhaps under-

defined. And doctors, technicians, airline

pilots, actors, or anybody who uses words

that they don't understand is asking for trouble.

 

Others can tell. And it does not instill

confidence. It simply breeds confusion.

 

for example, if one makes inferences

> about psychological archetypes from five phase descriptions. any

use

> of philosophy must be grounded in clinic, otherwise it is only so

much

> blather that can be (and has been) used to justify any whim anyone

has.

 

There is no end to the nonsense that generates

in the absence of adequate education as individuals

struggle valliantly to invent a context for the

thoughts they think and the actions they take.

But this is a recognition of a fact of life

and not a refutation of the importance of

the philosophical underpinnings of Chinese

medical terms, concepts, theories and methodologies.

 

Certainly the study of philosophy for medical

students must be grounded in the clinic. And

the study of clinical medicine in traditional

Chinese clinics must be grounded in philosophy.

And not just any philosophy but the ancient

native mode of thinking that we find in a distinct

body of medical literature that has been employed

for century after century by those who have

successfully studied, practiced, and transmitted

the various traditions of medicine in China

from generation to generation.

 

I continue to ask the following question of those who

suggest that we ought to employ substantially

different methods to do the same and who base

such reasoning upon an inistence about the

primacy of empirical evidence:

 

Where is the empirical evidence that suggests

to you that a discipline and profession of

Chinese medicine can be successfully established

on foundations that do not include the study

of the language and philosophy of the subject?

 

I dare say that no one responds because there

plainly is no such evidence to hand. How

could there be? The only adaptations of

Chinese medicine that have endurred for

centuries have included and embraced Chinese

language and philosophical studies. Yes

you can find lots of instances of technical

education in the subject where clinicians

are trained to a certain level more or

less in absence of any specific reference

to Chinese language and/or philosophical

sources. But in such places, such training

does not represent the terminal degree

of study. I don't believe it's possible

to account for the lack of such aspects

of American education in Chinese medicine

by simply stating that they're unnecessary,

when in China 2,000 years of medical literature

document a long and enduring pattern of successful

transmission of the subject that clearly and

unequivocally includes these critical components.

 

But as long as the population that constitutes

the profession in the States remains ignorant of these

documents, anyone can get away with saying

anything. Widespread knowledge of the

medical literature can act as a buffer

to restrain the proliferation of unsubstantiated

information. What we are talking about are

the developing standards, and I believe

we should approach this discussion with

eyes wide open.

 

What is being said here in opposition to

the suggestion that we raise educational

standards to include knowledge of the

nomenclature of our subject, along with

certain layers of cultural substrata that

constitute the roots from which medicine

grew in China, is that our own standards

should replace those of the subject itself.

 

This, I reckon, based upon the supposition,

hope, or is it just arrogance or foolishness

that we know best.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In order to practice the art and science of medicine, one has to care about people, putting aside one's little desires (to sit on the beach all day) and be involved with other's problems. One has to devote much time to study, and direct one's thoughts and one's heart to the suffering of others. I don't know how anyone can disagree that this is a 'spiritual' motivation, and that it must be cultivated (spiritual practice, including meditation, prayer and right action). It is not merely professional in the sense of being an accountant or banker, although these professions can be 'spiritual' as well, with the right motivation and care.>>>>>>>If you define this way then any strong commitment and intellectual honesty is spiritual

alon

[Guest guest]

Chinese medicine is as much a way of life as a profession. The more one lives it, the better one practices. Taking care of others begins with taking care of oneself. Patients are inspired by the example we give, whether we like it or not. We are not faceless technicians, giving prescriptions and needles with masks on. Patients sense our own qi, our own struggles, strengths and resolve. They look to us in terms of how WE cultivate our health, with diet, exercise, daily life, and study. >>>Well this is were I would like to see evidence. I know that is how many feel, and i have in the past.

Alon

[Guest guest]

The importance of learning chinese language is then all aboutgaining access to more information. It is not about gaining a deeperunderstanding of chinese culture and philosophy in order to enhanceone's understanding of the medicine.>>>That i have no argument with. But its not what was said in the past.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

1. I did not say that you don't need to know anything about Chinese

language to do good Chinese medicine. You seem to've mixed two

separate issues here. I have said many times that reading the Chinese

medical literature in Chinese is extremely important. However, I

recommend the reading of the Chinese medical literature in Chinese for

the following two main reasons: 1) as a way to get clear about the

process of doing clinical Chinese medicine, and 2) as a way of gaining

increased access to factual information about the clinical practice of

Chinese medicine. I have discussed both of these two reasons at length

in print in other places over the last half dozen years or more.

 

2. You have not given an example of a particular case in which

understanding Kung-zi, Lao-zi, Meng-zi, Zhuang-zi, Martin Buber, or

William James enables one to do a better, more accurate pattern

discrimination. You completely ignored the specificity of my response

vis a vis philosophy and the clinical practice of Chinese medicine as

it applies to pattern discrimination. You did not address the issue of

what needs to be known about yin and yang to pattern discriminate and

then treat a patient who exhibits a liver blood-kidney yin vacuity or

a spleen-kidney yang vacuity.

 

We began this discussion by your asking a totally open-ended question

about how much philosophy is necessary to do good Chinese medicine.

To me, this is a bad question in that it is way too grandiose. You

seem to like these kinds of huge, open-ended questions. At my age and

stage in life, I don't. I find them impractical. Therefore, my

question in return was, " How much metaphysics or epistemology are

necessary to distinguish patterns in real-life patients and prescribe

based on those patterns? " I stand by my assertion that you need to

know precious little about yin or yang as philosophical concepts in

order to be able distinguish and, therefore, treat a yin or yang

vacuity.

 

3. I definitely do not equate an immediate tactile sensation with

intuition. Without getting into a whole semantic debate about whether

or not there is intuition, for me, intuition is a knowledge that is

not based on conscious sensory information or on normal ratiocination.

It is knowledge that apears to be unfounded in the conscious

processing of data but rather is experienced as appearing in

consciousness fully formed " as if out of nowhere. " As an example of

intuition, I described the card tests I was given as a boy, and I

would suggest that the word " conscious " is extremely important when it

comes to an everyday definition of intuition.

 

4. According to my memory (and it's been several years), Sun Si-miao

recommends the study of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism as being

necessary to the study of Chinese medicine in his Preface to the Qian

Jin Yao Fang. However, what I also remember is that he does not

specify exactly why such a study is important. What I am asking is for

a concrete statement or series of statements based on clinical

experience (ti hui) of the relevance of a metaphysical or

epistemological understanding of the concept of qi, yin, or yang as it

applies to pattern discrimination in real life practice.

 

I have to confess, I read your book on qi from cover to cover. It is

an extremely well written and well designed book. As a bibliophile, it

is very nicely done, and it contained a lot of interesting anecdotal

information on the Chinese use of the word qi in various situations

and disciplines. However, I was disappointed in that it did not in the

slightest way alter or deepen my understanding or practice of Chinese

medicine as a clinician.

 

I will be off-list for the weekend teaching the clinical practice of

CM in Florida. So I probably will not be responding again till Tuesday

AM at the earliest (unless I get som free time this afternoon).

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> > clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> > none at all.

>

> Thanks very much for taking the time to

> respond to this point. Now I can understand

> why I seem guo1 or beyond the limit to you.

> We do seem to stand on different sides of

> some sort of limit. And please let Honora

> know that I appreciate her input also.

>

> I am well aware that Sun Si-miao thought

> > that one had to study Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism in order

> to

> > be a good Chinese doctor, and I myself taught that for years (back

> > when I was personally interested in religion and philosophy).

> However,

> > looking at this issue again from a fresh perspective (and some

> years

> > distant from any personal interest in religion or philosophy), I'm

> not

> > at all sure a philosophical understanding of these terms is

> necessary

> > (emphasis on the word necessary) in order to be a better than

> average

> > practitioner.

> >

> > In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line,

>

> Sorry that I can't observe your request that your

> remarks be excused from scrutiny. I will

> try to keep it down. But in response to the statement

> made above, I would very much like to understand the

> process whereby your learning over the past several

> years allowed you to gain the perspective to be

> able to realize that Sun Si Miao was wrong.

>

> As it's a matter of record that I still believe

> him to be right, I won't go further with the

> argument of why this is so. But certainly I

> can be wrong; Sun can be wrong. Heck, even

> you can be wrong.

>

> But other than stating that you've seen the

> light on this matter, I don't grasp how this

> came about. If I, for example, wanted to get

> my mind right and see things correctly, what

> should I do?

>

>

> > It is based on an immediate tactile experience.

>

> Hmmm...I would have defined intuition as an

> immediate tactile experience. It is simply

> feeling things that have a relatively small

> wave length, high frequency, and tend to

> escape notice...except when we intuit them.

> And here we fall again into the snake pit

> of words.

>

> I do appreciate that you've put the discussion

> into such clear cut terms. I think we can

> now form a debating club focusing on this

> one topic. The sides, as currently drawn,

> consist of the following members:

>

> Pro (One does need to understand Chinese

> language and philosophy to a certain extent

> to be able to understand and employ the

> terms and theories of Chinese medicine.):

>

> Me, Sun Si Miao, virtually every other

> writer on the subject for over 2,000 years

> prior to the contemporary age.

>

> Con (Nonsense. You don't need to know

> anything about Chinese language or

> philosophy to understand and employ

> Chinese medicine.):

>

> You, and Alon.

>

> I suggest we conduct a poll of

> the members of the list. We can fill out

> the teams and pursue the matter further.

>

> And Bob, feel free to round up testimony

> of experts who support your views. I would

> be very interested to learn how many accomplished

> doctors and scholars share the view that

> you have expressed.

>

> And please do make time to explain how I

> might come to see things correctly, which would

> put an end to all this nonsense.

>

> In response to you request for a case

> history, all I can say is that my study

> of the language and the thinking, both

> strategic principles and modes of thinking

> about how to employ them, inform my clinical

> actions in virtually every aspect. Sometimes

> my hands are guided by carefully delineated

> thoughts based on my undertanding of bian4 zheng4.

> Sometimes I act according to feelings, intuitions

> if you will. And I recognize that all of this

> takes place under the overall guidance of many

> years of study and cultivation of qi4 according

> to the principles of tai4 ji2 or, in other words

> yin1 yang2. I don't think this makes me unique,

> in fact it's a method of study and practice that

> I received from several teachers both in the

> States and in China. And as I read the literature

> on the subject, these matters are the long

> established roots of the subject which sustain

> it and nourish those who study and practice

> it.

>

> I'm not making this up. It's what's written in

> old books. I am interpreting it. And that's why

> I encourage people to learn the language and

> read the books. So they can see for themselves.

>

> Your approach discourages access to the knowledge

> base, as we see in Alon's swift extension of

> your argument to support his view that one need

> not know anything Chinese at all to study Chinese

> medicine. And you are replacing thousands of

> years of medical authority with your own.

>

> Ni3 tai4 guo4 fen1.

>

> Ken

>

> PS. Meanwhile, I highly urge people who

> read along for the laughs to hang on to

> their copies of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Kongzi,

> and all the other Zi's. Just in case...

[Guest guest]

Celia,

 

I'm not scheduled to teach my class live any time in the forseeable

future. However, the course is available as a Distance Learning

Program from Blue Poppy Institute.

 

Bob

 

, " C. Anderson " <ilicec> wrote:

> Hi Bob-

>

> Are you going to be teaching pulse diagnosis any

> time soon?

>

> Thanks.

>

> Celia

>

> --- pemachophel2001 <pemachophel2001>

> a écrit : >

> > In my 20 plus years experience, one of the keys

> > to Chinese pulse

> > examination is getting clear which adjectives

> > (among all those which

> > have been traditionally associated with a

> > certain pulse image) are

> > actually the bottom-line, dependable ones.

>

>

> _________

> -- Une adresse @.fr gratuite et en français !

> Mail : http://fr.mail.

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

We all value the things in life we do because of our experiences and

predilections. In having this kind of discussion, we each present

our view point in a rational manner, marshalling our arguments as

cogently as possible. However, recently, I read something about

consistency and how important it is to human beings. Maybe it was a

NEwsweek article. The gist was that we tend to come up with rational

explanations of what do because we do them, not the other way around.

Similarly, many marketers, sales, and communications gurus say that

all decisions are emotional decisions. The reasons we give are just

sops or props which help make us feel at ease about these decisions

and behaviors.

 

What I'm getting at here is that, eventually, all such discussions

come down to personal preferences, and that is why it is so important

to understand where the other person is coming from. You believe

strongly that philosophy and spirituality are important parts of the

practice of Chinese medicine. You also are a extremely observant

orthodox Jew. So, in general, in your life, you tend to privilege such

things. In my personal experience of Ken, I think something similar is

also operative. Ken likes philosophy. That's obvious from how much of

it he has read, how much of it he has retains, and how much he

relishes philosophical discussions. Further, he also likes the

esoteric and spiritual aspects of Chinese culture, e.g. tai chi and

Daoist sexual practices. Similarly, the late Father Larre was a Jesuit

priest. So of course he privileged a spiritual interpretation of CM.

Bob Duggan and Diane Connelly of TAI Sophia are an ex-priest and

ex-nun respectively. So it's only natural that they've turned their

school into more of a religion than a school of clinical medicine.

 

I, on the other hand, am not so inclined. I was, as you well know.

However, at this point in my life, I very much appreciate the Sufi

saying (it could also be Zen): " Better not to start. Once started,

better to finish. " For me, I'm finished with all that. The trees are

once again trees and the mountains are once again mountains.

 

Since our experience in this realm is not the same, obviously our

opinions about any of this are also not going to be the same. When I

joined this group, I was interested in discussing the practical

aspects of Chinese herbal medicine. However, it seems that a number of

the most active responders are interested in a realm which no longer

has any interest for me. Ken and I, you and I, and probably Sonya and

I are always (or at least at this stage of our personal lives) going

to disagree on issues that have to do with philosophy and spirituality

and CM, and no amount of verbal discussion is going to change any of

our points of view. We all are where we are.

 

If you would like to answer my specific question of how much

philosophy is necessary to discriminate liver blood-kidney yin vacuity

correctly in clinical practice, I would be happy to consider your

answer. However, until or unless you do, I do not believe we are

engaged in fruitful discussion.

 

Bob

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

>

> On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 09:37 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

>

> > I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> > clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and maybe

> > none at all.

> > >>>Totally agreed. Also in terms of understanding CM none is

needed

> > Alon

>

> I have to disagree with both Bob and Alon. I think philosophy is

the

> essential underpinning to the practice of Chinese medicine. And,

that

> spirituality (if not religion) is even more essential.

>

> In order to practice the art and science of medicine, one has to

care

> about people, putting aside one's little desires (to sit on the

beach

> all day) and be involved with other's problems. One has to devote

much

> time to study, and direct one's thoughts and one's heart to the

> suffering of others. I don't know how anyone can disagree that this

is

> a 'spiritual' motivation, and that it must be cultivated (spiritual

> practice, including meditation, prayer and right action). It is

not

> merely professional in the sense of being an accountant or banker,

> although these professions can be 'spiritual' as well, with the

right

> motivation and care.

>

> While one can practice CM without much philosophical understanding,

in

> my opinion it will become mechanical after awhile. Otherwise, where

> will the inspiration come from? Where will one draw one's strength

> from? While one can draw much satisfaction and success from

clinical

> acumen, it doesn't develop the mind of the practitioner. Pattern

> diagnosis is simply the result of distillation of Chinese medical

> philosophy, whose source is in the classical texts.

>

> Chinese medicine is as much a way of life as a profession. The more

one

> lives it, the better one practices. Taking care of others begins

with

> taking care of oneself. Patients are inspired by the example we

give,

> whether we like it or not. We are not faceless technicians, giving

> prescriptions and needles with masks on. Patients sense our own qi,

our

> own struggles, strengths and resolve. They look to us in terms of

how

> WE cultivate our health, with diet, exercise, daily life, and study.

>

> In Jewish tradition, medicine is considered by Maimonides to be the

> pursuit of wisdom, and that it should be the constant companion of

> laypeople and physicians alike. He says that it teaches us how to

live

> with order, discipline and balance, which are prerequisites to the

> acquiring of wisdom in life.

>

> Finally, I am going to quote Zhang Xi-chun, the early 20th century

> physician as translated by Heiner Fruehauf. I have been fortunate

to

> acquire a copy of this text.

>

> " We can only teach our fellow human beings about how to protect

their

> bodies if we are first capable of protecting our own. The base

science

> for the protection of our own body and health is philosophy, i.e.

the

> age-old knowledge of the movement patterns of the universe which are

at

> the root of our body's transformative processes. The base science

for

> the safeguarding of other people's health is medicine, again a

process

> wherein the physician first thoroughly understands the workings of

> his/her own body transformations, and then naturally becomes a

teacher

> who is capable of instructing others how to regulate their body's qi

> metabolism.

>

> And:

> " Every physician can and should get in touch with the deepest layer

of

> this philosophical wisdom (which lays beyond the realm of the

> intellect). If this is achieved, the moment of diagnostic insight

is

> like drinking water from a mountain lake: with absolute clarity, one

can

> see the source of the disease revealed. "

>

> I like to think that this last quote sheds some interesting light on

> what we have been discussing vis-a-vis intuition and diagnosis.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sonya,

 

Doctors (who happen to be human beings). Oh Go-d, now we are going to

have to define the term " doctor. " Please, no.

 

Now I have a question for you. Actually several questions:

 

How old are you?

How long have you been in practice?

What did you study before coming to Chinese medicine?

How interested are you personally in philosophy and religion?

Are you a practitioner of any purposive spiritual path?

 

I ask these questions because, as I've said to Z'ev in a previous

post, I don't think we can separate who people are from their answers.

It helps to know a person's biases, " where they're coming from. "

 

Z'ev and some of the older hands know that I was one of the original

voices of spirituality in this field. Was I ever rah-rah Sun Si-maio.

You can check out the Prefaces to any number of books I wrote

published 10 or more years ago. Now I've come to a different

perspective. Some readers might be interested to know that I have been

writing (of and on) the story of my 20 years training as a Tibetan

Buddhist and Chinese doctor. It's the only way I know to convey why I

have come to the perspective I have.

 

Bob

 

, " Sonya Pritzker " <spritzker15@h...>

wrote:

> Ken,

>

> I would like to add my name to Sun's team.

>

> Sonya

>

> P.S. Bob- Do you think that we are technicians or doctors? - a

friend who

> read your post.

>

>

>

>

> > " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...>

> >

> >

> > Re: Patterns & WM lab tests

> >Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:55:06 -0000

> >

> >Bob,

> >

> > I (we) have come to the conclusion that, in terms of

> > > clinical practice, very little philosophy is necessary, and

maybe

> > > none at all.

> >

> >Thanks very much for taking the time to

> >respond to this point. Now I can understand

> >why I seem guo1 or beyond the limit to you.

> >We do seem to stand on different sides of

> >some sort of limit. And please let Honora

> >know that I appreciate her input also.

> >

> > I am well aware that Sun Si-miao thought

> > > that one had to study Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism in

order

> >to

> > > be a good Chinese doctor, and I myself taught that for years

(back

> > > when I was personally interested in religion and philosophy).

> >However,

> > > looking at this issue again from a fresh perspective (and some

> >years

> > > distant from any personal interest in religion or philosophy),

I'm

> >not

> > > at all sure a philosophical understanding of these terms is

> >necessary

> > > (emphasis on the word necessary) in order to be a better than

> >average

> > > practitioner.

> > >

> > > In addition, instead of writing erudite rebuttals line for line,

> >

> >Sorry that I can't observe your request that your

> >remarks be excused from scrutiny. I will

> >try to keep it down. But in response to the statement

> >made above, I would very much like to understand the

> >process whereby your learning over the past several

> >years allowed you to gain the perspective to be

> >able to realize that Sun Si Miao was wrong.

> >

> >As it's a matter of record that I still believe

> >him to be right, I won't go further with the

> >argument of why this is so. But certainly I

> >can be wrong; Sun can be wrong. Heck, even

> >you can be wrong.

> >

> >But other than stating that you've seen the

> >light on this matter, I don't grasp how this

> >came about. If I, for example, wanted to get

> >my mind right and see things correctly, what

> >should I do?

> >

> >

> > > It is based on an immediate tactile experience.

> >

> >Hmmm...I would have defined intuition as an

> >immediate tactile experience. It is simply

> >feeling things that have a relatively small

> >wave length, high frequency, and tend to

> >escape notice...except when we intuit them.

> >And here we fall again into the snake pit

> >of words.

> >

> >I do appreciate that you've put the discussion

> >into such clear cut terms. I think we can

> >now form a debating club focusing on this

> >one topic. The sides, as currently drawn,

> >consist of the following members:

> >

> >Pro (One does need to understand Chinese

> >language and philosophy to a certain extent

> >to be able to understand and employ the

> >terms and theories of Chinese medicine.):

> >

> >Me, Sun Si Miao, virtually every other

> >writer on the subject for over 2,000 years

> >prior to the contemporary age.

> >

> >Con (Nonsense. You don't need to know

> >anything about Chinese language or

> >philosophy to understand and employ

> >Chinese medicine.):

> >

> >You, and Alon.

> >

> > I suggest we conduct a poll of

> >the members of the list. We can fill out

> >the teams and pursue the matter further.

> >

> >And Bob, feel free to round up testimony

> >of experts who support your views. I would

> >be very interested to learn how many accomplished

> >doctors and scholars share the view that

> >you have expressed.

> >

> >And please do make time to explain how I

> >might come to see things correctly, which would

> >put an end to all this nonsense.

> >

> >In response to you request for a case

> >history, all I can say is that my study

> >of the language and the thinking, both

> >strategic principles and modes of thinking

> >about how to employ them, inform my clinical

> >actions in virtually every aspect. Sometimes

> >my hands are guided by carefully delineated

> >thoughts based on my undertanding of bian4 zheng4.

> >Sometimes I act according to feelings, intuitions

> >if you will. And I recognize that all of this

> >takes place under the overall guidance of many

> >years of study and cultivation of qi4 according

> >to the principles of tai4 ji2 or, in other words

> >yin1 yang2. I don't think this makes me unique,

> >in fact it's a method of study and practice that

> >I received from several teachers both in the

> >States and in China. And as I read the literature

> >on the subject, these matters are the long

> >established roots of the subject which sustain

> >it and nourish those who study and practice

> >it.

> >

> >I'm not making this up. It's what's written in

> >old books. I am interpreting it. And that's why

> >I encourage people to learn the language and

> >read the books. So they can see for themselves.

> >

> >Your approach discourages access to the knowledge

> >base, as we see in Alon's swift extension of

> >your argument to support his view that one need

> >not know anything Chinese at all to study Chinese

> >medicine. And you are replacing thousands of

> >years of medical authority with your own.

> >

> >Ni3 tai4 guo4 fen1.

> >

> >Ken

> >

> >PS. Meanwhile, I highly urge people who

> >read along for the laughs to hang on to

> >their copies of Laozi, Zhuangzi, Kongzi,

> >and all the other Zi's. Just in case...

> >

>

>

>

_______________

> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Z'ev and all,

 

Just for the record, I never said that philosophy was not a useful

endeavor vis a vis CM. What I was questioning was how much

philosophical sophistication one needs in real-life practice in the

understanding of terms such as qi, yin, and yang in order to pattern

discriminate and treat based on that discrimination. It seems we keep

getting pulled into larger philosophical discussions than are

practically useful.

 

Bob

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> So, while I agree that philosophy alone can lead to speculations

that

> are not clinically valuable, as in your example, it is implied that

> separating philosophy from clinical practice is another dualism on

the

> order of theory vs. clinical practice. There is no need for

separation.

>

>

> On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 11:36 AM, 1 wrote:

>

> > 2.  that philosophy can lead one down erroneous paths if one gives

it

> > primacy over clinical consensus.  for example, if one makes

inferences

> > about psychological archetypes from five phase descriptions.  any

use

> > of philosophy must be grounded in clinic, otherwise it is only so

much

> > blather that can be (and has been)  used to justify any whim

anyone has.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'll look forward to seeing that in print. I agree that it is important

to know 'where a person is coming from'.

 

 

On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 08:56 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> Z'ev and some of the older hands know that I was one of the original

> voices of spirituality in this field. Was I ever rah-rah Sun Si-maio.

> You can check out the Prefaces to any number of books I wrote

> published 10 or more years ago. Now I've come to a different

> perspective. Some readers might be interested to know that I have been

> writing (of and on) the story of my 20 years training as a Tibetan

> Buddhist and Chinese doctor. It's the only way I know to convey why I

> have come to the perspective I have.

[Guest guest]

You have not given an example of a particular case in which understanding

>>>>I am still waiting for an Example of why one needs to learn a concept in Chinese and can not do it in another language

Alon

[Guest guest]

However, I was disappointed in that it did not in the slightest way alter or deepen my understanding or practice of Chinese medicine as a clinician. >>>>My point exactly

Alon

[Guest guest]

What I'm getting at here is that, eventually, all such discussions come down to personal preferences, and that is why it is so important to understand where the other person is coming from.

>>>Except that people are wanting to make this part of mandatory education

Alon

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

> 1. I did not say that you don't need to know anything about Chinese

> language to do good Chinese medicine. You seem to've mixed two

> separate issues here.

 

Actually it was Alon who mixed the two together

in a post responding to yours. I was simply

pointing out to you that for you take the

position you do lends some credence to the

whole theme that we don't need to know Chinese...

i.e. Chinese language, Chinese thought, Chinese

context, etc. in order to study and use Chinese

medicine.

 

Speaking to your point about the relationship

between one's personal experience and views

and one's take on such positions as the ones

in question here, I assume that your position

is influenced somewhat by your decidedly

anti-Chinese feelings and opinions stemming

from issues realted to Tibet, Chinese treatment

of Tibetans, etc. Is that an accurate assumption

on my part?

 

I have said many times that reading the Chinese

> medical literature in Chinese is extremely important.

 

And Alon deduced, not altogether unreasonably

from your earlier post on this that therefore

there is no reason to know Chinese. In addition to

the accuracy of words, we should pay attention

to their consequences.

 

However, I

> recommend the reading of the Chinese medical literature in Chinese

for

> the following two main reasons: 1) as a way to get clear about the

> process of doing clinical Chinese medicine,

 

Well, how on earth does this clarification

take place without understanding what you're

reading? This begs the basic question of

whether or not one has to know the allusions

in order to understand the text. You seem

to be saying no, but the bulk of scholarship

I've encountered on this point both among

Chinese and non-Chinese scholars familiar with

Chinese literature in general and Chinese

medical literature in particular confirms

my own perception that one definitely does

need to know the allusions in order to grasp

the meaning from the text. This includes

a wide range of allusions in no way limited

to philosophy. One needs to know a great

deal to successfully read Chinese medical

literature and to understand the nature

and specific meanings of the nomenclature.

 

So what does " reading of the Chinese

medical literature " mean if one is not

reading it the way it was intended to

be read?

 

and 2) as a way of gaining

> increased access to factual information about the clinical practice

of

> Chinese medicine. I have discussed both of these two reasons at

length

> in print in other places over the last half dozen years or more.

>

> 2. You have not given an example of a particular case in which

> understanding Kung-zi, Lao-zi, Meng-zi, Zhuang-zi, Martin Buber, or

> William James enables one to do a better, more accurate pattern

> discrimination.

 

What is pattern discrimination? It is an

application of yin1 yang2 theory. What is

yin1 yang2 theory?

 

Well, perhaps we don't agree about that. But

do we agree that one needs to understand yin1 yang2

theory in order to understand pattern discimination

or apply it any case whatsoever?

 

Or is your position that one need not know

what yin1 yang2 means in order to know and

use the various theories for differentiating

patterns?

 

You completely ignored the specificity of my response

> vis a vis philosophy and the clinical practice of Chinese medicine

as

> it applies to pattern discrimination.

 

No I didn't. I stated rather clearly that all

aspects of my clinical experience are informed

by my study and cultivation of qi4, and this

includes as described in writing elsewhere,

my investigations of its philosophical roots.

 

This applies to feeling pulses, looking at

patients, and gaining any and all data in

the course of diagnosis. If I differentiate

according to one of the various methods of

pattern differentiation, I do so as a result

of gathering diagnostic data and then sorting

it into organic categories. It is this sorting

of information that gives rise to my selection

of the appropriate tools for pattern differentiation.

 

In dealing with sports injuries, and particularly

working with athletes and others whose body is

their instrument to ward off even the possibility

of injury, I tend to keep the differentiation

as close to the level of yin1 yang2 as possible.

I like to work at a basic level. It feels

comfortable to me and to the bulk of the

people I've worked with over the years. So it's

become more or less standard in my experience.

 

I find that if I can correctly assess and understand

the situation in terms of yin1 and yang2 that

an effective treatment principle emerges...at least

most of the time. I'd say that I can be useful

to upwards of 75% of the people that I work with

using this method, both to alleviate the effects

of past injuries, recent or old, and to improve

the general posture, carriage, care and use of

the body so that it is not so likely to become

injured in the future.

 

Now that's just the way I work, and it is all

based on and inter-related with certain philosophical

notions, which are probably quite obvious

from the above description.

 

On the question of how this applies to the

selection and formulation of herbs, well it

gets quite complex of course. But the principle

remains the same from my point of view.

 

You did not address the issue of

> what needs to be known about yin and yang to pattern discriminate

 

You need to know what yin1 and yang2 are

what they mean and how they mean it and

how they interact as concepts in order

to get a firm grasp on what is being

differentiated by means of pattern

discrimination.

 

and

> then treat a patient who exhibits a liver blood-kidney yin vacuity

or

> a spleen-kidney yang vacuity.

 

Maybe you can address the question from

your point of view and explain how one

does not need to know what yin1 and yang2

are in order to proceed according to you

hypothetical situation.

>

> We began this discussion by your asking a totally open-ended

question

> about how much philosophy is necessary to do good Chinese medicine.

 

Incorrect. We began this discussion when I said

that one needs to have a foundation of understanding

of Chinese language and Chinese thought in order

to study the nomenclature of Chinese medicine...or

words to that effect, and you told me I was over the

limit.

 

> To me, this is a bad question in that it is way too grandiose.

 

Yeah, well, I didn't ask it the way you've

characterized it. I asked you to simply explain

where you draw the limit. You have done that

now by saying that you probably don't need

to know anything at all about Chinese philosophy

to be a good clinician. Although I see in a

later post that you seem to be backing away

from that statement.

 

You

> seem to like these kinds of huge, open-ended questions.

 

Nope. What's going on here is that you seem

to like to characterize things I say in a

certain way in order to either respond or

not.

 

At my age and

> stage in life, I don't. I find them impractical. Therefore, my

> question in return was, " How much metaphysics or epistemology are

> necessary to distinguish patterns in real-life patients and

prescribe

> based on those patterns? " I stand by my assertion that you need to

> know precious little about yin or yang as philosophical concepts in

> order to be able distinguish and, therefore, treat a yin or yang

> vacuity.

 

Understood. I suppose I can imagine an argument

that uses the metaphor of driving a car. You

sure don't need to know even what internal

combustion is in order to drive a car.

But it seems to me that we're not talking

about drivers here, but mechanics. When

you're car breaks down, would you take

it to someone who didn't understand the

first thing about internal combustion?

 

 

>

> 4. According to my memory (and it's been several years), Sun Si-

miao

> recommends the study of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism as being

> necessary to the study of Chinese medicine in his Preface to the

Qian

> Jin Yao Fang. However, what I also remember is that he does not

> specify exactly why such a study is important.

 

Yes he does. You can see our translation of this

preface in the front matter of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

He states that if you don't read Laozi and Zhuangzi

you won't know how to live your daily life.

 

He gives a range of reasons why each of the various

categories of knowledge and tradition need to

be included in the education of physicians.

 

What I am asking is for

> a concrete statement or series of statements based on clinical

> experience (ti hui) of the relevance of a metaphysical or

> epistemological understanding of the concept of qi, yin, or yang as

it

> applies to pattern discrimination in real life practice.

 

Well, I gave such a synopsis above. And I'm

certainly happy to elaborate on it or to

answer questions about it.

 

>

> I have to confess, I read your book on qi from cover to cover.

 

You are forgiven.

 

It is

> an extremely well written and well designed book. As a bibliophile,

it

> is very nicely done, and it contained a lot of interesting

anecdotal

> information on the Chinese use of the word qi in various situations

> and disciplines. However, I was disappointed in that it did not in

the

> slightest way alter or deepen my understanding or practice of

Chinese

> medicine as a clinician.

 

Thanks for the kind words. I understand your

disappointment. I have to confess now. The

book wasn't written to be a clinical tool.

One chapter is about qi4 as a concept in

medicine. But the book makes no pretense

of being a medical book. It simply happens

to have been published by a publisher

who specializes in medical books and

who, in this instance, saw the potential

value to medical students and practitioners

of a book that would give them a better

understanding of qi4 and greater access

to Chinese sources on the subject.

 

 

>

> I will be off-list for the weekend teaching the clinical practice

of

> CM in Florida. So I probably will not be responding again till

Tuesday

> AM at the earliest (unless I get som free time this afternoon).

 

Bon voyage.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

In my personal experience of Ken, I think something similar is

> also operative. Ken likes philosophy. That's obvious from how much

of

> it he has read, how much of it he has retains, and how much he

> relishes philosophical discussions. Further, he also likes the

> esoteric and spiritual aspects of Chinese culture, e.g. tai chi and

> Daoist sexual practices.

 

Someone asked Cheng Man Ching once if

there weren't other systems of martial

arts that were as good or better than

tai4 ji2. He responded saying, " If I

thought there was something more effective

I'd practice that. "

 

By similar logic, I have come to recognize

the utility of certain bodies of knoweldge

and methodology. I agree with you, and even

stated in a response to Todd the other day

that this can all be described as a matter of

personal preference and predilection. That's

one of the reasons why I think these discussions

are valuable and why I appreciate your participation.

It helps clarify who follows what approach. And

I think that is a healthy thing to be included

in the environment in which we live and work.

 

> Since our experience in this realm is not the same, obviously our

> opinions about any of this are also not going to be the same. When

I

> joined this group, I was interested in discussing the practical

> aspects of Chinese herbal medicine. However, it seems that a number

of

> the most active responders are interested in a realm which no

longer

> has any interest for me. Ken and I, you and I, and probably Sonya

and

> I are always (or at least at this stage of our personal lives)

going

> to disagree on issues that have to do with philosophy and

spirituality

> and CM, and no amount of verbal discussion is going to change any

of

> our points of view. We all are where we are.

 

I have no desire or intention to change

your point of view. I think the only

meaningful changes in point of view on

such matters are those that individuals

undertake after having looked over the

pertinent data and the perspectives that

others bring to these data. That is the

value of the discussion to a great extent.

 

 

>

> If you would like to answer my specific question of how much

> philosophy is necessary to discriminate liver blood-kidney yin

vacuity

> correctly in clinical practice, I would be happy to consider your

> answer. However, until or unless you do, I do not believe we are

> engaged in fruitful discussion.

 

I urge you not to denigrate the

discussion. There is nothing wrong with

the discussion.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Some readers might be interested to know that I have been

> writing (of and on) the story of my 20 years training as a Tibetan

> Buddhist and Chinese doctor. It's the only way I know to convey why

I

> have come to the perspective I have.

>

This reader is keenly interested and

will look forward to the opportunity

to read your memoirs.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Dear Bob,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

 

My answer to this question: Liver blood - kidney yin vacuity and its

discrimination, as a specific example of pattern differentiation, is the

distillation of a process of critical thinking based on application of

yin-yang theory to the human body. Phenomena were/are observed by

physicians with their senses and conscious discrimination, and then

interpreted within a particular body of knowledge.

 

Being debatable whether the physicians who developed this system ever

saw a human kidney or liver, we can speculate that they were talking

about functional systems, again based on human interpretation and

discrimination of observed phenomena.

 

The source of this system of diagnosis and treatment was the Chinese

classics, which were also developed by the observation and

discrimination of phenomena in nature as interpreted by the human mind.

 

I will use a modern metaphor to draw my conclusion. An office worker

can use a computer with little effort after learning the basics of point

and click, the desktop icons, and moving data around from place to

place. However, if one learns the programming of the underlying

operating system (as one writer, Mark Halprin recently pointed out), one

can design one's own programs, repair errors, and have a deeper

understanding of how computers and software works.

 

 

 

 

On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 08:44 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> If you would like to answer my specific question of how much

> philosophy is necessary to discriminate liver blood-kidney yin vacuity

> correctly in clinical practice, I would be happy to consider your

> answer. However, until or unless you do, I do not believe we are

> engaged in fruitful discussion.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

And Alon deduced, not altogether unreasonablyfrom your earlier post on this that thereforethere is no reason to know Chinese. In addition tothe accuracy of words, we should pay attentionto their consequences

>>>>No exactly true. The question is can you have an accurate translation if not, than can you learn a second language accurately

Alon

[Guest guest]

However, if one learns the programming of the underlying operating system (as one writer, Mark Halprin recently pointed out), one can design one's own programs, repair errors, and have a deeper understanding of how computers and software works.>>>>Well Z,ve do you need to understand electronics to do this, and if yes do you need physics, and particle theory how far do we take this. To me its about treating patients that are sick. Until you can show me better outcome I think its still in the ralm of dogmatic speculation, even if supported by so called history as Ken likes to point out

Alon

[Guest guest]

I guess, Alon, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. No one is

giving out shekels for such studies.

 

Z'ev

On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 11:54 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

> However, if one learns the programming of the underlying operating

> system (as one writer, Mark Halprin recently pointed out), one can

> design one's own programs, repair errors, and have a deeper

> understanding of how computers and software works.

> >>>>Well Z,ve do you need to understand electronics to do this, and if

> yes do you need physics, and particle theory how far do we take this.

> To me its about treating patients that are sick. Until you can show me

> better outcome I think its still in the ralm of dogmatic speculation,

> even if supported by so called history as Ken likes to point out

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

> Speaking to your point about the relationship

> between one's personal experience and views

> and one's take on such positions as the ones

> in question here, I assume that your position

> is influenced somewhat by your decidedly

> anti-Chinese feelings and opinions stemming

> from issues realted to Tibet, Chinese treatment

> of Tibetans, etc. Is that an accurate assumption

> on my part?

 

Hm, good question. I have no great love for Chinese. However, I also

do not have any special fuzzy feelings about Tibetans. In fact,

getting to know lots of Chinese helped open my eyes in terms of

Tibetans. I believe there were definite reasons their culture was

destroyed. In my experience, certain parts of it, like parts of

Chinese culture, were dysfunctional. In any case, in terms of

disclosing biases, rather than being anti-Chinese, I would say I tend

to be very happy to have been born an American, and, frankly, I often

wish this medicine had come from some place else.

 

> However, I

> > recommend the reading of the Chinese medical literature in Chinese

> for

> > the following two main reasons: 1) as a way to get clear about the

> > process of doing clinical Chinese medicine,

>

> Well, how on earth does this clarification

> take place without understanding what you're

> reading?

 

The issue seems to be one of proportion. You seem to want to make this

an all or nothing kind of thing. I think your interest in the

philosophy behind the words is guo fen, too much. As Kung-zi said,

going beyond the mark is just as wrong as falling short. Again, I

would go back to my specific request of how much does one have to know

about the philosophical underpinnings of qi, yin, or yang in order to

pattern discriminate and treat patients? I am not willing to be sucked

into the larger argument that you seem bent on having.

 

>> What is pattern discrimination? It is an

> application of yin1 yang2 theory. What is

> yin1 yang2 theory?

 

Yes and no. In my experience as both a practitioner and a teacher, one

can do good pattern discrimination by learning the signs and symptoms

associated with each of the standard patterns, especially if one

understands the mechanisms which produce these signs and symptoms. My

point still is, How much does one have to know about yin or yang to

discriminate kidney yin or yang vacuity? In this instance, this is a

proper name of a diagnostic label. My question was and still is, How

much do you need to know about yin or yang to adequately

professionally work with this diagnostic category? And again, I say

not all that much.

 

Now, does that mean that knowing more about yin and yang doesn't make

you a potentially better practitioner? Yes, it does. However, I think

we have to be careful about how philosophically profound and abstruse

we are in our discussions depending on the use of the term at hand.

 

> You completely ignored the specificity of my response

> > vis a vis philosophy and the clinical practice of Chinese medicine

> as

> > it applies to pattern discrimination.

>

> No I didn't. I stated rather clearly that all

> aspects of my clinical experience are informed

> by my study and cultivation of qi4, and this

> includes as described in writing elsewhere,

> my investigations of its philosophical roots.

>

That response is, categorically, not a concrete example. I asked for a

specific case.

>

> In dealing with sports injuries, and particularly

> working with athletes and others whose body is

> their instrument to ward off even the possibility

> of injury, I tend to keep the differentiation

> as close to the level of yin1 yang2 as possible.

> I like to work at a basic level. It feels

> comfortable to me and to the bulk of the

> people I've worked with over the years. So it's

> become more or less standard in my experience.

>

> I find that if I can correctly assess and understand

> the situation in terms of yin1 and yang2 that

> an effective treatment principle emerges...at least

> most of the time. I'd say that I can be useful

> to upwards of 75% of the people that I work with

> using this method, both to alleviate the effects

> of past injuries, recent or old, and to improve

> the general posture, carriage, care and use of

> the body so that it is not so likely to become

> injured in the future.

 

Again, I asked for a specific case involving pattern discrimination

where it was useful to know a philosophically profound and abstruse

definition of yin or yang. I agree that one can do a lot clinically by

simply determing whether a condition is yin or yang. However, in

medicine, this mostly means the difference between hot and cold,

repletion and vacuity, exterior and interior, etc. What I'm saying is

that there is a relatively short list of things one needs to know

about yin and yang when it comes to the application of these terms to

diagnosis.

 

> You need to know what yin1 and yang2 are

> what they mean and how they mean it and

> how they interact as concepts in order

> to get a firm grasp on what is being

> differentiated by means of pattern

> discrimination.

 

Agreed, but to what degree of complexity? I think that is the issue we

are sticking on. I have studied Chinese medicine with a number of

different teachers over the last two decades, and more than one has

started in right at yin and yang. However, the teaching has never gone

beyond a page or so of statements of " fact " about yin and yin, and, as

a clinician, this has served me well.

 

> Incorrect. We began this discussion when I said

> that one needs to have a foundation of understanding

> of Chinese language and Chinese thought in order

> to study the nomenclature of Chinese medicine...or

> words to that effect, and you told me I was over the

> limit.

>

> > To me, this is a bad question in that it is way too grandiose.

>

> Yeah, well, I didn't ask it the way you've

> characterized it. I asked you to simply explain

> where you draw the limit. You have done that

> now by saying that you probably don't need

> to know anything at all about Chinese philosophy

> to be a good clinician. Although I see in a

> later post that you seem to be backing away

> from that statement.

>

Perhaps we are using the phrase " philosophy " different. I am not

equating basic CM yin-yang theory with philosophy. When I think of

philosophy, I think of mainly of metaphysics and epistemology. I've

just gone and looked at some basic CM theory books. When I read the

statements about yin-yang theory, I don't seem much in the way of

metaphysical definitions. Most of the statements are about the

functional relationships of yin and yang. E.g., if yin is this, then

yang is that. If yin does this, yang does that, etc. So maybe that's

where the disconnect is. Should a person know basic MEDICAL yin-yang

theory? Yes, of course. Do they need to know the differences in

interpretation of yin-yang theory from the Warring States to the late

Ming dynasty, I think not.

 

> You

> > seem to like these kinds of huge, open-ended questions.

>

> Nope. What's going on here is that you seem

> to like to characterize things I say in a

> certain way in order to either respond or

> not.

>

> At my age and

> > stage in life, I don't. I find them impractical. Therefore, my

> > question in return was, " How much metaphysics or epistemology are

> > necessary to distinguish patterns in real-life patients and

> prescribe

> > based on those patterns? " I stand by my assertion that you need to

> > know precious little about yin or yang as philosophical concepts

in

> > order to be able distinguish and, therefore, treat a yin or yang

> > vacuity.

>

> Understood. I suppose I can imagine an argument

> that uses the metaphor of driving a car. You

> sure don't need to know even what internal

> combustion is in order to drive a car.

> But it seems to me that we're not talking

> about drivers here, but mechanics. When

> you're car breaks down, would you take

> it to someone who didn't understand the

> first thing about internal combustion?

 

Of course you need to know the first thing. It's the fiftieth or one

hundredth thing I question the necessity of.

 

> > 4. According to my memory (and it's been several years), Sun Si-

> miao

> > recommends the study of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism as

being

> > necessary to the study of Chinese medicine in his Preface to the

> Qian

> > Jin Yao Fang. However, what I also remember is that he does not

> > specify exactly why such a study is important.

>

> Yes he does. You can see our translation of this

> preface in the front matter of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

> He states that if you don't read Laozi and Zhuangzi

> you won't know how to live your daily life.

 

Again, I am talking about clinical medicine, not living one's daily

life. (Yes, of course, clinical medicine is a life activity. But

again, that's not the level at which I'm talking.)

 

> He gives a range of reasons why each of the various

> categories of knowledge and tradition need to

> be included in the education of physicians.

 

Ok, I remember. For instance, I believe he said one should study

Buddhism in order to develop universal compassion. But that's not the

level at which I talking. (Yes, one needs compassion to practice

medicine; I'm also not saying that.)

 

>

> What I am asking is for

> > a concrete statement or series of statements based on clinical

> > experience (ti hui) of the relevance of a metaphysical or

> > epistemological understanding of the concept of qi, yin, or yang

as

> it

> > applies to pattern discrimination in real life practice.

>

> Well, I gave such a synopsis above. And I'm

> certainly happy to elaborate on it or to

> answer questions about it.

>

> >

> > I have to confess, I read your book on qi from cover to cover.

>

> You are forgiven.

>

> It is

> > an extremely well written and well designed book. As a

bibliophile,

> it

> > is very nicely done, and it contained a lot of interesting

> anecdotal

> > information on the Chinese use of the word qi in various

situations

> > and disciplines. However, I was disappointed in that it did not in

> the

> > slightest way alter or deepen my understanding or practice of

> Chinese

> > medicine as a clinician.

>

> Thanks for the kind words. I understand your

> disappointment. I have to confess now. The

> book wasn't written to be a clinical tool.

> One chapter is about qi4 as a concept in

> medicine. But the book makes no pretense

> of being a medical book. It simply happens

> to have been published by a publisher

> who specializes in medical books and

> who, in this instance, saw the potential

> value to medical students and practitioners

> of a book that would give them a better

> understanding of qi4 and greater access

> to Chinese sources on the subject.

 

The book does a very good job of giving the history and multifaceted

Chinese uses and interpretations of the word qi. As book on qi, I

think it is a very good one for someone who generally wants to know

about qi.

 

However, I seem to remember that a number of weeks/months ago, you

were suggesting to members of this list that it took a book like yours

to even begin to understand the concept qi. Since you were talking to

CM practitioners, I assumed that you meant that we should understand

qi to the extent that you have written about it, and I don't find that

to be so.

 

> > I will be off-list for the weekend teaching the clinical practice

> of

> > CM in Florida. So I probably will not be responding again till

> Tuesday

> > AM at the earliest (unless I get som free time this afternoon).

>

> Bon voyage.

>

> Ken

 

Thanks,

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> You have not given an example of a particular case in which

> understanding

> >>>>I am still waiting for an Example of why one needs to learn a

concept in Chinese and can not do it in another language

 

 

I won't reply to each of your points,

but will just make an observation. You

demand evidence and I offer up what I

consider to be evidence and you don't

say another word. You don't say, " Hmm,

that's interesting but... " You just

ignore it. Then you demand evidence.

 

I've posted plenty of evidence to support

the positions I've taken over the months

and years that we've been talking about

this. And I don't recall you ever having

anything other to say about any of it

except to generally dismiss it all.

 

Conversely, when I ask you or anyone

to produce any evidence that an educational

system that omits Chinese language and

other contextual studies to support the

training in Chinese medical concepts has

ever succeeded over a considerable span

of time to produce not just a single

practitioner but an ongoing stream of

competent doctors and thereby sustain

the transmission of the subject, you

ignore this as well.

 

I've speculated that the reason for the

latter is that no such evidence exists.

If you have any, please share it. If you

don't have any, then on what basis do

you continue to assert that your view,

which effectively bans access to the great

majority of the literature on the subject,

is correct and does not threaten the survival

of the subject?

 

We will be gone one day. And when that day

comes what will we have left behind for

those who come in later generations to

the subject of Chinese medicine?

 

Clearly, we see things differently. I

will not speculate as to why that is.

As I've said, my aim is not to change

minds, but to participate in a public

airing of views so that those who are

interested can assess matters and make

up their own minds.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

I will use a modern metaphor to draw my conclusion. An office

worker

> can use a computer with little effort after learning the basics of

point

> and click, the desktop icons, and moving data around from place to

> place. However, if one learns the programming of the underlying

> operating system (as one writer, Mark Halprin recently pointed out),

one

> can design one's own programs, repair errors, and have a deeper

> understanding of how computers and software works.

>

 

I completely agree. But the question was, How much philosophy is

necessary to become a competent CM practitioner? In a previous

response to Ken, I draw a distinction between philosophy and basic

yin-yang theory. If you ask me whether yin-yang theory is useful to

the practice of CM, I would say yes. If you ask me is understanding

yin-yang to the point of a 300 page book necessary to practice CM, I

say no. Basic competence is quite different from high level mastery.

 

Bob

 

 

>

>

> On Wednesday, March 13, 2002, at 08:44 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> > If you would like to answer my specific question of how much

> > philosophy is necessary to discriminate liver blood-kidney yin

vacuity

> > correctly in clinical practice, I would be happy to consider your

> > answer. However, until or unless you do, I do not believe we are

> > engaged in fruitful discussion.

> >

> > Bob

[Guest guest]

Conversely, when I ask you or anyoneto produce any evidence that an educationalsystem that omits Chinese language andother contextual studies to support thetraining in Chinese medical concepts hasever succeeded over a considerable spanof time to produce not just a singlepractitioner but an ongoing stream ofcompetent doctors and thereby sustainthe transmission of the subject, youignore this as well.>>>>Well i guess non of the non Chinese speaking American or Europeans practitioners are any good. But you know I have seen planty of good outcomes from these when Chinese trained have failed. To me that is were one looks

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

When

> > you're car breaks down, would you take

> > it to someone who didn't understand the

> > first thing about internal combustion?

>

> Of course you need to know the first thing. It's the fiftieth or one

> hundredth thing I question the necessity of.

 

sorry, I can't help myself here. Does the mechanic need to know

physics to repair your car? there is a certain modicum of knowledge

that is useful and the rest is just extraneous, right?