Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

[Guest guest]

I guess that is true for some people, Attilio, but not for the doctor

I was observing. He practices a meditation system that advises against

using your own energy to influence people (like in medical qi gong). I

think it had very much to do with the selection of points plus needle

technique. Intention is important, but if it means everything we are

back in new age territory.

 

Tom.

 

 

, " Attilio D'Alberto "

<attiliodalberto wrote:

>Such a practitioner uses

> intuition to determine where the disorder exists and using acupuncture,

> guides his energy to the affected area.

>

[Guest guest]

 

> <%40>

> Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 AM

> Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

>

 

 

 

[...] And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> in these practices? What are the criteria?

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome measurements for psycho-spiritual practices. This is the key issue

for me.

 

How do you measure the efficacy of a treatment that allows one to " better

walk through life " or whatever. My personal favorite is Kidney 9 to protect

or correct the karma of an unborn child.

 

Do you have any idea how expensive those karmometer tests are in utero? Good

thing that the treatment is cheap.

 

If one wanted to say that the use of Kidney 9 on a pregnant woman will help

prevent birth defects, that is at least something that one can measure.

 

When we make claims (or our teachers do) that have absolutely no objective

outcome measurement, that's sounding a lot more like the religions that

offer a payoff after death. All their adherents believe it, but there isn't

one iota of proof either way.

 

When pressed for outcome measurements, students I've worked with eventually

fall back to DSM type criteria. We ultimately end up treating clinical

depression or something with known and more objective standards of efficacy

judgement.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

And lets remember that all the various position are completely dogmatic without

any evidence to support their preferred methods of treatment.

Alon

 

wrote:

Attillio & group,

 

There is a Chinese " Chinese " Boulder practitioner that does one needle for

almost everyone. Also one of my teachers said he followed a famous doctor in

China that also just used 1 needle on everyone and had a line all day long.

 

-Jason

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Attilio D'Alberto

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:48 AM

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I only recently heard of these one needle treatments. Personally, I think

it's a load of rubbish. It points to an idealised view of Chinese medicine

which isn't real. It just goes to show how westerners perceive Chinese

medicine, through rose tinted new age glasses.

 

Funny enough that Foreign Language Press have a book on it titled 'One

Needle One Treatment'. Has anyone read this book?

 

I don't know about categorising Electroacupuncture as a European thing. I

saw plenty of it whilst I was in China. Generally, UK practitioners are

reluctant to use it. It is because of a lack of training and practice.

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

 

Kind regards,

 

Attilio D'Alberto

Doctor of (Beijing, China)

BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC

Editor

Times

+44 (0) 1189 612512

enquiries@chineseme <enquiries%40chinesemedicinetimes.com>

dicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/>

edicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

edicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php

 

This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only

for the addressee. If you have received this message in error you must not

disseminate, copy or take action on it; please notify sender. Although this

e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free, e-mail

communications are not 100% secure and the sender makes no warranty that

this message is secure or virus free. Nothing in this transmission shall or

shall be deemed to constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer or

otherwise have the effect of forming a contract by electronic communication.

Your name and address may be stored to facilitate communications. The sender

is registered in England. Registered office: PO Box 3521, Wokingham,

Berkshire, RG40 9DX, UK.

 

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of

22 May 2007 01:34

@ <%40>

 

Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I don't know about these specific treatments, and to me, technology

is secondary to theoretical foundations. In other words, using

acupuncture needles doesn't make it Chinese medicine (see Nogier's

auriculotherapy), and any therapy can be understood in Chinese

medical context.

 

For now, I would say I am much more skeptical of one-needle spiritual

acupuncture treatments than I would be of European electroacupuncture

treatments. I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't obscure

access to classical channel theory as used in acupuncture.

 

 

On May 21, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Zev

> Do you think any of the electroacupuncture developments coming from

> the EU are worthless?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> @ <%40>

 

> Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 AM

> Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

>

> Tom,

> Thank you for your complete coverage of the Rothenburg

> conference. It gave me a good picture of a conference I've always

> wanted to take part in, but could never find the time to travel to.

>

> I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal of innovation

> being ok as long as it is based on experience. First of all, my

> experience is that a majority of the time in seminars I've seen (see

> my last e-mail), no reference at all is given to Chinese medicine's

> roots or body of knowledge. And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> in these practices? What are the criteria?

>

> Innovation has to be built on history, experience and a body of

> knowledge in the realm of medicine, whether it is an oral tradition

> of shamanistic medicine, or a literate tradition such as Chinese or

> Tibetan medicine. It cannot be based on a pastiche of ideas pasted

> on to a few popular, interpretive Chinese medicine texts. As a

> profession, we still lack literacy in medical Chinese, access to

> journals in China, Japan and Korea, adequate history courses, or even

> a complete grasp of the 'tools of the trade'. For example, texts on

> pathomechanisms, one of the core tools of Chinese diagnosis are just

> beginning to appear in English. I know that Bob Damone lectured on

> this in Rothenburg. There are only two or three books on the

> development of modern Chinese medicine in China, none required as far

> as I know in mainstream CM colleges in the West.

>

> I share many people's skepticism about some developments in

> modern TCM in China, including integrative medicine that doesn't

> include the tools of Chinese diagnosis. However, one can only

> criticize these developments if one is conversant in what is actually

> going on in these developments, not solely from an opinion of one

> teacher or another.

>

>

> On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

>

> > Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> > congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

> > topics.

> > I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> > works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine

> as it

> > is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> > Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> > their own ideas.

> > I personally don't really have an issue with that. As long as people

> > state that it is their own experience and as long as it works in the

> > clinic, it's all right with me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Attilio,

 

What do you think of " medical acupuncture " as practiced by M.D's in the U.S.?

 

dr.w

[Guest guest]

Attilio

i was including Vol, etc.

Alon

 

Attilio D'Alberto <attiliodalberto wrote:

I only recently heard of these one needle treatments. Personally, I

think

it's a load of rubbish. It points to an idealised view of Chinese medicine

which isn't real. It just goes to show how westerners perceive Chinese

medicine, through rose tinted new age glasses.

 

Funny enough that Foreign Language Press have a book on it titled 'One

Needle One Treatment'. Has anyone read this book?

 

I don't know about categorising Electroacupuncture as a European thing. I

saw plenty of it whilst I was in China. Generally, UK practitioners are

reluctant to use it. It is because of a lack of training and practice.

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

 

Kind regards,

 

Attilio D'Alberto

Doctor of (Beijing, China)

BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC

Editor

Times

+44 (0) 1189 612512

enquiries

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php

 

This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only

for the addressee. If you have received this message in error you must not

disseminate, copy or take action on it; please notify sender. Although this

e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free, e-mail

communications are not 100% secure and the sender makes no warranty that

this message is secure or virus free. Nothing in this transmission shall or

shall be deemed to constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer or

otherwise have the effect of forming a contract by electronic communication.

Your name and address may be stored to facilitate communications. The sender

is registered in England. Registered office: PO Box 3521, Wokingham,

Berkshire, RG40 9DX, UK.

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

22 May 2007 01:34

 

Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I don't know about these specific treatments, and to me, technology

is secondary to theoretical foundations. In other words, using

acupuncture needles doesn't make it Chinese medicine (see Nogier's

auriculotherapy), and any therapy can be understood in Chinese

medical context.

 

For now, I would say I am much more skeptical of one-needle spiritual

acupuncture treatments than I would be of European electroacupuncture

treatments. I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't obscure

access to classical channel theory as used in acupuncture.

 

 

On May 21, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Zev

> Do you think any of the electroacupuncture developments coming from

> the EU are worthless?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> @ <%40>

 

> Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 AM

> Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

>

> Tom,

> Thank you for your complete coverage of the Rothenburg

> conference. It gave me a good picture of a conference I've always

> wanted to take part in, but could never find the time to travel to.

>

> I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal of innovation

> being ok as long as it is based on experience. First of all, my

> experience is that a majority of the time in seminars I've seen (see

> my last e-mail), no reference at all is given to Chinese medicine's

> roots or body of knowledge. And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> in these practices? What are the criteria?

>

> Innovation has to be built on history, experience and a body of

> knowledge in the realm of medicine, whether it is an oral tradition

> of shamanistic medicine, or a literate tradition such as Chinese or

> Tibetan medicine. It cannot be based on a pastiche of ideas pasted

> on to a few popular, interpretive Chinese medicine texts. As a

> profession, we still lack literacy in medical Chinese, access to

> journals in China, Japan and Korea, adequate history courses, or even

> a complete grasp of the 'tools of the trade'. For example, texts on

> pathomechanisms, one of the core tools of Chinese diagnosis are just

> beginning to appear in English. I know that Bob Damone lectured on

> this in Rothenburg. There are only two or three books on the

> development of modern Chinese medicine in China, none required as far

> as I know in mainstream CM colleges in the West.

>

> I share many people's skepticism about some developments in

> modern TCM in China, including integrative medicine that doesn't

> include the tools of Chinese diagnosis. However, one can only

> criticize these developments if one is conversant in what is actually

> going on in these developments, not solely from an opinion of one

> teacher or another.

>

>

> On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

>

> > Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> > congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

> > topics.

> > I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> > works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine

> as it

> > is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> > Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> > their own ideas.

> > I personally don't really have an issue with that. As long as people

> > state that it is their own experience and as long as it works in the

> > clinic, it's all right with me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Perhaps in Europe people are more well versed in Chinese medical

theory. As I said earlier, I do not have any problem with innovation

if it is rooted in Chinese medical theory and not just indiscriminate

eclecticism. Our first responsibility is to our patients, and for me

that means we do not experiment on them, but use treatment

methodologies that have some basis to work from. Certainly there are

lacunae in modern TCM that can be supplemented, such as with

cognitive therapy, or we can pull counseling methods from Chinese

medical history.

 

As far as being rooted in the spirit, I remember something one

of my teachers (Michel Abehsera) discusses in his book, " The Possible

Man " . He says that the spirit is much more difficult to define and

treat than the body, as there are few roadmaps that define outposts

along the way. In Chinese medicine, I don't see a dichotomy between

body and consciousness/mind, but it seems there is a lot of

interpretive stuff about the spirit. Maybe that is ok, but I just

want to see clarity in what is taught. Otherwise we risk loss of a

sense of direction in this profession.

 

 

On May 22, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

 

> Dear Z'ev,

>

> I haven't seen too many people that imposed their own ideas on CM

> without knowing their Chinese medical theory. In the case of

> Rothenburg's psyche und soma congress [btw, it was mentioned several

> times including by the chairman that there is no such dichotomy in CM]

> we are, for example, talking about Yair Maimon who clearly also knows

> his Chinese medical theory. It's just that he has developed his own

> style of working within that framework. One of my teachers (Bruno

> Braeckman) is firmly rooted in classical Chinese medicine but also

> found that CM can lack in certain areas, so he developed a way to

> treat people very much in accordance to five phases and traditional

> Daoist philosophy. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Chinese

> medicine does not always get a good result in psychiatric disorders,

> so that practitioners look for other methods to help their patients?

> Bob Flaws mentioned several times that we should not expect too much

> from our CM treatments for true psychiatric patients, and that in

> China it is often combined with Gestalttherapy or cognitive

> behavioural therapy.

>

> I would argue that what is not useful will get filtered out anyway.

> Perhaps Bob saw otherwise, but I didn't see any spiritual gurus in

> Rothenburg, just people that are doing their best to help people. They

> were not trying too deceive people or doing magical spiritual cures

> with one needle- not like what you described from San Diego.

> Skepticism is good, but an open mind is also needed. I would like to

> know who Bob was really talking about when he made that statement

> about gurus. Perhaps the Friday night dance party took its toll

>

> Bob Damone gave a good lecture on pathomechanisms, and there was a

> relatively high turnout as well. Heiner Fruehauf always draws big

> crowds, and he could arguably be called the most spiritual-minded of

> all the speakers. The Germans seem to adore him; he gets minutes of

> applause. He is extremely well versed in classical or even shamanist

> ways of thinking about disease and health. In essence he says: treat

> the qi, and one of the best ways to treat the qi is through the shen.

> That is why many of his teachers are not acupuncturists or herbalists,

> but qi gong masters. A teacher of his invites people to his house,

> gives them some purgatives and says a few key words. Then all the

> people in the room start giggling and laughing, harder and harder

> until they start vomiting. They then go home, feeling cleansed and

> renewed and they feel they can start all over. Heiner showed a

> documentary about this last year. It should soon be available. He was

> in fact worried that people might misunderstand the video and it would

> destroy years of hard work to get CM accepted in the west.

> I don't know if you can still call this CM. It is a form of qi gong,

> albeit not medical qi gong. So what is it then?

> OTOH, Heiner then knows master herbalists that can recite the SHL by

> heart, many of whom practise qi gong and meditation to safeguard their

> own health.

> Although I do my best to study CM as good as I can, and I still have a

> long way to go at that, I seem not to be as worried about certain

> borders of CM being crossed. Perhaps that is due to my rather young

> and progressive nature, who knows, all I know is that I am enjoying

> the ride.

>

> However, I agree with Heiner in the sense that the deeper you dig, the

> closer you get to the spirit. We should not forget that even CM is

> only a lens through which we view phenomena, no matter how useful that

> lens.

> So Heiner's lecture was aptly called: " All diseases come from the

> Heart; or the forgotten role of emotions in CM " .

>

> best,

>

> Tom.

>

> , " "

> <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > Tom,

> > Thank you for your complete coverage of the Rothenburg

> > conference. It gave me a good picture of a conference I've always

> > wanted to take part in, but could never find the time to travel to.

> >

> > I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal of innovation

> > being ok as long as it is based on experience. First of all, my

> > experience is that a majority of the time in seminars I've seen (see

> > my last e-mail), no reference at all is given to Chinese medicine's

> > roots or body of knowledge. And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> > in these practices? What are the criteria?

> >

> > Innovation has to be built on history, experience and a body of

> > knowledge in the realm of medicine, whether it is an oral tradition

> > of shamanistic medicine, or a literate tradition such as Chinese or

> > Tibetan medicine. It cannot be based on a pastiche of ideas pasted

> > on to a few popular, interpretive Chinese medicine texts. As a

> > profession, we still lack literacy in medical Chinese, access to

> > journals in China, Japan and Korea, adequate history courses, or

> even

> > a complete grasp of the 'tools of the trade'. For example, texts on

> > pathomechanisms, one of the core tools of Chinese diagnosis are just

> > beginning to appear in English. I know that Bob Damone lectured on

> > this in Rothenburg. There are only two or three books on the

> > development of modern Chinese medicine in China, none required as

> far

> > as I know in mainstream CM colleges in the West.

> >

> > I share many people's skepticism about some developments in

> > modern TCM in China, including integrative medicine that doesn't

> > include the tools of Chinese diagnosis. However, one can only

> > criticize these developments if one is conversant in what is

> actually

> > going on in these developments, not solely from an opinion of one

> > teacher or another.

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

 

But how much of what we do really has " evidence " to support it. Maybe you

could define " evidence "

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:38 AM

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

 

 

And lets remember that all the various position are completely dogmatic

without any evidence to support their preferred methods of treatment.

Alon

 

<@chinesemed

<%40Chinese Medicine> icinedoc.com> wrote:

Attillio & group,

 

There is a Chinese " Chinese " Boulder practitioner that does one needle for

almost everyone. Also one of my teachers said he followed a famous doctor in

China that also just used 1 needle on everyone and had a line all day long.

 

-Jason

 

_____

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of Attilio D'Alberto

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:48 AM

@ <%40>

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I only recently heard of these one needle treatments. Personally, I think

it's a load of rubbish. It points to an idealised view of Chinese medicine

which isn't real. It just goes to show how westerners perceive Chinese

medicine, through rose tinted new age glasses.

 

Funny enough that Foreign Language Press have a book on it titled 'One

Needle One Treatment'. Has anyone read this book?

 

I don't know about categorising Electroacupuncture as a European thing. I

saw plenty of it whilst I was in China. Generally, UK practitioners are

reluctant to use it. It is because of a lack of training and practice.

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

 

Kind regards,

 

Attilio D'Alberto

Doctor of (Beijing, China)

BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC

Editor

Times

+44 (0) 1189 612512

enquiries@chineseme <enquiries%40chinesemedicinetimes.com>

dicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesem

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> edicinetimes.com/>

edicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesem

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

edicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

edicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php

 

This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only

for the addressee. If you have received this message in error you must not

disseminate, copy or take action on it; please notify sender. Although this

e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free, e-mail

communications are not 100% secure and the sender makes no warranty that

this message is secure or virus free. Nothing in this transmission shall or

shall be deemed to constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer or

otherwise have the effect of forming a contract by electronic communication.

Your name and address may be stored to facilitate communications. The sender

is registered in England. Registered office: PO Box 3521, Wokingham,

Berkshire, RG40 9DX, UK.

 

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of

22 May 2007 01:34

@ <%40>

 

Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I don't know about these specific treatments, and to me, technology

is secondary to theoretical foundations. In other words, using

acupuncture needles doesn't make it Chinese medicine (see Nogier's

auriculotherapy), and any therapy can be understood in Chinese

medical context.

 

For now, I would say I am much more skeptical of one-needle spiritual

acupuncture treatments than I would be of European electroacupuncture

treatments. I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't obscure

access to classical channel theory as used in acupuncture.

 

 

On May 21, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Zev

> Do you think any of the electroacupuncture developments coming from

> the EU are worthless?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> @ <%40>

 

> Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 AM

> Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

>

> Tom,

> Thank you for your complete coverage of the Rothenburg

> conference. It gave me a good picture of a conference I've always

> wanted to take part in, but could never find the time to travel to.

>

> I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal of innovation

> being ok as long as it is based on experience. First of all, my

> experience is that a majority of the time in seminars I've seen (see

> my last e-mail), no reference at all is given to Chinese medicine's

> roots or body of knowledge. And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> in these practices? What are the criteria?

>

> Innovation has to be built on history, experience and a body of

> knowledge in the realm of medicine, whether it is an oral tradition

> of shamanistic medicine, or a literate tradition such as Chinese or

> Tibetan medicine. It cannot be based on a pastiche of ideas pasted

> on to a few popular, interpretive Chinese medicine texts. As a

> profession, we still lack literacy in medical Chinese, access to

> journals in China, Japan and Korea, adequate history courses, or even

> a complete grasp of the 'tools of the trade'. For example, texts on

> pathomechanisms, one of the core tools of Chinese diagnosis are just

> beginning to appear in English. I know that Bob Damone lectured on

> this in Rothenburg. There are only two or three books on the

> development of modern Chinese medicine in China, none required as far

> as I know in mainstream CM colleges in the West.

>

> I share many people's skepticism about some developments in

> modern TCM in China, including integrative medicine that doesn't

> include the tools of Chinese diagnosis. However, one can only

> criticize these developments if one is conversant in what is actually

> going on in these developments, not solely from an opinion of one

> teacher or another.

>

>

> On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

>

> > Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> > congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

> > topics.

> > I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> > works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine

> as it

> > is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> > Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> > their own ideas.

> > I personally don't really have an issue with that. As long as people

> > state that it is their own experience and as long as it works in the

> > clinic, it's all right with me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason

My point is that people criticize CM medical practices because they are not

familiar with them or because a practice does not fit of their version of CM

just because of their owns belief systems. Evidence requires some objective

evaluations with statistical powering. There are many ways to achieve this

 

Alon

 

wrote:

Alon,

 

But how much of what we do really has " evidence " to support it. Maybe you

could define " evidence "

 

-Jason

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of Alon Marcus

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:38 AM

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

And lets remember that all the various position are completely dogmatic

without any evidence to support their preferred methods of treatment.

Alon

 

<@chinesemed

<%40Chinese Medicine> icinedoc.com> wrote:

Attillio & group,

 

There is a Chinese " Chinese " Boulder practitioner that does one needle for

almost everyone. Also one of my teachers said he followed a famous doctor in

China that also just used 1 needle on everyone and had a line all day long.

 

-Jason

 

_____

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of Attilio D'Alberto

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:48 AM

@ <%40>

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I only recently heard of these one needle treatments. Personally, I think

it's a load of rubbish. It points to an idealised view of Chinese medicine

which isn't real. It just goes to show how westerners perceive Chinese

medicine, through rose tinted new age glasses.

 

Funny enough that Foreign Language Press have a book on it titled 'One

Needle One Treatment'. Has anyone read this book?

 

I don't know about categorising Electroacupuncture as a European thing. I

saw plenty of it whilst I was in China. Generally, UK practitioners are

reluctant to use it. It is because of a lack of training and practice.

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

 

Kind regards,

 

Attilio D'Alberto

Doctor of (Beijing, China)

BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC

Editor

Times

+44 (0) 1189 612512

enquiries@chineseme <enquiries%40chinesemedicinetimes.com>

dicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesem

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> edicinetimes.com/>

edicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesem <http://www.chinesem

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

edicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

edicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php

 

This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only

for the addressee. If you have received this message in error you must not

disseminate, copy or take action on it; please notify sender. Although this

e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free, e-mail

communications are not 100% secure and the sender makes no warranty that

this message is secure or virus free. Nothing in this transmission shall or

shall be deemed to constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer or

otherwise have the effect of forming a contract by electronic communication.

Your name and address may be stored to facilitate communications. The sender

is registered in England. Registered office: PO Box 3521, Wokingham,

Berkshire, RG40 9DX, UK.

 

 

@ <%40>

 

[@ <%40>

] On Behalf Of

22 May 2007 01:34

@ <%40>

 

Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

I don't know about these specific treatments, and to me, technology

is secondary to theoretical foundations. In other words, using

acupuncture needles doesn't make it Chinese medicine (see Nogier's

auriculotherapy), and any therapy can be understood in Chinese

medical context.

 

For now, I would say I am much more skeptical of one-needle spiritual

acupuncture treatments than I would be of European electroacupuncture

treatments. I have no problem with it as long as it doesn't obscure

access to classical channel theory as used in acupuncture.

 

 

On May 21, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> Zev

> Do you think any of the electroacupuncture developments coming from

> the EU are worthless?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

>

> @ <%40>

 

> Monday, May 21, 2007 9:10 AM

> Re: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

>

> Tom,

> Thank you for your complete coverage of the Rothenburg

> conference. It gave me a good picture of a conference I've always

> wanted to take part in, but could never find the time to travel to.

>

> I have to respectfully disagree with your appraisal of innovation

> being ok as long as it is based on experience. First of all, my

> experience is that a majority of the time in seminars I've seen (see

> my last e-mail), no reference at all is given to Chinese medicine's

> roots or body of knowledge. And how are we able to tell what 'works'

> in these practices? What are the criteria?

>

> Innovation has to be built on history, experience and a body of

> knowledge in the realm of medicine, whether it is an oral tradition

> of shamanistic medicine, or a literate tradition such as Chinese or

> Tibetan medicine. It cannot be based on a pastiche of ideas pasted

> on to a few popular, interpretive Chinese medicine texts. As a

> profession, we still lack literacy in medical Chinese, access to

> journals in China, Japan and Korea, adequate history courses, or even

> a complete grasp of the 'tools of the trade'. For example, texts on

> pathomechanisms, one of the core tools of Chinese diagnosis are just

> beginning to appear in English. I know that Bob Damone lectured on

> this in Rothenburg. There are only two or three books on the

> development of modern Chinese medicine in China, none required as far

> as I know in mainstream CM colleges in the West.

>

> I share many people's skepticism about some developments in

> modern TCM in China, including integrative medicine that doesn't

> include the tools of Chinese diagnosis. However, one can only

> criticize these developments if one is conversant in what is actually

> going on in these developments, not solely from an opinion of one

> teacher or another.

>

>

> On May 21, 2007, at 2:22 AM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote:

>

> > Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> > congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

> > topics.

> > I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> > works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine

> as it

> > is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> > Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> > their own ideas.

> > I personally don't really have an issue with that. As long as people

> > state that it is their own experience and as long as it works in the

> > clinic, it's all right with me.

>

>

[Guest guest]

On May 22, 2007, at 6:34 AM, wrote:

 

(Jason): It is very diverse. But the

difference is, at least for this person, that he knows the CM inside and

out (classical etc).

 

(Z'ev): And this is an important point.

 

 

> (Jason): Your points are well heard. Just to round out the picture

> a bit. On my last

> trip studying in China, I observed a (Chinese) practitioner that

> would see

> energy fields and would diagnose this way and his point selection

> was also

> completely based on how he saw the qi moving (and not moving) in

> the body.

> If you listened to the guy talk one would call him a " new ager " in

> the West,

> in China it was just yet another style of practice. He saw a lot of

> very

> high government officials. I am pretty clear there is not just this

> one

> orthodox Chinese medicine (or TCM) in China.

 

(Z'ev): I think the issue that is raised here is the heterogeneous

nature of acupuncture practice in general, much more than with herbal

medicine. If I think of all the different maps and theories used,

all of which claim to work, we'd have to say that there needs to be

some criteria to judge what is more effective, either as theory,

technique or practical results. Just think: Japanese acupuncture,

abdominal acupuncture, auriculotherapy, TENS, Korean hand

acupuncture, facial acupuncture, zone therapies, biomedical

approaches all use different maps. Herbal or internal medicine has

much less variation in its theoretical foundations.

 

I also think what the Chinese define as jing/shen is according

to Yanhua Zhang in her new book " Transforming Emotions with Chinese

Medicine " , " a dynamic and inseparable relationship in the lived world

of mind-body. These are not considered as essentially different

kinds of existence, but different in functions or manifestations that

are temporal and contingent " .

 

I've seen little argument with this definition with what I know

of Chinese medical literature, so when we add more Western ideas of

jing/shen (essence/spirit) to the mix, it can cause confusion both in

ontology and in clinical goals. This is what I am interested in

seeing more clearly defined in our profession's discourses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tom, I just spent a week in Germany. Obviously there is a lot of

interest in TCM on the streets. Lots of reflexology and acupressure

storefronts. But acupuncture itself is limited to MD's and homeopaths

(I assume their training is sophisticated beyond what we have in the

States) I'm wondering if the acupuncture laws will ever include what

we have in the States and England? Is the Rothenburg mecca made up

simply of " foreigners " ?

Doug

 

, " Tom Verhaeghe "

<tom.verhaeghe wrote:

>

> Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

topics.

> I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine as it

> is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> their own ideas.

_______________

 

____________

 

> All in all, a wonderful congress. Next year's congress is dedicated to

> Sun Si-Miao, and the themes are " TCM- Medicine of the future " ,

> auriculotherapy and pediatrics. Confirmed speakers are Debra Betts,

> Julian Scott, Alex Tiberi, our friend Eric Brand who will talk about

> maximizing granule efficacy, Craig Mitchell, Barbara Kirschbaum,

> Stephen Birch, Arnaud Versluys, and perhaps Ted Kaptchuck, Jeffery

> Yuen and Steven Clavey. I find it so much fun to talk to people and

> listen to what they do and how they do it- I'm there to learn.

>

> Best,

>

> Tom.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Doug,

 

no, heilpraktikers also practice acupuncture; they make up most of the

audience in Rothenburg. Here's a statement from the agtcm, one of the

biggest acupuncturist organizations in Germany that organizes the

Rothenburg congress:

 

" Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft gründete sich 1954 als eine Vereinigung, die

sich der Aus- und Weiterbildung in Akupunktur und Traditioneller

Chinesischer Medizin widmete. Von Beginn an verstand sie sich als eine

Gemeinschaft, in der sich berufsübergreifend alle diejenigen

zusammenfinden konnten, die an einem ernsthaften Studium der

Chinesischen Medizin und Philosophie interessiert waren, seien es

Heilpraktiker, Ärzte, Tierärzte, Sinologen oder Philosophen. "

 

Heilpraktikers, doctors, veterinarians, sinologists and philosophers

can all apply for membership at agtcm, as long as they study Chinese

medicine or philosophy ( if my german is still good enough to read

that paragraph).

 

Tom.

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Tom, I just spent a week in Germany. Obviously there is a lot of

> interest in TCM on the streets. Lots of reflexology and acupressure

> storefronts. But acupuncture itself is limited to MD's and homeopaths

> (I assume their training is sophisticated beyond what we have in the

> States) I'm wondering if the acupuncture laws will ever include what

> we have in the States and England? Is the Rothenburg mecca made up

> simply of " foreigners " ?

> Doug

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Tom. I'm looking into what a Heilpraktiker (Health

practitioner) consists of.

Doug

 

From a TCM website:

 

Legal situation in Germany

 

Since the Second World War the medical market has been divided.

Medical treatment, including Chinese medicine, may only be given by a

medical doctor or a Heilpraktiker.

- To become a medical doctor you have to study at a university. Most

medical doctors' services are paid for by the public insurance.

However, as Chinese medicine is not included in the public insurance

catalogue the cost of such treatment is not usually covered, and so

even doctors have to charge privately for Chinese medicine.

- To become a Heilpraktiker you have to pass an exam at the Health

Office. These exams have now been centralised in the L & #228;nder (states)

and usually consist of a written multiple choice and an oral exam.

These exams have become very specialised and are at the same level as

the first state exams at university.

 

Insurance reimbursement

 

At present all Heilpraktiker treatment, including acupuncture, is

covered by private insurance only. However, most people pay privately

for these services as only about 12 per cent of the population have

private medical insurance.

As a Heilpraktiker you are allowed to treat almost all conditions,

with whatever treatment you think fit. Only certain infectious

diseases, gynaecological problems and dentistry are excluded.

, " Tom Verhaeghe "

<tom.verhaeghe wrote:

>

> Hi Doug,

>

> no, heilpraktikers also practice acupuncture; they make up most of the

> audience in Rothenburg. Here's a statement from the agtcm, one of the

> biggest acupuncturist organizations in Germany that organizes the

> Rothenburg congress:

>

> " Die Arbeitsgemeinschaft gründete sich 1954 als eine Vereinigung, die

> sich der Aus- und Weiterbildung in Akupunktur und Traditioneller

> Chinesischer Medizin widmete. Von Beginn an verstand sie sich als eine

> Gemeinschaft, in der sich berufsübergreifend alle diejenigen

> zusammenfinden konnten, die an einem ernsthaften Studium der

> Chinesischen Medizin und Philosophie interessiert waren, seien es

> Heilpraktiker, Ärzte, Tierärzte, Sinologen oder Philosophen. "

>

> Heilpraktikers, doctors, veterinarians, sinologists and philosophers

> can all apply for membership at agtcm, as long as they study Chinese

> medicine or philosophy ( if my german is still good enough to read

> that paragraph).

>

> Tom.

>

>

> , " "

> <taiqi@> wrote:

> >

> > Tom, I just spent a week in Germany. Obviously there is a lot of

> > interest in TCM on the streets. Lots of reflexology and acupressure

> > storefronts. But acupuncture itself is limited to MD's and homeopaths

> > (I assume their training is sophisticated beyond what we have in the

> > States) I'm wondering if the acupuncture laws will ever include what

> > we have in the States and England? Is the Rothenburg mecca made up

> > simply of " foreigners " ?

> > Doug

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps a German colleague on the list could expand on this, but as

far as I know heilpraktikers inculde several techniques, including

physiotherapy and massage, manual therapy, but also more alternative

therapies. Physiotherapists don't exist in Germany, they're called

heilpraktikers. There are many European countries where non-MDs are

allowed to do acupuncture. Most of the countries require that you are

a health care professional though. For example, I am (or was) a

physiotherapist. Belgian government passed a law in 1999 that saved us

from practicing illegally.

 

Tom.

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> Thanks, Tom. I'm looking into what a Heilpraktiker (Health

> practitioner) consists of.

> Doug

>

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure but I think although several techniques are included you can only

practice

what your training is. Let's wait till we can get some definitive answers on

this.

 

Doug

 

, " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe

wrote:

>

> Perhaps a German colleague on the list could expand on this, but as

> far as I know heilpraktikers inculde several techniques, including

> physiotherapy and massage, manual therapy, but also more alternative

> therapies. Physiotherapists don't exist in Germany, they're called

> heilpraktikers. There are many European countries where non-MDs are

> allowed to do acupuncture. Most of the countries require that you are

> a health care professional though. For example, I am (or was) a

> physiotherapist. Belgian government passed a law in 1999 that saved us

> from practicing illegally.

>

> Tom.

>

> , " "

> <taiqi@> wrote:

> >

> > Thanks, Tom. I'm looking into what a Heilpraktiker (Health

> > practitioner) consists of.

> > Doug

> >

>

[Guest guest]

'Electroacupuncture' hasn't even been published yet. I've had it on

backorder since mid 2006. I dunno, maybe that's why you say it's so

popluar.

 

Tim Sharpe

 

 

Attilio D'Alberto wrote:

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

[Guest guest]

It's been out since the start of May.

 

It's popular because if offers a vast array of information not currently

available to practitioners and not covered by most acupuncture training.

 

Kind regards,

 

Attilio D'Alberto

Doctor of (Beijing, China)

BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC

Editor

Times

+44 (0) 1189 612512

enquiries

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

<http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php>

www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Tim Sharpe

26 May 2007 21:23

 

RE: Re: Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

 

 

 

'Electroacupuncture' hasn't even been published yet. I've had it on

backorder since mid 2006. I dunno, maybe that's why you say it's so

popluar.

 

Tim Sharpe

 

Attilio D'Alberto wrote:

That's probably why David Mayor's new book 'Electroacupuncture' is so

popular.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Back in the U.S. and back at my desk.

 

First, Tom, I did not say that the affects don't effect the viscera.

What I said is that the simplistic five phase affect-viscera

correspondences given in the Nei Jing shouldn't be taken as Truth with

a capital " T " but only one potential way to see things. If one reads

the Chinese CM literature through the dynasties, one can document a

diversity of opinions on how and which affects effect which viscera.

 

Secondly, All, the issue I have/had most with some of the presenters

at Rothenburg was the lack of verifiable references. Far too many

presenters simply said things as truth without citing Chinese

references or explaining that this is simply their truth. There were

presenters who made statements about CM which were simply not true in

terms of the historical and written record. However, no one in any

audience that I sat in on seemed to care about or call them on this.

Other presenters had PowerPoint slides which presented " translations "

from the Nei Jing which were highly dubious if not simply incorrect.

Yet again, no one I heard quibbled or commented.

 

As I have stated several times before on this forum, I have no problem

with pluralism. My problem is when people say this or that is CM

without telling us what kind of CM, from when, where, and who. If

someone has found something to be true or useful for them via their

personal clinical experience or even simply their own thought or

feelings, that's fine with me as long as they tell people that is the

source of what they are saying. Unfortunately, for many presenters at

Rothenburg, that level of scholarship was missing. (By " scholarship, "

here I don't mean erudition. I mean adherence to basic principles of

scholastic discourse.)

 

" Let a hundred flowers bloom. " I'm all for that. But not all ideas or

opinions are created equal. Knowing where an idea or opinion comes

from helps us judge its merit. Ultimately, what I'm concerned with is

a general lack of judgment or even the perceived need for judgment in

our profession.

 

Bob

 

 

, " Tom Verhaeghe "

<tom.verhaeghe wrote:

>

> Rothenburg is becoming the mekka of TCM in Europe. It's a fantastic

> congress in a beautiful environment. Lots of speakers on lots of

topics.

> I understand where Bob is coming from with his comments below. He

> works hard to convey professional contemporary Chinese medicine as it

> is practised in China. There is a lack of standardization as to how

> Chinese medicine is practised in Europe today. Many people throw in

> their own ideas.

> I personally don't really have an issue with that. As long as people

> state that it is their own experience and as long as it works in the

> clinic, it's all right with me.

> More specifically, I think Bob Flaws was talking about emotions in

> Chinese medicine. During his lecture, Bob emphasized that in modern

> Chinese psychiatric medicine, emotions do not resonate with the organs

> like suggested in the Nei Jing. Bob stated that things that do not

> work in the clinic get filtered out by generations of practitioners- I

> believe one of the main reasons why Bob favours modern Chinese

medicine.

> There were speakers at the congress, like Elisabeth

> Rochat-de-la-Vallée and Yair Maimon who do emphasize the correlations

> between the emotions (and the ben shen) with the organs. Elisabeth

> quotes passages from classical Daoist texts (like the Huai Nan zi),

> and Yair seemed to talk more from his personal experience. Yair is a

> very hearty person who is specialized in emotional work and he has his

> own theories about that. I can only applaud that, I don't believe

> there is a right or wrong in these scenarios. CM is a tool in a

> therapist's toolbox, and I don't think there are any rules involved.

>

> Those who favour more orthodox Chinese medicine also get served at

> Rothenburg, but it should be clear by now that there is no such thing

> as orthodox Chinese medicine. Some favour the Shang Han Lun and the

> Nei Jing, some the Spleen-Stomach school, some a Daoist tradition,

> some practise Richard Tan's balance method (he always draws a big

> crowd in Rothenburg), some preferred the 5 days of workshops on

> Japanese acupuncture, and some like microsystems, for example the

> Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture system (which I have found to be very

> effective in clinical practice). I saw there were discussions these

> last few days on CHA on plurality within Chinese medicine. I haven't

> read them but Bob's remarks fall within the discussion of pluralism, I

> believe.

>

> At the congress, Heiner Fruehauf presented some examples from the Fire

> School of treatment from the Shang Han Lun. One doctor from the

> Chengdu Uni of TCM still practices in this tradition. They bring the

> fire back to its source, and fu zi is a main ingredient in these

> formulae. He presented some pictures of handwritten prescriptions that

> contained monster dosages of fu zi (90g, up to 250g). The thing is,

> even when there is replete fire, they will still use these high

> dosages of fu zi. Don't try this at home, Heiner said. One of the

> doctors he talked about saw 400 patients per day. I thought Feng Ye

> had the record : )

>

> Barbara Kirschbaum lectured on the treatment of MS. Mainly with herbs,

> as she found that acupuncture was not that effective. She focuses on

> the beginning stages, where treatment may be able to prevent

> deterioration to full-blown MS. She does not get good results when the

> system has developed into liver blood kidney yin vacuity (when the

> wilting starts). She has never seen it develop in

> to a yang vacuity, although I have.

>

> Liu Jie from Tianjin presented his family style of acupuncture (16

> generations).

>

> For those interested in Qi Gong and Yang Sheng, Gordon Faulkner was

> there to accomodate those needs in his typical humorous style. And he

> drew more smiles when he appeared in his kilt on the evening of the

> party.

>

> Elisabeth's lecture on the origin of emotions in the Daoist world view

> was very inspiring. Due to traffic jams I missed half of the lecture,

> sadly. Elisabeth talks about aligning yourself with the forces of the

> five phases, so the ben shen may resonate with these heavenly forces

> and emotions are regulated. Treatment of the ben shen is not often

> discussed within Chinese medicine, but there are people that do get

> results.

>

> Further along this line, there was also an open discussion on the role

> that we as therapists play in the healing process. This kind of

> discussion is held every year and is called DaDaDao. Very nice. As

> means of introduction we talked about a book and film that explores

> healing as it occurs in various cultures. By a German fellow (I forgot

> his name) who healed his own paralysis by focusing his mind to get rid

> of the pain. Even today, his X-rays still show his broken back, but he

> can walk. The consensus seemed to be that the therapeutic process is

> still very much shamanistic, and that there are greater forces at play

> than we can imagine. Why do people come to us, why do some get better,

> some not? The word karma was mentioned a few times (including by me )

>

> All in all, a wonderful congress. Next year's congress is dedicated to

> Sun Si-Miao, and the themes are " TCM- Medicine of the future " ,

> auriculotherapy and pediatrics. Confirmed speakers are Debra Betts,

> Julian Scott, Alex Tiberi, our friend Eric Brand who will talk about

> maximizing granule efficacy, Craig Mitchell, Barbara Kirschbaum,

> Stephen Birch, Arnaud Versluys, and perhaps Ted Kaptchuck, Jeffery

> Yuen and Steven Clavey. I find it so much fun to talk to people and

> listen to what they do and how they do it- I'm there to learn.

>

> Best,

>

> Tom.

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> > 19 May 2007 15:55

> >

> > Hello from Rothenburg o.d.Tauber

> >

> >

> >

> > Hello to all CHAers from Rothenburg, Germany. Bob Damone, Honora

> > Wolfe, Simon Becker, and Tom Verheage are all here. Bob gave a very

> > good lecture to 300 people this morning. There are more than 1,000

> > acupuncturists gathered here for five fun-filled days. Other names

> > some might know: Eliabeth Rochat (FR), Lillian Bridges (USA),

> > Stephen Birch (N), Heiner Fruehauf (USA/D), Barbara Kirschbaum (D),

> > Yair Maimon (I), Angela Hicks (UK), Peter Mole (UK), and Richard

> > Blackwell (UK).IMO, although there are some few people here who

> > really understand and practice standard professional Chinese

> > medicine, most are into eclecticism and newageism. The key to being

> > popular is being some kind of spiritual guru, not a CM doctor. I

> > have heard some of the most dubious CM ideas here that I've heard in

> > some time. It's as if people didn't realize CM has continued to

> > evolve since the Warring States period. At this point, I'm fairly

> > convinced that there's little hope for high quality Chinese medicine

> > with a good professional use of standard terminology succeeding in

> > the West. The battle's lost. It was probably never winnable. The

> > lowest common denominator rules. Now to spend the next 20 years

> > twiddling my intellectual thumbs and staring at my navel. But they

> > throw a great dance party! With that said, I'M off to Crete for

> > vacation. Talk to you all in June.

> >

> > Be well,

> >

> > Bob

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with you, Bob. It is very important to credit all

sources when teaching Chinese medicine, and reference one's claims in

their appropriate context.

 

Especially with topics such as shen/spirit, a lot of liberties are

taken with interpretation. Some of the concepts in Chinese medicine

on soul, spirit, psyche, etc., are very culture-bound and tied up

with linguistics and expression, and are easily misinterpreted and/or

misunderstood.

 

An excellent new book that deals with these issues is " Transforming

Emotions with :An Ethnographic Account From

Contemporary China " by Yanhua Zhang, State University of New York

Press. It looks at the clinical treatment of emotional/psychological

disorders in the context of Chinese language and culture.

Interestingly, the author differentiates the view of 'xin' (heart or

heart-mind) as being the social expression of self from the Western

idea of a fixed, internal self/essence. This shifts the focus from a

more individual, Western view of psyche to a more socially

conditioned one.

 

 

On May 30, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Back in the U.S. and back at my desk.

>

> First, Tom, I did not say that the affects don't effect the viscera.

> What I said is that the simplistic five phase affect-viscera

> correspondences given in the Nei Jing shouldn't be taken as Truth with

> a capital " T " but only one potential way to see things. If one reads

> the Chinese CM literature through the dynasties, one can document a

> diversity of opinions on how and which affects effect which viscera.

>

> Secondly, All, the issue I have/had most with some of the presenters

> at Rothenburg was the lack of verifiable references. Far too many

> presenters simply said things as truth without citing Chinese

> references or explaining that this is simply their truth. There were

> presenters who made statements about CM which were simply not true in

> terms of the historical and written record. However, no one in any

> audience that I sat in on seemed to care about or call them on this.

> Other presenters had PowerPoint slides which presented " translations "

> from the Nei Jing which were highly dubious if not simply incorrect.

> Yet again, no one I heard quibbled or commented.

>

> As I have stated several times before on this forum, I have no problem

> with pluralism. My problem is when people say this or that is CM

> without telling us what kind of CM, from when, where, and who. If

> someone has found something to be true or useful for them via their

> personal clinical experience or even simply their own thought or

> feelings, that's fine with me as long as they tell people that is the

> source of what they are saying. Unfortunately, for many presenters at

> Rothenburg, that level of scholarship was missing. (By " scholarship, "

> here I don't mean erudition. I mean adherence to basic principles of

> scholastic discourse.)

>

> " Let a hundred flowers bloom. " I'm all for that. But not all ideas or

> opinions are created equal. Knowing where an idea or opinion comes

> from helps us judge its merit. Ultimately, what I'm concerned with is

> a general lack of judgment or even the perceived need for judgment in

> our profession.

>

> Bob

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

Unfortunately, this problem lies mostly with the audience, i.e., our

profession as a whole on both sides of the pond. If our audience

demanded better scholarship from its teachers, then those teachers

would meet that demand or get out of the pool. However, because our

audience does not know the right questions to ask or even to ask

questions, people can get away with all sorts of crap.

 

Is the book you mentioned available from Redwing?

 

Bob

 

, " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I have to agree with you, Bob. It is very important to credit all

> sources when teaching Chinese medicine, and reference one's claims in

> their appropriate context.

>

> Especially with topics such as shen/spirit, a lot of liberties are

> taken with interpretation. Some of the concepts in Chinese medicine

> on soul, spirit, psyche, etc., are very culture-bound and tied up

> with linguistics and expression, and are easily misinterpreted and/or

> misunderstood.

>

> An excellent new book that deals with these issues is " Transforming

> Emotions with :An Ethnographic Account From

> Contemporary China " by Yanhua Zhang, State University of New York

> Press. It looks at the clinical treatment of emotional/psychological

> disorders in the context of Chinese language and culture.

> Interestingly, the author differentiates the view of 'xin' (heart or

> heart-mind) as being the social expression of self from the Western

> idea of a fixed, internal self/essence. This shifts the focus from a

> more individual, Western view of psyche to a more socially

> conditioned one.

>

>

> On May 30, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

>

> > Back in the U.S. and back at my desk.

> >

> > First, Tom, I did not say that the affects don't effect the viscera.

> > What I said is that the simplistic five phase affect-viscera

> > correspondences given in the Nei Jing shouldn't be taken as Truth with

> > a capital " T " but only one potential way to see things. If one reads

> > the Chinese CM literature through the dynasties, one can document a

> > diversity of opinions on how and which affects effect which viscera.

> >

> > Secondly, All, the issue I have/had most with some of the presenters

> > at Rothenburg was the lack of verifiable references. Far too many

> > presenters simply said things as truth without citing Chinese

> > references or explaining that this is simply their truth. There were

> > presenters who made statements about CM which were simply not true in

> > terms of the historical and written record. However, no one in any

> > audience that I sat in on seemed to care about or call them on this.

> > Other presenters had PowerPoint slides which presented " translations "

> > from the Nei Jing which were highly dubious if not simply incorrect.

> > Yet again, no one I heard quibbled or commented.

> >

> > As I have stated several times before on this forum, I have no problem

> > with pluralism. My problem is when people say this or that is CM

> > without telling us what kind of CM, from when, where, and who. If

> > someone has found something to be true or useful for them via their

> > personal clinical experience or even simply their own thought or

> > feelings, that's fine with me as long as they tell people that is the

> > source of what they are saying. Unfortunately, for many presenters at

> > Rothenburg, that level of scholarship was missing. (By " scholarship, "

> > here I don't mean erudition. I mean adherence to basic principles of

> > scholastic discourse.)

> >

> > " Let a hundred flowers bloom. " I'm all for that. But not all ideas or

> > opinions are created equal. Knowing where an idea or opinion comes

> > from helps us judge its merit. Ultimately, what I'm concerned with is

> > a general lack of judgment or even the perceived need for judgment in

> > our profession.

> >

> > Bob

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I recommended to Redwing that they carry it, I found the book

accidently while doing a search on Amazon. It wasn't cheap,

$75.00. Not surprising for small university presses.

 

 

On May 30, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> Unfortunately, this problem lies mostly with the audience, i.e., our

> profession as a whole on both sides of the pond. If our audience

> demanded better scholarship from its teachers, then those teachers

> would meet that demand or get out of the pool. However, because our

> audience does not know the right questions to ask or even to ask

> questions, people can get away with all sorts of crap.

>

> Is the book you mentioned available from Redwing?

>

> Bob

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You must have gotten the hardback. I'm pretty sure my softback was

around $30. I'd also suggest Powells.com.

 

Doug

 

, " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Bob,

> I recommended to Redwing that they carry it, I found the book

> accidently while doing a search on Amazon. It wasn't cheap,

> $75.00. Not surprising for small university presses.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for both leads.

 

Bob

 

, " "

wrote:

>

>

>

>

> You must have gotten the hardback. I'm pretty sure my softback was

> around $30. I'd also suggest Powells.com.

>

> Doug

>

> , " "

> <zrosenbe@> wrote:

> >

> > Bob,

> > I recommended to Redwing that they carry it, I found the book

> > accidently while doing a search on Amazon. It wasn't cheap,

> > $75.00. Not surprising for small university presses.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Check also

http://www.bestbookdeal.com/book/compare/0791470008?country=US

 

BN has it for US$ 18 - US$ 20 excl p & p

 

Alwin

 

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> Thanks for both leads.

>

> Bob

>

> , " "

> <taiqi@> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > You must have gotten the hardback. I'm pretty sure my softback was

> > around $30. I'd also suggest Powells.com.

> >

> > Doug

> >

> > , " "

> > <zrosenbe@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Bob,

> > > I recommended to Redwing that they carry it, I found the

book

> > > accidently while doing a search on Amazon. It wasn't cheap,

> > > $75.00. Not surprising for small university presses.

> > >

> >

>