huge apology-but appreciate the discussion

[Guest guest]

I am writing to say that I did " quote " Eric's remarks to the Tai

group, however, I didn't use his name or or email address. His post

generated questions for me and I selfishly wanted to hear from more

experienced and knowledgeable teachers who knew Worsley. Chinese herbal

medicine does not figure in the Worsley/Tai Sophia " tradition " (another

thing I have questions about, since it is more ancient, dare I say more

" classical " than acupuncture itself, no?), so very few of the " older "

generations of people that actually knew Worsley are on the on the CHA list

serv. I realize now this violates the list serv agreement and for that I am

sorry. Lonny is already on CHA (as you can see he posted his reply there),

and asked me what thread it was on so he went back and responded to the

thread. (For those of you who didn't know, and it has came up with the

luteal phase thread a few days after my mistake, on the home page of the CHA

group it states: " *Quotation from this list is prohibited without the

express written consent of the author*. " ) Obviously, my huge mistake, I

apologize to everyone, but I am glad that Lonny and Eric have bravely

continued the conversation on CHA, and I hope that just such conversation is

an important part of what this group is for.

 

Please know that for me it is very educational to hear Eric's ideas and

Lonny's ideas, and the dynamic between the two. Their ideas become all the

more interesting and enlightening as they dialogue back and forth. Of

course, for those actually doing the work of the debating, it may feel like

a personal attack and for that I am sorry. It may feel divisive, but so much

of the nuance of Chinese medicine, how it has evolved and is practiced, is

revealed through these conversations. I hope no one feels that the lively

debate puts anyone in danger of their reputation being smeared (except for

me, of course, since I am the only one who actually violated something). I,

for one, honor and appreciate anyone's willingness to " put themselves out

there " and speak passionately about this medicine. Of course people will

disagree, that is the richness of humanity, and those of us listening gain

so much by hearing the debate. My appreciation for this medicine, its

ancient roots and the various manifestations of it's modern evolution (and

the notion of drawing a vague line between the two) has grown so much

through this conversation, as has my respect for Eric and Lonny. There is

no one person who holds the collective scholarship and wisdom of Chinese

medicine in their head at one time, so I certainly don't have the

expectation that anyone contributing to these discussions knows everything

there is to know, or has " data " to support every opinion they express. I

hope we can agree to operate from this understanding so that people will

speak up anyway (differentiating opinions from sourced material of course).

Obviously we have so much to learn from one another-from how we interpret

the classics, to how we actually practice clinically, to how we perceive and

speak about one another (hopefully with respect). It is the evolution of

ideas, opinions, and practices, rooted in the tradition of the classics,

that keeps our medicine alive.

 

I count you all as my lineage and am extremely grateful.

 

Sincerely,

Beth Burke

 

P.S. I also responded privately to Eric's post and agreed he could post my

comments " anonymously " since I was just plain afraid of embarrassing myself

(ah well, so much for that). I realize now that the very thing I am asking

for, that people bravely and openly comment, I was not willing to do myself,

so I am outing myself on that front too, in hopes of encouraging future

conversations.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Beth,

I think it is clear that no harm was intended. Dont worry about it.

Lesson learned and that's that.

And I welcome this debate. this is an opportunity for deeper

understanding among the 2 " camps " . I have been living this for the

past 5 years as a TCM instructor at Tai Sophia. and so, although i

will not participate in this debate ( I know which side my bread is

buttered, so to speak), I will say this: the path to understanding

others is to listen. and to never use pejorative or denigrating

language against another.

 

 

Cara O. Frank, R. OM

Six Fishes

China Herb Company Chinese Herb Department

Tai Sophia Institute

www.carafrank.com

215-772-0770

 

On Aug 24, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Beth Burke wrote:

 

> I am writing to say that I did " quote " Eric's remarks to the Tai

> group, however, I didn't use his name or or email address. His post

> generated questions for me and I selfishly wanted to hear from more

> experienced and knowledgeable teachers who knew Worsley. Chinese

> herbal

> medicine does not figure in the Worsley/Tai Sophia

> " tradition " (another

> thing I have questions about, since it is more ancient, dare I say

> more

> " classical " than acupuncture itself, no?), so very few of the " older "

> generations of people that actually knew Worsley are on the on the

> CHA list

> serv. I realize now this violates the list serv agreement and for

> that I am

> sorry. Lonny is already on CHA (as you can see he posted his reply

> there),

> and asked me what thread it was on so he went back and responded to

> the

> thread. (For those of you who didn't know, and it has came up with the

> luteal phase thread a few days after my mistake, on the home page of

> the CHA

> group it states: " *Quotation from this list is prohibited without the

> express written consent of the author*. " ) Obviously, my huge

> mistake, I

> apologize to everyone, but I am glad that Lonny and Eric have bravely

> continued the conversation on CHA, and I hope that just such

> conversation is

> an important part of what this group is for.

>

> Please know that for me it is very educational to hear Eric's ideas

> and

> Lonny's ideas, and the dynamic between the two. Their ideas become

> all the

> more interesting and enlightening as they dialogue back and forth. Of

> course, for those actually doing the work of the debating, it may

> feel like

> a personal attack and for that I am sorry. It may feel divisive, but

> so much

> of the nuance of Chinese medicine, how it has evolved and is

> practiced, is

> revealed through these conversations. I hope no one feels that the

> lively

> debate puts anyone in danger of their reputation being smeared

> (except for

> me, of course, since I am the only one who actually violated

> something). I,

> for one, honor and appreciate anyone's willingness to " put

> themselves out

> there " and speak passionately about this medicine. Of course people

> will

> disagree, that is the richness of humanity, and those of us

> listening gain

> so much by hearing the debate. My appreciation for this medicine, its

> ancient roots and the various manifestations of it's modern

> evolution (and

> the notion of drawing a vague line between the two) has grown so much

> through this conversation, as has my respect for Eric and Lonny.

> There is

> no one person who holds the collective scholarship and wisdom of

> Chinese

> medicine in their head at one time, so I certainly don't have the

> expectation that anyone contributing to these discussions knows

> everything

> there is to know, or has " data " to support every opinion they

> express. I

> hope we can agree to operate from this understanding so that people

> will

> speak up anyway (differentiating opinions from sourced material of

> course).

> Obviously we have so much to learn from one another-from how we

> interpret

> the classics, to how we actually practice clinically, to how we

> perceive and

> speak about one another (hopefully with respect). It is the

> evolution of

> ideas, opinions, and practices, rooted in the tradition of the

> classics,

> that keeps our medicine alive.

>

> I count you all as my lineage and am extremely grateful.

>

> Sincerely,

> Beth Burke

>

> P.S. I also responded privately to Eric's post and agreed he could

> post my

> comments " anonymously " since I was just plain afraid of embarrassing

> myself

> (ah well, so much for that). I realize now that the very thing I am

> asking

> for, that people bravely and openly comment, I was not willing to do

> myself,

> so I am outing myself on that front too, in hopes of encouraging

> future

> conversations.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Beth, group,

I am just back from vacation at Lake Tahoe, so I am still catching

up, but I just wanted to say that this is an essential discussion that

needs to take place here and now, but as you point out, with respect

and dignity. I'll contribute something in the next day or so. . .

 

 

 

On Aug 24, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Beth Burke wrote:

 

> I am writing to say that I did " quote " Eric's remarks to the Tai

>

> group, however, I didn't use his name or or email address. His post

> generated questions for me and I selfishly wanted to hear from more

> experienced and knowledgeable teachers who knew Worsley. Chinese

> herbal

> medicine does not figure in the Worsley/Tai Sophia

> " tradition " (another

> thing I have questions about, since it is more ancient, dare I say

> more

> " classical " than acupuncture itself, no?), so very few of the " older "

> generations of people that actually knew Worsley are on the on the

> CHA list

> serv. I realize now this violates the list serv agreement and for

> that I am

> sorry. Lonny is already on CHA (as you can see he posted his reply

> there),

> and asked me what thread it was on so he went back and responded to

> the

> thread. (For those of you who didn't know, and it has came up with the

> luteal phase thread a few days after my mistake, on the home page of

> the CHA

> group it states: " *Quotation from this list is prohibited without the

> express written consent of the author*. " ) Obviously, my huge

> mistake, I

> apologize to everyone, but I am glad that Lonny and Eric have bravely

> continued the conversation on CHA, and I hope that just such

> conversation is

> an important part of what this group is for.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Don't be so hard on yourself here. As far as I can see you did everything

correctly. Words that are posted here are " owned " by the writer. When you got

permission from Eric there was no violation of CHA rules, nor of Eric's privacy.

As you noted the response came from a CHA member who responded through CHA.

(As to quoting the luteal thread, any one interested still has the option of

contacting the writers, I simply don't have the time to help facilitate that. )

 

I'll say a little about the Mayway thing of a few weeks ago. The response from

Ms. Lau came through a member who actually hadn't given her the granule emails

but came through other parties. Ms. Lau is now a CHA member and I welcome and

await her contributions.

 

The internet was originally a military and then university system. It was

obviously a closed system but now we seem to have the idea that everything on

the world wide interweb is free to be distributed. I think CHA members are

incredibly good about this despite some situations.

 

Just remember when we respond to controversial positions that we respond to the

ideas and concepts of the writer and not the writer or their motive themselves.

 

Doug

 

, Beth Burke <bethburke wrote:

>

> I am writing to say that I did " quote " Eric's remarks to the Tai

> group, however, I didn't use his name or or email address. His post

> generated questions for me and I selfishly wanted to hear from more

> experienced and knowledgeable teachers who knew Worsley. Chinese herbal

> medicine does not figure in the Worsley/Tai Sophia " tradition " (another

> thing I have questions about, since it is more ancient, dare I say more

> " classical " than acupuncture itself, no?), so very few of the " older "

> generations of people that actually knew Worsley are on the on the CHA list

> serv. I realize now this violates the list serv agreement and for that I am

> sorry. Lonny is already on CHA (as you can see he posted his reply there),

> and asked me what thread it was on so he went back and responded to the

> thread. (For those of you who didn't know, and it has came up with the

> luteal phase thread a few days after my mistake, on the home page of the CHA

> group it states: " *Quotation from this list is prohibited without the

> express written consent of the author*. " ) Obviously, my huge mistake, I

> apologize to everyone, but I am glad that Lonny and Eric have bravely

> continued the conversation on CHA, and I hope that just such conversation is

> an important part of what this group is for.

>

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> Don't be so hard on yourself here. As far as I can see you did everything

correctly. Words that are posted here are " owned " by the writer. When you got

permission from Eric there was no violation of CHA rules, nor of Eric's privacy.

As you noted the response came from a CHA member who responded through CHA.

 

She did NOT have my permission.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

In that case, I take it back Beth. Don't do it again.

Eric, sorry, I somehow got twisted around in the chronology and the read the

following as she had your permission. I now see you were quoting her.

Doug

_______________________

> Sincerely,

> Beth Burke

>

> P.S. I also responded privately to Eric's post and agreed he could

> post my

> comments " anonymously " since I was just plain afraid of embarrassing

> myself

> (ah well, so much for that). I realize now that the very thing I am

> asking

> for, that people bravely and openly comment, I was not willing to do

> myself,

> so I am outing myself on that front too, in hopes of encouraging

> future

> conversations.

 

 

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus

wrote:

>

> , " " <taiqi@> wrote:

> >

> > Don't be so hard on yourself here. As far as I can see you did everything

correctly. Words that are posted here are " owned " by the writer. When you got

permission from Eric there was no violation of CHA rules, nor of Eric's privacy.

As you noted the response came from a CHA member who responded through CHA.

>

> She did NOT have my permission.

>

> Eric

>

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> In that case, I take it back Beth. Don't do it again.

 

I didn't properly understand the context of how the Terms of Use were violated

in the first place. I know that I said that if you stole my first post you can

post the followup, but I no longer feel that way now that I understand the full

picture. Now that I have a better understanding of the situation, I would like

to state that NO ONE HAS MY PERMISSION TO COPY ANY OF MY QUOTES FROM CHA ONTO

ANY FORUM, EMAIL, MESSAGE BOARD, ETC, NOT FOR ANY REASON, UNLESS THEY FIRST

OBTAIN WRITTEN PERMISSION.

 

Violating the terms of use of our discussion group is unethical, illegal, and

unprofessional. I don't know how the ethics classes are set up at the Five

Element schools, but it sure seems like those classical principles of respect

are sorely lacking in actual practice. I sure hope that your patients can trust

you more than your colleagues can.

 

Seriously, between our lack of professional ethics and our lack of primary

sources in our schools, it is no wonder that we have a hard time getting

accepted by the mainstream world of Western academia.

 

Ok, hopefully for the last time... Any website, newsletter, email list, etc that

has my material quoted on it explicitly does not have my permission to house

this content. Please remove it from all such media immediately. CHA users,

please try to drop me an email if you see my material showing up elsewhere

online, at the moment no one has my permission to use any of it. Keeping the

Terms of Use for the CHA group intact benefits all of us.

 

Beth, I know that you were trying to do a good thing and I appreciate your

omitting my name from the emails. I forgive you and I'm sure you won't do it

again. But now other people are cross-posting this material to who-knows-where,

and I want it to stop.

 

Sorry to be so upset about this, but this incident virtually made me want to

quit CHA for good. No one will want to write anything if they have to worry

that it will be used to smear their image.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric:

>

> Violating the terms of use of our discussion group is unethical,

> illegal, and unprofessional. I don't know how the ethics classes are

> set up at the Five Element schools, but it sure seems like those

> classical principles of respect are sorely lacking in actual

> practice. I sure hope that your patients can trust you more than

> your colleagues can.

>

 

Dear Eric,

please take a deep breath and calm down. Although this conversation

has unfolded in way that has upset you, the discussion is a good one.

beyond that- I can personally tell you that students at tai sophia are

extremely ethical. more so than any other school I have ever

encountered. they are coached, from the first day of school in

cultivating a healing presence. This entire experience has allowed us

to be clear on internet boundaries and will hopefully create a sense

of mutual understanding between different schools of practice.

 

with warm regards,

Cara

 

Cara O. Frank, R. OM

Six Fishes

China Herb Company Chinese Herb Department

Tai Sophia Institute

www.carafrank.com

215-772-0770

 

On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:01 PM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

>

>

>

>

> Eric

>

>

[Guest guest]

, cara <herbbabe wrote:

> Dear Eric,

> please take a deep breath and calm down. Although this conversation

> has unfolded in way that has upset you, the discussion is a good one.

 

I don't doubt that her intentions were good. But seriously, even my first post

explicitly stated that " like Doug says, what goes on CHA stays on CHA. " I was

sharing my own thoughts with the CHA community, I wasn't writing something for

open dissemination. If someone tells you their feelings and asks that you keep

it within the treatment room, you do it. You don't broadcast it on the

internet. CHA is just as sacred as the treatment room. What is the point of

having membership and terms of use if they are totally meaningless?

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric, I think you stated this well in your previous post:

Doug

 

 

Eric wrote:

I think of CHA as a relatively informal, relatively private place where people

can voice their

opinions safely without fear of cross-posting and other violations of the Terms

of Use.

 

CHA posts are by nature somewhat informal, more akin to email than to journal

publications or even blog publications. If every person that posted something

on CHA felt like they could only write something that was publication-quality

material, the airwaves would be awfully quiet. CHA is an informal discussion

group, not a professional journal. It is a place to share ideas in a safe,

contained environment, it doesn't demand that any contributor demonstrate

comprehensive expertise on any topic that they comment on.

 

 

 

 

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus

wrote:

>

> , cara <herbbabe@> wrote:

> > Dear Eric,

> > please take a deep breath and calm down. Although this conversation

> > has unfolded in way that has upset you, the discussion is a good one.

>

> I don't doubt that her intentions were good. But seriously, even my first

post explicitly stated that " like Doug says, what goes on CHA stays on CHA. " I

was sharing my own thoughts with the CHA community, I wasn't writing something

for open dissemination. If someone tells you their feelings and asks that you

keep it within the treatment room, you do it. You don't broadcast it on the

internet. CHA is just as sacred as the treatment room. What is the point of

having membership and terms of use if they are totally meaningless?

>

> Eric

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Eric,

 

 

Thank you for your reply. We see eye to eye on the title, " Classical

Acupuncture " . It's a title that does little more than perpetuate Worsley's own

pride in a way that understandably causes alienation in the profession. Sadly,

there is plenty of pride to go around and the best any of us can do is to take

responsibility for our own.

I'm not sure I agree regarding the title, " traditional acupuncture " .

Worsley created his system, but he simply couldn't have invented all the

protocols and I beleive Mr. Eckman nicely outlined who he learned them from. For

example, his use of K-7 to brake a " Husband/wife " imbalance is wholly consistent

with writings in the Yijing straight through the Daoist Cannon in 1807. He

could not have done more than refine the techniques involved as the theory

supporting the method would have been beyond his grasp short of divine

revelation and we wont go there (though he woud have liked us to!). In short, he

assimilated many influences and achieved a grand synthesis and I would have to

argue that this is THE traditional process in the evolution of our medicine and

one of the highest manifestations in its practice. I also agree that it would

be a grand gesture for those who use the term " classical acupuncture " to relent.

Frankly the phrase " Contemporary 5E acupuncture " has a sweet sound to it and,

who could argue with the claim?

I think it's important not to implicate the way " ethics classes are set

up at the Five Element schools " for Beth's error as it's just more of the same.

You both made errors and apologized, and many of us learned quite a bit. Plenty

of good can come from this if we see to it.

 

There is a lot to be looked into regarding the medicine and the evolution

of value systems in culture. An evolutionary perspective brings a hierarchical

understanding of individuals, cultures, and value systems. A perspective not

present in the classical literature or the postmodern take on the medicine which

infects most of us. Consciousness has come a long way since 1972, let alone,

500bce. It's a conversation we should have some day.

 

I thank you for your engagement and look forward to putting this matter behind

us and continuing to work for the advancement of humanity through the medicine.

I'd also like to thank the moderator for allowing this discourse to unfold, it's

a good use of the group.

 

Warm regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Considering the fact that nearly all human academic or philosophical positions

will very quickly devolve into violent disagreement, this exchange isn't too

bad. It's a very important discussion, but I hope that at this point there will

be no more mention of people's names, whether it's Lonnie, Eric, Bob Flaws,

Wiseman, or whoever. Let's just debate the actual points without pointing any

fingers. That way, feelings are less likely to be hurt. That said, the following

comments have nothing to do with any people in this group!

 

TCM and Five Elements are simply two different tools. Arguing that one is better

than the other is like arguing that screwdrivers are better than hammers.

Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong. The human need to declare

something to be the absolute best is based on a childish mentality. I know two

Five Element practitioners who were students of Worsley. Neither of them has the

" mine is best " mentality. I regularly traded treatments with one of them. I

would do TCM acupuncture, and she would do 5 Element. No problem! On the other

hand, I saw a post on a school web group stating that TCM acupuncture simply

doesn't work, and only " classical acupuncture " has lasting effects. When I told

this person that I have seen numerous long term resolutions with plain old TCM

acupuncture, he was quite surprised. I informed him that I have seen many cases

of severe pain disappear with only one treatment using mostly local points. And

my acupuncture is fairly primitive, since I'm primarily an herbalist. He was

simply parroting what he had heard over the years and had no evidence for his

position, but that didn't stop him from expressing it. By the way, lots of

people use the term " classical acupuncture " for Master Tong style as well, so

the term really has no practical meaning at this point. It should probably be

abandoned.

 

I look forward to hearing more in this debate.

 

- Bill Schoenbart

[Guest guest]

This opens a conversation I've been having with myself for a long time and tried

to write yesterday but couldn't finish....

Boiled down it goes something like this: I often look at Chinese psychology as

not serving my (western) mindset. Is this because of cultural difference or is

it because what I see as Chinese naivete just a symptom of an ego disturbance

that can be rectified by Chinese " psychology " ?

 

Doug

 

 

 

.. Consciousness has come a long way since 1972, let alone, 500bce. It's a

conversation we should have some day.

>

> I thank you for your engagement and look forward to putting this matter behind

us and continuing to work for the advancement of humanity through the medicine.

I'd also like to thank the moderator for allowing this discourse to unfold, it's

a good use of the group.

>

> Warm regards, Lonny

>

[Guest guest]

For myself, this is the secret to JR Worsley's (and others) success. . .

 

He tapped into the Western psyche and adapted the Chinese teachings to

it. . . . . .

 

Which raises the question, how much can Westerners change

psychologically to match Eastern impressions of consciousness?

 

 

 

On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:12 PM, wrote:

 

> This opens a conversation I've been having with myself for a long

> time and tried to write yesterday but couldn't finish....

> Boiled down it goes something like this: I often look at Chinese

> psychology as not serving my (western) mindset. Is this because of

> cultural difference or is it because what I see as Chinese naivete

> just a symptom of an ego disturbance that can be rectified by

> Chinese " psychology " ?

>

> Doug

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm going to inject the perspective of Paul Unschuld into this

discussion, an anthropological and very controversial one. These

quotes are from his latest work, " What Is Medicine? " published by

University of California Press.

 

On official mainland Chinese medicine:

 

" From 1970 to 1975, commissions gutted the theoretical edifice and

totally rebuilt it from the inside: set pieces from the past were put

together carefully so that they no longer clashed with the new

knowledge, with the reality of the new Western medicine. The new

building corresponds to modern thinking in its internal logic. The

old, typically Chinese inductive thinking was exchanged for modern

logic, the Western way of thinking. The great, multi-roomed,

confusing, two-millenia-old cage of ideas was now turned into a cute

little playpen, where no one could get lost anymore. "

 

On the Western adaptation of Chinese medicine:

 

" And this is what the visitors (Western students of Chinese medicine)

took in thin booklets back home, where they happily proclaimed that

they now possessed the knowledge of a several-thousand-year-old

culture. Soon the " Abus " and " Ibns " (Unschuld is referring to an

earlier era where Arab physicians adapted Greek medicine as it was

dying in Greece to their culture) of Europe and North America

emerged. From thin booklets, books of many hundreds of pages were

written. Key words were flourished like banners before the eyes of

the surprised masses at home: Holism! Nature! Energy! Each returnee

built a small playpen at home, based on the model. The blueprint was

easy to learn. Some stayed only one or two weeks in the original

land. Others spent somewhat more time. Still others did not journey

there at all, but just listened in to the secrets of the returnees. "

 

 

Interesting stuff and food for thought. . .

 

 

 

On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:21 PM, sppdestiny wrote:

 

> There is a lot to be looked into regarding the medicine and the

> evolution of value systems in culture. An evolutionary perspective

> brings a hierarchical understanding of individuals, cultures, and

> value systems. A perspective not present in the classical literature

> or the postmodern take on the medicine which infects most of us.

> Consciousness has come a long way since 1972, let alone, 500bce.

> It's a conversation we should have some day.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Correction, this should read " from 1950 to 1975 " . . .

 

Z'ev

 

 

On Aug 25, 2009, at 11:21 PM, wrote:

 

> " From 1970 to 1975, commissions gutted the theoretical edifice and

> totally rebuilt it from the inside:

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric Brand: " It is hard to imagine that students could receive a Master's degree

in medicine without even learning the difference between primary sources and

secondary sources of information. Hard to imagine that they could earn a

Master's degree studying a system largely created by JR Worsley without ever

learning that JR made it up himself. In most places in the world, a Master's

degree is something that has academic credibility, very few people receive

Master's degrees without ever being exposed to primary sources of information in

their field of study. "

 

I have to completely agree here. Within Chinese medicine education, people are

free to make stuff up as they go along and that information is treated equally

with primary sources, for the most part. We very seriously need to reexamine how

we are teaching Chinese medicine in the west. How are we going to develop a

scholar-physician tradition without even this simple distinction being made?

 

Lonny said: " In his book " Grasping the Wind " , Mr Wisemen, et al. suggest that

the name of K-7 denotes that (to paraphrase) `he kidney channel makes a circle

around the ankle and the flow of qi returns from k-6 to k-7.' Apparently their

multiple PHD's, and years of Classical study, didn't prompt them to mention that

the point's name and function is emblematic of arguably one of the deepest and

highest values of Ancient Chinese Culture: The Turning Point, The recognition of

the role of human will, and free choice, in forging destiny and mediating the

interpenetration of yin and yang as the root of both health and enlightenment. A

small detail to have glossed over, admittedly, but still one worth noting

perhaps? Either the authors were clueless in this regard, or didn't value the

fact having had no degree of personal experience with the inner dimensions of

the teachings that they could take a stand for. "

 

I think this is what other people are referring to when they talk about the

ability to arouse the western psyche. I have never found anything in the

classics that resembles what you have written. I reference the classics because

this is where the authors of that book got their information (primary sources).

The classics are filled with long winded explanations of meridian pathways, but

I have never seen discussions of the 'inner meaning.' Your interpretation here

is an innovation based on western culture, which I do not necessarily believe

invalidates it in any way-but this is not where the authors were coming from. I

think this points well to the idea that we need to make distinctions between

primary sources and secondary interpretations. Can any direct links between what

you claim and the point name be found in primary sources?

 

Dr. Goodman did an interview on a blog where he talked valuable secondary

sources that people in Chinese medicine pretty much ignore: (I also follow)

Nathan Sivin, Ben Elman, Charlotte Furth, Vivienne Lo, Don Harper, Shigehisa

Kuriyama, Volker Scheid, Marta Hanson, and a lot of other scholars who have been

doing research into texts and the history of medicine. Even forgetting the

classics for a moment, there is a range of scholars doing very valuable work in

the history of Chinese medicine and other scholars doing work in related fields

that I didn't even mention. I think as a profession, and especially if we are

going to develop a true scholar-physician trend in the West, we need a lot more

training. Everything I mentioned above is available in English, and I think it's

a shame that people do not read more by China scholars.

 

He also said something very much related to the earlier discussion, and I do not

intend for this to be pointed at any one person involved in the previous

discussion: " We in Chinese medicine are lacking critical analysis. Usually, when

I see criticisms, they are rather weak or personal and not usually well

informed. People are using opinions and offer no real evidence. So first, I

think developing the ability to critically analyze without necessarily being

critical of the author or teacher is a very helpful skill. Every teacher or

author is limited in their perspective; I am limited by my emphasis on texts and

pretty much ignore the oral tradition because I have no interest in researching

that. Volker Scheid is doing some great work in that regard. My current book,

and likely future books, will completely ignore the " religious " views of the

body. So we can find limits everywhere and also become aware of our own limits. "

The entire interview can be read here:

http://www.chinesemedicinenotes.com/2009/07/27/richard-goodman/

 

Finally, I think the quote Z'ev provided from Unschuld hits the nail on the

head. It seems that many of the early teachers thought they had something

special because they had learned medicine from China when it first opened, or

from Taiwan/Hong Kong/Macau because it was untouched by the Cultural Revolution.

Even a superficial reading of Chinese history will show that intellectual

changes in medicine began long before the cultural revolution, though the CCP

certainly put the final nails in the coffin. In the West, we love talking about

the Cultural Revolution, but ignore the May 4th movement and writers like Lu

Xun.

 

In some ways, I find it discouraging that so few people are interested in

exploring the intellectual history of Chinese medicine. On the other hand, it

seems that recently, books and blogs by scholar-practitioners who are really

spending time in the East are getting a lot of attention (Jason Robertson and

Richard Goodman being the most recent examples I can think of). It seems things

are heading in a new direction, and I hope that we have a whole lot more people

who are interested in looking at primary sources and the teaching that come from

them as, well, primary.

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> This opens a conversation I've been having with myself for a long time and

tried to write yesterday but couldn't finish....

> Boiled down it goes something like this: I often look at Chinese psychology as

not serving my (western) mindset. Is this because of cultural difference or is

it because what I see as Chinese naivete just a symptom of an ego disturbance

that can be rectified by Chinese " psychology " ?

>

> Doug

 

 

 

 

Doug, this is a great question that really bears looking into. I will submit for

consideration that the Chinese during the time the Classical texts were written

didn't have psychology and that postmodern authors have projected modern and

post-modern psychological constructs onto what was really a combination of an

animistic and absolutist belief system.

 

What we recognize as psychology in the West emerges culturally when there is a

significant middle class whose survival needs have been met and have leisure

time and disposable income. It applies to those whose main source of illness

comes from suffocating in their own heads from self concern.

 

I'd also go so far as to suggest that, at the current leading edge, psychology

isn't relevant, or is barely relevant, anymore.

 

 

Regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I'm going to inject the perspective of Paul Unschuld into this

> discussion, an anthropological and very controversial one. These

> quotes are from his latest work, " What Is Medicine? " published by

> University of California Press.

>

 

 

I think you are dead on here Z'ev and so few of us have wanted to grapple with

what Mr. Unschuld is pointing to. People read it, acknowledge it, and then gloss

over it. It's similar to when I began in Neuroscience at the university of

Michigan and I was told things like " there are real problems generalizing animal

results to humans " . Then we spent the next two years doing it and never

considering the implications. And, if you brought them up, people screwed their

faces up at you like you were nuts.

 

I say that there couldn't be a more important point pertaining to the discussion

we've been having. I'll also say that I don't think it's a problem, or that we

are at any loss here in the West for what happened. But unless we really

understand the evolution of cultures and consciousness in the past, as it

pertains to where we stand now we are really discussing CM with no hierarchical

framework that makes any sense.

 

In my Clinical Practice book I spent 30 pages (CH 37) to look at the 4000 year

history of the medicine in terms of cultural evolution. I think this type of

framework is the single most important structure and common reference point, to

have in place if we are really going to take the medicine forward.

 

Best regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

I have never found anything in the

classics that resembles what you have written.

 

 

Lonny: The classics, and CM, didn't exist in a vacuum, they existed in a

culture. The notion that that the Medical texts should be taken on their own

merits outside the context of all other culture during their time has always

appeared to me to be ridiculous. Personally, I have no problem applying concepts

from the Daoist Cannon or Mencious to the medical texts. At least I cite sources

and do it transparently.

 

 

It's fairly safe to assume that the authors of the medical texts were literate

enough to have read,many other texts written or venerated during their time. It

seems reasonable that they had, for example read the Yi Jing. It seems

reasonable that in using a character for " will " or " destiny " etc they were aware

of that characters usage in texts across a wide number of philosophical, medical

and spiritual usages. At any rate, I'd suggest that you read what I've actually

written about the Husband/wife imbalance and then tell me that it wasn't a

foundational concept in Ancient Chinese philosophy and that the function of K7

has nothing to do with that based on the physiology I've laid out.

 

Having said this, I will admit that my first book has traces of what I'd call

" humanistic, sensitive self, values " . These are largely eradicated by the 2nd

book, and the current one I'm working on has none.

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

 

 

I would greatly enjoy if you could supply us with a historical source that

describes a husband/wife imbalance and that K-7 treats this. I would love to

read this in Chinese.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of sppdestiny

 

 

 

Worsley created his system, but he simply couldn't have invented all the

protocols and I beleive Mr. Eckman nicely outlined who he learned them from.

For example, his use of K-7 to brake a " Husband/wife " imbalance is wholly

consistent with writings in the Yijing straight through the Daoist Cannon in

1807. He could not have done more than refine the techniques involved as the

theory supporting the method would have been beyond his grasp short of

divine revelation and we wont go there (though he woud have liked us to!).

In short, he assimilated many influences and achieved a grand synthesis and

I would have to argue that this is THE traditional process in the evolution

of our medicine and one of the highest manifestations in its practice. I

also agree that it would be a grand gesture for those who use the term

" classical acupuncture " to relent. Frankly the phrase " Contemporary 5E

acupuncture " has a sweet sound to it and, who could argue with the claim?

I think it's important not to implicate the way " ethics classes are set up

at the Five Element schools " for Beth's error as it's just more of the same.

You both made errors and apologized, and many of us learned quite a bit.

Plenty of good can come from this if we see to it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I would like to read this too!

Gabe Fuentes

 

--- On Wed, 8/26/09, wrote:

 

 

 

RE: Re: huge apology-but appreciate the discussion

 

Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 7:54 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lonny,

 

I would greatly enjoy if you could supply us with a historical source that

describes a husband/wife imbalance and that K-7 treats this. I would love to

read this in Chinese.

 

-

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

When you refer to 'Chinese psychology', what are referring to specifically?

Something outlined in texts adapted for Western audiences? Impressions of

Chinese people you know?

 

I would love to see this discussion unfold into some comparisons between a

Worsley psychological model, a T.C.M. psychology, and T.C.M. psychiatry. Correct

me if I'm wrong, but isn't influencing the psyche the primary objective of 5E

acupuncture?

 

Ben

[Guest guest]

Munez: I have never found anything in the

classics that resembles what you have written....Can any direct links between

what

you claim and the point name be found in primary sources?

 

 

 

Lonny: I want to further expand on my answer to Mr. or Ms. Munez.

I will respond on two counts. The first is that this is not a fair criticism of

my work and the second is that it entirely misses the point and significance of

my work.

 

1. I feel this criticism is an unfair assessment of my work because I have been

wholly transparent about my methodology and sources. Let me restate them here.

At the time I published Nourishing Destiny I had performed about 40,000 clinical

sessions. What I did was to venture through history to find support for what I

was actually doing and seeing in the treatment room. Beyond this, I synthesized

the use of characters and language between the related disciplines of medicine,

alchemy, the enlightenment traditions, poetry, art, philosophy, and literature.

In the introduction I stated:

 

" In conclusion, to the degree that my thesis conforms to the beliefs and

practices of those who have come before me, I am happy to credit them. To the

degree that this work challenges those who attach importance to historical

antecedents as a requisite condition for defining what is " true " Chinese

medicine, I am happy to admit that " I made this work up " and to let a self-aware

inner tradition begin with this text. "

 

 

I just don't know how more transparent I could be regarding my methods or

purpose. It's ironic to hear JR Worsley criticized for not revealing sources,

claiming a " classical tradition, and not admitting he created things and then to

be criticized myself for doing exactly the opposite. I wonder what the

significance of this observation could be? As to the point functions, I read

every text printed in English, researched the meanings of the characters

throughout Chinese literature, Studied wit Claude larre, and combined that

research with my clinical experience. Take it or leave it.

 

 

2. Secondly, I will go out on a limb and suggest that my works, and the works

of some others in the West, represent an evolution of the medicine. I predict

that as China develops a middle class with disposable income and free time, the

insights in my books will naturally emerge in their own culture. I also predict

that as China hopefully embraces democracy and moves front and center into a

global community that the values inherent in my books will surface.

 

I am all for scholars doing their best to convey with absolute precision what

the ancient Chinese were attempting to communicate. Of course, we will never

know in any way that is unbiased by our own cultural conditioning. But the best

scholars can provide us with the closest approximation possible so that we

can…..….create! And that's what I would like to think I've done.

 

Many of us take for granted an integral (the term was coined by Sri Aurobindu I

the early part of the last century) consciousness not possessed by the authors

of the classics. We know very much more than the ancients about the universe

itself and the nature of universal processes. I doubt Confucius ever said " darn!

I just bought this abacus last month and now they've come out with a new model. "

Time has sped up, evolution has been discovered and we can be aware of it

occurring in real time, we've learned that time isn't circular. We can think

inductively and synthetically, holistically and reductionistically

simultaneously, and potentially, our view is not just tribal or, at best,

ethnocentric (as during the period the classics were written), but

global-centric and beyond.

 

We also have something else that the Ancients didn't have: a 4000 year

perspective on cultural evolution. It's possible to achieve a synthesis that

wasn't possible historically and that's what I've attempted to accomplish in

terms of my own stated goals for the medicine. I can't think of any better use

of the knowledge of history than to go forward and create something new. The

work's of the historians of the medicine will only have more than an

anthropological value to the degree that they serve that. So while you may want

to criticize me for this or that interpretation or conclusion, I don't see how

you can criticize my methodology or honesty regarding my purpose.

 

 

Sincerely, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

I think the Chinese focus on Sheng Li Xue (Principles of LIfe), rather than

Xin Li Xue (Psychology). Chinese had Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism to

balanace life's problems - not psychologists or psychiatrists. Have a

problem? Go see a monk...

 

Worsley largely made up his own localized evolution of 5 Elements.

 

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:38 AM, ben zappin <btz23 wrote:

 

> Doug,

>

> When you refer to 'Chinese psychology', what are referring to

> specifically? Something outlined in texts adapted for Western audiences?

> Impressions of Chinese people you know?

>

> I would love to see this discussion unfold into some comparisons between

> a Worsley psychological model, a T.C.M. psychology, and T.C.M. psychiatry.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't influencing the psyche the primary

> objective of 5E acupuncture?

>

> Ben

>

>

>

> ---

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

> practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

>

>

http://www..org<http://www..org/>!

> Groups Links

>

>

>

>

 

 

--

Robert Chu, PhD, L.Ac. QME

chusauli

 

See my webpages at: www.chusaulei.com