research methodology and experimental design

February 26, 2010

Funny,

I don't see this as a 'tongue lashing' at all, and I see no implication that

Trevor is being specifically addressed in his stance vis a vis the classics. I

think Steve is making the point that one can study the concepts of the classical

medicine via one's teacher or by working with specific texts, especially when it

comes to channel theory. .

But we'll have to wait from Trevor himself to see how he feels about this. .

Z'ev

On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:53 PM, wrote:

> Steven, this is one of a number of tongue lashings you have been dealing

> out, and quite frankly they are both unnecessary and unprofessional. It

> sounds to me like a teenager who is adamitely trying to defend a stance. To

> suggest, as you do, that Trevor hasn't learned to think about as well as

> embody and contemplate the Classics while learning to actually read them is

> preposterous and insulting to him and, frankly, to me. To answer your last

> question in this diatribe, it is all of the above! You need scholarship

> along with embodiment and contemplation, plain and simple.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

February 26, 2010

On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:34 PM, wrote:

> Steve et al,

>

> I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the

> original

> Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> seriously.

>

I think that this is an extraordinary pity.

I am put in mind of my post on December 26th concerning the notion of

interdisciplinary modes of rigor, and the need for all of us in the

profession to recognize that there are many pathways of knowledge--

and that their greatest contribution is to each other when they are

shared. The scholars must listen to the clinicians, as much as the

clinicians must listen to scholars-- as we also listen to the growers

of herbs who learn of their nature by cultivation, and the qi gong

practitioners who know the herbs vibrationally by smell and taste and

feel. We all must be humbly rigorous in allowing our " knowledge " to

be honed by those who have proven rigor by other ways of knowing than

our own.

If those who read the original Chinese texts will not listen seriously

to the clinicians and qi gong masters and others who have gifts of

insight to bring to our practice by other means than scholarship, we

are impoverishing ourselves tremendously!

Thomas, I have great respect for you and your work-- can you really

mean this, that no other pathway of knowledge within our field has

merit? I am not speaking of accepting anything as authoritative

without scrutiny, but will you not even consider the insights of those

who look to your scholarly talents for collaboration, confirmation,

and mutual enrichment?

Thea Elijah

February 26, 2010

It's only when I started teaching the Fundamentals class did I really start

digging into Chinese. I don't say I read but I am forever looking up words for

meaning. Some times meaning comes from translation, some comes from sociology,

some comes from history. Last year hearing Elizabeth Rochat saying rather

off-hand that " oh, we can't analyze this word because we are only analyzing the

English, we have to look at the Chinese " , that got me going.

Doug

,

wrote:

>

> Steve et al,

>

> I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the original

> Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my Chinese

> and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty, I

> find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

> years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

> now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If you

> really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

> really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

> you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original Chinese,

> sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation of

> the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind as

> one of these exceptions.

>

> To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

> read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I am

> sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but the

> reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

> after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

> outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

> could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both a

> vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of insight.

> Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this list

> who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say their

> experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

>

> This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

> Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a teacher,

> you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic rigor.

> I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked about

> becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

> language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

>

> Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

> opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

> been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has contributed

> at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine in

> the West. May you find true happiness!

>

> In Good Health,

> Thomas

>

> cell:

> Beijing, China

> Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide "

>

February 26, 2010

Thanks for your feedback Thomas, though I'm not sure I'm the one that has

been giving tongue lashings, been de-legitimized by ad hominem arguments,

and now apparently demonized by taking statements out of context. I can see

that you believe I've been stubborn; indeed, I'm still waiting for any

substantive responses to the merits of the ideas I've presented on this list

-- most recently, my sharing of clinically valuable material the Imperial

Academy chose to suppress a thousand years ago for political reasons.

Apparently, a group of present day scholars choose to continue codifying

that suppression of free speech and thought a thousand years later. I can

only wonder why?

It appears we're at an impasse, if as you say " I (Thomas) find what you say

interesting, but knowing that you can't read the original makes it difficult

for me to take it too seriously. " Is that an enlightening standard for

pursuing deeper understanding? Seems a little odd to me that none of the

scholars on this list seem to have anything to say about my ideas, except

for claiming that they're illegitimate because I can't read Chinese as well

as they can.

Thank you, Z'ev, for supporting my attempts to have a voice. Funny thing is,

I respect scholarship, though I'm also mindful of the first chapter of Dao

De Jing (or if you follow the Mawangdui version, chapter 45) -- " The Dao

that can be spoken (written) is not the eternal Dao. " I haven't disrespected

actual scholarship in this thread; I've merely pointed out the inaccuracy of

broad and frankly vague claims that didn't agree with widely accepted

historical scholarship, such as the claim that there has been a consensus of

Chinese medicine theory/practice that developed during its history.

While the Imperial Academy may have tried to dominate Chinese medicine at

various times, every era saw new ideas and doctrines arise. Also, among its

departments there have always been competing theories, such as Waike,

Digestion, and Gynecology -- each with their own theories, some of which

differed from each other. Since the recording of Neijing launched the

written history of CM (that still exists) as a profoundly heterogenious pair

of texts, there has simply never been a " homogenous professional doctrine "

of Chinese medicine. The modern clinical doctrine, codified under the

influence of the Chinese government with its peculiar philosophical

perspectives is likely as close to homogeneous as at any time during the

history of CM, and Volker Scheid argued convincingly that even modern CM is

quite heterogeneous.

Steve

February 26, 2010

Steven,

can you talk about the suppression by the Imperial Academy....

I'm not sure I've heard about this... is this the neo-confucian suppression

of daoism?

Were texts re-written or burned?

Thanks,

K

February 27, 2010

John,

I was specifically referring to the suppression of the five systems of

channels in favor of the dominance of the " primary " channels as extensions

to the zangfu. Unlike your reference to Lingshu chapter 8 in the other

thread, the modern use of the zangfu as the cornerstone of CM theory has

grown increasingly physical over the centuries. The shift of modernization

that I'm referring to here has progressively developed since early in the

Song Dynasty, when it was canonized by the erection of the Bronze Man in the

capital city of the time (I believe Xian, though I'm not sure), which has

led to a progressive shift away from ( " applied philosophical " ) consideration

of the five systems of channels as the foundation of individual life toward

empirical studies of individual point functions.

There were also changes in texts, including herbal texts, which the Song

Imperial government was able to enforce through " flooding the market " with

works produced with the relatively new technology of mechanical printing.

One example of this shift was literally uncovered by Donald Harper, who also

did the translation of medical texts found among the Mawangdui findings,

which included a wonderful introduction of about 120 pages largely about

Neijing. Harper found a pre-Song version of Su Simiao's *Qian Jin Yao

Fang*in Dunhuang, and notes a drastic revision wherein the post-Song

version,

which has been the only one available since that period, resulted from

systematic cleansing of material that might be considered " spiritual " --

that is, relating to the intention of the practitioner.

Harper's translations of the respective passages from the Tang and Song

versions follow ( " Three Medieval Wu Zang Lun Textsin Manuscript from

Dunhuang and Turfan, " 2004, Univ. of Chicago):

Tang: The method for pounding medicine: burn incense, and sprinkle and sweep

to make (the area) clean and pure. Let there not be random talking. Youths

should be made to pound it, striving to make it very fine. Let the number

for the pestle reach a thousand or myriad; the more (pounding the better.

After completing the combining and blending, set (the medicine) on a table

before [buddhist and Daoist icons for inspiring the intention of healing]…

Entreat with your whole heart, and seek the root heart in praying for your

wish. Then there is divine aid, and the living vapor of the eight directions

fills the four limbs.

Song (and later editions): …the more (pounding) the better.

Yet, I am primarily a clinician, so I haven't done my own (primary) search

and translations. I rely on responsible Sinologists and members of our

profession who have developed their language skills sufficiently to do

translations. I appreciate their many wonderful contributions to our

profession, and do my own analyses based on my studies of Chinese history

and thought, and my perception of problematic issues within the " standard "

doctrine of modern TCM (as the twentieth century re-organization of Chinese

medicinal doctrine was exported to us in the west, dubbing it " traditional "

for propaganda reasons, to fulfill a perceived thirst among westerners in

classical Chinese thought).

My study of Chinese " thought " over thirty years leads me to conclude that

the " standard " clinical doctrine, based on classifying the manifestations of

distress into symptom-sign complexes, and then applying treatment strategies

to " balance " them is just not the whole picture. I've concluded that the

subtle and incisive minds that wrote and studied such texts as Neijing (and

frankly Dao De Jing) over the centuries must have come up with more

sophisticated ideas about how to work with the dynamic and responsive nature

of the embodied spirit as it adapts to various challenges to its vitality.

For instance, what does modern TCM teach us to do with patients that shows

only symptoms and signs of deficiency, yet they can't tolerate tonics -- if

we don't have western medical diagnoses? I recently posted links to two

essays on this topic, which for the convenience of any interested readers

I'll include again -- " Is this Excess or

Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Deficiency-or\

-Excess.pdf> "

and " The Myth of

Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Myth-of-Defic\

iency.pdf>. "

In addition to good translations, might adding such perceptions and thoughts

to the discussion of Chinese medicine also enhance its practice?

Steve

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:35 PM, <johnkokko wrote:

>

> Steven,

> can you talk about the suppression by the Imperial Academy....

> I'm not sure I've heard about this... is this the neo-confucian suppression

> of daoism?

> Were texts re-written or burned?

>

> Thanks,

> K

>

February 27, 2010

Steve,

I know you mean well in regards to your ideas, but I have t say that I just read

your two essays, and I had a hard time understanding your point. I find that you

tend to jump around a lot in your writing, making it hard for me, the reader, to

get a clear grasp of your intention.

In the first one, " Is this Deficiency or Excess? " , I understand that you are

attempting to share your prospectives on acupuncture channel theory, but the

rest is unclear. DId you decide later that Gui Pi Tang was the wrong treatment

for your patient? Did she continue to take it, stop taking it? It is not clear

in the manner that you have presented it.

I mean if it was about, " looking past her apparent deficiencies " , how is this

different than standard TCM? This is exactly how I was taught in my training. I

was never taught to try and just fit symptoms or diseases into a nice box, so

that you confirm ones theory of diagnosis. One has to have a firm grasp on the

multitude of ways that a symptom can arise from, be flexible and open minded, so

one can adapt ones theory and thinking as the clinical picture changes.

Modern TCM is truly a collection of many schools of thought, of which many of us

have been exposed to and taught. We should be able to draw upon these different

schools, so as to use the most appropriate one when the times dictates, and know

how to switch to a different one when results are not optimal. I like what Jason

pointed out in the commentary to a classical case study, " Qin's (Bo Wei) point

is that doctors that are schooled in a well-rounded Chinese medicine approach

will have access to all of these approaches, and should be able to

systematically figure out which one is best. "

Perhaps you can clarify your point? Are you putting down CM? Are you saying your

thinking is better? How is your approach to problem solving any different than

normal CM?

Trevor

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

>

> John,

>

> I was specifically referring to the suppression of the five systems of

> channels in favor of the dominance of the " primary " channels as extensions

> to the zangfu. Unlike your reference to Lingshu chapter 8 in the other

> thread, the modern use of the zangfu as the cornerstone of CM theory has

> grown increasingly physical over the centuries. The shift of modernization

> that I'm referring to here has progressively developed since early in the

> Song Dynasty, when it was canonized by the erection of the Bronze Man in the

> capital city of the time (I believe Xian, though I'm not sure), which has

> led to a progressive shift away from ( " applied philosophical " ) consideration

> of the five systems of channels as the foundation of individual life toward

> empirical studies of individual point functions.

>

> There were also changes in texts, including herbal texts, which the Song

> Imperial government was able to enforce through " flooding the market " with

> works produced with the relatively new technology of mechanical printing.

> One example of this shift was literally uncovered by Donald Harper, who also

> did the translation of medical texts found among the Mawangdui findings,

> which included a wonderful introduction of about 120 pages largely about

> Neijing. Harper found a pre-Song version of Su Simiao's *Qian Jin Yao

> Fang*in Dunhuang, and notes a drastic revision wherein the post-Song

> version,

> which has been the only one available since that period, resulted from

> systematic cleansing of material that might be considered " spiritual " --

> that is, relating to the intention of the practitioner.

>

> Harper's translations of the respective passages from the Tang and Song

> versions follow ( " Three Medieval Wu Zang Lun Textsin Manuscript from

> Dunhuang and Turfan, " 2004, Univ. of Chicago):

>

> Tang: The method for pounding medicine: burn incense, and sprinkle and sweep

> to make (the area) clean and pure. Let there not be random talking. Youths

> should be made to pound it, striving to make it very fine. Let the number

> for the pestle reach a thousand or myriad; the more (pounding the better.

> After completing the combining and blending, set (the medicine) on a table

> before [buddhist and Daoist icons for inspiring the intention of healing]…

> Entreat with your whole heart, and seek the root heart in praying for your

> wish. Then there is divine aid, and the living vapor of the eight directions

> fills the four limbs.

>

> Song (and later editions): …the more (pounding) the better.

>

> Yet, I am primarily a clinician, so I haven't done my own (primary) search

> and translations. I rely on responsible Sinologists and members of our

> profession who have developed their language skills sufficiently to do

> translations. I appreciate their many wonderful contributions to our

> profession, and do my own analyses based on my studies of Chinese history

> and thought, and my perception of problematic issues within the " standard "

> doctrine of modern TCM (as the twentieth century re-organization of Chinese

> medicinal doctrine was exported to us in the west, dubbing it " traditional "

> for propaganda reasons, to fulfill a perceived thirst among westerners in

> classical Chinese thought).

>

> My study of Chinese " thought " over thirty years leads me to conclude that

> the " standard " clinical doctrine, based on classifying the manifestations of

> distress into symptom-sign complexes, and then applying treatment strategies

> to " balance " them is just not the whole picture. I've concluded that the

> subtle and incisive minds that wrote and studied such texts as Neijing (and

> frankly Dao De Jing) over the centuries must have come up with more

> sophisticated ideas about how to work with the dynamic and responsive nature

> of the embodied spirit as it adapts to various challenges to its vitality.

>

> For instance, what does modern TCM teach us to do with patients that shows

> only symptoms and signs of deficiency, yet they can't tolerate tonics -- if

> we don't have western medical diagnoses? I recently posted links to two

> essays on this topic, which for the convenience of any interested readers

> I'll include again -- " Is this Excess or

>

Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Deficiency-or\

-Excess.pdf> "

> and " The Myth of

>

Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Myth-of-Defic\

iency.pdf>. "

> In addition to good translations, might adding such perceptions and thoughts

> to the discussion of Chinese medicine also enhance its practice?

>

> Steve

>

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:35 PM, <johnkokko wrote:

>

> >

> > Steven,

> > can you talk about the suppression by the Imperial Academy....

> > I'm not sure I've heard about this... is this the neo-confucian suppression

> > of daoism?

> > Were texts re-written or burned?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > K

> >

>

February 27, 2010

I have to dig my heals in here. I hope to convey this graciously as I am

currently feeling a lot of stagnation regarding this topic. Reading Chinese,

speaking Chinese, writing books and the like are noble efforts, but they are not

the actual practice of our medicine. They are not areas where the rubber meets

the road so to speak.

I know for a fact that people are publishing, regurgitating, teaching and

learning to read classics, that simply have very little if and practical skills

in the last 8 years. They speak as if they are the leaders and truly educated in

our field, yet they only know it through books, Chinese or otherwise. I would

much rather hear from a busy practitioner than a inexperienced scholar. I would

much rather meditate, than read about meditating. I would much rather help

people than conceptualize about it. Granted both are needed, but what really

matters

Scholastic study is intended to improve our medicine, not inhibit it and surely

not take precedent over the treatment room. I urge those of you who have not had

the clinical experience to back up your books, and claims to greatness of being

a 20 year old practitioner, to be honest with yourself and us.