polemics

March 4, 2010

1) Practitioners who hold the observation of the movements of psyche

as of fundamental importance in their diagnostic and treatment style

are a bunch of self-inflated New Age flakes who arrogantly impose

their own belief systems on their clients.

2) Practitioners who don't practice within a self-described

" spiritual " context are ignorant boors who are only treating on a

superficial level and are therefore not able to " really " heal their

clients; they are inferior physicians.

What if neither of these statements is true? Can we celebrate the

richness of our diverse practice styles? If we are interested, we may

learn a great deal from each others' diverse ways of mapping the

terrain; if we are not interested, at the very least we can respect

the legitimacy of styles unlike our own.

I am interested in looking how our modes of discussion may contribute

towards furthering either greater learning among us, or greater

divisiveness and discord. I think that as a community we must be very

careful to note, in ourselves, when we are becoming polemical in our

discourse, and return to a clear intent of explication and

exploration. In such a mode of discourse we seek only greater and

greater intelligibility of both our own and our partners'

understandings-- because the insights which come out of this process

are more likely to further knowledge and discernment, rather than the

increase of entrenchment in our original positions.

Polemical discourse holds differences as primary, and insists on

either/or. By contrast we could choose a more heterodox model,

rigorous but capable of sustaining many paths of legitimate practice.

Somewhat like an octopus with many legs, if we begin by focusing on

what is centrally held in common by our styles, we can observe the

ways in which our " style divergences " remain internally consistent

with the core principles of Chinese medical practice, even as they

diverge in expression.

For instance, " treating the pattern " is a core principle which we hold

in common--- but as point of divergence from this common principle,

Trevor has written eloquently about the importance of treating not

only the pattern but also the disease. Sharon has written equally

eloquently about treating not only the pattern but also the

constitution.

It is not either/or, although some practitioners may find themselves

gravitating far more towards a constitutional approach, while others

become disease specialists. What folly it would be to debate about

which is the right way? We need both in measure, and our differences

of personal temperament make it more profitable for everyone for each

of us to practice according to our strongest abilities. This is a

good thing, not a weakness in the profession.

Treat the pattern. Sure. We agree on this. But some practitioners

are more adept at discerning the pattern by means of the pulse, while

others are more adept at palpating the hara. Nobody can be a master

of every method; what folly would it be to insist that one way is

inherently better than another---- when our own capacities (as well

as the happenstance of our access to various teachers) often dictates

our personal methods of expertise? Some people have an affinity for

pulse, and with their training they can do what needs to be done

primarily via pulse to discern the pattern. Others, because their

expertise is greater in the realm of palpation (whether because of

greater affinity or more training), will use palpation to accomplish a

similar level of discernment.

There is nothing wrong with these differences. They enrich us.

I submit that the same might be said about those who do or do not

observe movements of the psyche as primary indicators for pattern

discernment. If I am highly trained to detect from someone's voice

and coloration and odor and body posture etc a specific kind of grief

that leads me to further question their lung, this is just as much in

the service of pattern diagnosis as abdominal palpation. We all learn

different tools.

I deeply regret that arrogance of, for instance, much of the 5 element

community has left many people with an expectation that practitioners

who have been trained to pay close and discerning attention to

movements of psyche as diagnostic indicators means that we ignore the

physical pattern manifestations, or just consider ourselves God's gift

to Chinese medicine. It is not so. If we hold in common that we

treat the pattern, and then we explore from this common ground the

many means by which we may discern the pattern, and the many means by

which we treat and transform it, perhaps we might find that our

differences give us as much cause to appreciate each other as our

points of agreement.

Thea Elijah

March 4, 2010

1) Practitioners who hold the observation of the movements of psyche

as of fundamental importance in their diagnostic and treatment style

are a bunch of self-inflated New Age flakes who arrogantly impose

their own belief systems on their clients.

2) Practitioners who don't practice within a self-described

" spiritual " context are ignorant boors who are only treating on a

superficial level and are therefore not able to " really " heal their

clients; they are inferior physicians.

Lonny: Thea, I merely criticized the inappropriateness of the term

" psycho-spiritual " which conflates two unrelated realms. I also suggested that,

in fact, the larger macrocosmic view congruent with a spiritual perspective

contextualizes the medicine which it does seem to as regards the structure of

the language and the texts themselves.

The movements of psyche, as fascinating as they may be to some, have little to

nothing to do with the realm of the heart that Mr. Hur Jun points to except to

indicate denial and ignorance of that which he, and the texts state is higher.

As I've said, there is a lot of humility to go around and the level of practice

we are being pointed to may well elude most, or even all of us, but it's still

the center of the target.

Please do not put words in my mouth through exaggerating my position. I have

respect for a very wide range of traditions and perspectives. It's the unfounded

assertions that Spirit " S " is not a part of the historic tradition or a part of

" the Main stream professional practice of Medicine " based on culturally biased

and seemingly blind " scholarship " that I take exception to. And additionally, to

the absurd declarations that " no one one will listen to you if you can't read

Classical Chinese.

March 4, 2010

Lonny, I was not writing for your eyes only... Please take as

applying to yourself only shoes that actually fit.

For instance although I would certainly define your writing style as

polemical, I by no mean conflate your work or your position with that

of the entire 5 Element community-- in which there are many examples

of folks who " treat the spirit " in a completely psychologically

symptomatic manner, utterly devoid of any responsible attention to the

physical pattern of disharmony signs or the Heart as a reflection of

Heaven. Based on some specific examples from the past correspondence

of Eric, Jason, and Sharon, I suspect that many people here have been

exposed to some pretty silly work done in the name of " spirit, " and

that their understandable disgust with such behavior is part of what

fuels their perspective.

I am not putting words in your mouth, because, for better or worse, I

am not considering you to be the only spokesperson for these issues.

My exaggeration of both positions was deliberate, and not personal to

you.

Thea Elijah

March 4, 2010

My exaggeration of both positions was deliberate, and not personal to

you.

Lonny: Great to know. Context is everything.

March 4, 2010

Thea,

Thank you very much for requesting that we check ourselves for civility. I

will certainly commit to that, and invite anyone to tell me what they may

find polemical. I also believe that I have both the right and the

responsibility to share what I've learned in studying and practicing Chinese

medicine. While I agree that there has been considerable contentious

expression for the past few weeks, I haven't found that congested yang an

entirely bad thing. It has helped me bring various ideas into stark relief,

and inspired even greater clarity. Perhaps, the problem is that we actually

have less agreement than we realize.

I can say quite honestly and calmly that I do not treat patterns in any

sense. Of course, I recognize patterns. How could I not after going through

an entire training program in modern TCM? Yet, for my mind, they aren't a

vital part of the process. I'm often looking for different information in

differentiating symptoms and signs. I'm looking to differentiate what

aspects of clinical expression are due to pathogenic factors and what

aspects are the intrinsic responses of the individual's qi. I do a process

of disentangling the internal nature of the individual's clinical expression

to identify the nature and " location " of blocks. I treat the blocks. Now, we

all know (at the core of CM theory) blocks in the flow of qi cause disease,

yet we're trained to treat the patterns, so we treat patterns. Many astute

practitioners have found various ways to enhance that basic approach, and I

agree their work is valuable and important. However, I don't believe that's

the only legitimate way to enrich the basic theory of symptom-sign

complexes.

For me, the five systems of channels and vessels are far more than another

collection of information; it is, as I have tried to say, a different way of

thinking. It suggests a world of movements, which is rather different from

the " naive " world of common sense, especially for people who grew up in the

modern world. We think of ourselves as living in a solid world of things

that obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, rather than as a fluid,

dynamic, and responsive world. I take our challenge in practicing Chinese

medicine is seeing how it can be both, and indeed we can learn to stimulate

changes in how our patients process their vital interactions in life, so

that they heal -- actually reversing or resolving the disease. The great

challenge we all face is: How do we determine such treatments?

Of course, this is where it gets sticky. Many hard working and passionate

practitioners of Chinese medicine continue to be students for prolonged

periods, some for their entire lives. Yet, they don't all follow the same

method for engaging their studies of CM. There have been several

participants in our conversation that think the only legitimate way to study

Chinese medicine is to learn to read Chinese and study historical writings.

I have written several times that I appreciate the translations that many

devoted practitioners are doing, and I know our profession is improving

through their efforts. Yet, I also believe there are other abilities that

one can cultivate in deepening one's understanding of Chinese medicine.

I apologize if I've offended anyone. In reflecting on the nature of this

online discussion (which is rather new to me), I'm finding the lack of

personal contact challenging. Yet, I also appreciate the strong challenges

many have offered to me. They have forced me to greater clarity. I have not

tried to suggest that my approach to Chinese medicine is better than any

other, only that it's a legitimate option which offers different ways of

analyzing and differentiating an individual's pathological process. Thank

you all for your kind attention,

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Thea Elijah <parkinglotwrote:

>

> Lonny, I was not writing for your eyes only... Please take as

> applying to yourself only shoes that actually fit.

>

> For instance although I would certainly define your writing style as

> polemical, I by no mean conflate your work or your position with that

> of the entire 5 Element community-- in which there are many examples

> of folks who " treat the spirit " in a completely psychologically

> symptomatic manner, utterly devoid of any responsible attention to the

> physical pattern of disharmony signs or the Heart as a reflection of

> Heaven. Based on some specific examples from the past correspondence

> of Eric, Jason, and Sharon, I suspect that many people here have been

> exposed to some pretty silly work done in the name of " spirit, " and

> that their understandable disgust with such behavior is part of what

> fuels their perspective.

>

> I am not putting words in your mouth, because, for better or worse, I

> am not considering you to be the only spokesperson for these issues.

> My exaggeration of both positions was deliberate, and not personal to

> you.

>

> Thea Elijah

>

March 5, 2010

Evolution takes creative friction. As far as I'm concerned the goal of

discourse, in fact of all human endeavor isn't " peace " but " clarity " and

" change " . Of course it's important to be respectful. But, as recognized by

James, there is also an important place for polemics which serve to define the

absolute centers around which a discourse is based. I echo Steve's sentiments

that such a discourse helps to focus what I know and what I don't, what I'm

committed to and what I'm not.

I don't see the value in considering that " every perspective has something to

offer " . Evolution is a messy business and the point is to strive toward truth.

Not a truth that is a matter of perspective, not a consensus, but Truth. I think

it's reasonable to define the poles of discourse and let readers understand the

issues and to seek for the Truth in their own experience.

I readily concede that translators provide one leg of the stool that may serve

as the foundation for a meaningful and integrated practice of medicine. Of

course, one has to navigate the terrain as different schools of translators

arrive at different conclusions and bring different values to their work.

What I reject wholesale is the Catholic notion that a certain school of

translators will mediate between us and " the One True Tradition " that is

" Standard accepted professional TCM " (Blue meme absolutism, artificial dominator

hierarchies). And that every other interpretation is a footnote subject to

" evidence based testing " (orange meme, Cartesian values: helpful, but hardly a

cutting edge perspective).

At this point, it seems what can be said, has been said for the record and this

discussion has been thoroughly explicated. I have met several people through the

discussion who evidence the rare balance of both authentic scholarship and the

possession of an open and inquiring and developing mind, and I am always

thankful for that.

Straight Ahead, Lonny

March 5, 2010

Steve,

Just for the record, I do not think anyone on the list has ever suggested

that the " only legitimate way to study Chinese medicine is to learn to read

Chinese and study historical writings. "

The only point that I have seen being made is that if one is going to try to

weigh in on *interpretations* of classical Chinese texts (especially when

they re are not common) that such a person be able to actually read the

texts. As logical as this may seem, for some odd reason, this seems to be in

debate. In this bizarro world anyone that has an opinion about how to

translate a term as equal say. I just think about what universities who

specialize in sinology think about our methodology. But to each their own,

my point has already been made...

For the record, I spend most my time with modern (usually prior 1960s)

/pre-modern texts (qing dynasty), not classical texts. I find that this is

where the most juice is, because these doctors have devoured the classical

texts on a level that I personally will never be able to achieve and have

run it through the clinical mill. Honestly though, if one had a good teacher

one can learn Chinese medicine without accessing any historical writings or

reading Chinese -- who can deny this?. But it is my experience, that when

researching topics of specific personal interest, accessing such texts can

give a deeper insight. There just is more variety of opinions and quite

simply more literature written in Chinese than English. However, there are

plenty of good modern (even books out within the last five years) Chinese

texts that give great clinical perspectives.

Anyway, I don't think anyone can argue with Steve here that there are " other

abilities that one can cultivate in deepening one's understanding of Chinese

medicine. " And I think we all know that there are many roads. I guess my

challenge with Steve's approach, which sounds great for acupuncture, is how

does this apply to herbal medicine? There are many many acupuncture

theories, and for some reason, they all seem to work. However this is a

whole different ballgame when we start talking about prescribing herbs. I

would love to hear a little bit more explanation, maybe a case study, on how

Steve applies his approach to herbal medicine and how this differs from

basic Chinese medicine theory.

-Jason

On Behalf Of Steven Alpern

Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:48 PM

There have been several