Subject: Acupuncture Discussion

From: [email-masked] (Romel Cordeiro)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 1995 10:09:31 -1000

I hope we all understand the purpose of these questions that my friends in
this study group are raising.  We have in the group some people who like to
stir things up, and this brings up many subjects and details in the
Acupuncture field.  We learned to raise these arguments and to talk about it
without being disrespectful to our own field of medicine.  We have come a
long way for this understanding.  In fact, everything started when we went
to one seminar done by a doctor in acupuncture where many times he
mentioned, "Acupuncture is not Scientific; that the way things work is
inexplicable.  The western world just has to accept it".

We were astonished at all of those statements; and that night was the
beginning of our challenge: the challenge of reviewing and researching with
our understanding and clinical practice for clarification in response to
those ignorant statements.  We thought, no wonder many healthcare providers
think acupuncture is nothing but MYSTICISM.  We are not trying to get
accepted by ALL, but we are interested in bringing up what is alredy there
and the rest will follow.
Thank you for giving us this oportunity.

Romel

---

From: [email-masked] (Pankaj Seth)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:19:26 +0500

On Tue, 14 Mar 1995 00:53:08 [email-masked] wrote in
response to below: 
 
 "Acupuncture is not Scientific; that the way things work is 

In response to above, Chris wrote: 
>I think the doctor was actually right, and you misunderstood him.
Acupuncture 
>isn't scientific in that it is not built upon western scientific
traditions. 
>It is based on a quite a different model of physiology, and that it what 
>you need to accept. That is undoubtedly why you are having these questions

>about the biochemical effects related to headaches. For the most part, I
do 
>not think there is a one-to-one correspondance between concept in western 
>medicine and those in TCM. That doesn't make it mysticism at all; it just 

>means that one paradigm is not able to explain all phenomena in the other 
>paradigm. Nothing wrong with that. It just means they are not isomorphic, 

>that they have uncovered different characteristics and relations, that's 
>all. 
> 
>    -- Chris. 
> 
 Also, Paul Iannone, P.O.B. writes: 
 
"To everyone who is trying to solve this question by cramming East-Asian 
Traditional Healing into the box of Western scientific consciousness: Good 
luck, I wish you well, I hope you don't 'succeed.'  What is needed is _very

much_ an appreciation of the inherently MYSTICAL nature of human
existence." 
 
My response to the above 2 statements: 
Isomorphism is not a prereqisite in order to make a fruitful comparative
study of systems having different languages and worldviews.  Systems which
are attempts to describe the same fundamental reality, albeit from
different perspectives.  Are you saying that there is NO overlap and hence
possible bridges?  To stretch the mind is a useful exercise as are other
forms of meditation. 
 
Pankaj Seth, N.D.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 17 Mar 1995 14:35:28 GMT

On 3/15/95 at 8:19 AM, The OrMed Mailing List wrote:

: Isomorphism is not a prereqisite in order to make a fruitful
: comparative study of systems having different languages and
: worldviews.  

Kind of depends which language you do it in, doesn't it?

: Systems which are attempts to describe the same
: fundamental reality, albeit from different perspectives.  

I consider that presumptuous. Are these 'the same reality,' or is that a
Western logical bias?

: Are you
: saying that there is NO overlap and hence possible bridges?  To
: stretch the mind is a useful exercise as are other forms of meditation. 
:  
: Pankaj Seth, N.D. 

My primary concern in this regard is that the understanding of Qi that a
practitioner must arrive at CANNOT be acquired through scientific endeavor.
As such, these concerns are premature for the great majority of
practitioners, who would be much better off learning about Qi via the
meditative, Qi Gong and Tai Ji Quan (or Dao Yin), bodywork, and contemplative
routes that all their predecessors used. Trying to find a way around that, by
'scientizing' Qi is foolish. If practitioners want to discuss the
implications, fine with me, but attempting to substitute these wonderings for
practical knowledge is absurd.

[email-masked]