Interestingly, I believe that I was the first person to create a Wikipedia page about Classical Chinese Medicine. Since then, it has been rewritten, co-opted and sometimes even just erased! Currently, the Wikipedia community is discussing what to do with the article (which now contains almost nothing of my original write-up) and it would be great if Deepest Health readers could go join the fray. The neutrality of the article is being disputed, it is said there are factual errors within it and some have even suggested it should just be merged into the “Traditional Chinese Medicine” page!
For my part, I think one of the commenters over on the talk page makes a good point. We should just have a “Chinese Medicine” page that then talks about the standardization process under Mao Zedong and discusses the response of people who talk about “Classical Chinese Medicine,” as well as, perhaps, other schools of thought. Anyway, it’s an interesting opportunity to shape one small part of the public face of Chinese medicine. Since Wikipedia articles often rank so highly in Google searches, imagine the legions of high school and college students writing papers (sure, on Chinese medicine, why not?) and referencing Wikipedia…
We want them to have the right information, folks. Think of the children!
Go contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia.
Eric
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Ok. But how exactly does one contribute to the Wikis? The edit buttons?
Yes, but I think at this point it would be most beneficial to contribute on the Talk page. I’m not looking at it at this moment, but a sign up may be required. Just hunt around. Any direct edits are likely to be erased because there is so much contention about the article.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Wow, the Wiki page on CCM really has changed over the last couple years. It has been a good year or two since I last looked at it, but I would have to say your original entry was MUCH better than the current definition offered. It contains information I find to be untrue, as well as some misleading information. Perhaps, it is because so many different people have edited it with varying viewpoints, but it seems to have little congruence.
For example, the first line defining CCM says, “(CCM) is Chinese medical practice that is explicitly based on ancient texts.” Is that not true of TCM? In my opinion, that is what CCM and TCM have in common. The entry goes on to state, “TCM therefore can be understood by classically trained practitioners, but a TCM education does not provide an understanding of the classical tradition.” Is this really true? Some CCM doctors that have knowledge of the classics seem to practice what I would consider to be a more TCM style in practice, while some TCM trained doctors can know the classics very well, and thus have the potential to implement a more CCM style of treatment.
Also, I feel it is a bit misleading to include the Tang Ye Jing and
Zhong Zang Jing under the section listing foundational classical texts. I believe, both of these are lost classics. Both are referenced and described in other works, but no original versions by their respective authors exist in their entirety. So to consider them foundational classical texts is a strech, even if they are important medical works and/or have made contributions to the field of Chinese medicine.
I think it would make sense to have a general CM page that talks about what all systems of CM have in common, but also have individual pages for TCM and CCM to define them separately.
See, I do have some knowledge and interest in history, I just don’t think it is of primary importance to the medicine since it is not so clinically relevant. Of course, it is much more important when we are talking about other aspects of Chinese medicine outside of clinical practice (Such as when discussing a Wiki definition, writing history books on CM, or perhaps when teaching particular classes or topics within the medicine).
Hey Delli,
What do you mean when you say, “I just don’t think it is of primary importance to the medicine since it is not so clinically relevant. ” That’s sort of funny, since some of the most clinically relevant material I’ve received has been quite directly historical in nature. For instance, understanding the historical changes that were underway during the adoption or rejection of particular herbal therapies has helped me to comprehend when and whether to replicate those strategies. I’m certain you must mean something other than what your words imply to me at first glance.
I totally agree on your assessment of the page, however, there’s some pretty disturbing/wacky stuff up there! I wonder who has been editing it… I didn’t bother to figure it out.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Well, I don’t want to say too much about that since we have already had a heated discussion around this on your blog not too long ago. What I mean is that I am not consciously thinking about the history of the medicine when I am treating patients in clinic. Instead, what is of primary importance to me in the clinic is to be fully present with the patient and have an open heart and mind so that my instincts and intuition (along with diagnostic assessment techniques) can lead me to a correct diagnosis, treatment strategy, and the proper modalities to use on the patient. If we are fully in the moment like this, the Dao of the medicine can flow through us and guide us. I don’t convolute my mind by thinking about historical perspective when I am in the clinic.
For example, if with one patient, I clearly see them as being Liver overacting on Spleen, I am not afraid to use a classical formula even though I really just gave a TCM diagnosis. Nor do I feel it is necessary to change my diagnosis to 6 conformations if I am using a ZZJ formula on this patient. If I can, great. But if it is not immediately obvious to me, well I would rather stick with the diagnosis I have if I am confident with it instead of trying to package it all nicely to conform to the classical way ZZJ defined it.
At the same time, I am not afraid to use modalities outside Chinese medicine if I feel it will benefit my patients. In that sense, I guess you could say I am “disregarding” history. So, I guess I am not afraid to jump around in clinic between CCM, TCM, and integrative/eclectic methods.
Historical perspective has NEVER entered my mind in the clinic yet. I am sure, since I have taken classes and such, that is in the back of my head somewhere, and so somehow may have an impact I am not aware of in the clinic. In the clinic, history kind of goes out the door, because in order to be fully present and help the patient, we must be in the PRESENT, not thinking so much about the past.
Clinical medicine is about results first and foremost, so I am just concerned with doing what I think will best help my patients. It doesn’t matter to me if I am using ideas and terminologies from different time periods withing the medicine, or even thinking completely outside Chinese medicine. I think the historical perspective is probably jumbled together for most practitioners when it comes to clinical practice.
Does it really matter who wrote the Neijing? Does it really matter what year it was written in? Does it really matter if ZZJ derived many of his herbal formulas from Yi Yin? From a clinical perspective, I would argue the answer is no. What matters to me is that information in these classics is useful and clincially relevant, and of course, that it works well enough to give my patients the results they seek to obtain. The theories, knowledge, and practical information contained within them is what is most useful for a Chinese medicine practitioner, not the minute historical details. Like I said, those historical details do become more important outside of the clinic when discussing other topics and such.
Ok. I think I understand your perspective now. It’s funny how much we can agree, and yet disagree. BTW: My interest in history and my incorporation of historical and cultural perspectives into my understanding has never, ever impeded my ability to be present with a patient. I suppose everyone has different experiences.
My only hope is to never become so wedded to my own perception of things that I cannot see the understanding of others. That is probably the greatest clinical skill one can cultivate. Not just to “hear” someone’s perspective, not to simply intellectually comprehend it – but to really accept that it could be the “right” way of seeing things and to be prepared to think differently at a moment’s notice.
I appreciate your help in the further refinement of this skill, Delli.
Eric
Wikipedia is one of the top, if not the top, source that students use for their researches. What’s troubling though is that any person can just upload and add their own work into the page, and these may not be scholarly works even. The topic on Classic Chinese Medicine is no exception, it’s really very difficult to sort out which is the authentic ones and the wrong ones. I hope scholars will have the heart to really contribute to this.