I teach learners who are headed for examinations and practice in the field. Thus, I feel a responsibility to ensure that they are familiar with the term sets that they will encounter in peer review.
As a matter of my background relative to this conversation, I began studying Hammer's work in 1989. One of the reasons that I moved to the Berkshires in 1991 was to study with him. By 2001, Leon and I parted ways for issues surrounding nomenclature. I still made certain his work got published in the American Acupuncturist and also got him speaking engagements at the national conventions long after 2001. In 1996, I introduced Leon to David Bole, the person from whom he purchased Dragon Rises College of OM. Since those days in the early 1990s, I never stopped using or teaching Leon ’s work.
While there has been some drift in what Hammer teachers, the system has not changed so remarkably. It is still recognizable as the body of work represented in Chinese Pulse Diagnosis: a Contemporary Approach. The book’s core content was constructed from handouts that we used in 1992.
We still need pulse features that are more specific to the condition of cold than Chinese Pulse Diagnosis: a Contemporary Approach provides. This means that there is an image that is more specific to the physiological impact of cold on the system: that is the tight pulse (jin mai). This tight pulse (jin mai) of the conventional term set as Hammer has established, is not his Tight quality. While any given pulse may be found in the presence of cold, Leon 's Thinner, Harder definition of Tight is more commonly present under the conditions that he describes in Chinese Pulse Diagnosis a Contemporary Approach, and as a general interpretation: heat from yin deficiency and some blood deficiency. Of course any given pulse may have various interpretations in differing contexts and this one is no different. So also, a particular condition may express with different pulses.
We look for trends in the sign symptom complex and there are assumptions about the pulse which allow us to focus the inquiry. The assumptions for Hammer’s Tight quality are distinctly different than those of the tight pulse (jin mai), partly because they are different events with different processes that contribute to the presentation. It is not a situation where anything goes, otherwise, rigor is lost. Some pulses have a wider array of possible interpretations than others. But, I am happy to see that the Shen-Hammer (S-H) school of thought is getting away from one-to-one correlations between pulse findings and interpretations which composed so much of the practice in the 90s.
Practitioners feel what they feel and I trust that. I am in full agreement with multiple and often paradoxical findings in a single position. This is an important contribution from Shen and Hammer. And, this is not my point. I can appreciate that we do not need one system of terms, and I have not suggested that there be such a mono set of terms. I do, however, think that we as a community involved in using a technical professional language have a responsibility to engage the larger field in a consensus process. This helps to prevent errors in translation and arbitrary contributions that lose sight of the existing term set.
It is entirely reasonable to define terms and declare what they signify. If it “leads from observation, to hypothesis, to synthesis with other diagnostic parameters, to diagnosis, to treatment principle to treatment, it works.” Diagnosis often occurs in a more chaotic and non-linear fashion. But, this is an accurate representation of the formal western approach to diagnosis. This linear approach to diagnosis is a valuable skill, and I use it. This is also not my point here.
What happens in the clan is one thing and what happens in the field at large is another, they are two separate logical domains. When I publish discussions related to the clan, or my experience, I feel a responsibility to make the distinction from the conventional lore. And that requires that I communicate the conventional body of knowledge in addition to what I know in clan-speak. While we agree with the doctrine of correspondences and find that mode of thought clinically useful, we can agree to disagree about clarity when using insider terms and conventional terms.
The risk of insider term sets is the promotion of separatism, them and us points of view, and a hierarchical position of dominance based upon a presumed superior knowledge base. This risk is present in all professional language systems. It is a form of social closure. That closure which conventional medicine used to keep this discipline out, or that we use to define licensure which keeps people from the profession who have not pursued a course of study is a form of vertical closure. The closure that happens in a discipline such as ours and with a specialty study such as Shen-Hammer pulse is a lateral form of closure. I am interested in de-mystifying and opening the borders. This is clearly an area where our interests part ways.
At the same time, we must recognize the very real contributions Leon has made with the cotton quality, the ropy quality, changing qualities and so forth. We are left with the responsibility of making our public communications clear when a term is used idiosyncratically within a sub-community of practitioners. That is what I am trying to accomplish here and as an example with the use of the term Tight quality vs. tight pulse (jin mai).
As a matter of my background relative to this conversation, I began studying Hammer's work in 1989. One of the reasons that I moved to the Berkshires in 1991 was to study with him. By 2001, Leon and I parted ways for issues surrounding nomenclature. I still made certain his work got published in the American Acupuncturist and also got him speaking engagements at the national conventions long after 2001. In 1996, I introduced Leon to David Bole, the person from whom he purchased Dragon Rises College of OM. Since those days in the early 1990s, I never stopped using or teaching Leon ’s work.
While there has been some drift in what Hammer teachers, the system has not changed so remarkably. It is still recognizable as the body of work represented in Chinese Pulse Diagnosis: a Contemporary Approach. The book’s core content was constructed from handouts that we used in 1992.
We still need pulse features that are more specific to the condition of cold than Chinese Pulse Diagnosis: a Contemporary Approach provides. This means that there is an image that is more specific to the physiological impact of cold on the system: that is the tight pulse (jin mai). This tight pulse (jin mai) of the conventional term set as Hammer has established, is not his Tight quality. While any given pulse may be found in the presence of cold, Leon 's Thinner, Harder definition of Tight is more commonly present under the conditions that he describes in Chinese Pulse Diagnosis a Contemporary Approach, and as a general interpretation: heat from yin deficiency and some blood deficiency. Of course any given pulse may have various interpretations in differing contexts and this one is no different. So also, a particular condition may express with different pulses.
We look for trends in the sign symptom complex and there are assumptions about the pulse which allow us to focus the inquiry. The assumptions for Hammer’s Tight quality are distinctly different than those of the tight pulse (jin mai), partly because they are different events with different processes that contribute to the presentation. It is not a situation where anything goes, otherwise, rigor is lost. Some pulses have a wider array of possible interpretations than others. But, I am happy to see that the Shen-Hammer (S-H) school of thought is getting away from one-to-one correlations between pulse findings and interpretations which composed so much of the practice in the 90s.
Practitioners feel what they feel and I trust that. I am in full agreement with multiple and often paradoxical findings in a single position. This is an important contribution from Shen and Hammer. And, this is not my point. I can appreciate that we do not need one system of terms, and I have not suggested that there be such a mono set of terms. I do, however, think that we as a community involved in using a technical professional language have a responsibility to engage the larger field in a consensus process. This helps to prevent errors in translation and arbitrary contributions that lose sight of the existing term set.
It is entirely reasonable to define terms and declare what they signify. If it “leads from observation, to hypothesis, to synthesis with other diagnostic parameters, to diagnosis, to treatment principle to treatment, it works.” Diagnosis often occurs in a more chaotic and non-linear fashion. But, this is an accurate representation of the formal western approach to diagnosis. This linear approach to diagnosis is a valuable skill, and I use it. This is also not my point here.
What happens in the clan is one thing and what happens in the field at large is another, they are two separate logical domains. When I publish discussions related to the clan, or my experience, I feel a responsibility to make the distinction from the conventional lore. And that requires that I communicate the conventional body of knowledge in addition to what I know in clan-speak. While we agree with the doctrine of correspondences and find that mode of thought clinically useful, we can agree to disagree about clarity when using insider terms and conventional terms.
The risk of insider term sets is the promotion of separatism, them and us points of view, and a hierarchical position of dominance based upon a presumed superior knowledge base. This risk is present in all professional language systems. It is a form of social closure. That closure which conventional medicine used to keep this discipline out, or that we use to define licensure which keeps people from the profession who have not pursued a course of study is a form of vertical closure. The closure that happens in a discipline such as ours and with a specialty study such as Shen-Hammer pulse is a lateral form of closure. I am interested in de-mystifying and opening the borders. This is clearly an area where our interests part ways.
At the same time, we must recognize the very real contributions Leon has made with the cotton quality, the ropy quality, changing qualities and so forth. We are left with the responsibility of making our public communications clear when a term is used idiosyncratically within a sub-community of practitioners. That is what I am trying to accomplish here and as an example with the use of the term Tight quality vs. tight pulse (jin mai).
I modify the discussion in Chinese Pulse Diagnosis: a Contemporary Approach to comport with the field in those areas where I see errors and in those areas where it is unnecessarily confusing. I retain those features that are unique and clinically indispensable.