Almost all of the books I find informative or thought-provoking come to my attention by way of bibliographies. I almost never find anything in the typical commercial bookstore, or bookstore chain. For instance, I first became aware of W.E. Henthorn (see: "Korea: the Mongol Invasions") from a bib in Lee's "A New History of Korea". Then I found that Henthorne had published his own bib on Korean resources. And it just grows from there. I have also found that some publishers tend to have better academic standards than others. For instance, I have found that KODANSHA is particularly well done. Tuttle has its good days and bad days. University presses such as Columbia tend to be good more often than bad. Ohara is pretty much the kiss-of-death. As far as resource materials I tend to shy-away from critical reviews. If I am looking for resource material in a field with which I am un-familiar, I start with the people on the front-line such as practitioners or institutions where the subject is taught. In this way I might start with a good textbook, and then its back to the bibs and looking for a name that crops-up more often than most. FWIW. BTW: I have found many more gems in the used-book sites on the INTERNET than anywhere else. Best Wishes, Bruce
I'd gamble that your face-time with GM IHS is but a fraction of mine. :evil: So between the two of us, my interpretation of what he says is probably more on the mark than yours. And just to expound on this point a little further, it might be pertinent to mention that he rarely teaches anything of great importance outright. Instead, he'll drop a few hints, with the attitude that if you are worthy (meaning intelligent enough to get the hints), then he has done his job of teaching you something important (the idea being that discovering it for yourself will result in better retention). If the hints sail over your head, then you were not ready to absorb the lesson and he never looks back to see if you got it or not (meaning he doesn't drop the hints repeatedly). This little revelation may help explain why people who've learned from GM IHS, often have vastly different takes on the lessons taught - FWIW. It was clever of you to illustrate a few diseases where the eyes look shiny, but this is usually defined as "glassy" since it is not the *normal* shine of healthy eyes. And in the case of "eyes: bright & clear" pertaining to one's health, the converse would definitely indicate something is amiss (who in their right mind would think that someone with "cloudy" eyes was in a state of good health?). Furthermore, GM IHS doesn't often speak of the TCM aspect in MA with just anyone present, not even those who've attained the *proper* accreditation to perform acupuncture, as he is a traditionalist and therefore reserves this for those who have undergone KI-gong training as well. Your summary dismissal of the terms "bright" and "clear" being used to describe the eyes in TCM, is purposely misleading IMO. All one need do is look to the names of the acupoints to discover this fact. Bladder #1 (睛明) is called "eyes bright" and is located near the inner canthus. It's also the intersecting point for no less than 5 channels. Even though the usual translation for míng/myeong (明) is BRIGHT, when it's used to describe the eyes it takes on a closer rendition of ACUTE, which could be viewed as "clear eyesight" in terms of the eye's function. Nonetheless, "bright eyes" is in direct opposition to "cloudy eyes" in this context, and since the ideogram for bright is composed of the character for the sun (日) and the moon (月), it's not surprising that certain TCM documents report that "when the five viscera flourish, the eyes shine like the sun & the moon." No doubt a connection to the phrase "bright like sunshine" that GM IHS is so fond of saying when speaking of the first rule of hyeong. Another term besides míng/myeong (明) which is used to describe the eyes, is guāng/gwang (光) and both of these characters form the name for Gallbladder #37 (光明) - shining brightly (or bright & clear). This is the connecting point for the gallbladder (where it splits off to join the liver), and since the liver is said to "open to the eyes" this acupoint is used to treat certain eye diseases, restoring the "bright & clear" quality to the eyes. Additionally, the Spiritual Axis states: "The essential qi of the five viscera and the six bowels flows up into the eyes to manifest as essence." I must've missed something in this last statement, because it sure sounds like the eyes & health are connected according to TCM.
May I recommend that we retain the services of Mr. Spock to utilize the "Vulcan Mind-Meld" on IHS with a goal of getting the definitive answer to this question. Live Long and Prosper, Bruce
I know from personal experience that Spock's services don't come cheap... Cost us a lot of money to make this advert [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71meib_q0MY"]YouTube - The Time Machine, Time Computers TV Advert Featuring Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) of Star Trek[/ame] In fact for the next advert all we could afford was an old drunk who we dressed up and called "Captain Apocalypse"... the company was bankrupt by then
So you admit yourself that you were trying to pass off your interpretation of -- eyes bright and clear -- as fact instead of admitting it was just your POV and not IHS'. The rest of your TCM-related post is meaningless and error-filled. I'd gamble your knowledge and ACTUAL PRACTICE of TCM is but a fraction of mine.:evil: And FYI, the TCM I presented was NOT my opinion, rather it was sourced on post#302 using a variety of expert texts in the field. If this were possible, I'd be all for that because that would yield a more reliable source of information than whatever propaganda #291 was selling.
Not in the least. I guess for a skeptic such as yourself, I should've included that once guided in a certain direction, and after investigating and drawing conclusions, I then ask point blank if I'm on to something or totally *out of the ballpark*. A nod or knowing grin is all you'll get if right, and if wrong, no feedback whatsoever (as if saying, "back to the drawing board"). I never said what you presented was a fabrication based on your opinion (that was YOUR argument against me, remember?). But now that I have provided sources to show I didn't make all this stuff up, you try the old *smoke & mirrors* dodge by simply stating that your AUTHORITY in interpreting TCM is correct and mine is wrong, without providing any facts to back it up... typical.
You provided sources? LOL. Which medical journals are you quoting? Further, you think you can distinguish between glassy, shiny and cloudy eyes? Tell me, how many eye exams have you performed? I'm not even a specialist and performed 30 HEENT exams in the last 24 hours. Have you even done a fraction of that in you entire life? As for authority...LOL. The established authority is the board of governing medical bodies...of which, if you can pass the appropriate licensing exams and the school, the authority is given to you to practice medicine. The exams are there to provide proof that what you read and what you actually practice is hand-in-hand.
An interesting sentiment, Pugil, but as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is over. :woo: I had contributed some information regarding hyeong beop, and was basically called a liar. I elaborated about the unique method GM IHS takes when sharing esoteric knowledge, which helps to explain why few KSW people have ever heard the slant I provided about Rule #1. The fact that few people have recognized it in this light, does not make it a lone opinion, however. Furthermore, the TCM connection I mentioned was pronounced as false, but this allegation was proved to be wrong, IMO. Sufficient evidence was provided by myself as well as SeongIn, to illustrate that the eyes and health are linked according to meridian theory (even using the very same terms seen in Rule #1, no less). So despite how others might care to interpret TCM, is of no concern to me. I remain to be unimpressed by the alphabet soup that a certain someone would zealously stack behind their name, if printed on a business card... simply because they lack the appropriate dignity that should accompany such accomplishments.
Would it be such a terrible thing to discard all of that and simply trust in the nature of one's own training to identify whether one is progressing or not? What is it that people are getting from these titles that they are not getting from simply applying themselves to their art? Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi, Xanth. FWIW, I never put those letters behind my name on any business card, simply because it doesn't mean much to the average person. If it appeared in a KSW tournament program, that was not my doing. Besides, I never lord over people the fact that I have achieved master rank in MA, and that my friend, is the biggest difference between myself and whoever I might've been referring to (in post #330). :yeleyes:
Good call Xanth. Its funny how most of us have commonplace-type screennames while the person complaining about alphabet soup has a title in his! Well said. I can see that personal growth and improvement should be worth more than titles...especially in the Confucian model you proposed in another thread. But ask any physician what double-edge sword has hindered proper medical attention the most in the past 10 years...and most will answer: the rise of pseudo-science charlatans. I say this is double-edged because on the one hand, we WANT people to be more aware of their own health issues and we want folks to look up the causes and treatments for their conditions and be knowledgeable about it. This leads to higher treatment compliance. The downside to folks looking up material on WebMD or eMedicine or a textbook is that they think they know the material well enough to diagnose properly, dictate treatment properly and can apply material correctly. This has lead to the spread of health-harmful pseudo-medicine that have fed the gullible what they need and fueled a new generation of hypochondriacs. So when a "KJN" starts to spew error-filled interpretations of TCM, the danger is that junior MAists, who may blindly respect the title, may listen to it and be harmed for it.
My opinion is if you earned the alphabet soup, then why not use it. I cannot prove "she" has earned any of them anymore than I can prove you earned yours (unless each happens to post paperwork). So I'll take both on faith until proven otherwise.
Well, I ain't said much here lately cuz I'm not into the drama, but I'm on here to network and learn things, and it may make someone angry but why not, since it seems to have devolved into madness. I was really interested in what unknown had to say about what he was taught, now if u want to argue about one little piece of that vm because that is ur area of specialty why not do it in the pm area instead of effectively stopping all discussion by having ur own personal slugging match in public, I truly regret it if what I say angers you, but really?
No worries EM. If you are interested in whatever misinformation is presented, so be it. As for PMs, I'm afraid that it is not my style to hide behind closed doors. I'll say what needs to be said. If someone PMs me, I have no problem with that. However, unknown uses his PMs in a manner that suits his character...such that if he were to post them in public...he would be banned again and again. And its against MAP TOS for me to post them. So if you wanted some misinformation, why dont YOU PM him? It works both ways.
I'll be perfectly candid and admit that I once called VegasMichelle a disparaging epithet in a PM (as well as telling her to "drop dead"), but only in an effort to cease derailing the thread where she had instigated a flame-war. I, as well as Pugil and a few others, have also OPENLY called her a similar, if not the same, disparaging epithet. Us offenders weren't banned for doing so at first, but that's because she hadn't yet realized she could "tattle" by clicking this icon: She does seem to be never-ending in provoking people to the brink of breaking ToS, but a flower by any other name.... :dunno:
LOL...dropping names to bolster your pseudo-support huh? If truth be told, lots of folks find you rather detestable both in and out of MAP. The difference is that when you start your usual nonsense, I'll either ignore it (most times) or respond in the thread to which you post. So when you dont get your way...you lash out and send inappropriate PMs and post personal attacks in public. When the mods ban you for it...you attack them for their supposed "inconsistency." LOL. That is also against MAP TOS...in case you didn't know. If you cannot abide by MAP terms of service...rules the rest of us are willing to follow...that says more about your lack of self-control.
I'm not sure if that is particularly significant since I don't see where there are a huge numnber of folks who are willing to share information unless it provides some sort of recompense. When all is said and done, the people who turn-up here are purportedly practitioners who are seeking to expand their understanding of Korean traditions. If I am mistaken in this, maybe now would be a good time to enlighten me so that I can stop operating under a misconception, yes? If this is an accurate assessment then maybe now wouldf be a good time to get started on this sharing and let the rest of this drivel drop to one side. Best Wishes, Bruce
