No, no, Woj, this would be your final posting on the inverted exchange you are having with your demons, unrelated to the actual original thread!
> Quite frankly, I do not think that there is a real debate "modern vs.
> traditional," inasmuch as this distinction can be even made. I think most
> rational people would approach the subject of medicine with an open mind and
> do not apriori reject or accept something solely because it comes with the
> label "modern" or "traditional." I personally know medical practitioners
> who are quite open to any "traditional" practice, from acupuncture, to yoga,
> to herbal treatments, or "talk" therapy.
In other words, there *are* "alternatives", they can have positive contributions, and they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and done so using a wide range of criteria. That history of human knowledge-seeking is continuous. And I would add: every alternative need to be kept under consideration (or record), for our very criteria for testing, and our very theoretical foundations upon which such tests are based, may change in the future.
> What I object to is intellectuals who for try to put a variety found in the
> world into the Procrustean bead of rigid dichotomies and a struggle of good
> versus evil. It is quite annoying when the likes of Bush or Huntington do
> it, and it is equally annoying when various "alternative" types do it. A
> simple Google search can find hundreds of "alternative" medicine websites
> whose main message is attacking "establishment" medicine. I do not think
> you can find many "establishment" medicine sites that attack anything, let
> alone make it their message.
Yes, but you see, we are not debating Google search results, but an actual flesh-and-blood article that started out "No Alternative" and ended with stuff about faith and messiahs, and so on. Your criticism (here and elsewhere) perhaps is satirical and I am missing that? For it is almost entirely accurate when applied in reverse.
> I think that most of this "alternative," or "counter-establishment"
> discourse is basically silly garbage parroted by frustrated intellectuals
> who make a career by fighting demons among their own ranks. Hearing it for
> a while can be quite annoying and makes people react by moving into the
> opposite direction - to identify with 'Western,' 'Northern,' 'Modern' 'First
> World' 'conventional' values. I am willing to bet that this was the "straw"
> that broke Hitchen's back and made him move to the other side.
Hey you want to be the Hitchens of LBO, go for it. You can even blame the demons you create above ("frustrated intellectuals"). Let me know if you need a boozing buddy (though Hitchens, now part of the right-wing, probably does his boozing in the closet)... I am not too far from Baltimore and I prefer Scotch or wheat beer. If you buy me more than two of those, I will even let you call me a "frustrated intellectual" or "third-world-o-fascist" in public.
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/