This Hegelian dialectic assumes that understanding proceeds from dualism
or polarity --a
typically (I'm not using that word in the perjorative sense -- hell, I'm
not even sure I can spell
it) Western mode of thought. Eastern philosophy (the word 'guru' is
derived from the
Sanskrit), on the other hand, leans towards an emphasis on stepping
outside a system
where words like 'right' and 'wrong' are the guidelines for 'truth'-- the
pertinent questions
have more to do with 'integration' and 'disunity'. Dr. Siff's questions,
albeit slightly rhetorical
('would YOU really like to become the best guru in the world... Do you
really want to have
some catchy procedure named after you?'), are really only meaningful in a
context where
shades of right and wrong are precise and exact. However, as you all
know, the healing
profession is rife with plenty of juicy grey areas... So it might be more
pertinent to think
bout degrees of professional and personal integrity rather than degrees of
excellence. I'd
be interested in hearing from you about what it means to exercise
integrity in the healing
profession -- what is integrity? where does it stand in the hierarchy of
professional abilities?
how does perceived integrity (or lack of it) affect the patient? are these
relevant questions?
yours (with respect)
David Clark from B. Turcot's address.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
