The transmission of CM (Z'ev)

[Guest guest]

Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:13:58 -0700, " " <zrosenbe wrote:

 

>>… there was no idea of " Chinese medicine " as a separate identity until

Western medicine made inroads into China in the late 19th century. Before

that time there was simply 'yi xue', medicine.

 

Point well taken. Using 'yi xue' for that context could have the useful

side-effect of casting light on the fact that our CM, TCM, CCM etc. all

reflect our contemporary theoretical interpretations. Looking, in this

sense, at arguing using those terms backwards into the phenomena of the

imperial era brings to mind the notion of bias. The more we see things

(history) the way they are (were), the better we may be able to make use of

them.

 

and Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:20:44 -0700, " " <zrosenbe

wrote

<on Das Glasperlenspiel, YiJing, systems science/complexity theory and

Chinese medicine>

 

Unschuld is citing (in his concluding 2 chapters of Was Ist Medizin?) one

Francois Jacob, who he describes as a pioneer genetic researcher, Nobel

prize recipient, and scientific historian. My sense, without knowing

Jacob's work, is that Unschuld sees his ideas (or at least Unschuld's sense

of his ideas) as genuine theory. He cites Jacob's book " Die Maus, die

Fliege und der Mensch " (The Mouse, the Fly and Man), but it may be

originally in French. My suspicion is that there may be more theoretical

work being done relative to WM on the continent than we may be used to here

in the USA. (The old idea that Europe -> USA == Greece -> Rome, i.e.

theoretical inspiration -> practical engineering.)