Response to Godfrey (after Rich to Matt)

[Guest guest]

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:38:00 -0000, " Rich " <rfinkelstein wrote:

 

>>[unschuld]: " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of

Chinese medicine can be standardized. "

 

>>[Rich] It is my observation that all of Chinese medicine (and its

philosophical roots) is based upon " individualization " - from all

perspectives. It may be possible to " standardize " but in a way that allows

the individual to build one's own skills and knowledge. This would

certainly explain the fact that Chinese medicine is practiced in so many

different ways in real life.

 

This last statement would be plausible, contingent of the preceding. The

previous two statements, however, strike me as distinctively Western ideas.

You might try to define " individualization " as used in the first sentence

to help counter this impression. But the second sentence -- " allows the

individual to build [his/her] own … " - is not something which, to my

knowledge, can be said to be characteristic in Chinese culture or society.

 

Rather, inability to be standardized more likely relates to Unschuld's two

major points, concluding the last chapter of " " .

 

1) " There is no Chinese medicine as finished, closed healing system. "

(p.118 - the argumentation including the passage Matt cited).

 

2) " … the difference in attitude between Chinese and Western traditions to

the stringency of thought systems. " (p.122) " …'this-as-well-as-that'… " vs

" ..'is-it-this-or-that'… " (p.123)

 

While I may be reading something into Rich's statements that isn't there,

it would appear to be a statement of a focus on individual freedom, which I

think falls under the kind of unexamined cultural self-projection in many

Western interpretations of Chinese medicine which Unschuld often laments.

 

Closer to Chinese reality I think would be the characterization from Hugo

Ramiro (subincor, Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:47:09 +0100 (BST)) -- a

deep cultural focus on coming to " grips with the reality of constant change. "

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

 

Concerning individualization:

 

.. But the second sentence -- " allows the

> individual to build [his/her] own … " - is not something which, to my

> knowledge, can be said to be characteristic in Chinese culture or

>society.

 

My own observations are that it is both explicit and implicit in

.

 

First there are the core conceptualization of Humans: Each individual

is born out of " Heaven and Earth " - the " Yang and Yin waves " (as

pictured in the Yin/Yang symbol) come together to create the

individual. This is a direct acknowledgement of the " individual

nature " of humans - though each human is still just part of the large

" ocean " called the Dao. So the duality exists. " One " exists as part of

the " whole " - and is respected as such.

 

" " All things on the earth and in the space communicate with the Yin

and Yang energies. Human beings are a small universe as human body has

everything that the universe has. " [Chapter 3 - Neijing].

 

" With the ceiling of heaven above and the load of earth below, all

living things survive by the descending of heaven energy and the

ascending of earth energy " . [Chapter 6 - Neijing].

 

Also from Chapter 6 a discussion of the development of " one " :

 

" Yin or Yang is only a name which has no shape. It can be applied to

everything, can be counted from one to ten, can be inferred from ten

to one hundred, can be counted from one hundred to one thousand, and

inferred from one thousand to ten thousand and even to innumerable

number. Although its change is infinite, but the process of Yin and

Yang development which is the unity of opposites of things in the

course of development of being one. "

 

In Chapter 8, the Neijing suggests that the health of the individual

is strongly dependent on the condition of the individual Heart (Shen):

 

" The heart is the supreme commander or the monarch of the human body,

it dominates the spirit, ideology, and thought of man. "

 

" " The above twelve viscera must be coordinating and supplementing to

each other. As the heart is the monarch in the organs, it dominates

the functions of the various viscera, so when the function of heart is

strong and healthy, under its unified leadership, all the functions of

the various viscera will be normal, the body will be healthy and the

man will live a long life, and his life long days [my note: this is a

very profound phrase that has many meanings], and no serious disease

would occur.

 

In the same chapter, the Neijing underscores the difficulty in

understanding the root cause of sickness within the individual since

each individual is different (i.e. different cross-blending of

Yin/Yang energies):

 

" The principle of health-preserving is rather delicate; one can by no

means to understand its origin unless by looking into it carefully " .

 

" Since the principle of health-preserving is subtle and hard to

comprehend, one can hardly decide what is right among the essentials

although by painstaking pondering during study. It is only by explicit

analysis through weighing conditions can one understand the essence of

the heart which is the dominator of the whole body and the importance

of heart to the twelve organs. "

 

Here, I observe, the Neijing is suggesting that only when one

understands the individual nature of the Heart (the individual Spirit

of the human being) can one understand how to nurture the individual

body. The Spirit of the body is described in Chapter 9:

 

" There are three energies in heaven, three energies on earth, and

three energies for man, and the sum will aggregate to nine. On earth,

there are nine prefectures, and for man, there are nine viscera, that

is, the four organs which store substances (stomach, large intestine,

small intestine, bladder) and the five organs which store the spirits

(lung stores the inferior spirit, liver stores the soul, heart stores

spirit, spleen stores consciousness, kidney stores will) and the

number of nine viscera correspond with the number of six and six of

heaven. "

 

So, as I read it, in the early Chapters of the Neijing, there are

descriptions of how the Individual is created and takes shape, how the

Spirit is housed in the Heart, and how the Seat of all Consciousness

(individual Consciousness as opposed to Grand Consciousness) is housed

in the five viscera). In some traditions, the root of problems is

sought directly by palpating the area of the viscera (e.g. Tuina,

Shiatsu). In some traditions, it is sought by energetic sensing (e.g.,

qigong, Reiki). Others, indirectly by looking at the tongue, pulse,

complexion, etc. My own sense is that the " indirect " method was born

out of " modesty " . That is, the patient could not be touched directly

in the region of the abdomen, so could only be palpated indirectly

through under forms of inspection.

 

In any case, it appears to me that individualized diagnosis and

treatment is very much at the core of and TCM.

 

Any comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

_____

 

[]

Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:07 AM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Response to Godfrey (after Rich to Matt)

 

 

 

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:38:00 -0000, " Rich " <rfinkelstein wrote:

 

>>[unschuld]: " Neither the theoretical basis, diagnosis or even theory of

Chinese medicine can be standardized. "

 

>>[Rich] It is my observation that all of Chinese medicine (and its

philosophical roots) is based upon " individualization " - from all

perspectives. It may be possible to " standardize " but in a way that allows

the individual to build one's own skills and knowledge. This would

certainly explain the fact that Chinese medicine is practiced in so many

different ways in real life.

 

This last statement would be plausible, contingent of the preceding. The

previous two statements, however, strike me as distinctively Western ideas.

You might try to define " individualization " as used in the first sentence

to help counter this impression. But the second sentence -- " allows the

individual to build [his/her] own . " - is not something which, to my

knowledge, can be said to be characteristic in Chinese culture or society.

 

Rather, inability to be standardized more likely relates to Unschuld's two

major points, concluding the last chapter of " " .

 

1) " There is no Chinese medicine as finished, closed healing system. "

(p.118 - the argumentation including the passage Matt cited).

 

2) " . the difference in attitude between Chinese and Western traditions to

the stringency of thought systems. " (p.122) " .'this-as-well-as-that'. " vs

" ..'is-it-this-or-that'. " (p.123)

 

While I may be reading something into Rich's statements that isn't there,

it would appear to be a statement of a focus on individual freedom, which I

think falls under the kind of unexamined cultural self-projection in many

Western interpretations of Chinese medicine which Unschuld often laments.

 

[Jason]

 

I 100% agree, and I think that it is this type of 'justifying' from

westerns, " that we can do what ever we want and call it CM " is a huge

mistake.

 

 

 

-