Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Matt)

[Guest guest]

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:53:13 -0700, Matt Bauer " <acu.guy wrote:

>> I don't see our exchanges as a pissing contest at all.

 

Likewise. My phrase was, in part, a play on your metaphor: " …I think we

should hold our water and not get ahead of ourselves. "

 

Thank you for sharing some background on your understanding of what I agree

to be a vital interplay of the literary/scholarly and the oral aspects of

tradition(s). You find this interplay interesting in terms of having " a

better chance to piece together a fuller story of the roots of Chinese

culture and, in turn, Chinese medicine history. " I find it useful,

currently, as a means of piecing together a deeper understanding of how the

medicine, in its various aspects, can come to life.

 

I too have been studying in an oral tradition (via Jeffery Yuen, who

doesn't even write books, not even lecture outline handouts). Many of my

fellow students on this path have rather extreme reactions to, for

instance, Paul Unschuld's writings, which are perceived as threatening to

their process of understanding the oral transmissions.

 

Given my background in historical studies (i.e. I understand it as, to some

degree, a professional game), I am able to keep the science and the oral

teachings separate and appreciate each on its own terms. It gets exiting

when the two coincide, in some way mutually illuminate each other.

(Currently, I'm experiencing this more in Harper's study of the MWD mss.)

For instance, in his introductory lecture to an extensive series on the

SuWen, Jeffery expresses the belief that SuWen had a single author. For

other students then, the consensus historical belief that the SuWen stems

from many writers, becomes a bone of contention. I find, however, in

Jeffery's explanation, that he refers to a certain unifying interpretation

that can be found in understanding the SuWen, on the basis of his tradition

(Daoist " Jade Purity " school, through the oral teachings, including

parallel study of the classics with his grandfather). Almost all the rest

of the time, throughout these lectures, he will use phrases like " what the

authors meant here … " I reconcile this by understanding his reference to a

single author as a sense of " unified " authority, or placing the material in

a certain order (as Wang Bing appears to have done) can reveal an

overarching unitary conceptual space of meaning. If you will, an embodiment

of that very old collective understanding of man enveloped in heaven and

earth. From that perspective, the apparent contradictions and discrepancies

that riddle the text, are inconsequential.

 

A major challenge, opportunity that I am brailling towards here, is that it

must be possible to render these deeper levels of understanding in, at

least, some sort of rational literary expression. This is apparently not

the current practice of scientific history. There are other, Western

disciplines that may offer hints and guideposts in this direction, although

they are little known or appreciated in Anglo-Saxon intellectual circles

(to some extent because a preoccupation here with the positivistic

directions). Some of these, which I was exposed to years ago, are called

things like cultural history, cultural anthropology, and philosophical

anthropology. An example which may ring a bell for some us would be the

work of Claude Levi-Strauss. Also, as I mentioned earlier, C.J.Jung, and,

in a somewhat lighter vein, Joseph Campbell.

 

As you observe, the rules of the game of scientific history compel

Unschuld, Harper etc. to, at least, carefully distinguish " fact " from

interpretation, or theory, though they all engage in at least

interpretation. (As Ted Kaptchuk has cogently expressed, bare " facts " have

no meaning except through interpretation.) It is true also that a strong

" positivistic " bias is present, more often than not, in scientific history

(and this itself is something of an historically relative phenomenon - it

may evolve in other directions). This leads, in my opinion, to the tendency

towards summary statements that can be seen as belittling to certain

directions of interpretation, as, for instance, you perceive in the

characterization relating to the " Zhou elite " .

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Hugo, Chris, and anyone else reading these threads,

 

I am just getting ready to leave town for several days and won't be able to

continue on this subject until late next week if the interest is still there. A

few quick thoughts before I have to run: I want to stress again that I too, have

great respect for Unschuld and the other scholars who saw the value in turning

the important light of scholarly scrutiny on the profound subject of CM and the

culture it sprang from. That is why I sought to promote Unschuld's work by doing

the two interviews with him in Acupuncture Today. I have offered to do the same

with Kim Taylor to help promote her latest book. I honestly do not think my

opinion is better than anyone else's - people may not believe me when I say this

but I really don't. One of the paradoxes of the opposites that are not opposites

expressed in yin/yang is the observation that, while we are all different (and

thus have different opinions), we are, at the same time, all the same (and thus

our different opinions are all equal). I can't help having a particular opinion

(at least not yet), but I offer opinions without feeling others must find them

superior to anyone else's opinion. Is there any reason we can't all offer ideas

without competition? Anyway - I won't go on about that anymore.

 

Chris - you have mentioned Jeffery Yuen several times. I also think he is one of

our profession's bright lights. I asked him during one of his workshops on the

Su Wen, how old he thought that material was. He said he thought it came from

about 800 B.C. This, of course, puts him at odds with the scholars who insist it

can't be more than 200-300 B.C. due to the MWD tomb finds. I just think it is

premature to assume we will never find any compelling evidence that might prove

the practice of acupuncture was around before the MWD tomb era or other evidence

that some of the essential concepts expressed in the Nei Jing is older than can

be proven today - especially in light of the overwhelming consensus about a

greater antiquity from so many oral traditions. Just my opinion.

 

Hugo - I agree with your points about the limits of fixed words in trying to

express the essence of dynamic nature. One needs look no further than the first

lines (characters) of the Tao Teh Ching in which Lao Tzu states that the true

Tao cannot be expressed in words. That did not stop him however, from trying his

best to express the true Tao with about 5,000 more characters. Rest assured that

any attempt I make at trying to describe or in any way capture the essence of

the Tao ( the truth of life) is done with the spirit of Lao Tzu's disclaimer,

even if I fail to include such.

 

So much to say - so little time. Thanks for your feedabck and bye for now - Matt

Bauer

-

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, September 30, 2004 1:16 AM

Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Matt)

 

 

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:53:13 -0700, Matt Bauer " <acu.guy wrote:

>> I don't see our exchanges as a pissing contest at all.

 

Likewise. My phrase was, in part, a play on your metaphor: " .I think we

should hold our water and not get ahead of ourselves. "

 

Thank you for sharing some background on your understanding of what I agree

to be a vital interplay of the literary/scholarly and the oral aspects of

tradition(s). You find this interplay interesting in terms of having " a

better chance to piece together a fuller story of the roots of Chinese

culture and, in turn, Chinese medicine history. " I find it useful,

currently, as a means of piecing together a deeper understanding of how the

medicine, in its various aspects, can come to life.

 

I too have been studying in an oral tradition (via Jeffery Yuen, who

doesn't even write books, not even lecture outline handouts). Many of my

fellow students on this path have rather extreme reactions to, for

instance, Paul Unschuld's writings, which are perceived as threatening to

their process of understanding the oral transmissions.

 

Given my background in historical studies (i.e. I understand it as, to some

degree, a professional game), I am able to keep the science and the oral

teachings separate and appreciate each on its own terms. It gets exiting

when the two coincide, in some way mutually illuminate each other.

(Currently, I'm experiencing this more in Harper's study of the MWD mss.)

For instance, in his introductory lecture to an extensive series on the

SuWen, Jeffery expresses the belief that SuWen had a single author. For

other students then, the consensus historical belief that the SuWen stems

from many writers, becomes a bone of contention. I find, however, in

Jeffery's explanation, that he refers to a certain unifying interpretation

that can be found in understanding the SuWen, on the basis of his tradition

(Daoist " Jade Purity " school, through the oral teachings, including

parallel study of the classics with his grandfather). Almost all the rest

of the time, throughout these lectures, he will use phrases like " what the

authors meant here . " I reconcile this by understanding his reference to a

single author as a sense of " unified " authority, or placing the material in

a certain order (as Wang Bing appears to have done) can reveal an

overarching unitary conceptual space of meaning. If you will, an embodiment

of that very old collective understanding of man enveloped in heaven and

earth. From that perspective, the apparent contradictions and discrepancies

that riddle the text, are inconsequential.

 

A major challenge, opportunity that I am brailling towards here, is that it

must be possible to render these deeper levels of understanding in, at

least, some sort of rational literary expression. This is apparently not

the current practice of scientific history. There are other, Western

disciplines that may offer hints and guideposts in this direction, although

they are little known or appreciated in Anglo-Saxon intellectual circles

(to some extent because a preoccupation here with the positivistic

directions). Some of these, which I was exposed to years ago, are called

things like cultural history, cultural anthropology, and philosophical

anthropology. An example which may ring a bell for some us would be the

work of Claude Levi-Strauss. Also, as I mentioned earlier, C.J.Jung, and,

in a somewhat lighter vein, Joseph Campbell.

 

As you observe, the rules of the game of scientific history compel

Unschuld, Harper etc. to, at least, carefully distinguish " fact " from

interpretation, or theory, though they all engage in at least

interpretation. (As Ted Kaptchuk has cogently expressed, bare " facts " have

no meaning except through interpretation.) It is true also that a strong

" positivistic " bias is present, more often than not, in scientific history

(and this itself is something of an historically relative phenomenon - it

may evolve in other directions). This leads, in my opinion, to the tendency

towards summary statements that can be seen as belittling to certain

directions of interpretation, as, for instance, you perceive in the

characterization relating to the " Zhou elite " .

 

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.