Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Chris, Attilio & western myths)

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine ,

<@w...> wrote:

> I also believe one can argue that the awareness of cultural and

historical

> distinctions (i.e. differing mythos) is cultivated more explicitly

in

> Western intellectual history. This due to a more dynamic history

involving

> multiple diverse variants of peoples, cultures, and literary

traditions.

> That is, compared with the relative degree of cultural uniformity

in China

> across the 2000 year imperial era. Perhaps even the dynamism and

diversity

> in the West has contributed to the development of science,

scientific

> history, with its explicit critical, and self-critical

> awareness/methodology. This, I suggest, leads to a difference in the

> relationship to myth in the two broad cultures.

 

I have enjoyed being a spectator in this interesting discussion, but

I thought I'd throw my 2 yuan in with regard to something Chris

mentioned (above). I believe that " Western " societies do cultivate

awareness of distinctions in cultural mythoi (thanks for that

etymological tidbit) differently, but perhaps not more explicitly

than other cultures (witness Japan's almost defiant cultural identity

vis a vis the indigenous Ainu or Western " gaijin " , or China's acute

awareness of Han lineage with respect to indigenous peoples). I

believe rather that Western approaches to anthropological

interpretation are often imbued with an insidious arrogance that

belies their more obvious attempts to examine or embrace other

cultural perspectives. And to the extent that an awareness of these

mythological distinctions is more explicit, I certainly question

whether this is not due to this arrogance, rather than a

more " dynamic " or " diverse " history (and I find it hard to argue that

Western society is more of either of these things than any other).

 

The attempt to distinguish and understand another cultural philosophy

in terms that assume distinctions based on some inherent biological

or even cultural predisposition, without fully considering the

political constraints which shape personal expression, reflects the

arrogance to which I refer. An example is the belief that Chinese

were historically disinclined--for reasons other than political--to

consider ideas of individualization or personal freedom with as much

passion and intelligence as Westerners. I oppose the notion--

romantic and inspiring as it might be to those of us who associate

ourselves with Western culture--that there is some

historical " Chinese reality " that is more attuned with the nature of

constant change (to use an example from Chris's response to Rich)

than Western reality, to the extent that it reflects the psyche

(collective or individual) rather than the political constraints of

the people. This distinction is important to make, because it is

easily blurred and taken for granted in discussions of historical

Chinese, the significance of the classics of CM, etc. The

constructive opposite of *unexamined* cultural self-projection is not

*examined* cultural self-projection; this is especially important if

we are seeking to foster a balanced and somewhat realistic approach

to CM. For many of us, as people who particularly appreciate and

admire the beauty and wisdom of the philosophical foundations of this

art and have chosen to practice it despite our own social pressures

otherwise, this perspective can be especially alluring.

 

Just thought I'd bound into this knotty thread with a deep wire of my

own...

 

--Jim G.