What is evil Qi? (Attilio)

[Guest guest]

Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:59:58 -0000, " Attilio D'Alberto "

<attiliodalberto wrote:

 

Good summary. I didn't hear that lecture, but the points correspond to what

can be found in his books (in English and the German " Was ist Medizin? " ),

and what I have heard of his views and opinions in lectures and an

intensive week-long workshop back in 2003.

 

> Another interesting point made was that the popularity and development of

acupuncture followed the rise and fall of Confucianism. This I find very

interesting. If we look at this further, herbalism is more related to

Daoism whilst acupuncture is more Confucianism. As these two political

systems did not last the test of time and therefore failed to a degree,

does that mean herbal medicine and acupuncture don't work or only worked

during those

times?

 

That is a curious, at first shocking point, which Unschuld raises

occasionally, and which I have heard confirmed from other sources - that

acupuncture, prior to the revolution and TCM, was known over the 2000 year

imperial era by a small fraction of all Chinese people, less than 5% of

them. Apparently in the literati circles, in and around the centers of

political power and high culture. Another way of looking at it - for

Chinese by and large, Chinese medicine meant (and still means) herbal

treatment.

 

On the other hand - now more my opinion - I disagree with Unschuld that a

cultural or medical paradigm can exist and be useful only in the presence

of its original social-cultural context. (Maybe, though, he doesn't claim

that, strictly speaking.) That is, while acupuncture well have arisen with

the Confucian system, its validity and utility can well be independent of

its origin. Then again, Unschuld does stress (e.g. in the small book,

) that aspects of CM -- acupuncture among others, as well

as theory - can well be reinterpreted and appropriated by other cultures in

other times/contexts. In his more polemical moments, he ridicules many such

Western interpretations as too thinly grounded in substantial historical

understanding. In more diplomatic moments, he acknowledge that some such

reinterpretations can well be " creative " endeavors, which fashion something

new and quite appropriate and effective, and corresponding to a deeply felt

need. Example being those searching for depth of understanding and

effectiveness to help fill in the gaps where Western medicine (in its

current form) falls short.

 

> We see now the PRC's TCM, based upon the western ideal of syndrome

differentiation…

 

Here again, I believe this achievement a sound logical system, which

transcends its political origins. (Notwithstanding my belief that the

traditions of CM contain much more possibilities, and can't be reduced to

this particular, albeit powerful, methodology.)

 

> To the point what is TCM? Is it a mis-match of ideals, whether political,

moral or ideological? …

 

Granting that I use the term TCM for the particular 20th-century school of

thought, albeit a dominant one currently (as in the earlier

terminology/Wiseman debate, I think we can use different terms and their

definitions, as long as we clearly indicate them), I believe TCM is a very

significant link in the long line of varying traditions and schools of

thought and interpretation which make up CM. I would say more a 'mish-mash'

(and not necessarily pejoratively) than 'mis-match', and actually, in terms

of the social-political context (the PRC from ca. 1950 to now), a rather

good and successful match to the goals and aspirations of its founding

fathers. (As Kim Taylor spells out in historical detail in her, hopefully

soon to be published thesis, so more of us can appreciate it.)

 

I know that some here think of TCM as whole, and the retention of the best

and most effective of the various lineages and traditions, and, as some

have stated, that which is more cryptic in the classics and has been left

out of mainstream TCM is so because it didn't work or is obsolete after

all. From my studies of, so far, some of the classics and their

interpretations, my belief is that they do work and are vividly effective,

once one penetrates a certain degree of the worldview as represented in

them. (How this is possible, how one does this, e.g. validating

interpretations mixed with oral lineages, etc. is that much larger

discussion which we have touched upon before, and will surely grapple with

extensively along the further way.)

 

I do believe that attempting to create a hard and exclusive definition of

the whole and essence of CM/TCM is a dangerous path, although it may convey

important lessons. As Paul Unschuld shared with us at the 2003 workshop,

though not published as far as I have seen: cultivating and preserving the

tradition (of diverse traditions) of CM/CCM is best pursued along the lines

of multiple paths, and research, academic, pedagogical and clinical

methodologies. That attempting a monolithic and dogmatic definition, fully

standardized and institutionalized, in modern terms, cannot succeed; it

would be disastrous in terms of the wide range of values and opportunities

which many of us consider to be the life-blood of CM/TCM.

 

This may be a bit fuzzy, but I'm sure I'll be trying to clarify it off and

on as we continue these various threads.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

 

Chris: Granting that I use the term TCM for the particular 20th-century

school of

thought, albeit a dominant one currently (as in the earlier

terminology/Wiseman debate, I think we can use different terms and their

definitions, as long as we clearly indicate them), I believe TCM is a very

significant link in the long line of varying traditions and schools of

thought and interpretation which make up CM. I would say more a 'mish-mash'

(and not necessarily pejoratively) than 'mis-match', and actually, in terms

of the social-political context (the PRC from ca. 1950 to now), a rather

good and successful match to the goals and aspirations of its founding

fathers. (As Kim Taylor spells out in historical detail in her, hopefully

soon to be published thesis, so more of us can appreciate it.)

 

Attilio: Mish-mash is what I meant, sorry.

 

Chris: I know that some here think of TCM as whole, and the retention of

the best

and most effective of the various lineages and traditions, and, as some

have stated, that which is more cryptic in the classics and has been left

out of mainstream TCM is so because it didn't work or is obsolete after

all. From my studies of, so far, some of the classics and their

interpretations, my belief is that they do work and are vividly effective,

once one penetrates a certain degree of the worldview as represented in

them. (How this is possible, how one does this, e.g. validating

interpretations mixed with oral lineages, etc. is that much larger

discussion which we have touched upon before, and will surely grapple with

extensively along the further way.)

 

Attilio: What we have with TCM at the moment is I believe, half what it

really should be. TCM is taught over a 3-5 year period depending upon the

combination of acupuncture with herbs or not and the relative school. We all

agree TCM is a complex subject to learn and even harder to practice. But

what I believe is that there is a further depth to TCM which most of us are

oblivious to. This relates to the contradictions in certain classics and the

cryptic phrasing of certain topics. Insights into this additional depth of

understanding within TCM can be seen and explained within the oral

traditions you speak of. This relates to what David was saying in another

post about the level of a practitioner's ability. I believe that the PRC

have sought to standardise to some degree the level of competence within TCM

from one of which varied greatly depending upon your mentor, race,

geographical location and access to literature.

 

Chris: I do believe that attempting to create a hard and exclusive

definition of

the whole and essence of CM/TCM is a dangerous path, although it may convey

important lessons.

 

Attilio: dangerous path? More like impossible. There's just too much

history, politics, races and creeds aswell as religion involved in the

development of TCM which will always make the cast-iron conclusions a murky

water.