Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 Has anyone seen unschuld's newish , recently reviewed by Marnae Ergil in some TCM journal. It is interesting in that he makes several points more overtly than before. In particular, an issue he has danced around for years is the clinical validity of the framework of systematic correspondence. In this new book, he makes no bones and basically says that the framework of systematic correspondence was essentially a mental exercise for confucian scholars that has turned out not to be particularly useful in clinic when applied to herbology. for example, a term like kidney ang xu is only meaningful in that it is shorthand for a specific symptom complex, which is really treated empirically, not rationally. The term does not really yield useful insights into past or present course of disease, possible etiology, etc. This is somewhat shocking (though perhaps not altogether untrue). does anyone have any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 I've had this book for several months now. It is really a collection of essays, variant in subject (and quality). The section on wu yun liu qi/five movements & six qi is excellant, with little opinionated discourse. .. . .he just lays out the information. The section on Chinese pharmacology, I believe, is where you are referring to in your post, Todd. My understanding of Dr.Unschuld is that he is employed by biomedical research people, and mostly is involved with German M.D.'s. This colors his views somewhat. He doesn't seem to have a relationship to the clinical medicine. He is definately right on one thing. . . .modern-day China has little relationship with the culture that produce the medicine of yin/yang and wu xing. This doesn't mean we cannot produce a 'virtual culture' of medicine in the West. Nor does it mean that this rational framework is 'useless'. Emperical medicine has a very short half-life, it is difficult to pass on without the rational framework. For me, the structure of bian zheng lun zhi is deeply imbedded with clinical practice. . .they are two limbs of one body. Dr. Unschuld is too removed from this world to understand this, in my opinion. >Has anyone seen unschuld's newish , recently reviewed by >Marnae Ergil in some TCM journal. It is interesting in that he makes >several points more overtly than before. In particular, an issue he has >danced around for years is the clinical validity of the framework of >systematic correspondence. In this new book, he makes no bones and >basically says that the framework of systematic correspondence was >essentially a mental exercise for confucian scholars that has turned out >not to be particularly useful in clinic when applied to herbology. for >example, a term like kidney ang xu is only meaningful in that it is >shorthand for a specific symptom complex, which is really treated >empirically, not rationally. The term does not really yield useful >insights into past or present course of disease, possible etiology, etc. >This is somewhat shocking (though perhaps not altogether untrue). does >anyone have any thoughts on this? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.