Was 'appropriate language for qi;' now isn't

[Guest guest]

Ken:

I've been trying to grasp how

archetypes are strange attractors and

I'm not having much luck. But I'm a

notoriously slow learner. But thorough.

 

Jim:

Finally found

Archetypes and Strange Attractors: The Chaotic World of Symbols

by John Van Eenwyk (Inner City Books, 1997).

" Of all Jung's concepts, that of the archetypes is among the most

difficult to understand. The most common mistake is to confuse

archetypes with the images through which their influence is

manifested. In other words, the archetypal dynamics of an image are

often mistaken for its content. For example, suppose we are speaking

of the 'mother archetype'. Just what is that? According to Jung, it

refers to all the aspects of mothering that are possible. "

 

And, later: " Synchronic dynamics are essentially oscillatory

dynamics. Furthermore, that psychological development is a function

primarily of the resolution of tensions (emphasizing the ego's

awareness), corresponds with one of the more intriguing hypotheses

about chaotic dynamics actually generate a higher order result

coming out than existed going in. " This quote is interesting because

it emphasizes the complexity perspective of the psyche.

 

" All the aspects of mothering that are possible " is the phase space

of mothering. Van Eenwyk is essentially " mapping the correspondences

between the dynamics of symbols in the psyche and the dynamics of

chaos in the world of matter " (so the back cover states). These

things interest me because they more closely follow Derrida's

contentions about language. He contends that the traditional, or

metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions

about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that

language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that

in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and

that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's

deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and

challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning.

 

 

Ken:

I'd understood that you were forwarding

a judgment as to whether or not the word/concept

of hun2 should survive. And I was just

wondering how you could make such a judgment.

 

Jim:

I wasn't forwarding a judgment so much as posing a question. From

Z'ev's remark, it sounded like the use of hun and been dropped.

 

Ken:

> America is the culture that CM is being translated into and,

> inevitably, its ideas will absorb and change CM to some degree---

> especially because Western medicine and culture often attempt to

be

> scientific.

 

Whoa! I have a really hard time with the appearance

of America in the foregoing sentence as some sort

of immutable aim of human civilization.

 

Jim:

It's not? My interest is only local, and I was only speaking from my

own perspective and cultural expectations. Just as China absorbed

different cultures and ideas and made them its own, I suspect

American will absorb and change acupuncture. I'm not really up on

the rest of the world.

 

 

Ken:

There are at least two billion people on earth that I can

say with some certainty might not entirely agree

with your designation as the destination of choice.

 

Jim:

I find that hard to believe. Can you name names?

 

 

 

Ken:

>I interpret your need to wait and find out

> what the Chinese have said as a fundamental difference between us

> (although I am curious, too). You seem to want to wait and see

> what the Chinese were thinking to engender some authority and I

> think it's too important to be left to the Chinese.

 

Well, you've lost me a bit here. I don't know what

I'm saying or doing that leads you to believe

that I'm waiting for anything.

 

Jim:

Just my impression from what you have said; perhaps I'm misjudging

you. My personal choice and interest is in taking what is already

known and in translation, and applying it to things like pulse

diagnosis and Complexity. I have a very narrow field of interest. I

hope at least the other 4 billion people will agree with me.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

Thanks for the material on archetypes and

strange attractors. It helps bring it into

focus for me. I want to read more and think

about it for a while when I don't have quite

so many deadlines and meetings looming.

 

Deadlines and meetings...now there are some

strange attractors.

 

I don't know what to say in the way of

productive comments regarding the discussion

of America vis-a-vis other cultures. Are

you familiar with Gary Snyder's usage of

the term " spritual imperialism " ?

 

>

> Ken:

> There are at least two billion people on earth that I can

> say with some certainty might not entirely agree

> with your designation as the destination of choice.

>

> Jim:

> I find that hard to believe. Can you name names?

 

No, I was just kidding. Everybody on

earth really does agree with you.

>

 

>

> Jim:

> Just my impression from what you have said; perhaps I'm misjudging

> you. My personal choice and interest is in taking what is already

> known and in translation, and applying it to things like pulse

> diagnosis and Complexity. I have a very narrow field of interest. I

> hope at least the other 4 billion people will agree with me.

 

Well look, take a good long look at the

quality as well as the quantity of " what

is already known and in translation " and

then compare it to the body of knowledge

that has accumulated under the rubric of

Chinese medicine for the past 2,500 years

or so and tell me how comfortable you

feel with relying on the former as a

valid representation of the latter.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> I don't know what to say in the way of

> productive comments regarding the discussion

> of America vis-a-vis other cultures. Are

> you familiar with Gary Snyder's usage of

> the term " spritual imperialism " ?

 

 

I wasn't arguing for some sort of moral superiority in America; only

that two world views or conceptual systems merge, adapt, and change

each other as they meet.

 

 

 

> > Ken:

> > There are at least two billion people on earth that I can

> > say with some certainty might not entirely agree

> > with your designation as the destination of choice.

> >

> > Jim:

> > I find that hard to believe. Can you name names?

>

> No, I was just kidding. Everybody on

> earth really does agree with you.

 

 

I was kidding also. But I will tell my students and friends, from

now on, I have it on your good authority that I'm correct.

 

 

> Well look, take a good long look at the

> quality as well as the quantity of " what

> is already known and in translation " and

> then compare it to the body of knowledge

> that has accumulated under the rubric of

> Chinese medicine for the past 2,500 years

> or so and tell me how comfortable you

> feel with relying on the former as a

> valid representation of the latter.

 

Again, my personal interest in framing the knowledge and translation

we have now in contemporary Western theories---that may offer new

insights---should not preclude nor inhibit you from translating new

material from the classical literature. I am not against it; I am

simply interested in another avenue of developing these ideas.

 

One of my recent favorite books is the new title on divergent

meridians by Chip Chace (arguably one of the best writers in the

field)---even despite the fact that there seems to be no real

concensus in the Chinese literature about what they are or how they

work, and I don't do Japanese style acupuncture.

 

 

Jim Ramholz