Guest guest Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 All, > Paul said this at the Pacific 2001 Symposium. and I think it is also in > his History of Pharmaceutics.. [ . . .] Unschuld mentions how (now) every Chinese and his > brother (my addition) swears by he shou wu for anti-aging etc. (because of > this political story). I don't take him to say something, that seemingly > seems so outrageous, without some reasoning behind it. So I ask, does > anyone have any insights into where he is coming from.? What Dr. Unschuld says is that Li Ao's article on ho shu wu is an allegory that makes the neoconfucianist argument that without the absorption of ideas from Daoism and Buddhism, Confucianism was moribund. The reason for the allegory was the execution of others who had made similar statements. You can find this in History of Pharmaceutics page 231-232 and in History of Ideas on page 159. In those articles, as well as in the PCOM lecture I attended, his point was not that no biochemically active ingredients can be found, or that there is no clinical application for this medicinal, it is that: The medical value of the drug ho shu wu received no attention from the medical-pharmaceutical circles until the Sung period. He shows that Li Ao's revered status as a `botanist' (he was a philosopher) and the drug's subsequent reputation for anti-aging, derived not from age- long clinical experience but from political allegory. This, like Dr. Unschuld's references to the absence of an SHL-inspired literature until the Sung, or the prominence of the ideal of physician-modified formulas following the mandate for public pharmacies that ended physicians' monopoly on drug sales, are not categorical denials that systematic drug prescription, or physician-modification never occurred prior to the 1100's. His argument is that these are powerful examples of how CM (like all medicine) responded to socio-economic and political trends by adapting its theoretical structure. The dissonance these statements create is not because they are implicitly dismissive of CM (as they are so often presented). As Dr. Unschuld constantly notes, all medicine responds to its socio-economic context. However, because ideas that have no basis in history, like Han peasants receiving treatments that weren't conceived for another millennium, or subscription medicine, have become part of our public posturing that we squirm to have them revealed as myth. For those who are interested in learning the results of Dr. Unschuld's research in a compact and personal way, Harriet Beinfeld is arranging a nine day intensive seminar with him this summer. If any listmember is interested, contact me off-list. Bob bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 617-738-4664 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 Bob, Thank you for the reply... -Jason > > Robert L. Felt [bob] > Tuesday, January 22, 2002 7:45 AM > > Li Ao, Ho Shu Wu > > All, > > > Paul said this at the Pacific 2001 Symposium. and I think it is also in > > his History of Pharmaceutics.. > [ . . .] Unschuld mentions how (now) every Chinese and his > > brother (my addition) swears by he shou wu for anti-aging etc. (because > of > > this political story). I don't take him to say something, that seemingly > > seems so outrageous, without some reasoning behind it. So I ask, does > > anyone have any insights into where he is coming from.? > > What Dr. Unschuld says is that Li Ao's article on ho shu wu is an allegory > that makes the neoconfucianist argument that without the absorption of > ideas from Daoism and Buddhism, Confucianism was moribund. The > reason for the allegory was the execution of others who had made similar > statements. You can find this in History of Pharmaceutics page 231-232 > and in History of Ideas on page 159. In those articles, as well as in the > PCOM lecture I attended, his point was not that no biochemically active > ingredients can be found, or that there is no clinical application for > this > medicinal, it is that: > > The medical value of the drug ho shu wu received no attention from > the medical-pharmaceutical circles until the Sung period. > > He shows that Li Ao's revered status as a `botanist' (he was a philosopher) > and the drug's subsequent reputation for anti-aging, derived not from age- > long clinical experience but from political allegory. This, like Dr. > Unschuld's references to the absence of an SHL-inspired literature until > the > Sung, or the prominence of the ideal of physician-modified formulas > following the mandate for public pharmacies that ended physicians' > monopoly on drug sales, are not categorical denials that systematic drug > prescription, or physician-modification never occurred prior to the 1100's. > His argument is that these are powerful examples of how CM (like all > medicine) responded to socio-economic and political trends by adapting its > theoretical structure. > > The dissonance these statements create is not because they are implicitly > dismissive of CM (as they are so often presented). As Dr. Unschuld > constantly notes, all medicine responds to its socio-economic context. > However, because ideas that have no basis in history, like Han peasants > receiving treatments that weren't conceived for another millennium, or > subscription medicine, have become part of our public posturing that we > squirm to have them revealed as myth. > > For those who are interested in learning the results of Dr. Unschuld's > research in a compact and personal way, Harriet Beinfeld is arranging a > nine day intensive seminar with him this summer. If any listmember is > interested, contact me off-list. > > Bob > > bob Paradigm Publications > www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street > Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445 > 617-738-4664 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2002 Report Share Posted January 22, 2002 > > Robert L. Felt [bob] > > What Dr. Unschuld says is that Li Ao's article on ho shu wu is an allegory > that makes the neoconfucianist argument that without the absorption of > ideas from Daoism and Buddhism, Confucianism was moribund. The > reason for the allegory was the execution of others who had made similar > statements. You can find this in History of Pharmaceutics page 231-232 > and in History of Ideas on page 159. In those articles, as well as in the > PCOM lecture I attended, his point was not that no biochemically active > ingredients can be found, or that there is no clinical application for > this > medicinal, it is that: I re-listened to the tape and he does say (this)... P.U. says " no one has ever found any active ingredient in it... " , " why would a political theorist... publish a pharmaceutical treatise on an inert plant, he shou wu... " But I do understand his point, which is very clear... but the above is not... thanx for your detailed description of 'his point'... -Jason 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.