How much philosophy is enough?

[Guest guest]

What's wrong with this picture?The field is supposedly booming.Thousands enrolled in training programsacross the country. NIH grants millionsfor research. Yet, according to one of the leadingpublishers in the field, Bob Flaws,it doesn't pay to bring excellentbooks to the marketplace.>>>>I do not think there are many books in English on TCM that I have not read. But for you it seems to be the goal, for me its treating patients. But there we go again in circle I think enough already said

Alon

[Guest guest]

Ken and All,

 

I'm trying to post the aforementioned article on paradigm theory and

Chinese medicine

to the files.

 

I would like to respond to all of your points but I find it takes me

a long time, so to

choose one bit of the interchange...

 

 

>

> However, for me, its all a question of degree. While I think that

the

> context doesn,t need to be, or can't be, as thoroughly

elucidated

> as you seem to hold

 

Doesn't need to be and can't be are two

quite different propositions. Which is it?

Have you determined that an exegesis of

the context of Chinese medical ideas is

not necessary for the successful transmission

of those ideas? Or have you balked at the

enormity of the task and decided that it's

relative difficulty makes its attainment

unlikely?

 

 

Probably both, each term was considered.

 

As to need:

As I said above, my position is that the amount of context required

for transmission of Chinese medical ideas for effective clinical

practice is a

matter of degree, not that it is not neccessary at all. I think that

where we differ

is that the amount of context you think necessary to enhance

clinical practice

I would consider veers more toward scholarship - which fascinates me

too- where

I think the benefits are more tangential. Further, that if a deep

contextual

understanding is set as the gold standard of CM theory then

this is where I see dangers of isolation from the world outside of

CM and

consequent implications for change and progress because of the over

substantiating

and isolating of terms implied by a philosophy.

I consider that the lesser requirement of emphasis on use, that is

on knowing how to use terms

practically in a technical CM context, allows for greater

adaptation. This isn't to say that there

aren't advantages to our practice, in being saturated in the

concepts'

deeper meanings and nuances , just that there is a decreasing return

and over time,

if we are to progress, we will surely have to change or give

up some, so best not to hold them as essential. or immutable.

..

 

As to can't, I have 3 fronts:

1. I do not mean balking in the face of difficulty but rather a

logical

impossibility. If meaning of terms is strongly relative to their

cultural milieu -paradigm-as

Kuhn argued, then they cannot be appropriated by other cultures and

the meaning

kept intact as meaning is so thoroughly relative, ie incommensurable.

This is part of

Kuhn and his follower's position, not my interpretation

I believe Kuhn was just plain wrong on this analysis of the history

of science , there is

considerable understanding of terms and ideas through history and

between peoples which

suggests that meaning is not so relative. However if the premise is

yours

then I think you have to deal with the logical consequence.

 

2. A more ultimate logical impossibility of comprehending any

seperate conceptual

scheme; the philosopher Donald Davidson argues that such an

enterprise is based on

a false dogma of a dualism of scheme and reality, Daoism by other

means! It is in a short

but difficult paper in a book of his, Inquiries into Truth and

Interpretation . I touch on this argument in my article though not to

convey understanding, just enough, I hope, to make it sound

worth considering.

 

3. Can the context of CM be said to be systematic enough to qualify

as a philosophy? You know vastly more about this than I do but my

point is that by using the word philosophy in your

original question you presupposed a systematic, coherent, body of

knowledge.

 

I hope I have made clear how much philosophy I think is too much. For

me that has nothing

to do with how much theory, history or culture is transmitted, but

rather an attitude of putting

it on some sort of pedestal built, in part,of Western philosophical

ideas of knowledge and meaning.

For myself I' ll keep trying to read Chinese and, if your question

was in part a market survey,

buying your books.

 

Best wishes,

Simon

[Guest guest]

Simon can you forward me your article I have a hard time getting to them on

alon

[Guest guest]

Simon,

>

> I'm trying to post the aforementioned article on paradigm theory

and

> Chinese medicine

> to the files.

 

Thanks. I just checked and don't see it

there yet.

 

> As I said above, my position is that the amount of context required

> for transmission of Chinese medical ideas for effective clinical

> practice is a

> matter of degree, not that it is not neccessary at all. I think

that

> where we differ

> is that the amount of context you think necessary to enhance

> clinical practice

> I would consider veers more toward scholarship - which fascinates

me

> too- where

> I think the benefits are more tangential.

 

I've put forth a basic sense of what I

feel constitutes an outline of the contextual

material that should be included in order

to represent the roots of the subject.

That was the point of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

The phrase " amount of context " is little

perplexing to me, as to me it's a quality

more than a quantity. If we agree that

the understanding of ideas and words in

the context of their origins is vital or

at least necessary, then I'd suggest that

for each individual the answer to how

much is enough will vary.

 

My reason for asking the question was

to learn more about where different people

placed such values.

 

Further, that if a deep

> contextual

> understanding is set as the gold standard of CM theory then

> this is where I see dangers of isolation from the world outside of

> CM and

> consequent implications for change and progress because of the over

> substantiating

> and isolating of terms implied by a philosophy.

 

I think I understand the danger that you

are describing, but I don't really grasp how

the one thing leads to the other. If a surgeon

really understands the language and theoretical

(such as they are) considerations of a particular

technique, does it make him or her susceptible

to this kind of isolation?

 

That's all I'm really arguing for, i.e. enough

familiarity with the context, including language,

literature, and yes, philosophy, in order to

give students a firm grasp of the meanings of

the terms and concepts. Again, how much is

enough is a matter of individual determination.

And that said, I believe we can begin to identify

certain irreducible minimums.

 

 

> I consider that the lesser requirement of emphasis on use, that is

> on knowing how to use terms

> practically in a technical CM context, allows for greater

> adaptation.

 

I quite agree. The meaning of the terms is

in their use. That's why I find it so important

to understand how these terms have been used

over the centuries.

 

This isn't to say that there

> aren't advantages to our practice, in being saturated in the

> concepts'

> deeper meanings and nuances , just that there is a decreasing

return

 

Well, that simply hasn't been my experience.

In fact, for me personally, there has been a

decidedly increasing return.

 

> and over time,

> if we are to progress, we will surely have to change or give

> up some, so best not to hold them as essential. or immutable.

 

I see the whole of the transmission

and reception of the subject as a metabolic

process during which that which is received

is entirely broken down into its constituents

and then reformatted according to the requirements

of the body politic in which it has become involved.

 

But this doesn't cancel the basic requirement

that in order to interact metabolically with

the material, you have to understand the meanings

of the words and terms.

 

 

 

> .

>

> As to can't, I have 3 fronts:

> 1. I do not mean balking in the face of difficulty but rather a

> logical

> impossibility. If meaning of terms is strongly relative to their

> cultural milieu -paradigm-as

> Kuhn argued, then they cannot be appropriated by other cultures

and

> the meaning

> kept intact as meaning is so thoroughly relative, ie

incommensurable.

 

Well, I don't think this was Kuhn's position, not

at least as I read it in Structure of Scientific

Revolutions. I take his position not to suggest

that anything can or cannot be appropriated

cross-culturally. I think he simply points out

that langauge and scientific knowledge alike

are the property of the groups that make and

use them and that if we are to understand them,

regardless of what boundaries and barriers

must be crossed in order for this understanding

to take place, we have to know the special characteristics

of those who have assembled them.

 

> This is part of

> Kuhn and his follower's position, not my interpretation

> I believe Kuhn was just plain wrong on this analysis of the history

> of science , there is

> considerable understanding of terms and ideas through history and

> between peoples which

> suggests that meaning is not so relative.

 

I'm not up on the work of Kuhn's followers.

I don't know if the commonality of terms

and ideas over spans of space and time

suggests meaning to be relative or not.

 

But I think I understand more clearly now

your aversion to philosophy.

 

However if the premise is

> yours

> then I think you have to deal with the logical consequence.

 

My premise is this:

 

Terms such as yin1 and yang2 and qi4, choosing these

because they are basic and quite commonly used, begin

as elements in a set used to describe and define certain

cosmological, ontological, and philosophical ideas,

sequences, and patterns. They came into use as

medical terms over a long span of time bringing

to medical thinking something of the flavor

of the epistemological systems in which their

use developed earlier.

 

There is a dynamic relationship between the

philosophical meanings of these terms and their

use as descriptors of anatomical and physiological

structures and functions.

 

> 2. A more ultimate logical impossibility of comprehending any

> seperate conceptual

> scheme; the philosopher Donald Davidson argues that such an

> enterprise is based on

> a false dogma of a dualism of scheme and reality, Daoism by other

> means! It is in a short

> but difficult paper in a book of his, Inquiries into Truth and

> Interpretation . I touch on this argument in my article though not

to

> convey understanding, just enough, I hope, to make it sound

> worth considering.

 

Please don't tell my wife about this.

Should we learn that it is impossible

for us to comprehend one another's

conceptual schemes, I shudder to think

about the consequences.

 

Now I really start to understand your

distaste of philosophy. I know nothing

of Mr. Davidson, and he may well have

proven that comprehension of separate

cultural schemes is impossible. Or he

may have proven that one human being

cannot possibly comprehend anything

about another human being, which seems

like the logical conclusion of this

line of thinking. But both propositions

seem not only ludicrous but downright

cynical to me.

 

Has Mr. Davidson's work been translated

into other languages? Taught in places

other than his home?

>

> 3. Can the context of CM be said to be systematic enough to

qualify

> as a philosophy? You know vastly more about this than I do but my

> point is that by using the word philosophy in your

> original question you presupposed a systematic, coherent, body of

> knowledge.

 

I get it now. And I should point out that

I was really just following up on a comment

that Bob Flaws made, accusing me of being

over the limit on the subject of philosophy.

 

C'mon, Bob, where do you draw the line?

 

As to whether or not the context of TCM can be

equated with the kind of philosophy you sketch

out above, all I can say is I hope not. It's

certainly not what I had in mind at all.

 

I simply use the word to refer to that apparently

chaotic aggregate of texts and teachings that

I've been able to get my wits around as having

had something to do with the subject of medicine

in China over the past few thousand years.

Again, I hold that each and every individual

will wind up with their own sense of this

vast panaorama of information. It's the process

of looking, exploring and developing one's

mind in the process that I think is of

fundamental importance.

 

And this is really based on the introduction

to Sun Si Miao's book. It's not some brilliant

idea I dreamed up while wandering around in

China.

 

>

> I hope I have made clear how much philosophy I think is too much.

 

Not really.

 

For instance, can a person understand the use

of the terms yin1 and yang2 in medicine if

they do not grasp their significance as terms

in cosmology?

 

If you do not know what Meng Zi or Zhuang Zi or

Lao Zi wrote about qi4, can you claim to know

what it means that this qi4 circulates both

in the atmosphere and within the human body?

 

For

> me that has nothing

> to do with how much theory, history or culture is transmitted, but

> rather an attitude of putting

> it on some sort of pedestal built, in part,of Western philosophical

> ideas of knowledge and meaning.

 

I see. Well, for me, calling it philosophy

is not putting it on any sort of pedestal.

As I said, I think of the process as an

analog to metabolism. The ideas have to

be consumed, broken down, and formulated

into workable actualities in the individual

minds of individual students and practitioners.

 

 

> For myself I' ll keep trying to read Chinese and, if your question

> was in part a market survey,

> buying your books.

 

I am interested in learning more about

others' notions along these lines, as

we're thinking seriously about a book

about yin1 and yang2. Hopefully by

mentioning it here, someone with a

great deal more ambition and ability

than me will jump to it and produce

a work that properly introduces the

most basic theoretical suppositions

of Chinese medicine. When I think of

what it would take, my knees start

to buckle.

 

But it's not been good sense or

marketing surveys that have brought

us to wherever we are, and I doubt

that it will be these factors that

carry us hence.

 

Thanks for engaging on these issues.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Please don't tell my wife about this.Should we learn that it is impossiblefor us to comprehend one another'sconceptual schemes, I shudder to thinkabout the consequences.>>>As one that had a cross cultural marriage I have wandered about this from time to time

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Please don't tell my wife about this.

> Should we learn that it is impossible

> for us to comprehend one another's

> conceptual schemes, I shudder to think

> about the consequences.

>

> >>>As one that had a cross cultural marriage I have wandered about

this from time to time

> Alon

 

The point is that conceptual schemes are an illusion, marriages are

safe, on that front at least.

 

Simon