Too much philosophy

[Guest guest]

All,

 

> It seems to me that all Chinese medical theory connects at the level of

> yin1 yang2, and since it is a philosophical artifact, we have to

> understand its meanings and usages in philosophy in order to understand

> what we are to make of it and do with it as a tool for medical

> interventions.

 

Personally, I believe there are `jobs' within Chinese medicine that can be

carried out with relatively little appreciation of Chinese philosophy. What I

say following does not mean that I believe that such skill sets are wrong, of

no value, morally or socially inferior. History indicates otherwise and a

fully-acculturated Chinese medicine will likely have many different socio-

economic applications. But, I doubt that western assessments and

contributions to Chinese medicine can be made without absorbing - not just

the information - but the philosophical foundations.

 

I am impressed by how often the most common statements about Chinese

medicine practically evidence the extent to which the speaker or writer

implicitly but profoundly rejects the Chinese view. In this case, I am not

referring to the re-naming of things Chinese in western terms. Rather, I am

noting that unless the Chinese view is explicitly recognized, it will be

implicitly replaced by our own cultural sensibilities. It is frequently stated,

for example, that in Chinese medicine mind and body are a whole. From

yin-yang philosophy that statement could not have been made, because the

criteria on which it is based would not be definitive. The fact that we think

about it this way, means we do not think about it in the Chinese frame of

reference but instead assume a materialistic definition.

 

If you consider that relationships in Chinese medicine are based on the

qualitative similarities among phenomena that are described by yin-yang

philosophy, then analytic divisions would not exist. It is not that microcosm

and macrocosm are inter-related, as is also often said, it is that you would

not perceive a distinction between a `big' and `little' universe unless you

assumed the principles of physics, the sub-atomic world. Mind and body,

likewise, are distinquishable by criteria that are based on physicality (the

extent to which our senses can perceive substantiveness). One is `stuff,' the

other is `not stuff.' But, were physicality perceived as a property of yin-

yang rather than as the primarily defining nature, it would not be

considered the root but the tip - a single aspect of its yin-yang qualities.

 

Again, the Chinese philosophical perspective is not that mind and body are

`whole' or `same,' or that they interact, relate to one another, or follow the

same set of rules. It is that thought, feeling, apperception and the bodily

stuff are all expressions of a unity. Separation based on isolating one

quality as primary is an illusion. We speak of the distinction constantly

because we are describing Chinese medicine in relation to our perception of

reality, which we treat as the defining fact.

 

Consider, for example, the distinction between the so called theoretical and

clinical divisions of CM knowledge. It is easy to justify this distinction by

analysis. That is, some clinical observations can be seen to have direct

linear relationships to clinical actions and others do not. However, since

human perception - certainly not excluding the naked sense perceptions of

Chinese medicine - are conditioned by unquestioned assumptions of reality,

the theoretical - clinical distinction tacitly admits a superiority for analytic

view. By describing clinical relevance by its logical proximity to the context

of the therapeutic decision, we are confirming our own lay view of time and

space. How could such a distinction exist without the assumption that the

force of a relationship declines in direct proportion to its distance from a

physical manifestation? In Chinese philosophy that distance is illusory and

to `treat the root' we must necessarily look upstream in time and space.

This is similarly the case in many debates about the open points where it

silently and unquestionably assumed that open points are created by a

force that is effected by the dimensions of time and space.

 

I also find it fascinating that when we say that TCM is impossible to test by

science, or that scientific logic will destroy CM, we are actually expressing

how difficult it is for our us to escape the cultural notion of linear causation

that is rooted in the nineteenth century science we learned in high school.

Consider the news last Monday about a blood test that correctly identified

63 of 66 samples in a blinded ovarian cancer detection trial, including the

heretofore undetectable stage one disease. What that software does is

compare different qualities of a blood sample to one another thus

establishing a multi-variable pattern. It is the pattern that is diagnostic.

It

is the relationships that matter rather than a measured entity. The inputs

are different (physically-detectable properties v. naked sense observation)

but the multi-variable logic is exactly matched to that of Chinese medicine.

 

For there to be some ineffable quality that is destroyed by science, it must

exist in existential separation from other phenomena, rather than being

inherent to all phenomena as are the qualities of yin-yang in Chinese

philosophy. What can be lost such that yin-yang relationships can no

longer be perceived? Poorly composed science can hurt our reputation but

that is a social, not a logical danger.

 

I think many useful medical techniques can be learned and applied without

much reference to Chinese philosophy. However, I doubt that much of a

contribution can be made, or its depth of application appreciated, without a

real effort to understand the Chinese frame of reference, including its

expression in philosophy, language, art and literature. That does not mean

I think that everyone who inserts a needle or writes a script must be able to

discuss the relationship of the tao-tao motif on bronze age pots to

demonology. It does however mean that I believe that a CM transmitted

without respect for, and steady account of, the Chinese frame of reference

can only fall-back to the default state of our native, cultural view.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]