Chinese thinking

[Guest guest]

Simon,

 

We don't know each other well, but

I think you know me well enough

to know that I'm not trying to

get away with or from anything.

 

If what you meant to convey was

that the comparison between Shakespeare

and Chinese medical language and

literature is not a valid one, I

can only reply that I don't entirely

agree. I remember how I struggled

with Macbeth until my high school

Shakespeare teacher opened my eyes

to the fact that the Elizabethan

mind put together and processed

information in a somewhat different

way than the San Fernando Valley

mind of the late 1960's.

 

His point...and now mine...is that

in order to understand a body of

literature, whatever its classification,

we have to know the characteristics

of the people who made/make and used/use

it. This point is also made by Thomas

Kuhn in the last sentences of his

postscript to the second edition

of Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

 

I think the argument can be illustrated

clearly with nothing more esoteric

than yin1 yang2 theory. This theory

pervades Chinese medical

literature and lore. I presume that

a large percentage of practitioners

of acupuncture, Chinese herbs, TCM,

or whatever any particular practitioner

calls what he or she does, tell their

patients and themselves that they

are using yin1 yang2 theory in

some way, shape or form.

 

I did not understand yin1 yang2 theory

until I had learned some things about

the Chinese language and about patterns

of thinking and the association of

ideas in classical Chinese thought

and literature. That's not to assert

that having learned these things I

know understand yin1 yang2 theory,

but at least I can see that my

earlier understanding was, in fact,

a misunderstanding. And the more

I study and practice the more I

recognize earlier misconceptions.

 

I also think that I continually

gain a clearer understanding of

yin1 yang2 theory based on contemplation

of a whole range of ideas and expressions

in the Chinese language.

 

My point is that much of this

sort of experience is obscured if

not obliterated by the reliance

upon translation as the sole source

of direct contact with the material.

 

As far as the clinical relevance of

such study goes, my own evaluation of

my clinical efficacy is that the more

I understand yin1 and yang2 the

effective I beomce in the clinic.

 

The goals and objectives of learning

a language are to be able to:

 

1. listen and understand;

2. speak and express oneself;

3. read and comprehend;

4. write and conform one's expressions

to the standards of the language...or

diverge from those standards where the

content requires it; and finally

5. think in the language and appreciate

and understand the art and artifacts that have ccumulated over the language's

history.

 

Personally, I see the practice of medicine

as an art; and the sensibilities with which

we approach art are well suited to the

study and practice of medicine. So I don't

think that comparing Chinese medical literature

to Shakespeare, for the purpose of emphasizing

the importance of understanding the artifice

involved in creating and comprehension of

and capacity to apply the contents of both

bodies of literature, gets away with anything.

 

You, however, got away without answering

the question.

 

It may be true that the practice of medicine

is separate and lives outside of the literary

tradition that has transmitted its basic

principles down through the ages.

 

But it doesn't alter the fact that in order

to access the meanings of those principles

that are contained in the literature, one

needs to deal with literary actualities.

 

Translation is one of these actualities

and, as anyone can testify who has ever

compared a translation to the original

text...of virtually any work of complex

ideas, always quite pale by such comparisons.

 

Ken