Complexity and Chinese Medicine

[Guest guest]

 

 

Jim and

> Z'ev and Ken

> like to tout the similarities of chaos theory

> and certain aspects of

> chinese thought.

 

Interesting exchange on this topic. Thanks

to all. I just want to point out that rather

than simply liking to tout similarities

of chaos theory and certain aspects of

Chinese thought, I (I won't speak for anyone

else) don't really like to do this.

 

I do it evidently, to some extent,

as you obviously perceive that I do it.

But I do it reluctantly.

 

I've gone to some trouble to help develop

a discussion on the subject with people

in the States, Europe, and China. I've

written about the subject and published

the work of others, and I will continue

to publish and otherwise promote the

contributions to this discussion of anyone

who has something to say.

 

My personal opinion is that there are

some reasons to suspect that exploration

of the two disciplines, i.e., complexity

and Chinese medicine, might yield useful

results. These reasons have been outlined

in the piece that appears in Vol 3, No. 2

of CAOM that I co-wrote with

Zhu Jian Ping of the China Academy of

TCM and with whom I co-founded the

Complexity and Research

Center in Beijing last year.

 

For anyone interested, we've just

accepted for publication another

paper on the same general subject

from a young Chinese investigator

named Dong Xianghui of the China

Academy of Science, which should

appear in Vol.3, No. 4 of CAOM

due out in December.

 

People like myself and Deke

> Kendall and

> Subhuti and Needham have emphasized the more

> physiological

> aspects.

 

Well, at least you're keeping good company.

 

But in either case, we are noting the

> congruence of

> modern science and ancient thought.

 

I learned from Bucky Fuller that it

is a mistake to departmentalize human

thought. In a tree, he liked to point

out, there are not separate departments

of physics, mathematics, engineering,

biology, etc. There's just a tree.

 

Same when

> Jim or

> Stephen Birch use mathematical models to

> describe five phase

> dynamics.

 

The Chinese themselves have developed many

eloquent mathematical models related to Chinese

medical theory. I believe what is being

suggested in such work is the likelihood

that knowledge is knowledge and that if and

when it is attained, it can be rendered in

various ways that make it fit for use in

a variety of ways.

 

I've talked with Steve a bit about

his views on the subject and hope to

see more written work from him on it

before long.

 

that strongly suggests to me that

> both systems of

> thought can produce either holistic or

> reductionistic thinking.

 

I suggest that we avoid the tendency

to try and define camps within this

area of speculation and, if you will,

research. I don't see any basis for

characterizing anyone's thinking as

holistic or reductionistic. Nor do

I see that such characterizations

necessarily lead to any deeper or

more comprehensive understanding of

anything at all. Thinking generally

tends to alternate between various

scales of focus, sometimes taking

in " whole " pictures and sometimes

focusing in on (or reducing focus to)

smaller scales.

 

If there is anything at all to be

gained from the comparison of complexity

and Chinese medicine, it ought to help

us think and exchange our thoughts

more clearly.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, <yulong@m...> wrote:

> But I do it reluctantly.

 

 

Ken:

 

Why relunctantly?

 

My sense is that Complexity Theory can help " fill in and explain "

many details and reasons for CM. Physical, biological,

psychological, and social processes and structures are forms of

energy, made of the same stuff, and distinguished only in their

organization. For example, why are there 5 Phases---no more no less?

One answer is that the pentagram (with interior lines that connect

the vertexes) is the simplest 4-dimensional tetrahedron. It is the

simplest geometrical model that includes time. Most of the

diagnostic models that are used in TCM, like 8-Principles, are not

dynamic so they cannot adequately describe living systems; they are

simply homeostatic. For example, the Suwen (chapters 66 and

following) talks at length about the dynamic role of time in 5-

Phases in the environment, health, and disease process. In the Dong

Han pulses system, we use 5-Phases to show both linear and non-

linear interactions.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, <yulong@m...> wrote:

 

>

> If there is anything at all to be

> gained from the comparison of complexity

> and Chinese medicine, it ought to help

> us think and exchange our thoughts

> more clearly.

 

Ken

 

I mostly agree with your post. Were you expressing agreement

with me? I couldn't tell.

 

However, I don't quite agree with what Fuller said about

departmentalization of knowledge. Ken Wilber believes that

domains of knowing only reach fruition when they differentiate

from each other. It is only when they dissociate from each other

that the split becomes pathological. This is a point that is

discussed at some length in an upcoming CAOM article (or is it

out yet?).