traditions

[Guest guest]

BTW, as I mentioned earlier, Potter's cyclopedia also lists rhubarb as an

astringent to treat diarrhea and even cites the pharmacology journal I

listed for you, as well. the written british herbal tradition is 800

years old and Potter's is the standard british modern medical reference on

the subject first written in 1907. It is updated regularly and includes

extensive citations. The eclectics hated the british as did almost all

libertarian americans of the era (if one reads the history of the

eclectics, it is ripe with libertarian themes like state rights and

freedom from control by dominant institutions; there were even gun

batttles for control of one of the schools!). they wanted to create a

unique american medicine. the last thing they would do is rip off the

brits. in fact, they loved to trash the brits. If the brits said rhubarb

treated diarrhea and they were wrong, this would have made headlines in

eclectic journals. So we have this other 800 year old tradition to

contend with as well. TCM was really not a widespread literate medicine

till 800 years ago, so it is really not much older than the british system.

 

again, I do not claim british herbalism is the equal of TCM; it lacks the

theory and holism. I agree with Jason on this point 100%. But the

empirical observations are just as valid in GB as in china. As for just

copying stuff from past generations without critical thought, who is more

guilty of this, the chinese or the europeans. As far as I understand,

most materia medicas are just compilations of other materia medicas. very

little new under the sun. who would be more likely to take something out

a materia medica due to failed efficacy, the chinese or the europeans?

who is more rigid and dogmatic, the chinese or the british. you can't

answer these questions and thus all the facts must be considered? I am

sure there are plenty of historians who would point out that classical

chinese accounts of their own history leave a lot to be desired in the

facts department (the yellow emperor, for example). Greek accounts of

history in the same era, on the other hand, have turned out to be quite

reliable in terms of places, names and events as confirmed by

archaeological evidence. Why is it assumed the chinese have a premium on

the truth. Their empiricism is no more superior than anyone else and

their dogma (often called theory) can be as stifling as liberating. How

long were doctors chained to the dogma of the SHL before they developed

wen bing and how loud was the outcry at that sacrilege?

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

I do not claim british herbalism is the equal of TCM; it lacks the theory and holism

>>>>While having such a theory of holism is nice and helps us organizing vast amount of information. The question that is almost never asked is how true is the theory. The inner classic is taken more as a bible than a text of theories that need to be proven or disprove, as is much of CM history. While there has been statement of "errors," there was never a true attempt to experimentally prove or disprove any of the theories of CM (i.e., the scientific method).

Very little discussion on the neatness of system of correspondence has taken place. Where these written more for the sake of correspondences or do they truly reflect medical information. I think is now time to do just these type of explorations. We can hopefully improve on existing methods. By not Openly challenging and discussing what to me, and many others that I have talked in the last 20 years, seem to be untrue and axadurated

we contribute to this historical method of medical communication

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> >>>>While having such a theory of holism is nice and helps us

organizing vast amount of information.

 

What exactly do you mean by " theory of holism " ?

Unschuld and Wiseman, among others, have pointed

out that the character of medicine in China has

been highly reductionistic throughout much of

its history. I normally encounter people using

these terms " holistic " and " reductionistic "

in more or less opposite senses. But I wonder

what aspect of Chinese medical theory you are

referring to here as the theory of holism.

 

The question that is almost never asked is how true is the theory.

 

I tried to point out in San Diego last month

that an even more basic question is not

often enough asked, namely, what is the

character of Chinese medical theory? What

do we mean by a " theory " in Chinese medicine?

 

This is one of those areas, where I think

a familiarity with the language and the

intellectual context in which Chinese medical

theories first emerged and developed for so

long is truly indispensable in approaching

the question of how " true " any given theory

is.

 

The inner classic is taken more as a bible than a text of theories

that need to be proven or disprove, as is much of CM history.

 

What if Chinese medical theories are not

theories in the sense that you are using

the word here, i.e., a set of suppositions

that can be either proven or disproven

experimentally.

 

If you look at dictionary.com, there's a

good deal of interesting information about

" theory, " including this

 

Note: ``This word is employed by English writers in a very loose and

improper sense. It is with them usually convertible into hypothesis,

and hypothesis is commonly used as another term for conjecture. The

terms theory and theoretical are properly used in opposition to the

terms practice and practical. In this sense, they were exclusively

employed by the ancients; and in this sense, they are almost

exclusively employed by the Continental philosophers.'' --Sir W.

Hamilton.

 

I suggest we consider the notion that a theory

in Chinese medicine might not be comparable to

theories in Western scientific traditions.

 

While there has been statement of " errors, " there was never a true

attempt to experimentally prove or disprove any of the theories of

CM (i.e., the scientific method).

> Very little discussion on the neatness of system of correspondence

has taken place.

 

What do you mean by " neatness of system of correspondence " ?

 

Where these written more for the sake of correspondences or do they

truly reflect medical information.

 

Why should we be concerned with trying to

determine whether it's one or the other?

What if the theories of Chinese medicine

were assembled to record and transmit medical

information by arranging terms and concepts

into an information storage and retrieval

system? The highly metaphoric character of

these " theories " suggests that we think of

them as something other than the theories

of Western science.

 

Another entry at dictionary.com sheds light

on the differentiation I'm trying to make.

 

n. The consensus, idea, plan, story, or set of rules

that is currently being used to inform a behavior. This usage is a

generalization and (deliberate) abuse of the technical meaning.

" What's the theory on fixing this TECO loss? " " What's the theory on

dinner tonight? " ( " Chinatown, I guess. " )

 

 

 

I think is now time to do just these type of explorations.

 

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

 

We can hopefully improve on existing methods.

 

Yes. We can always hope.

 

By not Openly challenging and discussing what to me, and many

others that I have talked in the last 20 years, seem to be untrue

and axadurated

> we contribute to this historical method of medical communication

 

I think that the methods of Chinese medicine

should be subjected to the same scrutiny to

which we would want any medical procedure

submitted. Is it safe? Does it work? and

what can we learn from the study of its

theories and methods in the ongoing struggle

with disease?

 

You've raised a lot of questions here,

and I'm wondering how such questions can

ever be resolved unless we develop a widespread

access to and familiarity with the materials

in which these theories reside.

 

Do you think that such determinations can

be made about the theories of traditional

Chinese medicine by using only translated

materials to know what the theories are?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

I am curious, is the " British " rhubarb the same as " Chinese " rhubarb. Da

Huang is the root, but I wonder if Europeans use the stock or the root.

 

Colleen

 

BTW, as I mentioned earlier, Potter's cyclopedia also lists rhubarb as

an

astringent to treat diarrhea and even cites the pharmacology journal I

listed for you, as well.

[Guest guest]

What exactly do you mean by "theory of holism"?Unschuld and Wiseman, among others, have pointedout that the character of medicine in China hasbeen highly reductionistic throughout much ofits history.

 

>>>I meant nothing, just repeated what was said in the previous post.The original post was that western herbal tradition are symptomatic were is CM is holistic and contains a theoretical backbone. I pointed out that this is not a proven theory but what seems to be a useful guide to practice which still need to go much scrutiny.

 

Whatdo we mean by a "theory" in Chinese medicine

 

>>>To me its what is put out by modern mainstream texts on the subjects.I for one can not get a handle on all the historical theories and ideas and maintain a practice.I hope that the process that is going on in China is working and therefore this mainstream information is adequate

 

 

What if Chinese medical theories are nottheories in the sense that you are usingthe word here, i.e., a set of suppositionsthat can be either proven or disprovenexperimentally.If you look at dictionary.com, there's agood deal of interesting information about"theory," including this>>>>Ken i am not interested in language and i think what I and others meant by theory is quite clear. If you like I will call them ideas that guide practice. Is this better? These ideas have not been put the test in the modern scientific sense, i.e., set up experiment that prove or disprove them. All I am saying is that when a set of ideas such as the inner classic are taken to be the "truth" then the opportunity for much error is open

 

Why should we be concerned with trying todetermine whether it's one or the other?What if the theories of Chinese medicinewere assembled to record and transmit medicalinformation by arranging terms and conceptsinto an information storage and retrievalsystem? The highly metaphoric character ofthese "theories" suggests that we think ofthem as something other than the theoriesof Western science.>>>>Are they meant to guide the practice of medicine? If yes their arrangement does make a difference.

 

You've raised a lot of questions here,and I'm wondering how such questions canever be resolved unless we develop a widespreadaccess to and familiarity with the materialsin which these theories reside.

 

 

>>>Again I think mainstream modern TCM is quite accessible in translation

Alon

[Guest guest]

>

 

 

While I personally don't think the Chinese have any premium on the

truth, I don't see why you are equating dogma with theory in this topic.

 

The Shang Han Lun, according to Paul Unschuld, took one thousand years

to be accepted as mainstream in Chinese medicine. After that, several

books of commentary were written on it, such as Shang han liu shu/Six

Texts of Cold Damage, that developed new prescriptions based on SHL but

taking them further. In other words, SHL took a long time to take root

in China, and then spawned a whole lineage of texts and prescriptions.

It wasn't a static development.

 

While there were opposing voices in the later Wen Bing movement, thee

were also such texts as Wen re jing wei/Warp and Weft of Warm-Heat

Disorders, written in 1852, that saw the Nei jing and SHL as the warp,

and the Wen bing corpus as the weft of a new synthesis.

 

When examining the Greco-Arabic medical tradition, I don't get as much

sense of innovation as in the Chinese tradition. I don't get the sense

of 'one thousand flowers blooming'. The Nei Jing gave birth to dozens

of schools of thought in medicine.

 

For some interesting source material on tradition and development in

Chinese medicine, check out " Innovation in " edited by

Elisabeth Hsu.

 

 

 

(Todd):

> Why is it assumed the chinese have a premium on the truth. Their

> empiricism is no more superior than anyone else and their dogma (often

> called theory) can be as stifling as liberating. How long were

> doctors chained to the dogma of the SHL before they developed wen bing

> and how loud was the outcry at that sacrilege?

>