chinese thought

[Guest guest]

check out this NPR audio file on how chinese thought processes differ from

western and why

 

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1180660

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

, <@i...>

wrote: check out this NPR audio file on how chinese thought

processes differ from western and why

>

> http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1180660

 

:

 

This is the book I mentioned earlier. Z'ev and I have started a

thread on the translation forum.

 

To quote Shinobu Kitayama on the back cover: " The cultural

differences in cognition, demonstrated in this groundbreaking work,

are far more profound and wide-ranging than anybody could have

imagined a decade ago. " Nisbett's explication of Eastern thinking is

an essential prerequisite for understanding their culture, their

ideas, and, consequently, for any translation and understanding of

their literature.

 

For those who haven't yet read the book, in summary, Nisbett says

that the folk metaphysics of the two societies have arisen very

distinctly from each other. The Chinese view is that the world is a

place where " relations among objects and events are crucial in

determining outcomes. " The relationships among objects and the

relation of the part to the whole are central; rather than the

Western perspective of seeing objects isolated from their context,

inferring what categories the object is a member of, and how

processes would develop to serve those categories. While most of

these ideas may already be generally familiar to most practitioners,

the extent of these influences on our thinking may not. The

differences in cognition, conceptualization, sense of self,

causality, relationships, and similarities are discussed in great

detail.

 

For example, Nisbett says " what captures one's attention is what one

is likely to regard as causally important " (p.114). To borrow an

insight from philosopher Michael Polanyi: in having attention *to*

something we must also have attention *from*---what we *attend from*

is the neurobiology of our brain, the presumptions of our culture,

and the individual education we inherit. So, theory and clinical

practice (its cognition, conceptualization, diagnosis, and

treatment) are shaped by these influences and tacit epistemologies.

By bringing them to light, we can not only better understand the

Chinese view, but our own as well.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

In a relatively recent post by Jim Ramholtz:

 

>>> , <@i...>

wrote: check out this NPR audio file on how chinese thought

processes differ from western and why

>

> http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1180660

 

:

 

This is the book I mentioned earlier. Z'ev and I have started a

thread on the translation forum.

 

To quote Shinobu Kitayama on the back cover: "The cultural

differences in cognition, demonstrated in this groundbreaking work,

are far more profound and wide-ranging than anybody could have

imagined a decade ago." Nisbett's explication of Eastern thinking is

an essential prerequisite for understanding their culture, their

ideas, and, consequently, for any translation and understanding of

their literature....Jim Ramholtz<<<

 

It seems to me that the first thing that should be attended to in first-year OM theory courses is this subject. Students usually have yin/yang and five-element theory thrown at them before their seats are warm, and even those with some kind of background in all this seem to find themselves starting out at sea. We Westerners go to these schools with appreciation but without any inner coathangers to peg Eastern concepts onto, so we end up reading the same paragraphs over and over wondering why they won't sink in. It isn't until we gradually develop an internal feel for these concepts that they begin to really stay with us. By the time we've really gotten used to yin and yang and eight principles, the teachers are way down the road into some strange new territory.

 

By the same token, I think the first herbal course(s) should spend some quality time at first getting students good and used to the differences in the biochemical take on things and how we look at herbs and energetics and such before launching wholesale into categories, formulas or what-have-you. That way people would feel like they have a firm footing from which to proceed, rather than feeling off balance for years. And of course all these comparisons should not put Western thinking down but should simply clarify the differences.

 

One more point. (I know I go on too much. From my reading of Shudo Denmei I have myself pegged as a "heart excess" constitution, so please bear with me.) One speaker I heard recently spoke of the long-standing controversy in the West between those who believe in an inner healing mechanism in the body and those who don't. He said it all began with the ancient Greeks Hippocrates and Democritus. Hippocrates believed in a life energy that informs the body, and Democritus believed in atoms, which are simply pieces and parts and have no special "energy." Eventually the atomic theory won out, so even though modern medical students may take the Hippocratic oath, they are swearing to someone whose theories long ago lost out in the West.

Joseph Garner

[Guest guest]

, acugrpaz@a... wrote:

> It seems to me that the first thing that should be attended to in

first-year OM theory courses is this subject [in Nisbett's book]. >>>

 

 

 

Joseph:

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. It should be made required

reading and tested on the NCCAOM exam.

 

By understanding the differences in the way Eastern and Western

cognition arises from its culturally determined form, loads of

misunderstandings and poor translations can be avoided.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

> I think you hit the nail on the head. It should be made required

> reading and tested on the NCCAOM exam.

>

> By understanding the differences in the way Eastern and Western

> cognition arises from its culturally determined form, loads of

> misunderstandings and poor translations can be avoided.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

 

It is remarkable how effective language

can be in understanding thought. It

is even more remarkable how stridently

people have long opposed the inclusion

of language study in the education of

students of Chinese medicine and how

vigorously the community in the West

has given up the near to seek the far.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your notion

here, Jim, and believe that those who

believe such understanding can be

achieved without recourse to the

study of the Chinese language are

seriously deluded.

 

Ken