Paradigms in Harmony and Collision

[Guest guest]

Ken, Bob Felt, Ann, Todd and All,

I wanted to start a thread and come back to it from time to time if you will indulge this. I've seen some good come of China's attempt to integrate medical practice ... to attempt a harmony of paradigms. Like, Alon, I distrust comfort as any sort of substitute for clear vision.

I recommend that American Chinese practitioners take no comfort in hoping that Western scientists like me or my colleagues find research methods to "authenticate" CM. My colleagues are more about [1] disproving the validity of CM treatment; [2] viewing CM as a source of phytochemical raw materials for furthering their own pharmcological paradigm; [3] if able to authenticate anything about CM, then viewing CM as a primitive subset of WM.

Note that in ancient times of Persian poets and further back to those who wrote in Sanskrit, that winning an argument meant proving the other person right. The intention was harmony. Please consider this point very carefully, indeed. We live in different times. If Western science uses it's principles and paradigms to authenticate CM, then CM from the Western view is a subset of Western science ... what we in WM call a "modality". The way in which paradigms "harmonize" in current times is that the dominant paradigm co-opts the weaker but useful paradigm. I direct your reading to Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" ... pretty basic reading for anyone carrying out science in America.

Actually each paradigm has much with which to inform the other. But the Western paradigm is young, and it's boundaries are small. We Westerners tend to believe that when we lose our keys at night, they are generally to be found directly under the street lamp in front of our house. We shine our light of analysis to divide the problem into it monomer or monad parts. Our technologies are more analytic than synthetic. This is a sign that our technologies and paradigms of science are not yet mature. We refine our attention to ever more myopic realms and tend to avoid the discomfort of looking more plainly at the whole system and the larger homeostasis or ecology if you will. In the paradigms of CM diagnosis, the issues are sometimes larger and clarity is more available because the homeostasis is closer to hand ... literally. For example, from a previous post, if you can feel the neurontin or the Bu Zhong Yi Qi Tang in the pulse, then what homeostasis are you treating? This was always an issue for practitioners of merit from whom I've taken guidance.

Here I'll conclude with a 13th Century paradigm vision. One that gives me no comfort, but rather wakes me up and keeps my vision clear and calm.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

Wean Yourself, by Rumi

 

Little by little, wean yourself.

This is the gist of what I have to say.

 

From an embryo, whose

nourishment comes in the blood,

move to an infant drinking milk,

to a child on solid food,

to a searcher after wisdom,

to a hunter of more invisible game.

 

Think how it is to have a

conversation with an embryo.

You might say, "The world outside

is vast and intricate.

There are wheatfields and

mountain passes,

and orchards in bloom.

 

At night there are millions of

galaxies, and in sunlight

the beauty of friends dancing at a

wedding."

 

You ask the embryo why he, or she,

stays cooped up

in the dark with eyes closed.

Listen to the answer.

 

There is no "other world."

I only know what I've experienced.

You must be hallucinating.

 

From "The Essential Rumi"

translated by Coleman Barks

 

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

I'm all in favor of revisiting these themes

again and again. I think we should open the

frame of reference to include discussion not

only of the issues related to the Western

medical and scientific " authentication " of

Chinese medicine but also the application

of the modalities of traditional Chinese

epistemologies to an elucidation of Western

knowledge. History is full of examples of

the convergence of Eastern and Western

thought, and I believe that the interface

between these major trends in conceptualization

of reality becomes most useful to people

on all sides when it is considered and approached

as a multi-valent phenomenon.

 

Your point concerning the dangers inherent

in an unrestrained drive towards the Western

medical verification of Chinese medical

modalities is very well taken. It has

seemed for quite a while that one of the

major themes in contemporary research is

the statistical demonstration that methods

such as acupuncture are no more efficacious

than is placebo medicine...whatever that

may be.

 

When I showed the paper that Zhu Jian Ping

and I co-wrote on Complexity and Chinese

medicine to Brian Arthur at SFI, he said

he was glad to see somebody finally

taking the confluence of complexity and

Daoism seriously. I think that the kind

of discussion you are suggesting here is

extremely important not only to increase

the understanding of Chinese medicine in

terms that are congruent with Western

medical parlance but in examining some

of the assumptions and fundamental precepts

of Western science from the perspective

of Chinese strategic thinking, which informs

so much of what we call Chinese medicine.

 

As I said the other day, one of the areas

that particularly interests me is the application

of Chinese medical theory to research in

cognitive science and understanding of

the relationship between neural architecture

and those elusive processes we call

consciousness.

 

I will add, just so that people can be

sure that it's me, that without a thorough

grounding in Chinese terminology, such

a discussion has a relatively limited scope,

as the gist of the epistemology is encoded

in the langauge itself. And without the

code, one has no access to the root.

 

If one's root is in disorder, nothing

will be well governed.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

me, that without a thoroughgrounding in Chinese terminology,

>>>>Ken that is a great change. If we talk terminology I totally agree, to distinguish from langue

alon

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I think we should open theframe of reference to include discussion notonly of the issues related to the Westernmedical and scientific "authentication" ofChinese medicine but also the applicationof the modalities of traditional Chineseepistemologies to an elucidation of Westernknowledge.

- Yes, this is my preference, too.

 

It hasseemed for quite a while that one of themajor themes in contemporary research isthe statistical demonstration that methodssuch as acupuncture are no more efficaciousthan is placebo medicine...whatever thatmay be.

 

- Statistical analysis discussions in research assume that everyone at the table has several years of differential and integral calculus with applications to statistics. An undergraduate course in statistics usually results in "garbage in ... garbage out" thought patterns. The best researchers are generally the most suspicious of statistical presentations. Double blind studies, if you look at a little history of science, comes at a time when you have to present a lot of studies to the FDA to get your proposed research molecule patented and approved. Any research at all that's based outside of the accepted paradigms of Western science is referred to as "blue sky" ... a kind of reference to wishful thinking. Francis Lappe in Diet for a Small Planet did a lot of research she didn't really have to do to make her thesis acceptable against the better judgment of the "gods" of the dominant paradigm. She didn't need to prove the need for food combining to obtain high levels of all 8 essential amino acids in one meal. So I approve that a dominant theme of our thread could consider how Chinese medicine might further the paradigms and first principles of WM or Western science. That would please me greatly. It would also be hard work.

As I said the other day, one of the areasthat particularly interests me is the applicationof Chinese medical theory to research incognitive science and understanding ofthe relationship between neural architectureand those elusive processes we callconsciousness.

- I'm assuming this includes some of the subtleties and subtexts of consciousness like mood ... how we experience emotion ... the benefits of positive emotions ... the injuries that accrue from negative emotions or an inability to transform them. The transformation of emotions through their harmonics has been an area of interest to me for decades. How anger transforms to ardor and then to generosity. How fear transforms to clarity ... sadness to service. There's also cross-currents with Jungian and phenomenological approaches to consciousness and authenticity. A Daoist teacher had me breaking apart Chinese characters to look at the particles and the "fusion of meaning" that they impart regarding conscious experience. The Chinese character for "busy" is comprised "heart" on the left followed by "death" on the right. An intriguing vision. My own meditative training indicates that the "mind is the covering of the heart". In this case the cognitive mind is viewed as mere clothing for the stronger function of feeling. This rings true to me regarding the adage that if you want to hit the bull's eye, you can't aim. Hitting the bull's eye requires much training, practice and then harmony and fluidity with the moment. If you stop to think and aim, you might even miss the target. Thinking happened back during rehearsal. Hitting the bull's eye has everything to do with performance in the moment. As some would say, it has much to do with authenticity ... mastery. I will add, just so that people can besure that it's me, that without a thoroughgrounding in Chinese terminology, sucha discussion has a relatively limited scope,as the gist of the epistemology is encodedin the langauge itself. And without thecode, one has no access to the root.- Please be patient with us Meiguo ren. I for one need to study and speak every day to have even a prayer of keeping up with you.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

 

> me, that without a thorough

> grounding in Chinese terminology,

> >>>>Ken that is a great change. If we talk terminology I totally

agree, to distinguish from langue

 

 

I don't understand the distinction

you are making between language

and terminology. It seems to me that

if one seeks to understand a terminology

in a certain language, that a basic

grasp of the way that language works

is a fundamental, a prerequisite.

 

And I think it's all the more important

when we are dealing with the various

cross-cultural issues, such as have been

the focus of recent discussions on this

list, as with Chinese medicine and its

Chinese language-based terminology

when viewed from the perspective of

someone from outside the Chinese spheres of

cultural influence.

 

I'm not aware of having experienced any

great change, so perhaps you can enlighten

me.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

>

> - Statistical analysis discussions in research assume that

everyone at the table has several years of differential and integral

calculus with applications to statistics.

 

It also presumes an acceptance of the underlying

presumption that inferences drawn from statistics

have a certain almost implicit validity. Mathematics,

including those aspects of it that are active in

statistics, is after all just another language.

 

It has always seemed to me that one of the

fundamental contraditions in the comparison

of Chinese and Western medicine pivots around

this issue of statistical inference. In Chinese

medicine, one of the most fundamental precepts

is: different patient; different place; different

time -- different treatment. Implicit in such

a strategic principle is the notion that

every intervention must be tailored to the

individuals taking part. I say individuals

because there are always at least two: i.e.,

the doctor and the patient.

 

The approach of statistical inference applied

to medicine presumes that there is some

overarching (or underlying) validity in

assuming that what has a statistical

tendency to achieve result X is somehow

beneficial. But is it?

 

This is one of the questions that I hear

the statistics about the growing use of

" alternative medicine " shouting at the

medical establishment. People want to be

treated as individuals, and Chinese medicine

is rooted in the foregoing strategic precept

that, if followed, tends to ensure that

medical interventions are indeed individual

affairs.

 

An undergraduate course in statistics usually results in " garbage

in ... garbage out " thought patterns. The best researchers are

generally the most suspicious of statistical presentations. Double

blind studies, if you look at a little history of science, comes at

a time when you have to present a lot of studies to the FDA to get

your proposed research molecule patented and approved. Any research

at all that's based outside of the accepted paradigms of Western

science is referred to as " blue sky " ... a kind of reference to

wishful thinking. Francis Lappe in Diet for a Small Planet did a

lot of research she didn't really have to do to make her thesis

acceptable against the better judgment of the " gods " of the dominant

paradigm. She didn't need to prove the need for food combining to

obtain high levels of all 8 essential amino acids in one meal. So I

approve that a dominant theme of our thread could consider how

Chinese medicine might further the paradigms and first principles of

WM or Western science. That would please me greatly. It would also

be hard work.

 

Or gongfu, in other words. I think this

is a point that is overlooked by many

in the field. Traditionally speaking,

Chinese medicine requires the development

of gongfu...hard work.

 

 

>

> As I said the other day, one of the areas

> that particularly interests me is the application

> of Chinese medical theory to research in

> cognitive science and understanding of

> the relationship between neural architecture

> and those elusive processes we call

> consciousness.

> - I'm assuming this includes some of the subtleties and subtexts

of consciousness like mood ... how we experience emotion ... the

benefits of positive emotions ... the injuries that accrue from

negative emotions or an inability to transform them. The

transformation of emotions through their harmonics has been an area

of interest to me for decades. How anger transforms to ardor and

then to generosity. How fear transforms to clarity ... sadness to

service. There's also cross-currents with Jungian and

phenomenological approaches to consciousness and authenticity. A

Daoist teacher had me breaking apart Chinese characters to look at

the particles and the " fusion of meaning " that they impart regarding

conscious experience. The Chinese character for " busy " is

comprised " heart " on the left followed by " death " on the right. An

intriguing vision. My own meditative training indicates that

the " mind is the covering of the heart " . In this case the cognitive

mind is viewed as mere clothing for the stronger function of

feeling. This rings true to me regarding the adage that if you want

to hit the bull's eye, you can't aim. Hitting the bull's eye

requires much training, practice and then harmony and fluidity with

the moment. If you stop to think and aim, you might even miss the

target. Thinking happened back during rehearsal. Hitting the

bull's eye has everything to do with performance in the moment. As

some would say, it has much to do with authenticity ... mastery.

 

Yes. Well, there's a lot to say about it,

and I believe that the discussion should

begin with a thorough investigation of

the contrasting metaphors that have developed

and that are used in having such a discussion.

 

My wife began working on a paper that begins

to look at the role of metaphor in Chinese

medical theory and practice; but there is

a lot of work to be done on this one topic.

 

That's one of the things that continues

to motivate me to engage in these discussions,

i.e., the recognition that there is more work

to be done than any individual can possibly

do. So I hope that by means of our batting these

ideas around, others can get interested and

pick up some of the slack.

 

 

>

> I will add, just so that people can be

> sure that it's me, that without a thorough

> grounding in Chinese terminology, such

> a discussion has a relatively limited scope,

> as the gist of the epistemology is encoded

> in the langauge itself. And without the

> code, one has no access to the root.

> - Please be patient with us Meiguo ren. I for one need to study

and speak every day to have even a prayer of keeping up with you.

 

There is no point in wasting a moment's effort

or thought in keeping up with me. I have long

since come to resemble the title of that old

Richard Farina book, Been Down So Long It Looks

Like Up to Me.

 

But I'll pass on the advice of my calligraphy

teacher: sit up straight and keep both feet

on the floor.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

By the way, have you read Velikovsky?

 

Talk about paradigms in collision!

 

There was a book put together after his

death called Stargazers and Gravediggers

that chronicles the saga of the

Worlds In Collision when the intellectual

establishment threatened its publisher,

Macmillan, with a boycott if they

didn't drop it from their list.

 

They did, into the hot little hands of

someone at Doubleday who kept it in the

number one spot on the NY Times list

for months back in 1950.

 

It is a great object lesson in the

strategic thinking and tactics of

an earlier generation of the scientific

elite and how they respond to challenging

ideas.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/03 Emmanuel wrote,> > - Statistical analysis discussions in research assume that everyone at the table has several years of differential and integral calculus with applications to statistics. Ken Rose wrote: It also presumes an acceptance of the underlying presumption that inferences drawn from statisticshave a certain almost implicit validity. Mathematics,including those aspects of it that are active instatistics, is after all just another language.It has always seemed to me that one of thefundamental contraditions in the comparisonof Chinese and Western medicine pivots aroundthis issue of statistical inference.

 

- This exchange hits the nail on the head. The centuries of science leading to current WM assume fluency in calculus. The millennia of empiricism leading to CM assumes a fluency in a different calculus .... in a Qi calculus, if you will. I would say there are many sorts of Chinese calculus that is not quite visible to the American eye. The calendar is much more present in the Chinese medicine of practitioners of merit that I've noticed. Even the daily weather in a particular season, or the social stresses of a period. I don't know the pin yin but the expression yo yi se (spelling?) meaning "very interesting" implies sometimes that living in interesting times puts pressure on the liver ... and on one's life. The hospital setting that I lived in WM was so sterile of paradigm diversity, it was like living in "calculus white-out". Since then, I've worked every day since 1988 with very accomplished Chinese practitioners, CM pharmacologists and a host of CM industry allied support personnel. I see the calculus of qi gong, tui na, herb formulas, oral tradition of individual herb growing, and all of the other languages and permutations of CM calculus. So like you I feel like moving to a more first principle approach to integrating the original calculus of each system and to letting each system inform the other from within.

In my experience, it's most useful to work with people who have both kinds of calculus well developed in their head. Dr. Chiang at Min Tong is a Ph.D. pharmacologist who worked on Chinese formulas at Univ. of Tokyo. Dr. Kang where I work has internal medicine of WM well situated in his head, yet he was a tui na master at age 15 and chief of TCM at Shanghai's main hospital by age 26. From working with each gentleman I've gotten to see how young Western pharmacology and Western medicine is compared to their counterparts in CM. I'm hoping this discussion helps each of us to integrate these fundamental views of the world and of the medicine.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

[Guest guest]

In my experience, it's most useful to work with people who have both kinds of calculus well developed in their head.

>>That is all I am trying to say. You cant just ignore one or the other

alon

[Guest guest]

 

 

In my experience, it's most useful to work with people who have both kinds of calculus well developed in their head.

>>That is all I am trying to say. You cant just ignore one or the other

alon

 

Good. Then we agree that balance is what's needed. Currently in graduate clinical work, the word metaparadigm has come into currency. It implies being able to integrate overlapping paradigms. Or also to enter different paradigms from a central starting point. I for one have a lot of CM calculus to input to arrive at a place of balance.

 

Now I know that no matter what you are emphasizing, you do indeed believe in balance. That's the prime directive. So now I can trust that when you say you want controlled studies, I must assume you are seeing imbalance the other way.

Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

I must assume you are seeing imbalance the other way.

>>>Correct

alon

[Guest guest]

On page 113 of " The Delphic Boat " ( " What Genomes Can Teach Us " ), it

shows to progession from concrete to abstract characters, starting with

¼Ö cart (che1), to ·³army (jun1) to »Âzhan3/cut or

decapitate. The

author compares the progression of characters from simple to complex to

the evolution of genes from unicellular to multicellular organisms.

 

 

On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 02:05 AM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> A

> Daoist teacher had me breaking apart Chinese characters to look at

> the particles and the " fusion of meaning " that they impart regarding

> conscious experience. The Chinese character for " busy " is

> comprised " heart " on the left followed by " death " on the right. An

> intriguing vision.

>

[Guest guest]

I've placed my order with Harvard University Press at http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DANDEL.html. I'll be reading these words in 7 to 10 days. I look forward to many more specific exchanges.

 

My time from age 14 to age 17 was spent reading philosophy in preparation for reading Martin Heidegger's Being and Time. By 17 I was a philosophy student at SUNY Binghamton. Then reading Husserl's phenomenology and studying Gestalt therapies got me interesting in samadhi practices as well as sufi and daoist meditation practices. By the way I don't take any of this as religion nor do I regard Heidegger as a political figure. I bring all this up because Western science has followed the path of logical positivism while European philosophy (as opposed to British-American) has considered other pathways through phenomenological ontology. My goal as a scientist, poet, practitioner of meditation, and practitioner of Qi practices is to include and balance the many paradigms into a diverse unity of human experience.

 

I'm fascinated by your presentations, Z'ev.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

 

Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:35 AM

Re: Re: Paradigms in Harmony and Collision

 

On page 113 of "The Delphic Boat" ("What Genomes Can Teach Us"), it shows to progession from concrete to abstract characters, starting with ¼Ö cart (che1), to ·³army (jun1) to »Âzhan3/cut or decapitate. The author compares the progression of characters from simple to complex to the evolution of genes from unicellular to multicellular organisms.On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 02:05 AM, dragon90405 wrote:

[Actually Emmanuel wrote this. :-) But I suppose Ken could have written it as well. Right, Ken? Emmanuel Segmen]

A Daoist teacher had me breaking apart Chinese characters to look at the particles and the "fusion of meaning" that they impart regarding conscious experience. The Chinese character for "busy" is comprised "heart" on the left followed by "death" on the right. An intriguing vision.

[Guest guest]

Ken,

For those of us with sensitive sensibilities, we are always healing within ourselves the dichotomies that we've unconsciously introjected from our culture. This American culture (with apologies to Ira Glass) is filled with and celebrates dueling dichotomies. CM comes to the rescue with a restorative balance which only gets knocked down again and again unless the practitioner teaches the patient to create their own balance.

Emmanuel Segmen

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, March 15, 2003 2:16 AM

Re: Paradigms in Harmony and Collision

Emmanuel,By the way, have you read Velikovsky?Talk about paradigms in collision!There was a book put together after hisdeath called Stargazers and Gravediggersthat chronicles the saga of theWorlds In Collision when the intellectualestablishment threatened its publisher,Macmillan, with a boycott if theydidn't drop it from their list.They did, into the hot little hands ofsomeone at Doubleday who kept it in thenumber one spot on the NY Times listfor months back in 1950.It is a great object lesson in thestrategic thinking and tactics ofan earlier generation of the scientificelite and how they respond to challengingideas.Ken

[Guest guest]

 

On page 113 of "The Delphic Boat" ("What Genomes Can Teach Us"), it shows to progession from concrete to abstract characters, starting with ¼Ö cart (che1), to ·³army (jun1) to »Âzhan3/cut or decapitate. The author compares the progression of characters from simple to complex to the evolution of genes from unicellular to multicellular organisms.

Z'ev and All,

I'm not sure that every one is on the same page with the idea of paradigm definition and "rules" within paradigms. Paradigm is a linguistic notion. A paradigm of science is a way of communicating and even measuring within a given science. The units of measurement or the empirical indicators of CM might be things such as pulse and tongue diagnosis. The units of measurement or empirical indicators of WM might be mg of a biochemical per deciliter of blood. This might be viewed as a diagnostic indicator along with vital signs and other lab results. Note that the "rules" of using language or empirical indicators within one paradigm may not at all match the rules of using language or empirical indicators within another paradigm. Before we insist on "controlled studies" of CM according to the "rules" of WM. Let's note if empirical rules have existed and been applied throughout the written history of CM. If clinical outcomes such as well being might be an empirical indicator of treatment success, then experiments with CM formulas as applied to CM empirical indicators have been carried out for centuries. If some of the people here take the time to read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, they will note that paradigms tend to guide research even in the absence of articulated rules. As a certificate holder in genetic engineering, I can assure you that this is the case. There are very few rules which govern the paradigm which moves this research. In fact it is guided not at all by internal rules of any kind. It is had been ruled since the 1970s by "outcomes", not by rules. In fact the only rules that exist in it is the Central Dogma of James Watson: DNA give rise to DNA and RNA; RNA can give rise to DNA and to polypeptides; polypeptides can not give rise to DNA and RNA. All research since that time have been refinements of the Central Dogma ... basically empirical proofs.

So you will have to determine for yourselves as Chinese medicine practitioners: what are controlled studies? Will you determine the "rules" of your paradigm with rules that derive from CM or WM or both? If you chose both, how with the "rules" work out of context with the "rules" of it's paradigm. Do some of you see any paradox here? If you only read the first 50 pages of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions including the chapter on The Priority of Paradigms, you will grasp my concerns here. You can't "force" rules to work. You need to find harmonies which might take a serious commitment to time, effort and coping with the philosophies. You'll need to face the priorities of linguistics and history ... and then you'll need to tease out the "rules" ... and then you'll need to determine what indicators are to be "controlled" and what indicators are to be tested. In the end you'll need to determine if you even did anything at all. Did you input garbage to get garbage? Or did you input something measurable by a given standard of rules? Were the measurable indicators within the context of the rules of the paradigm you were looking at? These are not small questions. No usable research will proceed until they are addressed. That's why research to date in Western journals regarding CM mainly looks at root formulas and clinical outcomes regarding Western disease states. This is not so satisfying to the CM practitioner.

Emmanuel Segmen

[Guest guest]

, " Emmanuel Segmen " wrote:

Before we insist on " controlled studies " of CM according to

the " rules " of WM. Let's note if empirical rules have existed and

been applied throughout the written history of CM. If clinical

outcomes such as well being might be an empirical indicator of

treatment success, then experiments with CM formulas as applied to

CM empirical indicators have been carried out for centuries.>>>

 

 

Emmanuel:

 

I think you've articulated the problem very well. Because Western

culture relies on controlled studies for its sense of obejctivity

and reality and that, in turn, is tied into the cultural and

political institutions of authority, we need to be clear about what

we're studying. Asking these questions is asking about what CM

really means or does in Western terms.

 

When Complexity Theory is more mainstream and provides more useful

tools, the job will be easier to make CM accepted in Western terms.

Until then, what we do or don't do has political consequences, too.

 

 

Jim Ramholz