the concept of theory

[Guest guest]

What follows is the gist of what I was speaking with Ken about over tea in Beijing:

 

 

It is often asked why the word “theory” is used when discussing concepts such as the Five Elements or meridians in CM. There is a problem in this case (as often occurs in translation) with the use of English terms that cannot exactly convey the meaning of the original Chinese. The word “theory” is only the best translation of a single term (li-3 lun-4) but does not convey all of the underlying cultural background from which the term “li lun” springs. In fact, differences in the meaning of the concept of “theory” in English and its Chinese equivalent reflect a fundamental philosophical difference between Chinese and western science.

 

The Chinese word li lun, is composed of two characters. About the first character, “li” Joseph Needham has commented that:

 

In its most ancient meaning, it signified the pattern in things, the markings of jade or the fibres in muscle… It acquired the common dictionary meaning “principle” but always conserved the undertone of “pattern”….There is law implicit in it but this law is the law to which parts of wholes have to conform by virtue of their very existence as parts of wholes. [italics added]

 

The second character lun often means “discussion” or “opinion”. Therefore, the Chinese term li lun conveys the meaning of “a discussed opinion about observed patterns”. At this point, the definition seems quite similar to what is meant when one uses the English term “theory”. The difference though can be appreciated by re-reading the sentence placed in italics above. Implicit in the cultural background of the character li is the idea that the patterns must be discerned as parts of wholes. In other words, a pattern/theory isn’t a valid “li” if it doesn’t take into account, in some way, the entirety of which it is an interwoven part. The concept is therefore asserting that, in classical Chinese science, it becomes quite difficult to actually propose what we in English term a “law of nature” in the absolute sense. Because the thorough explanation of any observed phenomena requires that one take into account a thorough explanation of all the myriad phenomena to which it is inexorably related, absolute certainty cannot be achieved. Thus the Chinese use a term that we translate as “theory” to describe what western science might be tempted to call a “law” or “principle”. As Fritjof Capra points out in The Tao of Physics, in modern western physics the concept of interrelatedness and constant change is already accepted. Capra then goes on to point out that the difference between western science and the classical

Chinese philosophy which underlies Chinese medicine is that western science is quite happy with workable approximations. These approximations are often acknowledged (in Physics at least) as being acceptable points from which to work towards more accurate models. Thus, in some branches of modern physics, the term “law of nature” is obsolete. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, rejects attempts to know what ultimately will prove unknowable in an absolute sense and thus often steers its focus toward meditative/mystical experiences that will allow the practitioner to experience unity without the use of words. Of course, the learning that leads one to have these experiences must necessarily be conveyed using words/ideograms.

 

It is thus that the roots of Chinese medicine, drawn from the theoretical framework of a classical Chinese (Taoist) world-view, are in the end all “theories”. There are no laws but these are the best approximations of reality that 2000 years of experience have taught. This is not to say that the Chinese theories of existence are always the most accurate and should not be subject to the rigors of observation. It is to say, however, as Dr. Wang Ju Yi often points out that, “Theory cannot be used to create reality but only to explain in some helpful way what our senses perceive.” As mentioned above, modern physics has acknowledged this fact. It now seems an opportune

time for modern medicine to do the same. In this task, the particular version of interrelatedness in the human organism provided by Chinese medical theories will have quite a bit to say. As modern practitioners of TCM, I believe that it is our duty to understand the roots as fully as possible so that the great strengths of the healing tradition of which we are a part can truly be brought to bear.

 

It comes back to learning how practitioners of Chinese medicine have been able to perceive patterns that are in some way reflective of the unknowable whole.

 

once again, thanks to those who got this far

JDRJason Robertson, L.Ac. Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

home-86-010-8405-0531cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Thanks for posting the bit about theory.

 

There are several things I'd like to take

up. But I'll limit it to just one...

 

....for now.

 

Where does this notion come from that

you can't express reality in words?

 

If that is a fair characterization of

the idea.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken wrote:

Where does this notion come from thatyou can't express reality in words?

I was expecting this question from Ken and, of course, any answer I give is just an opinion. For starters, I think that it primarily comes from observations of the Taoist way of thinking by non-Chinese scholars- primarily those looking to compare/contrast "Eastern" and "Western" ways of thinking.

 

To rephrase, their premise is the following:

 

What Western science might call a "law of nature" is, in Chinese Taoist philosophy (which underlies a great deal of CM), an unattainable goal. This is because any attempt to explain either very specific or highly general observations about "the way things are" must also be able to explain the entire system (i.e. nature and the universe itself) in such a way that the observed fact can be completely understood in the context of everything else. Because, in the end, this becomes quite thorny, all of the underlying concepts in Chinese science (Zang Fu, Five Elements, Meridians) must be only "theories". It seems to be an implicit aknowledgement of the complexity of science- as suspected by some branches of modern physics.

 

So, if you accept (which you may not) the previous line of thinking, then it becomes impossible for words to fully express "reality" and thus many times Chinese science went in more "mystical" directions that would facilitate a direct perception of reality. Of course, the instructions on how to actually attain this goal always had to be conveyed in words.

 

My bringing this up is simply an attempt to look at the very roots of the way of thinking that CM has grown from. As usual, there were " a hundred schools " througout history that may have been much more focused on keeping accurate records on what actually works in the clinic -thank goodness for those.

Thinking about this does seem to bring me closer to understanding why my Chinese teachers always seem to be so unruffled by all the grey areas in CM theory and practice. It also goes some way toward explaining why we westerners get so bent out of shape when we can't chase everything into a corner and get our teachers to say something besides "it depends......" when we ask questions.

 

respectfully

jdr

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac. Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

home-86-010-8405-0531cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Where does this notion come from that

> you can't express reality in words?

 

IMHO because with words one cannot describe everything at once.

Language is a model and a model is a simplification of reality and

can therefore not be complete.

 

Further, is reality more than or only that which we can perceive (in

the broadest sense)?

 

If reality is more than we can perceive, can we describe that which

we cannot perceive?

 

If reality is only that which we can perceive, does reality change

with increasing abilities to perceive?

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

This doesn't really help, even though what you say is true to some

degree.

 

Human beings were given the gift of language as part of our 'design',

so to speak, and we have to use the tools we are given to describe

reality and communicate with each other.

 

What else would we do, communicate telepathically? Yes, there are

non-verbal forms of communication available to us, but as long as we

realize language has limitations, it still serves as an essential tool.

 

We live in a world of action and physical gesture, so speech and

language are essential in this world.

 

 

On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 12:28 AM, Alwin van Egmond wrote:

 

>> Where does this notion come from that

>> you can't express reality in words?

>

> IMHO because with words one cannot describe everything at once.

> Language is a model and a model is a simplification of reality and

> can therefore not be complete.

>

> Further, is reality more than or only that which we can perceive (in

> the broadest sense)?

>

> If reality is more than we can perceive, can we describe that which

> we cannot perceive?

>

> If reality is only that which we can perceive, does reality change

> with increasing abilities to perceive?

>

> Alwin

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason -

Thanks for this .

Marnae

At 09:52 AM 8/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:

What follows is the gist of what I

was speaking with Ken about over tea in Beijing:

 

It is often asked why the word

“theory” is used when discussing concepts such as the Five Elements or

meridians in CM. There is a problem in this case (as often occurs

in translation) with the use of English terms that cannot exactly convey

the meaning of the original Chinese. The word “theory” is only the

best translation of a single term (li-3 lun-4) but does not convey all of

the underlying cultural background from which the term “li lun”

springs. In fact, differences in the meaning of the concept of

“theory” in English and its Chinese equivalent reflect a fundamental

philosophical difference between Chinese and western science.

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =

" urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office "

/>

 

The Chinese word li lun, is composed

of two characters. About the first character, “li” Joseph Needham

has commented that:

 

 

 

In its most ancient meaning, it

signified the pattern in things, the markings of jade or the fibres in

muscle… It acquired the common dictionary meaning “principle” but always

conserved the undertone of “pattern”….There is law implicit in it but

this law is the law to which parts of wholes have to conform by virtue of

their very existence as parts of wholes. [italics added]

 

 

 

The second character lun often means

“discussion” or “opinion”. Therefore, the Chinese term li lun

conveys the meaning of “a discussed opinion about observed

patterns”. At this point, the definition seems quite similar to

what is meant when one uses the English term “theory”. The

difference though can be appreciated by re-reading the sentence placed in

italics above. Implicit in the cultural background of the character

li is the idea that the patterns must be discerned as parts of

wholes. In other words, a pattern/theory isn’t a valid “li” if it

doesn’t take into account, in some way, the entirety of which it is an

interwoven part. The concept is therefore asserting that, in

classical Chinese science, it becomes quite difficult to actually propose

what we in English term a “law of nature” in the absolute sense.

Because the thorough explanation of any observed phenomena requires that

one take into account a thorough explanation of all the myriad phenomena

to which it is inexorably related, absolute certainty cannot be

achieved. Thus the Chinese use a term that we translate as “theory”

to describe what western science might be tempted to call a “law” or

“principle”. As Fritjof Capra points out in The Tao of

Physics, in modern western physics the concept of interrelatedness

and constant change is already accepted. Capra then goes on to

point out that the difference between western science and the classical

Chinese philosophy which underlies Chinese medicine is that western

science is quite happy with workable approximations. These

approximations are often acknowledged (in Physics at least) as being

acceptable points from which to work towards more accurate models.

Thus, in some branches of modern physics, the term “law of nature” is

obsolete. Chinese philosophy, on the other hand, rejects attempts

to know what ultimately will prove unknowable in an absolute sense and

thus often steers its focus toward meditative/mystical experiences that

will allow the practitioner to experience unity without the use of

words. Of course, the learning that leads one to have these

experiences must necessarily be conveyed using words/ideograms.

 

 

 

 

It is thus that the roots of Chinese

medicine, drawn from the theoretical framework of a classical Chinese

(Taoist) world-view, are in the end all “theories”. There are

no laws but these are the best approximations of reality that 2000 years

of experience have taught. This is not to say that the Chinese

theories of existence are always the most accurate and should not be

subject to the rigors of observation. It is to say, however, as Dr.

Wang Ju Yi often points out that, “Theory cannot be used to create

reality but only to explain in some helpful way what our senses

perceive.” As mentioned above, modern physics has

acknowledged this fact. It now seems an opportune time for modern

medicine to do the same. In this task, the particular version of

interrelatedness in the human organism provided by Chinese medical

theories will have quite a bit to say. As modern practitioners of

TCM, I believe that it is our duty to understand the roots as fully as

possible so that the great strengths of the healing tradition of which we

are a part can truly be brought to bear.

 

 

 

It comes back to learning how

practitioners of Chinese medicine have been able to perceive patterns

that are in some way reflective of the unknowable

whole.

 

 

once again, thanks to those who got

this far

 

JDR

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

 

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800