Subject: in the woods with Prof Unschuld-in response to ken rose

[Guest guest]

Dear Ken,

 

Forgive my delayed response, but somehow I was bumped from the group, and

had to rejoin. This was actually sent last week & returned.

 

I too am in awe of the brilliant foundation upon which Chinese medicine

rests. However, let me explain more succinctly what is troubling me:

 

1. From the perspective of an unimformed student, I find it difficult to

believe that such a vast region as East Asia could have singularly

developed one integrated system of medicine called " " ,

especially before modern commmunication and transportation facilitated

dissemination of information. How could it be that more than 100 years

ago, one doctor in Harbin and another one in Yunnan, like 2000 miles

apart, could practice the same way. How could they all key into the same

source and have that same historical texts? Please enlighten me, because

I just can't understand how absolutely homogeneous Chinese

culture/philosophy/medicine could have been.

 

2. It is for the above reason, that I contend (using my limited logic)

that this assumption, that there is a " Chinese " Medicine, must be

revisionist history promulgated by the Communists, and that there more

probably, are many different Asian traditional medical systems, some

totally unrelated to what we consider to be TCM.

 

3. Could you enlighten me as to where the great medical masters (those

who refer to earlier masters especially) lived? Did they live in the

same general areas, are throughout China?

 

4. My conclusion, (again, correct me if I am mistaken), therefore, is

that what we Western advocates of CM call the " traditional 5 branches of

TCM--acupuncture, herbs,tuina, taiji/qi gong, and diet therapy, really is

an amalgamation of different healing methods used traditionally, and what

we label as the " 5 branches of TCM " is really the

5 branches of Americanized TCM. Could we not say, in other words, that

this is really a manifestation of the American penchant for pigeonholing

and classifying, something which might we say is really limiting?

 

5. That being said, please accept my apologies if I responded

irreverently to Prof. Unschuld's historical work. All I ask is to

consider my concerns when viewing " Chinese " medical history.

 

'Best,

 

Yehuda

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

 

, yehuda l frischman <

@j...> wrote:

> Dear Ken,

>

> Forgive my delayed response, but somehow I was bumped from the group,

and

> had to rejoin. This was actually sent last week & returned.

>

> I too am in awe of the brilliant foundation upon which Chinese medicine

> rests. However, let me explain more succinctly what is troubling me:

 

Not sure from reading your comments if you

are troubled by my summation or by your

own reading of Unschuld's remarks or if

you are simply troubled by these things.

 

Much of what you have to say is in keeping

with Unschuld's reading of the related historical

issues, at least as I have understood him to

date.

 

>

> 1. From the perspective of an unimformed student, I find it difficult to

> believe that such a vast region as East Asia could have singularly

> developed one integrated system of medicine called " " ,

> especially before modern commmunication and transportation facilitated

> dissemination of information. How could it be that more than 100 years

> ago, one doctor in Harbin and another one in Yunnan, like 2000 miles

> apart, could practice the same way. How could they all key into the same

> source and have that same historical texts? Please enlighten me, because

> I just can't understand how absolutely homogeneous Chinese

> culture/philosophy/medicine could have been.

 

One of the phrases that summed up the week

that we spent with Paul in northern California

was " to hell with coherence. " I think I mentioned

that earlier. I don't think Paul would have a

problem with your not being able to understand

how thought and practice related to medicine

could have been homogenous in ancient China.

 

No doubt it wasn't.

 

That said, however...

 

China remains a country, a people divided by

a common language. And this is a very complicated

set of dynamics that have been formulating and

manifesting themselves for thousands of years.

I again refer to Lothar Ledderose's essays on

module and mass production in Chinese art

contained in that great little book, Ten Thousand

Things. As long ago as the Shang, i.e., more

than 1,000 years BC, the Chinese had methods

of mass producing works of art, building materials,

and other artifacts of civilization and culture that

are quite stunning in their design and in their

execution.

 

Ledderose draws attention to the fact that

such accomplishments can be seen, to

a certain extent, as an outgrowth of the

language in which Chinese created and

shared their ideas.

 

I suspect that the whole picture of the transmission

and development of ideas in China more than

2,000 years ago remains to be reconstructed.

 

But the evidence we have to hand certainly

suggests that there was a good deal of variety

as well as an astonishing degree of consistency

of ideas and cultural themes.

 

 

>

> 2. It is for the above reason, that I contend (using my limited logic)

> that this assumption, that there is a " Chinese " Medicine, must be

> revisionist history promulgated by the Communists, and that there more

> probably, are many different Asian traditional medical systems, some

> totally unrelated to what we consider to be TCM.

 

Chinese medicine comes into definition with

respect to and in comparison with Western

medicine. It's a reflection of the larger pattern

of interactions between two spheres of

geopolitical influence. This is the point I

was getting at earlier when I talked about

the " we " " them " dichotomy that is expressed

in certain of our enduring interests such as

figuring out the Chinese medical designation

for seminal vesicles.

 

It's a natural and organic inclination, but how

we go about pursuing it leaves a more or less

indellible stain on our psyches.

 

A good deal of what is perceived to be Chinese

medicine, Traditional , and

the like abroad in the world today results from

the packaging of ancient materials carried out

in the PRC over the past several decades.

 

These efforts have been both helped and hindered

by sometimes related and sometimes entirely

disrelated initiatives in other parts of the world.

 

Look at the bibliography in the first edition

of Kaptchuk's Web, and you'll get an idea

of the extent to which that book was informed

by PRC sources.

 

It's only natural that people turn to China for

sources of Chinese medicine.

 

 

>

> 3. Could you enlighten me as to where the great medical masters (those

> who refer to earlier masters especially) lived? Did they live in the

> same general areas, are throughout China?

 

Gee, I can't say off the top of my head, but I'd

sure be surprised if they all lived in the same

locale. This information is readily available

in most cases. I just don't have it at my fingertips.

Hopefully someone else can supply the addresses

of folks like Zhang Ji, Hua Tuo, Bian Que, Sun

Si Miao, et cie.

 

>

> 4. My conclusion, (again, correct me if I am mistaken), therefore, is

> that what we Western advocates of CM call the " traditional 5 branches of

> TCM--acupuncture, herbs,tuina, taiji/qi gong, and diet therapy, really is

> an amalgamation of different healing methods used traditionally, and what

> we label as the " 5 branches of TCM " is really the

> 5 branches of Americanized TCM. Could we not say, in other words, that

> this is really a manifestation of the American penchant for pigeonholing

> and classifying, something which might we say is really limiting?

 

This is the first time I've ever seen or heard of

these traditional 5 branches. Whatever they

are and wherever they come from, they are

the result of someone's penchant for making

groups of things. It really is a very fundamental

human pasttime: pattern integrity recognition.

 

It's very limiting, or, in other words, very

defining. Without it, we probably would not

be conscious of anything.

 

A mixed blessing, no doubt. But not

one that we're likely to repeal.

 

>

> 5. That being said, please accept my apologies if I responded

> irreverently to Prof. Unschuld's historical work. All I ask is to

> consider my concerns when viewing " Chinese " medical history.

 

Again, I'm not even clear as to what you think

you should be apologizing for. First, if you

imagine that you are in disagreement with

Unschuld's perspective in what you've said

above, I think you should just reexamine,

for example History of Ideas. I don't see any

major departures between the scene as you

see it and what he describes.

 

Joe Helms called his computer file " St. Paul in the

Wilderness " and the quip is entirely appropriate

as Paul himself is delightfully irreverent. I don't think

you need be concerned in any slightest way

about being irreverent.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my

post. I do think it's important that we keep

this discussion alive. It's implications are

enormous and of fundamental importance

to the ongoing development of our field.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

 

 

You said something that really hit home when you characterized China as a

" country divided by a common language " . It is incredible to imagine a

country as large as China, which of course, was divided as all

civilizations have been, by jealousy, greed, lust, etc. leading to

insurrection and counter-insurrection ad nauseum (history constantly

repeating itself), and yet, UNITED, by common language! Am I

understanding you correctly, therefore, that this was the uniqueness of

China, that in an enormously large land area, people spoke a common

language? From my mind, the implications of the concept are tremendous,

reminiscent of the Biblical story of Babel, that with a united language,

multiplying the number of peoples and subcultures able to communicate and

relate to common problems, in our case medical problems, the speed in

which advances and solutions would evolve, would be dramatically

accelerated! If this is the case, it is the key to understanding all of

the questions I was troubled with!

 

Anxiously awaiting your reply,

 

Yehuda

 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:48:44 -0000 " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008 writes:

> Yehuda,

>

> , yehuda l frischman <

> @j...> wrote:

> > Dear Ken,

> >

> > Forgive my delayed response, but somehow I was bumped from the

> group,

> and

> > had to rejoin. This was actually sent last week & returned.

> >

> > I too am in awe of the brilliant foundation upon which Chinese

> medicine

> > rests. However, let me explain more succinctly what is troubling

> me:

>

> Not sure from reading your comments if you

> are troubled by my summation or by your

> own reading of Unschuld's remarks or if

> you are simply troubled by these things.

>

> Much of what you have to say is in keeping

> with Unschuld's reading of the related historical

> issues, at least as I have understood him to

> date.

>

> >

> > 1. From the perspective of an unimformed student, I find it

> difficult to

> > believe that such a vast region as East Asia could have singularly

> > developed one integrated system of medicine called " Chinese

> Medicine " ,

> > especially before modern commmunication and transportation

> facilitated

> > dissemination of information. How could it be that more than 100

> years

> > ago, one doctor in Harbin and another one in Yunnan, like 2000

> miles

> > apart, could practice the same way. How could they all key into

> the same

> > source and have that same historical texts? Please enlighten me,

> because

> > I just can't understand how absolutely homogeneous Chinese

> > culture/philosophy/medicine could have been.

>

> One of the phrases that summed up the week

> that we spent with Paul in northern California

> was " to hell with coherence. " I think I mentioned

> that earlier. I don't think Paul would have a

> problem with your not being able to understand

> how thought and practice related to medicine

> could have been homogenous in ancient China.

>

> No doubt it wasn't.

>

> That said, however...

>

> China remains a country, a people divided by

> a common language. And this is a very complicated

> set of dynamics that have been formulating and

> manifesting themselves for thousands of years.

> I again refer to Lothar Ledderose's essays on

> module and mass production in Chinese art

> contained in that great little book, Ten Thousand

> Things. As long ago as the Shang, i.e., more

> than 1,000 years BC, the Chinese had methods

> of mass producing works of art, building materials,

> and other artifacts of civilization and culture that

> are quite stunning in their design and in their

> execution.

>

> Ledderose draws attention to the fact that

> such accomplishments can be seen, to

> a certain extent, as an outgrowth of the

> language in which Chinese created and

> shared their ideas.

>

> I suspect that the whole picture of the transmission

> and development of ideas in China more than

> 2,000 years ago remains to be reconstructed.

>

> But the evidence we have to hand certainly

> suggests that there was a good deal of variety

> as well as an astonishing degree of consistency

> of ideas and cultural themes.

>

>

> >

> > 2. It is for the above reason, that I contend (using my limited

> logic)

> > that this assumption, that there is a " Chinese " Medicine, must be

> > revisionist history promulgated by the Communists, and that there

> more

> > probably, are many different Asian traditional medical systems,

> some

> > totally unrelated to what we consider to be TCM.

>

> Chinese medicine comes into definition with

> respect to and in comparison with Western

> medicine. It's a reflection of the larger pattern

> of interactions between two spheres of

> geopolitical influence. This is the point I

> was getting at earlier when I talked about

> the " we " " them " dichotomy that is expressed

> in certain of our enduring interests such as

> figuring out the Chinese medical designation

> for seminal vesicles.

>

> It's a natural and organic inclination, but how

> we go about pursuing it leaves a more or less

> indellible stain on our psyches.

>

> A good deal of what is perceived to be Chinese

> medicine, Traditional , and

> the like abroad in the world today results from

> the packaging of ancient materials carried out

> in the PRC over the past several decades.

>

> These efforts have been both helped and hindered

> by sometimes related and sometimes entirely

> disrelated initiatives in other parts of the world.

>

> Look at the bibliography in the first edition

> of Kaptchuk's Web, and you'll get an idea

> of the extent to which that book was informed

> by PRC sources.

>

> It's only natural that people turn to China for

> sources of Chinese medicine.

>

>

> >

> > 3. Could you enlighten me as to where the great medical masters

> (those

> > who refer to earlier masters especially) lived? Did they live in

> the

> > same general areas, are throughout China?

>

> Gee, I can't say off the top of my head, but I'd

> sure be surprised if they all lived in the same

> locale. This information is readily available

> in most cases. I just don't have it at my fingertips.

> Hopefully someone else can supply the addresses

> of folks like Zhang Ji, Hua Tuo, Bian Que, Sun

> Si Miao, et cie.

>

> >

> > 4. My conclusion, (again, correct me if I am mistaken),

> therefore, is

> > that what we Western advocates of CM call the " traditional 5

> branches of

> > TCM--acupuncture, herbs,tuina, taiji/qi gong, and diet therapy,

> really is

> > an amalgamation of different healing methods used traditionally,

> and what

> > we label as the " 5 branches of TCM " is really the

> > 5 branches of Americanized TCM. Could we not say, in other

> words, that

> > this is really a manifestation of the American penchant for

> pigeonholing

> > and classifying, something which might we say is really limiting?

>

> This is the first time I've ever seen or heard of

> these traditional 5 branches. Whatever they

> are and wherever they come from, they are

> the result of someone's penchant for making

> groups of things. It really is a very fundamental

> human pasttime: pattern integrity recognition.

>

> It's very limiting, or, in other words, very

> defining. Without it, we probably would not

> be conscious of anything.

>

> A mixed blessing, no doubt. But not

> one that we're likely to repeal.

>

> >

> > 5. That being said, please accept my apologies if I responded

> > irreverently to Prof. Unschuld's historical work. All I ask is to

> > consider my concerns when viewing " Chinese " medical history.

>

> Again, I'm not even clear as to what you think

> you should be apologizing for. First, if you

> imagine that you are in disagreement with

> Unschuld's perspective in what you've said

> above, I think you should just reexamine,

> for example History of Ideas. I don't see any

> major departures between the scene as you

> see it and what he describes.

>

> Joe Helms called his computer file " St. Paul in the

> Wilderness " and the quip is entirely appropriate

> as Paul himself is delightfully irreverent. I don't think

> you need be concerned in any slightest way

> about being irreverent.

>

> Thanks for taking the time to respond to my

> post. I do think it's important that we keep

> this discussion alive. It's implications are

> enormous and of fundamental importance

> to the ongoing development of our field.

>

> Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

>

> You said something that really hit home when you characterized

China as a

> " country divided by a common language " . It is incredible to

imagine a

> country as large as China, which of course, was divided as all

> civilizations have been, by jealousy, greed, lust, etc. leading to

> insurrection and counter-insurrection ad nauseum (history constantly

> repeating itself), and yet, UNITED, by common language! Am I

> understanding you correctly, therefore, that this was the

uniqueness of

> China, that in an enormously large land area, people spoke a common

> language?

 

No doubt I'll regret making that remark.

What did I mean?

 

Hmmm...

 

Well, with respect to the spoken language,

it has...rather, they have never been common.

One of the curious features of language in

that place we call China (that's a whole other

can of worms) is that many different spoken

tongues came to refer to the same written

symbols. I guess that is one way in which

from a linguistic point of view we can

say that China is a country divided by

a common language.

 

The evolution of the written language is a

fascinating topic. And yet again I can serve

the discussion best I think by referring folks

who want to know more to a couple of sources

in English. One is the foreword to Original Dao

by Roger Ames and D.C. Lau (Ames wrote the

forward), and the other is Ledderose's essay

in Ten Thousand Things.

 

The unification of the country that began

in earnest around -220 has been a pretty

dynamic process in and of itself. And

the standardizations of the language,

along with weights and measures, currency,

and the other accoutrements of civilization

that were begun by the first emperor have

survived through a process of constant

transfiguration, mixed in with a little

revolution and an ample helping of good

old fashion entropy and decay, as the detritus

of century upon century of human actions

accumulated in the Central Kingdoms.

 

 

 

From my mind, the implications of the concept are tremendous,

> reminiscent of the Biblical story of Babel, that with a united

language,

> multiplying the number of peoples and subcultures able to

communicate and

> relate to common problems, in our case medical problems, the speed

in

> which advances and solutions would evolve, would be dramatically

> accelerated! If this is the case, it is the key to understanding

all of

> the questions I was troubled with!

 

Well, you lost me. In fact, I'm beginning

to wonder, as I knew I would when I made it,

whether or not that statement means much

of anything. Divided by a common language.

 

I guess if it means anything it is just

another way to say, to hell with coherence.

 

Or maybe it's just an expression of what

has become a common experience of mine.

You sit and talk with someone for hours,

years, and you think you know what's being

said. But then you find out that, as Eliot

put it, no, that is not what I meant at

all.

 

Communication is a devilishly difficult

operation. We take it for granted and

assume that because I'm saying something

and you're saying something else, we are

communicating.

 

To some extent I guess people are generally

divided by a common language, rather that

urge to make and use language that so defines

us as creatures and leads to so much that

divides us as well.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

One example would be the group of physicians in the southern Jiangnan

region, where in the 19th century the Wenbing tradition was solidified

as a tradition independent from that of the Cold Damage/Shang Han Lun

tradition that was originally developed in the north.

 

 

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 12:59 AM, yehuda l frischman wrote:

 

> 3. Could you enlighten me as to where the great medical masters (those

> who refer to earlier masters especially) lived? Did they live in the

> same general areas, are throughout China?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

Your dancing around my question! Can't you definitively assume (and of

course, reasonable assumption is about as far as we can get!) that albeit

a common written language, these characters have served to unite " China "

for at least the last 2000 years? Doesn't that give the Chinese the

emormous advantage over any other culture or civilization in our planet's

history, of being able to have billions of people over a large area

communicate in a common written language?!

 

Yehuda

 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:52:12 -0000 " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008 writes:

> Yehuda,

> >

> > You said something that really hit home when you characterized

> China as a

> > " country divided by a common language " . It is incredible to

> imagine a

> > country as large as China, which of course, was divided as all

> > civilizations have been, by jealousy, greed, lust, etc. leading

> to

> > insurrection and counter-insurrection ad nauseum (history

> constantly

> > repeating itself), and yet, UNITED, by common language! Am I

> > understanding you correctly, therefore, that this was the

> uniqueness of

> > China, that in an enormously large land area, people spoke a

> common

> > language?

>

> No doubt I'll regret making that remark.

> What did I mean?

>

> Hmmm...

>

> Well, with respect to the spoken language,

> it has...rather, they have never been common.

> One of the curious features of language in

> that place we call China (that's a whole other

> can of worms) is that many different spoken

> tongues came to refer to the same written

> symbols. I guess that is one way in which

> from a linguistic point of view we can

> say that China is a country divided by

> a common language.

>

> The evolution of the written language is a

> fascinating topic. And yet again I can serve

> the discussion best I think by referring folks

> who want to know more to a couple of sources

> in English. One is the foreword to Original Dao

> by Roger Ames and D.C. Lau (Ames wrote the

> forward), and the other is Ledderose's essay

> in Ten Thousand Things.

>

> The unification of the country that began

> in earnest around -220 has been a pretty

> dynamic process in and of itself. And

> the standardizations of the language,

> along with weights and measures, currency,

> and the other accoutrements of civilization

> that were begun by the first emperor have

> survived through a process of constant

> transfiguration, mixed in with a little

> revolution and an ample helping of good

> old fashion entropy and decay, as the detritus

> of century upon century of human actions

> accumulated in the Central Kingdoms.

>

>

>

> From my mind, the implications of the concept are tremendous,

> > reminiscent of the Biblical story of Babel, that with a united

> language,

> > multiplying the number of peoples and subcultures able to

> communicate and

> > relate to common problems, in our case medical problems, the

> speed

> in

> > which advances and solutions would evolve, would be dramatically

> > accelerated! If this is the case, it is the key to understanding

> all of

> > the questions I was troubled with!

>

> Well, you lost me. In fact, I'm beginning

> to wonder, as I knew I would when I made it,

> whether or not that statement means much

> of anything. Divided by a common language.

>

> I guess if it means anything it is just

> another way to say, to hell with coherence.

>

> Or maybe it's just an expression of what

> has become a common experience of mine.

> You sit and talk with someone for hours,

> years, and you think you know what's being

> said. But then you find out that, as Eliot

> put it, no, that is not what I meant at

> all.

>

> Communication is a devilishly difficult

> operation. We take it for granted and

> assume that because I'm saying something

> and you're saying something else, we are

> communicating.

>

> To some extent I guess people are generally

> divided by a common language, rather that

> urge to make and use language that so defines

> us as creatures and leads to so much that

> divides us as well.

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly! And therefore, like I responded to Ken, is not the " Chidush " or

uniqueness of Chinese culture, language, philosophy, science, and

MEDICINE, the unified use of chinese characters for billions of people,

for at least 2 millenia, over most of Eastern Asia?

 

Yehuda

 

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:06:26 -0700 " " <zrosenbe

writes:

> One example would be the group of physicians in the southern

> Jiangnan

> region, where in the 19th century the Wenbing tradition was

> solidified

> as a tradition independent from that of the Cold Damage/Shang Han

> Lun

> tradition that was originally developed in the north.

>

>

> On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 12:59 AM, yehuda l frischman wrote:

>

> > 3. Could you enlighten me as to where the great medical masters

> (those

> > who refer to earlier masters especially) lived? Did they live in

> the

> > same general areas, are throughout China?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

 

 

> Ken,

>

> Your dancing around my question!

 

Over lunch, no less!

 

Can't you definitively assume (and of

> course, reasonable assumption is about as far as we can get!) that albeit

> a common written language, these characters have served to unite " China "

> for at least the last 2000 years? Doesn't that give the Chinese the

> emormous advantage over any other culture or civilization in our planet's

> history, of being able to have billions of people over a large area

> communicate in a common written language?!

>

> Yehuda

 

You can definitively assume what you will.

 

What advantage are you thinking of here?

 

It seems safe to state, with no further dancing,

that the Chinese written language has indeed

unified the people who use it into a cohesive

(if not always coherent) group that shares

certain peculiar characteristics and customs.

 

Sure. And yes, this common language has

always been a critical factor in laying and

relaying the epistemological foundations

for so much of what we think of when those

evocative terms such as " traditional Chinese "

this or that are used.

 

I think I've been saying that on this list for

several years now.

 

I guess I seem to be dancing to you because

I really don't get what it is that you were having

a problem with in the first place.

 

But, that too will pass by.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

>

> A good deal of what is perceived to be Chinese

> medicine, Traditional , and

> the like abroad in the world today results from

> the packaging of ancient materials carried out

> in the PRC over the past several decades.

>

> These efforts have been both helped and hindered

> by sometimes related and sometimes entirely

> disrelated initiatives in other parts of the world.

>

> Look at the bibliography in the first edition

> of Kaptchuk's Web, and you'll get an idea

> of the extent to which that book was informed

> by PRC sources.

>

> It's only natural that people turn to China for

> sources of Chinese medicine.

 

If what you are saying is anything along the lines

that " modern 'communist' china, the PRC, has totally changed the

medicine, and they have created this TCM product that we now know as

CM, losing the 'real' medicine.. etc " I think this is quite

debatable. Are you saying that TCM PRC is not real? Are you saying

there link to history is not there? I really am having a hard time

figuring out what you are saying etc.. so please clarify...

I think this above thinking is 'the trap' if any, that many westerns

like to believe in. Therefore assuming that there is something

special out there, a non-PRC medicine, better, yet suppressed by the

bad guy to keep the real medicine down... or whatever... Please...

Maciocia had a brilliant lecture (PCOM symp) a few years ago

addressing modifications made to the medicine and showed how

ridiculous this line of thinking was... Looking at the medicine of

Taiwan (which was not influenced by the TCM reform as china was, was

very enlightening) Furthermore, ALL Chinese prof's I have asked

about this laugh, and say hey we have had access to any book we

wanted. The libraries in China are enormous. I really don't see

what the big deal is with the PRC sources? Show me, and tell me what

the alternative is?

I personally do not see the problem???

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Joe Helms called his computer file " St. Paul in the

> Wilderness " and the quip is entirely appropriate

> as Paul himself is delightfully irreverent. I don't think

> you need be concerned in any slightest way

> about being irreverent.

>

 

This is interesting... 1st - It has been revealed to me that PU has a

love-hate relationship with CM... On one hand he is fascinated with

it, but on the other, goes out of his was to disprove and discredit

it. This is from someone that worked very close with him for many

years. True or not, interesting nonetheless… What does this mean to

me? Well, as I have said in the past I think a historian with a

hidden agenda is a dangerous man, especially one as intelligent as

PU. Furthermore, without details I am unsure what all this hoopla is

all about? Furthermore, I have to wonder if `these

discoveries/revelations are such a big deal, why hasn't a Chinese

historian come across any of this? I am sure the Chinese

researchers, not only have access to more material, but are quite a

few more in number... What could he have uncovered that no Asian has

found? Meaning if something was so groundbreaking to redefine CM,

why hasn't it been discovered in China, Japan, etc? All that I see

is medicine changes, we are in a new era, in theory we are practicing

at a higher level than in the past, and dealing with issues of our

day? So it is slightly different... Theory is relatively the same,

herbs are relatively the same, It is still CM or TCM or whatever...

what is the big deal?

 

-

[Guest guest]

trap' if any, that many westerns

like to believe in. Therefore assuming that there is something

special out there, a non-PRC medicine, better, yet suppressed by the

bad guy to keep the real medicine down... or whatever... Please...

Maciocia had a brilliant lecture (PCOM symp) a few years ago

addressing modifications made to the medicine and showed how

ridiculous this line of thinking was

>>>>Jason whats new. Every time we see a little maturing occurring the

perfection seekers have a but and to say.The fantasy must remain intact

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am sure the Chinese

researchers, not only have access to more material, but are quite a

few more in number... What could he have uncovered that no Asian has

found?

>>>>Well it could be in allowing in a different perspective. If one sets out to

study with the idea that the literature is by enlarge flawless then that is what

one sees.It is possible that PU by his dual perspective studying and having a

PhD in both Asian and western histories as well as formal study of pharmacology

gives him a different perspective

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

What I am saying as that it is historically unprecedented, and completely

unique to acknowledge that a medium of communication united for

thousands of years different peoples separated by thousands of miles and

allowing them to build on each others ideas, trials and lessons. This IS

a big deal and explains why a congruety of medical thought and

foundations could develop in in diverse locations throughout China. Z'ev

once told me, that it is important to learn Chinese medical classics in

the original untranslated texts to really be able to understand what they

are saying. I think that this idea that I learned from you and that we

are discussing follows that train of thought, in that the characters

communicate so much more than just words. Correct?

 

Yehuda

 

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:29:34 -0000 " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008 writes:

> Yehuda,

>

>

> > Ken,

> >

> > Your dancing around my question!

>

> Over lunch, no less!

>

> Can't you definitively assume (and of

> > course, reasonable assumption is about as far as we can get!) that

> albeit

> > a common written language, these characters have served to unite

> " China "

> > for at least the last 2000 years? Doesn't that give the Chinese

> the

> > emormous advantage over any other culture or civilization in our

> planet's

> > history, of being able to have billions of people over a large

> area

> > communicate in a common written language?!

> >

> > Yehuda

>

> You can definitively assume what you will.

>

> What advantage are you thinking of here?

>

> It seems safe to state, with no further dancing,

> that the Chinese written language has indeed

> unified the people who use it into a cohesive

> (if not always coherent) group that shares

> certain peculiar characteristics and customs.

>

> Sure. And yes, this common language has

> always been a critical factor in laying and

> relaying the epistemological foundations

> for so much of what we think of when those

> evocative terms such as " traditional Chinese "

> this or that are used.

>

> I think I've been saying that on this list for

> several years now.

>

> I guess I seem to be dancing to you because

> I really don't get what it is that you were having

> a problem with in the first place.

>

> But, that too will pass by.

>

> Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

 

As I said when I first made the remark, the underlying

dynamics are complex and have been developing

and manifesting for thousands of years. This " thousands

of years " phrase needs to be interpreted a little more

closely. Written language has been developing for

perhaps as long as 8,000 years in China. This is

based on recent archaeological discoveries I

learned about while doing some work in a newsroom

this past year. Sorry, I don't have the reference

materials to hand. No doubt all of these dates and

datings are in dispute. But we can feel comfortable

with saying that the written language has been

developing for thousands of years.

 

Has it been unified and unifying peoples and

lands all that time?

 

Probably not any more or less than the experience

of language unifies all human beings.

 

So then how long has this situation existed in

which people in far flung corners of the place

known as China...I guess we're going to have

to get into that one sooner or later...all wrote and

read the same language?

 

Well, even today you can find lots of illiterate

souls wandering around far flung and not

so far flung corners in China.

 

The point I'm making is that the tendency to

wax poetic about the length and breadth of

such phenomena should be tempered by

an understanding of the fact that we are always

talking about someone's reality. And if we

try and comprehend it all in terms of lived

experience rather than idealized notions of

past utopias and earthly paradises disrupted

by the relentless forces of...well however it

is that you characterize the destruction that

seems to accompany all human action...if we

concentrate on looking for and with a sense

of real experiences, then we can stay a

little closer to the bone, if you follow me.

 

As such, I'd say that by the time that the clerical

script was put together by a " class " of scribes

to make their work and lives easier, we can

be relatively certain that the kind of intellectually

cohesive forces that you are envisioning were

in existence. This dates back to about 2,000

years ago.

 

Please bear in mind that I am not an historian,

and as I have said many times, not a very apt

student. So my reckonings and calculations

about these things should always be checked

with someone who knows the stuff better.

 

But my guess is that the unifying characteristic

of the written language can be traced back

into the Chinese past (a phrase that seems

almost meaninglessly vague to me as I use it)

some 3,000 years.

 

But remember that the whole empire was not

synthesized as such until -221. The Zhou no

doubt had a strong sphere of influence that

covered and continues to cover both space

and time of non-trivial dimensions; and

a good deal of what we recognize today as

Chinese material can be traced directly to

Zhou artifacts. I'm just reluctant to try and

characterize what was going on back then.

 

Simply too remote, so that even with available

evidence, it seems to me that the likelihood of

developing pictures distorted substantially

by the prejudices and predilections of those

doing the looking is very high.

 

I'm far more comfortable simply not knowing

what seems unknowable.

 

The short answer is, yes.

 

So why the long answer? Well, you asked another

question related to whether or not it is necessary

to study Chinese medical classics in their

own language and contexts.

 

The short answer to that one is yes, too.

 

All the details matter, and the details of language

matter...well not most of all when the subject is

medicine...but certainly most of all when the

subject is medical literature.

 

If you want to actually understand a Chinese

medical text, you'd better read it in Chinese.

Otherwise you're understanding something

else, and no matter how close it comes to

what's written in Chinese, it's not that.

 

Clearly, as can be read in my recent posts,

I do not cling to the notion that what is written

in the ancient texts is supreme knowledge or

inviolable or anything else other than what is

written in the ancient texts.

 

I question...I continue to questions exactly

what it is that people think they are doing by

establishing a sense of legitimacy of current

thoughts and actions by associating them with

the contents of ancient books.

 

But if we are going to engage in that activity

we should be responsible to ourselves, to

one another, and to the public whom we serve

and upgrade our profession's comprehension

of what is written in the ancient texts on which

we pretend to base what we do as professionals.

 

What Z'ev told you is correct.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

>

> I question...I continue to questions exactly

> what it is that people think they are doing by

> establishing a sense of legitimacy of current

> thoughts and actions by associating them with

> the contents of ancient books.

>> Ken

 

I wonder also... but this seems to be the trend in CM as a whole...

Everything you read first says, " and it says in the neijing " etc.

etc. IS this what you are getting at? Since CM prides itself on the

past (and this 3000 year tradition) it makes sense. But is this real?

who knows...

 

-

ChineseMedicineDoc.com

[Guest guest]

>

> So let me just ask you, as ChineseMedicineDoc,

> do you practice Chinese medicine and is it based

> on ancient traditions?

 

a) Chinese medicine doc = Chinese medicine documents, a little play

on words... but anyway...

b) I do practice Chinese medicine and it based on ancient traditions

mixed with modern interpretations and discoveries. (all of this,

IMO, is Chinese medicine) - The mix of the past and present.

 

>

> How do you account for the story you tell yourself

> and your peers and patients concerning what it

> is you do?

 

What story? Account for it?

 

>

> Where does that story come from? Does the

> material that you attribute to ancient sources

> actually come from those sources?

 

I not only refer to the 'ancient/ pre-modern sources' directly but

also to modern interpretations.. again the mix... Now if we are

going to argue `is the SHL really the SHL' – or do we really know the

true order of the passages… Well this is a bit silly… so I am unsure

what you are getting at… What material are you referring to?

 

And does

> the sampling constitute an accurate rendition

> of what those ancient sources really contain?

 

The ancient sources have of course been modified throughout the years

to accommodate the changing times. But personally sometimes I see

myself taking a very classical (i.e. strict SHL approach) and other

times a modernized approach (i.e. SHL + a little modern finesse)

 

>

> Either way, how do you know?

 

Know what?

 

>

> What I'm getting at is institutionalized ignorance.

> I'm not pointing a finger at you, mind you.

> I'm raising these questions to bring our

> obvious mutual deficiencies to view.

 

Please be more clear.. Trust me I am interested, but do not know what

you are referring to .. can you provide some examples.

 

So there you go, I have 'taken' the bait.. I have said I practice CM

with classical roots... let me have it...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> In fact, as I read the reactions of the

> group as a whole, we very much conformed

> to that description you gave of yourself

> just now. Pretty blown away by the implications

> of the truth of the matter.

>

> And I am still intent on working to develop

> a community based answer to Paul's question:

>

> What are we going to do about it?

>

> Ken

>

 

Ken,

 

Not to sound confrontational, but I think I missed a few posts, can

you restate, 'about what?' and what are these implications..?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

> To sum up:

>

> You are being lied to.

 

This is a bold statement.. and if true I would graciously love for

you to explain it to me... But I believe I haven't been lied to...

And I am very content with the quality of information that I have

obtained, that I use to practice . So at what level

you are referring to is unclear to me... I ask what are these

fantasies or desires? are these something that the Modern Chinese

Scholar is also deluded with?

 

-

 

>

> A great deal of pretense has been marketed

> as traditional Chinese orthodoxy based more

> or less upon people's fantasies and deep

> desires...not upon the historical records and

> other evidence.

>

> We talk here from time to time about " making

> things up " and familiarity has produced a bit

> of a jaded attitude about it, I'm afraid. But the

> consequences are onerous.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 " wrote:

> This is not a recent phenomenon. It is an

> age old phenomenon. I've used the comparison

> of a Ming dynasty reproduction of a Tang dynasty

> vase. If you own such an object is it real? Is it

> Chinese? Is it a fake? Is it an antique? Does it

> have any real value? >>

 

 

Ken:

 

If this is an " age old phenomenon " , unresolved---perhaps

unresolvable---both here and in China, what are you really asking?

Please be clearer.

 

What are some of the ways the Chinese have attempted to resolve this

situation?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

>

> If this is an " age old phenomenon " , unresolved---perhaps

> unresolvable---both here and in China, what are you really asking?

> Please be clearer.

 

I don't know how to be any clearer. I think you

are asking for details of the various fantasies

and mis-statements related to the historical

attributions in particular.

 

There are so many, that I believe a long list

needs to be compiled. I think it's gone on a

very long time and I think that as a group,

as a profession, as a cohort of like minded

individuals, all of whom share certain fundamental

values and committments...I think...we should

cooperate to establish this very complex and

multi-dimensional picture.

 

There is a truth to uncover, but it will take some

time and attention. I think I said when I started

this thread that it would take some time. And it

will take some time.

 

The model I have in mind is the truth and

reconciliation commission that was convened

in the wake of the end of apartheid in South

Africa. After decades of official deception,

a society-wide effort was organized to get

at the truth.

 

What really happened?

 

I am not...I repeat...I am not drawing a substantive

connection between the situation in which we

find ourselves today in the field of Chinese medicine

and the legacy of apartheid in South Africa.

 

The main parallel I see is the decades of

deception and a public that is confused,

dazed I'd say from time to time by revelations

related to the practice of Chinese medicine,

particularly Chinese herbal medicine, since

we rarely hear about stunning mishaps with

acupuncture though they do occur from time

to time.

 

This is all a matter of information, information

management, and, when you come right on

down to it public relations.

 

But effective public relations begins in knowing

the truth. And my sense about the state of

the profession is that we really do not know

the truth of what has happened in our own

past as a profession, let alone the far distant

past of what the Chinese have done about

all of this and how they did it.

 

>

> What are some of the ways the Chinese have attempted to resolve this

> situation?

 

Fakery in medicine is a common theme in

China. It applies to traditional and modern

medicine alike. One frequently sees video

footage on TV news broadcasts of police

raids on warehouses large and small, rural

and urban where criminals manufacture and

relabel all manner of substances in order

to bring them to market as medicine, herbal

medicine, pharmaceutical medicine, all

manner of stuff. It's incredible.

 

People sell sawdust and horse manure

as medicine, all packaged up as patents

and tinctures. You gotta be careful.

 

How to be careful?

 

The answer lies in knowledge.

 

When you live and work in China in the

medical environment, you learn what to

watch for. Details of packaging are always

important. Pharmacists I know can spot

a fake that 99% of the public will miss

simply by paying close attention to trivial

details of packaging.

 

It's not at all dissimilar to the way an antique

dealer can pick up a pot I thought was

definitely from the Song because the

guy I bought it from knows his stuff

and wouldn't cheat me...and...in two

seconds, in the blink of an eye hand

it back to me and pronouce with altogether

too much self-satisfaction: " fake " .

 

The Chinese round up the fake stuff

and the fake-makers from time to time,

generally in the fall, when the ancient

dicta command that laws be strictly

enforced. The stuff is destroyed for

the cameras, and the perps are led off

in chains.

 

It's known as killing a monkey to scare

the chickens.

 

I don't think it will fly in the USofA.

 

I think we should approach the matter

in a far more discreet fashion.

 

Let's collect all the knowledge we have

and map out where it comes from.

 

Let's just test the claims and the translations.

Let's hold everything up to the light and

see what it is.

 

Then we can all be clear about it

and we can take it from there.

 

That, I'm afraid, is what I'm talking about.

I am of the opinion that within the realm

of theory and practice that we know

as Chinese medicine there can be

found enormous benefits and advantages

that modern people desperately need and

want.

 

We read Will imploring to come forward

and make statements to governmental

or quasi-governmental commissions.

 

But what are we gonna say?

 

Let us inject into points? Let us call

ourselves Doctor?

 

Let us get reimbursed at the same rates

as MDs?

 

I don't write a report to the Little Hoover

or Big Hoover or J. Edgar Hoover commission

or whatever it is because I have no bloody

idea what I would say in such a report.

 

Other than things seem quite confused in

this field. Just give us a minute or two to

straighten it all out.

 

These are really just random thoughts

in the wake of this week with Prof. Unschuld

and the small group of people who met

at the end of August in this place called

Butler Creek.

 

I started talking about it here not because

I feel I understand the whole picture and

know what to do. For me it's just the opposite.

 

I've been confused by the whole scene for

a very long time, and I guess I just got

inspired by Paul's diligence and determination

to get at the truth.

 

That's what I want.

 

Ken

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 12:38 PM 10/3/2003 +0000, you wrote:

 

Important points here - I am coming in late, but in my reading I wondered

when someone was going to say it -

When we talk about literacy in China for the last several thousand years we

are talking about a VERY small population

And, when we talk about the development of CM in China over the past

several thousand years we are also talking about

a very small population of people doing things quite similar to what we are

doing - writing down their thoughts and experiences

(albeit in a much more tedious fashion) and hoping that other people will

read it, comment on it and learn from it - commentary!

And indeed, as we know, that small group of people created texts that are

still being discussed today. And, as Ken points out, we

cannot look at these texts as inviolate - just as we cannot look at any

modern text as invioloate - it is about discussion and change -

 

ANd remember, even if we do read the texts in the original chinese, we

still don't really know what the author was attempting to portray - the

cultural aspects of the time are not present today and, despite the work of

many anthropologists (myself included) to try to " know " what is

meant by Chinese medicine then and now, we can only speculate.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

>So then how long has this situation existed in

>which people in far flung corners of the place

>known as China...I guess we're going to have

>to get into that one sooner or later...all wrote and

>read the same language?

>

>Well, even today you can find lots of illiterate

>souls wandering around far flung and not

>so far flung corners in China.

>

>The point I'm making is that the tendency to

>wax poetic about the length and breadth of

>such phenomena should be tempered by

>an understanding of the fact that we are always

>talking about someone's reality. And if we

>try and comprehend it all in terms of lived

>experience rather than idealized notions of

>past utopias and earthly paradises disrupted

>by the relentless forces of...well however it

>is that you characterize the destruction that

>seems to accompany all human action...if we

>concentrate on looking for and with a sense

>of real experiences, then we can stay a

>little closer to the bone, if you follow me.

>

>As such, I'd say that by the time that the clerical

>script was put together by a " class " of scribes

>to make their work and lives easier, we can

>be relatively certain that the kind of intellectually

>cohesive forces that you are envisioning were

>in existence. This dates back to about 2,000

>years ago.

>

>Please bear in mind that I am not an historian,

>and as I have said many times, not a very apt

>student. So my reckonings and calculations

>about these things should always be checked

>with someone who knows the stuff better.

>

>But my guess is that the unifying characteristic

>of the written language can be traced back

>into the Chinese past (a phrase that seems

>almost meaninglessly vague to me as I use it)

>some 3,000 years.

>

>But remember that the whole empire was not

>synthesized as such until -221. The Zhou no

>doubt had a strong sphere of influence that

>covered and continues to cover both space

>and time of non-trivial dimensions; and

>a good deal of what we recognize today as

>Chinese material can be traced directly to

>Zhou artifacts. I'm just reluctant to try and

>characterize what was going on back then.

>

>Simply too remote, so that even with available

>evidence, it seems to me that the likelihood of

>developing pictures distorted substantially

>by the prejudices and predilections of those

>doing the looking is very high.

>

>I'm far more comfortable simply not knowing

>what seems unknowable.

>

>The short answer is, yes.

>

>So why the long answer? Well, you asked another

>question related to whether or not it is necessary

>to study Chinese medical classics in their

>own language and contexts.

>

>The short answer to that one is yes, too.

>

>All the details matter, and the details of language

>matter...well not most of all when the subject is

>medicine...but certainly most of all when the

>subject is medical literature.

>

>If you want to actually understand a Chinese

>medical text, you'd better read it in Chinese.

>Otherwise you're understanding something

>else, and no matter how close it comes to

>what's written in Chinese, it's not that.

>

>Clearly, as can be read in my recent posts,

>I do not cling to the notion that what is written

>in the ancient texts is supreme knowledge or

>inviolable or anything else other than what is

>written in the ancient texts.

>

>I question...I continue to questions exactly

>what it is that people think they are doing by

>establishing a sense of legitimacy of current

>thoughts and actions by associating them with

>the contents of ancient books.

>

>But if we are going to engage in that activity

>we should be responsible to ourselves, to

>one another, and to the public whom we serve

>and upgrade our profession's comprehension

>of what is written in the ancient texts on which

>we pretend to base what we do as professionals.

>

>What Z'ev told you is correct.

>

>Ken

>

>

>

>

>

>Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

>practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics

>specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of

>professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

>

>

>

>