Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 , Marnae wrote: I do not know why Ken chose the Web to critique over the others - except that it has probably been more extensively read than any of the others - although Heaven is certainly up there (and portrays a VERY different picture of CM than the Web does.). Is one more " real " than the other? My training in the US and China certainly was more like what was presented in the Web than in Heaven/Earth but clearly Ted/Dan's training was very different from Harriet/Efrem. > > All of this keeps bringing me back to PU's original " challenge " to Ken et al. I personally find the challenge itself quite problematized. If PU thinks that the medicine that we are representing as CM is " not that " than what exactly is his referent when he refers to CM? >>> Marnae: Like you, I find PU's challenge quite problematized. But I don't think this question is as problematical if we understand how it is generated and framed. PU is not a practitioner, but he is a product and an expression of a Western culture and education. CM has been, by default, defined as a loose set (as in the mathematical sense) of concepts, theories, and related practices. Asking what CM " is " reminds me of Richard Tisbett's theme, in the The Geography of Thought, that Westerners focus on or create salient objects, use attributes to assign them to catergories, and apply rules of formal logic to understand their behavior. By contrast, East Asian thought relies far less on categories or on formal logic; it is fundamentally dialectic, seeking a " middle way " between opposing thoughts. If asked, I would say that " yes " , Ted and Efram's pictures are both CM; even though my training was very different from both of them. But CM is not a salient object. Unschuld's question, as asked by Ken (we'll probably have to wait for Will's notes to completely answer it), is not a very productive one; it is simply a pedantic one. That there is more or another type of CM than the one promoted and discussed by any single author is unavoidable and not at issue. It is more of an issue of how to squeeze 2500 years of literature, ideas, and practices into the recent past 30 years of a Western cultural and political dynamics; and into a few hours of classroom time. It's just an awkward fit that we will always try to improve on. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Thanks for suggesting this book -- the author's name is actually Richard Nisbett. Pat " Emmanuel Segmen " <susegmen To: om.com> cc: Re: The Unschuld Question Office: 10/16/2003 04:38 PM Please respond to chineseherbacadem y Jim Ramholz wrote: Asking what CM " is " reminds me of Richard Tisbett's theme, in the The Geography of Thought, that Westerners focus on or create salient objects, use attributes to assign them to catergories, and apply rules of formal logic to understand their behavior. By contrast, East Asian thought relies far less on categories or on formal logic; it is fundamentally dialectic, seeking a " middle way " between opposing thoughts. Jim, Thanks for this observation. It seems that some of the back and forth communication on this list is based on paradigm collisions and then harmonies based on the distinctions that you have presented above. In gratitude, Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Jim Ramholz wrote: Asking what CM " is " reminds me of Richard Tisbett's theme, in the The Geography of Thought, that Westerners focus on or create salient objects, use attributes to assign them to catergories, and apply rules of formal logic to understand their behavior. By contrast, East Asian thought relies far less on categories or on formal logic; it is fundamentally dialectic, seeking a " middle way " between opposing thoughts. Jim, Thanks for this observation. It seems that some of the back and forth communication on this list is based on paradigm collisions and then harmonies based on the distinctions that you have presented above. In gratitude, Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Jim, > Jim Ramholz wrote: Asking what CM " is " reminds me of Richard Tisbett's theme, in the The Geography of Thought, that Westerners focus on or create salient objects, use attributes to assign them to catergories, and apply > rules of formal logic to understand their behavior. By contrast, East Asian thought relies far less on categories or on formal logic; it is fundamentally dialectic, seeking a " middle way " between opposing thoughts. > Yes, well, asking what it is is somewhat different than saying what it is, which is different still from legislating what it is, which is different from proving what it is or what it is not. As we have seen time and again, anyone can make up whatever they want and call it Chinese medicine. The field is enormously accepting of new orthodoxies. And sooner or later we all come to recognize what is going on. In China the general population tends to be quite clued in to the phenomena surrounding the making of claims in the field of medicine. This ranges the entire possible gamut from product claims to educational claims to claims of special talents and even magical properties. All pretty ho hum from the traditional Chinese perspective. The Unschuld Question...hmmm...sounds like a LeCarre title...can be thought of as just another way to help us Westerners develop similar sensibilities since we in the West seem inclined to mimic our Chinese forbears in this same way. Whoever suggested that this forum was not a skillful place in which to do it, was quite right now that I think about it. Had my aim been to do what I think some of you imagine it to be, I could have taken far more skillful steps. Hell, I just wanted to talk about it. Bob Felt is right, though, that I might just show up with a camera crew. I got an email just today from a producer friend in Beijing saying that she believes she might have a funding source; and that's all we've been waiting for. I believe that the world is interested in the processes by which this ancient form of medicine has begun its acculturation in the West. It's a story that is begging to be told. I hope somebody jumps on it and tells it well and thoroughly before I set off to do it. Then I can move on to other projects. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 , " Pat Ethridge " <pat.ethridge@c...> wrote: > Thanks for suggesting this book -- the author's name is actually Richard Nisbett. Pat: You are correct. Thanks for finding my typing error. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.