Guest guest Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 Ken, What can I say? Delightful and excellent! Thanks, Wainwright - " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 Wednesday, October 29, 2003 6:58 PM Re: Language challenge > Wainwright, > > I cannot show you that you are wrong > because you are right. The whole > enterprise is the epitome of deceit. > > The first of the 36 stratagems is > fool the emperor to cross the sea, > or, in other words, no deception > is too much. > > An essential aspect of that curious > among curiosities, the Chinese mind. > > Your Zen-ruined physicist friend > bit the bullet. It was his. Like > all the rest of us, he can do what > he pleases. > > Pretending that we can come up with > a common language in Chinese medicine > is more or less the same deceit that > says we can come up with a common language > at all...or with language, period. > > It seems to be wired into us, this > urge to make symbols that clearly > are not the thing they stand for > but that stand for those things > nevertheless. > > Oh well. > > I presume that I can now upgrade > from hypocrite to deceiver. At this > rate I will be a demigod by weekend, > Hermes Trimagestri, causing mischief > far and wide. > > I tell you, the current CHA opera > has risen to whole new heights of > entertainment and as far as I'm > concerned, enlightenment. It is > truly fascinating to discover what > people think about these subjects. > > And the only way I know how, amigo, > is to provoke discussion. > > Can I define qi? > > I wrote a whole book in order to > more or less make my confession that > I really cannot. > > I've offered my four word reductionistic > approach: > > connectivity > communication > change > movement > > But you know what? > > When I am talking with people in Chinese > and the word qi flys by, as it does > many, many times a day, I never ever > stop to wonder, " Now what does that > word mean? " > > Qi is qi. > > Ask any Chinese. No one will disagree. > > I think aside from the meaning, shared > or otherwise, the process of wrestling > with the discovery of its meaning builds > mental capacity and engenders certain > modes of thinking that are critially > important to the understanding and > practice of traditional Chinese arts, > very much including medicine. > > Tag. > > You're it. > > Now you show me that I'm wrong. > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 It's Hermes Trismegistus, thrice blessed, and far from being a prankster, he delivered the tablets inscribed with the dicta of alchemical theory (though I suppose you could regard that as a metaprank if there ever was one!) - " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:58 PM Re: Language challenge > Wainwright, > > I cannot show you that you are wrong > because you are right. The whole > enterprise is the epitome of deceit. > > The first of the 36 stratagems is > fool the emperor to cross the sea, > or, in other words, no deception > is too much. > > An essential aspect of that curious > among curiosities, the Chinese mind. > > Your Zen-ruined physicist friend > bit the bullet. It was his. Like > all the rest of us, he can do what > he pleases. > > Pretending that we can come up with > a common language in Chinese medicine > is more or less the same deceit that > says we can come up with a common language > at all...or with language, period. > > It seems to be wired into us, this > urge to make symbols that clearly > are not the thing they stand for > but that stand for those things > nevertheless. > > Oh well. > > I presume that I can now upgrade > from hypocrite to deceiver. At this > rate I will be a demigod by weekend, > Hermes Trimagestri, causing mischief > far and wide. > > I tell you, the current CHA opera > has risen to whole new heights of > entertainment and as far as I'm > concerned, enlightenment. It is > truly fascinating to discover what > people think about these subjects. > > And the only way I know how, amigo, > is to provoke discussion. > > Can I define qi? > > I wrote a whole book in order to > more or less make my confession that > I really cannot. > > I've offered my four word reductionistic > approach: > > connectivity > communication > change > movement > > But you know what? > > When I am talking with people in Chinese > and the word qi flys by, as it does > many, many times a day, I never ever > stop to wonder, " Now what does that > word mean? " > > Qi is qi. > > Ask any Chinese. No one will disagree. > > I think aside from the meaning, shared > or otherwise, the process of wrestling > with the discovery of its meaning builds > mental capacity and engenders certain > modes of thinking that are critially > important to the understanding and > practice of traditional Chinese arts, > very much including medicine. > > Tag. > > You're it. > > Now you show me that I'm wrong. > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " < Ken, Not that this is in any way a reply to the substance of your conversation about nomenclature and terminology in CTM; but....I just came across an add for a newly release book authored by Roger Ames (Yuan Dao) and David Hall (Han Philosphy scholar)--a translation of the Dao De Jing based on the bamboo scrolls discovered in 1995. Ames and Lau's essay on Han thought in in Yuan Dao had such a profound impact on my appreciation of the depth and breadth of the universe of meanings of words that are at the core of Chinese medicine terminology (like xu/shi and xin/shen) I sense without reading a single word that this is also a must have must read text....It would be a treat, maybe, to inject this level of material into our conversations in this forum. Efrem kenrose2008> wrote: > Wainwright, > > I cannot show you that you are wrong > because you are right. The whole > enterprise is the epitome of deceit. > > The first of the 36 stratagems is > fool the emperor to cross the sea, > or, in other words, no deception > is too much. > > An essential aspect of that curious > among curiosities, the Chinese mind. > > Your Zen-ruined physicist friend > bit the bullet. It was his. Like > all the rest of us, he can do what > he pleases. > > Pretending that we can come up with > a common language in Chinese medicine > is more or less the same deceit that > says we can come up with a common language > at all...or with language, period. > > It seems to be wired into us, this > urge to make symbols that clearly > are not the thing they stand for > but that stand for those things > nevertheless. > > Oh well. > > I presume that I can now upgrade > from hypocrite to deceiver. At this > rate I will be a demigod by weekend, > Hermes Trimagestri, causing mischief > far and wide. > > I tell you, the current CHA opera > has risen to whole new heights of > entertainment and as far as I'm > concerned, enlightenment. It is > truly fascinating to discover what > people think about these subjects. > > And the only way I know how, amigo, > is to provoke discussion. > > Can I define qi? > > I wrote a whole book in order to > more or less make my confession that > I really cannot. > > I've offered my four word reductionistic > approach: > > connectivity > communication > change > movement > > But you know what? > > When I am talking with people in Chinese > and the word qi flys by, as it does > many, many times a day, I never ever > stop to wonder, " Now what does that > word mean? " > > Qi is qi. > > Ask any Chinese. No one will disagree. > > I think aside from the meaning, shared > or otherwise, the process of wrestling > with the discovery of its meaning builds > mental capacity and engenders certain > modes of thinking that are critially > important to the understanding and > practice of traditional Chinese arts, > very much including medicine. > > Tag. > > You're it. > > Now you show me that I'm wrong. > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 Efrem, I met D.C. Lau in 2001. In fact it was my great honor to celebrate his 80th birthday with him at the Jockey Club which is right adjacent to the Chinese University of Hong Kong main campus where D.C.'s office is. He told me that the intro to Yuan Dao is 100% Roger Ames' work. This was in no way a disavowal, mind you. He just wanted it to be clear that those were Roger's insights, Roger's words, Roger's sentiments, etc. Like you, I found that one of the more enlightening bits of writing to have appeared in English. I can't say that I agree with all of his assumptions and conclusions. In fact, it represents a level of scholarship and a depth of understanding of the language in general and of Han sensibilities in particular about which, by comparison, I have approximately no right to even formulate an opinion, let alone voice one. But I do have to say that any misgivings I have about it are dwarfed by my enormous admiration for anyone who can express such clear insights into the workings of the Chinese mind. I wrankle when I use that phrase, and there we start down the path of my various uncertainties, which are better left unexplored for the moment, because they will only make people, myself included, more confused. But I share with you the impression that such profound insights are a great benefit to those of us who toil in the field of Chinese medicine. says this makes perfect sense but is of no practical value. you had better be ready to make that remark make sense one of these days. Because it frankly does not. Yes. It would be great to bring real scholars to the discussion, and it seems to me that if we expect such participation, we had better spruce up a bit and ratchet up the level of our own discourse. That's why I objected to Flaws' characterization of this forum as something not representative of the level of discourse in the field. If we want a higher (or lower for that matter) level of discourse, all we have to do is do it. Socrates...now you just can't get more elitist than Socrates...proved in the Meno that he could teach geometry to a slave. Certainly we can teach a more comprehensive approach to Chinese medical matters to ourselves and other free men and women who chose...for whatever reasons... to study it. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 Ken, " That's why I objected to Flaws' characterization of this forum as something not representative of the level of discourse in the field. If we want a higher (or lower for that matter) level of discourse, all we have to do is do it. " Ok, but you'll have to do it somewhere where the rank and file will be influenced by it. Not here. Otherwise you're preaching to the choir. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " < kenrose2008> wrote: > says this makes perfect sense but > is of no practical value. you had > better be ready to make that remark make > sense one of these days. Because it frankly > does not. I actually have no idea what you are referring to here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 a translation of the Dao De Jing based on the bamboo scrolls discovered in 1995. Ames and Lau's essay >>>what is the full name of the book alon 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.