re-intro, language, truth, and reconciliation

[Guest guest]

Some months ago I briefly introduced myself to this august and gleeful

gathering, and have since been lurking, listening, learning, burning,

churning. At various times I've been stirred to begin a post, having

imagined that my thoughts were sufficiently settled to warrant

expression, only to withdraw as the next plot point in this raucous

opera silenced me and sent me spinning on yet another vector. History

is unfolding here with both the breakneck speed of a raging brushfire

and the inexorable crawl of the ecosphere, and I have mostly been

struck mute with awe and delight (and occasional irritation.) Now

Ken's repeated admonitions and pleas that the silent find their voices

have merged with my own urges, and I'm moved to offer my two shekels'

worth.

 

My tendency to reticence (until now) derives, in part, from the fact

that I'm a relatively new practitioner (PCOM-NY grad, for what that's

worth, 2 years ago,) and as such, I surely have a lot more to learn

than to say. However, I appreciate that same spirit of beginners' mind

driving most of the contributions here, including those of scholars far

more learned and clinicians far more experienced than I - which is what

keeps these discussions compelling. Anyway I am, by temperament, more

of a poet than a scholar, in the sense that the latter will draw no

conclusions until he has absorbed all the info extant on the subject at

hand, whereas the former tends to play with whatever he's got. Which

is what keeps these discussions fun. I love the fact that so many

colleagues here are both scholar and poet. Not to mention generous

with their time and attention. Thank you, all.

 

On the eve of the imminent truth & reconciliation conclave, I think it

behooves one to hone in on what is meant by reconciliation, and by

truth.

 

I've been engaged for many years in a similar pursuit, in the context

of another cultural/philosophical substrate, involving not one but

three languages (one classical, one ancient vernacular, and one modern)

none of which is my mother tongue.

Like Z'ev, who is a friend of more than three decades, my personal

perspective is informed by the study of kabbalah (and its more exoteric

manifestations) and the practices with which it is associated. One of

the key topics explored in kabbalistic lore is the relationship between

language and meaning. Even before Babel, there was always a gap between

the two. And the art of communication - whether between peers, between

teacher and disciple, or between generations of transmission from

classical to contemporary expressions of " truth " - always involves some

inductive leap across the impassable divide between self and other.

The integrity of what lands across that leap depends upon myriad

factors, of which " common " language is only one.

 

Some of the other factors, IMO: Resonance. Emotional tone. Desire.

Trust. Precision. Commitment. Compassion. Whatever these words may

mean (could it perhaps be argued that they are all nuances or

applications of yi?) they suggest to me that the art of communication

is profoundly analogous to the art of healing; that some of the same

ineffable qualities are essential to both. (Also, BTW, that the

analogy can help us to understand, explain, embrace, and effectively

employ that magic that is so rudely dismissed as 'placebo'. But yes,

that is another thread, or threads.)

 

Can any language be truly common to two distinct conscious entities?

The letters of thought and speech, whether ideographic or phonetic or

digital (or some complex evolving combination of these), are

essentially the inanimate fossilized remains of the vital creative

intelligence from whence they emerge. Yet these same rigid, inanimate

letters embody, and can convey, the depth, subtlety and living fluidity

of original ideas. Wow - how does that work?

 

Methinks that it's a function of those two old partners in crime, yin

and yang. I apply the principle here in the sense of the dynamics of

consciousness. Like breathing out and breathing in, like pulses

pulsating, the mind is ever oscillating between two opposing yet

complementary, simultaneous, inter-included and inseparable impulses:

the turning upstream toward the abstract, infinitely fertile,

all-inclusive source of knowing, and the extending outward and downward

toward specific, delimited, manifest expressions of knowledge. The

former is self-nullifying, the latter self-actualizing. The former

transcends language; the latter defines and is defined by language.

The former communes intuitively with the sages of old; the latter

analyzes and translates their extant manuscripts.

 

(I could go on developing this upstream/downstream metaphorical

conceit, as so many of the apparent disconnects that challenge us can

be seen through this lens - CM/TCM, complexity/reductionism, Chinese

literacy/clinical pragmatism, standards/flexibility, reverence for the

classics/eclectic innovation, elitist intellect/populist simplicity,

paradigmatic purity/biomed research & integration, transcendent

purpose/secular humanism, anecdotal hope/statistical rigor, treetops on

Thunder Mountain/cinders in Santa Ana, etc... but these are all other

threads, and they are all magnificently interwoven - whether or not

there is a weaver - and I for one am not nearly ready to wrap myself

just now in the whole tapestry; and anyway my point here is...)

 

Reconciliation, to me, means harmonizing and cultivating both vectors,

the upstream and the downstream. If I have an opinion or perspective,

or labor under some assumption, am I as receptive as I am influential,

as empty as I am full? Am I cognizant of where my thinking sits and how

it fits along the continuum of associated frames of reference? Am I

aware of what pristine waters lie at the historical or metaphysical

source of an idea, and what tortuous path it's taken between there and

here? (And to what extent is 'there' here?) Am I with the flow, or in

resistance, or stuck in some stagnant backwater? How much silt or scum

or industrial waste has the stream picked up before it got to where I'm

swimming? And how much does all that matter to the townsfolk

downstream? What do they want? Will it poison their drink, or water

their crops, or power their hydroelectrics?

 

[Here's just a small application of what I'm driving at - probably not

the best example, but it's what comes to mind. OK, granted, say The

Web THNW is flawed, oversimplified, elementary or unworthy of

'professional' canonization, and perhaps even misleading in (some of)

its fundamental assumptions. Yes, let's say that there is no vast

conceptual CM/WM gulf, or that that idea ill serves the preservation of

what is originally and uniquely (or the fulfillment of

some historical imperative in the unfolding of a transcendently

integrative Medicine.) Assuming all this (for the sake of argument) is

it not still possible that for some definable segment of time certain

cultural sectors or target audiences or patient populations were/are

suffering from a repletion of rigid conceptual certainty that is aching

to be dispersed? Sometimes the effective medicinal of choice is

contraindicated for long-term use.

 

Or, for a somewhat different sector, could not something similar be

said re: BHAE?

 

Or for that matter, re: the current crop (with a few happy exceptions,

and more on the way) of inadequate 'professional' English language CM

literature. I was aware of the limitations of many of these books even

before I started my formal schooling, but I must confess to having

found some of them useful while jumping through hoops at PCOM. Most of

us in my class came equipped with ample grains of salt.

 

Or: how necessary will it prove to have been that CM morph into TCM in

order to be smuggled across the gulf, like some unpalatable

concentrate, only to be eventually reconstituted as... ?]

 

All of us are somewhere, and not elsewhere, along the stream, and most

of us are inclined to one or another vector. Historians and purists

tend to face upstream. Pragmatists and rebels tend to settle down in

the port cities. Then there's the occasional enfant terrible or

renaissance soul who loves to be all over the map. Reconciliation

doesn't demand that we be everywhere, or anywhere in particular, just

that we respect, appreciate, seek out, refer to, and occasionally defer

to the other positions and vectors. How effective the spirit of

reconciliation will be in facilitating our various and shared goals

remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, I expect it will uplift

not only the substance but also the tone of the discussions, so that

the intentions and integrity of esteemed colleagues need not feel

impugned, and good-hearted inquiry will not be mistaken for belligerent

inquisition.

 

These are indeed interesting times. Collectively, we are playing a big

game, across a huge spectrum. Extreme yang has a way of suddenly

transmuting to extreme yin, and, of course, vice-versa. The turbulent

murky downstream waters find their way back to the water table and feed

the mountain springs. And fill conceptual gulfs. I love the way

reconciliation is sometimes bursting, sometimes oozing through the

cracks in the facade. As when, diagnostically, I might find it

necessary to inhale quantitative WM data and exhale bian zheng; and as

when, in therapeutic communication with a patient, I might reverse the

process, thinking in pinyin while speaking American.

 

As for 'truth', even with a small 't' this is a tall order. I'm not

even sure how possible or necessary this part of the pursuit will prove

to be. I tend to think medicine is more about tools than truth. But

I'll put that question on the shelf for the moment and take a stab at

it. A statement or opinion or assumption or perspective on any given

topic can be seen as 'true' insofar as it is (a) congruent with the

continuum of ideas from whence it emerged and toward which its

implications lead, and (b) consistent with the presenting facts in the

here-and-now. (This calls to mind Emmanuel's horizontal/vertical

construct of some months ago, and also Z'ev's

etiology/intervention/prognosis timescapes...)

 

Though I must admit, I liked the 'to hell with congruency' mantra. 'Do

I contradict myself? Very well, then, so I contradict myself.'

 

But don't get me started.

 

Simcha Gottlieb

[Guest guest]

Me too.

 

 

On Nov 6, 2003, at 9:54 AM, Rory Kerr wrote:

 

> At 11:30 PM -0500 11/5/03, Simcha Gottlieb wrote:

>> But don't get me started.

> --

>

> Simcha,

>

> What an extraordinarily beautiful essay. I'm touched.

>

> Rory

> --

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Simcha,

 

Thank you so much for your contribution! It's a veritable " text " and is worthy

of some study. Thanks especially for almost " getting started " !!! I look

forward to meeting you at the Pacific Symposium if you will be there. I'd like

to hear what you have to say after you've " gotten started " .

 

Emmanuel Segmen

-

Simcha Gottlieb

Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:30 PM

re-intro, language, truth, and reconciliation

 

 

 

Some months ago I briefly introduced myself to this august and gleeful

gathering, and have since been lurking, listening, learning, burning,

churning. At various times I've been stirred to begin a post, having

imagined that my thoughts were sufficiently settled to warrant

expression, only to withdraw as the next plot point in this raucous

opera silenced me and sent me spinning on yet another vector. History

is unfolding here with both the breakneck speed of a raging brushfire

and the inexorable crawl of the ecosphere, and I have mostly been

struck mute with awe and delight (and occasional irritation.) Now

Ken's repeated admonitions and pleas that the silent find their voices

have merged with my own urges, and I'm moved to offer my two shekels'

worth.

 

My tendency to reticence (until now) derives, in part, from the fact

that I'm a relatively new practitioner (PCOM-NY grad, for what that's

worth, 2 years ago,) and as such, I surely have a lot more to learn

than to say. However, I appreciate that same spirit of beginners' mind

driving most of the contributions here, including those of scholars far

more learned and clinicians far more experienced than I - which is what

keeps these discussions compelling. Anyway I am, by temperament, more

of a poet than a scholar, in the sense that the latter will draw no

conclusions until he has absorbed all the info extant on the subject at

hand, whereas the former tends to play with whatever he's got. Which

is what keeps these discussions fun. I love the fact that so many

colleagues here are both scholar and poet. Not to mention generous

with their time and attention. Thank you, all.

 

On the eve of the imminent truth & reconciliation conclave, I think it

behooves one to hone in on what is meant by reconciliation, and by

truth.

 

I've been engaged for many years in a similar pursuit, in the context

of another cultural/philosophical substrate, involving not one but

three languages (one classical, one ancient vernacular, and one modern)

none of which is my mother tongue.

Like Z'ev, who is a friend of more than three decades, my personal

perspective is informed by the study of kabbalah (and its more exoteric

manifestations) and the practices with which it is associated. One of

the key topics explored in kabbalistic lore is the relationship between

language and meaning. Even before Babel, there was always a gap between

the two. And the art of communication - whether between peers, between

teacher and disciple, or between generations of transmission from

classical to contemporary expressions of " truth " - always involves some

inductive leap across the impassable divide between self and other.

The integrity of what lands across that leap depends upon myriad

factors, of which " common " language is only one.

 

Some of the other factors, IMO: Resonance. Emotional tone. Desire.

Trust. Precision. Commitment. Compassion. Whatever these words may

mean (could it perhaps be argued that they are all nuances or

applications of yi?) they suggest to me that the art of communication

is profoundly analogous to the art of healing; that some of the same

ineffable qualities are essential to both. (Also, BTW, that the

analogy can help us to understand, explain, embrace, and effectively

employ that magic that is so rudely dismissed as 'placebo'. But yes,

that is another thread, or threads.)

 

Can any language be truly common to two distinct conscious entities?

The letters of thought and speech, whether ideographic or phonetic or

digital (or some complex evolving combination of these), are

essentially the inanimate fossilized remains of the vital creative

intelligence from whence they emerge. Yet these same rigid, inanimate

letters embody, and can convey, the depth, subtlety and living fluidity

of original ideas. Wow - how does that work?

 

Methinks that it's a function of those two old partners in crime, yin

and yang. I apply the principle here in the sense of the dynamics of

consciousness. Like breathing out and breathing in, like pulses

pulsating, the mind is ever oscillating between two opposing yet

complementary, simultaneous, inter-included and inseparable impulses:

the turning upstream toward the abstract, infinitely fertile,

all-inclusive source of knowing, and the extending outward and downward

toward specific, delimited, manifest expressions of knowledge. The

former is self-nullifying, the latter self-actualizing. The former

transcends language; the latter defines and is defined by language.

The former communes intuitively with the sages of old; the latter

analyzes and translates their extant manuscripts.

 

(I could go on developing this upstream/downstream metaphorical

conceit, as so many of the apparent disconnects that challenge us can

be seen through this lens - CM/TCM, complexity/reductionism, Chinese

literacy/clinical pragmatism, standards/flexibility, reverence for the

classics/eclectic innovation, elitist intellect/populist simplicity,

paradigmatic purity/biomed research & integration, transcendent

purpose/secular humanism, anecdotal hope/statistical rigor, treetops on

Thunder Mountain/cinders in Santa Ana, etc... but these are all other

threads, and they are all magnificently interwoven - whether or not

there is a weaver - and I for one am not nearly ready to wrap myself

just now in the whole tapestry; and anyway my point here is...)

 

Reconciliation, to me, means harmonizing and cultivating both vectors,

the upstream and the downstream. If I have an opinion or perspective,

or labor under some assumption, am I as receptive as I am influential,

as empty as I am full? Am I cognizant of where my thinking sits and how

it fits along the continuum of associated frames of reference? Am I

aware of what pristine waters lie at the historical or metaphysical

source of an idea, and what tortuous path it's taken between there and

here? (And to what extent is 'there' here?) Am I with the flow, or in

resistance, or stuck in some stagnant backwater? How much silt or scum

or industrial waste has the stream picked up before it got to where I'm

swimming? And how much does all that matter to the townsfolk

downstream? What do they want? Will it poison their drink, or water

their crops, or power their hydroelectrics?

 

[Here's just a small application of what I'm driving at - probably not

the best example, but it's what comes to mind. OK, granted, say The

Web THNW is flawed, oversimplified, elementary or unworthy of

'professional' canonization, and perhaps even misleading in (some of)

its fundamental assumptions. Yes, let's say that there is no vast

conceptual CM/WM gulf, or that that idea ill serves the preservation of

what is originally and uniquely (or the fulfillment of

some historical imperative in the unfolding of a transcendently

integrative Medicine.) Assuming all this (for the sake of argument) is

it not still possible that for some definable segment of time certain

cultural sectors or target audiences or patient populations were/are

suffering from a repletion of rigid conceptual certainty that is aching

to be dispersed? Sometimes the effective medicinal of choice is

contraindicated for long-term use.

 

Or, for a somewhat different sector, could not something similar be

said re: BHAE?

 

Or for that matter, re: the current crop (with a few happy exceptions,

and more on the way) of inadequate 'professional' English language CM

literature. I was aware of the limitations of many of these books even

before I started my formal schooling, but I must confess to having

found some of them useful while jumping through hoops at PCOM. Most of

us in my class came equipped with ample grains of salt.

 

Or: how necessary will it prove to have been that CM morph into TCM in

order to be smuggled across the gulf, like some unpalatable

concentrate, only to be eventually reconstituted as... ?]

 

All of us are somewhere, and not elsewhere, along the stream, and most

of us are inclined to one or another vector. Historians and purists

tend to face upstream. Pragmatists and rebels tend to settle down in

the port cities. Then there's the occasional enfant terrible or

renaissance soul who loves to be all over the map. Reconciliation

doesn't demand that we be everywhere, or anywhere in particular, just

that we respect, appreciate, seek out, refer to, and occasionally defer

to the other positions and vectors. How effective the spirit of

reconciliation will be in facilitating our various and shared goals

remains to be seen. In the meantime, however, I expect it will uplift

not only the substance but also the tone of the discussions, so that

the intentions and integrity of esteemed colleagues need not feel

impugned, and good-hearted inquiry will not be mistaken for belligerent

inquisition.

 

These are indeed interesting times. Collectively, we are playing a big

game, across a huge spectrum. Extreme yang has a way of suddenly

transmuting to extreme yin, and, of course, vice-versa. The turbulent

murky downstream waters find their way back to the water table and feed

the mountain springs. And fill conceptual gulfs. I love the way

reconciliation is sometimes bursting, sometimes oozing through the

cracks in the facade. As when, diagnostically, I might find it

necessary to inhale quantitative WM data and exhale bian zheng; and as

when, in therapeutic communication with a patient, I might reverse the

process, thinking in pinyin while speaking American.

 

As for 'truth', even with a small 't' this is a tall order. I'm not

even sure how possible or necessary this part of the pursuit will prove

to be. I tend to think medicine is more about tools than truth. But

I'll put that question on the shelf for the moment and take a stab at

it. A statement or opinion or assumption or perspective on any given

topic can be seen as 'true' insofar as it is (a) congruent with the

continuum of ideas from whence it emerged and toward which its

implications lead, and (b) consistent with the presenting facts in the

here-and-now. (This calls to mind Emmanuel's horizontal/vertical

construct of some months ago, and also Z'ev's

etiology/intervention/prognosis timescapes...)

 

Though I must admit, I liked the 'to hell with congruency' mantra. 'Do

I contradict myself? Very well, then, so I contradict myself.'

 

But don't get me started.

 

Simcha Gottlieb