Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Ken: > I just wonder what other people think > and if it matters to anyone that our own > conception of what it means to look at > and to see...a patient for example...may differ > from what ancient Chinese theorists > might have really had in mind when they > were saying what they said that we think > we understand today. Marco: ken and list... Is it possible to know? What are they saying? What do we think they are saying? Marco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote: > I'd appreciate hearing others' thoughts on the > matter. > > Here are the sentences: > > " ...Chalfant finds a writing more ancient than the seal writing, which is a > picture of the eye emitting light. The Chinese believe that light comes out of a > normal eye, enabling it to see. " > Without some sort of supporting ancient commentary on the ancient character itself, how could it be known that it was " light " that was being depicted as coming from the eye? Isn't it just some strokes, different than the actual character for light? A teacher at PCOM was taught, and in turn taught my class, that it was the shen that eminated from the eyes in order to " grasp " whatever it was that was being seen. There may be something on this point in Paul Unschuld's " Essential Subtleties on the Silver Sea. " Though mainly a book about pathology and treatment, there is bound to be some references regarding physiology. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hi Ken, I recall reading a passage about the " fire of the heart " going out and illuminating the world for the shen. It was one instance, and I've been unable to coroborate it, but I too found it a captivating thought. I suppose it would explain how we fatigue ourselves through concentration and staring. Par - " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:33 PM To see > All, > > I was just thumbing through a copy of Wilder and Ingram's > Analysis of Chinese Characters while deciding which > of the world's problems to solve today, and I came > upon the character jian4, to see. I came across a > couple of sentences that seemed to me to serve > as examples of the kind of metaphoric influence > that I was just talking about. > > I'd appreciate hearing others' thoughts on the > matter. > > Here are the sentences: > > " ...Chalfant finds a writing more ancient than the seal writing, which is a > picture of the eye emitting light. The Chinese believe that light comes out of a > normal eye, enabling it to see. " > > Several questions come up. > > Is that correct? > > Do or did the Chinese believe that light > comes out of a normal eye, enabling it to > see? > > And either way, does it matter to us > hipcat Westerners who know better > than all that ancient nonsense anyhow? > > I just wonder what other people think > and if it matters to anyone that our own > conception of what it means to look at > and to see...a patient for example...may differ > from what ancient Chinese theorists > might have really had in mind when they > were saying what they said that we think > we understand today. > > > 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 November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Brian, > > Without some sort of supporting ancient commentary on the ancient > character itself, how could it be known that it was " light " that was > being depicted as coming from the eye? Isn't it just some strokes, > different than the actual character for light? > Good question. In the book I cited, this explication is given as an alternative reading of the character The sentence that preceeds the ones I posted earlier says, " Weiger explains it as an eye, mu, on a man. " So certainly such interpretations are always open to question. I don't have access to a copy of Shuo Wen, so I'll have to wait to check it out there. Maybe someone else on the list has access and can tell us what it says there. All characters are just some strokes, and their interpretation relies upon knowing basically how others have assigned and understood the meanings of those strokes. it's an ongoing process. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 > Is that correct? > > Do or did the Chinese believe that light > comes out of a normal eye, enabling it to > see? I too would be fascinated to see more corroboration of this from Chinese sources. The kabbalists certainly believe this, and > And either way, does it matter to us > hipcat Westerners who know better > than all that ancient nonsense anyhow? > > I just wonder what other people think > and if it matters to anyone that our own > conception of what it means to look at > and to see...a patient for example...may differ > from what ancient Chinese theorists > might have really had in mind when they > were saying what they said that we think > we understand today. > > > Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2003 Report Share Posted November 7, 2003 > Is that correct? > > Do or did the Chinese believe that light > comes out of a normal eye, enabling it to > see? > I too would be fascinated to find further corroboration of this from Chinese sources. The kabbalists certainly believe this - they refer to the passive and active aspects of vision, and speak of a sort of vapor or ray that emerges from the eye. The active aspect is associated with creativity. The universe is said to be 'envisioned into existence' through the eyes of Primordial Man (Adam Kadmon.) And there's a somewhat oblique reference to this in the liturgy, about our eyes being luminescent 'as the sun (active, projective) and the moon (passive, reflective.)' > And either way, does it matter to us > hipcat Westerners who know better > than all that ancient nonsense anyhow? > One of the major prevalent contemporary pathologies, IMO, is this notion that we know better/know more than the primitives who came before. Of course it matters (thanks for the straw man, Ken.) But our experience also matters. Language, history, metaphor, and medicine become meaningless and lifeless if we fail to cultivate our own perception (both passively and actively) in response to and resonance with the received wisdom. And this idea certainly jibes with my experience. Patients respond to our vision of them as well as to our treatments. Another arena in which this is obviously powerful is in parenting. We project expectations, and this has creative effect. This idea has become popular of late in the new age 'you create your own reality' zeitgeist. But it's clearly not new. > and if it matters to anyone that our own > conception of what it means to look at > and to see...a patient for example...may differ > from what ancient Chinese theorists > might have really had in mind when they > were saying what they said that we think > we understand today. > > > Ken 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.