Discursion in the Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen (was PU)

[Guest guest]

 

 

> I certainly have no idea

> what version of the past is correct. Who can?

 

Nicely said, that was an interesting post.

 

It is important to note that Dr. Unschuld does not see only Chinese

medicine as being subject to socio-political influences. He applies this to

" medicine, " all medicine, including the most modern biomedicine, not just

Chinese medicine. His concept of influence is not one that can fairly be

used to disclude other influences, including the development of long term

clinical consensus. It is not an exclusionary proof test but a methodology

for understanding medical concepts. The intent is not to prove or disprove

the validity of the affects, or any other idea, it is to demonstrate that the

concepts of Chinese medicine are rooted in metaphors and images that both

reflect Chinese thought of the period and help us to understand their

meaning.

 

It is also important to remember that the Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen about

which Paul is commenting, is not the HDNJSW that exists in so many

people's minds -- a source of bible-like truth. It is instead a composite of

archelogical and textual documents by several authors that presents

Chinese medical thought during one of its seminal periods. Thus,

discursion in the HDNJSW cannot be proof of anything but the nature of

early Chinese medical thought.

 

Bob

 

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037

Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive

505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

I agree, Todd's post was quite inspiring.

 

Bob, you took the words right out of my mouth (in explaining Paul's

work), just more eloquently than I could. I would simply add the

following:

 

Paul's 'deconstruction' of medicine, as you pointed out, is meant to be

applied to all medical systems as a way of understanding how different

systems of medicine develop according to particular constructs. He has

succeeded in developing threads related to social, economic and

political forces, which also include the way people in their societies

relate to nature and the universe.

 

Unfortunately, many people in our profession have misunderstood much of

Paul's work and have concluded that either Chinese medicine can be

totally replaced by modern medicine theoretically, or that somehow Paul

is politically opposed to an independent Chinese medical profession.

Neither of these sentiments is correct. As Bob Felt pointed out, Paul

has simply developed tools for exploring classical Chinese medicine

that can lead to a more direct understanding of the material without

superimposing preconceptions.

 

Alwin and others have pointed out the importance of the

macrocosmic/microcosmic relationships in the Nei Jing Su Wen, and I

have to add my acknowledgment of this important factor in Chinese

medicine. As Michael Broffman and Issac Eliaz, among others have

pointed out, issues of time are also very important in Chinese

medicine. Since these aspects are less important in modern medicine,

they are more difficult to track and compare, and as a result, are

often excluded from modern discourses on Chinese medicine.

 

Not seeing the Nei Jing Su Wen as a " bible " , however, should not

preclude reverence for the fact that Han dynasty people were able to

compile a very sophisticated medical system and principles that remain

largely influential up until the present era. I still stand with

respect and appreciation for the great treasure chest of knowledge that

we call Chinese medicine.

 

 

On Dec 9, 2003, at 1:39 PM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

 

>> I certainly have no idea

>> what version of the past is correct. Who can?

>

> Nicely said, that was an interesting post.

>

> It is important to note that Dr. Unschuld does not see only Chinese

> medicine as being subject to socio-political influences. He applies

> this to

> " medicine, " all medicine, including the most modern biomedicine, not

> just

> Chinese medicine. His concept of influence is not one that can

> fairly be

> used to disclude other influences, including the development of long

> term

> clinical consensus. It is not an exclusionary proof test but a

> methodology

> for understanding medical concepts.

[Guest guest]

Not seeing the Nei Jing Su Wen as a " bible " , however, should not

preclude reverence for the fact that Han dynasty people were able to

compile a very sophisticated medical system and principles that remain

largely influential up until the present era. I still stand with

respect and appreciation for the great treasure chest of knowledge that

we call Chinese medicine.

>>>Zev i am assuming that this is true for every one on this list

alon