Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 HI all, Chinese medicine is receiving great attention in the German press at the moment. Especially herbal medicine is reviewed with the inevitable warnings regarding their toxicity and danger. The widely read magazine " Stern " has just published a long article on CM. Paul Unschuld is frequently quoted. However his statements do not improve our case nor the standing of Chinese medicine as he views the theories of Cm as antiquated and pre-scientific and implies basically their uselessness. He states: " One can explain afterwards many things with Yin and Yang, but you cannot bring aeroplanes in the air or an alarm-clock to ring (with that theorie). And this is the Gretchen question: Can one use a system of ideas rooted in ancient history and use it in the present? A system which factual closeness to reality is reduced to banalities like the dualism of night and day, light and dark and man and woman. " One of his quotes in the last article: When in the 70`s western doctors arrived in China, they found a method that seemed exotic enough in order to fascinate them, but at the same time familiar enough, because mistakes and contradictions had been eliminated from the new product. TCM reflects the fears and expectations of western society. " Statements from Unschuld like this are frequently found in many widely-read publications. One often gets the idea, that he is not quite sure CM works, because it is mainly done by people who don`t know what they are doing (romantics in search of esoteric revelations and incapable of reading Chinese classics) . And patients are equally driven to seek help by means of TCM, because they long for wholeness as they are so frustrated by western society. For me as a practioner od CM his statements are surprising, as I couldn`t do for one thing without differentiating pathomechanisms according to yin and yang ( of course in wider contexts than light and dark). Barbara Kirschbaum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 At 6:06 AM -0500 1/30/04, BKirschb wrote: >The widely read magazine " Stern " has just published a long article on CM. >Paul Unschuld is frequently quoted. However his statements do not improve our >case nor the standing of Chinese medicine as he views the theories of Cm as >antiquated and pre-scientific and implies basically their >uselessness. He states: > " One can explain afterwards many things with Yin and Yang, but you >cannot bring >aeroplanes in the air or an alarm-clock to ring (with that theorie). And this >is the Gretchen question: Can one use a system of ideas rooted in ancient >history and use it in the present? A system which factual closeness >to reality is >reduced to banalities like the dualism of night and day, light and dark and >man and woman. " >One of his quotes in the last article: When in the 70`s western doctors >arrived in China, they found a method that seemed exotic enough in order to >fascinate them, but at the same time familiar enough, because mistakes and >contradictions had been eliminated from the new product. TCM >reflects the fears and >expectations of western society. " >Statements from Unschuld like this are frequently found in many widely-read >publications. One often gets the idea, that he is not quite sure CM works, >because it is mainly done by people who don`t know what they are >doing (romantics >in search of esoteric revelations and incapable of reading Chinese classics) . >And patients are equally driven to seek help by means of TCM, because they >long for wholeness as they are so frustrated by western society. -- Barbara, Thanks for this report on Unschuld's opinions. I share your surprise that someone who has spent so much time studying the history and theories of Chinese medicine should conclude that all there is to it are a few " banalities like the dualism of night and day... " . This statement of course is a complete misrepresentation. One might as well say that in fact it is not even a dualism, but rather a unity, the dao, and that a diagnosis in Chinese medicine really sees everything as one, and doesn't bother with any distinctions at all. My guess is that Unschuld has worked out some public persona for himself that will ingratiate him with the academic powers that be. It's really kind of disgraceful. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 My guess is that Unschuld has worked out some public persona for himself that will ingratiate him with the academic powers that be. It's really kind of disgraceful. >>>>>Rory may be he really believes it,, how do you know?Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 , Rory Kerr <rory.kerr@w...> wrote: all > > My guess is that Unschuld has worked out some public persona for > himself that will ingratiate him with the academic powers that be. > It's really kind of disgraceful. > I wouldn't call it disgraceful. I believe this theme has been evident in unschuld's writing for many years. If he has a persona he dons for certain public occasions, I would suggest that he tempers his views when he speaks with the TCM crowd and the opinions he expresses in these german publications are his actual beliefs on the matter. I ate dinner with Paul and Bob Felt a few years ago and he did not temper his views with us as soon as he was clear that we would not be offended. I felt his bias expressed that evening was certainly more akin to that quoted by Barbara, rather than the more conciliatory interpetation of his work that has been suggested here in the recent past. Based upon his many years of study, these are his beliefs. We should not dismiss them, but consider carefully why he feels this way. To explore this further, please visit the unschuld forum at www.paradigm-pubs.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 At 12:37 AM +0000 1/31/04, wrote: >Based upon his many years of study, these are his beliefs. We >should not dismiss them, but consider carefully why he feels this way. >To explore this further, please visit the unschuld forum at >www.paradigm-pubs.com -- There is no indication of an Unschuld forum at the above URL. The last time I tried to use a discussion forum at Paradigm the software was impossibly cumbersome, so I gave up. As to Unschuld's views, what is to me disgraceful is that he should misrepresent the complexity of Chinese medicine. I have no problem with him holding whatever beliefs he is inclined to, but for him to suggest that all there is to CM is a " banal duality " is dishonest. How come he's managed to write so many books about something that's so banal. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 --- Rory Kerr wrote: > There is no indication of an Unschuld forum at the above URL. The Forum is here at paradigm-pubs: http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm-cgi-bin/w3t5/postlist.pl? Cat= & Board=Unschuld Please cut and paste to form a complete URL again. Alwin 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.