phenotype

[Guest guest]

Has anyone been struck by how the modern concept of phenotype and

genotype are both accounted for in the chinese idea of jing. Prenatal

jing is genotype, while postnatal jing and lifestyle determine how the

prenatal manifest. Strongest jing in the world, but malnourished a s

child and one will always be defective. Weak jing, but scrupulous

lifestyle the opposite. Many of the healthiest people have weak jing

becuase they must be scrupulous to maintain their health. the really

strong usually live themselves into elderly decrepitude or early death

from heart attacks.

 

I am sure some of you find this line of thought reductionist. I

actually consider it holistic, but that's just another example of how

irreconcilable our worldviews are. I have been thinking about

something Heiner said at CHA. If you look at the nei jing with a

materialistic eye, that is what you will see. If look at it with a

spiritual one, that is what you will see. Two things come to mind as I

ponder this.

 

If you must approach the nei jing with a spiritual idea to see that in

it, we are back to faith. One must first adopt a religious attitude to

see the value of religion. There is no way to independently prove that

position. The difference with seeing the nei jing mostly as

materialistic document (like kendall) or a sociopolitical one (like

unschuld) or a combination of both (like Needham) is that one can

accumulate evidence to support one's position that is commonsense

evidence, not requiring any faith based belief. for example, the

weights of the organs discovered through dissection. If one must adopt

a religious attitude to see this other facet, that is fine, but it will

ever remain the domain of scholars and never be proven in any way that

will satisfy me or most others on the planet. It is preaching to the

choir. I think it is telling that while the mainstream scholars of CM

disagree on issues of culture and materialism, not a one takes the

mystical position.

 

Heiner is not actually published in this area. His actually

scholarship in sinology precedes his study of CM. His ideas on the

mystical origins of CM are actually widely rejected amongst mainstream

sinologists, thus his audience for these is a much less discriminating

one, us. I was swayed by his words at the time, but as his presence

fades, much of his words again ring hollow to me. One does need to

develop themselves spiritually in order to practice effectively, I

think. But to to claim that this is the true purpose of the nei jing

is an undefendable claim. People follow Heiner like all spiritual

teachers because of his charisma, not his scholarship. Using the nei

jing as a spiritual document just proves that another historical

document can be twisted to any use one deems desirable (like the bible,

another historical document that is way too big for its britches). I

still consider this a dangerous and doomed path for our field.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

I

still consider this a dangerous and doomed path for our field.

 

`>>>I cannot agree more, at some point the wave of counterculture will be over

and i already see it much more these days than 20 years ago, and then evidence

will again be in the driver seat of the public. Although when i look at politics

i wander as you can say anything without any evidence and the like-minded will

lineup

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jul 3, 2004, at 5:46 PM, wrote:

 

> Has anyone been struck by how the modern concept of phenotype and

> genotype are both accounted for in the chinese idea of jing. Prenatal

> jing is genotype, while postnatal jing and lifestyle determine how the

> prenatal manifest. Strongest jing in the world, but malnourished a s

> child and one will always be defective. Weak jing, but scrupulous

> lifestyle the opposite. Many of the healthiest people have weak jing

> becuase they must be scrupulous to maintain their health. the really

> strong usually live themselves into elderly decrepitude or early death

> from heart attacks.

 

This is certainly my experience. There is certainly congruency in the

concepts of phenotype and genotype with the concept of jing and Chinese

medicine. Certainly those with more delicate constitutions, in which I

include myself, need to be scupulous with diet, lifestyle, etc. to

maintain health.

 

Different cultures will develop different concepts to discuss phenomena

that are readily observable by those who specialize in health care.

However, we do need to cleave to the original concepts so that we can

follow through specific lines of thought expressed in the theories

underlying Chinese medicine, Western medicine, Ayurveda, or any other

rational health care system.

>

> I am sure some of you find this line of thought reductionist. I

> actually consider it holistic, but that's just another example of how

> irreconcilable our worldviews are. I have been thinking about

> something Heiner said at CHA. If you look at the nei jing with a

> materialistic eye, that is what you will see. If look at it with a

> spiritual one, that is what you will see. Two things come to mind as I

> ponder this.

 

There is nothing reductionist about this, and there is plenty of

reductionism in Chinese thought. Ideally, a thinker should be able to

deal with universal principles and fine details in any subject.

>

> If you must approach the nei jing with a spiritual idea to see that in

> it, we are back to faith. One must first adopt a religious attitude to

> see the value of religion. There is no way to independently prove that

> position.

 

I don't see the point here. We've discussed in the past that the Nei

Jing is a corpus of several authors and pieces. If one studies the

material, one can find anatomical ideas, socio-political concepts, and

spiritual ideas. The Nei Jing, while rejecting demonological and

metaphysical disease causative factors, is largely influenced by both

Confucianist and Taoist ideas. For example, the chapters of Wang Bing

on chronobiology, clearly Taoist principles in action. The

Confucianist influences I find inspiring, because they are based on a

world view that is both pragmatic and inspirational at the same time.

 

For more background on Han Dynasty thought, please read Yuan Dao by

Roger T. Ames.

 

>

>

> Heiner is not actually published in this area. His actually

> scholarship in sinology precedes his study of CM. His ideas on the

> mystical origins of CM are actually widely rejected amongst mainstream

> sinologists, thus his audience for these is a much less discriminating

> one, us. I was swayed by his words at the time, but as his presence

> fades, much of his words again ring hollow to me. One does need to

> develop themselves spiritually in order to practice effectively, I

> think. But to to claim that this is the true purpose of the nei jing

> is an undefendable claim. People follow Heiner like all spiritual

> teachers because of his charisma, not his scholarship. Using the nei

> jing as a spiritual document just proves that another historical

> document can be twisted to any use one deems desirable (like the bible,

> another historical document that is way too big for its britches). I

> still consider this a dangerous and doomed path for our field.

 

Heiner is both charismatic and a scholar, and I hope more of his work

will find its way into print. He did mention in his lecture that he

sees the Nei Jing as a tool for self-cultivation, and I am not sure

what he means by that. Certainly, the material is inspirational for

what we can call 'the tao of the physician', and that is how I see it.

It inspires me to undertake the difficult task of treating so many

patients for so many years, along with fifteen years of non-stop

teaching.

 

As far as the issues of 'religious attitude' and " the bible, another

historical document too big for its britches', I don't understand what

it is you are getting at, and why these are such issues for you that

they keep reappearing on the CHA forum. Finding inspiration in

spiritual books and teachings is not necessarily opposed to a

scientific attitude, except among some religious fundamentalists. As

Heiner put it, when one looks at the world from the top down, it

includes what is below, but not the other way around.

 

I think that when one adapts exclusively a materialistic or

spiritualistic viewpoint, one ends up in endless arguments that are

fruitless. Both have their limitations, and both have their benefits.