apples and oranges

April 5, 2005

Perhaps we are not missing each other's points as much as having

irreconcilable philosophies of science and progress. I look at the

same evidence and see other than what you do. I am not going to debate

fundamental premises here. So I will not concede that point that in

the end all we have is passion, but rather it is our a priori

assumptions that color our judgments. I cannot not accept (and never

will) that the past contains answers that are superior to the present.

The past contains ideas we can use today, but the past is filled with

crap, too and only science convinces me in the end analysis. For those

who feel different, so be it. It is quite clear that you cannot be

dissuaded. and it has never been my point. My goal is merely to

provide a bulwark against what I believe to be dogma, religiosity and

irrationality in medicine. My words are for the others on the list who

have not yet decided where they stand. Carry on.

Chinese Herbs

April 5, 2005

" My goal is merely to provide a bulwark against what I believe to be

dogma, religiosity and irrationality in medicine. "

Bravo, and good luck.

Bob

April 5, 2005

Bravo, and good luck.

Bob

>>>>> my heart is with you

April 5, 2005

On Apr 5, 2005, at 9:16 AM, wrote:

> Perhaps we are not missing each other's points as much as having

> irreconcilable philosophies of science and progress. I look at the

> same evidence and see other than what you do. I am not going to debate

> fundamental premises here. So I will not concede that point that in

> the end all we have is passion, but rather it is our a priori

> assumptions that color our judgments. I cannot not accept (and never

> will) that the past contains answers that are superior to the present.

As you say, our own philosophies of life do color our outlook and

conclusions. However, I think perhaps you are looking at the situation

from the present era back to the past rather than visa versa. For me,

it is important to study the mindset and philosophies of, for example,

Han Dynasty physicians, because it exposes us to a mindset that has a

different set of exposures and limitations to the present day. It

allows us to 'escape' the modern, post-industrial view of the world and

experience another view of life that is more entwined in the natural

world. This can give us a complimentary perspective to the modern one,

which is the true meaning of an alternative medicine. One that

provides an alternate view of life, health and disease.

> The past contains ideas we can use today, but the past is filled with

> crap, too and only science convinces me in the end analysis. For those

> who feel different, so be it. It is quite clear that you cannot be

> dissuaded. and it has never been my point. My goal is merely to

> provide a bulwark against what I believe to be dogma, religiosity and

> irrationality in medicine. My words are for the others on the list who

> have not yet decided where they stand. Carry on.

I know that many people on this list believe in integrated

Chinese-Western medicine, and I understand some of its strengths (as in

treatment of many recalcitrant diseases such as cancer, heart disease

or diabetes) as well as shortcomings. As far as sifting through the

ancient medicine for what we can use today, a lot of this sifting has

been done or is being done as part of the historical process of the

medicine. However, much of value may also be discarded as well. For

me, this is the perspective of the 'ancient mind', which experienced

the world in a different setting than what we now experience. We need

to study classics such as the Nan Jing to experience this perspective,

and then determine its value accordingly.

I often find that what has been gained in terms of quantities,

measurements, and specific data on diseases in recent articles and

studies on Chinese medicine has often been counterbalanced by a loss of

inspiration, perspective and qualitative content. Recent, Dr. Wang

Xudong, a professor at Nanjing University of TCM, gave a speech to the

Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He stated that

" effective measures " needed to be taken to protect the centuries-old

heritage of TCM from " being blindly modernized " . He felt that although

aspects of Chinese medicine such as acupuncture were booming, TCM as a

whole failed to be " further developed and advanced " . He also noted

that the Chinese medical field were losing many of its brightest minds

to biomedicine, and that many practitioners of CM could " conduct

cellular, molecular and genetic research, but are unable to prescribe

Chinese herbs " . I think one of his points is that true innovation and

development in Chinese medicine is not occurring from within the

medicine itself, but in borrowings from Western medicine. While this

may not concern some, it certainly concerns me. If the only growth of

Chinese medicine occurs from transplants from Western medicine, how

long can it survive as an independent endeavor?

One of the aspects of medicine that is of interest to me are the

periodic renewals that occur. I think we can agree that the Han and

Jin-Yuan dynasties were renaissances in Chinese medicine, and the

writings of those eras are worth our attention. There are also

historical periods of decline, not an 'onward and upward' arrow that

gets better and better. It is debatable whether Chinese medicine is in

better shape now than it was during, say the Jin-Yuan dynasty era.

Certainly, during much of the Qing, Chinese medicine and especially

acupuncture were in decline, and almost disappeared early in the last

century. While Chinese medicine has been revived, and we have received

this tradition in the West, its standing is by no means secure for the

future, in China or the West.

April 5, 2005

because it exposes us to a mindset that has a

different set of exposures and limitations to the present day.

>>>>>Zev, with all due respect, i do not think one can ever come close to

understanding the mindset of Han physicians when we cant even be sure of the

langue and its meanings.How do you do it?

April 5, 2005

I don't think the situation is as hopeless as you present. Many

scholars have presented readable translations, or modern Chinese

versions of some of these texts. For a good presentation on Han

dynasty thought (although not specifically medical), try Yuan Dao by

Roger Ames. It has a great introduction.

Michael Broffman, specifically, has been teaching (to a small group)

Nan Jing material that is fascinating in scope.

There are many other examples out there.

On Apr 5, 2005, at 4:15 PM, wrote:

> because it exposes us to a mindset that has a

> different set of exposures and limitations to the present day.

>>>>>> Zev, with all due respect, i do not think one can ever come close

>>>>>> to understanding the mindset of Han physicians when we cant even

>>>>>> be sure of the langue and its meanings.How do you do it?

April 5, 2005

I don't think the situation is as hopeless as you present. Many

scholars have presented readable translations, or modern Chinese

versions of some of these texts. For a good presentation on Han

dynasty thought (although not specifically medical), try Yuan Dao by

Roger Ames. It has a great introduction.

>>>>>>>>>>

You also have people like PU that state that we cant be sure of almost any of

the characters. So can we really get into the mindset of these people? Can you

get into the mindset of people today by reading their writing? Not very well

even though we know the language. Reading Han dynasty translations which i have

done to some extent, as i can only take it for very short periods at a time, is

a fascinating exercise but to say i have ever even glanced at their mind set

would be wishful thinking.

April 5, 2005

Perhaps you are exaggerating. It will depend on the text, and the Nan

Jing appears to be fairly intact. PUU's translation of it doesn't

mention any problems with characters or text, and it is a Han Dynasty

text.

On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:10 PM, wrote:

> You also have people like PU that state that we cant be sure of almost

> any of the characters. So can we really get into the mindset of these

> people? Can you get into the mindset of people today by reading their

> writing? Not very well even though we know the language. Reading Han

> dynasty translations which i have done to some extent, as i can only

> take it for very short periods at a time, is a fascinating exercise

> but to say i have ever even glanced at their mind set would be wishful

> thinking.

>

April 5, 2005

Perhaps you are exaggerating. It will depend on the text, and the Nan

Jing appears to be fairly intact. PUU's translation of it doesn't

mention any problems with characters or text, and it is a Han Dynasty

text.

>>>>>He states that we even do not know what they mean by sinews, check the book

April 5, 2005

sorry if this posts twice...

wrote, " though I [feel] free to speculate about

the motives and logic of certain large segments of our community in a

general and admittedly stereotypical fashion. "

The dualities you wedge into discussions involving so many individuals

may " digitally " limit your appraisal of what is being expressed. If

you are an apple/orange sorting machine you will see only apples and

oranges. In your " apples and oranges " post you are clearly addressing

Yehuda (with whom you are or are not missing points-- " Have you seen my

Du 25? " ), whose views you paraphrase to your convenience. You do so,

as you say, primarily because it behoves you as moderator not to get

personal, and I fully trust your judgement in that regard. But you

also implicitly lump Yehuda with the opposition and address that

imaginary singularity, justifying it on the grounds that his views are

on the other side of a fundamental divide you are unwilling or too

tired to cross. Why? What better bulwark against dogma and

irrationality than rational engagement? What is it you are trying to

dissuade or convince the undecided " others on the list " of? The

validity of science? That the world is getting better and progress can

be found in journals with high impact factors? That traditional

Chinese medicine has limits that modern medicine supersedes? Great!

More power to ya!

But does it have to sound like a pissing match? Do you really believe

as you wrote that " while few have chimed in publicly in my support out

of fear of retribution from the faithful... " ? A breath later, though,

you warn that " just because no one dignifies some of your posts with a

response does not mean they agree with you. Likely the reverse. " It

must be your status as moderator that gives you this special intuition

about unwritten posts: Those who do not affirm you out of fear, and

those who do not refute your adversaries because they do not " dignify "

acknowledgement. As you suggest, " whatever. " Have you considered that

people don't write in to take sides because they don't see sides or in

any case don't care who's winning? Do your ideas need endorsement in

order to stand their ground? Do those you disagree with need to be

asked to " carry on " as if they aren't doing so inevitably? Can't

contradictory ideas exist and interact for what they are? Can't

incongruous medical systems?

As I believe I wrote to you many months ago, your claim that " those

who feel different...cannot be dissuaded " alongside your proclamations

that you are unwilling to be convinced, represents the very logic,

dogmatic and irrational, that you so adamantly criticize. My intuition

about your unwritten posts is that you are a repentant ex-believer of

sorts. Like the ex-smokers who are the most vocal advocates of

quitting, or the ex-sinners who are so emotional about living in

grace, I find your vehemence suspect. One of the foundational

principles of science, by which I mean the modern scientific method in

the natural sciences as developed through arguments for inductive and

deductive reasoning by folks like Francis Bacon, Descartes,

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, the moderns, and contemporaries, is that

it seeks to reveal and demonstrate repeatable, reliable phenomena and

will therefore provide its own best defence. It seems to me to be

doing a fine job asserting itself, and your own declarations that you

will not waste your time (this time I mean it, not one more post!) on

its detractors is undermined ironically by all the time you devote to

being dismissive of unscientific thought.

Another grand but humble principle of science is that new information

is always welcome, and if tested and found valid (and this of course

means it must be consistent with the rest of validated truth) it will

be accepted as true. New findings are always revising or dismantling

old theories, such as the term " junk DNA " for extrons. Of course

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but the attitude is

one of open-mindedness, as opposed to your self-satisfied and

self-reinforcing position. Not only do the non-writers support you,

but those who write critically of your ideas are discarded as holders

of faith-based opinions. It seems like a competitive game, or a

candidacy.

Speaking of games, here's fun with reductionist thought! You state

that " I cannot not accept (and never will) that the past contains

answers that are superior to the present. " If the superior answers lie

in the future, then your statement may already be

depreciating...before you know it, you'll be wrong and the past will

be superior, in which case your statement will be valorised anew, and

the future will have the answers again! : )

Sincerely,

Jonah Hershowitz

, wrote: