Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 I actually studied quite a bit of comparative religion, classical philosophy, logic and ethics as part of my liberal arts education. How we conceive of the concept of shen in CM is of paramount importance in how we present ourselves to the world. This term is frequently translated as spirit, but this is an extremely unfortunate choice as it connotes something unintended in the original chinese, which is something of a mystical nature. While shen has been used in this sense, it was not conceived that way by mainstream literate CM docs in antiquity. This position is well laid out by Flaws in chinese Medical Psychiatry. It is also translated as mind or sometimes consciousness. It is associated with self-awareness, but again there is no inherent mystical connotation. The chinese docs whose written tradition we have inherited may have been mystics, but like their modern western peers, they didn't consider this a matter of medicine. In fact, the chinese idea of a bodymind continuum really makes no room for something separate or other to be thrown in the mix. In other words, what we sometimes call spirit in CM (shen) is nothing other an aspect of the complete human being. And since it is clear that the body is a physical thing, in which the mind is rooted, the mind is therefore merely physiology. As for some ineffable spirit of consciousness as understood by other traditions in chinese society, I think the matter is far from clear there as well. It really strikes me as odd that I hear so much about body, mind and spirit in CM, with spirit typically being given top billing. Since this is nothing more than infecting a nondual idea from chinese culture with another variation on the cartesian duality. Yes, western medicine ignored the role of the mind in health for too long. Yet, now with the mapping and understanding of the brain increasing at an astonishing pace, if you read a recent neurobiology text, it actually sounds a lot more holistic than some tracts from our field. We wanted to restore the mind and body integration and some ended up creating a trichotomy to replace the old dichotomy. But be clear, if you think things like calming your spirit will balance your mind, which will then heal your physiology, you are using an extremely reductionistic linear thought process. Science is embracing holistic materialism while at the same time some in our field seem to be embracing reductionistic spirituality. Ironic. Spiritual and holistic are not the same thing. the question is whether CM was ever spiritual and even whether the actual " religions " of china even remotely conceived of spirit as christians and new agers do. Now some very old and very new ideas are beginning to converge. It is up to you to decide how this all fits into the scheme of things. One of the issues that comes up in artificial intelligence (AI) circles is the issue of consciousness and self-awareness, the nebulous qualities that define humanity and separate us from animals now and presumably will always separate us from even the smartest machines. This topic is as relevant to the role of so-called spirit in our field as the topic of stem cells are to the issue of incurable jing related disorders. Interestingly many of the so-called transhumanist philosophers have studied eastern religions and find some support for some of their evolving ideas about self-awareness in some intellectual schools of buddhism, such as tibetan or theravadan. One of the core principles of these schools of buddhism is that the self does not exist, the corollary of which is that so-called self-awareness is just one more illusion. This idea is actually central to all buddhism, however many schools are more devotional (pure land) or experiential (zen) than philosophical, per se. AI philosophers also agree in general that the issue of self-awareness is really moot. Like buddhists, they attribute no special significance to it. In their case, most of whom are ardent materialists, self-awareness is considered an evolved property of the mind that serves a useful adaptational purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. certainly nothing special. I believe the " realization of no-self and non-action " are the best words we can come up with to describe the nature of nirvana. It is thus possible that self-awareness is just one more thing " programmed " into us by nature and thus one thing that could conceivably be programmed into machines. Or perhaps such a trait might arise spontaneously due to unexpected interactions between other traits that were programmed. Now clearly there are dangers here. What if the unstoppable machine has a hitler ego? But perhaps a core compassion program is one way to prevent that. Anyway, that is not the point. The point is that there are modern takes on the mind that sync quite well with what could only be called religious worldviews (not all, mind you - oh, no pun intended). Thus scientific worldviews that deny the soul are no more heathen than the most elite schools of buddhism. If some type of universal intelligence is at the basis of all manifest existence, then perhaps our belief that this must somehow involve a human body as the ideal vehicle is nothing more than bias (biochauvinism is the term). From either of these perspectives, one thing is clear. If there is no self, there is no spirit and thus nothing to " treat " other than patterns. Chinese Herbs Chinese Herbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 On Apr 28, 2005, at 11:32 AM, wrote: > Spiritual and holistic > are not the same thing. the question is whether CM was ever spiritual > and even whether the actual " religions " of china even remotely > conceived of spirit as christians and new agers do. Agreed. Spiritual and holistic are not the same thing, and Chinese religions were more philosophies of life in essence than what we conceive of religion today. One of the issues that comes up in artificial intelligence (AI) circles is the issue of consciousness and self-awareness, the nebulous qualities that define humanity and separate us from animals now and presumably will always separate us from even the smartest machines. This topic is as relevant to the role of so-called spirit in our field as the topic of stem cells are to the issue of incurable jing related disorders. Interestingly many of the so-called transhumanist philosophers have studied eastern religions and find some support for some of their evolving ideas about self-awareness in some intellectual schools of buddhism, such as tibetan or theravadan. One of the core principles of these schools of buddhism is that the self does not exist, the corollary of which is that so-called self-awareness is just one more illusion. This idea is actually central to all buddhism, however many schools are more devotional (pure land) or experiential (zen) than philosophical, per se. I've read some of these texts, such as " Zen and the Mind " . and I have to agree that much of the Buddhist point of view agrees with many neurobiologists such as the Churchlands and Damasio, who, interestingly, are into such philosophers as Aristotle and Spinoza. AI philosophers also agree in general that the issue of self-awareness is really moot. Like buddhists, they attribute no special significance to it. In their case, most of whom are ardent materialists, self-awareness is considered an evolved property of the mind that serves a useful adaptational purpose. Nothing more, nothing less. certainly nothing special. I believe the " realization of no-self and non-action " are the best words we can come up with to describe the nature of nirvana. It is thus possible that self-awareness is just one more thing " programmed " into us by nature and thus one thing that could conceivably be programmed into machines. Or perhaps such a trait might arise spontaneously due to unexpected interactions between other traits that were programmed. Thus scientific worldviews that deny the soul are no more heathen than the most elite schools of buddhism. If some type of universal intelligence is at the basis of all manifest existence, then perhaps our belief that this must somehow involve a human body as the ideal vehicle is nothing more than bias (biochauvinism is the term). From either of these perspectives, one thing is clear. If there is no self, there is no spirit and thus nothing to " treat " other than patterns. This is where we must diverge. When theories such as Darwinism are taken as absolute and water-tight, it leads to it becoming a dogma on its own, i.e. scientism. It boggles my mind to think that there are those who would believe that a basically accidental, mechanistic process has rolled along on its own, evolving new organisms, ending up with, behold, the human being and brain. The brain's complexity leads to the 'illusion' of self-awareness and personality, an adaptive function that allows for survival and further evolution. This is an example of an incomplete science (neuroscience) drawing conclusions from Darwinism even as it is in its immature developmental phase. How scientific is it to draw such conclusions from insufficient data, what is basically a philosophical decision? It is no wonder that neuroscientists need to look at philosophers to find a version of ethics to live by. If we are just meat machines who just react without free will to stimuli, what makes any decision good or bad? Survival only? I don't think we need to graft anything onto Chinese medical theory but what is already there. There is plenty to explore in the body of knowledge that exists. I don't think Chinese medicine should be colored by new age thinking or religion, nor do I think that scientism should also color it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 On Apr 28, 2005, at 11:32 AM, wrote: > From either of these perspectives, one > thing is clear. If there is no self, there is no spirit and thus > nothing to " treat " other than patterns. From my understanding of the big pictures of Buddhism, there is a Self, its just not YOUR own personal self. There is " I am " which is sometimes called the observer. It is that which notices the words in your head for instance. We tend to think that the words in our head is us (mostly because the words in our heads tell us so!) However, this observer can't get sick or need anything from us medically. So, if this is what you mean by spirit, which I guess is where you're going with this, I agree with you. There's nothing to fix there. I just took a quick look at Bob Flaws' psychiatry book and couldn't find any succinct definition for Shen, however as I've seen and heard the terms used by my Chinese mentors, the best definitions that I can come up with are " affect " or " demeanor " . Shen calming herbs calm down the individual's mind and body, but the observer remains somewhat unmoved by any of this. -al stone's brain. I used to think the brain was the most fascinating thing in the body. But then I thought: " Look who's telling me that! " -emo philips 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.