The shallowness of modern TCM (and why this is a good thing)

January 23, 2006

Hello fellow CHA-ers,

I am seeking your feedback on my essay below. Please keep in mind

that it is only draft and may need to double check on some things, so

if you see anything obviously wrong with it then I am happy to hear

eveything you have to say. Please also note that throughout the

article, I refer to " TCM " in the narrow sense as Fruehauf is using.

Cheers!

----------------

I am sympathetic to the concerns of individuals such as Heiner

Fruehauf, that are ardent critics of existing trends in modernization

of CM and the " institutionalized phenomenon presently known as " TCM "

(traditional Chinese medicine) " . The perspective is well summarized

in an introduction to one of Fruehauf's pieces on this topic here

(http://www.classicalchinesemedicine.org/ccm/tcmgermany05.htm):

" This article is based on the conviction that the traditional art of

Oriental medicine is dying--both in mainland China, home of the mother

trunk of the field, and consequently overseas where branches of the

tree are trying to grow. It may be an anachronistic piece, written at

a time when TCM administrators around the world are celebrating major

advances in the field, such as increasing numbers of students,

practitioners, patients, colleges, universities, and hospitals, which

all appear to reflect a booming state of Oriental medicine. But if we

truly respect our tradition as a living organism and listen intently

to the deeper layers of its pulse, it becomes evident that the

original vitality of the system is expiring, although its true

condition may be obscured by a steroidal glow on the surface. "

As I have written

(http://forums.acupuncture.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=267), what is truly

revolutionary about CM and Chinese philosophy generally is in the way

of seeing and relating it encourages, not just of the practitioner in

diagnosing the patient, but of all of us in relation to the world. At

its root, it shows us how and why it is vitally important for our

health and happiness that the subjective immediacy of all that we

experience be not just immediately written off as unimportant unless

there is a way to objectively verify it (and/or an authority has done

so for us). It suggests that our over-reliance on an undeniably

useful intellectual/conceptual filter in interpreting the world, when

we forget that there is and always has been something before the

filter, leaves a world that is much less worthwhile living in. And as

the TCM community slowly but surely detaches itself from deeply

understanding this basic philosophy from which it itself originally

sprung, it too is in danger of become a lackey (albeit a troublesome

one) of this cold objectifying worldview.

Nevertheless, I have to take issue with Fruehauf at this point, and

say that I think TCM is a wonderful thing, and an important step in

the continuing evolution of CM into the world.

Confused? Doubting my sanity?

The problem with pre-modern Chinese culture, for all its beauty and

depth and spirituality, is that it was incredibly elitist. The gap

between rich and poor, both materially and non-materially, was

probably as large as if not the largest of any other culture in

existence. This meant that people that were lucky enough to have the

background, the contacts, the resources, the money, or maybe just the

sheer individual brilliance, etc to learn and really deeply understand

Daoist internal alchemy and Classical could use the

opportunity to work hard and do so, but many could not even really

begin. For the majority of the population, the culture allowed people

to see that certain things were important and should be respected, but

did not have the resources or political structure to provide the tools

with which the average citizen could really understand why they were

important. The result of such a gap is a people that on average could

be very prone to false superstitious beliefs, because as far as they

could tell the false superstitious and the truly profound looked

exactly the same. That's why when an equalizing opportunity like

Communism (modernity) came along, a great fury was unleashed from the

lowest classes of the Chinese people against that in traditional

culture they saw they had been long denied real access to.

TCM could be seen in a similar vein. It is fairly well established by

now that " bian zheng lun zhi " or anything resembling that ideal was

not what the majority of those that dispensed herbs and practiced

acupuncture took heed of. It instead was again a mark of the elite –

the educated scholar-physicians that had the time, resources, and

access to the texts that allowed them to develop a deep understanding

of its principles, and those lucky enough to find themselves to be

able to learn personally from great practitioners and/or Daoist

masters. There could not have been many of these in number, given

what we already know, able to read Chinese or no, is the great

difficulty of getting large numbers of people to understand what

classics are about. Many practitioners would

probably have been " fang shi " , specialists in tried and true formula

that they applied more or less symptomatically. Good medicine I'm

sure, but still not bian zheng.

And so, if " bian zheng lun zhi " was for the elite, the greatest

achievement of TCM was to be able to translate it into an accessible

format for the masses. That is what modernity at its noblest has

always been able to do, to level the playing field and give more

people of different births and backgrounds better contact with what is

the highest in their culture. There are many downsides to modernity

and the over-reliance on conceptual rationality that it tends to

encourage of course, but surely we should at least give credit where

it is due.

I like to think of myself as very Daoist in my anarchism. This means

I don't just tear things down Sid Vicious style - a Daoist will always

be critical of institutions certainly, but I think would also be able

to recognise where they have their important place, so that the said

criticisms actually serve to make the institutions stronger in the

face of change.

TCM works. It's not the best, but it is a starting point. It gives a

lot of people a taste of something very deep that they probably would

not have tasted without it. If it simply adds to those advantages a

clear path to a deeper understanding of where it itself came from, and

hence encouraging all who learn it to move beyond it, a change which

is easier to make happen if its good sides are also honoured, surely

no-one would have any problems with wishing the TCM juggernaut all the

best on its steroidal worldwide growth? I'm not necessarily

disagreeing with Fruenauf that that the deeper roots are dying, but

that we may perhaps be able to use this superficial repletion to our

advantage.

January 23, 2006

TCM works. It's not the best, but it is a starting point.

>>>

And how do you know if it best or not. Do we really have that information

available to us? What we have with TCM if nothing else is a professional system

that is being looked at.That is what i think is the most important development

called TCM. Its all too easy to have romantic attitudes but in our times we need

more.

Oakland, CA 94609

-

bianzhengnazi

Monday, January 23, 2006 10:52 PM