huge apology-but appreciate the discussion

[Guest guest]

, ben zappin <btz23 wrote:

>

> Doug,

>

> When you refer to 'Chinese psychology', what are referring to

specifically? Something outlined in texts adapted for Western audiences?

Impressions of Chinese people you know?

>

> I would love to see this discussion unfold into some comparisons

between a Worsley psychological model, a T.C.M. psychology, and T.C.M.

psychiatry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't influencing the psyche

the primary objective of 5E acupuncture?

>

> Ben

>

[Guest guest]

This seems overly cynical and condescending, especially when applied to our

time. Yes, and some have dedicated their lives to the medicine, whether here or

in Asia. And producing scholarship and books equal to that of past times and

across languages.

doug

 

 

 

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I'm going to inject the perspective of Paul Unschuld into this

> discussion, an anthropological and very controversial one. These

> quotes are from his latest work, " What Is Medicine? " published by

> University of California Press.

>

> On official mainland Chinese medicine:

>

> " From 1970 to 1975, commissions gutted the theoretical edifice and

> totally rebuilt it from the inside: set pieces from the past were put

> together carefully so that they no longer clashed with the new

> knowledge, with the reality of the new Western medicine. The new

> building corresponds to modern thinking in its internal logic. The

> old, typically Chinese inductive thinking was exchanged for modern

> logic, the Western way of thinking. The great, multi-roomed,

> confusing, two-millenia-old cage of ideas was now turned into a cute

> little playpen, where no one could get lost anymore. "

>

> On the Western adaptation of Chinese medicine:

>

> " And this is what the visitors (Western students of Chinese medicine)

> took in thin booklets back home, where they happily proclaimed that

> they now possessed the knowledge of a several-thousand-year-old

> culture. Soon the " Abus " and " Ibns " (Unschuld is referring to an

> earlier era where Arab physicians adapted Greek medicine as it was

> dying in Greece to their culture) of Europe and North America

> emerged. From thin booklets, books of many hundreds of pages were

> written. Key words were flourished like banners before the eyes of

> the surprised masses at home: Holism! Nature! Energy! Each returnee

> built a small playpen at home, based on the model. The blueprint was

> easy to learn. Some stayed only one or two weeks in the original

> land. Others spent somewhat more time. Still others did not journey

> there at all, but just listened in to the secrets of the returnees. "

>

>

> Interesting stuff and food for thought. . .

>

>

>

> On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:21 PM, sppdestiny wrote:

>

> > There is a lot to be looked into regarding the medicine and the

> > evolution of value systems in culture. An evolutionary perspective

> > brings a hierarchical understanding of individuals, cultures, and

> > value systems. A perspective not present in the classical literature

> > or the postmodern take on the medicine which infects most of us.

> > Consciousness has come a long way since 1972, let alone, 500bce.

> > It's a conversation we should have some day.

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, the texts we refer to were written by folks with plenty of

free time and disposable income.

Doug

 

 

>

> Doug, this is a great question that really bears looking into. I will submit

for consideration that the Chinese during the time the Classical texts were

written didn't have psychology and that postmodern authors have projected modern

and post-modern psychological constructs onto what was really a combination of

an animistic and absolutist belief system.

>

> What we recognize as psychology in the West emerges culturally when there is a

significant middle class whose survival needs have been met and have leisure

time and disposable income. It applies to those whose main source of illness

comes from suffocating in their own heads from self concern.

>

> I'd also go so far as to suggest that, at the current leading edge, psychology

isn't relevant, or is barely relevant, anymore.

>

>

> Regards, Lonny

>

[Guest guest]

It is taken out of context, and I think he is describing the 'early

period' of cultural transmission of the medicine. Most if not all of

our original pioneers have continued to develop their vision and have

matured somewhat. But certainly a great deal of naivete colored the

original transmission of Asian medicine to the West, how could have it

been otherwise?

 

Z'ev

On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:39 AM, wrote:

 

> This seems overly cynical and condescending, especially when applied

> to our time. Yes, and some have dedicated their lives to the

> medicine, whether here or in Asia. And producing scholarship and

> books equal to that of past times and across languages.

> doug

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ok, I realize that it was only a clip. I just couldn't let it pass as stated.

 

Doug

 

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> It is taken out of context, and I think he is describing the 'early

> period' of cultural transmission of the medicine. Most if not all of

> our original pioneers have continued to develop their vision and have

> matured somewhat. But certainly a great deal of naivete colored the

> original transmission of Asian medicine to the West, how could have it

> been otherwise?

>

> Z'ev

> On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:39 AM, wrote:

>

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The more things change, the more they stay the same, that's granny said and

Isticking to it, by gum. I simply don't buy that time is speeding up I'm not

even sure that consciousness is evolving. I think we do have more choices to

which I am grateful, but evolved?

 

" We can think inductively and synthetically, holistically and reductionistically

simultaneously, and potentially, our view is not just tribal or, at best,

ethnocentric (as during the period the classics were written), but

global-centric and beyond. "

 

To which Tonto replied...

 

 

Again, I'm not sure that by saying one embraces being beyond centrism one steps

beyond one's own centrism.

 

So, yes, I do admire the amount of work you've done but I think that when China

grows economically (if that's what it takes) they won't reach their own

conclusions specific to their cultural and personal needs. My impression is

their explorations has always been there and will continue already.

 

 

Doug

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> As far as I know, the texts we refer to were written by folks with plenty of

free time and disposable income.

> Doug

>

>

While I appreciate your humor I will suggest that the destiny of the average

person in China historically was to starve to death, or perish of a disease, at

a young age. Sure, the texts may have been written in the royal court by people

who were relatively more privileged. But the average middle class person in the

world today has more freedom and more options than the emperor ever had-let alne

the culture at large. The emperor couldn't say, " Hmmm.....am I in the mood for

Japanese, Thai, Korean, or northern Italian for dinner? Which of the 2000

channels shall I listen to? " . It's precisely having near infinite options that

leads to many, many of the psychological conditions we see today that are all

based on self indulgence and narcissism.

 

Regards, lonny

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I would greatly enjoy if you could supply us with a historical source that

> describes a husband/wife imbalance and that K-7 treats this. I would love to

> read this in Chinese.

>

 

Read Liu Yi Ming on the relationship between hexagram 23 and 24 in the Yi jing.

He talks all about the significance of metal within water, destiny,

enlightenment, the turning point, and human choice.He even uses the term

" husband/wife " in his writing which might actually be a citation of Zhang Bo

Duan much earlier. He does this in a way that exactly confirmed my understanding

of why the point is so effective in treating the condition. I made the obvious

connection to the function of K7 which is wholly supported by his description.

Also, read what I wrote and let me know if you think I've made any significant

error. Enjoy.

 

Your not taking the position that we can only count on what dead Chinese said

about point function, are you? Regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

I'm reading Liu Ming right now (the dead one, not the one living in

Oakland).

Liu Ming was a crystallization of the complete reality school's clear

teachings.

In his commentary on " Understanding Reality " , there is insight into the

symbolism of the dragon and tiger and the golden elixir.

I'm wondering if you have done research into the names of some of Zhang

Zhong Jing's

formulas and daoist symbology.

 

The metal within the water or metal water... can you expound more on this?

Is this the true mercury.... the catalyst of transformation?

 

Thanks,

K

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM, sppdestiny <revolutionwrote:

 

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > I would greatly enjoy if you could supply us with a historical source

> that

> > describes a husband/wife imbalance and that K-7 treats this. I would love

> to

> > read this in Chinese.

> >

>

> Read Liu Yi Ming on the relationship between hexagram 23 and 24 in the Yi

> jing. He talks all about the significance of metal within water, destiny,

> enlightenment, the turning point, and human choice.He even uses the term

> " husband/wife " in his writing which might actually be a citation of Zhang Bo

> Duan much earlier. He does this in a way that exactly confirmed my

> understanding of why the point is so effective in treating the condition. I

> made the obvious connection to the function of K7 which is wholly supported

> by his description. Also, read what I wrote and let me know if you think

> I've made any significant error. Enjoy.

>

> Your not taking the position that we can only count on what dead Chinese

> said about point function, are you? Regards, Lonny

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

 

When one pill of the great elixir forms in the furnace,

The embryonic immortal in the room dances three leaps.

The four signs and five energies all combine harmoniously,

The nine-restoration and seven-reversion complete the work cycle.

The radiant form of the moon appears from the hut,

The shining light illumines the universe.

" The Book of Balance and Harmony "

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello John,

 

back in the late 80's and 90's I photocopied all of Liu's work in the

possession of the Harvard's Yenjing library. I spent a few years reading it line

by line next to Cleary's translations, Mathew's and Weiger.

 

—Liu Yiming

1. " When the " wife " follows the " husband, " water and fire balance each

other. "

 

2.If one knows about white and preserves the black, then divine clarity comes of

itself. The white is the metal essence, the black is the basis of water.—Zan

Dong Ji

 

3. Liu tells us that the center line of the trigram for water is metal.

 

The two yin lines represent the mothers vagina, blood, yin, receptivity, and

water. The yang line represents the father's penis, jing, yang, and metal. The

trigram for water, metal entering water, represents the moment of conception

both literally and in terms of the " spiritual embryo. " Hence Zhuang zi tells us

that " the dao blows (breath) on the 10,000 things so that each can be itself. "

Please read Liu's description of hexagrams 23 and 24 in both his Daoist, and

Buddhist, yijing. These have much to do with the " Mysterious pass " , " dark

gate " xuanmen, the portal between being and nonbeing, enlightenment, conception,

and human choice.

 

Liu Yi Ming's writings changed my life and convinced me both that enlightenment

was real and seriously worth pursuing and, that from an holistic/integral

perspective, portions of the Dao Zang could legitimately be considered to be a

branch of medicine.

 

I have not researched the other issues you mentioned. I have no doubt that Liu's

work alone could require a lifetime of study and that it is a virtual treasure

trove for those in CM. In some ways he might be taken to be the very pinnacle of

the ancient tradition at the dawn of the modern era (of course, not in China).

But I believe he anticipated evolution. His goal was to elucidate the inner

teachings, brake the code as it were, to make enlightenment real for the average

guy who could read classical Chinese and understand what he was talking

about(which still could have only been, what, a few hundred people?). I feel

quite in debt to him and I have no doubt that he had seen enlightenment and had

serious experience with it. He wasn't just a scholar. His work has transmission.

 

Warm regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

You didn't really address what I stated. Based on everything you have said, why

do you think Wiseman et al should have included your version of K7 in Grasping

the Wind? Since your methodology appears to be yours alone, how were they to

come to the same conclusion you did? I am not stating that you should use

primary sources, but wondering why you implied that others should be using your

'methodology'.

 

Lonny: " I feel this criticism is an unfair assessment of my work because I have

been wholly transparent about my methodology and sources. "

 

I was not criticizing your work, but only asking a question. I have never read

your work. I was asking about what you stated on the forum, specifically about

why you think others should have adapted your methodology and come to the same

conclusions you did when their methodology is completely different.

 

Lonny: " What I did was to venture through history to find support for what I was

actually doing and seeing in the treatment room. "

 

I think this is always a mistake. If I want to find support for what I do, I

will always find it. If we make conclusions and search for them in Chinese

classical writing, we will find evidence for them. I prefer to read the classics

without trying to find evidence of any personal agenda so that I am learning

something instead of trying to prove something. What you are doing is much more

a function of religion than research.

 

 

 

 

, " sppdestiny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Munez: I have never found anything in the

> classics that resembles what you have written....Can any direct links between

what

> you claim and the point name be found in primary sources?

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " d_munez " <d_munez wrote:

>

> Lonny,

> You didn't really address what I stated. Based on everything you have said,

why do you think Wiseman et al should have included your version of K7 in

Grasping the Wind? Since your methodology appears to be yours alone, how were

they to come to the same conclusion you did? I am not stating that you should

use primary sources, but wondering why you implied that others should be using

your 'methodology'.

 

Lonny: You didn't ask that. I did use primary sources which included Chinese

historic texts books other than just acupuncture books. It's called synthesis.

it's not my method, lots of people do it in all fields of inquiry. In fact,

Inductive synthesis is perhaps the main cognitive style of thought in China. One

could argue it's the single largest motivating force in the development of the

medicine.

 

 

 

 

>

> Lonny: " What I did was to venture through history to find support for what I

was actually doing and seeing in the treatment room. "

>

> I think this is always a mistake. If I want to find support for what I do, I

will always find it. If we make conclusions and search for them in Chinese

classical writing, we will find evidence for them. I prefer to read the classics

without trying to find evidence of any personal agenda so that I am learning

something instead of trying to prove something. What you are doing is much more

a function of religion than research.

>

 

Lonny: My intention never was to find out what Chinese medicine was only to

support what it is. And, frankly, I could care less what it was even today. I'm

not an anthropologist. I'm a physician and hopefully a scholar.

 

If you care to continue......I'm over at Nourishingdestiny.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

I am sorry you are dropping out, especially when there was a direct question to

you shortly before you decided to drop out. What I have basically gotten out of

your last response to me was:

1. " I made this work up "

2. You use historical sources to validate what you have made up

3. You believe this to be part of evolution

 

I respect your right to approach Chinese medicine however you like. I would hope

in the future you would also respect that others will not likely follow your

'methodology,' nor should they when they have access to the primary texts. I

found your demand on Wiseman et al regarding K7 to be confusing, and I hope in

the future you will address it here, since it was something you stated here.

 

As things stand, I am still much more inclined to read books by authors who not

only know primary texts, but understand the history and culture that surrounded

them. I am aware that we, as modern people, have our own culture and ideas, but

I reject the idea that we are so biased that we cannot understand Chinese

medicine as it occurred in history. The idea that we should give up the rigor

for " just making it up " is hard for me to swallow. Many have proven that with a

lot of rigor and by reading broadly across Chinese history and philosophy (not

just in the texts we resonate with personally), we can come to some pretty

insightful conclusions.

 

, " d_munez " <d_munez wrote:

>

> Lonny,

> You didn't really address what I stated. Based on everything you have said,

why do you think Wiseman et al should have included your version of K7 in

Grasping the Wind? Since your methodology appears to be yours alone, how were

they to come to the same conclusion you did? I am not stating that you should

use primary sources, but wondering why you implied that others should be using

your 'methodology'.

>

> Lonny: " I feel this criticism is an unfair assessment of my work because I

have been wholly transparent about my methodology and sources. "

>

> I was not criticizing your work, but only asking a question. I have never read

your work. I was asking about what you stated on the forum, specifically about

why you think others should have adapted your methodology and come to the same

conclusions you did when their methodology is completely different.

>

> Lonny: " What I did was to venture through history to find support for what I

was actually doing and seeing in the treatment room. "

>

> I think this is always a mistake. If I want to find support for what I do, I

will always find it. If we make conclusions and search for them in Chinese

classical writing, we will find evidence for them. I prefer to read the classics

without trying to find evidence of any personal agenda so that I am learning

something instead of trying to prove something. What you are doing is much more

a function of religion than research.

>

>

>

>

> , " sppdestiny " <revolution@> wrote:

> >

> > Munez: I have never found anything in the

> > classics that resembles what you have written....Can any direct links

between what

> > you claim and the point name be found in primary sources?

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

 

 

There is one difference though, synthesis in Chinese medicine has always

been based on a solid foundation of what has come before it. I see a major

difference between these two methods.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of sppdestiny

 

 

 

 

Lonny: You didn't ask that. I did use primary sources which included Chinese

historic texts books other than just acupuncture books. It's called

synthesis. it's not my method, lots of people do it in all fields of

inquiry. In fact, Inductive synthesis is perhaps the main cognitive style of

thought in China. One could argue it's the single largest motivating force

in the development of the medicine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " sppdestiny " <revolution wrote:

>

> , " d_munez " <d_munez@> wrote:

>

> Lonny: You didn't ask that. I did use primary sources which included Chinese

historic texts books other than just acupuncture books. It's called synthesis.

it's not my method, lots of people do it in all fields of inquiry. In fact,

Inductive synthesis is perhaps the main cognitive style of thought in China. One

could argue it's the single largest motivating force in the development of the

medicine.

 

I apologize, I didn't ask it clearly the first time-however, I did ask clearly

the second time and you didn't respond. You seemed to have disdain for the fact

that Wiseman et al did not include your interpretation of the meaning of K7. I

will not ask you to continue, as I am sure this puts you in a sort of strange

position. Personally, what I would look for as a methodology to back up what you

said was:

1. A history of the point name: when was this name used first, did it ever

change and when, and was it used consistently

2. Was the Chinese used in PREVIOUS philosophical texts (before it appeared as a

point name) or in closely related texts after the name was chosen (we can't

assume all writing survived)

 

It seems that you are mostly using texts from the early 19th century Daoist

interpretation of the Yi Jing, but the point name was chosen before these texts

and not based on them.

 

I understand that synthesis is a big part of Chinese intellectual history, but

we don't seem to see eye-to-eye on what that means. I tend to agree with Jason

that synthesis is usually based on a very firm foundation in the texts and

teachings that come before. You seem to be saying that since some of the people

made stuff up in the past, it's ok for us to do so. I don't agree that they made

it up, but described what they saw based on their culture and how they

understood the world they saw through the veil of their times. Since your

methodology rests on " making it up " I think we will just have to agree to

disagree here. I will stick with those who are doing historical and textual work

for now, but wish you all the best in your endeavors.

[Guest guest]

There's actually a great book on that very topic, *The Tyranny of Choice*,

or something to that effect by Barry Schwartz.

 

Par

 

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:48 PM, sppdestiny <revolutionwrote:

 

>

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> " " wrote:

> >

> > As far as I know, the texts we refer to were written by folks with plenty

> of free time and disposable income.

> > Doug

> >

> >

> While I appreciate your humor I will suggest that the destiny of the

> average person in China historically was to starve to death, or perish of a

> disease, at a young age. Sure, the texts may have been written in the royal

> court by people who were relatively more privileged. But the average middle

> class person in the world today has more freedom and more options than the

> emperor ever had-let alne the culture at large. The emperor couldn't say,

> " Hmmm.....am I in the mood for Japanese, Thai, Korean, or northern Italian

> for dinner? Which of the 2000 channels shall I listen to? " . It's precisely

> having near infinite options that leads to many, many of the psychological

> conditions we see today that are all based on self indulgence and

> narcissism.

>

> Regards, lonny

>

>

>