Unsculd and Taoist claims

[Guest guest]

All,

 

> But I believe that if we study the past

> in order to make ourselves more well suited

> to create the future, then the answers that

> we are looking for lie primarily within

> our own indiviudal synthesis of ideas

> and images.

 

Ken, Agreed, but my criticism is that our individual syntheses or

enlightenments are not grounds for literary criticism. It is one thing to say

" I believe I have perceived the Taoist essence of CM. " It is another thing to

say " So-and-so misses the Taoist essence that I know " The first is fair

statement of faith; the second is dangerous in exactly cases like this where

Unschuld has challenged a widely-cherished view. Let''s face it, if Paul

Unschuld is correct, we've been told some tales by people who knew neither

CM nor Taoism as well as they claimed.

 

Subjectivity in the interpretation of ancient texts is a given but that does not

make it equal to purely-subjective statements of belief. While scholarship

and science are subjective because of what is accepted as evidence and how

that evidence is evaluated, this subjectivity is moderated by data-gathering

and iterpretative principles that are clearly expressed and reasonably

examined. Literary criticism is a large part of scholarship and I am not the

least bit embarrassed --- regardless of the popularity of spiritual viewpoints

--- to say that applying any claim to personally know the " essence " of

something to another''s work is impolite at best and potentially repressive.

While everyone has a right to express their beliefs, that implies no right to

suggest that another has missed the point because they do not confirm your

faith.

 

I am not unaware that scholarship and scholars are easy targets; the other

day on CHA someone dissed Unschuld for opposing Heipracticker practice

of CM when all he has said is that if you want to practice CM you should

become fully qualified. Although masses of people on CHA agree with full

qualification, none said a word. Scholars have been the bearers of bad

news, so be it, nonetheless they deserve fair play.

 

> Can we assume that the various " schools

> of thought " such as Daoism, Confucianism,

> Buddhism, Legalism, etc. were separate

> and distinct as we think of schools of

> thought such as Islam, Christianity,

> Judaism, and even the various sects and

> cults within these various religious

> movements?

 

Again, agreed. Individual's belief systems in China were not very likely to

be dogmatically pure, then or now. There is too much overlap in the key

concepts, which is one of the reasons I don't find Taoist-origin ideas very

persuasive. In English discourse you even find Confucian writers quoted as

Taoists.

 

Consider that in many of the posts concerning the Taoist roots of CM - here

and elsewhere - you can replace " Taoist " with " Confucian, Christian,

Muslim, " or even " United Presbyterian " and these contrary claims would be

absolutely equivalent. Nothing can come of these claims except yelling at

one another or a chorus of " me too's " that drowns-out minority views.

 

The point in criticizing another's work is not what you believe, it is what you

can show that supports your opinion. This may be easier to see if I the

example is one of religion: Tin Yao So practiced acupuncture as an

expression of his Christian faith. Did he miss acupuncture's " spiritual

essence? " Who wants to stand-up and say that the Taoist spiritual essence is

superior to So's? It is an uncomfortable thing to do because there is no

diguising the chauvinism of faith. Yet, this is inherently no different than

saying that a scholar misses something essential through his or her

concentration on the written record.

 

> I very much appreciated Ken's comments as I largely feel the same. The

> issue of subjectivity vs. objectivity is a reflection of and as slippery

> as yin/yang. What one person feels qualifies as " Taoism " may not be what

> another one would think that term should mean. Even the most careful

> scholar is subject to seeing things from a particular " point of view. "

> Unschuld strongly disagreed with Joseph Needham (and his collaborator's)

> translation of a specific passage that would push back the age of

> acupuncture 500 or more years than Unschuld believes it to be. When giants

> such as these disagree, it shows how subjective such translations can be.

> Who am I or anyone else to jump into that fray?

 

Matt, unfair. This is an apples and oranges comparison. Unshuld noted

that Needham had applied a term where it did not apply in a known text, he

referenced the text, and anyone who wants to examine either Needham or

Unschuld's logic can do so. Unschuld did not fault Needham for failing to

perceive something available only to himself, nor did he claim a knowledge

beyond the context of material that can be openly examined by anyone with

the skill and intent to do so.

 

Cherishing a Toaist perspective on Chinese traditional medicine is not the

same as claiming that traditional medicine's spiritual essence is rooted in

Taoism. Saying that your spiritual faith or tradition sees things in a certain

way, is not the same as saying that someone has missed the essentials of the

matter because they do not confirm your views. The former is argument,

the latter is repression.

 

> I contend that the issue of the legends of a lost

> " Golden Age " cannot be written of so quickly.

 

You are free to do so. You are welcome to make such a statement so long as

the zeitgeist of the list permits such. However, since anyone can make the

contrary statement and you assert something that is by definition beyond

disproof, criticism based on the expression of your belief can only lead to

competitive preaching.

 

My interest is not what you believe, nor do I have any interest in changing

your mind. My interest is free discourse and fair play for people like PUU

who respect the material so much that they will stand behind what they

know to be an unpopular view.

 

> We need scholars such as Unschuld, but it is helpful to have those

> actively practicing Taoism and Oriental Medicine offer their opinions on

> these subjects also.

 

What you said was that Paul, a real nice guy who does good things, missed

the essence which you know. That is not just expressing your opinion, it is

claiming knowledge that is beyond examination.

 

> I would like to continue this discussion but as I

> hope to eventually publish a book that includes such considerations, I do

> not wish to misuse this forum in such a way that may be seen by some as a

> form of self promotion. I look to the list moderator to let me know if I

> am straying in that direction.

 

On a rigorously moderated list you would not be getting flammed by me,

you would have been summarily banned by the moderator; however, on

such a list you would be permitted a turn at whatever fairly-labeled self-

promotion you wished to post. The principle is clear: fair is fair.

 

Bob

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037

Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive

505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I think

you make several important points and

foremost among these I want to stress

the notion about how the discourse on

such topics proceeds.

 

One of the reasons why I place such a

high value on Unschuld's work is that

he brings to the field an example of

the exacting standards of a scholar

who is engaged in a search to discover

and create an accurate rendition of

what really happened.

 

This is enormously difficult with

respect to Chinese medicine for several

reasons. The first is probably the

vastness of the size of the database

that we invoke when we say something

like Chinese medicine or traditional

Chinese medicine.

 

Another is the curious tendency that

has long prevailed in China...as well

as many other parts of the world, for

people who have no idea what they are

saying or doing to conduct themselves

as experts and authorities.

 

Fakery is an old theme in Chinese

civilization. And the experience I

had that always sums it up for me

took place in an antique shop on

Hollywood Road in Hong Kong several

years ago.

 

I had acquired a beautiful little

bowl from a dealer in Chengdu who

sold it to me as an artifact of

the Song dynasty. My rule of thumb

in buying such things is to buy

what I like and will be happy to

have around me, but of course the

price varies with age and condition

and other factors, so it's always

a good idea to know what you're getting.

 

I took the bowl to this shop in HK

and presented it to the owner to

get his opinion, which I respected.

 

He looked it over carefully, turning it

upside down, even smelling it, rubbing

it gently, and performing probably a

dozen other acts of inspection that

escaped my notice.

 

When he was done he unceremonisouly

handed it back to me and said with

no slightest emotion in his voice,

" Fake. "

 

I took it back and said nothing.

So we just stood there looking at each

other for a minute or so and then he

added, " Not Song...Ming...Song style

but Ming. "

 

Naturally there's a lot to wonder about

with such an adjudication, but what

struck me then and stays with me now

is that in this extraordinary set of

traditions that we call China, there

are countless examples of people in

one age emulating...if not outright

copying the works of earlier ages.

Is a Ming copy of a Song bowl a genuine

fake, a fake genuine, or what?

 

Of course there are people who live

at the same time as one another who

similarly find it hard to restrain

the urge to copy what someone else

is doing...particularly if they are

doing it with success in the market

place.

 

Bottom line: the joint is jumpin'

with phonies and fakes. People who

say they are one thing and turn out

to be another.

 

In this regard, the West has closely

replicated one special characteristic

of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

And I would hazard a guess that this

is one of the real reasons why people

who fault Unschuld feel the way they

do. Revelation of accurate and well

considered historical information has

a tendency to displace the claims of

those who, for lack of a more graceful

phrase, have no idea what they are

talking about.

 

One other comment I want to share with

people on this list is that it's hard

to imagine two people with a more

dissimilar background and eduation

in the subject of traditional Chinese

medicine than Paul Unschuld and myself.

 

Paul is an academician, a scholar,

who has received his education in

the courseroom and the field according

to the rigourous disciplines of

academic life. I was trained by

boxers and bonesetters. I studied

Chinese martial arts and medicine

for more than two decades before I

ever read anything about either.

 

My foundation is built on oral

traditions and teachings that I have

gotten from a series of teachers,

both in China and other parts of the

world.

 

Yet I have not found a single

writer who addresses the substance

of the subject of Chinese medicine

who so closely captures what I have

been taught is the essence of the

subject as Paul Unschuld.

 

From my purely personal and subjective

point of view I find this both remarkable

and an important piece of evidence.

 

I'm not entirely sure what it is

evidence of, but it seems to suggest

that there is something there, among

the shadows and mists in which history

has enshrouded it, that awaits our

further investigation and discovery.

 

But I believe we can only find it

if we continuously work to strengthen

our individual as well as our mutual

grasp of the fundamentals involved.

 

That's why, by the way, I devote so

much time and attention to these

lists. As far as I can tell, this

is where this process is really happening.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I think

you make several important points and

foremost among these I want to stress

the notion about how the discourse on

such topics proceeds.

 

One of the reasons why I place such a

high value on Unschuld's work is that

he brings to the field an example of

the exacting standards of a scholar

who is engaged in a search to discover

and create an accurate rendition of

what really happened.

 

This is enormously difficult with

respect to Chinese medicine for several

reasons. The first is probably the

vastness of the size of the database

that we invoke when we say something

like Chinese medicine or traditional

Chinese medicine.

 

Another is the curious tendency that

has long prevailed in China...as well

as many other parts of the world, for

people who have no idea what they are

saying or doing to conduct themselves

as experts and authorities.

 

Fakery is an old theme in Chinese

civilization. And the experience I

had that always sums it up for me

took place in an antique shop on

Hollywood Road in Hong Kong several

years ago.

 

I had acquired a beautiful little

bowl from a dealer in Chengdu who

sold it to me as an artifact of

the Song dynasty. My rule of thumb

in buying such things is to buy

what I like and will be happy to

have around me, but of course the

price varies with age and condition

and other factors, so it's always

a good idea to know what you're getting.

 

I took the bowl to this shop in HK

and presented it to the owner to

get his opinion, which I respected.

 

He looked it over carefully, turning it

upside down, even smelling it, rubbing

it gently, and performing probably a

dozen other acts of inspection that

escaped my notice.

 

When he was done he unceremonisouly

handed it back to me and said with

no slightest emotion in his voice,

" Fake. "

 

I took it back and said nothing.

So we just stood there looking at each

other for a minute or so and then he

added, " Not Song...Ming...Song style

but Ming. "

 

Naturally there's a lot to wonder about

with such an adjudication, but what

struck me then and stays with me now

is that in this extraordinary set of

traditions that we call China, there

are countless examples of people in

one age emulating...if not outright

copying the works of earlier ages.

Is a Ming copy of a Song bowl a genuine

fake, a fake genuine, or what?

 

Of course there are people who live

at the same time as one another who

similarly find it hard to restrain

the urge to copy what someone else

is doing...particularly if they are

doing it with success in the market

place.

 

Bottom line: the joint is jumpin'

with phonies and fakes. People who

say they are one thing and turn out

to be another.

 

In this regard, the West has closely

replicated one special characteristic

of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

And I would hazard a guess that this

is one of the real reasons why people

who fault Unschuld feel the way they

do. Revelation of accurate and well

considered historical information has

a tendency to displace the claims of

those who, for lack of a more graceful

phrase, have no idea what they are

talking about.

 

One other comment I want to share with

people on this list is that it's hard

to imagine two people with a more

dissimilar background and eduation

in the subject of traditional Chinese

medicine than Paul Unschuld and myself.

 

Paul is an academician, a scholar,

who has received his education in

the courseroom and the field according

to the rigourous disciplines of

academic life. I was trained by

boxers and bonesetters. I studied

Chinese martial arts and medicine

for more than two decades before I

ever read anything about either.

 

My foundation is built on oral

traditions and teachings that I have

gotten from a series of teachers,

both in China and other parts of the

world.

 

Yet I have not found a single

writer who addresses the substance

of the subject of Chinese medicine

who so closely captures what I have

been taught is the essence of the

subject as Paul Unschuld.

 

From my purely personal and subjective

point of view I find this both remarkable

and an important piece of evidence.

 

I'm not entirely sure what it is

evidence of, but it seems to suggest

that there is something there, among

the shadows and mists in which history

has enshrouded it, that awaits our

further investigation and discovery.

 

But I believe we can only find it

if we continuously work to strengthen

our individual as well as our mutual

grasp of the fundamentals involved.

 

That's why, by the way, I devote so

much time and attention to these

lists. As far as I can tell, this

is where this process is really happening.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Paul Unschuld

>>>>I have to say that i am thoughrally enjoying his new book and ago struck by its insightfulness of the vast amount of material

Alon

[Guest guest]

Subjectivity in the interpretation of ancient texts is a given but that does not make it equal to purely-subjective statements of belief. While scholarship and science are subjective because of what is accepted as evidence and how that evidence is evaluated, this subjectivity is moderated by data-gathering and iterpretative principles that are clearly expressed and reasonably examined. Literary criticism is a large part of scholarship and I am not the least bit embarrassed --- regardless of the popularity of spiritual viewpoints --- to say that applying any claim to personally know the "essence" of something to another''s work is impolite at best and potentially repressive. While everyone has a right to express their beliefs, that implies no right to suggest that another has missed the point because they do not confirm your faith.>>>>>Beatify said

Alon

[Guest guest]

Dear Alon,

 

could you in the future quote the origin of your response (as it would make it worthwhile... and comprehensive)

 

Marco Bergh

 

-

Alon Marcus

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, July 31, 2003 7:51 PM

Re: Traditional (TCM) Unsculd and Taoist claims

 

Subjectivity in the interpretation of ancient texts is a given but that does not make it equal to purely-subjective statements of belief. While scholarship and science are subjective because of what is accepted as evidence and how that evidence is evaluated, this subjectivity is moderated by data-gathering and iterpretative principles that are clearly expressed and reasonably examined. Literary criticism is a large part of scholarship and I am not the least bit embarrassed --- regardless of the popularity of spiritual viewpoints --- to say that applying any claim to personally know the "essence" of something to another''s work is impolite at best and potentially repressive. While everyone has a right to express their beliefs, that implies no right to suggest that another has missed the point because they do not confirm your faith.>>>>>Beatify said

AlonFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM) ranging from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina and nutrition.Membership rules require that you adhere to NO commercial postings, NO religious postings and NO spam.Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/