THeory

August 7, 2003

In a message dated 8/6/03 10:38:02 PM,

Chinese Medicine writes:

<< Does the notion of a " theory " in Western

science conform to the corresponding

concept in Chinese medicine? And vice versa? >>

Lon: All CM *has* is theories that *tend* to be true. The greater the

tendency the more long lived the theory. In Western science a theory is tested

and

then, eventually *proven* true or false. CM is a science of tendencies and there

are no statements of fact.

August 7, 2003

First of all, there is a general division in the West between " basic

science " that mostly deals with theoretical science and " clinical science "

that deals with medicine and it's allied fields. This is mainly in the

fields of biology and biochemistry. Sometimes we divide sciences between

simply " theoretical " and " applied " . I'm a " basic scientist " . So I'm

always teaching first principles and then looking a clinical correlations

or some other areas of applied science to exemplify the principles or

theories of the science.

Theory is how you proceed from first principles. You have a starting point

for research or for applications. There is also a " culture " of research

and applications that require you to be familiar with materials and

methods. Unless you can propose materials and methods, you are stuck in

the realm of first principles.

Emmanuel

Interestingly enough, this is how many artists work too. The process is

basically the same, although obviously the goals and standards are

configured according to the field. I don't see that there is so much

difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of inquiry is the same.

Pat

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any

computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility

of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is

accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising

in any way from its use.

==============================================================================

August 7, 2003

I'm sorry, Lon, but this is not correct. Chinese medicine is a science

as well as an art. It establishes criteria, and then tests them in

clinical practice. Practice informs theory, theory informs practice.

There is no separation of theory and practice in Chinese medicine. As

chemist Dave Weininger puts it, " (Chinese medicine) is a storehouse of

a few thousand years worth of clinical trials on more than a billion

subjects. " Therefore, there are clearly statements of fact; 'the

spleen produces phlegm', 'shao yang is the pivot', 'liver pathology

transmits to the spleen', etc. These are observable phenomena, within

the criteria of Chinese medicine, that are reproducible in the clinic,

and treatable with specific formulae.

On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 04:16 AM, Spiritpathpress wrote:

> Lon: All CM *has* is theories that *tend* to be true. The greater the

> tendency the more long lived the theory. In Western science a theory

> is tested and

> then, eventually *proven* true or false. CM is a science of tendencies

> and there

> are no statements of fact.

August 7, 2003

'the spleen produces phlegm',

>>>>These must be viewed as images only. As clearly one can live without a spleen and organ necessary for life in CM

Alon

August 7, 2003

'the spleen produces phlegm',

>>>>These must be viewed as images only. As clearly one can live without a spleen and organ necessary for life in CM

Alon

geo> Alon, "Spleen" in CM designates the "Official" Spleen and not only the organ.

An Official is the meridians the organ and all physical, mental and emotional functions

related to that Official. Just as in the two depth system pulsology one is sensing

Officials and not organs. A person w/o Gallbladder still presents a superficial aspect

on the left middle pulse position.

So the Official Spleen will perform most of the functions pertaining to it even w/o

the organ.

August 7, 2003

Clearly, Alon, the spleen is not the same as the anatomical entity in

WM. But the functional entity which is described clearly is a fact.

On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 09:30 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

> 'the spleen produces phlegm',

> >>>>These must be viewed as images only. As clearly one can live

> without a spleen and organ necessary for life in CM

August 7, 2003

hi,

theory is the esssence & clinical is the finding of

the proof.

for ex:

we breathe & exchange gases. its a fact. in theory &

in clinical. trying to figure out what is happening is

theoritical - ie: all the gases, exchanges,

physiologicl changes, etc.

clinical is knowing that breathing makes the

difference, deep breathing makes changes & corelating

the changes to specific diseaees etc. for eg:

infection & deep breathing seems to fight chest

infection .

so clinically without worrying about the theory of

bacterial extinction we prescribe & get results. one

still needs to study the theory behind all this

anand

--- Pat Ethridge <pat.ethridge wrote: >

First of all, there is a general division in the

> West between " basic

> science " that mostly deals with theoretical science

> and " clinical science "

> that deals with medicine and it's allied fields.

> This is mainly in the

> fields of biology and biochemistry. Sometimes we

> divide sciences between

> simply " theoretical " and " applied " . I'm a " basic

> scientist " . So I'm

> always teaching first principles and then looking a

> clinical correlations

> or some other areas of applied science to exemplify

> the principles or

> theories of the science.

>

> Theory is how you proceed from first principles.

> You have a starting point

> for research or for applications. There is also a

> " culture " of research

> and applications that require you to be familiar

> with materials and

> methods. Unless you can propose materials and

> methods, you are stuck in

> the realm of first principles.

>

> Emmanuel

>

> Interestingly enough, this is how many artists work

> too. The process is

> basically the same, although obviously the goals and

> standards are

> configured according to the field. I don't see that

> there is so much

> difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of

> inquiry is the same.

>

> Pat

>

==============================================================================

> NOTE: The information in this email is confidential

> and may be legally

> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,

> you must not read, use or

> disseminate the information. Although this email

> and any attachments are

> believed to be free of any virus or other defect

> that might affect any

> computer system into which it is received and

> opened, it is the responsibility

> of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and

> no responsibility is

> accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for

> any loss or damage arising

> in any way from its use.

>

==============================================================================

>

=====

Anand Bapat

Pain Management Specialist

Sports Injury Specialist

Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville Clinics

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://uk.messenger./

August 7, 2003

So the Official Spleen will perform most of the functions pertaining to it even w/o

the organ.

>>>Like i said an image

Alon

August 7, 2003

But the functional entity which is described clearly is a fact

>>>I think it is a fact in CM, however far from being understood as one system in modern physiology. While you can kind of justify certain similarities of the spleen with some "single"systems in modern physiology. There is no stracture or system that explains the CM spleen.Now you choose to call a fact may obviously depend on your reality.

Alon

August 7, 2003

hi,

maybe we are too hung up with the western view of

everything has to happen only if its visible. for eg.

only with an organ can afunction happen. there may be

more to some of the stuff. the human body can

compensate alot. so other parts of the body may be

taking up that function.

there may be energies floating around the body that we

cannot isolate through studies.

already we know that slipped disc does not cause all

the pain from nerves. there are abaout 40% false

positives where the cat scan shows no damage but the

clician finds symptoms & we cannot fix it.

i believe cm can fix some of them

so think abit laterally & se if something comes up

anand

--- Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > So the

Official Spleen will perform most of the

> functions pertaining to it even w/o

> the organ.

> >>>Like i said an image

> Alon

=====

Anand Bapat

Pain Management Specialist

Sports Injury Specialist

Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville Clinics

______________________

Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE

Messenger http://uk.messenger./

August 8, 2003

there are abaout 40% falsepositives where the cat scan shows no damage but theclician finds symptoms & we cannot fix it.>>>>A CT or MRI only shows part of the picture. If you use the disc as an example then you need to also include discogram in the formula. Between the two you can ascertain to a very high degree if a disc is symptomatic or not. Much of disc pain is due to internal disc problems, that mostly do not show on CT or MRI. There are also many new therapies for them

Alon

August 8, 2003

Theory is how you proceed from first principles. You have a starting point for research or for applications. There is also a "culture" of research and applications that require you to be familiar with materials and methods. Unless you can propose materials and methods, you are stuck in the realm of first principles.EmmanuelInterestingly enough, this is how many artists work too. The process is basically the same, although obviously the goals and standards are configured according to the field. I don't see that there is so much difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of inquiry is the same.Pat

Pat, I'm often impressed by how often my friends in the art community wholeheartedly embrace Western sciences. Yes, the technology of applied sciences and applied art are pretty much identical. Often they take turns leading each other, no? I think since the European Renaissance this sort of symbiosis has been true. Don't you think?

However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in Western science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to seek tendencies and balances. I find they are seeking different goals. With regard to infectious disease, WM does not seek the patient's homeostasis as much as it seeks the obliteration of the pathogen. Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work on the patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you see a plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from here.

Emmanuel Segmen

August 8, 2003

I have been interested in the work of Francisco Varela (unfortunately

deceased at a young age a few years ago) for some time, and have

discussed his work on the CHA site a few years ago. His work and

studies with Mataurana were quite advanced and sophisticated, and in

the forefront of 'systems theory' approaches.

I hope his ideas survive his passing. A recent book published on a

science-Buddhism forum chaired by the Dali Lama was recently published,

by Shambhala Press, I believe. Varela played a part in this conference.

On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 05:39 PM, matt bauer wrote:

> <However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in

> Western science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note

> that Western science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to

> seek tendencies and balances. I find they are seeking different

> goals.>

>

> I believe Western science is beginning to move in a direction that is

> much closer to the principals behind . Western

> medicine however, is lagging behind other fields of modern science in

> this evolution. Consider the following quote from Fritjof Capra's " Web

> of Life - A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems " which

> comes from two neuroscientists - Mataurana and Varela - in a paper

> they wrote describing " autopoiesis " which means " self-making. " They

> developed this model to describe the self-production and regulation of

> living systems. This theory was straight Western science, based on

> mathematics following a mechanical model (no vitalism):

>

> " Yet, our problem is the living organization and therefore our

> interest will not be in properties of components, but in the processes

> and relations between the processes realized through components. "

>

> I find the above description to be as good as any for understanding

> wu-hsing the Five Phases or Elements. While organ names were used, the

> concern is with the processes and relations between the processes of

> those components. This concept is so difficult for Western

> physiologists to understand because they have been concerned with the

> properties of components such as organs, cells, etc. Only a small

> number of Western medicine researchers a looking at such " new " models.

> As the new models of modern science become better known across the

> disciplines, Oriental medicine may start to make a lot more sense to a

> lot more people.

>

> Matt Bauer

>

> -

> Emmanuel Segmen

> Chinese Medicine

> Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:48 PM

> Re: Traditional (TCM) Theory

>

> Theory is how you proceed from first principles. You have a starting

> point for research or for applications. There is also a " culture " of

> research and applications that require you to be familiar with

> materials and methods. Unless you can propose materials and methods,

> you are stuck in the realm of first principles.

>

> Emmanuel

>

> Interestingly enough, this is how many artists work too. The process

> is basically the same, although obviously the goals and standards are

> configured according to the field. I don't see that there is so much

> difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of inquiry is the same.

>

> Pat

>

> Pat, I'm often impressed by how often my friends in the art community

> wholeheartedly embrace Western sciences. Yes, the technology of

> applied sciences and applied art are pretty much identical. Often

> they take turns leading each other, no? I think since the European

> Renaissance this sort of symbiosis has been true. Don't you think?

>

> However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in

> Western science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note

> that Western science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to

> seek tendencies and balances. I find they are seeking different

> goals. With regard to infectious disease, WM does not seek the

> patient's homeostasis as much as it seeks the obliteration of the

> pathogen. Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to enhance or

> strengthen the immune system or to work on the patient's own

> homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you see a

> plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and WM

> seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from

> here.

>

> Emmanuel Segmen

>

> For practitioners, students and those interested in TCM.

>

> Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, religious,

> spam messages or flame another member.

>

> If you want to change the way you receive email message, i.e. from

> individual to a daily digest or none then visit the groups’ homepage:

> Chinese Medicine/ From

> there, click ‘edit my membership on the right hand side’ and adjust

> accordingly.

>

August 8, 2003

<However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in Western science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to seek tendencies and balances. I find they are seeking different goals.>

I believe Western science is beginning to move in a direction that is much closer to the principals behind . Western medicine however, is lagging behind other fields of modern science in this evolution. Consider the following quote from Fritjof Capra's "Web of Life - A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems" which comes from two neuroscientists - Mataurana and Varela - in a paper they wrote describing "autopoiesis" which means "self-making." They developed this model to describe the self-production and regulation of living systems. This theory was straight Western science, based on mathematics following a mechanical model (no vitalism):

"Yet, our problem is the living organization and therefore our interest will not be in properties of components, but in the processes and relations between the processes realized through components."

I find the above description to be as good as any for understanding wu-hsing the Five Phases or Elements. While organ names were used, the concern is with the processes and relations between the processes of those components. This concept is so difficult for Western physiologists to understand because they have been concerned with the properties of components such as organs, cells, etc. Only a small number of Western medicine researchers a looking at such "new" models. As the new models of modern science become better known across the disciplines, Oriental medicine may start to make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

Matt Bauer

-

Emmanuel Segmen

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:48 PM

Re: Traditional (TCM) Theory

Theory is how you proceed from first principles. You have a starting point for research or for applications. There is also a "culture" of research and applications that require you to be familiar with materials and methods. Unless you can propose materials and methods, you are stuck in the realm of first principles.EmmanuelInterestingly enough, this is how many artists work too. The process is basically the same, although obviously the goals and standards are configured according to the field. I don't see that there is so much difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of inquiry is the same.Pat

Pat, I'm often impressed by how often my friends in the art community wholeheartedly embrace Western sciences. Yes, the technology of applied sciences and applied art are pretty much identical. Often they take turns leading each other, no? I think since the European Renaissance this sort of symbiosis has been true. Don't you think?

However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in Western science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to seek tendencies and balances. I find they are seeking different goals. With regard to infectious disease, WM does not seek the patient's homeostasis as much as it seeks the obliteration of the pathogen. Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work on the patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you see a plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from here.

Emmanuel SegmenFor practitioners, students and those interested in TCM. Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, religious, spam messages or flame another member. If you want to change the way you receive email message, i.e. from individual to a daily digest or none then visit the groups’ homepage: Chinese Medicine/ From there, click ‘edit my membership on the right hand side’ and adjust accordingly.

August 8, 2003

Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work on the patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you see a plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from here.

>>>It is in cancer research

Alon

August 8, 2003

As the new models of modern science become better known across the disciplines, Oriental medicine may start to make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

Matt Bauer

Matt,

I most heartily agree with you. By referencing Fritjof Capra you are standing squarely with me on this issue of CM's influence in the West. Of course, both Capra and I are Western scientists already strongly influenced by Oriental philosophies. Capra's work is a landmark of Oriental philosophy's influence of Western thought along with Carl Jung and others. I'm but a meditation practitioner and college science instructor, but it's obvious that CM represents a larger view regarding systems interactions. That's where I love to play in my science. I playfully proposed bacterial heat shock proteins as the principle upon which human female X chromosomes shut down. Quite a stretch. I had principles, materials and methods. One year later in 1992 researchers at Stanford proposed the same principle. I'm grateful for turning in my work in 1991.

Like any creature, WM will mature and grow up. I don't know if it will take guidance or if it will need to reinvent CM for itself. I guess we'll see. We'll also see if WM can climb out of money, insurance and litigation and climb back into the vicissitudes of modern sciences. Like you, I hope that CM can have a flourishing life in the U.S. while that goes on.

Emmanuel Segmen

August 8, 2003

A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems" which comes from two neuroscientists - Mataurana and Varela - in a paper they wrote describing "autopoiesis" which means "self-making." They developed this model to describe the self-production and regulation of living systems. This theory was straight Western science, based on mathematics following a mechanical model (no vitalism):

>>>Do you have a copy of the paper?

Alon

August 8, 2003

hi,

i believe we appear to be looking at tendencies &

balances as w have vague & subjective,abstract ways of

analysing the body. we have come to the conclusion

that when we see a reddish tinge in the face it is a

sign of fire in the body. this has been confirmed over

the years -thousands. so we rely on them. we do not

need a colour matching chart. hence the vagueness &

appears to look for tendencies. but in reality its

very objective science.

rather in some terms its more objective & precise than

wm. wm changes its parameters to suit as & when they

like & thus they have achanging scenario & lots of

false positives which they do not know how to handle.

wonder what others think of this angle.

anand

--- matt bauer <acu.guy wrote: > <However, I

sense inquiry in CM is quite different

> from inquiry in Western science. I would expand

> Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western

> science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems

> to seek tendencies and balances. I find they are

> seeking different goals.>

>

> I believe Western science is beginning to move in a

> direction that is much closer to the principals

> behind . Western medicine however,

> is lagging behind other fields of modern science in

> this evolution. Consider the following quote from

> Fritjof Capra's " Web of Life - A New Scientific

> Understanding of Living Systems " which comes from

> two neuroscientists - Mataurana and Varela - in a

> paper they wrote describing " autopoiesis " which

> means " self-making. " They developed this model to

> describe the self-production and regulation of

> living systems. This theory was straight Western

> science, based on mathematics following a mechanical

> model (no vitalism):

>

> " Yet, our problem is the living organization and

> therefore our interest will not be in properties of

> components, but in the processes and relations

> between the processes realized through components. "

>

> I find the above description to be as good as any

> for understanding wu-hsing the Five Phases or

> Elements. While organ names were used, the concern

> is with the processes and relations between the

> processes of those components. This concept is so

> difficult for Western physiologists to understand

> because they have been concerned with the properties

> of components such as organs, cells, etc. Only a

> small number of Western medicine researchers a

> looking at such " new " models. As the new models of

> modern science become better known across the

> disciplines, Oriental medicine may start to make a

> lot more sense to a lot more people.

>

> Matt Bauer

>

> -

> Emmanuel Segmen

> Chinese Medicine

> Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:48 PM

> Re: Traditional

> (TCM) Theory

>

> Theory is how you proceed from first principles.

> You have a starting point for research or for

> applications. There is also a " culture " of research

> and applications that require you to be familiar

> with materials and methods. Unless you can propose

> materials and methods, you are stuck in the realm of

> first principles.

>

> Emmanuel

>

> Interestingly enough, this is how many artists

> work too. The process is basically the same,

> although obviously the goals and standards are

> configured according to the field. I don't see that

> there is so much difference in kind as in degree.

> The spirit of inquiry is the same.

>

> Pat

>

> Pat, I'm often impressed by how often my friends

> in the art community wholeheartedly embrace Western

> sciences. Yes, the technology of applied sciences

> and applied art are pretty much identical. Often

> they take turns leading each other, no? I think

> since the European Renaissance this sort of

> symbiosis has been true. Don't you think?

>

> However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different

> from inquiry in Western science. I would expand

> Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western

> science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems

> to seek tendencies and balances. I find they are

> seeking different goals. With regard to infectious

> disease, WM does not seek the patient's homeostasis

> as much as it seeks the obliteration of the

> pathogen. Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to

> enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work

> on the patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at

> Medline, and tell me if you see a plethora of

> research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM

> and WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's

> just my perspective from here.

>

> Emmanuel Segmen

>

August 8, 2003

Emmanuel wrote: Thus far our WM antibiotics do not act to enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work on the patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you see a plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from here.

>>It is in cancer research

Alon

Hi Alon,

Are you referring to the disruption of tumor vascularization? If you are, that's anti-homeostatic and imbalancing. If you are referring to something else such as T-cytotoxic cell stimulation, please share that with me. In 1989, such stimulation was proposed to fight AIDS, but I've seen no pharmaceuticals coming out nor any research to address this. Such tools would also work with regard to cancer.

Emmanuel Segmen

August 8, 2003

Reliance on imaging has been one of the biggest problems in allopathic orthopedics. And now I see LAc coming out of these trainings thinking that we need to "use standard of care" wasting tones of money on imaging that often have no relation to the patient's complaints. Instead having the physical exam dictate the need for imaging, the want to "protect" themselves for "legal" reasons. To me the danger of relaying on imaging to explain symptoms is the malpractice. I keep telling them that as a CM medical community we have a different standard of care and that we do not need to become part of the problem. Most just argue, using the brain washing they received without knowledge of the literature.

Alon

August 8, 2003

Chinese Medicine wrote :

> Message: 21 Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:13:16 -0500 " Alon Marcus "

> <alonmarcus Re: Re: Traditional (TCM)

> THeory

>

> But the functional entity which is described clearly is a fact

>

>>>> I think it is a fact in CM, however far from being understood as one system

>>>> in modern physiology. While you can kind of justify certain similarities of

>>>> the spleen with some " single " systems in modern physiology. There is no

>>>> stracture or system that explains the CM spleen.Now you choose to call a

>>>> fact may obviously depend on your reality. Alon

>>>>

These are just my own mental gymnastics for understanding the CM Spleen, but

I thought sharing might help.

My understanding of the CM spleen function is that it is the spleen plus the

pancreas in western terms (among other things). In western terms, the

pancreas is responsible for secreting many essential digestive enzymes as

well as insulin for regulating blood sugar. It seems to fit with the CM

theoretical functions of what the spleen does.

my 2¢,

-judy saxe

student, CSTCM, Denver, CO

August 8, 2003

Dear Ken,

Does the notion of a "theory" in Westernscience conform to the correspondingconcept in Chinese medicine? And vice versa?

Marco:

No, at least not letter for letter word for word since if that was so they would be even more similar in outlook and make up as healing modalities.

but,

What are the differences?

And similarities?

What are the Chinese character for theory and related (common) term usage?

most answers (that I have yet read, gives an interesting elaborate on theory as seen from westerns science but no contrast...)

The etymology would be interested and Chinese sayings and so forth...

Maybe when you have time post something on the paradigm learn Chinese list?

What Emmanuel mentions about studying everyday seams very relevant to Chinese medicine too, but for the same reasons?

It probably is an historical question in as much that the related concept may have changed with the times?

Does Chinese medicine demand theory?

As much as it demands "intrinsic" interactive "configurative" constellations of articulations of a particular dis-ease that is time and space dependent.

Marco

August 8, 2003

Chinese Medicine , " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

> All,

> >

> Does the notion of a " theory " in Western

> science conform to the corresponding

> concept in Chinese medicine? And vice versa?

>

> Thanks, for your thoughts.

>

> Ken

hi,

" lilun "

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/agrep-lindict?query=%B2z%BD%D7 & category=\

full & boo=no & ignore=on & substr=on & order=all

" li "

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/agrep-lindict?query=%b2%7a & category=full

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/

syho

August 8, 2003

Theory is how you proceed from first principles. You have a starting point

for research or for applications. There is also a " culture " of research

and applications that require you to be familiar with materials and

methods. Unless you can propose materials and methods, you are stuck in

the realm of first principles.

Emmanuel

Interestingly enough, this is how many artists work too. The process is

basically the same, although obviously the goals and standards are

configured according to the field. I don't see that there is so much

difference in kind as in degree. The spirit of inquiry is the same.

Pat

Pat, I'm often impressed by how often my friends in the art community

wholeheartedly embrace Western sciences. Yes, the technology of applied

sciences and applied art are pretty much identical. Often they take turns

leading each other, no? I think since the European Renaissance this sort

of symbiosis has been true. Don't you think?

However, I sense inquiry in CM is quite different from inquiry in Western

science. I would expand Lon's recent comments on this to note that Western

science seeks facts and standards, whereas CM seems to seek tendencies and

balances. I find they are seeking different goals. With regard to

infectious disease, WM does not seek the patient's homeostasis as much as

it seeks the obliteration of the pathogen. Thus far our WM antibiotics do

not act to enhance or strengthen the immune system or to work on the

patient's own homeostatic balances. Look at Medline, and tell me if you

see a plethora of research seeking this goal? The inquiry between CM and

WM seems fundamentally different to me. That's just my perspective from

here.

Emmanuel,

I agree that there is an interplay between the arts and sciences by which

they feed each other's development, and I agree with your distinction

between the goals of CM and WM. It is interesting (perhaps coincidental?)

to note that the emphasis in Western art on " accurate " representation,

which began to shift with the development of photography and its highly

" technical " depictions, moved more to abstraction and the balance and

harmony of interacting elements --- more like CM in its goals? As someone

else noted, about the same time (150 years or so ago) that Asian influences

began to appear more visibly in the West. I am not proposing a thesis

here, merely noting a correspondence. Maybe a shift of mind.