Guest guest Posted October 1, 2003 Report Share Posted October 1, 2003 Z'ev, Emmanuel, Sammy and others, I wasn't going to post this, but Sammy made me do it. I have to admit that I have no idea what cross cultural relativism is or even might be. Just a brief comment, more or less along the lines that I've been on about for a while. I've always felt like there's an occult trap that I'm in danger of falling into whenever I try and figure out correspondences between ancient Chinese anatomical/physiological structures/functions and supposedly equivalent cognates in the terms of modern biomedical sciences. For one thing, it tends to forward a " we " and " them " orientation that, in the end, we only have to work our ways out of anyhow...or remain isolated by what is essentially colonial thinking. This is more or less the same problem I've always had with Needham's work, which seems to pose again and again a question that obviously served as a theme in the orgnanization of his research and writing, namely: The Chinese were so advanced at such an early period of history, why didn't they evolve into Englishmen? The trap is a matter of focus, of point of view that we operate from or with while doing the work of establishing such correspondences. I'm not saying that anyone has fallen into this trap. I'm just taking this opportunity to express my thoughts about it and to ask for yours in return. Another perhaps more obvious aspect of the trap is when we wind up putting modern words (along with their contexts) into the mouths of long dead individuals who could not possibly have " meant " what the words that we've figured out mean. Meaning always and only comes with context, and jettisoning the contexts of ancient terms in order to match them up with contemporary ideas and words always seems to come with this danger of winding us up pounding square pegs into round holes. I am in no way against the orientation process. I'm not saying that whatever ancients were looking at can be understood in modern terms. Of course it can. It is all a natural extension of the whole terminology issue. My point is simply that when we begin to expand beyond the layers of the words and terms themselves to the structures and functions that they were coined and used to describe, well, we'd better take even greater care. It's very easy to make assumptions about ancient Chinese characters, words, terms, etc. And from my own experience, as with most of my assumptions about most everything, most of my assumptions about ancient Chinese are wrong as well. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Ken, I agree with you all the way. I don't think, however, I was trying to make a one-on- one correspondence of classical Chinese concepts of essence chamber with prostates or seminal vesicles. As you've noted, it would be hard to tell. However, within each context, Chinese medicine and biomedicine, we can relate the concepts within the integrity of each system, and compare notes and data in that way. Chinese Medicine , " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote: > Z'ev, Emmanuel, Sammy and others, > > I wasn't going to post this, but > Sammy made me do it. I have to > admit that I have no idea what > cross cultural relativism is or > even might be. > > Just a brief comment, more or less along > the lines that I've been on about for a > while. I've always felt like there's an > occult trap that I'm in danger of falling > into whenever I try and figure out correspondences > between ancient Chinese anatomical/physiological > structures/functions and supposedly equivalent > cognates in the terms of modern biomedical sciences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 Chinese Medicine , " kenrose " wrote: I've always felt like there's an > occult trap that I'm in danger of falling > into whenever I try and figure out correspondences > between ancient Chinese anatomical/physiological > structures/functions and supposedly equivalent > cognates in the terms of modern biomedical sciences. >>> Ken: No doubt there are traps; it would be folly to assume a one-to-one correspondence. But in order to clinically apply CM, we have to do some translation of terms, structures, anatomy, etc. We have to start somewhere and act. If there are errors then they can be corrected. I've written at length about some of those clinical correspondences in pulse diagnosis, using a systems approach inherent to the Dong Han system. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2003 Report Share Posted October 2, 2003 hi sammy, i am sure you agree that CM does not have 1:1 correspondence. physiologically CM looks at the functioning of the body from energic point of view. just as they do not have all the parts of the GI system or details of kidneys in alll its micro structures or the brain in all its smaller parts/segments, i believe that CM looks at the function & reflects the function of the part in all the diagnostic signs. they may not segregate prostate function a such with a title but function may be described as some form of kid,jing function through diagnostic signs & ways. i have not looked at detailed diagnostic signs for prostate but if you want me to i cna have alook. they should be under liver, kidney signs & symptoms. wonder whether this helps anand --- zrosenberg2001 <zrosenbe wrote: > Ken, > I agree with you all the way. I don't think, > however, I was trying to make a one-on- > one correspondence of classical Chinese concepts of > essence chamber with prostates > or seminal vesicles. As you've noted, it would be > hard to tell. However, within each > context, Chinese medicine and biomedicine, we can > relate the concepts within the > integrity of each system, and compare notes and data > in that way. > > > > Chinese Medicine , > " kenrose2008 " > <kenrose2008> wrote: > > Z'ev, Emmanuel, Sammy and others, > > > > I wasn't going to post this, but > > Sammy made me do it. I have to > > admit that I have no idea what > > cross cultural relativism is or > > even might be. > > > > Just a brief comment, more or less along > > the lines that I've been on about for a > > while. I've always felt like there's an > > occult trap that I'm in danger of falling > > into whenever I try and figure out correspondences > > between ancient Chinese anatomical/physiological > > structures/functions and supposedly equivalent > > cognates in the terms of modern biomedical > sciences. > > > ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville 0402 472 897 ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://mail.messenger..co.uk 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.