Call for comments (Bob X)

[Guest guest]

Bob Xu,

 

You asked for wide ranging comments and feedback. I tried to offered some

documented historical evidence and interpretation. I apologize if it

strikes you as offensive.

 

In a sense, " changing the issue " , or at least considering a number of

additional, related issues, is very likely crucial if you wish to carry on

fruitful dialog of your theme(s) in a Western context.

 

One of the problems we have in the West is that of legitimating our field,

at various levels, in the given cultural, academic and clinical dynamics.

On the one hand, I am well aware that the sense of " history " in Chinese

culture is very different than our dominant sense of scientific history,

and in it's own cultural context, the Chinese sense may well have

legitimacy. But in a Western context, this kind of historical approach is

considered mythic, downright false. The problem is that representing

history (truth or facts, as you put it) in that way exposes our field to

being easily and quickly discredited by our opponents, who are also

potential our allies and colleagues.

 

Conformity with the dominant rational or scientific standards of discourse

and evidence, in, among others, the areas of historical representation and

theoretical as well as clinical validation (research) is prerequisite being

a serious player in the Western cultural context.

 

On another level, a very practical political one, outright attacks on the

foundations of other alternative traditions or modalities (e.g.

chiropractic, naturopathy, etc.) can make life unnecessarily difficult for

our profession. (I believe the approach you are taking with reference to

these other professions would be most certainly perceived by them as

attacking.)

 

In most every State (in the USA), there are the ongoing struggles to get

legislation passed to legitimate or further expand the scope of our

profession. At every stage of the way, deals must be struck with the often

formidable lobbying efforts of the professional organizations of the other

medical professions. Not only legislation relating to A/OM

(acupuncture/oriental medicine, as is one of the most common labels for our

profession in the USA), but our lobbying efforts must be present also in

the legislative process resulting in laws governing the other professions.

 

For example, recent A/OM legislation in California involved countering

efforts by the CMA (California's equivalent of the national AMA) to

restrict us (with mixed success). Conversely, our lobby, as well as those

of the chiropractors and of the MDs were actively involved in recent

legislation which, for the first time, legitimizes naturopathy in this

State. The naturopathic law, as initially drafted, designated them as

" physicians " , which the MD lobby promptly quashed (replacing " physician "

everywhere with " doctor " ). The original text of the law would have

empowered naturopaths to substantively practice chiropractic manipulations

AND ALSO acupuncture. The A/OM and chiropractic associations had to act

decisively to ward that off (which they did successfully). And this process

is unending - even if a profession as achieved its desired legal status, it

must continuously ward off attempts by others to chip away at it.

 

So there's a certain delicately balanced dynamic, within which one has to

chose one's battles judiciously, and often cutting reciprocal deals with

other players.

 

Politics in China is quite different. Not that there's not some degree of

in-fighting there, but dominance and authority are much more centralized

and assertive (and on the basis of a very long tradition). I'm sense is

that much of what you are putting forth is unconsciously assuming that sort

of context. That approach is not likely to be effective in this Western

context. And it is extremely unlikely that the West is about to be

converted to Chinese norms.

 

I hope these comments are more helpful for you.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris, Bob, Z'ev and others on this thread,

 

I can support all of the views and find myself wanting to applaud all and also

caution all.

 

Bob, even in quite recent times the collegial " theft " that you describe is

regularly carried out by Russian and other researchers who read the Chinese

characters and thus the recent scientific studies on such things as Ci Wu Jia

(Eleuthero root) and Hong Jing Tian (Rhodiola - not rosea but actually

sachalinensis). Both of these are researched by the Chinese and also

wildcrafted in China. Oddly Russians were able to promote these herbs in Europe

after cultivating them and testing them on their own land. I've seen many other

examples where people don't realize that the origins of certain things are

actually Chinese, but then our scientists don't read Chinese characters ... so

Chinese research seems " invisible " . I've been working in areas that rely on

Chinese information from their own sources, so I can readily empathize with the

frustration that you must feel. I've had some of those feelings of frustration,

too. I have asked Robert Moore of the FDA why he trusts the German and Japanese

research on aristolochic acid containing herbs and not the Chinese research in

the 1980s that coined the terminology used by the Germans and Japanese.

 

On the other hand I'm also well aware that every valley and geographical region

of the world including southeastern Europe where my own people come from have

their indigenous oral traditions of herbal medicine. It relies on the millennia

in which various peoples have lived in various valleys or geographical regions.

It, of course, relies also on the plants that grow in those places ... plants

that are often unique to that geography and ecology. I have plants from my

great grandmother's nearby meadow that grow in my sister's garden now. They are

part of my great grandmother's medicine. She was a lineage herbalist.

 

It's my understanding that Chinese medicine from any particular era is a process

of local oral traditions entering into literary traditions. Humans transmitted

their cultures by oral traditions before they entered into literary traditions.

From what my own colleagues see in current times by traveling among the various

Chinese growers and wildcrafters in many provinces of China, it is likely that

what has come into the present literary tradition of the more modern TCM is a

distillate of many regional oral traditions ... actually a distillate of

literary traditions that came originally from oral traditions. No doubt where

ever the heads of state lived in any given century, the local herbal masters and

herbal growers provided their traditional medicine. There were so many

influences beyond the simple conversion of oral traditions to written

traditions. Unschuld notes with many others that Taoist tradition conflicted

with Confucianist tradition, and so on. The literary traditions alone have gone

through many undulations and revolutions.

 

My sense is that if you look at any specific geographical area, you'll see an

indigenous medicine unique to that place ... yet also influenced by those who

passed through. Tibetan medicine of one period might be influenced by some

aspect of CM (there are so many possible influences), yet Tibetan medicine has

its own unique pharmacopoeia that is based on region plants.

 

I assume that you are not suggesting the Thracian tribes of 1300 BC that

occupied my great grandmother's valley, used the local plants to practice

Chinese medicine. I must assume based on a unique regional ecology that the

local plants and the local customs might have been at least moderately unique to

that valley. Ultimately humans are " grounded " in the ecology of their regions.

 

As you might imagine, feeling robbed by your colleague certainly works both

ways, no? Not that Thracian or indigenous Bulgarian medicine is even remotely

similar to the achievement of CM. In fact to my knowledge, my people's oral

traditions never enjoyed a period of written tradition. At any rate, Bob, I

strongly empathize with your views, but also caution you about generalizing.

Many of us here on list I sense would agree with you that CM has influenced

(nominally or even deeply) many of the surrounding cultural medicines.

 

Respectfully,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

Bob Xu,

 

You asked for wide ranging comments and feedback. I tried to offered some

documented historical evidence and interpretation. I apologize if it

strikes you as offensive.

 

In a sense, " changing the issue " , or at least considering a number of

additional, related issues, is very likely crucial if you wish to carry on

fruitful dialog of your theme(s) in a Western context.

 

One of the problems we have in the West is that of legitimating our field,

at various levels, in the given cultural, academic and clinical dynamics.

On the one hand, I am well aware that the sense of " history " in Chinese

culture is very different than our dominant sense of scientific history,

and in it's own cultural context, the Chinese sense may well have

legitimacy. But in a Western context, this kind of historical approach is

considered mythic, downright false. The problem is that representing

history (truth or facts, as you put it) in that way exposes our field to

being easily and quickly discredited by our opponents, who are also

potential our allies and colleagues.

 

Conformity with the dominant rational or scientific standards of discourse

and evidence, in, among others, the areas of historical representation and

theoretical as well as clinical validation (research) is prerequisite being

a serious player in the Western cultural context.

 

On another level, a very practical political one, outright attacks on the

foundations of other alternative traditions or modalities (e.g.

chiropractic, naturopathy, etc.) can make life unnecessarily difficult for

our profession. (I believe the approach you are taking with reference to

these other professions would be most certainly perceived by them as

attacking.)

 

In most every State (in the USA), there are the ongoing struggles to get

legislation passed to legitimate or further expand the scope of our

profession. At every stage of the way, deals must be struck with the often

formidable lobbying efforts of the professional organizations of the other

medical professions. Not only legislation relating to A/OM

(acupuncture/oriental medicine, as is one of the most common labels for our

profession in the USA), but our lobbying efforts must be present also in

the legislative process resulting in laws governing the other professions.

 

For example, recent A/OM legislation in California involved countering

efforts by the CMA (California's equivalent of the national AMA) to

restrict us (with mixed success). Conversely, our lobby, as well as those

of the chiropractors and of the MDs were actively involved in recent

legislation which, for the first time, legitimizes naturopathy in this

State. The naturopathic law, as initially drafted, designated them as

" physicians " , which the MD lobby promptly quashed (replacing " physician "

everywhere with " doctor " ). The original text of the law would have

empowered naturopaths to substantively practice chiropractic manipulations

AND ALSO acupuncture. The A/OM and chiropractic associations had to act

decisively to ward that off (which they did successfully). And this process

is unending - even if a profession as achieved its desired legal status, it

must continuously ward off attempts by others to chip away at it.

 

So there's a certain delicately balanced dynamic, within which one has to

chose one's battles judiciously, and often cutting reciprocal deals with

other players.

 

Politics in China is quite different. Not that there's not some degree of

in-fighting there, but dominance and authority are much more centralized

and assertive (and on the basis of a very long tradition). I'm sense is

that much of what you are putting forth is unconsciously assuming that sort

of context. That approach is not likely to be effective in this Western

context. And it is extremely unlikely that the West is about to be

converted to Chinese norms.

 

I hope these comments are more helpful for you.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chris,

 

 

 

In the beginning, I was considering to get more info on the contents

relationships and temporal relationships between CM and other medicines (these

are very crucial to our project), and was unprepared for the many other issues

raised in your first comment. Here, I also apologize if I reacted over

straightforward to your first message.

 

 

 

You mentioned:

 

¡°In a sense, " changing the issue " , or at least considering a number of

additional, related issues, is very likely crucial if you wish to carry on

fruitful dialog of your theme(s) in a Western context.

 

One of the problems we have in the West is that of legitimating our field,

at various levels, in the given cultural, academic and clinical dynamics.

On the one hand, I am well aware that the sense of " history " in Chinese

culture is very different than our dominant sense of scientific history,

and in it's own cultural context, the Chinese sense may well have

legitimacy. But in a Western context, this kind of historical approach is

considered mythic, downright false. The problem is that representing

history (truth or facts, as you put it) in that way exposes our field to

being easily and quickly discredited by our opponents, who are also

potential our allies and colleagues.¡±

 

 

 

I agree with you that this is a very common situation in the dialogue between

the East and the West. There are many miscommunications and misunderstandings

when the East and the West use the same term. This may largely be attributed

to:

 

 

 

(1) Language Barrier

 

 

 

Many words in Chinese have no exact counterpart in English. When one attempts

to translate the Chinese word with an exact English term, most likely, it has

distorted the original meaning in one way or another. The most famous examples

are yin, yang, and qi. If one trys to use an exact English term to translate

yin, yang, and qi, it most likely will distort the original meaning of yin,

yang, and qi.

 

 

 

However, only a few such terms are kept in pin yin form. Most others are still

translated into exact English terms. For example, xin etc. zang fu organs were

translated into heart etc. This translation has seriously distorted the

original meaning of the zang xiang theory. Examples like this are many. The

translation of one word distorts one meaning. The translation of a book may

distort entire theory and create a new concept when the East and West use the

" same " term.

 

 

 

(2) Cultural Barrier

 

 

 

Many times, there are many subtle meanings in Chinese words that deeply rooted

in the Chinese culture. During translation, many of such subtle meanings got

lost or distorted. This is another reason that may cause ¡°changing the

issue¡± when East and West use the ¡°same¡± term.

 

 

 

(3) Non-practitioner Translating

 

 

 

Good CMDs in China either don¡¯t know English, or don¡¯t have time to translate

books. Translators usually have more background training in English, and are

not expert in CM. This causes another phenomenon that the translated books are

finally determined by the translator. It more represents the translator¡¯s

understandings than the original book¡¯s meanings.

 

 

 

(4) Misunderstanding about ancient CM books

 

 

 

Ancient CM books are very difficult even for most contemporary Chinese. Even

among CMDs, there are still many controversies on the original meanings of

ancient CM books (including Neijing). This causes another challenge to the

translators who are less familiar with ancient CM, and may have more difficulty

to translate the original text accurately. Thus, most likely, the translation

represents the translator¡¯s understandings rather than the original meanings of

the book.

 

 

 

(5) Incomplete Translations

 

 

 

There are cases where what the West get from translation are only a part of the

situation in China. There are many other info un-translated. So when East and

West use the " same " term, the term most likely refer to different meanings to

the East (based complete info) and the West (based on partial info).

 

 

 

(6) Delayed Translations

 

 

 

This occurs more to translations on China and Chinese culture, which affect CM

too. Many translations about China are so outdated that even contemporary

Chinese are unfamiliar with the contents. However, for the West, because the

translation is new, and they thought that¡¯s what in China now. This has

generated many misunderstandings due to the temporal gap.

 

 

 

(7) Other Factors

 

 

 

There might be other causes that may distort the translation process.

 

 

 

Above situations apply not only to the translation of CM, but also to the

translation of China, Chinese culture, etc.

 

 

 

Considering the scarcity of the translated books in English, one distorted

translation may be amplified by other English version books that refer to the

translated book. The following books took it for granted that the translated

book has kept fidelity in translation. Finall, the amplification process has

changed the original meaning so significant that a new concept (topic, issue)

may be generated when we use the " same " term. When people list CM references,

many of the books are amplified books, which may originate from the same

original mis-translated book.

 

 

 

As a result, many times, what the English-speaking world get about China,

Chinese culture, and CM are very different from what we know in China. What the

West get about China, Chinese culture, and CM are what the West ¡°think or

believe¡± rather than what actually is in China.

 

 

 

You raise another issue: ¡°On another level, a very practical political one,

outright attacks on the

foundations of other alternative traditions or modalities (e.g.

chiropractic, naturopathy, etc.) can make life unnecessarily difficult for

our profession. (I believe the approach you are taking with reference to

these other professions would be most certainly perceived by them as

attacking.) ¡±

 

 

 

This is a very good question we will face, and is what I have been concerning

since the beginning of the Unified Medicine project. I have no intention,

interests, and time to launch wars on other alternative medicines. The Unified

Medicine project is not aimed to attack other alternative medicines either.

 

 

 

One of the main considerations of the Unified Medicine project arise from the

fact that due to historical reasons, the normal due process of scientific

scrutiny for a ¡°new¡± medicine (chiropractic, nauropathy, etc.) had not been

pursued. Those medicines are similar to part of CM, and they were formed much

later than CM. These evidences are enough to call for rigorous scientific

scrutiny on their claims as a ¡°new¡± medicine.

 

 

 

However, at the era when these medicines were formed, there was no mechanism to

implement the scientific scrutiny on them internationally. Therefore,

historical gaps had been generated in medical history. These historical gaps,

if left there, may undermine the integrity of science and medicine. So one goal

of the Unified Medicine project is to call for international community (in

medicine, science, and history) to fill up the historical gaps.

 

 

 

Overall, the Unified Medicine project will only raise questions. It will not

draw final conclusions on other alternative medicines. It will leave the

international community (historians, medical historians, scientists, doctors,

and practitioners of all related fields) to make final conclusions after the

rigorous scientific scrutiny has been completed.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there is another goal in the Unified Medicine project, which

is different from above controversy issues. You may get to know that after we

publish the project.

 

 

 

Anyway, I appreciate your comments and am glad about the results of our

discussions.

 

 

 

Bob Xu

[Guest guest]

I entirely agree that it is important to further research that is

considered valid by western medicine standards, which would mean

double blind trials for herbs and single blind for acupuncture. If

we have replicable, valid research supporting the efficacy of TCM, it

will be much easier to get favorable legislation for TCM, more

widespread insurance coverage, and more ammo against people who want

to knock chinese medicine! I noticed that some of my best

instructors at school to pattern differentiation but ALSO take into

account research (and these are Asian practitioners from China!)

Chinese medicine has had a long history and that includes lots of

changes and discoveries. Allopaths change their treatment protocol

when research has found a better way. Auricular acupuncture is

unique to the 20th century, and so is electro-stim. A well designed

research study is a boon to TCM : )

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, one of the greatest physicians of all Chinese history,

Li Shih-zhen, compiled his Ben cao cang mu/Comprehensive Materia Medica

largely from local, native traditions all over China. It took him

thirty years to do this, back in the 18th century.

 

As you know, Emmanuel, I and a group of fellow practitioners will be

undertaking a similar quest to rediscover native herbalism next month

in Taos, N.M. We will spend time in the mountains and canyons with

native medical plants, and study Chinese and Southwestern U.S. materia

medicas to find some common ground. I'll report back on our adventures

upon my return.

 

 

On Jul 15, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

 

> It's my understanding that Chinese medicine from any particular era is

> a process of local oral traditions entering into literary traditions.

> Humans transmitted their cultures by oral traditions before they

> entered into literary traditions. From what my own colleagues see in

> current times by traveling among the various Chinese growers and

> wildcrafters in many provinces of China, it is likely that what has

> come into the present literary tradition of the more modern TCM is a

> distillate of many regional oral traditions ... actually a distillate

> of literary traditions that came originally from oral traditions. No

> doubt where ever the heads of state lived in any given century, the

> local herbal masters and herbal growers provided their traditional

> medicine. There were so many influences beyond the simple conversion

> of oral traditions to written traditions. Unschuld notes with many

> others that Taoist tradition conflicted with Confucianist tradition,

> and so on. The literary tra!

> ditions alone have gone through many undulations and revolutions.

[Guest guest]

This sounds like a very interesting project, and I for one would love

to be informed of its progress. I agree that a clear, accurate

presentation of Chinese and other traditional medicines such as

Tibetan, Mongolian and Ayurveda is necessary. However, it sounds like

it will take years and millions of dollars in subsidies to pull off

such a high quality venture. Please report back to us on this, Bob.

 

 

On Jul 15, 2004, at 5:44 PM, Bob Xu wrote:

 

>

> One of the main considerations of the Unified Medicine project arise

> from the fact that due to historical reasons, the normal due process

> of scientific scrutiny for a ¡°new¡± medicine (chiropractic,

> nauropathy, etc.) had not been pursued. Those medicines are similar

> to part of CM, and they were formed much later than CM. These

> evidences are enough to call for rigorous scientific scrutiny on their

> claims as a ¡°new¡± medicine.

>

>

>

> However, at the era when these medicines were formed, there was no

> mechanism to implement the scientific scrutiny on them

> internationally. Therefore, historical gaps had been generated in

> medical history. These historical gaps, if left there, may undermine

> the integrity of science and medicine. So one goal of the Unified

> Medicine project is to call for international community (in medicine,

> science, and history) to fill up the historical gaps.

>

>

>

> Overall, the Unified Medicine project will only raise questions. It

> will not draw final conclusions on other alternative medicines. It

> will leave the international community (historians, medical

> historians, scientists, doctors, and practitioners of all related

> fields) to make final conclusions after the rigorous scientific

> scrutiny has been completed.

>

>

>

> On the other hand, there is another goal in the Unified Medicine

> project, which is different from above controversy issues. You may

> get to know that after we publish the project.

>

>

>

> Anyway, I appreciate your comments and am glad about the results of

> our discussions.

>

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel,

 

You have bought up many good points here. I agree with them all in general.

 

Especially, you pointed out the differences between the oral traditions vs. the

literary traditions. This is a very important issue that will help historians

and medical historians in their search for the beginning of CM. The earlier

stage development of CM (the era before the formation of Neijing etc.) most

likely existed in the format of, as you called, oral traditions. The Neijing,

the literary traditions in your words, was a distillate of many regional oral

traditions existed long time before Neijing. How long did the CM oral

traditions last? How did they evolve into the literary traditions (Neijing

etc.)? These are very good questions to be pursued and answered by historians

and medical historians on the earlier stage of CM development. You have made

very good inputs here.

 

Also, I appreciate your empathy and caution, which I will definitely keep in

mind.

 

Again, thank you for your comments and feedbacks.

 

Bob Xu

[Guest guest]

I will, Z'ev.

 

 

Bob Xu

 

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

This sounds like a very interesting project, and I for one would love

to be informed of its progress. I agree that a clear, accurate

presentation of Chinese and other traditional medicines such as

Tibetan, Mongolian and Ayurveda is necessary. However, it sounds like

it will take years and millions of dollars in subsidies to pull off

such a high quality venture. Please report back to us on this, Bob.

[Guest guest]

Z¡¯ev,

 

I admire your endeavors. Nowadays, not too many CM practitioners are as

dedicated as Li Shi Zheng. Today, CM does not lack practitioners. What it lacks

are contemporary Li Shi Zheng, Hua Tuo, Bian Que, Zhang Zhong Jing, etc.

Bob Xu

 

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

Interestingly, one of the greatest physicians of all Chinese history,

Li Shih-zhen, compiled his Ben cao cang mu/Comprehensive Materia Medica

largely from local, native traditions all over China. It took him

thirty years to do this, back in the 18th century.

 

As you know, Emmanuel, I and a group of fellow practitioners will be

undertaking a similar quest to rediscover native herbalism next month

in Taos, N.M. We will spend time in the mountains and canyons with

native medical plants, and study Chinese and Southwestern U.S. materia

medicas to find some common ground. I'll report back on our adventures

upon my return.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Until we aspire to these heights, they will be unattainable. In order

to have great teachers like these, we need to teach Chinese medical

history and about the great physicians whose lives are examples to

inspire us to grow to these levels.

 

 

On Jul 17, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Bob Xu wrote:

 

> Z¡¯ev,

>

> I admire your endeavors. Nowadays, not too many CM practitioners are

> as dedicated as Li Shi Zheng. Today, CM does not lack practitioners.

> What it lacks are contemporary Li Shi Zheng, Hua Tuo, Bian Que, Zhang

> Zhong Jing, etc.

> Bob Xu

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122