importance of Chinese language / The real medicine??? (Jason)

[Guest guest]

Comments on comments by

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:52:58, and Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:06:28

 

One thing to understand about contemporary China, is that anti-religiosity,

so to speak, is religiously adhered to. To broaden that a bit,

anti-anything outside of dialectical materialism (aka " KeXue " - " science " )

is politically, morally incorrect. I grant you, it's really not about

communism. (The CCP is less " communist " , as we in the West tend to react to

it, and more just another dynasty, as dedicated to absolute power as so

many that have gone before it.) It's about hard-core neo-confucian values,

with the traditional unconditional fealty toward the father and family

firmly redirected toward the state. This profoundly shapes the lives and

belief systems of those born and educated in the PRC in the last 50 years,

i.e. most of the people alive there today. Qualification: what Chinese may

personally believe, discuss among themselves, etc. privately is

considerably more varied - they're a smart and humane people. But in

public, and when talking to foreigners, not toeing the line can be

hazardous to their health (or worse, their family's reputation).

 

> >it is not the mainstream. I can't think of one Chinese person I have

met that agrees with this and yes I have asked many.

 

Of course they won't agree. They are unaware of it. And most of those who

have some glimmering beyond their indoctrination would be unlikely to admit

it.

 

> >TCM, was formed by taking the most important practical knowledge from

top doctors from all over the country and putting it all together. The sum

is much more than the individual is and was the thought process. TCM,

includes about 10 diagnostic systems as a whole (i.e. 4 portion, 6

divisions etc etc) - Apprenticeships prior to this might only have 1-2 ways

of looking at things, now there are so many ways.

 

What you are describing is a Ming dynasty phenomenon, putting all available

traditional knowledge together in big books - not to be confused with

theoretically unifying it all. (And Ming literature includes at least as

much on demonology and other stuff.) TCM took Ming information, filtered it

down and " modernized " to fit political goals. (1)

 

Historically, TCM (a term invented ca. 1956, translating for the West the

term " ZhongYi " , also invented shortly before) is a specific tradition among

many in Chinese medicine over two millennia, all sharing, to one degree or

another, a common theoretical framework. The " tradition " of TCM is about 50

years old. (1)(2). This is established historical " fact " , i.e.

exhaustively evidenced interpretation of the events in the last century.

 

The total rationalization (into Western style logic and away from what you

call " intangible " , Took place in the 20th century. There were precursors,

Chinese medical figures in the Qing and Republic eras, to this explicitly

Westernized rationalization. But there were throughout these periods, and

persisting today throughout China, deep attachment to ancestor rites and

demonology, as well as deeper, more philosophical, " spiritual " (not

necessarily religious) traditions. Sample evidence: 1) Wall Street Journal

article, mid 2003, on the social consequences of the SARS epidemic. The

families of dead victims were devastated by denial of normative, morally

mandatory practices within the family for caring for dying members, and

denied traditional burial --800 or so families now and for generations are

plagued by " hungery ghosts " . 2) Accounts of the official rhetoric from

Beijing attacking the people in HongKong fighting for democratic values,

labeling them as demonic.

 

> >Maybe the TCM one learned (in the USA) was cut short and this is hard to

see, but TCM as a whole is arguable much much more comprehensive than

anything in the past!

 

You can argue that, but the historical evidence doesn't support it. More

accurate would be: CM as a whole (as summation of the past) is more

comprehensive (than TCM).

 

> > I think it is just historically wrong to think that the communist

somehow destroyed the `real medicine' - this is what I think you are saying

in your above quote, am I wrong?

 

TCM is a pretty good system - standardized, well-organized, clinically

useful, etc. -- but limited, and one among many others of Chinese medicine,

which are also clinically useful.

 

References:

 

1) Taylor K. Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist

China (1945-1963). unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge (UK), 2000.

(According to Dr. Taylor, this is to be published 2004 or 2005. Copies of

the dissertation can be obtained through the Needham Research Institute

(UK) - reachable on the internet via Google search.)

 

2) Fruehauf H, in Crisis: Science, Politics, and the

Making of " TCM " . Journal of , 61.. (reachable at

http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles.phtml, in either PDF or text/html

format).