Communist destroy CM - notes on multiple prior messages

[Guest guest]

Sun, 29 Aug 2004 09:48:25, "

wrote:

 

>>Maybe I misreading the above, but P.U. seems quite disenchanted with TCM.

He (as others) feel that TCM somehow weeded out all of this vast amount of

knowledge and we are left with this barebones system. I have always been

puzzled by this and am still waiting to see tangible evidence of this.

 

As evidence I would suggest a) reviewing the history (ca. 1949…) of TCM, as

detailed in Kim Taylor's thesis (1/a/b), the outlines of which are also

presented by Heiner Fruehauf (2), and presumably also by Volker Scheid in a

forthcoming book (according to Z'ev); and b) a study of several specific

other traditions from within the history or CM. There are multiple sources

for the later, though perhaps not well known or readily accessible. My (as

yet limited) exposure to this kind of information is through the teachings

of Jeffery Yuen. His approach is to delve into the particular historical

schools and recreate (interpret) how they viewed the medical reality of

their time, and in light of their knowledge and understanding of previous

schools of thought. He also believes, and demonstrates, that this kind of

study results in reproducible, clinically effective methods, given a solid

understanding of the material, and the proper " intentionality " (3)

 

Two (inter-related) examples:

 

A) Channel theory in terms of other than the " primary " channels - i.e. the

sinew, Luo, divergent and 8-extraordinary channel systems -- is very sparse

in TCM. From other traditions, more in-depth understandings of these other

systems, as metaphors for the various energetic layers of physiological

(and pathological) process can be reconstructed (in clinically effective

methodologies).

 

B) The lists of acupuncture point therapeutic functions in TCM are in fact

collections of hints as to the uses of points gleaned from various

traditions and put together into the lists as we know them in our texts

(notably in " Fundamentals of Chinese Acupuncture " , by Wiseman, Ellis,

Boss). The ability to use these points to elicit the various actions listed

is greatly enhanced, perhaps made possible only by understanding the

specific viewpoint of the specific tradition(s) from which each of the

functions is derived.

 

>> Since Unschuld is a far better scholar than I, I would like him, or

someone that thinks along the same lines, explain what the communist

destroyed?

 

Dr. Unschuld uses terms such as " select from " and " reinterpret " , rather

than " destroy " . Perhaps a perspective that would help here is to see TCM as

another specific tradition, among many others, e.g. purely SuWen medicine,

or ShangHanLun approach, or one of the schools of the Song-Jin-Yuan era,

such as of one of the " 4 great masters " . And note, each of these was fully

conscious of all the preceding (and often contemporary) traditions, and

each in turn also " selected " and " reinterpreted " from that legacy.

 

>>So I ask, what is 'artificial' about TCM? I don't see the reason to bash

TCM.. Or maybe he is not and I am missing his point?

 

One point to note here is that the term " TCM " is used in various different

meanings. Notably, many use it as a rough approximation of what some term

" CM " , and even what Unschuld (and Hammer, and others) term " CTM " .

Unschuld, Taylor and increasing numbers of others, as we become more

familiar with the actual history, recognize that " TCM " as a label was

created at a specific time for specific purposes, and using the term to

represent more generic meanings lacks historical precision and engenders

confusion. (See below, under reference (1) Taylor's rationale.)

 

Unschuld could be seen as " bashing " what he considers a popular Western

trend that misunderstands both the true nature of the CM/CTM legacy and TCM

itself. He depicts this understanding of " TCM " as " creative " imagination,

projecting Western needs and aspirations onto supposed roots in Chinese

tradition. In the " Was Ist Medizin? " book (4), he compares, somewhat

provocatively, the body of Western interpreters (naming Porkert, Kaptchuk,

Macciocia, and others, which list, he emphasizes, includes no Chinese

authors) as the modern " Arabs " . This is in analogy to the period in the

late middle ages, when the documents of classical Greek medicine were

translated via Arabs authors and eventually reached Europe. (In the same

movement which brought the writings of Plato, Aristotle et al again to the

attention of Europeans in the period of the birth of the European

universities.) Unschuld's interpretation, based on detailed historical

tracing of the original Greek cultural context and subsequent cultural

periods, is that the Arabs (and the modern Western TCM interpreters) had

little idea of the true nature and meaning of what they were supposedly

conveying. As noted, this interpretation is somewhat polemical. As a

historian, he relishes the interpretive aspect as much as the " hard data "

aspect.

 

Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:45:03, " Matt Bauer " <acu.guy wrote:

 

>> China was, a perhaps remains, a much more diverse, complex, and

heterogeneous (one of Unschuld's favorite words) culture than most of us

non-scholars could imagine.

 

Kim Taylor characterizes Chinese medicine prior to ca. 1950 as " fragmented

and flexible " (1a), which resembles Unschuld's " heterogeneous " . Jeffery

Yuen has characterized Chinese medicine as encompassing " infinite

possibilities " .

 

Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:06:25, " "

wrote:

 

>>IMO, as a doctor the best way to learn the most about

(as a whole) is to PRECISLY study TCM because it represents the broadest

snapshot of the past…

 

This reminds me of a critical exchange some while back in Acupuncture

Today, where a writer who spent time studying ZhongYao (TCM herbal

medicine) in the PRC attempted to discredit another writer whose analysis

and prescriptions didn't follow the exact guidelines as the first writer

had learned them. TCM is clearly a snapshot, and granting it is also broad.

Whether it's depth of understanding does justice to the wealth of the past

(and the relevance thereof to medicine of the present and future) is not so

self-evident.

 

 

 

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.)

 

1a) From the Introduction, page 6:

 

" My hypothesis is therefore that the 'Traditional ', or

'TCM' with which we are familiar today is strictly a 1950s phenomenon. The

transition from an imperial to a Communist system in the mid-20th century

was on such a scale that there was in general a complete re-invention of

the past - in other words the continuity between medicine of the past and

present was broken. What had been a fragmented and flexible medicine,

largely based on oral tradition and functioning according to the value

system of an imperial regime, now became a unified and controlled medicine,

based on written texts, and functioning according to the value system of a

Communist government. Chinese medicine in CCP China was shaped and ordered

to criteria specific to this new culture. Alternative practices could only

continue on the periphery of state-approved 'normal' practice. "

 

1b) And later, page 146-147:

 

" Clearly, as Scheid has pointed out, there is no point of total

'transition' from Chinese medicine to 'TCM'. My argument is simply that it

is a modern subset of contemporary Chinese medicine. As such, the term must

be handled carefully, and I would like to discourage any tendencies to

simply use the term 'TCM', as some scholars have, as a " conventional

shorthand for Chinese medicine today, distinguishing present practice from

the tradition in its original historical settings. " [footnoted to Furth,

Charlotte, A Flourishing Yin: Gender in China's Medical History, 960-1655,

Berkeley, Univ of Calif, 1999].

 

" I will therefore adopt the convention of using the acronym of 'TCM' to

describe modern-day Chinese medicine within CCP China since 1955. I believe

that it is heuristically useful to make this distinction of TCM as a very

particular form of Chinese medicine (zhongyi), because it allows a certain

consensus among scholars. My usage o the term TCM will thus be carefully

applied when I refer specifically to such a government-created,

institution-bound medicine. When I refer to the medicine in general, I

shall continue to use the term 'Chinese medicine' (zhongyi).

 

" I defend my suggestion for this specific usage of the term 'TCM' on three

counts. The first is that the term 'TCM' was derived itself from its

setting in Communist China, first used, as I have just described, during

the year 1955. I thus believe that the term should remain constant to its

original purpose and meaning. The second is that there are distinct

differences between a medicine which is internally motivated (i.e. such as

by Chinese medical professionals with a livelihood to protect during the

Nationalist Period), and a medicine which is externally motivated (i.e. as

during CCP China when the medicine was supported largely because of merits

other than its therapeutic value). And thirdly, it would be to ignore the

various political, economic and social pressures which influenced the

theoretical format of the medicine. As has been argued in this thesis, the

1950s exerted unprecedented constraints on the very concept of Chinese

medicine, and it is my view that this mark has been indelibly stamped on

to the extent that it has become a household name, can be referred to

as a 'great treasure-house' and its global success are direct results of

the influence of the CCP and its handling of Chinese medicine. I thus think

it is wiser to regard TCM in CCP China as unique.

 

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).

 

3 " MEDICINE IS SIGNIFICATION " - MOVING TOWARDS HEALING POWER IN THE CHINESE

MEDICAL TRADITION; Volker Scheid Ph.D. and Dan Bensky D.O. reprinted by

permission of the European Journal of Oriental Medicine. (I have somewhere

a website reference to this article, but can't find it offhand.)

 

4) Unschuld PU, Was Ist Medizin? - Westliche und oestliche Wege der

Heilkunst ( " What is Medicine? - Western and Eastern Paths of Healing Art " ).

C.H.Beck, Munich, 2003. ISBN 3 406 502245. (Unfortunately, this book is

available as yet only in German. I have inquired of Dr. Unschuld if a

translation into English is underway, with no reply as yet. I believe it

should be available and read by medical professionals, east or west,

interested in the history of and nature of their or any medicine.)

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine ,

<@w...> wrote:

 

 

Although I appreciate the below examples, I am only discussing and

curious about (as stated previously) the literary herbal traditions...

If some support from this angle I welcome it immensely..

 

 

-

 

>

> Two (inter-related) examples:

>

> A) Channel theory in terms of other than the " primary " channels -

i.e. the

> sinew, Luo, divergent and 8-extraordinary channel systems -- is very

sparse

> in TCM. From other traditions, more in-depth understandings of these

other

> systems, as metaphors for the various energetic layers of physiological

> (and pathological) process can be reconstructed (in clinically effective

> methodologies).

>

> B) The lists of acupuncture point therapeutic functions in TCM are

in fact

> collections of hints as to the uses of points gleaned from various

> traditions and put together into the lists as we know them in our texts

> (notably in " Fundamentals of Chinese Acupuncture " , by Wiseman, Ellis,

> Boss). The ability to use these points to elicit the various actions

listed

> is greatly enhanced, perhaps made possible only by understanding the

> specific viewpoint of the specific tradition(s) from which each of the

> functions is derived.