The transmission of CM (was: Response to Geoffrey, as literary vs oral etc.)

[Guest guest]

Recently reading Donald Harper's " study " part of the MaWangDui (MWD) book

(1), in the section " Readership and Transmission " (2) I found fascinating

historical tidbits and concepts that pertain to the general topic -

classics/books/scholarship vs oral transmission and practice. And this

leads off in directions I see as suggested in Matt Bauer's recent message.

 

He (Harper) begins quoting the concluding passage in one of the texts

(MSI.C, one of the couple on the then nascent vessel theory): " … let it be

written and thoroughly studied. Pupils, be devoted and respectful. Study

[some uncertain characters] words, it is imperative to investigate them. "

 

The meaning, or possibilities thereof, Harper investigates further by

examining what we know and can deduce about what these manuscripts are, who

had them, how they got them, etc. And comparing this with, for instance,

the account of Chunyu Yi's description of how he got his knowledge (as

recorded in the ShiJi, or official Han biography).

 

Often through the history of CM one finds descriptions of how a master

received books AND their interpretation from their teachers, often

accompanied by exhortations not to expose the books to the world because of

the risk of false interpretation. The Chunyu Yi case illustrates this. I

recall reading of other such cases from Unschuld's historical accounts -

where a master was handed-down classical texts as a part of the legacy from

a mentoring master, whose handing-over of the material went along with an

oral interpretation of its import, often accompanied by an oath of secrecy,

or at least an admonition to further impart the knowledge only to those

capable and motivated to honor it.

 

Another fascinating theme treated at length by Harper is the juxtaposition

of the earlier " ontological " and " fangji " traditions vs the later emerging

physiological-theoretical Han/SuWen medicine. The distinction is, on the

one hand, that " ontological " associates disease (bing, translated by Harper

as " ailment " ) with a specific cause, e.g. an injury, an insect or animal

bite, etc. (in addition to demons, ancestral curses etc.). FangJi

literature, example the " 52 recipes for diseases " , are lists of

prescriptions indexed mainly by ontological cause. On the other hand, the

physiological/theoretical SuWen or vessel theory medicine bases the

understanding disease on disruption of a coherent system of substances

moving through vessels and organs according to rules, mirroring laws of

nature, the smooth functioning of the unified empire, and the grand harmony

of heaven and earth.

 

What's fascinating it that these two forms have coexisted ever since in CM.

(And, I think they are perhaps fundamental to medicine, and can be seen in

modern WM. (see below))

 

Herbal FangJi texts are present in all eras through the present. (The

ShangHanLun theoretically structured Herbology was, particularly in its

time, a notable exception.)

 

And today, for instance, the prominent TCM acupuncture texts categories

treatments by what? Western categories and named diseases (which they then

" differentiate " into TCM patterns). In his " little " book, (3) Unschuld

cites a series of CCP governmental measures, e.g. that " a condition should

be diagnosed on the basis of Western procedures, and if necessary treated

using traditional Chinese medical methods and drugs. " He sums up this

trend: " One measure after another serves to integrate traditional medicine

into modern medicine, which with an extended diagnostic and therapeutic

framework, is hoped will be more attractive than 'pure' Western medicine

and hence marketable worldwide. "

 

Good or bad? (Unschuld's presentation is a combination of historical data

and interpretation.) I'm just saying that the tension appears to be there,

between the ad hoc and the theoretical, throughout history.

 

And look at WM. Diagnosis to a recognized (named) condition, indexing

administration of the appropriate pharmaceutical. (Many foresee the MD

profession preempted by computer programs and pharmaceutical companies,

seriously, underway now. According to Unschuld's interpretation, this is

just what happened in the Song era, when formally standardized (by the

Imperial academy) herbal formulas and then widespread symptom-based medical

prescription by pharmacies threatened the profession of schooled,

diagnosing physicians.) How does this differ from fangji methodology?

 

On the other hand, the theory of genetic programming, currently being

elaborated into the vast particulars of protein synthesis. Isn't this a

grand theory, like qi/xue/vessels/zangfu? (Actually, Unschuld ends his

provocative German book, " Was Ist Medizin? " with an extended peon to this

major achievement of modern WM - the ultimate 'lego-game' [referring to the

popular children's building-set toy] that provides a vision of an ultimate

scientific unity of all the manifold manifestations of biological reality.)

 

One more fascinating idea, while I'm at it: Unschuld notes a fundamental

abhorrence in Chinese culture for radical, revolutionary change. (4) (The

YiJing interpretation is that this is justified only in extreme necessity;

perhaps the 1940's was one such time.) He refers to what happened between

pre-Han, MWD-type medical thought and, say, late-Han full-blown neijing

medicine - a gradual, subtle transformation of one paradigm into one

radically different, all the while on the surface under the same name (CM).

Unschuld hypothesizes as well (the above notion should probably also be

regarded as an hypothesis) that the same kind of transformation underlies

TCM. Over the last 50 years, and probably continuing for another half

century or so to completion, a gradual, subtle transformation of

'traditional' medicine into something radically different, but using the

same name, leading concepts etc. One way to understand this process, which

as I recall Unschuld mentioned, is that, now as then, offending one's

ancestors undermines one's own character and place in history.

 

Understanding history is about as simple as understanding the present. NOT!

 

Respectfully

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris,

>

> Understanding history is about as simple as understanding the

present. NOT!

>

> Respectfully

>

 

It would seem that " history " is constantly changing (just like

everything else) based upon one's current " undertanding " of the

present " . So when I read (past tense) a chapter of the Classics five

years ago, I understood entirely different than when I read (present

tense) it today. Why? Because I have changed - and so does everything

else that I perceive - past, present, and future.

 

So given that " history " is in constant flux (witness how views of

" events " change over time within an individual or population), I try

to simplify things (if this is at all possible :-) ) by trying to

understand " myself " . The hypothesis that I work under is that I am a

microcosm (or macrocosm) of all that surrounds me and that is what is

inside of me - now, in the past, in the future.

 

Do I believe in the Neijing? It is one source of experiences that has

different meaning to me as my own " undertannding " of

(and Life) evolves. Does it have any more meaning to me than any other

source of experiences? I do not think so. I learn as much from

listening to my teachers, aome of whom who may have graduated from

elite schools and others who have practically no formal education. I

continue to learn the most from my students, my clients, my friends

and family, my colleagues, and strangers that I might bump into on the

street. Just small little comments, here and there, that change my

perspective on Life and things.

 

Today I noticed a post about Google news and how one may get news

about " herbs " and " acupuncture " . It is a good start. However, when I

will search, my searches will be much broader. Maybe to include taiji,

qigong, tuina, anmo, shiatsu, qua Sha, cupping, etc. ... I never know

where I might learn something new. Maybe from some forum members who

are reading this message and feels that they have something to say -

even though in the past they may not have felt like saying anything.

For me, everyone is in a position to teach me something new. I hope

that person will write something today. :-)

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Nice discussion, Chris.

 

One point I wanted to make was that there was no idea of " Chinese

medicine " as a separate identity until Western medicine made inroads

into China in the late 19th century. Before that time there was simply

'yi xue', medicine. There was no self-conscious Chinese separatism in

medicine in the eyes of their culture.

 

As we've discussed in the recent past, TCM is a new system drawing on

the great history of Chinese medicine, but with many 'scientific' and

gradually more biomedical aspects to it. The challenge for us to

determine which elements preceded the modern era, so that we may choose

tools from a larger palate in developing this field for the future.

 

 

On Sep 28, 2004, at 12:45 AM, wrote:

 

> One more fascinating idea, while I'm at it: Unschuld notes a

> fundamental

> abhorrence in Chinese culture for radical, revolutionary change. (4)

> (The

> YiJing interpretation is that this is justified only in extreme

> necessity;

> perhaps the 1940's was one such time.) He refers to what happened

> between

> pre-Han, MWD-type medical thought and, say, late-Han full-blown neijing

> medicine - a gradual, subtle transformation of one paradigm into one

> radically different, all the while on the surface under the same name

> (CM).

> Unschuld hypothesizes as well (the above notion should probably also be

> regarded as an hypothesis) that the same kind of transformation

> underlies

> TCM. Over the last 50 years, and probably continuing for another half

> century or so to completion, a gradual, subtle transformation of

> 'traditional' medicine into something radically different, but using

> the

> same name, leading concepts etc. One way to understand this process,

> which

> as I recall Unschuld mentioned, is that, now as then, offending one's

> ancestors undermines one's own character and place in history.

[Guest guest]

A number of years ago, another German author, Hermann Hesse, wrote a

book called Magister Ludi/The Glass Bead Game, which described an

attempt to develop a system that synthesized universal knowledge in a

pre-computer, super-abacus model. One of its main roots was the Yi

Jing. There are presently three English-language texts on DNA/genetic

code and the Yi Jing in print that make fascinating speculations about

cross-over knowledge systems available as well.

 

I've always felt that there would be healthier cross-fertilization

between systems science/complexity theory and Chinese medicine than CM

with biomedicine, because modern biomedicine is largely data-driven

rather than based on theoretical constructs. There is lots of research

into genetics, proteinomics, etc., but these still do not 'drive' day

to day biomedicine.

 

 

On Sep 28, 2004, at 12:45 AM, wrote:

 

> On the other hand, the theory of genetic programming, currently being

> elaborated into the vast particulars of protein synthesis. Isn't this a

> grand theory, like qi/xue/vessels/zangfu? (Actually, Unschuld ends his

> provocative German book, " Was Ist Medizin? " with an extended peon to

> this

> major achievement of modern WM - the ultimate 'lego-game' [referring

> to the

> popular children's building-set toy] that provides a vision of an

> ultimate

> scientific unity of all the manifold manifestations of biological

> reality.)