Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

[Guest guest]

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:00:11 -0000, " acupuncturedaddy "

<acupuncturedaddy wrote:

 

> I believe rather that Western approaches to anthropological

interpretation are often imbued with an insidious arrogance that belies

their more obvious attempts to examine or embrace other cultural

perspectives. And to the extent that an awareness of these mythological

distinctions is more explicit, I certainly question whether this is not due

to this arrogance, rather than a more " dynamic " or " diverse " history (and I

find it hard to argue that Western society is more of either of these

things than any other).

 

The arrogance issue is important, but first, some context. I was using an

interpretation developed by Dr. Unschuld, probably in " Was Ist Medizin? " ,

but I remember it most vividly from the 2003 workshop. He was explaining

something of how his study of Chinese medical history relates to his

primary role as head honcho of the (Western) medical history department at

the Univ in Munich. Namely he felt he was able to access fundamental issues

touching on the nature of medicine, in relation to culture, politics, etc.

more readily in the history of medicine in China due to the fact that the

basic political, cultural, social framework was RELATIVELY stable and

uniform across some 2000 years of the imperial era. IN CONTRAST to Western

history across the same period where there was no period of more then 300

years or so of comparable stability and uniformity. Hence in the West, it

is more difficult to discern the overarching abstractions which are to some

extent the motivation and goal for his understanding the nature of medicine

and its history. Hence the book " What is Medicine? " , in which he lays out

and tries to unify his entire (and remarkably extensive) knowledge and

interpretation of the events in the emergence and development of medicine

in BOTH the west and in China.

 

For me, as a lifelong student of history, and for some 15 years of Chinese

medical history, this is a fascinating viewpoint, which I take and use,

hypothesize, as in extrapolating it into the present context. I.e. that

contrast and diversity in Western cultural history has perhaps contributed

to the formalized approaches to understanding those essentially

pre-historic phenomena which Matt described that are accessible in a oral

tradition (in his experience). You (Jim G.) posit that arrogance is

another potential explanation or motivation in these approaches.

 

I concede this possibility. At first glance, the use of 'arrogance' evoked

a reaction of offence. So I looked it up: 'unwarrented pride,

self-importance; haughtiness'; via the French from the Latin 'arogare', 'to

claim'; presumably 'ad', 'to' or 'for', prefixed to 'rogare', 'to ask' (as

in 'interogate'). So, making a claim, asking for a certain status,

presumably beyond justification (in some context).

 

> The attempt to distinguish and understand another cultural philosophy in

terms that assume distinctions based on some inherent biological or even

cultural predisposition, without fully considering the political

constraints which shape personal expression, reflects the arrogance to

which I refer.

 

This helpfully qualifies the use of 'arrogance' here. Tell me more about

the 'political constraints.' I didn't mention, but assumed political/social

factors, and certainly did not mean to imply any kind of biological

ethno-stereotyping.

 

> An example is the belief that Chinese were historically disinclined--for

reasons other than political--to consider ideas of individualization or

personal freedom with as much passion and intelligence as Westerners.

 

The background for my positing a contrast here between the West and China is:

 

1) the common notion that 'individualism' is more characteristic in the

West, often to an extreme.

 

2) My personal experience of the contrast, having been married into a

Chinese family for the last 8 years, and having worked closely for a

half-decade in a Chinese family-run (a different family) TCM school . (They

say that I am 'half Chinese'.) Namely, that in the structure of the Chinese

family (judging from these two cases), which is sometimes considered the

prototypical political structure (Confucianism), my observation is that

there is a tendency for what we would consider 'individual responsibility'

to reside largely in the father, or the grandparents. With the result that

the junior members, even as adults, often remain in a child-like role

vis-à-vis what I call an individual's sense of personal responsibility.

When the grandparents are no longer there, or the father, then the next in

line alters role to assume that sense of responsibility. I used the term

'personal responsibility', where actually it may be a sense of 'family

responsibility'. I.e. the primary entity is the family, in the individuals

'personal responsibility' is secondary.

 

3) I recall an analogous discussion in Kin Taylor's thesis (cited numerous

times previously), that in the dynamic of post-revolution China,

surrounding the emergence of TCM, the primary focus is clearly the group,

the society, the body-politic. Individual members of society are as

children in the great family of the nation (my metaphorical

interpretation). And both from passages in one of the books, and informal

discussion, Dr. Unschuld has aired the notion that the idea of democracy,

of things like a 'bill of [individual] rights' is, and has always been

virtually non-existent in Chinese culture (and politics, etc.).

 

Now, arrogant that may well be. Dr. Unschuld is no doubt quite used to this

accusation. Abstractions, generalizations like this are making a certain

claim, or hypothesis. They provoke further thought, extrapolation, and

invite challenge.

 

> I oppose the notion-- romantic and inspiring as it might be to those of

us who associate ourselves with Western culture--that there is some

historical " Chinese reality " that is more attuned with the nature of

constant change (to use an example from Chris's response to Rich) than

Western reality, to the extent that it reflects the psyche (collective or

individual) rather than the political constraints of the people.

 

The notion of the primacy of 'change' grows also out of two roots for me:

 

1) Among the first books in Chinese literary history is the YiJing - the

Book of Changes. The amazing endurance of the core Chinese cultural values,

e.g. family and social structure, over more than 2000 years, for me makes

sense as based on a profound understanding of the fact of constant change,

as represented by the YiJing. Hence the formation and conservation of

social conventions which have so successfully survived through change.

 

2) It's explicit at the root of CM/yi xue, in the SuWen: the primary

etiology is wind; wind is change; change is omnipresent (day/night,

seasons, life-stages), and failure to properly adapt, flow with it results

in disease. This is a keystone of neijing 'theory', as distinct from the

earlier (and later, as in Western germ theory) ontological explanations

(insects, parasites, gu-bugs - the 'other' causative factors beyond

external and internal -- demons, and earlier, offended ancestors).

 

Western reality entertains change in ways that are different. I don't have

theory here, just the observation that my wife and her family (from the

PRC, ShanDong roots) really can't make sense of how, for instance, the

nature of family can be so different, and go through relatively rapid

evolution here in California/USA/West; for example the current bruhaha over

legalizing 'gay marriage' in the States. (And news headline yesterday or

today: Spain considers legalizing it.) The Chinese I know find this

threatening, big time.

 

So my statements are framed by these experiences. Perhaps extrapolating

them to generalizations engenders arrogance. This is something to think

about. Again, I would like to hear about your (Jim G.) sense of 'political

constraints'. My instinct is to 'examine' stuff like this, to introspect,

to phenomenologize, it you will. My experience is it's really difficult to

get my 'Chinese half' to participate in this process. I haven't

lived/studied in China, as many here have, which I would envision as a sort

of host-guest relationship. My perspective is clearly limited.

 

Thanks for the insightful questioning.

 

 

[Guest guest]

[Chris]

 

> You (Jim G.) posit that arrogance is

> another potential explanation or motivation in these approaches.

>

> I concede this possibility. At first glance, the use of 'arrogance'

evoked

> a reaction of offence. So I looked it up: 'unwarrented pride,

> self-importance; haughtiness'; via the French from the

Latin 'arogare', 'to

> claim'; presumably 'ad', 'to' or 'for', prefixed to 'rogare', 'to

ask' (as

> in 'interogate'). So, making a claim, asking for a certain status,

> presumably beyond justification (in some context).

 

You are right to interpret my intention with the use of the

word " arrogance " to reflect a broad tendency to reach particular

conclusions based on assumptions which may require more qualification

than they receive. I am particularly gratified that you did not take

the use of the word more personally or offendedly; in fact, I was

referring to a general cultural tendency to which you have shown a

tremendous awareness and delicacy.

 

> This helpfully qualifies the use of 'arrogance' here. Tell me more

about

> the 'political constraints.' I didn't mention, but assumed

political/social

> factors, and certainly did not mean to imply any kind of biological

> ethno-stereotyping.

 

By " political constraints " I am referring to social and cultural

factors which render the individual powerless to some extent;

particularly those which exist to create or perpetuate a particular

balance of power or influence. You cited a microcosmic example of

this in the Confucian model of the family, whose real effect was not

just spiritual but social in its structure of hierarchy and

obedience. What I meant to question was not whether Confucianism (to

stay with this example) was/is an important part of Chinese life, nor

whether Confucianism is a religious versus political construct; but

whether we are justified in assuming that the reach of Confucian

principles was such that it eclipsed entirely a disposition (such as

it may exist) toward individual awareness.

 

Where the " arrogance " thing comes in for me is this: We all will

agree that if one were to say that a member of one cultural ethnicity

is inherently less capable of rational thought, for example, than

another, that this would be a form of cultural arrogance. But if we

discredit rational thought, and extol the virtues of mysticism, let's

say, but maintain our position that these wonderful mystics are less

capable of nasty rational thought, is it any less arrogant? If you

can see past this somewhat offensive and overly reductionist example

(which is not meant to reflect this discourse), my point is that an

attempt to extrapolate from the classics of CM, or from Lao Zi, some

essential characteristic of the Chinese people is an inherently

arrogant posture.

 

> The notion of the primacy of 'change' grows also out of two roots

for me:

>

> 1) Among the first books in Chinese literary history is the YiJing -

the

> Book of Changes. The amazing endurance of the core Chinese cultural

values,

> e.g. family and social structure, over more than 2000 years, for me

makes

> sense as based on a profound understanding of the fact of constant

change,

> as represented by the YiJing. Hence the formation and conservation

of

> social conventions which have so successfully survived through

change.

 

I would love to hear you flesh this bit out a little. I agree that

Chinese family and social structure have endured with great

integrity, and that the Yi Jing honors and embodies an appreciation

for the nature of constant change. But your concluding sentence, if

it implies that the reason for this endurance can be found in the

resilience that the Yi Jing inspires, is a stretch for me.

 

You speculated in the original email to which I responded that the

West's more diverse and dynamic history might account for a more

explicit awareness of mythological distinctions. Though I'm not sure

I agree with your statement, in any case this is an account that

considers politics. To have sought the roots of this disposition in

the bible, Plato, or other religious or cultural foundations of our

society would be to ignore the political forces--the cultural and

social dynamics of power--that shape personal expression in our, and

virtually all other, societies. I realize that it is precisely your

point that the diversity and dynamism of our history require such an

analysis, but there is a conspicuous tendency to shift from political

analysis to cultural when we in the West examine the " East " /Other

whose justification falls far short of the rational one you have

provided in this case. (You are probably familiar with Edward

Said's " Orientalism " .) Perhaps it is our dynamic and diverse history

that compels us toward a posture of power/arrogance with regard to

the rest of the world; we certainly see that in the field of WM.

>

> 2) It's explicit at the root of CM/yi xue, in the SuWen: the primary

> etiology is wind; wind is change; change is omnipresent (day/night,

> seasons, life-stages), and failure to properly adapt, flow with it

results

> in disease. This is a keystone of neijing 'theory', as distinct

from the

> earlier (and later, as in Western germ theory) ontological

explanations

> (insects, parasites, gu-bugs - the 'other' causative factors beyond

> external and internal -- demons, and earlier, offended ancestors).

>

> Western reality entertains change in ways that are different. I

don't have

> theory here, just the observation that my wife and her family (from

the

> PRC, ShanDong roots) really can't make sense of how, for instance,

the

> nature of family can be so different, and go through relatively

rapid

> evolution here in California/USA/West; for example the current

bruhaha over

> legalizing 'gay marriage' in the States. (And news headline

yesterday or

> today: Spain considers legalizing it.) The Chinese I know find this

> threatening, big time.

 

In this, you have a perspective that I lack, namely the intimacy of

being a part of a Chinese family. So I speak with great reservation

and respect for that perspective. I do not question the strength and

endurance of Chinese social and cultural structures, only their basis.

 

I wish I had more time to consider more fully why this particular

subject is important to believing in the Yellow Emperor, and by

Chris's artful extension to a consideration of the integrity of

modern CM. I certainly believe it is. The distictions between

political, social, and cultural history, and the degree to which

these distinctions become confused in Western cultural anthropology's

gaze east, have much to say about some of the fundamental assumptions

that underlie and confuse discourse concerning the study and practice

of CM. If there is interest in pursuing this thread of things, I'd

like to hear others' perspectives.

 

I must say that in the week or two since I have been tuned in to this

forum, I have been reassured in the degree of thoughtful and

intelligent dialogue that exists in CM. I was a bit put off by the

rather shrill dialogue I first saw regarding Godfrey, but I

appreciate the sincerity with which many on this forum pursue

constructive dialogue. Thanks in particular to you, Chris, for this

bit of indulgence.

 

--Jim G.

[Guest guest]

Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:17:10 -0000, " acupuncturedaddy "

<acupuncturedaddy wrote:

 

> But if we discredit rational thought, and extol the virtues of mysticism,

let's say, but maintain our position that these wonderful mystics are less

capable of nasty rational thought, is it any less arrogant?

 

I would side-step this by saying some authors that might considered

mystical are, in my reading, highly rational. E.g. some would probably

label the Dalai Lama as a mystic to name one I've been reading lately

( " Advice on Dying " , after a recent death in my family). LaoZi might be

another. Rationality can be seen as logical consistency, but always

relative to a basis in a belief system, i.e. a value system. Western

rationality relates generally to an " objective " , positivistic (widely

shared) belief system. Drawing threads of clearly logical thought on the

basis of different fundamental beliefs is also rational. People in general,

and most scientists do not examine these foundations.

 

> But your concluding sentence, if it implies that the reason for this

endurance can be found in the resilience that the Yi Jing inspires, is a

stretch for me.

 

I was using the YiJing as an artifact taken as symbolic of a cultural

phenomenon, in the sense that it is a sign or symptom, not necessarily a

cause of the particular importance placed on understanding change. The book

itself was probably more in an aristocratic/literate, is not esoteric

tradition, at least in the Zhou-Han period (as was medical writing in

general). YiJing as popular culture probably dates back to the 1960's, and

in the West. Taking an artifact as symbolic of a cultural phenomenon is,

admittedly, a device commonly used by historians.

 

> I wish I had more time to consider more fully why this particular subject

is important to believing in the Yellow Emperor

 

I believe that the 'philosophy' which emerged relative to understanding

health in the Zhou manuscripts, and which informed the subsequent

'medicine' in the NeiJing etc. of the Han, was in some sense in people's

lives and minds well before that (as I think Matt was suggesting). It is

clear that the HuangDi was symbolically 'alive' in the minds of Zhou, Han

and later thinkers. Relative to earlier times, the problem is how to

investigate this, how to rationally discuss it. Formal 'history' doesn't

work, when understood as evidence-based. Oral tradition has problems of

verifiability when put into the context of dates and time periods.

 

A lot of the discussion in recent days (e.g. caveman and Einstein)

illustrates the difficulty. I don't see a solution at hand, but suspect one

is possible, and that cultural/anthropological disciplines offer directions.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Chris, Hugo, Jason, Marco, Rich and others who have been

commenting/following this thread,

 

I just returned from my trip and had a chance to catch up on the different

comments and thank all for their interest in a subject I have been fascinated

with (perhaps to the point of obsession) for more than 15 years. Chris recently

wrote:

 

>>It is

clear that the HuangDi was symbolically 'alive' in the minds of Zhou, Han

and later thinkers. Relative to earlier times, the problem is how to

investigate this, how to rationally discuss it. Formal 'history' doesn't

work, when understood as evidence-based. Oral tradition has problems of

verifiability when put into the context of dates and time periods.

 

A lot of the discussion in recent days (e.g. caveman and Einstein)

illustrates the difficulty. I don't see a solution at hand, but suspect one

is possible, and that cultural/anthropological disciplines offer directions.<<

 

 

The oral tradition I study makes very clear that those in that tradition

believed their very early ancestors (going back tens of thousands of years) were

every bit as intelligent as " modern " people. They did not see them as more

intelligent, but rather that they had a better balance between the capacity of

rational logic and intuition. Because they lived for tens of thousands of years

with a complete reliance on nature, they learned about the " Laws " of nature in a

highly insightful manner. According to this tradition, when people began to live

as " herder-cultivators " and developed ever-larger settled villages, they began

to manipulate their environment for survival as the need for more food to feed

greater population densities made it impossible to return to the old

" hunter-gatherer " lifestyle. The more that people developed their ability to

manipulate nature - the less they began to understand about living " within " the

laws of nature and thus, the less they came to understand how to follow nature's

lead.

 

In the West, such changes were (and still are by most) considered as " advances "

and " progress " . But to the Taoists, such changes were lamented as the decline of

humanity's understanding of the Laws of great nature - the loss of the " Golden

Age " . It is not a matter of whether ancient/modern people were

superior/inferior, etc. per se, but rather a matter of a relative greater or

lesser appreciation of the forces behind nature as all-pervading vs. mankind's

ability to impose his will upon nature. If you think man's ability to control

nature is a superior virtue, then I guess you would say modern man is superior.

If you think the ability to understand and live within the laws of nature is a

superior virtue, then the ancient's were superior. I have been taught that all

such relative judgments as superior/inferior are ultimately a dead-end but find

the different take between what Eastern vs. Western culture considers progress

quite enlightening.

 

I think Chris is right about how anthropological disciplines may help us address

these questions. My particular area of interest in this has to do with

archeoastrology (the blending of archeology with astronomy) as I believe much of

ancient Chinese culture including Chinese medicine, had its inspiration in

ancient astronomy. - Matt

 

 

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:01 AM

Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

Mon, 04 Oct 2004 06:17:10 -0000, " acupuncturedaddy "

<acupuncturedaddy wrote:

 

> But if we discredit rational thought, and extol the virtues of mysticism,

let's say, but maintain our position that these wonderful mystics are less

capable of nasty rational thought, is it any less arrogant?

 

I would side-step this by saying some authors that might considered

mystical are, in my reading, highly rational. E.g. some would probably

label the Dalai Lama as a mystic to name one I've been reading lately

( " Advice on Dying " , after a recent death in my family). LaoZi might be

another. Rationality can be seen as logical consistency, but always

relative to a basis in a belief system, i.e. a value system. Western

rationality relates generally to an " objective " , positivistic (widely

shared) belief system. Drawing threads of clearly logical thought on the

basis of different fundamental beliefs is also rational. People in general,

and most scientists do not examine these foundations.

 

> But your concluding sentence, if it implies that the reason for this

endurance can be found in the resilience that the Yi Jing inspires, is a

stretch for me.

 

I was using the YiJing as an artifact taken as symbolic of a cultural

phenomenon, in the sense that it is a sign or symptom, not necessarily a

cause of the particular importance placed on understanding change. The book

itself was probably more in an aristocratic/literate, is not esoteric

tradition, at least in the Zhou-Han period (as was medical writing in

general). YiJing as popular culture probably dates back to the 1960's, and

in the West. Taking an artifact as symbolic of a cultural phenomenon is,

admittedly, a device commonly used by historians.

 

> I wish I had more time to consider more fully why this particular subject

is important to believing in the Yellow Emperor

 

I believe that the 'philosophy' which emerged relative to understanding

health in the Zhou manuscripts, and which informed the subsequent

'medicine' in the NeiJing etc. of the Han, was in some sense in people's

lives and minds well before that (as I think Matt was suggesting). It is

clear that the HuangDi was symbolically 'alive' in the minds of Zhou, Han

and later thinkers. Relative to earlier times, the problem is how to

investigate this, how to rationally discuss it. Formal 'history' doesn't

work, when understood as evidence-based. Oral tradition has problems of

verifiability when put into the context of dates and time periods.

 

A lot of the discussion in recent days (e.g. caveman and Einstein)

illustrates the difficulty. I don't see a solution at hand, but suspect one

is possible, and that cultural/anthropological disciplines offer directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Obviously this whole discussion is debatable, so I would direct other to

probably one of the most advance and integrative thinkers on the topic, Ken

Wilber. He suggests that we are constantly evolving and have been

(forever). Not just in a technological sense, but a spiritual, emotional,

intelligent etc. We are as a whole much more advanced and evolved than our

predecessors and will continue to become. This makes sense. To propose

otherwise would say that we a re only evolving in 1 or 2 area and for some

reason intelligently or spiritually we are not??? Strange. HE makes great

arguments and his spent his life on this topic (among others). I see no

fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in smarter than us!

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

Matt Bauer [acu.guy]

Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:49 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

Hello Chris, Hugo, Jason, Marco, Rich and others who have been

commenting/following this thread,

 

I just returned from my trip and had a chance to catch up on the different

comments and thank all for their interest in a subject I have been

fascinated with (perhaps to the point of obsession) for more than 15 years.

Chris recently wrote:

 

>>It is

clear that the HuangDi was symbolically 'alive' in the minds of Zhou, Han

and later thinkers. Relative to earlier times, the problem is how to

investigate this, how to rationally discuss it. Formal 'history' doesn't

work, when understood as evidence-based. Oral tradition has problems of

verifiability when put into the context of dates and time periods.

 

A lot of the discussion in recent days (e.g. caveman and Einstein)

illustrates the difficulty. I don't see a solution at hand, but suspect one

is possible, and that cultural/anthropological disciplines offer

directions.<<

 

 

The oral tradition I study makes very clear that those in that tradition

believed their very early ancestors (going back tens of thousands of years)

were every bit as intelligent as " modern " people. They did not see them as

more intelligent, but rather that they had a better balance between the

capacity of rational logic and intuition. Because they lived for tens of

thousands of years with a complete reliance on nature, they learned about

the " Laws " of nature in a highly insightful manner. According to this

tradition, when people began to live as " herder-cultivators " and developed

ever-larger settled villages, they began to manipulate their environment for

survival as the need for more food to feed greater population densities made

it impossible to return to the old " hunter-gatherer " lifestyle. The more

that people developed their ability to manipulate nature - the less they

began to understand about living " within " the laws of nature and thus, the

less they came to understand how to follow nature's lead.

 

In the West, such changes were (and still are by most) considered as

" advances " and " progress " . But to the Taoists, such changes were lamented as

the decline of humanity's understanding of the Laws of great nature - the

loss of the " Golden Age " . It is not a matter of whether ancient/modern

people were superior/inferior, etc. per se, but rather a matter of a

relative greater or lesser appreciation of the forces behind nature as

all-pervading vs. mankind's ability to impose his will upon nature. If you

think man's ability to control nature is a superior virtue, then I guess you

would say modern man is superior. If you think the ability to understand and

live within the laws of nature is a superior virtue, then the ancient's were

superior. I have been taught that all such relative judgments as

superior/inferior are ultimately a dead-end but find the different take

between what Eastern vs. Western culture considers progress quite

enlightening.

 

I think Chris is right about how anthropological disciplines may help us

address these questions. My particular area of interest in this has to do

with archeoastrology (the blending of archeology with astronomy) as I

believe much of ancient Chinese culture including Chinese medicine, had its

inspiration in ancient astronomy. - Matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

---

wrote:

 

> probably one of the most advance and integrative

> thinkers on the topic, Ken Wilber.

 

> He suggests that we are constantly evolving

> and have been (forever).

 

My last words on this: a friend of mine uttered

probably the most succinct way of putting the

traditional insight the other day. The past and future

are not inferior or superior to each other, it's just

that as we move into the future, " it's just the next

thing " . That's all it is, no need to engage in better

or worse; it's just the next thing. That's all.

 

 

> fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000

> years in smarter than us!

 

I'm not sure that anyone made the above point.

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

_____

 

Hugo Ramiro [subincor]

Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:38 AM

Chinese Medicine

RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

 

---

wrote:

 

> probably one of the most advance and integrative

> thinkers on the topic, Ken Wilber.

 

> He suggests that we are constantly evolving

> and have been (forever).

 

My last words on this: a friend of mine uttered

probably the most succinct way of putting the

traditional insight the other day. The past and future

are not inferior or superior to each other, it's just

that as we move into the future, " it's just the next

thing " . That's all it is, no need to engage in better

or worse; it's just the next thing. That's all.

 

[Jason]

 

People can say what ever they want, this means little. It sure sounds nice

on paper. But one of the things about Ken Wilber is that he not only

analyzes anthropological and geological data, but modern research on the

development on the brain etc. He just doesn't make up ideas and has mounds

of research to back up his ideas. I have yet to see any data that refutes

his hypothesis, and because 'your friend' said something I put little stock

in this, but everyone can have their opinion.

 

 

 

 

> fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000

> years in smarter than us!

 

I'm not sure that anyone made the above point.

 

[Jason]

 

* This was eluded too, but I will be happy to change the statement

'equal to'. and at the risk of sounding egotistical, I do believe we have

evolved and are superior to them in almost every respect. I can not think

of one aspect that they compete, hey but that is me.

*

 

-JAson

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Jason,

 

I am familiar with Ken Wilbur's theories. While he is obviously highly

intelligent and I was impressed and found merit with some of his individual

ideas, I was not at all persuaded by his conclusions.

 

You wrote " I see no fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in

smarter than us! "

 

If you check my post, I have never claimed one to be smarter or more intelligent

than the other. I do believe however, that there were individuals 10,000-30,000

years ago, who processed a degree and type of wisdom that Ken Wilbur or even

Albert Einstein could only aspire to.

 

Matt Bauer

 

 

 

 

 

-

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, October 07, 2004 7:09 AM

RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

Obviously this whole discussion is debatable, so I would direct other to

probably one of the most advance and integrative thinkers on the topic, Ken

Wilber. He suggests that we are constantly evolving and have been

(forever). Not just in a technological sense, but a spiritual, emotional,

intelligent etc. We are as a whole much more advanced and evolved than our

predecessors and will continue to become. This makes sense. To propose

otherwise would say that we a re only evolving in 1 or 2 area and for some

reason intelligently or spiritually we are not??? Strange. HE makes great

arguments and his spent his life on this topic (among others). I see no

fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in smarter than us!

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

Matt Bauer [acu.guy]

Wednesday, October 06, 2004 3:49 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

Hello Chris, Hugo, Jason, Marco, Rich and others who have been

commenting/following this thread,

 

I just returned from my trip and had a chance to catch up on the different

comments and thank all for their interest in a subject I have been

fascinated with (perhaps to the point of obsession) for more than 15 years.

Chris recently wrote:

 

>>It is

clear that the HuangDi was symbolically 'alive' in the minds of Zhou, Han

and later thinkers. Relative to earlier times, the problem is how to

investigate this, how to rationally discuss it. Formal 'history' doesn't

work, when understood as evidence-based. Oral tradition has problems of

verifiability when put into the context of dates and time periods.

 

A lot of the discussion in recent days (e.g. caveman and Einstein)

illustrates the difficulty. I don't see a solution at hand, but suspect one

is possible, and that cultural/anthropological disciplines offer

directions.<<

 

 

The oral tradition I study makes very clear that those in that tradition

believed their very early ancestors (going back tens of thousands of years)

were every bit as intelligent as " modern " people. They did not see them as

more intelligent, but rather that they had a better balance between the

capacity of rational logic and intuition. Because they lived for tens of

thousands of years with a complete reliance on nature, they learned about

the " Laws " of nature in a highly insightful manner. According to this

tradition, when people began to live as " herder-cultivators " and developed

ever-larger settled villages, they began to manipulate their environment for

survival as the need for more food to feed greater population densities made

it impossible to return to the old " hunter-gatherer " lifestyle. The more

that people developed their ability to manipulate nature - the less they

began to understand about living " within " the laws of nature and thus, the

less they came to understand how to follow nature's lead.

 

In the West, such changes were (and still are by most) considered as

" advances " and " progress " . But to the Taoists, such changes were lamented as

the decline of humanity's understanding of the Laws of great nature - the

loss of the " Golden Age " . It is not a matter of whether ancient/modern

people were superior/inferior, etc. per se, but rather a matter of a

relative greater or lesser appreciation of the forces behind nature as

all-pervading vs. mankind's ability to impose his will upon nature. If you

think man's ability to control nature is a superior virtue, then I guess you

would say modern man is superior. If you think the ability to understand and

live within the laws of nature is a superior virtue, then the ancient's were

superior. I have been taught that all such relative judgments as

superior/inferior are ultimately a dead-end but find the different take

between what Eastern vs. Western culture considers progress quite

enlightening.

 

I think Chris is right about how anthropological disciplines may help us

address these questions. My particular area of interest in this has to do

with archeoastrology (the blending of archeology with astronomy) as I

believe much of ancient Chinese culture including Chinese medicine, had its

inspiration in ancient astronomy. - Matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

---

wrote:

 

Ok not exactly my last words.

 

> People can say what ever they want, this means

> little. It sure sounds nice on paper.

 

Applies to big mr wilber too.

 

> analyzes anthropological and geological data, but

> modern research on the

> development on the brain etc.

 

Oh so what. If he brings peace to this world, I'll be

impressed. Theories about the workings of this

temporary universe are second-rate to me.

 

> He just doesn't make up ideas

 

Everyone makes up ideas. That's all that can be done.

 

> and because 'your friend' said

> something I put little stock

> in this,

 

I didn't ask you too, and not like the stock is for

sale, especially to you.

I don't appreciate how you wrote 'your friend'. She's

my friend - nothing more OR less. Got it?

 

> but everyone can have their opinion.

 

What?

 

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

--- escreveu:

 

>Obviously this whole discussion is debatable, so I would direct

other to

probably one of the most advance and integrative thinkers on the

topic, Ken

Wilber. He suggests that we are constantly evolving and have

been

(forever). Not just in a technological sense, but a spiritual,

emotional,

intelligent etc. We are as a whole much more advanced and

evolved than our

predecessors and will continue to become. This makes sense. To

propose

otherwise would say that we a re only evolving in 1 or 2 area and

for some

reason intelligently or spiritually we are not??? Strange. HE

makes great

arguments and his spent his life on this topic (among others). I

see no

fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in smarter

than us!

 

> -

 

Hi jason,

I agree on the debatable aspect;-)

Ken is following the trend of science since the 18th.century at

least, to regard evolution as linear: we go on up and up,

increasing in complexity. It does make a lot of sense, but the

time scales are very great, we know so little of Man before the

last ice-age, a time that some say was the mythic " Eden " .

I find it interesting, on the other hand, that some ancient

traditional cultures(as the chinese, the classical greeks, the

hindus)saw/see evolution as circular; It began at the top, in the

'Golden Age', and then went descending in quality(an involution,

so to speak), until it gets to the point when it has to start

anew, at the Golden Age again - exactly the Yin/Yang theory, the

Tai-Chi Tu: when the yin or yang get to their extreme, the

opposite arises!

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

--- Matt Bauer <acu.guy escreveu:

 

 

Hello Jason,

 

>I am familiar with Ken Wilbur's theories. While he is obviously

highly intelligent and I was impressed and found merit with some

of his individual ideas, I was not at all persuaded by his

conclusions.

You wrote " I see no fathomable way to think that 'Man'

30,000-10,000 years in smarter than us! "

If you check my post, I have never claimed one to be smarter or

more intelligent than the other. I do believe however, that there

were individuals 10,000-30,000 years ago, who processed a degree

and type of wisdom that Ken Wilbur or even Albert Einstein could

only aspire to.

 

>Matt Bauer

 

That " stands to reason " , so to speak. Of course, it depends

somewhat on what we value as " wisdom " . We cannot really compare,

for they and we live very in different conditions(all is

relative), and because of these different conditions, they would

have different perceptions of life. Einstein and Ken are a

product of their time and society.

The difference in outlook between ours and some older societies

reminds me of the story of the entepreneur and the fisherman:

The entepreneur was spending the weekend on the beach, and he

started to talk with a local fisherman. He saw the fisherman had

a small boat, and urged him to think big: to build another boat.

" why? " asked the fisherman. " so that you may rent it to another

fisherman and make money " , the fisherman asked, " and then? " , the

other said, " then you make more boats, rent it to other fishermen,

make more money, and be the owner of a fishing fleet! " , so the

other asked, " then what? " , the entepreneur answred, " then you go on

vacation to the beach, like me " , the fisherman said, " but I am on

the beach already! " .

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

_____

 

marcos [ishk18]

Thursday, October 07, 2004 11:39 PM

Chinese Medicine

RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

 

--- escreveu:

 

>Obviously this whole discussion is debatable, so I would direct

other to

probably one of the most advance and integrative thinkers on the

topic, Ken

Wilber. He suggests that we are constantly evolving and have

been

(forever). Not just in a technological sense, but a spiritual,

emotional,

intelligent etc. We are as a whole much more advanced and

evolved than our

predecessors and will continue to become. This makes sense. To

propose

otherwise would say that we a re only evolving in 1 or 2 area and

for some

reason intelligently or spiritually we are not??? Strange. HE

makes great

arguments and his spent his life on this topic (among others). I

see no

fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in smarter

than us!

 

> -

 

Hi jason,

I agree on the debatable aspect;-)

Ken is following the trend of science since the 18th.century at

least, to regard evolution as linear: we go on up and up,

increasing in complexity. It does make a lot of sense, but the

time scales are very great, we know so little of Man before the

last ice-age, a time that some say was the mythic " Eden " .

I find it interesting, on the other hand, that some ancient

traditional cultures(as the chinese, the classical greeks, the

hindus)saw/see evolution as circular; It began at the top, in the

'Golden Age', and then went descending in quality(an involution,

so to speak), until it gets to the point when it has to start

anew, at the Golden Age again - exactly the Yin/Yang theory, the

Tai-Chi Tu: when the yin or yang get to their extreme, the

opposite arises!

 

[Jason]

 

Again I like this theory also but the problem is there is no evidence that

there was this age. There is no evidence that man was highly intelligent

20,000 years ago (and more). So it sounds good on paper but we only can go

on what we know (or I agree think we know). But to put blind faith in this

idea without ANY proof - and not to mention all the evidence that has been

found points in the other direction - is a slippery slope.

 

* -jason blalack

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

_____

 

Hugo Ramiro [subincor]

Thursday, October 07, 2004 10:29 PM

Chinese Medicine

RE: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

 

 

---

wrote:

 

Ok not exactly my last words.

 

> People can say what ever they want, this means

> little. It sure sounds nice on paper.

 

Applies to big mr wilber too.

 

> analyzes anthropological and geological data, but

> modern research on the

> development on the brain etc.

 

Oh so what. If he brings peace to this world, I'll be

impressed. Theories about the workings of this

temporary universe are second-rate to me.

 

> He just doesn't make up ideas

 

Everyone makes up ideas. That's all that can be done.

 

> and because 'your friend' said

> something I put little stock

> in this,

 

I didn't ask you too, and not like the stock is for

sale, especially to you.

I don't appreciate how you wrote 'your friend'. She's

my friend - nothing more OR less. Got it?

 

Easy Tonto,

 

 

 

[Jason] the only reason I put 'your friend' in quotes was because we do not

her, we do not that she has any authority to comment on such a topic. It is

like saying well my mom said that the world is flat and that is the way it

is. So some people make up ideas without any research, just sitting around

smoking a J, and some people spend their life collecting as much data on the

subject as possible and making some conclusions. Ken Wilber is of course

that latter (and possibly a little of the former,) but in general I will

trust the latter. That is the point. I really do not think any of us have

any expertise to talk about such an topic because it is not our area of

expertise, that is why I bow out and point to Ken Wilber. It is like Rich

talking about TCM herbal medicine, this is not his forte. Or like me trying

to tell Rich about tuina. So you don't like theories about this 'temp

universe' that is fine, and then you can bow out. But according to one major

physics theory and of course the yin and yang circular theory the universe

is here to stay, and I think it is quite fine to make sense of our place in

it. That is why it is the age old question " why are we here? " - Something

Ken and many others are interested in and have been for a long time.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- escreveu:

 

 

 

marcos [ishk18]

 

--- escreveu:

 

>>>Obviously this whole discussion is debatable, so I would

direct

other to

probably one of the most advance and integrative thinkers on the

topic, Ken

Wilber. He suggests that we are constantly evolving and have

been

(forever). Not just in a technological sense, but a spiritual,

emotional,

intelligent etc. We are as a whole much more advanced and

evolved than our

predecessors and will continue to become. This makes sense. To

propose

otherwise would say that we a re only evolving in 1 or 2 area and

for some

reason intelligently or spiritually we are not??? Strange. HE

makes great

arguments and his spent his life on this topic (among others). I

see no

fathomable way to think that 'Man' 30,000-10,000 years in smarter

than us!

 

> -

 

>>Hi jason,

I agree on the debatable aspect;-)

Ken is following the trend of science since the 18th.century at

least, to regard evolution as linear: we go on up and up,

increasing in complexity. It does make a lot of sense, but the

time scales are very great, we know so little of Man before the

last ice-age, a time that some say was the mythic " Eden " .

I find it interesting, on the other hand, that some ancient

traditional cultures(as the chinese, the classical greeks, the

hindus)saw/see evolution as circular; It began at the top, in the

'Golden Age', and then went descending in quality(an involution,

so to speak), until it gets to the point when it has to start

anew, at the Golden Age again - exactly the Yin/Yang theory, the

Tai-Chi Tu: when the yin or yang get to their extreme, the

opposite arises!

 

[Jason]

 

>Again I like this theory also but the problem is there is no

evidence that

there was this age. There is no evidence that man was highly

intelligent

20,000 years ago (and more). So it sounds good on paper but we

only can go

on what we know (or I agree think we know). But to put blind

faith in this

idea without ANY proof - and not to mention all the evidence that

has been

found points in the other direction - is a slippery slope.

 

* -jason blalack

 

I agree, there are interesting theories, but it's all too far

away in the past and evidence of anything one way or the other is

scarce - one may reflect, for example that, if there would be a

new ice-age in the near future, humans 30.000 years in the future

may not find much evidence of our culture, at least as far as

books, electronic info, papers, and so many perishable items

which are commoplace today.

Marcos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Chris,

I think you've hit on something very essential here. One of the

great strengths of the Chinese medical tradition is its great

resilience. The source of that resilience is that it is not based on a

specific target or ontology limited by structures, anatomy, or

empirical data. It is the theory of change itself and the ability of

people to adapt to change in order to maintain health and overcome

disease. This allows the physician of Chinese medicine tremendous

flexibility in developing modalities and strategies to achieve this

goal.

 

This is what really sets Chinese medicine apart, and if I may say

so, makes all attempts to 'modernize' or 'scientize' Chinese medicine

look facile in comparison. The foundation of Chinese medicine in

yin/yang theory and the law of change allows all new data to be

absorbed into a meta-structure without transforming the core

theoretical structure itself, which has survived until the modern era

intact. It is imperative that we continue to study and develop the Yi

Jing 'core' of Chinese medicine. If this core is intact, all the data,

approaches and methodology will revolve around this core with

flexibility and successful application without disturbing the essence

of the medicine.

 

 

On Oct 3, 2004, at 1:57 AM, wrote:

 

> 1) Among the first books in Chinese literary history is the YiJing -

> the

> Book of Changes. The amazing endurance of the core Chinese cultural

> values,

> e.g. family and social structure, over more than 2000 years, for me

> makes

> sense as based on a profound understanding of the fact of constant

> change,

> as represented by the YiJing. Hence the formation and conservation of

> social conventions which have so successfully survived through change.

>

> 2) It's explicit at the root of CM/yi xue, in the SuWen: the primary

> etiology is wind; wind is change; change is omnipresent (day/night,

> seasons, life-stages), and failure to properly adapt, flow with it

> results

> in disease. This is a keystone of neijing 'theory', as distinct from

> the

> earlier (and later, as in Western germ theory) ontological explanations

> (insects, parasites, gu-bugs - the 'other' causative factors beyond

> external and internal -- demons, and earlier, offended ancestors).

[Guest guest]

Interesting stuff,

 

Now can we elaborate on the Yi Jing and medicine?

 

Why is it that people Sharon Witzburn and Steven Clavey mentions " the

changes " i.e. Yi Jing but I for one am as dum as before to its actual

meaning in or within medical context.

 

The concept of flexible is very important in Chinese culture from a literary

view it seams, Bensky makes use of the word Ling hou (missed spelt?) which

contains the word and same characters as Ling as in ling Shou less I am

totally up the wrong wall?

 

He then explains that this flexible in terms of Chinese gives a connotation

of life if you not ling hou your dead (I might totally be miss representing

Bensky so any corrections will do).

 

Thus Yi Jing is flexible in one word (change changeability flexibility

rhymes in English...), but then what?

 

For people to say that one can not study medicine without the changes and

vice versa is a pretty clear message per say.

 

Study the Yi Jing, but I am still at lost both with how to study the Yi Jing

and why?

 

Its an important topic it seams so those in the knowing please step

forward...

 

 

Marco

 

-

" " <zrosenbe

<Chinese Medicine >

Sunday, October 17, 2004 10:24 PM

Re: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

>

> Chris,

> I think you've hit on something very essential here. One of the

> great strengths of the Chinese medical tradition is its great

> resilience. The source of that resilience is that it is not based on a

> specific target or ontology limited by structures, anatomy, or

> empirical data. It is the theory of change itself and the ability of

> people to adapt to change in order to maintain health and overcome

> disease. This allows the physician of Chinese medicine tremendous

> flexibility in developing modalities and strategies to achieve this

> goal.

>

> This is what really sets Chinese medicine apart, and if I may say

> so, makes all attempts to 'modernize' or 'scientize' Chinese medicine

> look facile in comparison. The foundation of Chinese medicine in

> yin/yang theory and the law of change allows all new data to be

> absorbed into a meta-structure without transforming the core

> theoretical structure itself, which has survived until the modern era

> intact. It is imperative that we continue to study and develop the Yi

> Jing 'core' of Chinese medicine. If this core is intact, all the data,

> approaches and methodology will revolve around this core with

> flexibility and successful application without disturbing the essence

> of the medicine.

>

>

> On Oct 3, 2004, at 1:57 AM, wrote:

>

> > 1) Among the first books in Chinese literary history is the YiJing -

> > the

> > Book of Changes. The amazing endurance of the core Chinese cultural

> > values,

> > e.g. family and social structure, over more than 2000 years, for me

> > makes

> > sense as based on a profound understanding of the fact of constant

> > change,

> > as represented by the YiJing. Hence the formation and conservation of

> > social conventions which have so successfully survived through change.

> >

> > 2) It's explicit at the root of CM/yi xue, in the SuWen: the primary

> > etiology is wind; wind is change; change is omnipresent (day/night,

> > seasons, life-stages), and failure to properly adapt, flow with it

> > results

> > in disease. This is a keystone of neijing 'theory', as distinct from

> > the

> > earlier (and later, as in Western germ theory) ontological explanations

> > (insects, parasites, gu-bugs - the 'other' causative factors beyond

> > external and internal -- demons, and earlier, offended ancestors).

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Marco.

The Pa Kua (Ba Gua), a diagram with the Yi Jing 8 trigrams, is the base to a lot

of TCM techniques, i.g. eye acupuncture, hand diagnosis, etc...

 

We have also a very interesting perspective: to use the Yi Jing divination to

make diagnosis and treatments, i.g. one body part or a medicinal plant part for

each line of an Hexagram.

 

The ciclic concept is based at post-heaven ba gua, the same for the seasons and

the Wu Xing (Five Movements).

 

Just study the Yi Jing and your TCM comprehension will be more deep and clear.

 

Best regards.

 

Gilberto Antônio Silva

_______________________

Longevidade.Net

Saúde e Qualidade de Vida

www.longevidade.net

______________________

-

Marco Bergh

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, December 07, 2004 5:21 PM

Re: Re: Belief in the Yellow Emperor (Jim G.)

 

 

Interesting stuff,

 

Now can we elaborate on the Yi Jing and medicine?

 

Why is it that people Sharon Witzburn and Steven Clavey mentions " the

changes " i.e. Yi Jing but I for one am as dum as before to its actual

meaning in or within medical context.

 

The concept of flexible is very important in Chinese culture from a literary

view it seams, Bensky makes use of the word Ling hou (missed spelt?) which

contains the word and same characters as Ling as in ling Shou less I am

totally up the wrong wall?

 

He then explains that this flexible in terms of Chinese gives a connotation

of life if you not ling hou your dead (I might totally be miss representing

Bensky so any corrections will do).

 

Thus Yi Jing is flexible in one word (change changeability flexibility

rhymes in English...), but then what?

 

For people to say that one can not study medicine without the changes and

vice versa is a pretty clear message per say.

 

Study the Yi Jing, but I am still at lost both with how to study the Yi Jing

and why?

 

Its an important topic it seams so those in the knowing please step

forward...

 

 

Marco

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Marco,

 

> Interesting stuff,

>

> Now can we elaborate on the Yi Jing and medicine?

>

 

Ni writes in his book " I Ching, and the Unchanging Truth " :

 

" The I Ching teaches the natural truth that when something has been

accomplished, or when a life circumstance reaches its peak, one should

be aware of the coming decline that will inevitably follow. "

 

From the perspective of health and medicine, there is nothing that I

can think of that can be said to be more profound.

 

Rich