Digest Number 1352

[Guest guest]

<<<Although great achievement has been made, the progress is less

<<<significant when compared with the advance made in other scientific

<<<disciplines such as Western medicine (WM).

 

The assertion here appears to be that the velocity of advancement and the

rate of acceleration of TCM is slower than that of western medicine.

 

First, what is the operational definition of advancement?

 

Second, why is this perceived slowness a bad thing that needs fixing?

 

JOE

[Guest guest]

In an earlier discussion, Bob Felt pointed out that the concept of

'evidence' (as in evidence-based medicine) is a culturally

conditioned one. I feel the same about 'advancement'. It usually

means absorption into the vast biomedical framework.

 

While I feel that Chinese medical history has seen much innovation

over the centuries (see Elisabeth Hsu's " Innovation in Chinese

Medicine " , a great book), it has been in the context of continuity

with the classical tradition.

 

The changes effecting Chinese medicine now (radical cultural

upheavals, the challenge from biomedicine) are very great, but

Chinese medicine has been in a defensive posture for the most part.

This has limited innovation from within the tradition, but led to a

subsumed role to biomedicine for the most part.

 

So, on one hand, the worship of 'progress' in the modern world

obscures much of the true value of Chinese medicine.

 

On the other hand, is creativity still a part of Chinese medicine?

 

 

On Apr 3, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Joseph Balensi wrote:

 

> The assertion here appears to be that the velocity of advancement

> and the

> rate of acceleration of TCM is slower than that of western medicine.

>

> First, what is the operational definition of advancement?

>

> Second, why is this perceived slowness a bad thing that needs fixing?

>

> JOE