Reality Is A Shared Hallucination

[Guest guest]

All,

 

I was thinking about the issue of whether

or not we need to know how Chinese language

and thought work in order to understand

Chinese medical terms and theories and

came upon an interesting essay by Howard

Bloom entitled Reality Is A Shared Hallucination.

It can be found on page 12 of a book entitled

You Are Being Lied To, published by Disinformation

http://www.disinfo.com/

 

Here's a quote from the article that I

think has a bearing on this discussion.

 

" Social experience literally shapes critical details of brain

physiology, sculpting an infant's brain to fit the culture into which

the child is born. Six-month-olds can hear or make every sound in

virtually every human language. But within a mere four months, nearly

two-thirds of this capacity has been cut away. The slashing of

ability is accompanied by ruthless alterations in cerebral tissue.

Brain cells remain alive only if they can prove their worth in

dealing with the baby's physical and social surroundings. Half the

brain cells we are born with rapidly die. The 50 percent of neurons

which thrive are those which have shown they come in handy for coping

with such cultural experiences as crawling on the polished mud floor

of a straw hut or navigating on all fours across wall-to-wall

carpeting, of comprehending a mother's words, her body language,

stories, songs, and the concepts she's imbibed from her community.

Those nerve cells stay alive which demonstrate that they can cope

with the quirks of strangers, friends, and family. The 50 percent of

neurons which remain unused are literally forced to commit

preprogrammed death - suicide. The brain which underlies the mind is

jigsawed like a puzzle piece to fit the space it's given by its loved

ones and by the larger framework of its culture's patterning. "

 

For your consideration...

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken:

 

While I don't think this quote supports your point, it is an

interesting fact. There's a lot more detail on this topic in Allan

N. Shore's book, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The

Neurobiology of Emotional Development (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

1994).

 

I think your argument stands on its own intellectual merits.

Although I have argued about the practicality of its implication

(for example, the school where I teach wasn't able to get enough

student interest in continuing Chinese language classes despite

repeated attempts), I can't imagine anyone in this field not wanting

to know more. I have studied pulse diagnosis with the same Korean

master for over 20 years (still do) simply because the wealth of

knowledge is seemingly endless and increasingly expands to include

more clinical experience, theory, and philosophy---it's the Rosetta

Stone that holds it all together.

 

It seems limitations are reached for some practitioners due to

personal comfort factors, the pressures of a career, family

obligations, etc. I doubt that you can convince them otherwise. But,

to paraphrase Woody Allen's line, 'our profession is like a shark,

it either moves forward or dies.'

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> All,

>

> I was thinking about the issue of whether

> or not we need to know how Chinese language

> and thought work in order to understand

> Chinese medical terms and theories and

> came upon an interesting essay by Howard

> Bloom entitled Reality Is A Shared Hallucination.

> It can be found on page 12 of a book entitled

> You Are Being Lied To, published by Disinformation

> http://www.disinfo.com/

>

> Here's a quote from the article that I

> think has a bearing on this discussion.

>

> " Social experience literally shapes critical details of brain

> physiology, sculpting an infant's brain to fit the culture into

which

> the child is born. Six-month-olds can hear or make every sound in

> virtually every human language. But within a mere four months,

nearly

> two-thirds of this capacity has been cut away. The slashing of

> ability is accompanied by ruthless alterations in cerebral tissue.

> Brain cells remain alive only if they can prove their worth in

> dealing with the baby's physical and social surroundings. Half the

> brain cells we are born with rapidly die. The 50 percent of

neurons

> which thrive are those which have shown they come in handy for

coping

> with such cultural experiences as crawling on the polished mud

floor

> of a straw hut or navigating on all fours across wall-to-wall

> carpeting, of comprehending a mother's words, her body language,

> stories, songs, and the concepts she's imbibed from her community.

> Those nerve cells stay alive which demonstrate that they can cope

> with the quirks of strangers, friends, and family. The 50 percent

of

> neurons which remain unused are literally forced to commit

> preprogrammed death - suicide. The brain which underlies the mind

is

> jigsawed like a puzzle piece to fit the space it's given by its

loved

> ones and by the larger framework of its culture's patterning. "

>

> For your consideration...

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

The slashing of ability is accompanied by ruthless alterations in cerebral tissue. Brain cells remain alive only if they can prove their worth in dealing with the baby's physical and social surroundings. Half the brain cells we are born with rapidly die. The 50 percent of neurons which thrive are those which have shown they come in handy for coping with such cultural experiences as crawling on the polished mud floor of a straw hut or navigating on all fours across wall-to-wall carpeting, of comprehending a mother's words, her body language, stories, songs, and the concepts she's imbibed from her community. Those nerve cells stay alive which demonstrate that they can cope with the quirks of strangers, friends, and family. The 50 percent of neurons which remain unused are literally forced to commit preprogrammed death - suicide. The brain which underlies the mind is jigsawed like a puzzle piece to fit the space it's given by its loved ones and by the larger framework of its culture's patterning.">>>>Sorry but this is incorrect. We do not loose 50% of neurons or use 50% of our brain

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

....The 50 percent of

> neurons which remain unused are literally forced to commit

> preprogrammed death - suicide. The brain which underlies the mind

is

> jigsawed like a puzzle piece to fit the space it's given by its

loved

> ones and by the larger framework of its culture's patterning. "

> >>>>Sorry but this is incorrect. We do not loose 50% of neurons or

use 50% of our brain

 

 

OK. What's the correct figure? Do we

loose none? 10% 20% How much?

 

Do you refute the Bloom's conclusion

that " the brain which underlies the

mind is jigsawed like a puzzle piece to

fit the space it's given by its lvoed

ones and by the larger framework of its

culture's patterning " ?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Jim, Will, and All,

 

> While I don't think this quote supports your point, it is an

> interesting fact.

 

I put it up because of the latter. I haven't

yet come to any conclusion as to whether or

not it supports or somehow contradicts the

argument in favor of including language and

literature in the scope of Chinese medical

studies. I'd be very interested in reading

your take on how it does not support that

argument.

 

There's a lot more detail on this topic in Allan

> N. Shore's book, Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The

> Neurobiology of Emotional Development (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

> 1994).

 

Thanks. I'll check it out.

>

> I think your argument stands on its own intellectual merits.

 

I don't consider it a great intellectual accomplishment.

It seems more or less like common sense. I believe that

the common sense of it has been obscured by the fact

that the meanings of the basic terms of the subject

have themselves been obscured. This leads to an obscure

method of dealing with terms and to further and further

obscurity.

 

> Although I have argued about the practicality of its implication

> (for example, the school where I teach wasn't able to get enough

> student interest in continuing Chinese language classes despite

> repeated attempts), I can't imagine anyone in this field not

wanting

> to know more.

 

You don't have to imagine people in the field

arguing against knowing more. It happens right

here on this list virtually every day.

 

I have studied pulse diagnosis with the same Korean

> master for over 20 years (still do) simply because the wealth of

> knowledge is seemingly endless and increasingly expands to include

> more clinical experience, theory, and philosophy---it's the Rosetta

> Stone that holds it all together.

 

The exercise of attempting to separate terms

from their long established meanings and values

seems ill-advised at best and downright hypocritical

at times.

 

The current state of the nomenclature of

Chinese medicine in English language literature

remains obfuscated, despite the publication

nearly four years ago of the Practical Dictionary.

And despite the availability of loads of Chinese

language resources. There remains a widespread

attitude that rigorous study of the words somehow

conflicts with the pursuit of clinical excellence.

But it seems to me that the words are the lights

by which the interior of the great treasure

house of Chinese medicine is illuminated.

When their meanings are not made clear,

this light is veiled and the interior view is diminshed.

 

We've heard the conceit about the treachery

of translation standards, but it is never

defended. It's obvious to me that it is

indefensible. Standards of translation and

scholarship only make it more possible to

have a discussion.

 

Take the recent exchange between me and Will

on the subject of ying2, which turned out to

be about rong2, as well. I don't know about

the rest of the list members, but I was really

confused.

 

First ying2 meant something about water and

the movement of qi4 based upon the presence

of the water radical. Then it became likened

to the movement of sap through trees when

the water radical was changed to the wood

radical. Then it turned out that we were

really talking about another word, rong2

that does indeed have a wood radical and

does indeed take the place of ying2 from

time to time as a label placed on certain

aspects of qi4.

 

The whole thread could have been much more

coherent if just a few simple standards

had been employed. And I want to point out

that what resolved the confusion, at least

for me, was simply picking up a couple of

dictionaries and looking at the cited passages.

 

But what happens in classes when this

kind of information is disseminated? I'm

not picking on Will. I know will to be an

intelligent and dedicated educator. As I

said the other day, there's no shame in

making mistakes on characters. I make so

many damn mistakes that it isn't funny.

 

The real shame emerges from the aggregation

of poorly defined terms and the resulting

confusions. There is a danger in such

circumstances of the disappearance of

standard meanings altogether at which

point the words can mean just

about anything that anybody intends them to.

 

Well that's fine, but it really snarls up

communication. Oh yes, and it completely

misses the meanings that the words have

had for centuries and in some cases millennia.

 

With all due respect to Alon who will no

doubt demand that I prove this with a

case history, the meanings of words are

important. And the phenomenon of a whole

field full of practitioners functioning

with a dysfunctional nomenclature is

similarly important.

 

>

> It seems limitations are reached for some practitioners due to

> personal comfort factors, the pressures of a career, family

> obligations, etc. I doubt that you can convince them otherwise.

 

As I've said many, many times, I'm not out

to convince anybody of anything. I simply want

to participate in an airing of the issues and

let people make up their own minds.

 

 

But,

> to paraphrase Woody Allen's line, 'our profession is like a shark,

> it either moves forward or dies.'

 

It's also like a shark in that it's very old,

has survived with its ancient characteristics

still very much in evidence, and its inner

workings have not yet been revealed to

scientific investigators who would very

much like to know how it all functions.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

<< I put it up [the quote] because of the latter. I haven't

yet come to any conclusion as to whether or

not it supports or somehow contradicts the

argument in favor of including language and

literature in the scope of Chinese medical

studies. I'd be very interested in reading

your take on how it does not support that

argument. >>

 

The quote is not necessarily about how language---especially a

foreign language---is learned; it's about any experience, even

experience of the self in the first two years of life. The

significance of learning language in infancy is that narrative is

one of the most important ways that the infant's brain organizes

experience---by creating sense, coherence, and continuity across

time.

 

So, you could also argue that learning Chinese further helps

integrate or create that coherence and continuity for TCM. While it

may be learned in English, understanding the original language

offers a sense of immediacy, linguistic nuances, more detailed

organization, and a greater intimacy with the Chinese mind that

originally created these concepts.

 

 

 

<< You don't have to imagine people in the field

arguing against knowing more. It happens right

here on this list virtually every day. >>

 

Perhaps you're asking too much of some of them. In the first place,

only a very few have the talent and self-motivation to be able to

translate the classics well. Translating modern journals is easier

because those are always about the same small pool of diagnostic

patterns and herbal formulas. But learning major concepts and their

etymology and use during different periods is not asking too much.

 

 

<< The exercise of attempting to separate terms

from their long established meanings and values

seems ill-advised at best and downright hypocritical

at times. >>

 

This is where I believe you go astray. We're not trying to separate

terms from their meaning. Theory and clinical findings didn't end

with the classics nor should we expect to find ONLY those meanings

now. And often, the classics don't really explain things very well---

consider Chip Chace's book on divergent meridians. Continuing

ancient threads of thoughts, creating new insights, expanding on

past theories, and examining new findings against the classical

material are part of the historical process. If we looked ONLY at

what the classics say, we would be searching for ghosts. The world

has changed, and CM must adapt or atrophy.

 

While it is a great treasure house of the past, why neglect the

present and the future? For example, Leon Hammer and Jiang Jing have

taken great strides beyond the classics in pulse diagnosis. But

currently, their ideas are fairly ignored, misunderstood, or remain

unknown. Now their work is in peer review and clinical verification.

If their innovations are learned and used by enough practitioners,

they will probably be known and more appreciated in future

generations.

 

<< Take the recent exchange between me and Will

on the subject of ying2, which turned out to

be about rong2, as well. I don't know about

the rest of the list members, but I was really

confused. >>

 

That's what discussion is for. Will confuses me too, but I'm

interested enough to expect, and wait, for the payoff. If Will is

getting good results using his understanding and approach, it bears

looking into.

 

Unfortunately, this forum isn't intended to be scholastic, merely

anecdotal or informational. It could be made more scholarly in the

future. But how many have even taken the trouble to read the

postings in the articles section?

 

 

<< Well that's fine, but it really snarls up

communication. Oh yes, and it completely

misses the meanings that the words have

had for centuries and in some cases millennia. >>

 

What about new developments for concepts?

 

 

<< As I've said many, many times, I'm not out

to convince anybody of anything. I simply want

to participate in an airing of the issues and

let people make up their own minds. >>

 

Really? There's no blame in trying to persuade someone to see things

your way. Some people need to be shaken out of their complacency.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

larger framework of itsculture's patterning"?>>>>No, hard wiring occur quite early and possibly may prevent the understanding of a different perspective regardless of time and effort

Alon

[Guest guest]

With all due respect to Alon who will nodoubt demand that I prove this with a case history, the meanings of words areimportant. And the phenomenon of a wholefield full of practitioners functioningwith a dysfunctional nomenclature issimilarly important.>>>>Actually i do not disagree. The majority of words we use work ok if we use def or vacuity. I personally always prefer the use of a word that most closely resemble the meaning in English not the Chinese, and that is what i do not like in Wiseman. But having good definitions are a prerequisite for understanding and communication.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> The quote is not necessarily about how language---especially a

> foreign language---is learned; it's about any experience, even

> experience of the self in the first two years of life. The

> significance of learning language in infancy is that narrative is

> one of the most important ways that the infant's brain organizes

> experience---by creating sense, coherence, and continuity across

> time.

 

I'm still thinking about it. But it seems to

me that it spoke to the degree to which patterns

of language and thought...for instance medical

theories...are embedded in broader cultural

patterns.

 

>

> So, you could also argue that learning Chinese further helps

> integrate or create that coherence and continuity for TCM. While it

> may be learned in English, understanding the original language

> offers a sense of immediacy, linguistic nuances, more detailed

> organization, and a greater intimacy with the Chinese mind that

> originally created these concepts.

 

Learning language always entails studying

culture. Certainly those who become fluent

in a language acquire certain familiarity

with cultural ideas along the way. I think

it just makes sense that those who call them

themselves Doctors of

should be fluent in the language of

Chinese medicine.

 

> << You don't have to imagine people in the field

> arguing against knowing more. It happens right

> here on this list virtually every day. >>

>

> Perhaps you're asking too much of some of them.

 

I couldn't agree with you less. I have the

highest respect for everyone on this list.

Taking part in this discussion, even by

if by only reading, testifies to what I

believe is certainly more than adequate

intelligence to deal with everything we're

talking about. I'm talking to you and

the people on this list. I presume that

others talk about the issues we discuss

here within their own circles and spheres

of influence. I more and more hear from

people who recognize the importance of

including language, cultural, and philosophical

studies in their approach to Chinese medicine,

and I believe that I'm not asking anything

of anybody that they can't accomplish,

give, or take.

 

In the first place,

> only a very few have the talent and self-motivation to be able to

> translate the classics well.

 

It's not about translation. I'm not saying

people should all become translators. That

would be asking too much. I hope that some

will become translators, because practically

speaking they are necessary. But it's not

exactly a fate I'd wish on anybody.

 

Translating modern journals is easier

> because those are always about the same small pool of diagnostic

> patterns and herbal formulas. But learning major concepts and their

> etymology and use during different periods is not asking too much.

 

I agree with both statements, but again,

it's not about translating. It's all about

learning the major concepts clearly in

the perspective of the group that coined,

developed, and used the terms and theories

for thousands of years.

>

>

> << The exercise of attempting to separate terms

> from their long established meanings and values

> seems ill-advised at best and downright hypocritical

> at times. >>

>

> This is where I believe you go astray. We're not trying to separate

> terms from their meaning. Theory and clinical findings didn't end

> with the classics nor should we expect to find ONLY those meanings

> now.

 

First, I've never once suggested that anybody

be limited in their understanding of Chinese

medicine to ONLY what is in the classics. I've

stated that anybody who does not know what's

written in the classics is limited to understanding

ONLY what someone else has told them is in

the classics. And I absolutely guarantee everyone

that NO ONE gets it right all the time.

 

The terms have already been separated from

their meanings. Major writers in the field

have asserted that there is no nomenclature

of special terms, or that the set that constitutes

the nomenclature includes just a few dozen

terms and that everything else can be understood

in lay terminology that requires no special

understanding. Large amounts of information

that needs to be appended to the study of

the terms is omitted routinely, further

separating the words from their meanings.

 

It's a long term effort and it's well underway.

 

I once again ask anyone who believes that it

is justified on the basis of evidence that

such an approach has ever succeeded in establishing

a profession of Chinese medicine to step up

with this evidence.

 

And often, the classics don't really explain things very well---

> consider Chip Chace's book on divergent meridians. Continuing

> ancient threads of thoughts, creating new insights, expanding on

> past theories, and examining new findings against the classical

> material are part of the historical process.

 

Of course they are. And they must always be

based on the study of the classics themselves.

 

If we looked ONLY at

> what the classics say, we would be searching for ghosts. The world

> has changed, and CM must adapt or atrophy.

 

Yeah, well, again, I've never argued otherwise.

>

> While it is a great treasure house of the past, why neglect the

> present and the future? For example, Leon Hammer and Jiang Jing

have

> taken great strides beyond the classics in pulse diagnosis.

 

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with

their work to comment.

 

But

> currently, their ideas are fairly ignored, misunderstood, or remain

> unknown. Now their work is in peer review and clinical

verification.

> If their innovations are learned and used by enough practitioners,

> they will probably be known and more appreciated in future

> generations.

 

That makes sense. But if you are now arguing

for the weight of evidence of generational

affirmation of the value of medical ideas,

then you have to recognize that you've just

argued forcefully for the position that we

pay more attention to those bodies of medical

ideas that have been affirmed by scores of

generations.

 

 

>

> << Take the recent exchange between me and Will

> on the subject of ying2, which turned out to

> be about rong2, as well. I don't know about

> the rest of the list members, but I was really

> confused. >>

>

> That's what discussion is for. Will confuses me too, but I'm

> interested enough to expect, and wait, for the payoff. If Will is

> getting good results using his understanding and approach, it bears

> looking into.

 

I'm not saying that Will's ideas don't bear looking

into. Man, you jump to some wild conclusions. I

was talking very pointedly about the meanings of

the words that he was using as an example of how

the omissioin of certain basic standards in our

field obscure the exchange of information taking

place. I'm quite happy to look into anything

he or anyone else says.

>

> Unfortunately, this forum isn't intended to be scholastic, merely

> anecdotal or informational. It could be made more scholarly in the

> future. But how many have even taken the trouble to read the

> postings in the articles section?

 

I don't dig the theme of critisizing the

people on the list. As others often point

out arguing against things I say, people

are busy. It doesn't mean they're not

thinking, thoughtful, intelligent and

motivated people. I have great respect

for the list members or I wouldn't waste

my time.

 

 

> << Well that's fine, but it really snarls up

> communication. Oh yes, and it completely

> misses the meanings that the words have

> had for centuries and in some cases millennia. >>

>

> What about new developments for concepts?

 

Such as?

>

>

> << As I've said many, many times, I'm not out

> to convince anybody of anything. I simply want

> to participate in an airing of the issues and

> let people make up their own minds. >>

>

> Really? There's no blame in trying to persuade someone to see

things

> your way. Some people need to be shaken out of their complacency.

 

I'm not concerned about blame. I'm concerned with

effective communication. I find that people who

think for themselves are much easier to talk to.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

<< I'm still thinking about it. But it seems to

me that it spoke to the degree to which patterns

of language and thought...for instance medical

theories...are embedded in broader cultural

patterns. >>

 

Have you looked into the ethnographic material about China? I

remember the work of Benjamin Whorf from my college days. He was a

linguist known for his theory of linguistic relativity. That theory

proposes that a person's view of reality is shaped to a large extent

by the linguistic system of the language used. For examples, Eskimos

have a wide variety of terms for snow; skiers have a few, and couch

potatoes just a curse at having to shovel it. So if the neurological

information doesn't suit your argument, the ethnographic should.

Unfortunately, I can't point you toward anything Chinese in

particular.

 

 

 

<< I couldn't agree with you less. I have the

highest respect for everyone on this list.

Taking part in this discussion, even by

if by only reading, testifies to what I

believe is certainly more than adequate

intelligence to deal with everything we're

talking about. >>

 

It wasn't a put-down. People are occupied with their careers,

families, etc. I don't think it's that they are, as you

say, " arguing against knowing more, " as it is making accommodations

with the time crunch and what they feel they need to study. There

isn't enough time to keep up with all the material in the field.

 

 

 

<< I agree with both statements, but again,

it's not about translating. It's all about

learning the major concepts clearly in

the perspective of the group that coined,

developed, and used the terms and theories

for thousands of years. . . Large amounts of information

that needs to be appended to the study of

the terms is omitted routinely, further

separating the words from their meanings. >>

 

Often it sounds like it is about learning to translate. Have you

considered developing your own introductory text---a replacement of

Fundamentals? With half of the practitioners feeling their school

was good or excellent, I think your true audience are the students.

A book like that could also persuade graduates. I suggest it because

those type of texts sell better and are more easily accepted.

 

 

 

<< And often, the classics don't really explain things very well---

> consider Chip Chace's book on divergent meridians. Continuing

> ancient threads of thoughts, creating new insights, expanding on

> past theories, and examining new findings against the classical

> material are part of the historical process.

Of course they are. And they must always be

based on the study of the classics themselves. >>

 

Based on the study of the classics but not to the exclusion of

innovation.

 

 

< While it is a great treasure house of the past, why neglect the

> present and the future? For example, Leon Hammer and Jiang Jing

> have taken great strides beyond the classics in pulse diagnosis.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with

their work to comment. >>

 

Again, it illustrates my point about how much any one of us can do.

 

 

 

<< But if you are now arguing

for the weight of evidence of generational

affirmation of the value of medical ideas,

then you have to recognize that you've just

argued forcefully for the position that we

pay more attention to those bodies of medical

ideas that have been affirmed by scores of

generations. >>

 

From your postings, there doesn't seem to be any room for

innovations that may contradict the classics. If you argue that we

can't know innovation without knowing the entire body of the past

work, then maybe we are simply reinventing lost or forgotten ideas.

Much of what I see in Shen/Hammer expands upon the classical

material. Jiang Jing's work re-examines and redefines how the

classics defined certain pulse diagnosis terms [see Will's forum for

my comments on the knotting (jie) pulse---Jin Wei's writing on

the " winding pulse " anticipates some of it].

 

 

< Unfortunately, this forum isn't intended to be scholastic,

merely

> anecdotal or informational. It could be made more scholarly in the

> future. But how many have even taken the trouble to read the

> postings in the articles section?

I don't dig the theme of criticizing the

people on the list. As others often point

out arguing against things I say, people

are busy. It doesn't mean they're not

thinking, thoughtful, intelligent and

motivated people. I have great respect

for the list members or I wouldn't waste

my time. >>

 

It isn't a criticism of anyone. The forum, as a medium with short

quick anecdotal postings, doesn't support extended arguments---

articles and books do. That's all.

 

I have encouraged Todd in the past that it might be a direction he

would want to take. I would like to see an electronic magazine that

brings us the immediacy and accessibility that the forum offrs with

the capacity for expanded arguments and analysis. It might take as

little as participants on the forum publishing selections from their

books in the articles section. For example, it would be interesting

to read a chapter from your book online. I think it would expand

interest in your work. And participants should publish their

speaking schedules on the calendar section. I missed several events

for lack of being forewarned.

 

Like many in this forum, this is some place I go to more than once

during the week---accessibility and timing are its hallmarks.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> Have you looked into the ethnographic material about China?

 

A bit. But not enough. I'll see what I can find.

 

I

> remember the work of Benjamin Whorf from my college days. He was a

> linguist known for his theory of linguistic relativity. That theory

> proposes that a person's view of reality is shaped to a large

extent

> by the linguistic system of the language used. For examples,

Eskimos

> have a wide variety of terms for snow; skiers have a few, and couch

> potatoes just a curse at having to shovel it. So if the

neurological

> information doesn't suit your argument, the ethnographic should.

> Unfortunately, I can't point you toward anything Chinese in

> particular.

 

Interesting that you mention Whorf. One of

the people we had review the manuscript of

Who Can Ride the Dragon? was a linguist who

was a member of the National Academy of Science.

She criticized the language section for being

" too Whorfian. "

>

>

> << I couldn't agree with you less. I have the

> highest respect for everyone on this list.

> Taking part in this discussion, even by

> if by only reading, testifies to what I

> believe is certainly more than adequate

> intelligence to deal with everything we're

> talking about. >>

>

> It wasn't a put-down. People are occupied with their careers,

> families, etc. I don't think it's that they are, as you

> say, " arguing against knowing more, " as it is making

accommodations

> with the time crunch and what they feel they need to study. There

> isn't enough time to keep up with all the material in the field.

 

Personally I don't buy the time argument.

Time passes. Period. Five years from now

it will be five years later. What matters

is what we do. The crux of the issue lies

in the " what they feel they need to study. "

They feel they need to study what they

are told they need to study. And they

are told they need to study what they

need to pass their licensing exams.

 

 

> Often it sounds like it is about learning to translate.

 

Well, I don't know why it sounds like this,

at least as far as things that I've said,

because I've never said that people need

to learn to translate in order to be properly

prepared to study medicine. And I've always

pointed out that it's not about learning

to translate. So I can't figure out how

that sounds like it's about learning to

translate.

 

Have you

> considered developing your own introductory text---a replacement of

> Fundamentals?

 

No. But I have thought about textbook development

in general and would like to see a series of

bilingual texts developed that could move towards

an international standard of basic instruction that

would make it possilbe for people in all parts

of the world to share a common langauge on the

subject and thereby be able to exchange information

far more effectively.

 

With half of the practitioners feeling their school

> was good or excellent, I think your true audience are the students.

> A book like that could also persuade graduates. I suggest it

because

> those type of texts sell better and are more easily accepted.

 

It seems to me that the texts that sell well are

those that are required for the licensing exams.

 

>

>

>

> << And often, the classics don't really explain things very well---

> > consider Chip Chace's book on divergent meridians. Continuing

> > ancient threads of thoughts, creating new insights, expanding on

> > past theories, and examining new findings against the classical

> > material are part of the historical process.

> Of course they are. And they must always be

> based on the study of the classics themselves. >>

>

> Based on the study of the classics but not to the exclusion of

> innovation.

 

I believe that a comprehensive study of the classics

tends to lead one to the conclusion that innovation

is necessary, in that one needs to innovate one's

one personal understanding and cultivation. It's

always a personal matter and acts of understanding

are always innovative.

 

 

>

>

> < While it is a great treasure house of the past, why neglect

the

> > present and the future? For example, Leon Hammer and Jiang Jing

> > have taken great strides beyond the classics in pulse diagnosis.

> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with

> their work to comment. >>

>

> Again, it illustrates my point about how much any one of us can do.

 

I am in no position to assess anyone's

limitations. I find that people can do

remarkable things if they put their minds

to it.

 

 

>

>

>

> << But if you are now arguing

> for the weight of evidence of generational

> affirmation of the value of medical ideas,

> then you have to recognize that you've just

> argued forcefully for the position that we

> pay more attention to those bodies of medical

> ideas that have been affirmed by scores of

> generations. >>

>

> From your postings, there doesn't seem to be any room for

> innovations that may contradict the classics.

 

Again, I don't know how this seems this way

when I've said time and again that I believe

that the personal work of assembling an understanding

of the traditional knowledge base 1) must be done

by all individuals and 2) consists of applying the

information contained in traditional sources to

the contemporary circumstances.

 

If you argue that we

> can't know innovation without knowing the entire body of the past

> work,

 

I've never made any such argument. The phrase

" the entire body of the past work " makes reference

to a mass of information that would be very

difficult to " know " . Fortunately, I think that

a good deal of the study can be accomplished

through focusing on the gist of ideas. Of

course the study of the " entire body " can

continue and is always likely to enrich the

student.

 

then maybe we are simply reinventing lost or forgotten ideas.

 

Well, until and unless we take full responsibility

for the " entire body " of the classical literature,

as a group, i.e. as a profession, we really won't

be able to know.

 

 

> Much of what I see in Shen/Hammer expands upon the classical

> material. Jiang Jing's work re-examines and redefines how the

> classics defined certain pulse diagnosis terms [see Will's forum

for

> my comments on the knotting (jie) pulse---Jin Wei's writing on

> the " winding pulse " anticipates some of it].

 

This seems to me to be one fairly " classical "

feature, i.e. the aggregation of commentaries,

those of high merit becoming appended to the

classical work.

 

 

> It isn't a criticism of anyone. The forum, as a medium with short

> quick anecdotal postings, doesn't support extended arguments---

> articles and books do. That's all.

 

Seems to me we can make it whatever we need

and want it to be. I don't think there's

anything in the user's manual that insists

upon quick anecdotal postings.

>

> I have encouraged Todd in the past that it might be a direction he

> would want to take. I would like to see an electronic magazine that

> brings us the immediacy and accessibility that the forum offrs with

> the capacity for expanded arguments and analysis. It might take as

> little as participants on the forum publishing selections from

their

> books in the articles section.

 

I presume that additional packages will

evolve as demand expresses itself.

 

For example, it would be interesting

> to read a chapter from your book online. I think it would expand

> interest in your work.

 

There's a sample chapter of Who Can Ride

the Dragon available online at:

http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/html/whocanriddra.html

Just go to that address and click on the

Sample Chapter link.

 

I don't think that this has been done yet

for A Brief History of Qi. I just looked

at the amazon page for that book and there's

no samples available there yet. But I agree

it's a good idea to make material available

for people to check out.

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Interesting that you mention Whorf. One of

> the people we had review the manuscript of

> Who Can Ride the Dragon? was a linguist who

> was a member of the National Academy of Science.

> She criticized the language section for being

> " too Whorfian. "

 

I'm don't think that you can be " too Whorfian " in this field. Have

you read Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the Body

and the Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books, 1999)?

Its a brilliant description of how CM and WM developed their

respective lines of thought when they started with similar

circumstances. That would be the place to start. The book received

the Oriental Medicine Joural Award for Excellence in 2000. Below is

a quote from it that I use in my pulse diagnosis seminars.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

Quote from the preface to

The Expressiveness of the Body

and the Divergence of Greek and

by Shigehisa Kuriyama (Zone Books, 1999)

 

 

Versions of the truth sometimes differ so startlingly that the very

idea of truth becomes suspect. Akutagawa Ryunosuke's haunting tale

about this mystery admits two certainties: a woman has been violated

by a bandit, and her husband lies in a grove, stabbed dead.

The captured bandit confesses that he killed the husband, but pleads

that the woman had goaded him on. Murder hadn't been his intent but

the woman had insisted. She could not, would not tolerate two

witnesses to her shame walking the earth. Kill yourself or my

husband, she had said. Well, he had no choice.

 

Yet the woman confides that she killed her husband---at his own

behest. As he sat silent, bound and humiliated, his eyes had spoken

unmistakably of contempt and hard hatred. " Kill me, " they had

commanded. She realized then that they both had to die, the disgrace

was too awful. But she had fainted after plunging her knife into

him, and failed, finally, to end her own life.

 

The dead man testifies through a medium. " I killed myself, " his

anguished voice cries out. The horror of watching on, impotent, as

his wife had first been raped and had then become enraptured, was

too much. " Kill my husband, " she had urged the bandit. " Take me away

with you, anywhere: " Death is an easy choice for a man whose wife

can say such words.

 

What really happened? Was the husband murdered by his wife? By the

bandit? Or was it suicide? Do even the dead deceive? Akutagawa never

tells us which version to believe---or whether to believe any of

them.

 

A similar riddle lies at the heart of the history of medicine. The

true structure and workings of the human body are, we casually

assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But then we look

into history, and our sense of reality wavers. Like the confessions

of the bandit, the woman, and the dead man, accounts of the body in

diverse medical traditions frequently appear to describe mutually

alien, almost unrelated worlds.

 

Compare figure 1, from Hua Shows Shisijing fahui (1341) with figure

2, from Vesalius's Fabrica (1543). Viewed side by side, the two

figures each betray lacunae. In Hua Shou, we miss the muscular

detail of the Vesalian man; and in fact Chinese doctors lacked even

a specific word for " muscle:' Muscularity was a peculiarly Western

preoccupation. On the other hand, the tracts and points of

acupuncture entirely escaped the West's anatomical vision of

reality. Thus, when Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries began to study Chinese medical teachings, the descriptions

of the body they encountered struck them as " phantastical "

and " absurd, " like tales of an imaginary land.

 

How can perceptions of something as basic and intimate as the body

differ so? In the case of the death in the grove, we may be unsure

about who is lying and who is not, and we may despair of untangling

all the motives behind the liars' lies; but we have a fair idea of

the forces at work. We know from our own experience how the tumult

of feelings can transfigure the stories that we tell others and

ourselves. We divine in each confession chaotic mixtures of guilt

and vanity, fear, anger, and self loathing.

 

The parting of realities in Hua Shou and Vesalius, however,

presumably requires other explanations. Rather than accuse

distorting passions, we are apt here to speak vaguely of different

ways of thinking, or more slyly, of alternative perspectives:

witnesses to an event often disagree, and not because of any

dishonesty or clouded judgment, but just because of where they stand.

Yet what might " standing somewhere " involve, concretely, in the

context of medical history? When we say that the first base and home

plate umpires have different views of a play in baseball, we refer

specifically to their physical locations. Each perceives aspects

that the other cannot, because the two stand ninety feet apart and

command different angles on the action. Clearly, such spatial

positioning isn't what we mean when we speak of the disparate

viewpoints of Hua Shou and Vesalius.

 

So what exactly could we mean? What sorts of distances

separate " places " in the geography of medical imagination? How

should we chart a map of viewpoints on the body? Such are the

questions that motivate this book.

 

The history of medicine in China and in the West encompasses a rich

variety of beliefs and practices evolving in complex patterns over

several millennia. We cannot regard figures 1 and 2, therefore, or

any other pair of pictures, as representing the Western and Chinese

perspectives on the body. Neither tradition can be reduced to a

single viewpoint.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Kuriyama's book is quite singular and amazing.

I have just started reading it at the suggestion of a friend outside our

field.

Frances

jramholz wrote:

,

"dragon90405" <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Interesting that you mention Whorf. One of

> the people we had review the manuscript of

> Who Can Ride the Dragon? was a linguist who

> was a member of the National Academy of Science.

> She criticized the language section for being

> "too Whorfian."

I'm don't think that you can be "too Whorfian" in

this field. Have

you read Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness

of the Body

and the Divergence of Greek and

(Zone Books, 1999)?

Its a brilliant description of how CM and WM developed

their

respective lines of thought when they started with

similar

circumstances. That would be the place to start.

The book received

the Oriental Medicine Joural Award for Excellence

in 2000. Below is

a quote from it that I use in my pulse diagnosis

seminars.

Jim Ramholz

 

 

Quote from the preface to

The Expressiveness of the Body

and the Divergence of Greek and

by Shigehisa Kuriyama (Zone Books, 1999)

 

Versions of the truth sometimes differ so startlingly

that the very

idea of truth becomes suspect. Akutagawa Ryunosuke's

haunting tale

about this mystery admits two certainties: a woman

has been violated

by a bandit, and her husband lies in a grove, stabbed

dead.

The captured bandit confesses that he killed the

husband, but pleads

that the woman had goaded him on. Murder hadn't been

his intent but

the woman had insisted. She could not, would not

tolerate two

witnesses to her shame walking the earth. Kill yourself

or my

husband, she had said. Well, he had no choice.

Yet the woman confides that she killed her husband---at

his own

behest. As he sat silent, bound and humiliated, his

eyes had spoken

unmistakably of contempt and hard hatred. "Kill me,"

they had

commanded. She realized then that they both had to

die, the disgrace

was too awful. But she had fainted after plunging

her knife into

him, and failed, finally, to end her own life.

The dead man testifies through a medium. "I killed

myself," his

anguished voice cries out. The horror of watching

on, impotent, as

his wife had first been raped and had then become

enraptured, was

too much. "Kill my husband," she had urged the bandit.

"Take me away

with you, anywhere:" Death is an easy choice for

a man whose wife

can say such words.

What really happened? Was the husband murdered by

his wife? By the

bandit? Or was it suicide? Do even the dead deceive?

Akutagawa never

tells us which version to believe---or whether to

believe any of

them.

A similar riddle lies at the heart of the history

of medicine. The

true structure and workings of the human body are,

we casually

assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality.

But then we look

into history, and our sense of reality wavers. Like

the confessions

of the bandit, the woman, and the dead man, accounts

of the body in

diverse medical traditions frequently appear to describe

mutually

alien, almost unrelated worlds.

Compare figure 1, from Hua Shows Shisijing fahui (1341)

with figure

2, from Vesalius's Fabrica (1543). Viewed side by

side, the two

figures each betray lacunae. In Hua Shou, we miss

the muscular

detail of the Vesalian man; and in fact Chinese doctors

lacked even

a specific word for "muscle:' Muscularity was a peculiarly

Western

preoccupation. On the other hand, the tracts and

points of

acupuncture entirely escaped the West's anatomical

vision of

reality. Thus, when Europeans in the seventeenth

and eighteenth

centuries began to study Chinese medical teachings,

the descriptions

of the body they encountered struck them as "phantastical"

and "absurd," like tales of an imaginary land.

How can perceptions of something as basic and intimate

as the body

differ so? In the case of the death in the grove,

we may be unsure

about who is lying and who is not, and we may despair

of untangling

all the motives behind the liars' lies; but we have

a fair idea of

the forces at work. We know from our own experience

how the tumult

of feelings can transfigure the stories that we tell

others and

ourselves. We divine in each confession chaotic mixtures

of guilt

and vanity, fear, anger, and self loathing.

The parting of realities in Hua Shou and Vesalius,

however,

presumably requires other explanations. Rather than

accuse

distorting passions, we are apt here to speak vaguely

of different

ways of thinking, or more slyly, of alternative perspectives:

witnesses to an event often disagree, and not because

of any

dishonesty or clouded judgment, but just because

of where they stand.

Yet what might "standing somewhere" involve, concretely,

in the

context of medical history? When we say that the

first base and home

plate umpires have different views of a play in baseball,

we refer

specifically to their physical locations. Each perceives

aspects

that the other cannot, because the two stand ninety

feet apart and

command different angles on the action. Clearly,

such spatial

positioning isn't what we mean when we speak of the

disparate

viewpoints of Hua Shou and Vesalius.

So what exactly could we mean? What sorts of distances

separate "places" in the geography of medical imagination?

How

should we chart a map of viewpoints on the body?

Such are the

questions that motivate this book.

The history of medicine in China and in the West encompasses

a rich

variety of beliefs and practices evolving in complex

patterns over

several millennia. We cannot regard figures 1 and

2, therefore, or

any other pair of pictures, as representing the Western

and Chinese

perspectives on the body. Neither tradition can be

reduced to a

single viewpoint.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization

of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate

academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of

professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> I'm don't think that you can be " too Whorfian " in this field.

 

Well, we didn't make the kinds of changes

that this person wanted to see to bring

the book more into alignment with her

view of linguistic orthodoxy. So I guess

I agree with you, although I'm not very

well versed in Whorf's work in fact.

 

Have

> you read Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the Body

> and the Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books,

1999)?

> Its a brilliant description of how CM and WM developed their

> respective lines of thought when they started with similar

> circumstances. That would be the place to start. The book received

> the Oriental Medicine Joural Award for Excellence in 2000. Below is

> a quote from it that I use in my pulse diagnosis seminars.

 

It's on my Get To list. Maybe I can

find time over the next few months

while I'll be doing a fair bit of

traveling.

 

Looking over the quote you posted, I'd

say it is pretty convincing evidence

of the need to understand the context

of any particular system of medicine's

origins.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Frances:

 

I'm glad you're reading it; too few have gotten to it. It's an

absolutely brilliant piece of writing. So it's a pleasure to read,

and it actually explains why things developed the way they did in

each culture.

 

If I had any influence, I would make it mandatory reading for

beginning students. I being it up in my pulse diagnosis seminars

only in passing because of time constraints. But the way Greek and

Chinese medicines diverged can also be used to understand how

different systems of thought diverged from common sources. That's

why, although I don't practice the Shen/Hammer system, I am

interested to hear about their finding.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, Frances Gander <fgander@c...> wrote:

> Jim,

> Kuriyama's book is quite singular and amazing. I have just started

> reading it at the suggestion of a friend outside our field.

> Frances

>

> jramholz wrote:

>

> > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...>

wrote:

> > > Interesting that you mention Whorf. One of

> > > the people we had review the manuscript of

> > > Who Can Ride the Dragon? was a linguist who

> > > was a member of the National Academy of Science.

> > > She criticized the language section for being

> > > " too Whorfian. "

> >

> > I'm don't think that you can be " too Whorfian " in this field.

Have

> > you read Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the

Body

> > and the Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books,

1999)?

> > Its a brilliant description of how CM and WM developed their

> > respective lines of thought when they started with similar

> > circumstances. That would be the place to start. The book

received

> > the Oriental Medicine Joural Award for Excellence in 2000. Below

is

> > a quote from it that I use in my pulse diagnosis seminars.

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

> >

> >

> >

> > Quote from the preface to

> > The Expressiveness of the Body

> > and the Divergence of Greek and

> > by Shigehisa Kuriyama (Zone Books, 1999)

> >

> >

> > Versions of the truth sometimes differ so startlingly that the

very

> > idea of truth becomes suspect. Akutagawa Ryunosuke's haunting

tale

> > about this mystery admits two certainties: a woman has been

violated

> > by a bandit, and her husband lies in a grove, stabbed dead.

> > The captured bandit confesses that he killed the husband, but

pleads

> > that the woman had goaded him on. Murder hadn't been his intent

but

> > the woman had insisted. She could not, would not tolerate two

> > witnesses to her shame walking the earth. Kill yourself or my

> > husband, she had said. Well, he had no choice.

> >

> > Yet the woman confides that she killed her husband---at his own

> > behest. As he sat silent, bound and humiliated, his eyes had

spoken

> > unmistakably of contempt and hard hatred. " Kill me, " they had

> > commanded. She realized then that they both had to die, the

disgrace

> > was too awful. But she had fainted after plunging her knife into

> > him, and failed, finally, to end her own life.

> >

> > The dead man testifies through a medium. " I killed myself, " his

> > anguished voice cries out. The horror of watching on, impotent,

as

> > his wife had first been raped and had then become enraptured, was

> > too much. " Kill my husband, " she had urged the bandit. " Take me

away

> > with you, anywhere: " Death is an easy choice for a man whose wife

> > can say such words.

> >

> > What really happened? Was the husband murdered by his wife? By

the

> > bandit? Or was it suicide? Do even the dead deceive? Akutagawa

never

> > tells us which version to believe---or whether to believe any of

> > them.

> >

> > A similar riddle lies at the heart of the history of medicine.

The

> > true structure and workings of the human body are, we casually

> > assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But then we

look

> > into history, and our sense of reality wavers. Like the

confessions

> > of the bandit, the woman, and the dead man, accounts of the body

in

> > diverse medical traditions frequently appear to describe mutually

> > alien, almost unrelated worlds.

> >

> > Compare figure 1, from Hua Shows Shisijing fahui (1341) with

figure

> > 2, from Vesalius's Fabrica (1543). Viewed side by side, the two

> > figures each betray lacunae. In Hua Shou, we miss the muscular

> > detail of the Vesalian man; and in fact Chinese doctors lacked

even

> > a specific word for " muscle:' Muscularity was a peculiarly

Western

> > preoccupation. On the other hand, the tracts and points of

> > acupuncture entirely escaped the West's anatomical vision of

> > reality. Thus, when Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth

> > centuries began to study Chinese medical teachings, the

descriptions

> > of the body they encountered struck them as " phantastical "

> > and " absurd, " like tales of an imaginary land.

> >

> > How can perceptions of something as basic and intimate as the

body

> > differ so? In the case of the death in the grove, we may be

unsure

> > about who is lying and who is not, and we may despair of

untangling

> > all the motives behind the liars' lies; but we have a fair idea

of

> > the forces at work. We know from our own experience how the

tumult

> > of feelings can transfigure the stories that we tell others and

> > ourselves. We divine in each confession chaotic mixtures of guilt

> > and vanity, fear, anger, and self loathing.

> >

> > The parting of realities in Hua Shou and Vesalius, however,

> > presumably requires other explanations. Rather than accuse

> > distorting passions, we are apt here to speak vaguely of

different

> > ways of thinking, or more slyly, of alternative perspectives:

> > witnesses to an event often disagree, and not because of any

> > dishonesty or clouded judgment, but just because of where they

stand.

> > Yet what might " standing somewhere " involve, concretely, in the

> > context of medical history? When we say that the first base and

home

> > plate umpires have different views of a play in baseball, we

refer

> > specifically to their physical locations. Each perceives aspects

> > that the other cannot, because the two stand ninety feet apart

and

> > command different angles on the action. Clearly, such spatial

> > positioning isn't what we mean when we speak of the disparate

> > viewpoints of Hua Shou and Vesalius.

> >

> > So what exactly could we mean? What sorts of distances

> > separate " places " in the geography of medical imagination? How

> > should we chart a map of viewpoints on the body? Such are the

> > questions that motivate this book.

> >

> > The history of medicine in China and in the West encompasses a

rich

> > variety of beliefs and practices evolving in complex patterns

over

> > several millennia. We cannot regard figures 1 and 2, therefore,

or

> > any other pair of pictures, as representing the Western and

Chinese

> > perspectives on the body. Neither tradition can be reduced to a

> > single viewpoint.

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I also think this is an essential text. It is good at the beginning of

one's study to get a clear comprehension of the different development of

medicine in China and the West. However, it is in-depth enough for

experienced CM practitioners as well. Kurayama has an excellent mastery

of English, and is able to express profound concepts that one may have

not thought about previously.

 

 

On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 04:33 PM, jramholz wrote:

 

> Frances:

>

> I'm glad you're reading it; too few have gotten to it. It's an

> absolutely brilliant piece of writing. So it's a pleasure to read,

> and it actually explains why things developed the way they did in

> each culture.

>

> If I had any influence, I would make it mandatory reading for

> beginning students. I being it up in my pulse diagnosis seminars

> only in passing because of time constraints. But the way Greek and

> Chinese medicines diverged can also be used to understand how

> different systems of thought diverged from common sources. That's

> why, although I don't practice the Shen/Hammer system, I am

> interested to hear about their finding.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You don't need to read some unknown, unscientific writing to know this. Just

study some quantum mechanics, and the joining of traditional mechanics with

relativity includes the elimination of time, which is a hallucination.

 

We ought to stop reading seconmd hand info and start studying the real

thing.

 

vanessa

 

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: jramholz [jramholz]

> Enviado el: Miercoles, 20 de Marzo de 2002 08:33 p.m.

> Para:

> Asunto: Re: Reality Is A Shared Hallucination

>

>

> Frances:

>

> I'm glad you're reading it; too few have gotten to it. It's an

> absolutely brilliant piece of writing. So it's a pleasure to read,

> and it actually explains why things developed the way they did in

> each culture.

>

> If I had any influence, I would make it mandatory reading for

> beginning students. I being it up in my pulse diagnosis seminars

> only in passing because of time constraints. But the way Greek and

> Chinese medicines diverged can also be used to understand how

> different systems of thought diverged from common sources. That's

> why, although I don't practice the Shen/Hammer system, I am

> interested to hear about their finding.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

> , Frances Gander <fgander@c...> wrote:

> > Jim,

> > Kuriyama's book is quite singular and amazing. I have just started

> > reading it at the suggestion of a friend outside our field.

> > Frances

> >

> > jramholz wrote:

> >

> > > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...>

> wrote:

> > > > Interesting that you mention Whorf. One of

> > > > the people we had review the manuscript of

> > > > Who Can Ride the Dragon? was a linguist who

> > > > was a member of the National Academy of Science.

> > > > She criticized the language section for being

> > > > " too Whorfian. "

> > >

> > > I'm don't think that you can be " too Whorfian " in this field.

> Have

> > > you read Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the

> Body

> > > and the Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books,

> 1999)?

> > > Its a brilliant description of how CM and WM developed their

> > > respective lines of thought when they started with similar

> > > circumstances. That would be the place to start. The book

> received

> > > the Oriental Medicine Joural Award for Excellence in 2000. Below

> is

> > > a quote from it that I use in my pulse diagnosis seminars.

> > >

> > > Jim Ramholz

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Quote from the preface to

> > > The Expressiveness of the Body

> > > and the Divergence of Greek and

> > > by Shigehisa Kuriyama (Zone Books, 1999)

> > >

> > >

> > > Versions of the truth sometimes differ so startlingly that the

> very

> > > idea of truth becomes suspect. Akutagawa Ryunosuke's haunting

> tale

> > > about this mystery admits two certainties: a woman has been

> violated

> > > by a bandit, and her husband lies in a grove, stabbed dead.

> > > The captured bandit confesses that he killed the husband, but

> pleads

> > > that the woman had goaded him on. Murder hadn't been his intent

> but

> > > the woman had insisted. She could not, would not tolerate two

> > > witnesses to her shame walking the earth. Kill yourself or my

> > > husband, she had said. Well, he had no choice.

> > >

> > > Yet the woman confides that she killed her husband---at his own

> > > behest. As he sat silent, bound and humiliated, his eyes had

> spoken

> > > unmistakably of contempt and hard hatred. " Kill me, " they had

> > > commanded. She realized then that they both had to die, the

> disgrace

> > > was too awful. But she had fainted after plunging her knife into

> > > him, and failed, finally, to end her own life.

> > >

> > > The dead man testifies through a medium. " I killed myself, " his

> > > anguished voice cries out. The horror of watching on, impotent,

> as

> > > his wife had first been raped and had then become enraptured, was

> > > too much. " Kill my husband, " she had urged the bandit. " Take me

> away

> > > with you, anywhere: " Death is an easy choice for a man whose wife

> > > can say such words.

> > >

> > > What really happened? Was the husband murdered by his wife? By

> the

> > > bandit? Or was it suicide? Do even the dead deceive? Akutagawa

> never

> > > tells us which version to believe---or whether to believe any of

> > > them.

> > >

> > > A similar riddle lies at the heart of the history of medicine.

> The

> > > true structure and workings of the human body are, we casually

> > > assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But then we

> look

> > > into history, and our sense of reality wavers. Like the

> confessions

> > > of the bandit, the woman, and the dead man, accounts of the body

> in

> > > diverse medical traditions frequently appear to describe mutually

> > > alien, almost unrelated worlds.

> > >

> > > Compare figure 1, from Hua Shows Shisijing fahui (1341) with

> figure

> > > 2, from Vesalius's Fabrica (1543). Viewed side by side, the two

> > > figures each betray lacunae. In Hua Shou, we miss the muscular

> > > detail of the Vesalian man; and in fact Chinese doctors lacked

> even

> > > a specific word for " muscle:' Muscularity was a peculiarly

> Western

> > > preoccupation. On the other hand, the tracts and points of

> > > acupuncture entirely escaped the West's anatomical vision of

> > > reality. Thus, when Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth

> > > centuries began to study Chinese medical teachings, the

> descriptions

> > > of the body they encountered struck them as " phantastical "

> > > and " absurd, " like tales of an imaginary land.

> > >

> > > How can perceptions of something as basic and intimate as the

> body

> > > differ so? In the case of the death in the grove, we may be

> unsure

> > > about who is lying and who is not, and we may despair of

> untangling

> > > all the motives behind the liars' lies; but we have a fair idea

> of

> > > the forces at work. We know from our own experience how the

> tumult

> > > of feelings can transfigure the stories that we tell others and

> > > ourselves. We divine in each confession chaotic mixtures of guilt

> > > and vanity, fear, anger, and self loathing.

> > >

> > > The parting of realities in Hua Shou and Vesalius, however,

> > > presumably requires other explanations. Rather than accuse

> > > distorting passions, we are apt here to speak vaguely of

> different

> > > ways of thinking, or more slyly, of alternative perspectives:

> > > witnesses to an event often disagree, and not because of any

> > > dishonesty or clouded judgment, but just because of where they

> stand.

> > > Yet what might " standing somewhere " involve, concretely, in the

> > > context of medical history? When we say that the first base and

> home

> > > plate umpires have different views of a play in baseball, we

> refer

> > > specifically to their physical locations. Each perceives aspects

> > > that the other cannot, because the two stand ninety feet apart

> and

> > > command different angles on the action. Clearly, such spatial

> > > positioning isn't what we mean when we speak of the disparate

> > > viewpoints of Hua Shou and Vesalius.

> > >

> > > So what exactly could we mean? What sorts of distances

> > > separate " places " in the geography of medical imagination? How

> > > should we chart a map of viewpoints on the body? Such are the

> > > questions that motivate this book.

> > >

> > > The history of medicine in China and in the West encompasses a

> rich

> > > variety of beliefs and practices evolving in complex patterns

> over

> > > several millennia. We cannot regard figures 1 and 2, therefore,

> or

> > > any other pair of pictures, as representing the Western and

> Chinese

> > > perspectives on the body. Neither tradition can be reduced to a

> > > single viewpoint.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Vanessa,

>

> We ought to stop reading seconmd hand info and start studying the

real

> thing.

 

Where can I find a copy?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Vanessa:

 

I'm not sure I get your point. What is " the real thing " ?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " vanessadd " <jajije@c...> wrote:

> You don't need to read some unknown, unscientific writing to know

this. Just study some quantum mechanics, and the joining of

traditional mechanics with relativity includes the elimination of

time, which is a hallucination.

>

> We ought to stop reading seconmd hand info and start studying the

real thing.