Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 All that follows is my continuing devil's advocacy of unpopular views in order to seek clarity. I stand by none of it. in unschuld's nei jing intro, he states very clearly that the su wen makes no mention of distinct channels through which qi alone flows, nor do the earlier wa wang dui texts. In all cases, both blood and qi are said to flow through the vessels (unschuld's term choice for the entire conduit system). However in the ling shu, there is one chapter on the circulation of qi that refers to something called human qi (ren qi), which unschuld does not clarify. this is the sole chapter mentioned that talks about a system of qi alone. 2 other lingshu chapters talk about ying qi in the vessels, but ying qi is generally considered that aspect of qi that flows with the blood, so we are back to blood vessels. So the entire basis of the concept of distinct channels with only qi flowing within comes down to a few paragraphs in a text that otherwise depicts blood and qi flowing together at all times. The nanjing, on the other hand, makes much of qi flow. However, the jia yi jing blurs the matter similar to the nei jing su wen. Is it possible that the nan jing authors made a critical error in grabbing the qi ball and running with it, so to speak. Because the actual locus classicus of CM seems to be saying what Deke says it does and Unschuld offers no dispute. the nanjing is very popular in japan where channel oriented acupuncture is prominent. However the chinese did not revere this book near as much as the nei jing. But if our ideas about qi flow are actually rooted in the nanjing rather than the neijing, I believe this calls the whole concept into question. Maybe the nanjing is just a bunch of MSU. heresy. :-) Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2004 Report Share Posted March 9, 2004 Hi all, in this discussion you should also look a little into what Björn Nordenström has written. He is a Swedish professor who has " proved " that the energy follow the blood-vessels. He has called this system a third circulatory system, and he is not into acupuncture at all. Are Are Simeon Thoresen arethore http://home.online.no/~arethore/ - cha Wednesday, March 10, 2004 6:52 AM unschuld on the vessels All that follows is my continuing devil's advocacy of unpopular views in order to seek clarity. I stand by none of it. in unschuld's nei jing intro, he states very clearly that the su wen makes no mention of distinct channels through which qi alone flows, nor do the earlier wa wang dui texts. In all cases, both blood and qi are said to flow through the vessels (unschuld's term choice for the entire conduit system). However in the ling shu, there is one chapter on the circulation of qi that refers to something called human qi (ren qi), which unschuld does not clarify. this is the sole chapter mentioned that talks about a system of qi alone. 2 other lingshu chapters talk about ying qi in the vessels, but ying qi is generally considered that aspect of qi that flows with the blood, so we are back to blood vessels. So the entire basis of the concept of distinct channels with only qi flowing within comes down to a few paragraphs in a text that otherwise depicts blood and qi flowing together at all times. The nanjing, on the other hand, makes much of qi flow. However, the jia yi jing blurs the matter similar to the nei jing su wen. Is it possible that the nan jing authors made a critical error in grabbing the qi ball and running with it, so to speak. Because the actual locus classicus of CM seems to be saying what Deke says it does and Unschuld offers no dispute. the nanjing is very popular in japan where channel oriented acupuncture is prominent. However the chinese did not revere this book near as much as the nei jing. But if our ideas about qi flow are actually rooted in the nanjing rather than the neijing, I believe this calls the whole concept into question. Maybe the nanjing is just a bunch of MSU. heresy. :-) Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 (Although I can only cite modern English texts,) qi moves and contains the blood in the vessels. It cannot Be the blood and control it at the same time. Qi flows throughout the body, not just in the major channels, like lines on a page. It flows (and stagnates) everywhere. Believing that, I can only see attempts to make qi flow into nerves and blood as a reduction to the crude level of Western Science. Ok, I said it. love, doug , wrote: > All that follows is my continuing devil's advocacy of unpopular views > in order to seek clarity. I stand by none of it. > > in unschuld's nei jing intro, he states very clearly that the su wen > makes no mention of distinct channels through which qi alone flows, nor > do the earlier wa wang dui texts. In all cases, both blood and qi are > said to flow through the vessels (unschuld's term choice for the entire > conduit system). However in the ling shu, there is one chapter on the > circulation of qi that refers to something called human qi (ren qi), > which unschuld does not clarify. this is the sole chapter mentioned > that talks about a system of qi alone. 2 other lingshu chapters talk > about ying qi in the vessels, but ying qi is generally considered that > aspect of qi that flows with the blood, so we are back to blood > vessels. So the entire basis of the concept of distinct channels with > only qi flowing within comes down to a few paragraphs in a text that > otherwise depicts blood and qi flowing together at all times. The > nanjing, on the other hand, makes much of qi flow. However, the jia yi > jing blurs the matter similar to the nei jing su wen. Is it possible > that the nan jing authors made a critical error in grabbing the qi ball > and running with it, so to speak. Because the actual locus classicus > of CM seems to be saying what Deke says it does and Unschuld offers no > dispute. the nanjing is very popular in japan where channel oriented > acupuncture is prominent. However the chinese did not revere this book > near as much as the nei jing. But if our ideas about qi flow are > actually rooted in the nanjing rather than the neijing, I believe this > calls the whole concept into question. Maybe the nanjing is just a > bunch of MSU. heresy. :-) > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 , wrote: > All that follows is my continuing devil's advocacy of unpopular views > in order to seek clarity. I stand by none of it. > > in unschuld's nei jing intro, he states very clearly that the su wen > makes no mention of distinct channels through which qi alone flows, nor > do the earlier wa wang dui texts. In all cases, both blood and qi are > said to flow through the vessels (unschuld's term choice for the entire > conduit system). However in the ling shu, there is one chapter on the > circulation of qi that refers to something called human qi (ren qi), > which unschuld does not clarify. this is the sole chapter mentioned > that talks about a system of qi alone. 2 other lingshu chapters talk > about ying qi in the vessels, but ying qi is generally considered that > aspect of qi that flows with the blood, so we are back to blood > vessels. So the entire basis of the concept of distinct channels with > only qi flowing within comes down to a few paragraphs in a text that > otherwise depicts blood and qi flowing together at all times. The > nanjing, on the other hand, makes much of qi flow. However, the jia yi > jing blurs the matter similar to the nei jing su wen. Is it possible > that the nan jing authors made a critical error in grabbing the qi ball > and running with it, so to speak. Because the actual locus classicus > of CM seems to be saying what Deke says it does and Unschuld offers no > dispute. the nanjing is very popular in japan where channel oriented > acupuncture is prominent. However the chinese did not revere this book > near as much as the nei jing. But if our ideas about qi flow are > actually rooted in the nanjing rather than the neijing, I believe this > calls the whole concept into question. Maybe the nanjing is just a > bunch of MSU. heresy. :-) I assume this is joke... How could a classic be wrong?... Just kidding... but I would say that just because a book differs from the neijing makes it hardly wrong or MSU. So what is the difference between this book (nanjing) and some modern NEAT book.. Well I think the test of time has a lot to do with it. Books don't just stick around that long if it did not produce real clinical results. (generally speaking). I consider it just as valid as anything else. (well not anything, but you get my point) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 , " " wrote: > (Although I can only cite modern English texts,) qi moves and contains the blood in > the vessels. It cannot Be the blood and control it at the same time. > I take it that you have not read the book. Deke does not say the qi is the blood. He just says what it says in the neijing su wen. the qi travels with the blood in the jingluo. there are no separate conduits which carry qi alone. confirmed by Unschuld. This does not address the issue of why this idea was so widely accepted in later centuries. I am not disputing that and as everyone knows, I tend to favor later interpretations over earlier ones. However I have also thought about this concept that the qi moves the blood and I think it really refers to function moving substance rather than channel qi moving vessel blood. According to Deke, qi can refer to a substance, the function of an organ or spirit or the vitality of an organ or spirit. I think the assumption has been that the expression that the qi moves the blood refers to channel qi or at least some substance or force that moves the blood. However, the impression I get from Deke and others is that is hard to know what context qi is being used in. The context he seems to give for this expression is that organ qi (function) is what moves the blood. In other words,heart Qi (function not force) moves the blood. Heart Qi (meaning heart function not some kind of stuff in the heart) is dependent on spleen and lung qi (spleen and lung FUNCTION). that is what I get from Deke. What Deke does is not even remotely reductionistic because he leaves all classical chinese concepts intact and does not have to remove any of them from his model to make it work. I think reductionism is when one says the anatomy in the yellow emperor's classic is just fantasy. That it's just about the pathways and connections we already understand from modern physiology. But I read Deke as saying something very different. He says the anatomy in the nei jing is real and a detailed study of that anatomy and physiology reveals a different understanding of the same neurovascular system known to modern science. Far from reducing CM to prevailing reductionistic ideas, Deke shows that there is different way of understanding the neurovascular system and its role in health and disease and the neijing details that. His model explains all the effects of acupuncture satisfactorily and he attempts to ground his ideas in a reading of the classics. Rather than reducing CM with his model, Deke has actually paved the way for EXPANDING western science to accommodate explanations of phenomena hitherto inconceivable. Unbelievable as it may seem to many of you, I think work like Deke's is exactly what leads to a paradigm shift. The structures of normal science are challenged from within and an a more expansive model is developed as a result. This is exactly my goal for the role of CM in the future. I do not think low tech CM as we know it will exist in 100 years (except as a curiosity), but I think the gift of CM will be its contribution to a truly holistic 21st century medicine. If the ideas of CM are valid, then they are grounded in the flesh. Deke does not rend the fabric of CM with his ideas. I think he only rends the personal philosophies of many who practice it. If you are invested in the energy medicine model, no matter how you currently label it, Deke will not make you happy. But I have always had a physiological orientation. Which is why herbs are more appealing to me. they make perfect sense on those terms. But I could never reconcile the anatomical issues of the channels, so I was only willing to practice TCM style acupuncture. Otherwise I felt I was in the realm of faith. So-called herbalized TCM acupuncture really does not make much use of channel theory. Points are selected on any channel for the sole reason of function w/o much regard to classical point categories or combination schemes. Deke's model provides me an intellectual space inwhich I can explore these ideas. I have never accepted the idea of herbs entering channels filed only with qi and I guess I have never accepted the idea of channels filled only with qi, either. there, I said it. :-) but as I explore this arena, I will try and keep and open mind that the chanel theory is correct. All I would suggest is that others do the same in both regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 , " " < @h...> wrote: > > I assume this is joke... How could a classic be wrong?... Just > kidding... but I would say that just because a book differs from the > neijing makes it hardly wrong or MSU. I was definitely joking. But if these two texts are at odds on something so fundamental, how do we reconcile. I know reconciling is not necessary in chinese thought. So we have to accept varying interpretations as possibly correct. so I have to accept the nanjing along with the nei jing, but we all have to consider Deke's position as it has held some favor amongst others throughout chinese history. that there are no separate qi conduits. If I recall, the nanjing also differs in that it does not include the conduits on the lower arms and legs to be part of a circulating system at all. I don't think Deke's ideas change practice except making classical concepts now plausible to the skeptic. So the change is all good, especially if it leads to research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Although I can only cite modern English texts,) qi moves and contains the blood in the vessels. It cannot Be the blood and control it at the same time. Qi flows throughout the body, not just in the major channels, like lines on a page. It flows (and stagnates) everywhere. Believing that, I can only see attempts to make qi flow into nerves and blood as a reduction to the crude level of Western Science. Ok, I said it. love, >>>Except if it speaks to some quality within the blood as well. Since Qi often manifest via other more yin substances can it be just a functional part of these substances and nothing independent so to speak alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 Again, I think Deke has done a nice job with his book, and has done the basic science, and has not discarded anything, but it remains one more perspective on the Nei Jing. Time will tell if it is a definitive one. In the Unschuld workshop last november, we compared different translations and works based on the Nei Jing, and all of them were vastly different. In order to have a definitive translation of the Su Wen portion (or the Ling Shu, for that matter), one has to have access to the commentaries, and be able to discuss and rectify different points of view on several issues. It is our nature as modern human beings to be largely uncomfortable with holding differing and sometimes opposing points of view at the same time, and we expect consistency in presentations of ideas and philosophies. However, because of the Chinese metaphorical view of the human bodymind landscape, and the different philosophies (possibly by different authors) offered in the Su Wen (such as the Wang Bing chapters on chronobiology), such consistency as Deke presents in his book may be somewhat illusory. This doesn't detract from its value or clinical usefulness, and I still plan to use this text as a basic reference. It does build bridges with modern physiology, and opens doors to research. However, it also has been taken up as a political credo by a certain group of our colleagues, and this does disturb me somewhat. On Mar 10, 2004, at 8:46 AM, wrote: > What Deke does is not even remotely reductionistic because he leaves > all > classical chinese concepts intact and does not have to remove any of > them > from his model to make it work. I think reductionism is when one says > the > anatomy in the yellow emperor's classic is just fantasy. That it's > just about > the pathways and connections we already understand from modern > physiology. > But I read Deke as saying something very different. He says the > anatomy in > the nei jing is real and a detailed study of that anatomy and > physiology > reveals a different understanding of the same neurovascular system > known to > modern science. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: In order to have a definitive translation of the Su > Wen portion (or the Ling Shu, for that matter), one has to have access > to the commentaries, and be able to discuss and rectify different > points of view on several issues. > > It is our nature as modern human beings to be largely uncomfortable > with holding differing and sometimes opposing points of view at the > same time, and we expect consistency in presentations of ideas and > philosophies. However, because of the Chinese metaphorical view of the > human bodymind landscape, and the different philosophies (possibly by > different authors) offered in the Su Wen (such as the Wang Bing > chapters on chronobiology), such consistency as Deke presents in his > book may be somewhat illusory. However it may be quite accurate. It is quite possible that large portions of the nei jing su wen were literal attempts to describe the observed anatomy of the interior of the body, not metaphorical at all. Needham had more of this orientation than Unschuld does. Why describe dissection or note measurements of bones or weights of organs. And yet we assume that the description of the vessel system is for some reason not an observed structure. The nei jing became a revered book. Its contents almost sacred. At the same time, chinese culture frowned upon dissection for over a 1000 years. No records exist of serious efforts to map the inside of the body again until after contact with the west. Could it be that these cultural factors led to a distortion of function over substance in later generations. Out of contact with the actual innards of the body for so long, the medieval chinese docs may have lost touch with the gross reality of the nei jing. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 , " " wrote: > , " " < zrosenbe@s...> > wrote: > In order to have a definitive translation of the Su > > Wen portion (or the Ling Shu, for that matter), one has to have access > > to the commentaries, and be able to discuss and rectify different > > points of view on several issues. I know this is heretical, but we must entertain the idea that CM concepts have largely been interpeted and elaborated through commentary because there was no other option. When it comes down to anatomical issues,one can argue all day and night if one is unwilling to look inside the body (like the church fathers arguing whether the earth is the center of the universe, yet refusing to look through the telescope). However once one looks inside the body, I think the actual data trumps all the commentary. Certain matters that were once points of debate can be settled (such as how long it takes for blood to circulate or what the liver weighs). That is based of course upon the assumption that the chinese were actually trying to describe the body accurately. While this is in dispute, if accuracy is not your intent, why measure and weigh things and include complex calculations of movement over time. The other thing is that just because chinese culture seems to be comfortable with conflicting or unresolved information in their medical system does not mean that this information cannot be resolved or that we should have the same comfort. I think the assumption that the chinese behaved this way, thus so must we, makes no sense. It may be just another artifact of a culture that abandoned continual exploration of the inside of the body for a dogma based upon mental gyrations about certain revered texts. The chinese had to be comfortable with unresolved issues in their medicine because they did not have the method to settle certain matters. We do. It may turn out there was no ambiguity at all in the minds of those who compiled the nei jing. Only centuries of commentary by those who didn't look at the inside of the boidy themselves made it seem that way. Again, I can't help but notice the similarity between the religious experiences of various enlightened ones (christ, mohammed, buddha, etc.) and the repressive organized religions that grew up around these figures. The churches spent centuries commenting and interpeting the sage's words, all the while repressing any attempts to explore the original findings oneself (thorugh practice). They claimed the authority to understand does not rest in those who would duplicate the efforts of the ancients by looking inside (their minds or their bodies depending), but solely by debating the meaning of words used in these texts. Don't meditate, just listen to the priest. Don't cut open the body, just listen to your elders. same difference? Ironic perhaps because it elevates those who work with their minds over those who work with their hands. It puts tradition as intepreted by authorities above personal experience. According to Unschuld, this was also a facet of confucian culture. Taoists didn't mind digging in the dirt and perhaps even cutting open the body. That's why they were the herbalists at first. The confucian gentlemen didn't like to handle the really gross stuff so they stuck to a more mental approach to things. Actual farming of herbs was beneath them. It strikes me that this schism still remains in our field, but now breaks down as those who would elevate language study (mental gyrations) over those would advocate more research and western med. (including cutting open and looking inside). Arguably the power of certain segments of any society comes from certain questions being left unexplored, lest the dogma be revealed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 It strikes me that this schism still remains in our field, but now breaks down as those who would elevate language study (mental gyrations) over those would advocate more research and western med. (including cutting open and looking inside). Arguably the power of certain segments of any society comes from certain questions being left unexplored, lest the dogma be revealed. >>>Bless you Todd Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 This relies on the perception that Chinese medicine is a singular unified medical system, rather than an umbrella of several converging (and diverging) streams. If you want to construct a unified medical system, that is your preogative, but it would be a construct. It doesn't necessarily reflect the original intent of the authors of the Su Wen. There are advantages and disadvantages to an anatomically-based medical system. However, all traditional medical systems originally were based on a philosophical construct. From my point of view, these were hardly 'mental gyrations', but the basis of a sense-based approach to medicine that largely worked. The Su Wen contained very 'physical' treatments, similar to minor surgery (lancing, blood-letting, fire needle, etc.), but also had more subtle treatment styles as well. I don't see any reason to limit our potential resources from this gold mine. In summary, I don't see any problem with the developments associated with Deke's work, as long as it doesn't supplant any other credible visions of the future of Chinese medicine. P.S. I was pleasantly surprised to see a favorable discussion of the five phases and chronobiology in his book, even though short. On Mar 11, 2004, at 9:18 AM, wrote: > The other thing is that just because chinese culture seems to be > comfortable > with conflicting or unresolved information in their medical system > does not > mean that this information cannot be resolved or that we should have > the > same comfort. I think the assumption that the chinese behaved this > way, thus > so must we, makes no sense. It may be just another artifact of a > culture that > abandoned continual exploration of the inside of the body for a dogma > based > upon mental gyrations about certain revered texts. The chinese had to > be > comfortable with unresolved issues in their medicine because they did > not > have the method to settle certain matters. We do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 Todd and Alon, I don't think there is any clear-cut schism as described below. Many people vary along a sliding scale of these points of view. Has anyone done a poll to determine this? If not, please don't pigeonhole people in our profession, especially when many practitioners and students have never 'aligned' themselves in one way or another. The material in the Su Wen and Ling Shu has been exhaustively studied over millenia, with nary a stone unturned. I don't know how you can imply that any part of it has remained unstudied, unquestioned. If you support a more anatomically based investigation of the classical textual material, fine with me. But please avoid condemning other approaches to the subject, especially when this new investigation has barely begun. A profession is defined not by one specialized approach, but by a collaborative effort of people with varying focuses on different aspects, whether it be language, philosophy, research, or physiology. We need the lexiconists, historians, researchers, publishers as well as practitioners, who again, may have different orientations and leanings in their work. To try to elevate one aspect at the expense of the other is quite foolish, in my opinion. This is what creates division. you advertise the upcoming CHA gathering as celebrating diversity, but then the tone of the discussions here start to veer in a decidedly one-sided, us vs. them direction. I'd like to see this tendency averted in the future. On Mar 11, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > It strikes me that this schism still remains in our field, but now > breaks down as those who would elevate language study (mental > gyrations) > over those would advocate more research and western med. (including > cutting > open and looking inside). Arguably the power of certain segments of > any > society comes from certain questions being left unexplored, lest the > dogma be > revealed. >>>> Bless you Todd > Alon > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 The material in the Su Wen and Ling Shu has been exhaustively studied over millenia, with nary a stone unturned. I don't know how you can imply that any part of it has remained unstudied, unquestioned. >>>>First Zev i am not saying that those that want to emphasize one aspect of study should not do so. I do however strongly support those views that would emphasize clinical relevancy and challenge of ideas. Its true that every word as been studies and commented upon, it is a matter of orientation however. From the types of attitude I have seen in many CM scholars in both China and US I have to say that I do believe that there is,all too often,a divorce from the clinical to the ethereal. There is also an overcoming attitude of wanting to study and learn but not examine these ideas.I think what Todd is saying may have more truth to it than not. I have felt now for many years that the reverence to tradition has been the over riding attitude of CM scholars. Not one which sets out to prove or disprove ideas. This easily results in lack of change and challenge of ideas. So i say bless you to Todd or anyone else that is willing to ask such questions.Obviously nor Todd or me have any answers to these questions but i applaud the attitude in his posts, regardless if he believes in them or just trying to bring on a discussion. I also applaud what Duke is attempting to do,although when he says he believes in everything in SW and LS makes his data suspect Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 I agree with Z'ev. I see no such schism as described by Todd. Why are language studies juxtaposed with anatomical or other forms of physical research? That makes no sense to me. I, for one, advocate language studies largely so that Western practitioners can become more aware of the physical biological research the Chinese are doing vis a vis CM. I believe language studies would speed the integration of Chinese and Western medicines by giving access to Western practitioners to the full range of contemporary Chinese medical literature, thoughts, and experience. As a for instance, although I advocate Chinese language studies as a way to read more about CM as practiced in China both in the present and the past, I think wu yun liu qi theory is castle-in-the sky bullshit. So, although I probably disagree with Z'ev on that particular issue, I have to agree with him that I find your dichotomy is a fallacious and potentially harmful one. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " < pemachophel2001> wrote: > I agree with Z'ev. I see no such schism as described by Todd. Why are language studies juxtaposed with anatomical or other > forms of physical research? I know my posts are long and rambling, but I was not expressing my personal opinion about language vs. research. In fact, I have made it very clear to alon that I do not think new ideas can be developed and proper research done without language studies. I was pointing out that many OTHERS take one side or the other. there are people on this list who could care less what it says in the classics and all that matters is what they do in their own clinic and others who adamnatly believe research will destroy our medicine. BTW, I do not think Alon is the former, nor Z'ev the latter. But the schism is real, just not in my mind. I am trying to bridge it. In facty, that is largely the mission of CHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 I agree with Z'ev. I see no such schism as described by Todd. Why are language studies juxtaposed with anatomical or other forms of physical research? That makes no sense to me. >>>>It does not in principle but tends to be in reality Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Re: Re: unschuld on the vessels >>>> It strikes me that this schism still remains in our field, but now breaks down as those who would elevate language study (mental gyrations) over those would advocate more research and western med. (including cutting open and looking inside). Arguably the power of certain segments of any society comes from certain questions being left unexplored, lest the dogma be revealed. >>>> Studying and translating (ancient) Chinese medical texts very often feels like ''cutting open and looking inside'' and, while it certainly involves some ''mental gyrations'', it doesn't preclude " more research " . I think it actually is being done in order to do ''more research'' and that kind of research is very important. (to reveal and discuss the various " TCM-dogma's " for instance). (I was thinking about the last sentence a lot - do you imply that dogma's are not questioned in Chinese literature? What 'certain segments' , what 'certain questions', what is 'the dogma' being left unrevealed?) ( & : thank you Z'ev for your response to this quote...) Herman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.