Manfred Porkert
The Contribution of Chinese Medicine to Universal Medicine

I. Although the term of "Chinese medicine" (literal translation of the Chinese zhongyi) has been around in Western literature for almost thirty years, the concept is far from clear. In the minds of medical professionals it raises widely contradictory associations ranging from quackery and deception to fabulous techniques of treatment of great simplicity. And the general public's ideas are, if anything, wont to be even more extravagant.
These extreme contrasts are, to a considerable extent, the reflection of past and present realities: 1) the universal revolution of traditional culture; 2) the collapse of corresponding standards and ethics (ethike, let me recall means 'usage', 'habit'); 3) the abolition and failure of established systems (of social relations, science and technology, education, not to speak of the arts). None of these factors need and can be addressed in this lecture. What must be stressed, however, is that medicine, any kind of medicine, Western, Eastern or in between, is most powerfully affected by this revolution. The result is a fast spreading sentiment of decreasing effectiveness of medical treatment. This is significantly different from the fatalistic attitude of past centuries. Then, most people took for granted an average life span of 30 years at the mercy of accidents.
Since the age of enlightenment, Western medicine had fostered the illusion that 'health' and the freedom from physical pain and suffering is a goal within the reach of everyone, and surely within the reach of the wealthy. This myth has collapsed during the 2nd half of the 20th century. As the average life expectancy of individuals attains 60 years and beyond, the second half of a human existence appears to be increasingly fraught with health problems, physical impairment and suffering. Thus adequate health care has become a concern to ever larger segments of society. And Western medicine no longer is the only contender for alleviating this concern.

II. Although presently, Western medicine throughout the world seems to be in complete control of health education and health policies, recent statistics in North America and Europe have revealed that as much as 60% of the populations there cast about or even pay for "alternative" treatments, for methods of treatment that are thought to be more economical on money, time or the physical resources of the patient - or all of these. Ultimately, the relative superiority of medical methodology will be judged by the degree of sustained well-being and enjoyment of life it is capable of guaranteeing at least cost to the greatest number of individuals. A decision in this issue must not be expected within weeks, months or even years. It depends upon the transformation of universal consciousness and education.

III. Good examples of the problems to be solved are provided today by public reactions to what is called science and technology. Most of this science and technology has been around for barely two or three generations, or even less. Consequently, even educated academics (lawyers, physicians, theologians) usually are shortchanged for a merely intellectual understanding of the new methodology involved, much less can they claim to have absorbed its implications on the gut level. Much of the new technology (including that in medicine) is promoted and applied on belief, not knowledge or previous experience. So actual experience eventually produces corrections, reserves and cautions or the outright rejection of novel methods.

IV. Chinese medicine complies with all the criteria defining exact science. It may even be called a mature science after having seen at least two thousand years of consistent and organic development. And yet, for reasons touched upon in (I) and (III), it is faced with similar problems. In China, the collapse of tradition, prepared in the 19th and enacted in the 20th century, has produced confusion if not oblivion of traditional knowledge. In the West, notwithstanding the auspicious contacts with Chinese science made by the Jesuits and Leibniz, all motivation to pursue these has been thwarted by the dazzling effect of the development of "natural science" since the early 19th century. Although this slowly starts to wear off at the beginning of this 21st century, the majority of medical scientists still has not caught up with what, in physics had been explicit by 1870: induction and inductive synthesis as nexus of synchronous phenomena. Thus to this day, Western medical research continues to harp on paradigms that had served their purpose by the middle of the 20th century, at the latest.
Today, in order to open up the perspective of a superior kind of universal medicine implying improved healthcare at reasonable cost - the primary task is the amalgamation and, to start with, the elucidation of fundamental medical methodology of both systems.
I need not prove that the systematic methodology of Chinese medicine is widely unknown and ignored. Yet where is there such knowledge with respect to Western medicine? Nowhere in the world has its methodology ever been made the subject of any regular or mandatory course of study at a Medical School or University. Practically all instruction there either bears on a hodgepodge of largely pragmatic theory or on clinical that is applied techniques. Therefore, even if we took for granted the definition that "the methods of Chinese medicine exemplify the paradigm of all life science", at present we would be totally at a loss to link this up with any corresponding "interface" of Western medicine. In other words, the paramount and immediate task is the rational statement and didactic conveyance of the fundamental criteria and contents of any medicine. Once this task is achieved, establishing communication between Chinese and Western medicine will be a matter of course.