Sunday, December 30, 2007

Chinese Medicine

Doktor House aus dem gleichnamigen amerikanischen TV Show kritisiert die Alternativmedizin. Er sagt:

Hang up a shingle and condemn the narrowness and greed of Western medicine, you’d make a damn fine living…The six months that he had with these charlatans might have been spent going to someone who looks at things that exist in the real world.



An Logik glaubt Doktor House. Wie kann man in etwas unsichtbares und unauffindbares vertrauen? In der traditionellen chinesischen Medizin (TCM) gibt es Meridiane, die jeder Praktiker weiβ, wie er lokalisieren soll, und Energieflüsse (qi), die herumgerückt werden können. Bis heute gibt niemand durch wissenschaftliche Experiments davon eindeutigen Beleg. Mit wenigen wirtschaftlichen Anreize ist kein Double Blind Experiment an die TCM im Westen geführt worden. Im Osten sehen manche Ärzte keine Not, die Wirksamkeit oder die Täuschung der TCM zu beweisen. Wie der Hinduismus zu den Hindus ist die TCM seit Jahrtausend ein Bestandteil des Lebens der Chinesen, für den die Medizin klappt. Anders als die Wunderheilung, die höchstens einen Placeboeffekt gibt, werden die Patienten sogar geheilt, nach sie zum Akupunkteur oder Herbologe geht. Es ist nicht einfach post hoc ergo propter hoc. Unbestreitbar ist die Korrelation so stark wie Herzanfall mit Hochcholesterin oder Lungenkrebs mit Rauchen.

Auch nicht direckt beobachtbar ist dunkle Materie, die keine optische oder andere elektromagnetische Strahlung aussendet oder absorbiert. Die meisten Kosmologen unterstützen die Theorie ihrer Existenz, die die Observation der Galaxienrotation, der Bewegung der Kugelsternhaufen und der Dynamik der Galaxienhaufen gut zusammenpasst. So real wie dunkle Materie sind das meridiansystem und Energieflüsse der TCM, deren Existenz durch die kampfstarke Korrelation zwischen der Diagnose, Behandlung und Genesung nahegelegt wird.

Ich weiβ nicht, ob Doktor House die Theorie der dunklen Materie glaubt. Bis wenn ein Gerät erfunden wird, das Energieflüsse und Meridiankanäle ausfindig machen kann, ist es unmöglich, ihm die TCM vorzugaukeln. Ich bin sicher, daβ Doktor House darauf nicht allein ist.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Brain, Beauty, and Breast Implants

We admire successful people. Many of them are naturally talented in many ways. We applaud their achievements.

We like beautiful people. Many achieve richness and fame through marriage. We are often not so kind to their ascendance in the material world.

One argues that truly successful people can’t rely on their talent alone, they work hard. The light bulb guy has a formula: 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. I believe, however, the talent dosage should be much higher. Although “anyone can cook”, according to Gusteau, very few in reality can become a great chef. God is biased and unfair. Through hard labor, Salieri transformed himself from a farm boy to the Austrian court composer, yet he could never achieve the level of genius “a performing monkey” did, the boorish and vulgar Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Perspiration is certainly required. No lazy man can achieve greatness, but a great man must be a genius. My prescription for success is “diligence, persistence, talent, and a bit of luck”. Forest Gump is just a fairytale.

If we look hard into the life of Miss Teen South Carolina, we may find she takes care of her appearance diligently and persistently every day. She may not think about US maps all the time, but surely spends every single waking minute of her life to make sure she looks fabulous. That’s hard work, people! She needs to keep up with all the latest and greatest thingies in science, culture, and medicine (for cosmetics, fashion, and plastic surgery). The level of commitment is as tremendous as a successful MIT applicant would have. Besides, not any beauty can hit a jackpot. One may need some sly planning from coach Hitch, some arm wrestling with rivals, and in many cases, a prestigious background to be accepted into the elite society. Simply prostituting yourself wouldn’t get you very far. Cleopatra is just as great as, if not greater than, Gaius Julius.

(To be fair, she was pretty smart too, the first one in her 300-year Ptolemaic linage to speak Egyptian).

So it’s a corollary that if we are impressed by someone who starts to read Nietzsche and Schopenhauer to enlarge his brain surface area, we should also admire someone who tries to stuff her Hans and Franz to increase her cup size.

But it seems some people just have problems with breast implants. When someone with prescription glasses opts for laser surgery, no one is ripping him a new one. The benefit thereof over ugly glasses is mostly cosmetic. You may argue for convenience, but it’s still an artificial enhancement. Hair transplant is another publicly favorable procedure that defines “cosmetic” in cosmetic surgery. The easiest and the most common among all is probably piercing, and ear piercing is so commonplace most people do not even consider it as surgery. Come to think of it, ear piercing is probably one of the most artificial, superficial, and brutal procedures. It’s artificial because it allows attachment of visible foreign objects while other nicking and tucking at least try to restore or enhance the natural beauty in human body; Ear piercing is superficial because it is really done on the surface (*); and the reason for its brutality is that it’s fundamentally a purposeful mutilation of the human body. Therefore, I think anyone who feels strongly against “distastefully superficial” cosmetic surgery like breast implants should feel the same about ear piercing.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with piercing at all. If you have a Prince Albert, more power to you!

Simply the point here is the pursuit of beauty has two objects: the much applauded inner one and the often coveted outer one. While we encourage someone to improve his intelligence, develop his character and perfect his personality, we should also cheer for his effort to attain physical perfection through natural or surgical means. Furthermore, we should embrace it with the same passion and excitement as the Romans in discovering something wonderful in Greek antiquity.


(*): it’s purely semantic, but I can’t resist.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

投名状





桃园美史, 缘起除宦兴汉. 同志断金, 同心臭兰. 故有弟走单骑, 兄北夷岭. 然刺马乌合, 殊心异性. 虽效投名之状, 实无手足之情. 途穷匕首现. 人性之弱乎, 人性乎.

云庞青云 (马新贻) 弃匪从军, 君子豹变. 实背信弃义, 与仇同榻. 唯利是图. 又云其不识官道, 青云难长. 史实难合. 恭亲王荐于慈禧, 赞其”精明强干, 操守亦好”, ”妥为安置”两江. 庞某深黯敌友相易, 忍辱后生以成大事, 此乃革面保身, 青云官场之必备.

而其盟友性纯, 笃信情义. 盲从无的. 有驭利器之勇, 陷敌城之谋, 降他军之信. 分掠赃之义, 重誓友之情. 惜无远瞩之才, 察人之能. 周旋之技, 变通之术. 虽可美誉”真汉子”, 终成事者鲜已.

狮豹同行, 志相异, 性相远, 术相殊. 岂能同归乎?

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

A Good Philosophy to Live By

An excerpt from "House MD" (Season 1, Episode 17: Role Model). House accuses his patient, Senator Gary Wright, of lying about his medical history.


HOUSE
You need to stop lying to me.

SENATOR WRIHT
It must be miserable, always assuming the worst in people.

HOUSE
Oh, cut the crap, you’re dying.

SENATOR WRIHT
You’re clever, you’re witty, and you are a coward! You’re scared of taking chances.

HOUSE
I take chances all the time, it’s one of my worst qualities.

SENATOR WRIHT
On people?

HOUSE
Wanting to believe the best about people doesn’t make it true.

SENATOR WRIHT
Being afraid to believe it doesn’t make it false.

HOUSE
Well, that’s very moving. It’s a shame I don’t vote.

SENATOR WRIHT
This is who I am. I believe in people. I’m not hiply cynical and I don’t make easy, snide remarks. I would rather think that people are good and be disappointed once and again.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

What Makes Someone Great

An excerpt from "House MD" (Season 1, Episode 9: DNR). Dr. Foreman, after being offered a job by Dr. Hamilton from L.A., discusses with his boss Dr. House.


HOUSE
I checked him out. He’s a great doctor. You think he’s better than I am?

FOREMAN
This about your ego?

HOUSE
Answer the question. It’s not going to change my opinion of myself. Might affect my opinion of you, but that shouldn’t affect your opinion of yourself. Now I’m getting confused. If you think he’s a better doctor than I am, then you should take the job. Otherwise, you should get him to buy you two or three more nostalgic lunches and politely decline.

FOREMAN
It’s that simple? I should just ignore the mockery and abuse?

HOUSE
Oh, how do I abuse you?

FOREMAN
How do you not? If I make a mistake –

HOUSE
I hold you accountable, so what?

FOREMAN
Dr. Hamilton forgives. He’s capable of moving on.

HOUSE
That is not what he does!

FOREMAN
I screwed up his case, he told me –

HOUSE
He never said you were forgiven. I was there, he said it wasn’t your fault.

FOREMAN
So?

HOUSE
So, it was. You took a chance, you did something great. You were wrong, but it was still great. You should feel great that it was great. You should feel like crap that it was wrong. That’s the difference between him and me. He thinks you do your job, and what will be, will be. I think that what I do and what you do matters. He sleeps better at night. He shouldn’t.

What Makes Someone Successful

An excerpt from "House MD" (Season 1, Episode 9: DNR). John Henry Giles is a fictitious famed musician being treated by Dr. Greg House.

GILES
It’s over. I lost my air. The session the other night, with those kids? That was a test to see if I could still play. I can’t.

HOUSE
And that’s all you are? A musician?

GILES
I got one thing, same as you.

HOUSE
Really? Apparently, you know me better than I know you.

GILES
I know that limp. I know the empty ring finger. And that obsessive nature of yours, that’s a big secret. You don’t risk jail and your career just to save somebody who doesn’t want to be saved unless you got something, anything, one thing. The reason normal people got wives and kids and hobbies, whatever. That’s because they don’t got that one thing that hits them that hard and that true. I got music, you got this. The thing you think about all the time, the thing that keeps you south of normal. Yeah, makes us great, makes us the best. All we miss out on is everything else. No woman waiting at home after work with the drink and the kiss, that ain’t gonna happen for us.

HOUSE
That’s why God made microwaves.

GILES
Yeah, but when it’s over, it’s over.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

I Am Legend





World calamity, natural, human-induced, or extraterrestrial, fantasized in a movie like such as well as The War of the Worlds, Nanking, Deep Impact, just to name a very few, makes me appreciate what a peaceful life I have now. In a movie when you stare at vampirist zombies or towering tripods, wouldn’t you feel lucky you live in your current life, however crappy that might be? In fact, that’s a natural reaction when a person faces his own mortality, and the apocalyptic fantasy of annihilation is just an extreme condition to bring out such desperation.

In many parts of the world, less fortunate people experience scarcity of resources, hostile environment, and physical endangerment on a daily basis. It’s a nightmare you can’t wake up from.

So shut up if you haven’t got an IPod for Christmas.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Divorce & Marriage

Some people I know become disillusioned by marriage because of the many dissolutions of which they witnessed. I personally know many couples in Shanghai who are couples no more, a social taboo inconceivable just ten years ago in the land of Confucius.

The usual suspects are infidelity (or medically, phalliophilia or colpoamia), abuse, or the fashionable irreconcilable differences. The latest catalysts include feminism (or medically, Sex and the City), political correctness that leads to social tolerance, and information explosion since the advent of internet.

In the case of my fellow countrymen, the introduction of western individualism and the rapid deterioration of once ubiquitous rigid social structure ought to be the herald for the new divorce-happy life style.

The list is by no means exhaustive.

So the 50 dollar question is: outside any religious sense, is marriage relevant in our modern time?

Before marriage, there is relationship whose formula is physiological craving plus emotional dependence, the kind of math American teenagers really excel at. Relationship could be monogamous or polygamous depending on personal preferences. When considering evolution, monogamy is preferred as it provides the best possible physical and social environment for the offspring. That’s why the misconception of certain Mormon practice is so exotic.

Does monogamous relationship require a human institution of marriage? Child support, inheritance right, tax exemption; many of such legal codes ensure children born out of wedlock to have equal or at least similar filial rights. So for devoted parents, marriage doesn’t seem to help reap any more social benefits for their children.

If not for their children, the reason must be selfish. Marginally self reassuring, approval winning, parents pleasing, conformity seeking are the typical aftertastes once names are registered on the country record.

But there is more…

Some people spend their lifetime searching for the origin of all existence or meaning of life, fully aware that they will be likely, eventually disappointed. But they persist. Their act of pursuit, not the subject thereof, is an ideal. The pursuit of an ideal, whether by starving artists, self-disemboweling samurai warriors, or by prostrating believers, is our mental faculty par excellence at work. Marriage is another ideal for the brave, the passionate, and the unjaded.

For the cup-half-full folks, when the divorce rate is up, it's corollary that the marriage rate is up, a priori. So why are people disillusioned by marriage?

Human Sacrifice

When an innocent person meets his untimely death, it’s His Will for His Plan. Isn’t it human sacrifice?

An argument from the apologia is that no one is truly innocent because of the Original Sin committed some 6,000 years ago.

Forgive me, but calling an unborn or newly born child Sinful and sentencing it to death is just bloody cruel.

Is there still room for forgiveness, compassion, and kindness?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Residual Morality and Critical Thinking

A mom’s immunity protests her new-born for six months, after which the baby gets regular vaccinations.

On the other hand, the influence of parents’ morality on the child wears off much later, if ever. The residual morality hangs on sometimes for the life span of the new host. As the child continues to get moral vaccines from school, his peers, and the society, he also picks up unwelcome viruses and bacteria. It’s his own immune system, i.e. his critical thinking, that will choose what to take in as helpful vaccines and what to ward off as harmful foreign agents. Sometimes, the residual immunity is still capable of fighting new strands of viruses, but certainly not always.

Is this analogy applicable for a child of faith? Unless spiritual healing cures all diseases, an analogy in modern medicine is always relevant.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Basic Human Feelings

Can we safely say “I feel, therefore I am”? The clichés are still around: “trust your gut feeling”, “follow your instinct”, “listen to your heart, not your brain”, and so on.

Many people do follow their feelings in their dealings, but are often labeled “being too emotional”. More rational ones often pat on their own backs for having earned the black belt of suppressing their feelings and doing the logical things. In either case, the feeling, or the conscious subjective experience of emotion, is real. The neurons have fired.

Take “sadness”. When a good friend is killed in a car accident, many people would feel sad. When a good mother dies of breast cancer, her loving daughter would feel sad.

Should they feel sad?

The emotion of “happiness” is deceivingly simpler. When Dr. House cures the dying but still caring teacher of a trifactor of autoimmune, carcinoid, and hypothyroidism, her previously hopeless middle school students would jump up in hysterical ecstasy.

Should we go round them up and quiet them down, because we shouldn’t feel “happy”?

We have support groups for every possible supposed human tragedy in the world, but there is no support group for “joyous and grateful teenagers whose teacher just recovered from ungodly diseases”. Why not?

An answer from a Hindus or a Buddhist is quite simple and consistent. Basic human feelings are false reactions to the illusion of realty. The neurotic firing is preconditioned. One needs to liberate himself from the maya of duality. If someone is telling you his parents survived a 20 car pile up without a scratch, you may respond “what’s for lunch”?

When a good Christian is terminally ill, his brothers and sisters would diligently pray for the invalid. Their motive is pure yet confusing. If the patient recovers, it’s Lord’s work. The happy and praising neurons are firing. If the patient doesn’t make it, it’s also Lord’s work. Since He is omni-benevolent, the passing of the patient shouldn’t be a tragedy, but a part of His Grand Plan. The death of the sick just served Lord’s Purpose. Lord got what He wanted (not surprisingly). Therefore, death is not just good but great. The happy and praising neurons should reload for action again. So if someone is telling you about a dying Christian, you don’t have to wait for the end. Just jump right in with “Good for him” or “Good for her”, with both of your thumbs up opposing each other. (Note: you should wait at least until you know the gender of the patient).

So an oversimplified note to support group organizers on all subjects. For Hindus and Buddhists, teach them to learn how to feel nothing. For Christians, teach them how to feel joy and gratitude in all cases.

Life made easy? Maybe.