Here is the book:

I first saw this on a very random occasion on amazon.cn, it might be a translated version if memory served. I have always been a big fan of Chinese medicine so it really drew my attention. The question it asked was, and still is, one of the fundamental questions for understanding how traditional Chinese medicine theories/practice have developed over time. So, I spent 2 days in the library reading this book (in English)…

Here is the official overview, if you haven’t heard of this book before:

At the heart of medical history is a deep enigma.The true structure and workings of the human body are, we casually assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But then we look into the past, and our sense of reality wavers: accounts of the body in diverse medical traditions often seem to describe mutually alien, almost unrelated worlds.The Expressiveness of the Body meditates on the contrasts between the human body described in classical Greek medicine and the body as envisaged by physicians in ancient China. It asks how this most basic of human realities came to be conceived by two sophisticated civilizations in radically diverging ways. And it seeks answers in fresh and unexpected topics, such as the history of tactile knowledge, the relationship between ways of seeing and ways of listening, and the evolution of bloodletting.

The author uses the whole first chapter to discuss the origins of understanding of mo （脉）, both in the context of West and East. This is a very good perspective for the best of my understanding. He has done a good job tracking down how the concepts of pulse, pulse taking, palpation developed in ancient time. The most frequent references in ancient China includes 黄帝内经，难经, which is fine but he did miss some of the critical discussion about mo and qiemo in the following 1000 years time in Chinese history. He raised the question of why should we, if reliable at all, take pulse ONLY from cunkou (肺朝百脉，独取寸口) but failed to answer it properly. Selecting cunkou as the sole pulse taking place lies in the center of the whole mo diagnosis in the Chinese medicine system, failure to clarify the rationale for this will no doubt lead to a series of following up questions. This is the my first observation on the book.

My second observation is: there are some really really disastrous translation of terms which lead to completely misunderstanding of concepts. One example is the translation of 气 into breath. Under certain circumstances this could be a right translation, however, in the combination of 阳气 and 阴血 being translated into yang breath and yin blood apparently missed the real meaning. Qi (气) in Chinese medicine refers more to something energy related and hard to describe in verbal language – something decribed by the author ‘phantastical’ or metaphysical. People with stronger qi is usually a sign of better body conditions. Unfortunately qi is one of the most important concept in Chinese medicine, having this concept wrong, as I said, could be disastrous.  At least in the first 50 pages the author didn’t discuss qi at all.

Up to now I have read some 70 pages, the problem that the author intend to explore is important but might be too big for a 300 page book. The discussion on origins of mo alone could easily take up the whole 300 pages. One can not discuss mo without referring to qi and other fundamental concept such as yin/yang in human body. It seems (absolutely nothing to blame the author on) that the author could do a better job if he goes deeper in exploring more ancient China literature on mo and qi.

Will continue the reading and post more comments to the later chapters on this book.