|  back to n-s  issue  |

THE NORTH/SOUTH DEBATE

REPLY TO WARWICK POON FROM RAY HARRIS

I found Warwick Poon's response to my paper 'The North/South Debate' somewhat puzzling. He chooses to ignore most of what I wrote and instead chooses to attack my method of argument. This would all be well and good if Warwick's reasons for questioning my method were valid, unfortunately they are rather confused, and I regret to say, somewhat racist.

Before I go into detail I wish to make a general observation that Warwick attacks what he regards as a 'Western' inability to understand Chinese thought whilst, in the same breath, thoroughly misrepresenting 'Western' Science and logic. You can't have it both ways Warwick!

Warwick's words are in bold and in quotation marks.

"Personally, I find the Traditional Chinese Sciences far more scientific than some of the modern Western rubbish, which is passed of as science.  Note, Western Medicine, Archaeology, Sociology, Anthropology etc"

Western rubbish eh? What Warwick fails to do here is to distinguish between the 'hard' sciences and the 'social' sciences. In any case, his claim that the Traditional Chinese Sciences are more scientific is ridiculous. China has a magnificent history of 'scientific' discovery, however it did not develop a philosophy of science. This was imported into China as a result of contact with Europe, which had already undergone the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the resultant development of the scientific method.  Anyway, this is all a matter of history. China now embraces 'science' and has produced a good many excellent scientists. All of who would no doubt find Warwick's contention rather odd.

"The scientific method is to form a hypothesis and try to disprove it, as dispassionately as possible. If the hypothesis can be disproved easily, it may not hold water. If it can't be disproved readily it may be valid. It will usually remain valid until someone disproves it. Then it becomes less valid. Nothing is ever proved."

The statement that 'nothing is ever proved' is simply preposterous and would be news to the scientific community. The rest of the quote is a very messy and rather poor explanation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis is formed it is tested using an acceptable methodology. For a hypothesis to be accepted as true by the wider community it must be able to be repeated. A while ago there was some fuss over a hypothesis concerning 'cold fusion', however the experiment has yet to be successfully repeated, so it therefore remains a hypothesis. Now, over the history of science, a very large number of hypotheses have been 'proved', others have been 'disproved' and others still remain 'theoretical'.

"The different schools of Feng Shui are simply hypotheses or hypothetical theories that try to assist in tracking or altering the Qi flow."

Well, I'm not sure how many Feng Shui Masters will agree as to how hypothetical their particular school is. Many would argue that Feng Shui has gone beyond hypothesis.

"In discussing the North and South hemispheres, the arguments seem to me to be grossly unscientific, and even border on the ridiculous."

Which arguments? The pro or the con? Please give examples. Otherwise this stands as merely an unsubstantiated generalisation. Please explain why the arguments are 'grossly unscientific' and 'ridiculous'. I note Warwick that you do not address my paper directly, why?

"As far as I can see, the Western mind cannot encompass the Traditional Chinese concept that two or more opposing views can be true at the same time."

Tsk, tsk, Warwick. Let's rephrase that and see how this reads. 'As far as I can see, the Chinese mind cannot encompass western logic.' Sound like a racist statement from our Imperialist past, something the British might have said? Would you find it acceptable if I had said this to you? I think not.

Despite being a 'Westerner' I find the notion that there is a Traditional Chinese concept that two opposing views can be true at the same time to be frankly, a misreading of much of Chinese philosophy. Sorry if you think I am being somewhat of a presumptuous 'Westerner' in saying so, but this notion is a corruption of the subtleties of Taoist philosophy, in particular the Yin-Yang School. I am not aware of anything in Chinese philosophy that says two 'opposing' views can both be correct. What I understand Chinese philosophy to say is that the two views may 'appear' to be opposite, but in the light of a greater truth (the Tao) they are in fact two halves of a greater whole. And guess what Warwick? This is not a unique 'Eastern' concept. But here we are getting into a philosophical discussion that could take pages. Let's just say your above statement is a gross and erroneous simplification of a very sophisticated philosophy.

"The concept of logic is to take axiom A and put it together with fact (sic, axiom?)B, and logically deduce fact (sic, axiom?)C, which cannot be shown practically."

If this what you think logic is then you have another 'think' coming. Logic is a universal language which we might simply call 'clear thinking'. What you have described above is but one form of logical reasoning called a 'syllogism'. Logic is much, much more than playing with syllogisms. And incidentally, there are 256 syllogisms of which only 24 are valid. And the validity of each can be shown very 'practically'.

"Have you ever lived in a South facing house in Melbourne? You do not have to study Feng Shui to know that you are best advised to face the house towards the rear (north facing) garden."

Ever lived in a South-facing house in Darwin or Port Moresby? Both are in the SH as well. In my original paper I went into some detail regarding the fact that the SH system is biased toward the Temperate Zone and fails to account for the SH Tropical Zone.

"Every thinker from Jesus to Buddha to the current Dalai Lama has pleaded with people to take the 'middle way' ".

'Every' thinker? Jesus? Here you are misusing the Buddhist concept of the 'Middle Way'. The middle way strictly refers to the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Buddha called his path the middle way because he regarded it as a middle way between being a religious ascetic and a householder. It was not a universal plea to find 'middle ways' between all dilemmas. Buddhism would actually much prefer that you use reason and common sense, and that you quote the tradition correctly and not try to use it to justify specious arguments.

"Somewhere between the above two absurdities is a system that can accurately predict reality for the Southern Hemisphere, most of the time."

Maybe there is. Any suggestions as to what that may be? In my original paper I argued that the SH School had not offered any evidence that their theories were correct. I stated that they had not been adequately tested.  Have you reached some conclusions that you are willing to put to the test?  In short, do you 'know' that there is something between the NH and SH models, or are you simply indulging in idle speculation?

"Why can't we realise that two, three or more, sometimes opposing theories can all be correct at the same time."

Because it is manifestly absurd and unprecedented. Name one instance in 'reality' where two opposing theories are both correct at the same time. Go on, I dare you.  I'll go 'Hee' if you can.

The current situation in Australia is that there are four different systems in use. The most widely practiced and taught is the traditional method.  Roger Green and Lindy Baxter promote a SH adaptation of this method. Then there is the Black Hat system with Hermann Von Essen of Adelaide teaching a SH adaptation of this. All correct?  You realise of course, that this means that in some houses there is the choice of four separate Wealth sectors?

"What I have a problem with, is the common assumption Westerners have that they can know something by studying it, and then in their wisdom, throw out 'the baby with the bath water' ".

What I have a problem with is your prejudiced assumption that 'Westerners' are in fact making such common assumptions, and that somehow 'Easterners' do not make similar common assumptions.

"In Asian philosophy, about ten percent is knowing the facts, and the other ninety percent is practicing the art."

In Asian philosophy?  Perhaps as a common platitude, but not as a philosophical principle. In any case, it is also a western platitude, except we tend to put it as 20/80, as in 'It's twenty percent knowledge and eighty percent hard work (or pushing shit uphill)'.

"If you have studied Feng Shui for two years, do not start buggerising around with it until you have 18 years experience."

Which is actually my objection to Roger and Lindy's theories. It was clear from her reply to me that Lindy did not have a clear understanding of Feng Shui. Yet here they are, buggerising around with it.

In conclusion Warwick, I do note that you agree that any proposition regarding Feng Shui should be tested. The purpose of my paper was to point out certain contradictions and problems in the SH model. The only way out of this is to put it all to the test. See if it works.

However, I would also like to note that since the publication of that paper I have not become aware of any recognised Feng Shui master who has offered any support for the SH model. On the contrary, there have been many who have stated there should be no change whatsoever to the traditional system.

Ray Harris, July 1999