Digest Number 99

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/27/2003 9:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, herbbabe writes:

 

Am I so deeply sequestered in my world of qi that I cannot imagine that this

is exclusive in some way?

 

Cara

 

I am only out of school a couple years so the memory is still fresh. One of my clinic instructors used palpation exclusively for point location and to also feel what the body needed rather than rely exclusively on theory. He was worshiped by some and thought crazy by others.

One of the most respected teachers, couldn't feel chi and although he wouldn't speak out publicly, thought locating points through feel rather than CAM, was folly.

Some can feel it, others seem to have a hard time with it.

 

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Over the years, with increasing frequency,

> I find that patients ask me, " Hey, how did

> you know that was the place that's bothering me? "

>

>

 

When I am asked that, I always joke that I have X-ray fingers.

But of course, there is no real mystery to palpation: although I no longer

have a beginners mind or beginners " fingers', I don't remember a single

moment from the first day of acup school where I was unable to find a point

thru touch. And I remember being floored when, in the Bill Moyer's series,

in which he featured David Eisenberg, from Harvard, who said he could not

feel qi. That it was mysterious to him. Even now, I wonder, how could this

be? The ease of it- the sensory rightness of a point.

Am I so deeply sequestered in my world of qi that I cannot imagine that this

is exclusive in some way?

 

Cara

[Guest guest]

It is for many...who are still in school or perfecting

their practice. Kit

 

 

At 10:07 PM 7/27/03 -0400, you wrote:

>

> In a message dated 7/27/2003 9:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> herbbabe writes:

>

>>

>> Am I so deeply sequestered in my world of qi that I cannot imagine that this

>> is exclusive in some way?

>>

>> Cara

>

>

>

>        I am only out of school a couple years so the memory is still fresh. 

> One of my clinic instructors used palpation exclusively for point location

> and to also feel what the body needed rather than rely exclusively on

> theory.  He was worshiped by some and thought crazy by others.

>        One of the most respected teachers, couldn't feel chi and although he

> wouldn't speak out publicly, thought locating points through feel rather than

> CAM, was folly.

>        Some can feel it, others seem to have a hard time with it.

>

>        Chris

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/27/03 9:42:07 PM, herbbabe writes:

 

<< I remember being floored when, in the Bill Moyer's series,

in which he featured David Eisenberg, from Harvard, who said he could not

feel qi. That it was mysterious to him. Even now, I wonder, how could this

be? The ease of it- the sensory rightness of a point.

Am I so deeply sequestered in my world of qi that I cannot imagine that this

is exclusive in some way?

 

Cara

 

>>

 

I'm with you Cara. It seems/feels so obvious!

robbee

[Guest guest]

Cara,

 

Well, here's a little anecdote about

Dr. Eisenberg. In the spring of 2001

he invited me to talk to his group

at Harvard. Cool group of doctors and

med students wrestling with applying

Chinese medicine in their neck of the

woods.

 

My talk was based on what was then

a just published Brief History of Qi.

 

After about fifteen minutes, Dr. Eisenberg

asked me if I thought qi was something

that was measurable and quantifiable

or something more like god or love.

 

Since it's not my intention to try

and answer such questions...simply to

try and raise as many interesting questions

as possible, I replied that I was more

interested in helping people understand

what the Chinese have thought qi is

for the past few thousand years.

 

Dr. Eisenberg then excused himself,

and I had a great visit with his

gang for the next hour or so.

 

And just in case anyone is reading

this wondering, " What the heck does that

mean? " Don't worry.

 

Don't mean nuthin'.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/28/03 5:57:19 PM, TashiDelay writes:

 

 

 

In a message dated 7/27/03 9:42:07 PM, herbbabe writes:

 

<< I remember being floored when, in the Bill Moyer's series,

in which he featured David Eisenberg, from Harvard, who said he could not

feel qi. That it was mysterious to him. Even now, I wonder, how could this

be? The ease of it- the sensory rightness of a point.

Am I so deeply sequestered in my world of qi that I cannot imagine that this

is exclusive in some way?

 

Cara

 

>>

 

I'm with you Cara.  It seems/feels  so obvious!

robbee

 

 

 

Neither of you is trying to get tenure at Harvard, eh?

David Molony

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

 

I regret not yet getting to your book Brief History of Qi. I wonder if I could ask you though, since you stated that you like to help..

 

"people understandwhat the Chinese have thought qi is for the past few thousand years" - what you think of Paul Unschuld's thoughts on the same subject.

 

Dr. Unschuld is doing a lot of speaking in support of his works coming out on the Su Wen and I wonder what others like yourself think of his positions.

 

By the way, I was sensitive to what you said ( I thought it was you)in an earlier posting about how Brief History of Qi ended up being edited. I am working on a book due to be published in the Spring of 2005 and wonder what they will end up doing with it.

 

Thanks - Matt Bauer

 

 

-

kenrose2008

Chinese Medicine

Monday, July 28, 2003 4:46 PM

Re: Traditional (TCM) Digest Number 99

Cara,Well, here's a little anecdote aboutDr. Eisenberg. In the spring of 2001he invited me to talk to his groupat Harvard. Cool group of doctors andmed students wrestling with applyingChinese medicine in their neck of thewoods.My talk was based on what was thena just published Brief History of Qi.After about fifteen minutes, Dr. Eisenbergasked me if I thought qi was somethingthat was measurable and quantifiableor something more like god or love.Since it's not my intention to tryand answer such questions...simply totry and raise as many interesting questionsas possible, I replied that I was moreinterested in helping people understandwhat the Chinese have thought qi isfor the past few thousand years.Dr. Eisenberg then excused himself,and I had a great visit with hisgang for the next hour or so.And just in case anyone is readingthis wondering, "What the heck does thatmean?" Don't worry.Don't mean nuthin'.KenFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM) ranging from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina and nutrition.Membership rules require that you adhere to NO commercial postings, NO religious postings and NO spam.Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/

[Guest guest]

Matt,

>

> I regret not yet getting to your book Brief History of Qi. I wonder

if I could ask you though, since you stated that you like to help..

>

> " people understand

> what the Chinese have thought qi is for the past few thousand

years " - what you think of Paul Unschuld's thoughts on the same

subject.

>

> Dr. Unschuld is doing a lot of speaking in support of his works

coming out on the Su Wen and I wonder what others like yourself think

of his positions.

 

I'm afraid that the question is a little

too broad to answer. I'm not sure what

you're asking me to respond about.

 

I know Paul Unschuld and have the pleasure

to chat with him about a number of topics

related to Chinese medicine...as well as

many other topics, over the past few years.

 

I have the greatest respect for him

as a person, and I think he has produced

a body of work on the subject of the history

of medicine in China that far exceeds any

other. I find his research to be meticulous

and exhaustive.

 

I believe that when all is said and done,

Paul's contributions to the field will

prove to be more valuable than any other

single individual with the possible

exception of Nigel Wiseman.

 

So there's some general feedback

that will give you an idea of what I

think about Paul Unschuld. I urge

everyone who's interested in Chinese

medicine to get and read his books.

 

History of Ideas is one of the most

useful books I've ever read. And

I'm still working through the new

volume on Su Wen.

 

If you've got a particular topic or

issue that Paul has written or talked

about that you'd like to discuss,

I'd love to.

 

 

>

> By the way, I was sensitive to what you said ( I thought it was you)

in an earlier posting about how Brief History of Qi ended up being

edited. I am working on a book due to be published in the Spring of

2005 and wonder what they will end up doing with it.

 

Who's publishing your book?

 

I have had the undeserved benefit of

having a great editor in Bob Felt.

I'd say that the end result of

your book depends largely on who's

doing the editing. At least that's

been my experience.

 

By the way, what is the subject of

your book?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

 

Sorry that my question about Unschuld's ideas on qi were rather vague. I was sort of fishing to see what you thought. In my readings of his works (mostly History of Ideas and his new work on the Su Wen) I find him to be very vague about the subject also. In fact, in his just released work on the Sun Wen he ends up translating qi as "qi". He gives no real indication of what this phrase means only some ideas on what he believes it does not mean.

 

I agree with you about the value of his work and although I have had limited communication with him, I also agree he seems to be a very warm, generous individual. While I find his research very detailed and quite valuable, I disagree with some of his conclusions. For example, in the Su Wen work, his firmly states that the theories in that book are contrary to Taoist beliefs. Taoists, he states, were only involved with pharmacology and not at all with the theories behind acupuncture. His emphasis is on social-political influences of different times and the way those related to medical theories. These are important - but not the only factors. He seems to me to be quite mute on the influence of spiritual beliefs which, I would contend, is the deepest essence behind these practices.

 

As I see it, true to yin/yang law, his greatest strengths are also his greatest weakness. By this I mean, as a history scholar, he is bound to the written word. He, in my opinion, writes off folk history as not even worthy of consideration. But it may well be that crucial elements of the real story of the history of are unwritten. It may be that by the time written records were being produced (at least the tiny faction of all the original written records we now have available to us) the groundbreaking work on Chinese medical philosophy had already been produced long ago. The Su Wen and all other early works on are conspicuous in there complete lack of detail explaining the origins of the most essential subjects of the concept of qi, yin/yang, how the original points/herbs were discovered, etc. Unschuld does not address these subjects. How can one draw conclusions about the origins of Chinese Medicne while leaving such crucial questions not addressed?

 

The book I am working on takes Taoist folk history into account and attempts to reconcile this with the literal history by sources such as Unschuld. It is being written for the general public so I do not go into much detail (no point-counterpoint). I anticipate eventually finding avenues to go into more detail on this for members of our profession, perhaps some journal articles or speaking at Oriental Medicine conferences, etc. The major focus of my theories are the possible influences ancient astronomy/astrology had in the genesis of these concepts in general and medicine in particular. Such influences would have coincided with the invention of writing and thus would not be detailed in current records. My background is the study of Taoist folk history (at least one school of thought on this) and the practice of Taoist spiritual pursuits.

 

I should emphasize I really do respect the man. My criticisms are more based on the relative value of folk history than anything to do with the quality of his work in his field of scholarly history which is very high.

Thanks Ken for your work and interest in these subjects - Matt Bauer

 

-

kenrose2008

Chinese Medicine

Monday, July 28, 2003 6:07 PM

Re: Traditional (TCM) Digest Number 99

Matt,> > I regret not yet getting to your book Brief History of Qi. I wonder if I could ask you though, since you stated that you like to help..> > "people understand> what the Chinese have thought qi is for the past few thousand years" - what you think of Paul Unschuld's thoughts on the same subject. > > Dr. Unschuld is doing a lot of speaking in support of his works coming out on the Su Wen and I wonder what others like yourself think of his positions.I'm afraid that the question is a littletoo broad to answer. I'm not sure whatyou're asking me to respond about.I know Paul Unschuld and have the pleasureto chat with him about a number of topicsrelated to Chinese medicine...as well asmany other topics, over the past few years.in helping people understandwhat the Chinese have thought qi isfor the past few thousand years.I believe that when all is said and done,Paul's contributions to the field willprove to be more valuable than any othersingle individual with the possibleexception of Nigel Wiseman.So there's some general feedbackthat will give you an idea of what Ithink about Paul Unschuld. I urgeeveryone who's interested in Chinesemedicine to get and read his books.History of Ideas is one of the mostuseful books I've ever read. AndI'm still working through the newvolume on Su Wen.If you've got a particular topic orissue that Paul has written or talkedabout that you'd like to discuss,I'd love to.> > By the way, I was sensitive to what you said ( I thought it was you)in an earlier posting about how Brief History of Qi ended up being edited. I am working on a book due to be published in the Spring of 2005 and wonder what they will end up doing with it. Who's publishing your book?I have had the undeserved benefit ofhaving a great editor in Bob Felt.I'd say that the end result of your book depends largely on who'sdoing the editing. At least that'sbeen my experience. By the way, what is the subject ofyour book?KenFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM) ranging from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina and nutrition.Membership rules require that you adhere to NO commercial postings, NO religious postings and NO spam.Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/

[Guest guest]

What does Teromars cost in U.S. Dollars plus shipping?

Thank You,

Mike (in Texas where we use American dollars;-)

 

nature cure wrote:

 

>

>