Herb regulation -What is qi?

[Guest guest]

Attilio,

 

I'm glad to read that you disagree.

But I hasten to point out that we can

only disagree, or agree for that matter,

because we can communicate in terms

that we both understand.

 

I'm not really talking about whether

politicians or the public at large

understand what qi is or how its

variable meanings interact to form

the concept that we use in Chinese medicine.

 

I'm talking about the way that a profession

full of people sounds and looks and feels

to those outside the profession who listen to

and read discussions in which technical

terms are used in highly imprecise and

confusing ways.

 

Don't waste your time agreeing or disagreeing

with me. Just look at the literature.

 

Just start a thread right here on

 

What is qi?

 

and see what happens.

 

Let's be scientists. Let's really

find out.

 

What is qi?

 

When you want to talk about an

herb that you use to regulate a patient's

qi to a congressperson, how are you

going to explain that?

 

Don't worry about whether or not the

listener to this argument or appeal

understands, just worry about the

impression that the listener forms

in his or her mind as to whether or

not the person making the appeal

understands what he or she is talking

about when using such terms.

 

Public opinion, by the way, is usually

expressed in terms that everyone tends

to understand and agree upon.

 

The importance of language here is not

that we all share the same view, but that

we all know how to communicate effectively

as to what our various views are.

 

As Socrates put it, to use words wrongly

not only is a fault in and of itself,

it also corrupts the soul.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

The question " What is Qi " ? is the most important, fundamental

question in TCM. However, i don't see its importance with this

thread, in which we're discussing herbal regulation, the ma huang

ban, bad publicity and public/government opinion.

 

What is Qi? That's something that i think can never be answered. Its

something to be reflected upon our whole life. What is the meaning

of life? I think that's an easier question to ask. By all means,

start a new thread Ken and we'll tackle that one.

 

Attilio

 

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote:

> Attilio,

>

> I'm glad to read that you disagree.

> But I hasten to point out that we can

> only disagree, or agree for that matter,

> because we can communicate in terms

> that we both understand.

>

> I'm not really talking about whether

> politicians or the public at large

> understand what qi is or how its

> variable meanings interact to form

> the concept that we use in Chinese medicine.

>

> I'm talking about the way that a profession

> full of people sounds and looks and feels

> to those outside the profession who listen to

> and read discussions in which technical

> terms are used in highly imprecise and

> confusing ways.

>

> Don't waste your time agreeing or disagreeing

> with me. Just look at the literature.

>

> Just start a thread right here on

>

> What is qi?

>

> and see what happens.

>

> Let's be scientists. Let's really

> find out.

>

> What is qi?

>

> When you want to talk about an

> herb that you use to regulate a patient's

> qi to a congressperson, how are you

> going to explain that?

>

> Don't worry about whether or not the

> listener to this argument or appeal

> understands, just worry about the

> impression that the listener forms

> in his or her mind as to whether or

> not the person making the appeal

> understands what he or she is talking

> about when using such terms.

>

> Public opinion, by the way, is usually

> expressed in terms that everyone tends

> to understand and agree upon.

>

> The importance of language here is not

> that we all share the same view, but that

> we all know how to communicate effectively

> as to what our various views are.

>

> As Socrates put it, to use words wrongly

> not only is a fault in and of itself,

> it also corrupts the soul.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Attilio,

 

OK. Let's tackle it.

 

But, as you point out, it is a moot

point, i.e., one that we can and should

discuss without concern about its eventual

resolution or lack thereof.

 

But that doesn't mean that qi doesn't

have a distinct set of meanings. These

are what constitute both the bulk and

the gist of A Brief History of Qi.

It's not that these meanings can't

be known, it's that they aren't being

taught. This is what results in the

prevailing sense that you have expressed,

i.e., the unknowability of qi.

 

However, consider this. When you are

forced to get down to brass tacks, the

details of legislation, regulation, etc.

and so forth, you'll find that one of

the items that needs to be in the packet

is something akin to scientific evidence.

 

I'm not talking about specific requirements,

but the general sense, documents need to

be brought into existence that demonstrate

that there is something going on here that

can be nailed down in some sort of terms

that can be embodied in a piece of legislation.

 

All that said, I am happy to engage in

a discussion with others about, What is qi?

 

The point is not to come up with a conclusive

decision of some sort. I tried to boil down

my own sense of What is qi in that book

I wrote with Zhang Yu Huan.

 

The point is to demonstrate to our mutual

satisfaction what the actual level of

understanding out there is and, far more

urgenly, how we can go about discussing

this most important fundamental question

in a way that inspires confidence and trust

on the part of listeners.

 

If you start a conversation by saying that

qi is the most fundamental and important

question in Chinese medicine, and you then

quickly conclude it by saying that its' meaning

can't be known and can be discussed til the

cows come home with no resolution, the effect

created on a reasonable listener is that you

are, more or less, mad.

 

And that, generally speaking, may play

well for certain audiences, but it don't

win elections.

 

Somehow, I doubt that I've made myself very

clear on this topic; but that comes with

the territory.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Dear TCM-ers

 

I like what Ken is saying very much - a good place to kick-off with this

thread.

 

Maybe this will help to put things in perspective, Karl Popper, the father

of modern scientific method which embodies the notion that 'falsifiability'

is the backbone of a scientific theory, not ad nauseum 'proofs' and

'corroborations', said this in a lecture he gave entitled " Sources of

knowledge and ignorance " (British Academy 1960) :

 

" 5. The fact that all our sources of knowledge are traditional condemns

anti-traditionalism as futile. But this fact must not be held to support a

traditionalist attitude: every bit of our traditional knowledge (and even

our inborn knowledge) is open to critical examination and may be overthrown.

Nevertheless, without tradition, knowledge would be impossible. "

 

Isn't that just spot on the money concerning the question of Qi ! First, our

knowledge of Qi has its source in ancient oriental texts (from TCM dare I

say), and secondly, our inborn experience tells us that Qi is a reality. [

Well my experience tells me that Qi is present in varying amounts when I do

certain exercises and I am sure the same applies to others when they take

certain herbal formulae to strengthen Qi, or when we are ill and Qi is

weakened. ]

 

Clearly we must look at what the ancients said about this phenomenon , Qi,

and match up their experience with our own. We must then compare and

contrast this knowledge with whatever contemporary information is around to

help us support the notion of Qi. Finally we must design suitable (i.e.

potentially falsifiable) experiments to demonstrate the objective existence

of Qi, in some form or another.

 

I suggest a good place to start is in the files section where an article on

the embryonic origin of meridians can be found. In this discussion it is

shown that gap junctions (cells with an ability to transmit electric

current) accumulate on membranes on the surface of the embryo. These gap

junctions help to form surface electric fields from which limb buds and

organs develop. The folding of the embryo ensures surface membranes

containing gap junctions are incorporated in the body-mass forming a solid

structure of interlaced communicating membranes long before the nervous

system is fully developed. It is not without coincidence that during early

stages of embryonic development organs such as the lung and large intestine

originate at the same time and location as a result of morphogenic forces

acting on the membrane surface. Although the lung and large intestine go

their separate ways in later stages of development the primordial connection

between them - the membrane or meridian - functions throughout life by

transmitting Qi. Summing up: one manifestation of Qi is in the way it can

direct primordial morphogenic fields.

 

This is just one level of argument. I wouldn't want to get bogged down in

whether Qi is simply electrical in nature because this would just encourage

stupid experiments on dumb animals, by even dumber 'scientists', when in

fact all the (falsifiable) experiments that need to be done can be done on

humans in a healing context.

 

It would be good to see some discussion of how TCM experiments can be

designed so they possess 'falsifiability'. The double blind test has been

objected to on moral grounds, but how about the double blind crossover test

? The crossover is performed halfway through the experiment so that everyone

gets a chance to benefit.

 

Cheers,

 

Sammy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kenrose2008 [kenrose2008]

16 January 2004 00:56

Chinese Medicine

Re: Herb regulation -What is qi?

 

 

Attilio,

 

OK. Let's tackle it.

 

But, as you point out, it is a moot

point, i.e., one that we can and should

discuss without concern about its eventual

resolution or lack thereof.

 

But that doesn't mean that qi doesn't

have a distinct set of meanings. These

are what constitute both the bulk and

the gist of A Brief History of Qi.

It's not that these meanings can't

be known, it's that they aren't being

taught. This is what results in the

prevailing sense that you have expressed,

i.e., the unknowability of qi.

 

However, consider this. When you are

forced to get down to brass tacks, the

details of legislation, regulation, etc.

and so forth, you'll find that one of

the items that needs to be in the packet

is something akin to scientific evidence.

 

I'm not talking about specific requirements,

but the general sense, documents need to

be brought into existence that demonstrate

that there is something going on here that

can be nailed down in some sort of terms

that can be embodied in a piece of legislation.

 

All that said, I am happy to engage in

a discussion with others about, What is qi?

 

The point is not to come up with a conclusive

decision of some sort. I tried to boil down

my own sense of What is qi in that book

I wrote with Zhang Yu Huan.

 

The point is to demonstrate to our mutual

satisfaction what the actual level of

understanding out there is and, far more

urgenly, how we can go about discussing

this most important fundamental question

in a way that inspires confidence and trust

on the part of listeners.

 

If you start a conversation by saying that

qi is the most fundamental and important

question in Chinese medicine, and you then

quickly conclude it by saying that its' meaning

can't be known and can be discussed til the

cows come home with no resolution, the effect

created on a reasonable listener is that you

are, more or less, mad.

 

And that, generally speaking, may play

well for certain audiences, but it don't

win elections.

 

Somehow, I doubt that I've made myself very

clear on this topic; but that comes with

the territory.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious,

spam messages,flame another member or swear.

 

To change your email settings, i.e. individually, daily digest or none,

visit the groups’ homepage:

Chinese Medicine/ click ‘edit my

membership' on the right hand side and adjust accordingly.

 

To send an email to

<Chinese Medicine- > from the email

account you joined with. You will be removed automatically but will still

recieve messages for a few days.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ken, and all,

 

> If you start a conversation by saying that

> qi is the most fundamental and important

> question in Chinese medicine, and you then

> quickly conclude it by saying that its' meaning

> can't be known and can be discussed til the

> cows come home with no resolution, the effect

> created on a reasonable listener is that you

> are, more or less, mad.

>

> And that, generally speaking, may play

> well for certain audiences, but it don't

> win elections.

 

I am fascinated by the juxtaposition of these two pursuits - the

search for the

meaning of qi, and the quest for political efficacy. The former

invokes one's inner-

directed sensibilities (as informed by study and received wisdom)

while the latter is a

primarily extroverted activity (yet is ultimately contingent upon

inner integrity.)

 

It brings to mind numerous other parallel juxtapositions, e.g.:

interior and exterior

meditation and action

study and practice

focus and field (cf. Ames & Hall's intro to their Dao De Jing)

daoism and confucianism/legalism

health care and medicine (as per Paul Unschuld)

nei gong and external qi gong

immanence and transcendence

madness and prophecy

religion and politics

losing and gaining

yin and yang.

 

It reminds me that qi, in whatever context we attempt to define it,

essentially defies

definition, as it is a dynamic function of relationship.

 

It suggests that language, being the interface between the inner

resources of

consciousness and our effective communication with others, is a most

potent

expression of qi.

 

It inspires me to recognize that the cultivation of qi is the key not

just to the

harmonization of, but also to achievement of, all apparently

polarized goals.

 

Simcha Gottlieb

[Guest guest]

Simcha,

 

Very elegantly put. The only point I would

stress that as undefinable as qi may seem

to be or, in the end (whatever that may be)

turn out to be, Chinese have been defining

it for thousands of years.

 

Defining the undefinable is one of the key

pasttimes of Chinese writers, calligraphers,

poets, painters, and, yes, even doctors...

from time to time.

 

At least we can say that there has been a

spirited intercourse between medical people

and philosophers who care about such heady

questions as What is qi? This intercourse

has produced progeny, naturally, and what

we call Chinese medicine is, to a certain

extent, on of these children.

 

I do not argue with your well made point

that qi is undefinable. I simply point out

that part of our responsibility as individuals

who would receive the transmission of knowledge

from the past is to ascertain, if not the

ultimate MEANING of the term, the multi-variate

meanings that it has accreted over the millenia.

 

That is why we must study and acquire familiarity

with the language. You can't just learn one word.

You have to learn the language in which that

word lives if you want to say that you know

that word.

 

What does " duende " mean?

 

And how can you hope or dare to say you

understand it if you don't know Spanish, not

to mention Flamenco, and a thousand other

things.

 

We cannot waive the actual requirements of

knowledge because of the mere existence of

licensing boards, etc.

 

And if we hope to demonstrate adequate credibility

to be reliable sources of information in the

public...by which I mean the lay public, the

public at large...perception, we are going to

have to ratchet up the level with which we

deal with language and communication.

 

This begins and ends with the clear use

of the words that we use.

 

And that depends on knowing what they mean,

which has to go beyond the recognition that

terms like qi may well be ultimately impossible

to define. We have to acquire, and when I say

we I mean you, me, and each and every person

who is reading this, the detailed understanding

of the insistent particulars of qi.

 

Therein lies the path towards what we might someday

be able to call an understanding of qi and of

subjects, theories, substances, and methods of

medical intervention that are based upon and

depend upon qi.

 

Ken