Guest guest Posted January 30, 2004 Report Share Posted January 30, 2004 >I've always been taught that there can never be an excess in the Kidney >meridian, eg if yang is in " excess " then it is really the ying which id >deficient. How do you recognise excess in the Ki meridian? When trying to read translations of classical texts, I've wondered when " Kidney " means the organ (zang) or when it means the channel (jing). And whether the organ and the channel are always in connection. As in this discussion here, it appears plausible that the organ and the channel can be addressed independently of one another. Is there any authoritative theory on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Chris wrote: > >I've always been taught that there can never be an excess in the Kidney > >meridian, eg if yang is in " excess " then it is really the ying which id > >deficient. How do you recognise excess in the Ki meridian? > >When trying to read translations of classical texts, I've wondered when > " Kidney " means the organ (zang) or when it means the channel (jing). And >whether the organ and the channel are always in connection. As in this >discussion here, it appears plausible that the organ and the channel can be >addressed independently of one another. > >Is there any authoritative theory on this? > > _______ hi chris , I find it really helpful to think of the channel internal and external as been aligned with muscular structures running along its lengh. so a contraction or over extension will physically distort the space that the organ occupies in the body. this would have a knock on effect on the physiological and hormonal workings of the Kidney and the adrenals. The problems with clasical texts is that they apparently did not have an understanding of the workings of the human body as has been procured by western medicine through dissection. salvador _______________ Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Chinese Medicine , " salvador march " <salvador_march@h...> wrote: > > I find it really helpful to think of the channel internal and external as > been aligned with muscular structures running along its lengh. This appears to resemble the classical (and TCM) Jin Jing (sinew or tendino-muscular channels). > so a > contraction or over extension will physically distort the space that the > organ occupies in the body. this would have a knock on effect on the > physiological and hormonal workings of the Kidney and the adrenals. This is a fascinating idea, but I would tend to envision this in relation to the classical CM notions of the organs, which is more in terms of observable physiological behavior (i,e. including memory and dreams as functions / behavior of the Heart) as seen by the authors of the SuWen medicine (and subsequent tradition, including current TCM). > The problems with clasical texts is that they apparently did not have an > understanding of the workings of the human body as has been procured by > western medicine through dissection. They clearly had a comprehensive understanding of the human body, expressed in a combination of both observation and theory. But their science was not the same science as is practiced today. The connectedness of muscular fascia is biomedically verifiable. Connections to the organs, as understood by modern science is probably more hypothetical, i.e. not acceptable to bio-science unless somehow verified experimentally. The classical CM medical science presents a comprehensive view of the channel system as interacting with the zang-fu organs. Some think the zang-fu are to be seen as not identical with the modern organs, but rather as something like " orbs of influence " (from Porckert, I think). Because it would be otherwise difficult to reconcile much of the CM functionality attributed to them with the modern understanding of organ functioning. On the other hand, Paul Unschuld believes that when the SuWen medical scientists spoke of organs, they were speaking of what he calls " morphology " which is virtually the same as the modern organs. From his viewpoint, then, what the Chinese authors were saying was more theory, and not evidence-based. Anyway, the musculo-fascia along channel trajectories as somehow influencing (Qi) the organs is an interesting idea. We know that skilled application of the classical CM techniques works. There must be some way of demonstrating that " objectively " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.