RE: Intention (June 7)

June 7, 2005

Z'ev –

First, no one previously in this discussion thread used the terms

supplementation and drainage. To me those are strictly herbal terms, and

(consistent with all usage in western naturopathy) definitely do involve adding

(intake - as I said to either directly supplement or facilitate) , or in the

case of

drainage, promote various processes that mostly lead to excretion and

purgation (taking out of the body).

In the context of acupuncture and the stated query about _intention to tonify a

point _, apparently some may wonder if intention to improve a deficiency

means they should think / visualize " Energy " going in, or conversely think /

intend to draw excess or congested " Energy " out via the needle. As I've

already explained, I don't at all like the " Vital Force " or " Vital Energy "

definitions of Qi, but plenty of people do, and that is clearly the most popular

meaning put out to the public. Needle technique that asserts angle of

insertion directs Qi flow to either _come this way and continue down the line

(to reinforce)_, or _stop right there and turn around if you know what's good

for you _( to reduce), may feed into this.

There is also the standard idea that reducing requires strong lift / thrust and

wide rotation, whereas reinforcing is gentle with little or no thrusting and

narrow rotation. Merely using this prescribed technique doesn't require

intention, or any concept of Qi going anywhere.

The quandary is how to characterize exactly what is supposed to happen at,

and distal or proximal to those needled points in any consistent and

comprehensible terms that don't contradict known physiological fact, and the

answer for _medical _ acupuncturists is to ignore technique and intention,

and simply to start with little stimulus and increase until objective needle

reaction or subjective awareness.

I agree that whatever is happening to the Qi is _primarily _ within the

patient's

body, and distinguish the influential power of thought form as evidence of an

all-encompassing Mind, rather than an emanation that travels through the air,

as some QiGong people claim. It is, however not inconceivable if you think in

terms of magnetic forces traversing distance. Magnetic effects in my

experience are transitory, yet if a significant aspect of healing does involve

peripheral sensory input traveling to some level of the brain and subsequent

descending modulation, then there you go.

I am no scholar, and probably haven't read a full book in 30 years, so there is

no point in asking me for validation from ancient classical literature. In

fact, I

deliberately choose or at least prefer to esteem an experiential route to

knowledge, and that is consistent with my genetic lineage of Celtic

shamanistic / herbal / trance-loving shape-shifters, whose traditions predate

books by eons, and are now partially subsumed in the actual historical and

legitimate development of a universal holistic _Oriental Medicine _, (which of

course is predominantly Chinese, but _Traditional _ in evolving diversity).

You stated, " Qi is not an energy, and it is not vaguely defined " and " Qi can be

clearly understood as an informational entity based in the understanding of

form, function, and relationships of parts to each other and the whole, not the

physical 'stuff' of the body. "

The vagueness of that is boggling. I can't do much better, other than to say Qi

is an umbrella term that includes potential energy (as in gu qi), _ awareness

_ (as it moves in correlation to the function of the nervous system and the

progression of physiologic activity), and the overall status of an aspect or

function insofar as further delineated being either deficient, full / excess /

or

hyper, or stagnant.

If Tonification / Sedation, and Reinforcing / Reducing are to become obsolete

as improper terms, then we better have replacements that can better

characterize exactly what is happening and what we should be trying to do in

intention and procedure, and I see no reason that development should

necessarily be incompatible with modern language and medical knowledge.

In the meantime, I am going to continue with practice that works in the real

world, and that presently calls for attention to more practical demands.

Joe Reid 2005 June 7

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com

Chinese Medicine , " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> I don't know your source here, but my understanding of supplmentation/

> bu3 and drainage/xie4 is that it has to do with the manipulation of

> qi within the body, not adding or subtracting from the outside.. Qi

> is not an energy, and it is not vaguely defined. Within the context

> of Chinese medicine, qi can be clearly understood as an informational

> entity based in the understanding of form, function, and

> relationships of parts to each other and the whole, not the physical

> 'stuff' of the body.

>

June 7, 2005

I think this is a good topic. If we only consider a process within the body

then why do the classics feel that outside influences can affect us.

Clearly the human body is a system that appears closed but in reality it is

an open system. We take in and eliminate. We have a constant contact with

the outside environment thru the GI, respiratory and skin systems. For me,

I take the usage of tonifying or building as something that you add.

Internal process can take time and need resources, which come from outside.

In the end, this argument is more of where one defines the boundaries of the

processes.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> " jreidomd " <jreidomd

>Chinese Medicine

> RE: Intention (June 7)

>Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:02:27 -0000

>

>Z'ev –

>First, no one previously in this discussion thread used the terms

>supplementation and drainage. To me those are strictly herbal terms, and

>(consistent with all usage in western naturopathy) definitely do involve

>adding

>(intake - as I said to either directly supplement or facilitate) , or in

>the case of

>drainage, promote various processes that mostly lead to excretion and

>purgation (taking out of the body).

>

>In the context of acupuncture and the stated query about _intention to

>tonify a

>point _, apparently some may wonder if intention to improve a deficiency

>means they should think / visualize " Energy " going in, or conversely think

>/

>intend to draw excess or congested " Energy " out via the needle. As I've

>already explained, I don't at all like the " Vital Force " or " Vital Energy "

>definitions of Qi, but plenty of people do, and that is clearly the most

>popular

>meaning put out to the public. Needle technique that asserts angle of

>insertion directs Qi flow to either _come this way and continue down the

>line

>(to reinforce)_, or _stop right there and turn around if you know what's

>good

>for you _( to reduce), may feed into this.

>

>There is also the standard idea that reducing requires strong lift / thrust

>and

>wide rotation, whereas reinforcing is gentle with little or no thrusting

>and

>narrow rotation. Merely using this prescribed technique doesn't require

>intention, or any concept of Qi going anywhere.

>

>The quandary is how to characterize exactly what is supposed to happen at,

>and distal or proximal to those needled points in any consistent and

>comprehensible terms that don't contradict known physiological fact, and

>the

>answer for _medical _ acupuncturists is to ignore technique and intention,

>and simply to start with little stimulus and increase until objective

>needle

>reaction or subjective awareness.

>

>I agree that whatever is happening to the Qi is _primarily _ within the

>patient's

>body, and distinguish the influential power of thought form as evidence of

>an

>all-encompassing Mind, rather than an emanation that travels through the

>air,

>as some QiGong people claim. It is, however not inconceivable if you think

>in

>terms of magnetic forces traversing distance. Magnetic effects in my

>experience are transitory, yet if a significant aspect of healing does

>involve

>peripheral sensory input traveling to some level of the brain and

>subsequent

>descending modulation, then there you go.

>

>I am no scholar, and probably haven't read a full book in 30 years, so

>there is

>no point in asking me for validation from ancient classical literature. In

>fact, I

>deliberately choose or at least prefer to esteem an experiential route to

>knowledge, and that is consistent with my genetic lineage of Celtic

>shamanistic / herbal / trance-loving shape-shifters, whose traditions

>predate

>books by eons, and are now partially subsumed in the actual historical and

>legitimate development of a universal holistic _Oriental Medicine _, (which

>of

>course is predominantly Chinese, but _Traditional _ in evolving diversity).

>

>You stated, " Qi is not an energy, and it is not vaguely defined " and " Qi

>can be

>clearly understood as an informational entity based in the understanding of

>form, function, and relationships of parts to each other and the whole, not

>the

>physical 'stuff' of the body. "

>

>The vagueness of that is boggling. I can't do much better, other than to

>say Qi

>is an umbrella term that includes potential energy (as in gu qi), _

>awareness

>_ (as it moves in correlation to the function of the nervous system and the

>progression of physiologic activity), and the overall status of an aspect

>or

>function insofar as further delineated being either deficient, full /

>excess / or

>hyper, or stagnant.

>

>If Tonification / Sedation, and Reinforcing / Reducing are to become

>obsolete

>as improper terms, then we better have replacements that can better

>characterize exactly what is happening and what we should be trying to do

>in

>intention and procedure, and I see no reason that development should

>necessarily be incompatible with modern language and medical knowledge.

>

>In the meantime, I am going to continue with practice that works in the

>real

>world, and that presently calls for attention to more practical demands.

>

>Joe Reid 2005 June 7

>http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com

>

>Chinese Medicine , " " <

>zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > I don't know your source here, but my understanding of supplmentation/

> > bu3 and drainage/xie4 is that it has to do with the manipulation of

> > qi within the body, not adding or subtracting from the outside.. Qi

> > is not an energy, and it is not vaguely defined. Within the context

> > of Chinese medicine, qi can be clearly understood as an informational

> > entity based in the understanding of form, function, and

> > relationships of parts to each other and the whole, not the physical

> > 'stuff' of the body.

> >

>

June 7, 2005

Hi Mike,

Prior the circulation of Qi through the 12 regular channels, the older

theory had it that the qi passed through the body via the hands and feet.

I have pondered if this circulation might be that of the MTM (muscular

tendiomeridians). I wonder what those who have studied these matters in

much great depth think.

Best wishes,

Chinese Medicine

Chinese MedicineOn Behalf Of mike

Bowser

Wednesday, 8 June 2005 3:38 AM

Chinese Medicine

RE: RE: Intention (June 7)