Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted 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 >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. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted 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) 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 >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. > > > > > > > > > > http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2005 Report Share Posted June 7, 2005 Joe, These are accurate translations of the terms. While they may be defined as herbal terms in your thinking, the phenomena of supplementation and drainage in acupuncture and moxabustion is related to bringing qi to the point or away from it, to fill a vacancy of qi, or to drain a surplus/repletion. It is true that in internal/herbal medicine, supplementation and drainage are as you describe. Different context. If we continue on this discussion, clearly terminology will become the central issue. Understanding and applying central concepts of Chinese medicine begins with accurate translation and matching of english equivalents to pinyin and Chinese characters. While there can be more than one English equivalent for a Chinese medicine technical term in Chinese, if we are not clear on our terms and their meanings, we will lose the thread of understanding of what Chinese medicine is in the first place. Then it is the blind man clutching the elephant syndrome. On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:02 AM, jreidomd wrote: > 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). > 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.