Needling ORDER and Method ... (Phil)

[Guest guest]

Wed, 17 May 2006 05:12:41 +0100, " " < wrote:

 

> I asked for evidence (other than from the

original texts) that needling order really IS important.

…

> Probably because the original writers BELIEVED that the order was important.

 

Apparently, it is your belief that " evidence " is

important. And, from other messages, that

evidence means the results of RCT-type

experiments (a belief system, albeit a dominant

one). Etymologically, " evidence " means something

like " from the act of viewing/seeing " .

 

> I am trying to get to the core importance of AP: Is it

(a) the POINTS used,

(b) the ORDER and METHODS USED at the same points, or

© the THOUGHT/Yi/Intention/confidence used when

concentrating on those points that is most important?

 

A good, succinct morphology, but you seem to be

posing it as an exclusive-or reductionism

criteria. That is, you believe, or perhaps

hypothesize that one and only one of these is the " core " factor.

 

>Assuming that the points chosen are relevant to

the patient's problems, my gut says © is the

most important factor. But I am open to being shown to be wrong in that.

 

Oops, your fudging already: (a) is assumed (essential?), but © is the one.

 

Seriously, when I look at this from the framework

I've been studying recently it goes like this.

What energetic layer, or combination do I see as

a possibility for effecting change in the

patient/condition? Hence one or more channel

system/layer, and the relevant points in that

perspective, and implemented in order and method

to elicit the response/process intended.

 

But basically, I must admit to agreeing with you.

(a) and (b) alone amounts to cookbook TCM, which,

as students, we all tried hard to believe will

work. In practice (and with some heavy-weight

support from notable ancients, and cogent

interpretations by notable contemporaries) © is

the art of the medicine, applied through (a) and (b).