Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? Thanks! Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Hugo: The French have a good word, " energetique. " How about energetic medicine? Regards, Jack --- On Wed, 10/22/08, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor What is our medicine? Chinese Medicine Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 6:17 PM Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it' s not only chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? Thanks! Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Hugo, From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease entities is the clear strategy. On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > Thanks! > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Z'ev, Many SHL experts feel that the purpose of all SHL treatments it to evict the cold pathogen. I does not rely on balancing / homeostasis. Dan Bensky has lectured this point many times. In is a much different mentality than our Zang-Fu based medicine. -Jason Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM Chinese Medicine Re: What is our medicine? Hugo, From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease entities is the clear strategy. On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > Thanks! > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 I said in general. .. Arnaud Versluys in his lectures made a strong point that SHL prescriptions are not about killing pathogens, but creating an equilibrium between the internal and external milieu to neutralize cold pathogens. So I think while SHL is a very different mentality than zang-fu medicine (as is all Han dynasty medicine), the goal is still one of equilibrium. Arnaud said, for example, that gui zhi tang restores normal body temperature when there is wind strike. Z'ev On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > Many SHL experts feel that the purpose of all SHL treatments it to > evict the cold pathogen. I does not rely on balancing / homeostasis. > Dan Bensky has lectured this point many times. In is a much > different mentality than our Zang-Fu based medicine. > > -Jason > > > Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM > Chinese Medicine > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo, > From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as > the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine > works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to > self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, > although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease > entities is the clear strategy. > > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > > > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > > > Thanks! > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 How about medicine. Douglas Knapp Doctoral Fellow, L.Ac. Full Moon Acupuncture 1600 York Avenue New York, NY 10028 212-734-1459 ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro <subincor Chinese Medicine Wednesday, October 22, 2008 9:17:40 PM What is our medicine? Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it' s not only chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? Thanks! Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2008 Report Share Posted October 23, 2008 Z'ev, Just because Arnaud said something does not make it so... Actually many things that he says are quite debatable in the SHL and CM world. He is one mere opinion. My point is simply that many believe otherwise, nothing more or else, hence we have multiple opinions on what happens to eliminate " disease. " It is not black and white. Your original post just seemed a little one-sided. I did not see that you said " in general " I see where you said, " from everything I studied, especially han dynasty texts such as... SHL. " Everything? Dan's point is that the WHOLE text is about one thing, eliminating the pathogen (more on that below). You may disagree, but this is a point well worth studying, especially if you have never thought in this type of way. Hence why I posted, just to open the possibilities to another point of view. In this (evict the pathogen) line of thinking, the question is asked, 'where is the pathogen and how to we evict it.' In the modern day clinic, this allows one to use formulas like mahuangtang to treat a 10 year old dysmenorrhea. When one is thinking about restoring homeostasis then one's mentality shifts and one is more likely to miss such an opportunity. On one level it may sound like a semantic issue, i.e. if one rids the body of the cold then there is of course equilibrium. However, this concept is really about how one goes about eliminating the cold. Is it through balancing the organs / organism trying to tweak things so that things are in equilibrium and then the pathogen is hence removed on its own (by " self correction " )? Not in this viewpoint. In this view, eliminating the cold is first and foremost then the body is in equilibrium. I also doubt that han dynasty physicians were thinking that they need to be " awakening the body-mind intelligence to self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis. " The first point is that SHL was about saving lives. This was for acute situations in which people may die. I think it makes much more sense that they were thinking, " Ok, we have this cold attacking the body, this patient may die in less than a week, let's get rid of the cold. " " Awakening the body's intelligence " sounds a bit new agey (and slow) for han dynasty. (However if you have some passages to suggest this please let us know)... It wasn't long before this period that spirits (and such) were thought to be in the body and needed to be evicted to cure disease by physically driving them out. The SHL / Han dynasty expands this thinking, and they have just replaced this concept with external environmental influences (I.e. cold) instead of pissed of ancestors (etc)... This is one point of view. Anyway, it makes sense to me and there are plenty of experts that back this stance. AS Dan as said this point of view is not idiosyncratic to him, and he has many many years studying the subject, quite deeply. But more importantly, there are multiple opinions and that is the only point I have to make. I respect them all... Respectfully, - Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:55 PM Chinese Medicine Re: What is our medicine? I said in general. .. Arnaud Versluys in his lectures made a strong point that SHL prescriptions are not about killing pathogens, but creating an equilibrium between the internal and external milieu to neutralize cold pathogens. So I think while SHL is a very different mentality than zang-fu medicine (as is all Han dynasty medicine), the goal is still one of equilibrium. Arnaud said, for example, that gui zhi tang restores normal body temperature when there is wind strike. Z'ev On Oct 23, 2008, at 12:45 AM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > Many SHL experts feel that the purpose of all SHL treatments it to > evict the cold pathogen. I does not rely on balancing / homeostasis. > Dan Bensky has lectured this point many times. In is a much > different mentality than our Zang-Fu based medicine. > > -Jason > > > Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM > Chinese Medicine > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo, > From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as > the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine > works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to > self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, > although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease > entities is the clear strategy. > > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > > > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > > > Thanks! > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Z'ev, I wanted to further this discussion a bit. Even many modern doctors (especially my teacher) routinely talks about " detoxifying the body " and " removing waste " for chronic diseases (such as, autoimmune and skin diseases.) This is completely from a TCM perspective. Actually I don't think he has ever mentioned anything about homeostasis, or awakening the body-mind intelligence. My take is that this approach is one of forcefully removing stasis/ toxins/ phlegm, and not awakening the body-mind intelligence to remove them. They are using herbs to purge out substances that should not be there. This in turn is what brings homeostasis, not the other way around. This is not just some exception of 'attacking disease entities' but a different mindset. There are many that just go after pathogens / toxins (or whatever you want to call them) in the body as a rule. Hence these strategies manifest drastically different formulas than those who are trying to balance the body to bring about harmony. I would say even different schools of acupuncture has this dichotomy. However, I do respect your opinion of what you think is happening to bring about healing. It is a different angle that IMO produces a different treatment strategy. I just think there are some different perspective to consider that in fact may be more useful for many modern diseases. For example with all the pollution, toxins, and heavy metals that we are bombarded with I think it is useful to consider this more pathogen based way of thinking. Just trying to widen the lens... - Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM Chinese Medicine Re: What is our medicine? Hugo, From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease entities is the clear strategy. On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > Thanks! > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi Jason and Z'ev; I'm really glad we're having this discussion as I've been thinking on these themes lately myself. I understand the idea of acupuncture helping the bodymindspirit do what it already knows needs doing, which is re-establish right functioning. I also understand the concept of assault and, presumably, collection within of external toxins/pathogens. And yet, and yet - I have trouble thinking of myself and/or my patients as being toxic waste repositories. This may fly in the face of evidence, but I've seen many people who carry on in apparent perfect health despite the presence of pathogens (including a woman who was diagnosed 20 years ago with MS: she didn't know what that meant at the time and just carried on with her life, and was asymptomatic for 15 years. Did she have MS? Did repeated medical queries about the progression of the disease lead her to get more info and then develop symptoms? Did her bodymindspirit hold the pathogens latent until those resources were needed elsewhere?) And I have concerns about this idea of cleansing and purging. I work from a place that provides colonics. I've taken a few pulses after a colonic or when someone is in the midst of the supplement induced cleanses and they're, well, let's just say they are very worrying. And, I apologize for the lack of clarity in the following, but I'd like to get the idea out for discussion: if we expect our patients to have problems, need to discharge, that's what we'll get. I have a colleague who expects a treatment protocol we both use to produce detox. I don't expect the detox. His patients detox, mine don't. What's that about? Karen wrote: > Z'ev, > > I wanted to further this discussion a bit. Even many modern doctors > (especially my teacher) routinely talks about " detoxifying the body " > and " removing waste " for chronic diseases (such as, autoimmune and > skin diseases.) This is completely from a TCM perspective. Actually I > don't think he has ever mentioned anything about homeostasis, or > awakening the body-mind intelligence. > > My take is that this approach is one of forcefully removing stasis/ > toxins/ phlegm, and not awakening the body-mind intelligence to remove > them. They are using herbs to purge out substances that should not be > there. This in turn is what brings homeostasis, not the other way > around. This is not just some exception of 'attacking disease > entities' but a different mindset. There are many that just go after > pathogens / toxins (or whatever you want to call them) in the body as > a rule. Hence these strategies manifest drastically different formulas > than those who are trying to balance the body to bring about harmony. > I would say even different schools of acupuncture has this dichotomy. > > However, I do respect your opinion of what you think is happening to > bring about healing. It is a different angle that IMO produces a > different treatment strategy. I just think there are some different > perspective to consider that in fact may be more useful for many > modern diseases. For example with all the pollution, toxins, and heavy > metals that we are bombarded with I think it is useful to consider > this more pathogen based way of thinking. > > Just trying to widen the lens... > > - > > > Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM > Chinese Medicine > <Chinese Medicine%40> > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo, > >From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as > the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine > works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to > self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, > although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease > entities is the clear strategy. > > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > > > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > > > Thanks! > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > <http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com> > > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > <http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Karen, Jason's teacher in China, Dr Wu, uses differential diagnosis and remediates using Chinese herbs. He just has a level of scholarship that outstrips most if not all of us. Your points are valid, but I don't know that your post is directly analogous to what Jason was talking about. As for taking a pulse after a colonic, TCM theory is pretty clear about the likely outcome there. The same would be true if you took a pulse after strong CM purgatives or emetics. That in itself doesn't make those treatments inappropriate. There's a time to break down and there's a time to build. The pulse will reflect both in the moment. A better question might be - what was that person's pulse like originally, and what was it like a day or two later. Certainly practitioners not trained like us are at a disadvantage for understanding the tao of treatment. This can easily result in over-stimulation, or over-reduction. As for a treatment protocol producing " detox " , can you clarify what you mean? Are we still talking TCM here, because I'm not all too familiar with a " detox reaction " in . Are patients having herxheimer (healing) reactions? Are you lab testng to determine detox (metals, inflammatory cytokines, etc)? I'm ok with paradigm jumps to Western medicine, with your terminology I just don't know what we're talking about specifically. As for being toxic waste dumps, clearly we are. Between the levels of toxins measurable in the blood of even the most pristine organic vegetarians, to the increasing prevalence of genetic polymorphisms in detoxification and methylation pathways, we are as a race - a mess. The questions are, do we present with symptoms, is there a definable CM pattern associated with these issues, and should we wait for that to happen before treating? It seems Dr Wu has found a way to unify TCM theory with contemporary concepts of toxicity. Your concerns about blindly detoxifying the population are valid for sure. Pray that Dr Wu's information is passed on to (our own and) future generations, we are indeed in need of such giants synthesizing these complex topics. Tim Sharpe Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Karen Adams Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:48 PM Chinese Medicine Re: What is our medicine? Hi Jason and Z'ev; I'm really glad we're having this discussion as I've been thinking on these themes lately myself. I understand the idea of acupuncture helping the bodymindspirit do what it already knows needs doing, which is re-establish right functioning. I also understand the concept of assault and, presumably, collection within of external toxins/pathogens. And yet, and yet - I have trouble thinking of myself and/or my patients as being toxic waste repositories. This may fly in the face of evidence, but I've seen many people who carry on in apparent perfect health despite the presence of pathogens (including a woman who was diagnosed 20 years ago with MS: she didn't know what that meant at the time and just carried on with her life, and was asymptomatic for 15 years. Did she have MS? Did repeated medical queries about the progression of the disease lead her to get more info and then develop symptoms? Did her bodymindspirit hold the pathogens latent until those resources were needed elsewhere?) And I have concerns about this idea of cleansing and purging. I work from a place that provides colonics. I've taken a few pulses after a colonic or when someone is in the midst of the supplement induced cleanses and they're, well, let's just say they are very worrying. And, I apologize for the lack of clarity in the following, but I'd like to get the idea out for discussion: if we expect our patients to have problems, need to discharge, that's what we'll get. I have a colleague who expects a treatment protocol we both use to produce detox. I don't expect the detox. His patients detox, mine don't. What's that about? Karen wrote: > Z'ev, > > I wanted to further this discussion a bit. Even many modern doctors > (especially my teacher) routinely talks about " detoxifying the body " > and " removing waste " for chronic diseases (such as, autoimmune and > skin diseases.) This is completely from a TCM perspective. Actually I > don't think he has ever mentioned anything about homeostasis, or > awakening the body-mind intelligence. > > My take is that this approach is one of forcefully removing stasis/ > toxins/ phlegm, and not awakening the body-mind intelligence to remove > them. They are using herbs to purge out substances that should not be > there. This in turn is what brings homeostasis, not the other way > around. This is not just some exception of 'attacking disease > entities' but a different mindset. There are many that just go after > pathogens / toxins (or whatever you want to call them) in the body as > a rule. Hence these strategies manifest drastically different formulas > than those who are trying to balance the body to bring about harmony. > I would say even different schools of acupuncture has this dichotomy. > > However, I do respect your opinion of what you think is happening to > bring about healing. It is a different angle that IMO produces a > different treatment strategy. I just think there are some different > perspective to consider that in fact may be more useful for many > modern diseases. For example with all the pollution, toxins, and heavy > metals that we are bombarded with I think it is useful to consider > this more pathogen based way of thinking. > > Just trying to widen the lens... > > - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi all, Chinese medicine, as in " (the history of) medicine in China " (P.Unschuld), is broad as well as, at least at times, deep. Clearly there are attacking and defense facets, as in the pivotal use of military terms " wei " and " ying " , and notably in the gongxiapai (School of Attacking and Purging). And clearly there are facets focusing on promoting (or returning to) a constantly self-correcting, balancing, if you will, process of life, analogous to the process of (other) natural phenomena --- seasons, climates, life cycles, cosmic ages, etc.. We express, in contemporary terms (including " new age " jargon), this latter as holistic, homeostasis, bodymindspirit, energetic, etc. Chinese are s/t amused by this, but we begin with where we are, with what we've got. Two notes here: 1) " Homeostasis " might be thought of as a static (stasis) state of balance, or rather as an overall centering on a mean of constant change through shifting states and directions. Is perfect health standing at the center of the statistical bell-curve, or meandering around it? (As in the weather here in Silicon / Santa Clara Valley, California: while there is the statistical " average " year of weather conditions, no one year approximates this; more typically, every year is marked by strong deviations. 2) " Bodymindspirit " may be thought of in the modern sense of reuniting descriptive concepts that in Western culture have been plagued by a long history of separation, even antagonistic opposition. As I understand it, (ancient) Chinese thought was rooted in an integral sense of life, and separated out facets functionally and interdependently. E.g. call it " body-spirit-mind " , to better correspond to the sanbao / 3 treasures sequence " jing-qi-shen " . Bodily posture and movement interacts with breathing activities and all are a field for awareness. And various cultivations (daoyin, meditation, medicine,…) work back and forth among all three. Serious misalignments occur less as major cultural trends, but more in extreme phenomena, such as possession or death. Chinese medical thinking uses both direct approaches (attacking, expelling, etc.) to forcibly correct ( " rectify " ) threatening situations, and more subtle approaches, promoting, cultivating correct sustainable behavior, in the Confucian social-political sense, and the Doaist naturalistic, cosmological sense. As to a single, defining term for " what is our medicine " , I it best to follow the " old guy " (LaoZi), i.e. the more you try to pin it down conceptually, the further you stray from the truth of the matter. Another point, perhaps topic, taking off from the " detox " issue: The current media discussion of (chronic) cell-phone usage and brain tumors brings to light that we today are exposed, life-long, to hundreds of millions of times the EMR (electro-magnetic radiation) that our ancestors experienced. Perhaps one of the major challenges for our (and subsequent) generation(s) in terms of re-interpreting and adapting the principles, the spirit of CM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Chris Since all the methods you mentioned require an allopathic counter action they can be viewed as mechanisms to restore homeostasis. Especially in han medicine an early intervention was considered crucial and from my perspective has permeated CM history and resulted in an attitude that whatever we do to intervene must be related to the outcome. Self limited disease process is not developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi Alon! " Self limited disease process is not developed. " I don't think I understand what you mean here. What I get is that in CM it is not understood that the body can heal itself? Thanks for clarification! Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ Alon Marcus <alonmarcus Chinese Medicine Friday, 24 October, 2008 14:26:18 Re: What is our medicine? Chris Since all the methods you mentioned require an allopathic counter action they can be viewed as mechanisms to restore homeostasis. Especially in han medicine an early intervention was considered crucial and from my perspective has permeated CM history and resulted in an attitude that whatever we do to intervene must be related to the outcome. Self limited disease process is not developed. www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 The Committee for Terms in TCM document mentioned here a few months ago (thanks!) includes an excellent list of 400 mostly familiar treatment principles in section 5, only about the last 50 of which verge slightly into modern nursing or alt-med techniques. This list (link http://www.cttcm.com.cn/zyyjbmc05.htm ) appears to be comprehensive reflecting all or most treatment principles considered indigenous CM's historical development to current day (at least *WITHIN* China). I find it interesting that the ONLY mention of balance / equilibrium (ping2heng2) is in regard to yin and yang, which of course is ALWAYS in dynamic flux. *Balance* has become a western fantasy, an appropriate term for non-living weights and measures, but probably a fiction for environmental processes or living beings. In reality, what is typically aimed for is specific influence / modification with specific desired Effect, while *balancing* is just a warm and fuzzy pretense. Harmonizing (tiao2 / he2) is often thought of in a similar way (as in *fairness and equality brings peace and harmony*), but in CM zhong1yao4 there are really just three specific applications; - gan1 / pi2; - qi4 / xue4, and - ying2 / wei4. Properly practiced CM in all methods promote self-healing / self-correction. If you want to take that ideal to the max, try doing nothing other than ACCEPTING the patient / person AS – IS, and believing that they already don't need your intervention. (!) jreidomd.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 OK, This discussion I can go further with. I'd like to point out that I never expected what was an 'off-the-cuff' comment to Hugo about a catch-all description of CM activity to spur such a strong discussion. I wrote that e-mail after several days of Jewish holidays, and I was just trying to re-enter the fray, so to speak. I got my wish. Note that I pointed out that CM also attacks clear disease entities. To clarify further, the Nan Jing is probably the better example of homeostasis, per se. Difficulties 10, 49 and 50 deal with evils/ pathogens as a disordered relationship between the five phases and their associated viscera/bowels. If the qi of a specific phase/ viscera/channel overreaches itself and effects other phases via generating or control cycles, it is considered to be an evil/pathogen that can be detected in the pulse, symptoms, emotions, etc. I find this to be a very powerful system in understanding the delicate systems of checks and balances that allows us to maintain health. The Shang Han Lun has eight basic treatment strategies, i.e., supplementing, clearing, warming, precipitating, sweating, dispersing, harmonizing and vomiting. So there is a more 'active' approach to treatment of disease, which sometimes includes gong fa/attack. However, how these goals are established are, in my opinion, different from allopathic medicine. The internal environment and its relationship to the external environment, specifically climate and weather changes, is very important, and provides the substrate for the other clinical strategies. When we warm the body with medicinals such as ginger, aconite or cinnamon, it alters the internal environment so that evils cannot establish themselves inside. It restores internal equilibrium, so to speak, just as the weather, air pressure and winds stabilize after low pressure systems, storm fronts and strong winds 'invade' a specific region. I certainly do consider a more pathogen-oriented view of healing. We have so many tools in Chinese medicine to study and choose. I was simply trying to emphasize an over-arching view of the medicine for a simple description in print. It reminds me of when Rabbi Akiva was asked by a Roman general to describe the Torah while standing on one foot. He answered, " treat your fellow human being as you would treat yourself " . Obviously there is a lot more to the Torah that that, but as a one-sentence summary, it makes its point. I wish I could have done as well. On Oct 23, 2008, at 6:12 PM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > I wanted to further this discussion a bit. Even many modern doctors > (especially my teacher) routinely talks about " detoxifying the body " > and " removing waste " for chronic diseases (such as, autoimmune and > skin diseases.) This is completely from a TCM perspective. Actually > I don't think he has ever mentioned anything about homeostasis, or > awakening the body-mind intelligence. > > > > My take is that this approach is one of forcefully removing stasis/ > toxins/ phlegm, and not awakening the body-mind intelligence to > remove them. They are using herbs to purge out substances that > should not be there. This in turn is what brings homeostasis, not > the other way around. This is not just some exception of 'attacking > disease entities' but a different mindset. There are many that just > go after pathogens / toxins (or whatever you want to call them) in > the body as a rule. Hence these strategies manifest drastically > different formulas than those who are trying to balance the body to > bring about harmony. I would say even different schools of > acupuncture has this dichotomy. > > However, I do respect your opinion of what you think is happening to > bring about healing. It is a different angle that IMO produces a > different treatment strategy. I just think there are some different > perspective to consider that in fact may be more useful for many > modern diseases. For example with all the pollution, toxins, and > heavy metals that we are bombarded with I think it is useful to > consider this more pathogen based way of thinking. > > Just trying to widen the lens... > > - > > > Thursday, October 23, 2008 11:27 AM > Chinese Medicine > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo, > From everything I've studied, especially Han dynasty texts such as > the Nan Jing and Shang Han Lun, it would seem that Chinese medicine > works for the most part by awakening the body-mind intelligence to > self-correct itself and eliminate disease by restoring homeostasis, > although there are clear exceptions where attacking specific disease > entities is the clear strategy. > > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Hugo Ramiro wrote: > > > Hi All; I've been trying to name our medicine...it's not only > > chronic care, it is not only palliative care, it is NOT health > > " maintenance " ... any good terms out there? > > > > Thanks! > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Chris, I agree that 'homeostasis' may not be the best choice of term. Emmanuel and I had a discussion on this phenomena in medicine (east and west), and came up with the term homeodynamic to describe what happens with living systems. As you point out, there is no absolute balance point in life phenomena, everything is always shifting, moving, changing. But there are self-correcting mechanisms that we can invoke with medicine, and certainly a broad sweep of Chinese medical strategies accomplishes just that. . As usual, I enjoy your thoughts on these issues. The issue of environmental toxins that you and Jason have pointed to is one that should be of deep concern to all of us, and in how we handle such contributors to illness in our clinical strategies. On Oct 24, 2008, at 3:40 AM, wrote: > Hi all, > > Chinese medicine, as in " (the history of) medicine in China " > (P.Unschuld), is broad as well as, at least at times, deep. > > Clearly there are attacking and defense facets, as in the pivotal > use of > military terms " wei " and " ying " , and notably in the gongxiapai (School > of Attacking and Purging). > > And clearly there are facets focusing on promoting (or returning to) a > constantly self-correcting, balancing, if you will, process of life, > analogous to the process of (other) natural phenomena --- seasons, > climates, life cycles, cosmic ages, etc.. > > We express, in contemporary terms (including " new age " jargon), this > latter as holistic, homeostasis, bodymindspirit, energetic, etc. > Chinese > are s/t amused by this, but we begin with where we are, with what > we've got. > > Two notes here: > 1) " Homeostasis " might be thought of as a static (stasis) state of > balance, or rather as an overall centering on a mean of constant > change > through shifting states and directions. Is perfect health standing at > the center of the statistical bell-curve, or meandering around it? (As > in the weather here in Silicon / Santa Clara Valley, California: while > there is the statistical " average " year of weather conditions, no one > year approximates this; more typically, every year is marked by strong > deviations. > > 2) " Bodymindspirit " may be thought of in the modern sense of reuniting > descriptive concepts that in Western culture have been plagued by a > long > history of separation, even antagonistic opposition. As I understand > it, > (ancient) Chinese thought was rooted in an integral sense of life, and > separated out facets functionally and interdependently. E.g. call it > " body-spirit-mind " , to better correspond to the sanbao / 3 treasures > sequence " jing-qi-shen " . Bodily posture and movement interacts with > breathing activities and all are a field for awareness. And various > cultivations (daoyin, meditation, medicine,…) work back and forth > among > all three. Serious misalignments occur less as major cultural trends, > but more in extreme phenomena, such as possession or death. > > Chinese medical thinking uses both direct approaches (attacking, > expelling, etc.) to forcibly correct ( " rectify " ) threatening > situations, > and more subtle approaches, promoting, cultivating correct sustainable > behavior, in the Confucian social-political sense, and the Doaist > naturalistic, cosmological sense. > > As to a single, defining term for " what is our medicine " , I it best to > follow the " old guy " (LaoZi), i.e. the more you try to pin it down > conceptually, the further you stray from the truth of the matter. > > Another point, perhaps topic, taking off from the " detox " issue: > > The current media discussion of (chronic) cell-phone usage and brain > tumors brings to light that we today are exposed, life-long, to > hundreds > of millions of times the EMR (electro-magnetic radiation) that our > ancestors experienced. Perhaps one of the major challenges for our > (and > subsequent) generation(s) in terms of re-interpreting and adapting the > principles, the spirit of CM. > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at > Times http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese > medicine and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the > group requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if > absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi Joe; interesting post. If you are saying that because the only mention of balance in this document occurs in relation to Yin-Yang, and that therefore balance is not a central issue, then that is incorrect since Yin-Yang theory and the dynamic flux (balance) between them is the precursor to every other concept in CM. It is not necessary to mention it more than once since it is a permeating effect. I also do not know if this document is representative of the literature in general. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ jreidomd <jreidomd Chinese Medicine Friday, 24 October, 2008 14:50:56 Re: What is our medicine? The Committee for Terms in TCM document mentioned here a few months ago (thanks!) includes an excellent list of 400 mostly familiar treatment principles in section 5, only about the last 50 of which verge slightly into modern nursing or alt-med techniques. This list (link http://www.cttcm. com.cn/zyyjbmc05 .htm ) appears to be comprehensive reflecting all or most treatment principles considered indigenous CM's historical development to current day (at least *WITHIN* China). I find it interesting that the ONLY mention of balance / equilibrium (ping2heng2) is in regard to yin and yang, which of course is ALWAYS in dynamic flux. *Balance* has become a western fantasy, an appropriate term for non-living weights and measures, but probably a fiction for environmental processes or living beings. In reality, what is typically aimed for is specific influence / modification with specific desired Effect, while *balancing* is just a warm and fuzzy pretense. Harmonizing (tiao2 / he2) is often thought of in a similar way (as in *fairness and equality brings peace and harmony*), but in CM zhong1yao4 there are really just three specific applications; - gan1 / pi2; - qi4 / xue4, and - ying2 / wei4. Properly practiced CM in all methods promote self-healing / self-correction. If you want to take that ideal to the max, try doing nothing other than ACCEPTING the patient / person AS – IS, and believing that they already don't need your intervention. (!) jreidomd.blogspot. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hugo To an extent that is correct, at least according to Unschuld. An immediate intervention was advocated as any disharmony in the state and thud the body was not tolerate. So the idea of the body can heal it self in not as developed in early CM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Dear jreidomd, Thanks for your post. I'll be using it for my teaching purposes. I've been teaching human anatomy, anatomy dissection, and physiology for 22 years at University of Texas, San Francisco State University and on the faculty of several San Francisco Bay area community colleges, currently Merritt College. More recently in the 1990s I earned masters degrees and certification in genetic engineering. This warm fuzzy balance you speak of is actually hard ass modern genetic engineering and the molecular biology of living systems. Balanced and synchronous homeostasis that has an uninhibited flow of steady state substrates and products is the essence of modern science ... and every living system. Linkage disequilibrium is the essence, too, of balanced homeostasis. The disequilibrium of balanced homeostasis is what many modern molecular biology researchers are targeting in their work. As my own graduate professor of medical biochemistry used to say at University of Texas San Antonio Medical School, " Equilibrium is death, balanced homeostasis is life. " The word balance as far as I can tell within the homeostasis of 40 trillion human cells references an incalculable number dynamic steady state processes that you had better trust to some degree if you plan to intervene. Use exogenous means at your patients' peril. Hopefully you can find something that does in fact stimulate the patient's own programming ... unless you plan to do the reprogramming yourself. Best of luck. Respectfully, Emmanuel Segmen ----------- 6c. Re: What is our medicine? Posted by: " jreidomd " jreidomd jreidomd Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:50 am (PDT) The Committee for Terms in TCM document mentioned here a few months ago (thanks!) includes an excellent list of 400 mostly familiar treatment principles in section 5, only about the last 50 of which verge slightly into modern nursing or alt-med techniques. This list (link http://www.cttcm.com.cn/zyyjbmc05.htm ) appears to be comprehensive reflecting all or most treatment principles considered indigenous CM's historical development to current day (at least *WITHIN* China). I find it interesting that the ONLY mention of balance / equilibrium (ping2heng2) is in regard to yin and yang, which of course is ALWAYS in dynamic flux. *Balance* has become a western fantasy, an appropriate term for non-living weights and measures, but probably a fiction for environmental processes or living beings. In reality, what is typically aimed for is specific influence / modification with specific desired Effect, while *balancing* is just a warm and fuzzy pretense. Harmonizing (tiao2 / he2) is often thought of in a similar way (as in *fairness and equality brings peace and harmony*), but in CM zhong1yao4 there are really just three specific applications; - gan1 / pi2; - qi4 / xue4, and - ying2 / wei4. Properly practiced CM in all methods promote self-healing / self-correction. If you want to take that ideal to the max, try doing nothing other than ACCEPTING the patient / person AS – IS, and believing that they already don't need your intervention. (!) jreidomd.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 Hi Alon, thanks for your reply: I have had discussions with some people on this topic, and it's one of those ideas that is hard to prove and has a very subjective base. My teacher told me that the reason that one always tries to correct as early as possible is not because _the body_ can't or won't self-correct, but because the spirit-mind becomes confused and forces the body off-track. It's like a neural net that functions out of accordance with reality because its input and interpretation have been wrong. He says that most of CM is helping the spirit-mind become healthy (clear) again so that it won't interfere with the body. The spirit-mind supercedes the body in terms of influence most of the time. Essentially we're talking about delusion and the choice about what to believe, rather than direct experience. Thoughts? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ Alon Marcus <alonmarcus Chinese Medicine Friday, 24 October, 2008 18:00:58 Re: What is our medicine? Hugo To an extent that is correct, at least according to Unschuld. An immediate intervention was advocated as any disharmony in the state and thud the body was not tolerate. So the idea of the body can heal it self in not as developed in early CM www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2008 Report Share Posted October 24, 2008 This terms list translation reminds me of a very funny menu I looked at the other day. Gabe --- On Fri, 10/24/08, jreidomd <jreidomd wrote: jreidomd <jreidomd Re: What is our medicine? Chinese Medicine Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:50 PM The Committee for Terms in TCM document mentioned here a few months ago (thanks!) includes an excellent list of 400 mostly familiar treatment principles in section 5, only about the last 50 of which verge slightly into modern nursing or alt-med techniques. This list (link http://www.cttcm. com.cn/zyyjbmc05 .htm ) appears to be comprehensive reflecting all or most treatment principles considered indigenous CM's historical development to current day (at least *WITHIN* China). I find it interesting that the ONLY mention of balance / equilibrium (ping2heng2) is in regard to yin and yang, which of course is ALWAYS in dynamic flux. *Balance* has become a western fantasy, an appropriate term for non-living weights and measures, but probably a fiction for environmental processes or living beings. In reality, what is typically aimed for is specific influence / modification with specific desired Effect, while *balancing* is just a warm and fuzzy pretense. Harmonizing (tiao2 / he2) is often thought of in a similar way (as in *fairness and equality brings peace and harmony*), but in CM zhong1yao4 there are really just three specific applications; - gan1 / pi2; - qi4 / xue4, and - ying2 / wei4. Properly practiced CM in all methods promote self-healing / self-correction. If you want to take that ideal to the max, try doing nothing other than ACCEPTING the patient / person AS – IS, and believing that they already don't need your intervention. (!) jreidomd.blogspot. com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Hugo, who is your teacher? I like his answer. K. On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > Hi Alon, thanks for your reply: > I have had discussions with some people on this topic, and it's one of > those ideas that is hard to prove and has a very subjective base. My teacher > told me that the reason that one always tries to correct as early as > possible is not because _the body_ can't or won't self-correct, but because > the spirit-mind becomes confused and forces the body off-track. It's like a > neural net that functions out of accordance with reality because its input > and interpretation have been wrong. He says that most of CM is helping the > spirit-mind become healthy (clear) again so that it won't interfere with the > body. The spirit-mind supercedes the body in terms of influence most of the > time. Essentially we're talking about delusion and the choice about what to > believe, rather than direct experience. > > Thoughts? > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org > > ________________________________ > Alon Marcus <alonmarcus <alonmarcus%40wans.net>> > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > Friday, 24 October, 2008 18:00:58 > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo > To an extent that is correct, at least according to Unschuld. An immediate > intervention was advocated as any disharmony in the state and thud the body > was not tolerate. So the idea of the body can heal it self in not as > developed in early CM > > > > > > > > www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2008 Report Share Posted October 25, 2008 Hi John, His name is Lee (haha)...he's not famous. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ <johnkokko Chinese Medicine Friday, 24 October, 2008 23:50:05 Re: Re: What is our medicine? Hugo, who is your teacher? I like his answer. K. On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Hugo Ramiro <subincor > wrote: > Hi Alon, thanks for your reply: > I have had discussions with some people on this topic, and it's one of > those ideas that is hard to prove and has a very subjective base. My teacher > told me that the reason that one always tries to correct as early as > possible is not because _the body_ can't or won't self-correct, but because > the spirit-mind becomes confused and forces the body off-track. It's like a > neural net that functions out of accordance with reality because its input > and interpretation have been wrong. He says that most of CM is helping the > spirit-mind become healthy (clear) again so that it won't interfere with the > body. The spirit-mind supercedes the body in terms of influence most of the > time. Essentially we're talking about delusion and the choice about what to > believe, rather than direct experience. > > Thoughts? > > Hugo > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com > http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Alon Marcus <alonmarcus (AT) wans (DOT) net <alonmarcus% 40wans.net> > > <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine %40. com> > Friday, 24 October, 2008 18:00:58 > Re: What is our medicine? > > Hugo > To an extent that is correct, at least according to Unschuld. An immediate > intervention was advocated as any disharmony in the state and thud the body > was not tolerate. So the idea of the body can heal it self in not as > developed in early CM > > > > > > > > www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hugo Obviously that is an issue that one would not find complete agreement. I think Unschuld makes the point that han medicine is Confucius and therefore demands early intervention as does the monarchy. Nothing should be allowed to become unbalanced. If i look at CM today we definitely see the idea that treatments are always directly responsible for outcome and misfortunes, we dont see much discussion of the natural course of diseases. That is why the placebo effect is kind foreign to CM and why i think we also dont see much discussion on the patient healing himself despite the physician as we have seen in the west from early Greek days 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2008 Report Share Posted October 26, 2008 Hi Alon. Because Unschuld's and Needham's status as scholars is so high, it is difficult to argue against their case, but the fact of the matter is that neither has any significant oral transmission, let alone direct transmission. These two gentlemen are therefore forced to deal with the heavily partial information as found in books. Can you imagine learning physiology only from books? Without the oral transmission of a teacher (which includes their guidance) our work would be rife with innacurracies, misconceptions, full out errors, and many cases of wheel reinvention...yet our historical scholars spend their time doing exactly that. There is a living tradition, and a dead, dessicated traditionalism. Unschuld, Needham and so on are great resources (specifically on what was written down, when), and are NOT the final word (on interpretation, application or clinical understanding). I wouldn't trust them with my neck pain. Interestingly, Scheid wrote about epistemological violence. It is an important read. (Scheid, 1993) We take too easily the " thesis " that what was in the books is what CM was or is. My clinical reality and process is so far more complicated than any of the CM books I have - and that is simply because it would be ridiculous to write everything down. We attempt to distill, and when we do so, information is lost in the process. A description of three mountains burning does not do justice to seeing it, pre and post-application, or, for that matter, doing it. Anyone ever try to learn a kung fu tao lu from a book? Impossible - the result is a ridiculous parroting of movements. An absolute mockery of the reality. Even the result from a video is poor. An experienced practitioner can tell immediately - " Yup, he learnt that from a video " . I am sure many people on this list have had that experience. If all this weren't so, we wouldn't need teachers anymore, and just rely on books. If I had a choice between a teacher and books...I personally would choose the teacher every time. Oral transmission trumps written transmission. Thoughts? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ Alon Marcus <alonmarcus Chinese Medicine Friday, 24 October, 2008 18:00:58 Re: What is our medicine? Hugo To an extent that is correct, at least according to Unschuld. An immediate intervention was advocated as any disharmony in the state and thud the body was not tolerate. So the idea of the body can heal it self in not as developed in early CM www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com 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.