Qi regulation

[Guest guest]

 

>

> Is it that lack of freeflow leads to pain or that pain is due to

lack

> of freeflow. These two statements do not actually say the same

thing.

> The first statement implies lack of freeflow will always cause

pain.

> the second explains pain by lack of freeflow, but does not exclude

lack

> of freeflow from existing without pain. It is like saying that

> microorganisms cause infections or infection is caused by

> microorganisms. So while all infections are caused by

microorganisms,

> the mere presence of microorganisms does not necessarily lead to

> infection. Is my analogy correct?

 

I think it's correct in so far as you

identify a logical difference between

two ways of stating closely related

ideas. But I think it's not correct as

an assessment of the Chinese ideas

involved here.

 

If you look at the old saying you

can see what I mean. It's worth pointing

out that Bob Flaws and I even have

different versions of the old saying.

It further reveals the weakness of

relying upon translators and interpreters

for one's own understanding of things.

People go to China and bring back

distinctively different ideas and

interpretations. And it makes the

translation mean quite different things.

 

Bob related it as " tong ze bu tong "

but I always hear it as:

 

" tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1;

tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4. "

 

As I suggested earlier, it's not really

a theory, it's an old saying that embodies

a number of theoretical ideas. The old

saying is really an algorithm, i.e.

a procedure for solving a problem.

 

Problem? Pain. Solution (in whatever

series of steps is required for the

individual) restore the tong1 condition.

 

The causative factor, about which you

inquire with your analogy, is conveyed

by the word ze2. It means a lot of

things, but here it plays a grammatical

role, serving as a conjunction that

expresses the condition that one thing

follows from, i.e. results from another.

The form of the saying and its conformity

with patterns of cadence all serve to

direct the understanding of its meaning.

 

If you parse the sentence in the old saying,

you can come up with a number of grammatical

possibilities, but the vast majority of

Chinese who say or hear this understand

it as a kind of instruction to the doctor

to pay attention to that aspect of the

physiology that is described, in normal

function as tong1 and in pathological

conditions as bu2 tong1.

 

If there's pain that means that there's

a bu2 tong1 condition. Eliminate this

condition and the pain will also be

eliminated.

 

As I've suggested, the algorithm here

is supported by various theories,

and a number of them can be found within

the word tong1. One theory says that

pain results when any two parts, regions,

or aspects of the body/mind that should

be in communication with each other are

not. Another theory says that any two such

parts that are normally connected have

become disconnected. Another theory says that

the problem is the interruption of the normal

movement or flow of a number of possible

substances, forces, or even information that

normally propagates along the channels

involved in the painful part.

 

The popularity of the latter stems mainly

from the fact of its long established usage.

As the last doctor who responded to Bob's

poll pointed out...and I believe he was

the only one to have offered up even a hint

of a rationale for any possible selection

of a term equivalent...you need other theories

in order to understand how tong1 can be

correctly understood as connection and/or

communication.

 

But what you need in order to apply Chinese

medical theories correctly in general is

a grasp of not just the full meanings of

all of the terms that you use, but an

understanding of the modes of thinking

that created and that use these terms

and theories correctly.

 

This is what I meant by saying that your

analogy is wrong. It's in the wrong mode

of thinking. The old saying is not a theory

and it does not exist in order to explain

anything. It's an instruction to a doctor,

a reminder of a fact that has been borne

out in case after case and that corresponds

to a number of theories, including basic

theories about the nature and function of

the systems that constitute the human being.

 

All of these are theories about pain...

when there is pain. The old saying simply

tells us that the thing to look for and

correct when there's pain is the bu2 tong1

condition.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

"tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1;tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4.">>>>That is the way Bob's has as well at least from what I remember. I think we are just using short cuts in this discution

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:00 AM

Re: Qi regulation

> > Is it that lack of freeflow leads to pain or that pain is due to lack > of freeflow. These two statements do not actually say the same thing. > The first statement implies lack of freeflow will always cause pain. > the second explains pain by lack of freeflow, but does not exclude lack > of freeflow from existing without pain. It is like saying that > microorganisms cause infections or infection is caused by > microorganisms. So while all infections are caused by microorganisms, > the mere presence of microorganisms does not necessarily lead to > infection. Is my analogy correct?I think it's correct in so far as youidentify a logical difference betweentwo ways of stating closely relatedideas. But I think it's not correct asan assessment of the Chinese ideasinvolved here.If you look at the old saying youcan see what I mean. It's worth pointingout that Bob Flaws and I even have different versions of the old saying.It further reveals the weakness ofrelying upon translators and interpretersfor one's own understanding of things.People go to China and bring back distinctively different ideas andinterpretations. And it makes thetranslation mean quite different things.Bob related it as "tong ze bu tong"but I always hear it as:"tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1;tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4."As I suggested earlier, it's not reallya theory, it's an old saying that embodiesa number of theoretical ideas. The oldsaying is really an algorithm, i.e.a procedure for solving a problem.Problem? Pain. Solution (in whateverseries of steps is required for theindividual) restore the tong1 condition.The causative factor, about which youinquire with your analogy, is conveyedby the word ze2. It means a lot ofthings, but here it plays a grammaticalrole, serving as a conjunction thatexpresses the condition that one thingfollows from, i.e. results from another.The form of the saying and its conformitywith patterns of cadence all serve todirect the understanding of its meaning.If you parse the sentence in the old saying,you can come up with a number of grammaticalpossibilities, but the vast majority ofChinese who say or hear this understandit as a kind of instruction to the doctorto pay attention to that aspect of thephysiology that is described, in normalfunction as tong1 and in pathologicalconditions as bu2 tong1.If there's pain that means that there'sa bu2 tong1 condition. Eliminate thiscondition and the pain will also beeliminated.As I've suggested, the algorithm hereis supported by various theories,and a number of them can be found withinthe word tong1. One theory says thatpain results when any two parts, regions,or aspects of the body/mind that shouldbe in communication with each other arenot. Another theory says that any two suchparts that are normally connected havebecome disconnected. Another theory says thatthe problem is the interruption of the normal movement or flow of a number of possible substances, forces, or even information that normally propagates along the channels involved in the painful part.The popularity of the latter stems mainlyfrom the fact of its long established usage.As the last doctor who responded to Bob'spoll pointed out...and I believe he wasthe only one to have offered up even a hintof a rationale for any possible selectionof a term equivalent...you need other theoriesin order to understand how tong1 can becorrectly understood as connection and/orcommunication.But what you need in order to apply Chinesemedical theories correctly in general isa grasp of not just the full meanings ofall of the terms that you use, but anunderstanding of the modes of thinkingthat created and that use these terms and theories correctly.This is what I meant by saying that youranalogy is wrong. It's in the wrong modeof thinking. The old saying is not a theoryand it does not exist in order to explainanything. It's an instruction to a doctor,a reminder of a fact that has been borneout in case after case and that correspondsto a number of theories, including basictheories about the nature and function ofthe systems that constitute the human being.All of these are theories about pain...when there is pain. The old saying simplytells us that the thing to look for andcorrect when there's pain is the bu2 tong1condition.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

All of these are theories about pain...when there is pain. The old saying simplytells us that the thing to look for andcorrect when there's pain is the bu2 tong1condition.>>>>Ken,

Are you aware of any indapth discussion on the theories of pain? Can you shad some more light?

Thanks Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:00 AM

Re: Qi regulation

> > Is it that lack of freeflow leads to pain or that pain is due to lack > of freeflow. These two statements do not actually say the same thing. > The first statement implies lack of freeflow will always cause pain. > the second explains pain by lack of freeflow, but does not exclude lack > of freeflow from existing without pain. It is like saying that > microorganisms cause infections or infection is caused by > microorganisms. So while all infections are caused by microorganisms, > the mere presence of microorganisms does not necessarily lead to > infection. Is my analogy correct?I think it's correct in so far as youidentify a logical difference betweentwo ways of stating closely relatedideas. But I think it's not correct asan assessment of the Chinese ideasinvolved here.If you look at the old saying youcan see what I mean. It's worth pointingout that Bob Flaws and I even have different versions of the old saying.It further reveals the weakness ofrelying upon translators and interpretersfor one's own understanding of things.People go to China and bring back distinctively different ideas andinterpretations. And it makes thetranslation mean quite different things.Bob related it as "tong ze bu tong"but I always hear it as:"tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1;tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4."As I suggested earlier, it's not reallya theory, it's an old saying that embodiesa number of theoretical ideas. The oldsaying is really an algorithm, i.e.a procedure for solving a problem.Problem? Pain. Solution (in whateverseries of steps is required for theindividual) restore the tong1 condition.The causative factor, about which youinquire with your analogy, is conveyedby the word ze2. It means a lot ofthings, but here it plays a grammaticalrole, serving as a conjunction thatexpresses the condition that one thingfollows from, i.e. results from another.The form of the saying and its conformitywith patterns of cadence all serve todirect the understanding of its meaning.If you parse the sentence in the old saying,you can come up with a number of grammaticalpossibilities, but the vast majority ofChinese who say or hear this understandit as a kind of instruction to the doctorto pay attention to that aspect of thephysiology that is described, in normalfunction as tong1 and in pathologicalconditions as bu2 tong1.If there's pain that means that there'sa bu2 tong1 condition. Eliminate thiscondition and the pain will also beeliminated.As I've suggested, the algorithm hereis supported by various theories,and a number of them can be found withinthe word tong1. One theory says thatpain results when any two parts, regions,or aspects of the body/mind that shouldbe in communication with each other arenot. Another theory says that any two suchparts that are normally connected havebecome disconnected. Another theory says thatthe problem is the interruption of the normal movement or flow of a number of possible substances, forces, or even information that normally propagates along the channels involved in the painful part.The popularity of the latter stems mainlyfrom the fact of its long established usage.As the last doctor who responded to Bob'spoll pointed out...and I believe he wasthe only one to have offered up even a hintof a rationale for any possible selectionof a term equivalent...you need other theoriesin order to understand how tong1 can becorrectly understood as connection and/orcommunication.But what you need in order to apply Chinesemedical theories correctly in general isa grasp of not just the full meanings ofall of the terms that you use, but anunderstanding of the modes of thinkingthat created and that use these terms and theories correctly.This is what I meant by saying that youranalogy is wrong. It's in the wrong modeof thinking. The old saying is not a theoryand it does not exist in order to explainanything. It's an instruction to a doctor,a reminder of a fact that has been borneout in case after case and that correspondsto a number of theories, including basictheories about the nature and function ofthe systems that constitute the human being.All of these are theories about pain...when there is pain. The old saying simplytells us that the thing to look for andcorrect when there's pain is the bu2 tong1condition.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

At 12:08 PM -0600 1/20/02, Alon Marcus

wrote:

>>>>Ken,

Are you

aware of any indapth discussion on the theories of pain? Can you shad

some more light?

--

Rheumatology in , Guillaume & Chieu, Eastland

1996

 

Chapter 4 - Pain, and other places.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Alon,

> Are you aware of any indapth discussion on the theories of pain?

 

If you mean in print, I haven't been able

to put my finger on any recently. But I've

been swamped with other chores and haven't

really given it a good look. I'm not a

classical scholar and don't have a good

command of the literature. So the fact

that I can't cite such a discussion

shouldn't be taken in any way to suggest

that they don't exist.

 

Can you shad some more light?

 

I don't know. My point earlier was that

in order to be able to follow the

advice in the old saying, we should

use it as an opportunity to consider

our notions about traditional anatomy

and physiology.

 

There are two categories of pains:

those that arise from a bu2 tong1

condition of the qi4; and those

that arise from a bu2 tong1 condition

of the blood.

 

I suppose this is the most basic theoretical

statement about pain in Chinese medicine.

Once you differentiate a painful condition

according to this theory of the two main

categories, then you can proceed to assess

what's bu2 tong1 and why.

 

Obviously the possibilities are far too

numerous to try and account for them all

speculatively. That's why I suggested that

one way to proceed with this discussion

would be to come up with an actual case

that could be analyzed using appropriate

theories.

 

But from a theoretical perspective,

one of the things that I've found most

illuminating is investigating all the

various significances of the concept

of qi4 in traditional Chinese medicine.

Here's another example of how the study

of characters can yield benefits to

those engaged in clinical medicine.

 

Personally, my cultivation of qi4,

which slowly over decades has come to

include more and more study of the

literature about qi4 and the

ways in which generations of past

masters of the subject have used it,

is probably the single most important

aspect of my clinical training.

 

After all, if you don't connect with

the patient's qi4, in Chinese medicine

what are you doing? Just sticking needles

in people and making them drink twig soup.

 

Whatever light I have to shed on the

subject at this point is to be found

in chapter 4 of A Brief History of Qi,

although I think that the other chapters,

particularly chapter 3, which is about

qi4 as a concept and a force in aesthetics

and art, can also contribute significantly

to an individual's capacity to understand

and therefore to deal with qi4.

 

I put the emphasis on the qi4 category

with respect to pain as I find it to

be far subtler and more challenging

than pains of the blood category. After

all, the herbs, for example that we

use to treat pains that fall into

the blood category are fairly well

known, well identified in terms of

their function, and clinically proven

to be relatively effective on a case

by case basis, at least in my experience.

 

Using san1 qi1 or hong2 hua1 to resolve

blood stagnation is relatively straightfoward

compared to resolving pains that arise

from disorders of qi4. I've found that

in talking to a number of practioners

and students in the states that this

corresponds to a large degree with the

fact that most can tell you clearly and

simply what blood is but few seem as

certain about qi4.

 

So I don't know if this sheds any light

on anything, but this is the way I

would approach it.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

So why can't we apply these broad, general rules from CM to WM?

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

> >>>From a biomedicine perspective we have no problem explaining

this. My question is about " if there is no free flow there is pain. "

Stress analgesia or what athletics go through is well known and does

not need activity, severe fear anxiety can do the same. Such as seen

in accidents. Probably to allow one to seek help

[Guest guest]

Rheumatology in , Guillaume & Chieu, Eastland 1996

>>>>I have read it but it mostly discusses pain via 8 principles and free flow

Alon

 

-

Rory Kerr

Sunday, January 20, 2002 4:32 PM

Re: Re: Qi regulation

 

At 12:08 PM -0600 1/20/02, Alon Marcus wrote:

>>>>Ken,

Are you aware of any indapth discussion on the theories of pain? Can you shad some more light?

--

Rheumatology in , Guillaume & Chieu, Eastland 1996

 

Chapter 4 - Pain, and other places.

 

Rory-- Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

bu2 tong1condition of the qi4; and thosethat arise from a bu2 tong1 conditionof the blood.>>>I mean beyond these

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Sunday, January 20, 2002 4:52 PM

Re: Qi regulation

Alon,> Are you aware of any indapth discussion on the theories of pain?If you mean in print, I haven't been ableto put my finger on any recently. But I'vebeen swamped with other chores and haven'treally given it a good look. I'm not aclassical scholar and don't have a goodcommand of the literature. So the factthat I can't cite such a discussion shouldn't be taken in any way to suggestthat they don't exist.Can you shad some more light?I don't know. My point earlier was thatin order to be able to follow theadvice in the old saying, we shoulduse it as an opportunity to considerour notions about traditional anatomyand physiology. There are two categories of pains:those that arise from a bu2 tong1condition of the qi4; and thosethat arise from a bu2 tong1 conditionof the blood.I suppose this is the most basic theoreticalstatement about pain in Chinese medicine.Once you differentiate a painful conditionaccording to this theory of the two maincategories, then you can proceed to assesswhat's bu2 tong1 and why. Obviously the possibilities are far too numerous to try and account for them allspeculatively. That's why I suggested thatone way to proceed with this discussionwould be to come up with an actual casethat could be analyzed using appropriatetheories.But from a theoretical perspective,one of the things that I've found mostilluminating is investigating all thevarious significances of the conceptof qi4 in traditional Chinese medicine.Here's another example of how the studyof characters can yield benefits tothose engaged in clinical medicine.Personally, my cultivation of qi4,which slowly over decades has come to include more and more study of the literature about qi4 and theways in which generations of pastmasters of the subject have used it,is probably the single most importantaspect of my clinical training.After all, if you don't connect withthe patient's qi4, in Chinese medicinewhat are you doing? Just sticking needlesin people and making them drink twig soup.Whatever light I have to shed on thesubject at this point is to be foundin chapter 4 of A Brief History of Qi,although I think that the other chapters,particularly chapter 3, which is aboutqi4 as a concept and a force in aestheticsand art, can also contribute significantlyto an individual's capacity to understandand therefore to deal with qi4.I put the emphasis on the qi4 categorywith respect to pain as I find it tobe far subtler and more challengingthan pains of the blood category. Afterall, the herbs, for example that weuse to treat pains that fall intothe blood category are fairly wellknown, well identified in terms oftheir function, and clinically provento be relatively effective on a caseby case basis, at least in my experience.Using san1 qi1 or hong2 hua1 to resolveblood stagnation is relatively straightfowardcompared to resolving pains that arisefrom disorders of qi4. I've found thatin talking to a number of practionersand students in the states that thiscorresponds to a large degree with thefact that most can tell you clearly andsimply what blood is but few seem ascertain about qi4.So I don't know if this sheds any lighton anything, but this is the way Iwould approach it.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

So why can't we apply these broad, general rules from CM to WM?>>>We can apply but I am trying to find out more about formal issues as they have to do with pain in TCM.

Alon

 

-

jramholz

Sunday, January 20, 2002 7:18 PM

Re: Qi regulation

So why can't we apply these broad, general rules from CM to WM?Jim Ramholz, "Alon Marcus" <alonmarcus@w...> > >>>From a biomedicine perspective we have no problem explaining this. My question is about "if there is no free flow there is pain." Stress analgesia or what athletics go through is well known and does not need activity, severe fear anxiety can do the same. Such as seen in accidents. Probably to allow one to seek helpChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

At 1:15 AM -0600 1/21/02, Alon Marcus wrote:

>Rheumatology in , Guillaume & Chieu, Eastland 1996

> >>>>I have read it but it mostly discusses pain via 8 principles

>and free flow

--

Within that discussion there are discussions of the different types

of pain depending on pathogenic factors, deficiency of substances,

different types of pain. Elsewhere there is discussion of pain in

different tissues and locations.

 

Beyond this, what are you looking for?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

In my up and coming 2ed addition of my book there is more on pain than in Rhematology in CM. I am interested in and if there are totally other ideas on pain in CM. Not just categorizing. But for example is there more on the relation of the Heart and pain. Is there any discussion on Brain, sea of marrow and pain etc.

Alon

 

-

Rory Kerr

Monday, January 21, 2002 5:43 AM

Re: Re: Qi regulation

At 1:15 AM -0600 1/21/02, Alon Marcus wrote:>Rheumatology in , Guillaume & Chieu, Eastland 1996> >>>>I have read it but it mostly discusses pain via 8 principles >and free flow--Within that discussion there are discussions of the different types of pain depending on pathogenic factors, deficiency of substances, different types of pain. Elsewhere there is discussion of pain in different tissues and locations.Beyond this, what are you looking for?Rory-- Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.