Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Bob, Have a good one. I put up a response just now and will look forward to continuing the conversation when you're back. We're also traveling at the moment, so as always I may drift in and out. When you get back there's something else I want to talk with you about. Ken > > I replied to some of your points earlier today. I'm eager to read your > response. However, I will be out of my office all day tomorrow doing a > Leonardo Process for the Blue Poppy 2002 business plan. So I won't be > chiming in again till Friday. I'm very interested in this question of > flow of no flow of the qi and look forward to rejoining the > conversation then. > > Bob > > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > > Jim, > > > > > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? > > > > The issue of emotional pain lies in that > > realm of the manifold layers that Bob Flaws > > cautioned about. So I want to make sure > > that I clearly understand what your intention > > is here. > > > > Does the old saying apply to emotional pain? > > > > Do the points about the diagnosis of pain > > I made apply to emotional pain? > > > > Certainly five phases applies to the > > assessment and treatment of emotional > > pain, since the pain of grief is so > > different from the pain of terror. > > Each affects a different organic > > system according to five phase theory > > and produces different feelings, different > > characteristic changes in qi4. > > > > Just as an aside, I think that not only > > a clearer understanding of Chinese words > > but English words as well can aid in > > the understanding and use of such key > > terms. For example, knowing that the > > Greek root of the English word " pain " > > means " penalty " informs a certain understanding > > of what pain is, particularly when we consider > > that cultural dimension of the experience > > of pain. > > > > > > > > Can you clarify and/or elaborate > > on your question? > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > > > interprative translation that, while > > > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > > > particular aspect of the concept of > > > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > > > be argued that the implications of > > > > " connection " include the provision > > > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > > > English words clearly mean something > > > > different from each other. If we're talking > > > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > > > of " pain, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Theory exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention.It is not really meant as an analytic toolfor abstract reckoning. It's a tool forfor doing work in the clinic. >>>>Especial in empirical medicine. Alon - dragon90405 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:33 PM Re: Qi regulation Bob,> I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in CM > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm not > aware of lots of different theories about pain.That wasn't really the point I was making,but there is indeed a good deal more theoreticalmaterial in Chinese medicine on the subjectof pain. And another series of vivid imagesin my memory consist of seeing and hearingChinese patients talk about their pains.Most American patients I've met, when askedabout the quality of their pain, reply withsome version of, "Huh?"The American acculturation to pain is quitedifferent from the Chinese. Here I just wantto re-emphasize what I said yesterday aboutthe highly individual and personal...evenprivate nature of pain, and about the nonthelesscultural dynamic in how an individual goesabout defining and experiencing pain.Chinese patients, at least the ones I've metin Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulateabout the character and various qualities oftheir pain, reflecting the traditional ideasabout what pain is and means. Even the bulkof them, who could probably not accruatelyrepeat the theoretical considerations, stillrecognize that the precise location, nature,and behavior of their pain are importantbits of data that the doctor needs to havein order to complete an accurate diagnosis.There are various kinds of pain identified bytraditonal theory, and the meaning and implicationsof each are indeed quite important in both diagnosisand treatment. > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > theory. > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong).> > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment> > of having no dictionary to hand. Can> > you clarify what these terms are?> > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to> > the old saying that says:> > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4> > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1> > > > where there's connection there's no pain> > where there's pain there's no connection> I agree tong may be translated as "connection" as opposed to free > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these two > translations in their opinion fits best here.Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, Iengage in this sort of questioning all thetime. I just gave a talk at the systemsscience forum at Beijing Normal Universityand one of the things that came up, as italways seems to, is how I would define qi4in English with just one word. As I've saidhere in the past, I choose the word connectivityas a starting point to answer that question.Several of the scientists in the room werequite familiar with traditional Chinese ideasand found this choice of words and my rationalefor making it worthy of consideration.The idea that I've expressed here is not somethingthat is unique or original to me. It's somethingI've learned from my Chinese teachers and students.Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts arenot and really cannot be except in rare cases,the final arbiters of what a successful translationis. I believe this requires ratification of nativeEnglish speakers who are familiar both with thesource language and its context, the technicalmaterial of the subject, and, of course, theirown native language...as an aboslute minimum setof requirements.Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong Englishtranslations of Chinese words because "that's theway they do it." Lacking a deep familiarity withthe ways of the English language, they often do noteven notice the errors until they are pointed out.I'm going to be > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain.Well, then it should surprise you to learn that itwas a bunch of Chinese who first taught me thatunderstanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of thewhole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy andphysiology. After all, what connects or fails toconnect?Qi4.Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e.unstated term in that old sayng.Further, > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the most > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as being "connectors" > or "flow-freers"? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, Yan > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc.Again, many Chinese use whatever terms arein common use. I'm not talking about usagepatterns. I'm talking about the underlyingconcept and the appropriate use of theoryto address pain.As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong.It is simply one of a number of ideas thatare associated with the word tong1. And ifyou translate tong1 as "flow" and do notinclude in your explication of "flow"the more basic and underlyingcondition of connectivity or lack thereof,you leave your readers with an incompletesense of the whole Chinese character.Alon, pay attention to this point if youwant another concrete example of how thestudy of Chinese lanaguage can facillitatethe study of Chinese medical theory.The whole idea includes this notion of theqi4 being connected or disconnected. Theflow of various things characterizes a harmonious condition in which the qi4 is well interconnected andinter-communicating between the varioussystems and sub-systems that traditionalanatomy and physiology identify. Theflow is not the qi4 but a characteristicof qi4...just one. It has other characteristicsand to leave them out is an error.And I don't think this can be dismissedas a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretationsof these words and ideas.It's really not such a far-fetched ideafrom a very traditional point of view.What is the theory of the visceraand bowels, but a statement of the patternsof communication between the principalinternal structures and systems of thebody?> > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen.Then please draw the limits for meclearly and help me understand whatyou mean.> > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in> > understanding and dealing with pain is the> > fact of its highly subjective nature. One> > individual's pain is another's pleasure and> > vice versa. > > Again, let's keep this common sense.I think it's altogether common sense torecognize that if you're going to be doingassessment of pain as part of diagnosis intraditional Chinese medicine you should keepin mind that what one person refers to as pain another would not even stop to consideras sensation. If you don't maintain thisperspective on pain, you can err in itsevaluation by relating to it as if it werea static property of people.People have been talking about > "injuries," presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting oneself. > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, in > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > others.I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningfulanswer to an individual's experience of painis to be found in that individual's own mind,body, symptoms, statements, etc. This getsat the same error in orientation of basictheory that I mentioned before, i.e. thefitting of situations to theory. Theory exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention.It is not really meant as an analytic toolfor abstract reckoning. It's a tool forfor doing work in the clinic. Trying to come up with a theoretical explanationof why some people experience pain more acutelythan others leads in the direction of creatingfixed ideas related to pain. Some people arethis way or that way and thus experience painmore or less acutely. Such conclusions couldlead a clinician to approach people as if theywere expected to fit into one of these patterns.This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out,applied to the patient, set aside if they don'tmatch, substituted, changed during the courseof treatment, etc. The idea that some people havemore of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experiencepain seems not just limited but limiting to me. Butas I said below, I still haven't fully grasped your postulates on the subject. I will certainlycontinue to think about them.> If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose words > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.?Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Onlythat it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choosewords that consciously liken the changes of qi4 tothose of water, there are several answers that suggestthemselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually.First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric functionof Chinese language that is meant not only as a wayof imparting a good deal of information in just a fewwords, but also as a training regimen for the humanmind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study ofthe language can help an individual develop.I find that Chinese classical writing can hardlyever be taken at face value. There are always layersof meaning that one has to peel away, peer through,or otherwise take into consideration. It's anotherfactor that makes the study of the language bothchallenging and rewarding.Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisonsin Chinese classical literature, one of the firstdecisions that face a reader is how to take it. Isit, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a moreconcrete description. Of course the same thing holdsfor statements that appear to be concrete descriptions.And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.That is, a full understanding of the text often results from the reader's merging of the metaphoricand non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question.I suggest that the water metaphor for the movementsof qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding.They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they reallyattempt to present a concrete image of the movement ofqi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I thinkthe message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4,is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions.But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see itstraces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4.One of the big problems in limiting the understandingof qi4 to strictly "energetic" terms, i.e. to considerthat it is something that flows through the body likea river or stream, is that this approach naturally leadsone to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, lookingfor something all day long that cannot be seen will notlikely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets usall up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators,guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finallythrow up their hands in despair announcing to the worldthat it doesn't exist after all.So I think this is an important point. It's whatmotivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4.Further, it > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows east); > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for th > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a stream > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > unstable, weak. Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrongto want precise verbal definitions. I'm not ascholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fussabout the meaning and use of words becausethey are my stock in trade. If we don't lookafter 'em, who will?> > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the spirit > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of the > spirit qi.I have now read this sentence at leasta dozen times, and I have to admit thatI don't know what you mean. I get hungup right at the start, because I don't know what you mean by sensation as a function of consciousness. I tend to seesensation as part of the substrate ofconsciousness, i.e. consciousness relieson sensation to a far greater degree thansensation relies upon consciousness. You can produce sensations in an unconsciousperson, cause sensory responses of variouskinds, and so on. But I don't think that there can be consciousness without sensation.Consciousness is, in part at least, awarenessof sensation, or more precisely, awareness ofself being aware of sensation. This is a roughparaphrase of the approach to understandingconsciousness contained in Damasio's The Feelingof What Happens, that we've talked about beforeif I remember correctly.> I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is "not pain," I picked that example > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses that > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I still > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is a > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my own > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of "old Chinese > doctors" (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it.Well, my comments were and are limited tothe sense in which theory is applied generally.It would certainly be interesting to get thefeedback of some Chinese experts. And it is certainly useful to be able totalk it over with you. Thanks,Ken> 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out,applied to the patient, set aside if they don'tmatch, substituted, changed during the courseof treatment, etc >>>beautifully said. That is what I have been trying to say Alon - dragon90405 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:33 PM Re: Qi regulation Bob,> I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in CM > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm not > aware of lots of different theories about pain.That wasn't really the point I was making,but there is indeed a good deal more theoreticalmaterial in Chinese medicine on the subjectof pain. And another series of vivid imagesin my memory consist of seeing and hearingChinese patients talk about their pains.Most American patients I've met, when askedabout the quality of their pain, reply withsome version of, "Huh?"The American acculturation to pain is quitedifferent from the Chinese. Here I just wantto re-emphasize what I said yesterday aboutthe highly individual and personal...evenprivate nature of pain, and about the nonthelesscultural dynamic in how an individual goesabout defining and experiencing pain.Chinese patients, at least the ones I've metin Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulateabout the character and various qualities oftheir pain, reflecting the traditional ideasabout what pain is and means. Even the bulkof them, who could probably not accruatelyrepeat the theoretical considerations, stillrecognize that the precise location, nature,and behavior of their pain are importantbits of data that the doctor needs to havein order to complete an accurate diagnosis.There are various kinds of pain identified bytraditonal theory, and the meaning and implicationsof each are indeed quite important in both diagnosisand treatment. > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > theory. > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong).> > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment> > of having no dictionary to hand. Can> > you clarify what these terms are?> > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to> > the old saying that says:> > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4> > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1> > > > where there's connection there's no pain> > where there's pain there's no connection> I agree tong may be translated as "connection" as opposed to free > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these two > translations in their opinion fits best here.Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, Iengage in this sort of questioning all thetime. I just gave a talk at the systemsscience forum at Beijing Normal Universityand one of the things that came up, as italways seems to, is how I would define qi4in English with just one word. As I've saidhere in the past, I choose the word connectivityas a starting point to answer that question.Several of the scientists in the room werequite familiar with traditional Chinese ideasand found this choice of words and my rationalefor making it worthy of consideration.The idea that I've expressed here is not somethingthat is unique or original to me. It's somethingI've learned from my Chinese teachers and students.Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts arenot and really cannot be except in rare cases,the final arbiters of what a successful translationis. I believe this requires ratification of nativeEnglish speakers who are familiar both with thesource language and its context, the technicalmaterial of the subject, and, of course, theirown native language...as an aboslute minimum setof requirements.Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong Englishtranslations of Chinese words because "that's theway they do it." Lacking a deep familiarity withthe ways of the English language, they often do noteven notice the errors until they are pointed out.I'm going to be > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain.Well, then it should surprise you to learn that itwas a bunch of Chinese who first taught me thatunderstanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of thewhole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy andphysiology. After all, what connects or fails toconnect?Qi4.Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e.unstated term in that old sayng.Further, > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the most > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as being "connectors" > or "flow-freers"? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, Yan > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc.Again, many Chinese use whatever terms arein common use. I'm not talking about usagepatterns. I'm talking about the underlyingconcept and the appropriate use of theoryto address pain.As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong.It is simply one of a number of ideas thatare associated with the word tong1. And ifyou translate tong1 as "flow" and do notinclude in your explication of "flow"the more basic and underlyingcondition of connectivity or lack thereof,you leave your readers with an incompletesense of the whole Chinese character.Alon, pay attention to this point if youwant another concrete example of how thestudy of Chinese lanaguage can facillitatethe study of Chinese medical theory.The whole idea includes this notion of theqi4 being connected or disconnected. Theflow of various things characterizes a harmonious condition in which the qi4 is well interconnected andinter-communicating between the varioussystems and sub-systems that traditionalanatomy and physiology identify. Theflow is not the qi4 but a characteristicof qi4...just one. It has other characteristicsand to leave them out is an error.And I don't think this can be dismissedas a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretationsof these words and ideas.It's really not such a far-fetched ideafrom a very traditional point of view.What is the theory of the visceraand bowels, but a statement of the patternsof communication between the principalinternal structures and systems of thebody?> > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen.Then please draw the limits for meclearly and help me understand whatyou mean.> > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in> > understanding and dealing with pain is the> > fact of its highly subjective nature. One> > individual's pain is another's pleasure and> > vice versa. > > Again, let's keep this common sense.I think it's altogether common sense torecognize that if you're going to be doingassessment of pain as part of diagnosis intraditional Chinese medicine you should keepin mind that what one person refers to as pain another would not even stop to consideras sensation. If you don't maintain thisperspective on pain, you can err in itsevaluation by relating to it as if it werea static property of people.People have been talking about > "injuries," presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting oneself. > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, in > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > others.I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningfulanswer to an individual's experience of painis to be found in that individual's own mind,body, symptoms, statements, etc. This getsat the same error in orientation of basictheory that I mentioned before, i.e. thefitting of situations to theory. Theory exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention.It is not really meant as an analytic toolfor abstract reckoning. It's a tool forfor doing work in the clinic. Trying to come up with a theoretical explanationof why some people experience pain more acutelythan others leads in the direction of creatingfixed ideas related to pain. Some people arethis way or that way and thus experience painmore or less acutely. Such conclusions couldlead a clinician to approach people as if theywere expected to fit into one of these patterns.This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out,applied to the patient, set aside if they don'tmatch, substituted, changed during the courseof treatment, etc. The idea that some people havemore of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experiencepain seems not just limited but limiting to me. Butas I said below, I still haven't fully grasped your postulates on the subject. I will certainlycontinue to think about them.> If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose words > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.?Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Onlythat it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choosewords that consciously liken the changes of qi4 tothose of water, there are several answers that suggestthemselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually.First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric functionof Chinese language that is meant not only as a wayof imparting a good deal of information in just a fewwords, but also as a training regimen for the humanmind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study ofthe language can help an individual develop.I find that Chinese classical writing can hardlyever be taken at face value. There are always layersof meaning that one has to peel away, peer through,or otherwise take into consideration. It's anotherfactor that makes the study of the language bothchallenging and rewarding.Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisonsin Chinese classical literature, one of the firstdecisions that face a reader is how to take it. Isit, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a moreconcrete description. Of course the same thing holdsfor statements that appear to be concrete descriptions.And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.That is, a full understanding of the text often results from the reader's merging of the metaphoricand non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question.I suggest that the water metaphor for the movementsof qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding.They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they reallyattempt to present a concrete image of the movement ofqi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I thinkthe message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4,is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions.But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see itstraces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4.One of the big problems in limiting the understandingof qi4 to strictly "energetic" terms, i.e. to considerthat it is something that flows through the body likea river or stream, is that this approach naturally leadsone to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, lookingfor something all day long that cannot be seen will notlikely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets usall up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators,guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finallythrow up their hands in despair announcing to the worldthat it doesn't exist after all.So I think this is an important point. It's whatmotivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4.Further, it > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows east); > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for th > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a stream > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > unstable, weak. Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrongto want precise verbal definitions. I'm not ascholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fussabout the meaning and use of words becausethey are my stock in trade. If we don't lookafter 'em, who will?> > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the spirit > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of the > spirit qi.I have now read this sentence at leasta dozen times, and I have to admit thatI don't know what you mean. I get hungup right at the start, because I don't know what you mean by sensation as a function of consciousness. I tend to seesensation as part of the substrate ofconsciousness, i.e. consciousness relieson sensation to a far greater degree thansensation relies upon consciousness. You can produce sensations in an unconsciousperson, cause sensory responses of variouskinds, and so on. But I don't think that there can be consciousness without sensation.Consciousness is, in part at least, awarenessof sensation, or more precisely, awareness ofself being aware of sensation. This is a roughparaphrase of the approach to understandingconsciousness contained in Damasio's The Feelingof What Happens, that we've talked about beforeif I remember correctly.> I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is "not pain," I picked that example > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses that > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I still > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is a > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my own > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of "old Chinese > doctors" (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it.Well, my comments were and are limited tothe sense in which theory is applied generally.It would certainly be interesting to get thefeedback of some Chinese experts. And it is certainly useful to be able totalk it over with you. Thanks,Ken> 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 then where is it? >>>Ken, I think the word energy" in medicine has always been used just for that it can not be seen and quantified. Alon - dragon90405 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:33 PM Re: Qi regulation Bob,> I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in CM > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm not > aware of lots of different theories about pain.That wasn't really the point I was making,but there is indeed a good deal more theoreticalmaterial in Chinese medicine on the subjectof pain. And another series of vivid imagesin my memory consist of seeing and hearingChinese patients talk about their pains.Most American patients I've met, when askedabout the quality of their pain, reply withsome version of, "Huh?"The American acculturation to pain is quitedifferent from the Chinese. Here I just wantto re-emphasize what I said yesterday aboutthe highly individual and personal...evenprivate nature of pain, and about the nonthelesscultural dynamic in how an individual goesabout defining and experiencing pain.Chinese patients, at least the ones I've metin Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulateabout the character and various qualities oftheir pain, reflecting the traditional ideasabout what pain is and means. Even the bulkof them, who could probably not accruatelyrepeat the theoretical considerations, stillrecognize that the precise location, nature,and behavior of their pain are importantbits of data that the doctor needs to havein order to complete an accurate diagnosis.There are various kinds of pain identified bytraditonal theory, and the meaning and implicationsof each are indeed quite important in both diagnosisand treatment. > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > theory. > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong).> > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment> > of having no dictionary to hand. Can> > you clarify what these terms are?> > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to> > the old saying that says:> > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4> > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1> > > > where there's connection there's no pain> > where there's pain there's no connection> I agree tong may be translated as "connection" as opposed to free > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these two > translations in their opinion fits best here.Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, Iengage in this sort of questioning all thetime. I just gave a talk at the systemsscience forum at Beijing Normal Universityand one of the things that came up, as italways seems to, is how I would define qi4in English with just one word. As I've saidhere in the past, I choose the word connectivityas a starting point to answer that question.Several of the scientists in the room werequite familiar with traditional Chinese ideasand found this choice of words and my rationalefor making it worthy of consideration.The idea that I've expressed here is not somethingthat is unique or original to me. It's somethingI've learned from my Chinese teachers and students.Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts arenot and really cannot be except in rare cases,the final arbiters of what a successful translationis. I believe this requires ratification of nativeEnglish speakers who are familiar both with thesource language and its context, the technicalmaterial of the subject, and, of course, theirown native language...as an aboslute minimum setof requirements.Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong Englishtranslations of Chinese words because "that's theway they do it." Lacking a deep familiarity withthe ways of the English language, they often do noteven notice the errors until they are pointed out.I'm going to be > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain.Well, then it should surprise you to learn that itwas a bunch of Chinese who first taught me thatunderstanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of thewhole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy andphysiology. After all, what connects or fails toconnect?Qi4.Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e.unstated term in that old sayng.Further, > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the most > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as being "connectors" > or "flow-freers"? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, Yan > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc.Again, many Chinese use whatever terms arein common use. I'm not talking about usagepatterns. I'm talking about the underlyingconcept and the appropriate use of theoryto address pain.As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong.It is simply one of a number of ideas thatare associated with the word tong1. And ifyou translate tong1 as "flow" and do notinclude in your explication of "flow"the more basic and underlyingcondition of connectivity or lack thereof,you leave your readers with an incompletesense of the whole Chinese character.Alon, pay attention to this point if youwant another concrete example of how thestudy of Chinese lanaguage can facillitatethe study of Chinese medical theory.The whole idea includes this notion of theqi4 being connected or disconnected. Theflow of various things characterizes a harmonious condition in which the qi4 is well interconnected andinter-communicating between the varioussystems and sub-systems that traditionalanatomy and physiology identify. Theflow is not the qi4 but a characteristicof qi4...just one. It has other characteristicsand to leave them out is an error.And I don't think this can be dismissedas a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretationsof these words and ideas.It's really not such a far-fetched ideafrom a very traditional point of view.What is the theory of the visceraand bowels, but a statement of the patternsof communication between the principalinternal structures and systems of thebody?> > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen.Then please draw the limits for meclearly and help me understand whatyou mean.> > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in> > understanding and dealing with pain is the> > fact of its highly subjective nature. One> > individual's pain is another's pleasure and> > vice versa. > > Again, let's keep this common sense.I think it's altogether common sense torecognize that if you're going to be doingassessment of pain as part of diagnosis intraditional Chinese medicine you should keepin mind that what one person refers to as pain another would not even stop to consideras sensation. If you don't maintain thisperspective on pain, you can err in itsevaluation by relating to it as if it werea static property of people.People have been talking about > "injuries," presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting oneself. > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, in > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > others.I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningfulanswer to an individual's experience of painis to be found in that individual's own mind,body, symptoms, statements, etc. This getsat the same error in orientation of basictheory that I mentioned before, i.e. thefitting of situations to theory. Theory exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention.It is not really meant as an analytic toolfor abstract reckoning. It's a tool forfor doing work in the clinic. Trying to come up with a theoretical explanationof why some people experience pain more acutelythan others leads in the direction of creatingfixed ideas related to pain. Some people arethis way or that way and thus experience painmore or less acutely. Such conclusions couldlead a clinician to approach people as if theywere expected to fit into one of these patterns.This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out,applied to the patient, set aside if they don'tmatch, substituted, changed during the courseof treatment, etc. The idea that some people havemore of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experiencepain seems not just limited but limiting to me. Butas I said below, I still haven't fully grasped your postulates on the subject. I will certainlycontinue to think about them.> If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose words > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.?Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Onlythat it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choosewords that consciously liken the changes of qi4 tothose of water, there are several answers that suggestthemselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually.First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric functionof Chinese language that is meant not only as a wayof imparting a good deal of information in just a fewwords, but also as a training regimen for the humanmind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study ofthe language can help an individual develop.I find that Chinese classical writing can hardlyever be taken at face value. There are always layersof meaning that one has to peel away, peer through,or otherwise take into consideration. It's anotherfactor that makes the study of the language bothchallenging and rewarding.Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisonsin Chinese classical literature, one of the firstdecisions that face a reader is how to take it. Isit, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a moreconcrete description. Of course the same thing holdsfor statements that appear to be concrete descriptions.And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.That is, a full understanding of the text often results from the reader's merging of the metaphoricand non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question.I suggest that the water metaphor for the movementsof qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding.They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they reallyattempt to present a concrete image of the movement ofqi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I thinkthe message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4,is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions.But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see itstraces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4.One of the big problems in limiting the understandingof qi4 to strictly "energetic" terms, i.e. to considerthat it is something that flows through the body likea river or stream, is that this approach naturally leadsone to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, lookingfor something all day long that cannot be seen will notlikely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets usall up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators,guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finallythrow up their hands in despair announcing to the worldthat it doesn't exist after all.So I think this is an important point. It's whatmotivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4.Further, it > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows east); > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for th > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a stream > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > unstable, weak. Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrongto want precise verbal definitions. I'm not ascholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fussabout the meaning and use of words becausethey are my stock in trade. If we don't lookafter 'em, who will?> > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the spirit > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of the > spirit qi.I have now read this sentence at leasta dozen times, and I have to admit thatI don't know what you mean. I get hungup right at the start, because I don't know what you mean by sensation as a function of consciousness. I tend to seesensation as part of the substrate ofconsciousness, i.e. consciousness relieson sensation to a far greater degree thansensation relies upon consciousness. You can produce sensations in an unconsciousperson, cause sensory responses of variouskinds, and so on. But I don't think that there can be consciousness without sensation.Consciousness is, in part at least, awarenessof sensation, or more precisely, awareness ofself being aware of sensation. This is a roughparaphrase of the approach to understandingconsciousness contained in Damasio's The Feelingof What Happens, that we've talked about beforeif I remember correctly.> I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is "not pain," I picked that example > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses that > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I still > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is a > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my own > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of "old Chinese > doctors" (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it.Well, my comments were and are limited tothe sense in which theory is applied generally.It would certainly be interesting to get thefeedback of some Chinese experts. And it is certainly useful to be able totalk it over with you. Thanks,Ken> 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Alon, > >>>Ken, I think the word energy " in medicine has always been used just for that it can not be seen and quantified. Why do you think that? I have a distinctly opposite impression of how the word energy has been used, particularly as a concept in the Western acculturation of Chinese medicine, i.e. as a supposed equivalent for qi4, and as a term in the even more poorly defined field of " alternative and complementary medicine " and " energetic medicine. " I think that it is used by people who express thereby their hopes and dreams that there is something in the body that nobody knows about and that eludes the observation of generations of careful observers including modern researchers who can see into the very interstices of matter itself...but who still cannot see this mystic energy. The rest of this dream goes that by virtue of their magical skill attained in acupuncture school they can manipulate this magical energy and that they are part of an elite crew of misfits who may not understand the secrets of the universe but are at least much more advanced along some imagined evolutionary curve that will someday result in the whole world being bathed in beams of universal energy. Or something like that. I think that people try to evoke precisely the notion of energy's capacity to be measured and quantified and otherwise intimately related with. I think that's part of the enormous popularity of muscle testing and other so-called energetic techniques that purport to put the practitioner into some new relationship with the subtle universal energies that mill about in the body unknown to the cretins of science. I think all of this, at least as it relates to the concept of qi4, is entirely an expression of cross-cultural misunderstandings in that for one there was never really a modern notion of energy for qi4 to be related to for most of its long history as a word/concept. For another, the form and function of the Chinese usages of the word are so more well understood in different terms. I don't want to belabor this. The bulk of what I think about it all is in the book and the book is now available for anyone who is interested. But I'm curious to know why you think that energy has been used to refer to things that are not quantifiable or visible. The whole idea that qi4 is energy is what leads people to want to find qi4, measure qi4, make and sell machines that generate qi4, to mention just a few of the curious manifestations of what I continue to hold is a serious misunderstanding. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Bob: Thanks for checking; but I didn't find anything either. I will try to be innovation. Jim , " pemachophel2001 " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > Jim, > > I just checked a couple of Chinese dictionaries. The primary meaning > of tong is pain as in stomach pain (i.e., stomachache), throat pain > (as in sore throat), head pain (as in headache), etc. In other words, > physical pain. As a compound term, bei tong (literally sorrow and > pain) means deep sorrow or grief. However, I don't ever remember > seeing this compound term in any Chinese medical literature. > > Sorry, I have no idea how to express the pulse images you speak of in > standard CM terminology. Since Korean pulse examination systems were > written about by Koreans in Chinese even relatively lately, I would > think that the CM terminology should knowable. In any case, that's > where I'd go to research that particular question -- Korean medical > books written in Chinese. > > Bob > > , " OMJournal Ramholz " <OMJournal@m...> > wrote: > > Bob: > > > > Thanks for your response. I was thinking of a number of pulse > patterns where flow/connection is inhibited between phases and > wondering how to describe it in a way that is accessible from TCM. If > you have any other thoughts on these details, I'd be interested to > hear them. > > > > Jim > > > > - > > pemachophel2001 > > Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:35 AM > > > > Re: Qi regulation > > > > Jim, > > > > I have never seen the word tong4, pain, used to describe emotional > > suffering in a Chinese language CM source. Typically, this is > > described as ku2, bitterness, or the specific negative emotion is > > named. Personally, I would not apply the saying about pain to > > emotional suffering. To me, that would be out of context. > > > > Bob > > > > , " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > > > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > > > interprative translation that, while > > > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > > > particular aspect of the concept of > > > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > > > be argued that the implications of > > > > " connection " include the provision > > > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > > > English words clearly mean something > > > > different from each other. If we're talking > > > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > > > of " pain, " > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 I think that it is used by people who expressthereby their hopes and dreams that there issomething in the body that nobody knows aboutand that eludes the observation of generationsof careful observers including modern researcherswho can see into the very interstices of matteritself...but who still cannot see this mysticenergy.">>>>I agree with this. Others, little more grounded I think have used the word energy as something that will never be grasped by scientific methods Alon - dragon90405 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:31 PM Re: Qi regulation Alon,> >>>Ken, I think the word energy" in medicine has always been used just for that it can not be seen and quantified.Why do you think that? I have a distinctlyopposite impression of how the word energyhas been used, particularly as a conceptin the Western acculturation of Chinesemedicine, i.e. as a supposed equivalentfor qi4, and as a term in the even morepoorly defined field of "alternative andcomplementary medicine" and "energeticmedicine."I think that it is used by people who expressthereby their hopes and dreams that there issomething in the body that nobody knows aboutand that eludes the observation of generationsof careful observers including modern researcherswho can see into the very interstices of matteritself...but who still cannot see this mysticenergy.The rest of this dream goes that by virtueof their magical skill attained in acupunctureschool they can manipulate this magical energyand that they are part of an elite crew ofmisfits who may not understand the secretsof the universe but are at least much moreadvanced along some imagined evolutionarycurve that will someday result in the wholeworld being bathed in beams of universalenergy.Or something like that.I think that people try to evoke preciselythe notion of energy's capacity to be measuredand quantified and otherwise intimately relatedwith. I think that's part of the enormouspopularity of muscle testing and other so-calledenergetic techniques that purport to put thepractitioner into some new relationship withthe subtle universal energies that mill aboutin the body unknown to the cretins of science.I think all of this, at least as it relates tothe concept of qi4, is entirely an expression ofcross-cultural misunderstandings in that for onethere was never really a modern notion of energyfor qi4 to be related to for most of its longhistory as a word/concept. For another, the form and function of the Chinese usages of theword are so more well understood in differentterms. I don't want to belabor this. The bulkof what I think about it all is in the bookand the book is now available for anyone whois interested.But I'm curious to know why you think thatenergy has been used to refer to things thatare not quantifiable or visible. The wholeidea that qi4 is energy is what leads peopleto want to find qi4, measure qi4, make andsell machines that generate qi4, to mentionjust a few of the curious manifestations ofwhat I continue to hold is a serious misunderstanding.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 The wholeidea that qi4 is energy is what leads peopleto want to find qi4, measure qi4, make andsell machines that generate qi4, to mentionjust a few of the curious manifestations ofwhat I continue to hold is a serious misunderstanding.>>>>Perhaps it is my misunderstanding of what others were thinking. But I know that some that understand the concepts of Qi have used the word fully aware that it is not something that will be quantified by modern science Alon - dragon90405 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:31 PM Re: Qi regulation Alon,> >>>Ken, I think the word energy" in medicine has always been used just for that it can not be seen and quantified.Why do you think that? I have a distinctlyopposite impression of how the word energyhas been used, particularly as a conceptin the Western acculturation of Chinesemedicine, i.e. as a supposed equivalentfor qi4, and as a term in the even morepoorly defined field of "alternative andcomplementary medicine" and "energeticmedicine."I think that it is used by people who expressthereby their hopes and dreams that there issomething in the body that nobody knows aboutand that eludes the observation of generationsof careful observers including modern researcherswho can see into the very interstices of matteritself...but who still cannot see this mysticenergy.The rest of this dream goes that by virtueof their magical skill attained in acupunctureschool they can manipulate this magical energyand that they are part of an elite crew ofmisfits who may not understand the secretsof the universe but are at least much moreadvanced along some imagined evolutionarycurve that will someday result in the wholeworld being bathed in beams of universalenergy.Or something like that.I think that people try to evoke preciselythe notion of energy's capacity to be measuredand quantified and otherwise intimately relatedwith. I think that's part of the enormouspopularity of muscle testing and other so-calledenergetic techniques that purport to put thepractitioner into some new relationship withthe subtle universal energies that mill aboutin the body unknown to the cretins of science.I think all of this, at least as it relates tothe concept of qi4, is entirely an expression ofcross-cultural misunderstandings in that for onethere was never really a modern notion of energyfor qi4 to be related to for most of its longhistory as a word/concept. For another, the form and function of the Chinese usages of theword are so more well understood in differentterms. I don't want to belabor this. The bulkof what I think about it all is in the bookand the book is now available for anyone whois interested.But I'm curious to know why you think thatenergy has been used to refer to things thatare not quantifiable or visible. The wholeidea that qi4 is energy is what leads peopleto want to find qi4, measure qi4, make andsell machines that generate qi4, to mentionjust a few of the curious manifestations ofwhat I continue to hold is a serious misunderstanding.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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 Alon, > The whole > idea that qi4 is energy is what leads people > to want to find qi4, measure qi4, make and > sell machines that generate qi4, to mention > just a few of the curious manifestations of > what I continue to hold is a serious > misunderstanding. > >>>>Perhaps it is my misunderstanding of what others were thinking. But I know that some that understand the concepts of Qi have used the word fully aware that it is not something that will be quantified by modern science Understanding what others are thinking is always problematic, especially when people are not careful about what they are saying. Certainly people can understand qi4 without a discussion about how it's translated into English. People can understand qi4 with no discussion whatsoever, and no doubt there are plenty of folks who would assert that the discussion of it is more or less pointless as it does not lead to understanding. I don't share this point of view, but it's an attractive one. The meaning imparted to or understood from the word on the part of someone who understands what qi4 is certainly differs from that of someone who is, perhaps, hearing it for the first time. The subject is so profound that certainly a single word equivalent will do little for people than to introduce them to the concept an point them off in a direction for further investigation, should they feel the need. And if you tell them that qi4 is energy then you introduce them to one small aspect of its manifold meaning and point them off in a direction that is likely to lead to strange conclusions. For many, especially those who lack a familiarity with the curious quality of Chinese words that they can mean a wide range of things, including things that might appear to some to be diametrically opposed, this kind of introduction to qi4 as energy can effectively eliminate a broader and deeper understanding. What has in fact occurred, I find in a large number of place and people, is a substitution of energy for qi4. That's a problem, I submit, for all involved for reasons that have been stated. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] ] Re: Qi regulation > > Jason, > > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the > elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way. > While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from > very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to > systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms > of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and > must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that, > when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a > self-consistent way. > Bob, I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but would like to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this type of thinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is a Western approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed theories as well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the current conflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease is analogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems (western and eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, and are just expressing it in a different language. This was the same for yin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY contradictory - NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. It is useful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang and five elements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of years they operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always approached integration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine in China. He definitely points out the differences between a Western approach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I am suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred in China for the last 2000 years. It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a Western perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment about introducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two in relation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but useful in understanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to prescribe Chinese medicinals in a more effective way. So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as you suggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside source? OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be worthwhile to discuss. Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I still firmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory, whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a grounded/ rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenonfrom a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from aWestern perspective. >>>I agree. To me again, its the ability to clinically look at a patient from a perspective that may allow for understanding not possible if one only looks from one perspective instead from both. Looking at it in more diverse views gets me closer to the patient's truth Alon - traditional chinese herbs Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM RE: Re: Qi regulation > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001]] Re: Qi regulation> > Jason,> > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the> elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way.> While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from> very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to> systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms> of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and> must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that,> when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a> self-consistent way.> Bob, I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but wouldlike to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this type ofthinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is aWestern approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed theoriesas well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the currentconflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease isanalogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems (westernand eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, andare just expressing it in a different language. This was the same foryin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY contradictory -NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. It isuseful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang and fiveelements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of yearsthey operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always approachedintegration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine inChina. He definitely points out the differences between a Westernapproach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I amsuggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred inChina for the last 2000 years. It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenonfrom a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from aWestern perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment aboutintroducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two inrelation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but useful inunderstanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to prescribeChinese medicinals in a more effective way. So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as yousuggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside source?OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be worthwhile todiscuss. Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I stillfirmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory,whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a grounded/rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach.-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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 I don't think, Alon and Jason, that there is anyone who wouldn't allow Western perspective analysis of CM. I do think that in the West, we are so steeped in the biomedical perspective and so relatively uniformed of the CM perspective, that there is a potential for a two-fold biase: 1) judging medical phenomena from an incompletely formed CM perspective (considering the relative lack of education and data in English) 2) judging from a much more informed biomedical perspective (even most laypeople have more resources for biomedical data on illness than an average TCM practitioner has from a CM perspective). On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:06 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a > Western perspective. > >>>I agree. To me again, its the ability to clinically look at a > patient from a perspective that may allow for understanding not > possible if one only looks from one perspective instead from both. > Looking at it in more diverse views gets me closer to the patient's > truth > Alon > > - > > traditional chinese herbs > Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM > RE: Re: Qi regulation > > > > > > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] > ] Re: Qi regulation > > > > Jason, > > > > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the > > elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way. > > While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from > > very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to > > systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms > > of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and > > must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that, > > when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a > > self-consistent way. > > > > > Bob, > > I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but would > like to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this type of > thinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is a > Western approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed theories > as well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the current > conflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease is > analogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems (western > and eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, and > are just expressing it in a different language. This was the same for > yin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY contradictory - > NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. It is > useful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang and five > elements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of years > they operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. > There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always approached > integration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine in > China. He definitely points out the differences between a Western > approach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I am > suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred in > China for the last 2000 years. > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a > Western perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment about > introducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two in > relation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but useful in > understanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to prescribe > Chinese medicinals in a more effective way. > So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as you > suggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside source? > OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be worthwhile to > discuss. > Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I still > firmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory, > whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a grounded/ > rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach. > > - > > > > 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. > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 I also think it's important to bear in mind that the body is the body, regardless of whether you describe it in Chinese, English, ancient, modern or any other terms. I always tell students when I teach clinical material that you have to know the theoretical tools well enough to be able to see beyond them to the situation at hand. And more than one of my Chinese teachers respond to my importuning for written materials by stating flatly that they know nothing at all about the subject and would not have anything to write down about it. This, like all others, is just a pose of a sort. After all, some of China's greatest physicians have been among her most accomplished authors. The traditions of medicine and literature are closely interwoven at many places, as are other traditional arts and sciences. But there is a great truth in the approach that throws all theory out the window of the clinic thus requiring the interaction that takes place within to be between the doctor and the patient without various layers of filters intervening. That is precisely why there is gong1 fu1, so that the trained responses of the practitioner will be both in accordance with theory and with the particulars presented by the individual patient. The point is that we definitely cannot afford to become so enamored of our tools that we care more for them than for the work at hand. In the end, WM, CM, or any other M is only as valuable as it can be made to work effectively. And an enormous amount of this efficacy is based upon being able to see the patient in front of you. The whole point of theoretical tools is simply to help bring the person into clearer view. If this attitude is maintained, then the description of the framework is far less important. What matters about tools is not what's written on their labels. It's how well you can work with them. Ken > I don't think, Alon and Jason, that there is anyone who wouldn't allow > Western perspective analysis of CM. > > I do think that in the West, we are so steeped in the biomedical > perspective and so relatively uniformed of the CM perspective, that > there is a potential for a two-fold biase: 1) judging medical phenomena > from an incompletely formed CM perspective (considering the relative > lack of education and data in English) 2) judging from a much more > informed biomedical perspective (even most laypeople have more resources > for biomedical data on illness than an average TCM practitioner has from > a CM perspective). > > > On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:06 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > > > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon > > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a > > Western perspective. > > >>>I agree. To me again, its the ability to clinically look at a > > patient from a perspective that may allow for understanding not > > possible if one only looks from one perspective instead from both. > > Looking at it in more diverse views gets me closer to the patient's > > truth > > Alon > > > > - > > > > traditional chinese herbs > > Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM > > RE: Re: Qi regulation > > > > > > > > > > > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] > > ] Re: Qi regulation > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the > > > elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way. > > > While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from > > > very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to > > > systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms > > > of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and > > > must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that, > > > when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a > > > self-consistent way. > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but would > > like to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this type of > > thinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is a > > Western approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed theories > > as well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the current > > conflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease is > > analogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems (western > > and eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, and > > are just expressing it in a different language. This was the same for > > yin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY contradictory - > > NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. It is > > useful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang and five > > elements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of years > > they operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. > > There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always approached > > integration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine in > > China. He definitely points out the differences between a Western > > approach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I am > > suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred in > > China for the last 2000 years. > > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon > > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a > > Western perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment about > > introducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two in > > relation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but useful in > > understanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to prescribe > > Chinese medicinals in a more effective way. > > So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as you > > suggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside source? > > OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be worthwhile to > > discuss. > > Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I still > > firmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory, > > whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a grounded/ > > rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach. > > > > - > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 and it better stay clearly in the mind especially when we talk about system of correspondence medicine Alon - dragon90405 Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:23 PM Re: Qi regulation I also think it's important to bear in mind that the body is the body, regardlessof whether you describe it in Chinese,English, ancient, modern or any otherterms.I always tell students when I teach clinicalmaterial that you have to know the theoreticaltools well enough to be able to see beyondthem to the situation at hand. And more thanone of my Chinese teachers respond to myimportuning for written materials bystating flatly that they know nothingat all about the subject and would nothave anything to write down about it.This, like all others, is just a pose ofa sort. After all, some of China's greatestphysicians have been among her mostaccomplished authors. The traditions ofmedicine and literature are closely interwovenat many places, as are other traditionalarts and sciences.But there is a great truth in the approachthat throws all theory out the window ofthe clinic thus requiring the interactionthat takes place within to be betweenthe doctor and the patient without variouslayers of filters intervening.That is precisely why there is gong1 fu1,so that the trained responses of thepractitioner will be both in accordancewith theory and with the particularspresented by the individual patient.The point is that we definitely cannot affordto become so enamored of our tools that wecare more for them than for the work at hand.In the end, WM, CM, or any other M is onlyas valuable as it can be made to work effectively.And an enormous amount of this efficacy is basedupon being able to see the patient in front of you.The whole point of theoretical tools is simplyto help bring the person into clearer view. Ifthis attitude is maintained, then the descriptionof the framework is far less important. What mattersabout tools is not what's written on their labels.It's how well you can work with them.Ken> I don't think, Alon and Jason, that there is anyone who wouldn't allow > Western perspective analysis of CM.> > I do think that in the West, we are so steeped in the biomedical > perspective and so relatively uniformed of the CM perspective, that > there is a potential for a two-fold biase: 1) judging medical phenomena > from an incompletely formed CM perspective (considering the relative > lack of education and data in English) 2) judging from a much more > informed biomedical perspective (even most laypeople have more resources > for biomedical data on illness than an average TCM practitioner has from > a CM perspective).> > > On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:06 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:> > > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon> > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a> > Western perspective. > > >>>I agree. To me again, its the ability to clinically look at a > > patient from a perspective that may allow for understanding not > > possible if one only looks from one perspective instead from both. > > Looking at it in more diverse views gets me closer to the patient's > > truth> > Alon> >> > -> > > > traditional chinese herbs> > Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM> > RE: Re: Qi regulation> >> >> >> > > > > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001]> > ] Re: Qi regulation> > >> > > Jason,> > >> > > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the> > > elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way.> > > While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from> > > very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to> > > systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms> > > of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and> > > must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that,> > > when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a> > > self-consistent way.> > >> > > >> > Bob,> >> > I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but would> > like to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this type of> > thinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is a> > Western approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed theories> > as well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the current> > conflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease is> > analogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems (western> > and eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, and> > are just expressing it in a different language. This was the same for> > yin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY contradictory -> > NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. It is> > useful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang and five> > elements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of years> > they operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. > > There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always approached> > integration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine in> > China. He definitely points out the differences between a Western> > approach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I am> > suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred in> > China for the last 2000 years.> > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon> > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon from a> > Western perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment about> > introducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two in> > relation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but useful in> > understanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to prescribe> > Chinese medicinals in a more effective way.> > So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as you> > suggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside source?> > OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be worthwhile to> > discuss.> > Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I still> > firmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory,> > whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a grounded/> > rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach.> >> > -> >> >> >> > 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.> >> > http://www..org> >> > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 I don't believe your statement is productive. When we observe something we always see it from the perspective we are trained in culturally or professionally. We can never separate what it is from what we say about it. Language always shapes as well as is shaped by reality. This is the same kind of inseparability as found in the Tai Chi symbol, or how two systems interact as described by Complexity. Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the Body and the Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books, 1999), addresses the point about whether the " body is the body " in great depth. A short excerpt reads: " At the heart of medical history is a deep enigma. The true structure and workings of the human body are, we casually assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But then we look into the past and our sense of reality wavers: accounts of the body in diverse medical traditions often seem to describe mutually alien, almost unrelated worlds. How can perceptions of something as basic and innate as the body differ so? Such is the puzzle this book explores. " Unless trained to or directed to, an American would not find meridians on their own. This is why your notion of studying all the yet untranslated Chinese literature is important. And why your last paragraph seems to fly in the face of what you have said earlier. Jim Ramholz , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > I also think it's important to bear in > mind that the body is the body, regardless > of whether you describe it in Chinese, > English, ancient, modern or any other > terms. > > I always tell students when I teach clinical > material that you have to know the theoretical > tools well enough to be able to see beyond > them to the situation at hand. And more than > one of my Chinese teachers respond to my > importuning for written materials by > stating flatly that they know nothing > at all about the subject and would not > have anything to write down about it. > > This, like all others, is just a pose of > a sort. After all, some of China's greatest > physicians have been among her most > accomplished authors. The traditions of > medicine and literature are closely interwoven > at many places, as are other traditional > arts and sciences. > > But there is a great truth in the approach > that throws all theory out the window of > the clinic thus requiring the interaction > that takes place within to be between > the doctor and the patient without various > layers of filters intervening. > > That is precisely why there is gong1 fu1, > so that the trained responses of the > practitioner will be both in accordance > with theory and with the particulars > presented by the individual patient. > > The point is that we definitely cannot afford > to become so enamored of our tools that we > care more for them than for the work at hand. > In the end, WM, CM, or any other M is only > as valuable as it can be made to work effectively. > And an enormous amount of this efficacy is based > upon being able to see the patient in front of you. > > The whole point of theoretical tools is simply > to help bring the person into clearer view. If > this attitude is maintained, then the description > of the framework is far less important. What matters > about tools is not what's written on their labels. > It's how well you can work with them. > > Ken > > I don't think, Alon and Jason, that there is anyone who wouldn't > allow > > Western perspective analysis of CM. > > > > I do think that in the West, we are so steeped in the biomedical > > perspective and so relatively uniformed of the CM perspective, that > > there is a potential for a two-fold biase: 1) judging medical > phenomena > > from an incompletely formed CM perspective (considering the > relative > > lack of education and data in English) 2) judging from a much more > > informed biomedical perspective (even most laypeople have more > resources > > for biomedical data on illness than an average TCM practitioner has > from > > a CM perspective). > > > > > > On Thursday, January 3, 2002, at 10:06 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > > > > > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western phenomenon > > > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon > from a > > > Western perspective. > > > >>>I agree. To me again, its the ability to clinically look at a > > > patient from a perspective that may allow for understanding not > > > possible if one only looks from one perspective instead from > both. > > > Looking at it in more diverse views gets me closer to the > patient's > > > truth > > > Alon > > > > > > - > > > > > > traditional chinese herbs > > > Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:50 AM > > > RE: Re: Qi regulation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] > > > ] Re: Qi regulation > > > > > > > > Jason, > > > > > > > > CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when > the > > > > elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent > way. > > > > While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so > starting from > > > > very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to > > > > systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in > terms > > > > of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall > apart and > > > > must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was > that, > > > > when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a > > > > self-consistent way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > I respect this/your opinion, about mixing theories, but > would > > > like to offer another slant. I would like to suggest that this > type of > > > thinking, systems theory & not mixing the two systems/theories is > a > > > Western approach. In actuality, the Chinese have always mixed > theories > > > as well as integrated from other cultures. I would say that the > current > > > conflicts between Western and Chinese view of the body/ disease is > > > analogous to yin-yang and five elements theory. Both systems > (western > > > and eastern) are still examining the same fundamental phenomenon, > and > > > are just expressing it in a different language. This was the > same for > > > yin yang/ 5 element theory which at one time was TOTALLY > contradictory - > > > NOTE: they both had different (initial) 'statements of facts'. > It is > > > useful to look at this example because as we now see, yin yang > and five > > > elements are now totally integrated. But for many hundreds of > years > > > they operated on seemingly opposite poles of the spectrum. > > > There is a very distinct way that Chinese have always > approached > > > integration, which Paul Unschuld eloquently discusses in Medicine > in > > > China. He definitely points out the differences between a Western > > > approach and the way that Chinese have done it in the past. I am > > > suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has > occurred in > > > China for the last 2000 years. > > > It seems also hypocritical for us to analyze Western > phenomenon > > > from a CM perspective but not allow for analysis of CM phenomenon > from a > > > Western perspective. Hence resistance to my one comment about > > > introducing how Western science views pain and comparing the two > in > > > relation to herbals, which I still feel is not only valid, but > useful in > > > understanding the medicinals, and possibly enabling one to > prescribe > > > Chinese medicinals in a more effective way. > > > So again, if one is only thinking in a CM theory (as you > > > suggest) than how can one challenge that theory with an outside > source? > > > OR build upon it from an outside source? This would be > worthwhile to > > > discuss. > > > Before all of the purists send me numerous e-mails, I still > > > firmly think that one should be firmly rooted in Chinese theory, > > > whatever that means. And I believe I am approaching this in a > grounded/ > > > rooted way. I am, though, open to a better approach. > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 3, 2002 , " " <@o...> wrote: I am suggesting that my approach is nothing more than what has occurred in China for the last 2000 years. I suspect the next innovation of CM will be the integration of Western ideas. Jim Ramholz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 Jim, , " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > I don't believe your statement is productive. When we observe > something we always see it from the perspective we are trained in > culturally or professionally. We can never separate what it is from > what we say about it. Language always shapes as well as is shaped by > reality. This is the same kind of inseparability as found in the Tai > Chi symbol, or how two systems interact as described by Complexity. I think you've taken this into a fascinating area to which my non-productive statement naturally leads, but let's be careful once again to observe the manifold character of the subject under discussion. > Shigehisa Kuriyama's book, The Expressiveness of the Body and the > Divergence of Greek and (Zone Books, 1999), > addresses the point about whether the " body is the body " in great > depth. A short excerpt reads: " At the heart of medical history is a > deep enigma. The true structure and workings of the human body are, > we casually assume, everywhere the same, a universal reality. But > then we look into the past and our sense of reality wavers: accounts > of the body in diverse medical traditions often seem to describe > mutually alien, almost unrelated worlds. How can perceptions of > something as basic and innate as the body differ so? Such is the > puzzle this book explores. " Unless trained to or directed to, an > American would not find meridians on their own. The fact that this question has been addressed in this book as well as others I believe helps to make the point that it is worthy of consideration. Again, I'd point out that there are various layers to this topic and that a single set of words, such as " the body is the body " might mean quite different things when taken in the context of one layer in stead of another. > > This is why your notion of studying all the yet untranslated Chinese > literature is important. And why your last paragraph seems to fly in > the face of what you have said earlier. > It's meant to, to a certain extent. My point is a reminder to myself that when approaching a patient, for that matter another human being, that they are not principally an expression of some theory and certainly should not be anticipated to provide patterns of data that neatly fit into pre-arranged theoretical schemes. Individuals are individuals. And every set of circumstances is unique. And this, I believe, does not negate or conflict with the role and importance of pattern recognition in the construction of reality. We do see patterns. We do make patterns. We do primarily process patterns of information and these are, of course, inspired and designed by a number of factors such as culture, language, gender and genetic instructions, and so on. None of that suggests to me that the unique quality of the moment is any less unique. I referred to the enduring importance of study and training as the background of gong1 fu1 that is so much a part of traditional Chinese arts and sciences, of course including medicine. My sense of the well trained medical mind is one for whom the theoretical material, and this would embrace and include the various cultural dimensions, is so well studied and understood that it functions to free the attention so that it can deal with the individual circumstances directly and effectively. In Chinese medicine I believe this kind of study includes cultivation of qi4. And one of the things that we found compelling while doing the research for A Brief History of Qi4 was the presence in the biographies of such a wide range of noteworthy individuals in Chinese history of some kind of qi4 cultivation practice. This is a recognition of the overarching importance of pragmatic application. The study and practice are essential. But they are not ends in themselves. They are methods for developing capacity and skill. In the clinic, this skill is rooted in and depends upon one's ability to see and hear the patient and gather the specific, individual data that are required for the task at hand. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > Bob, > > > I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in > CM > > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm > not > > aware of lots of different theories about pain. > > That wasn't really the point I was making, > but there is indeed a good deal more theoretical > material in Chinese medicine on the subject > of pain. And another series of vivid images > in my memory consist of seeing and hearing > Chinese patients talk about their pains. > > Most American patients I've met, when asked > about the quality of their pain, reply with > some version of, " Huh? " > > The American acculturation to pain is quite > different from the Chinese. Here I just want > to re-emphasize what I said yesterday about > the highly individual and personal...even > private nature of pain, and about the nontheless > cultural dynamic in how an individual goes > about defining and experiencing pain. > > Chinese patients, at least the ones I've met > in Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulate > about the character and various qualities of > their pain, reflecting the traditional ideas > about what pain is and means. Even the bulk > of them, who could probably not accruately > repeat the theoretical considerations, still > recognize that the precise location, nature, > and behavior of their pain are important > bits of data that the doctor needs to have > in order to complete an accurate diagnosis. > > There are various kinds of pain identified by > traditonal theory, and the meaning and implications > of each are indeed quite important in both diagnosis > and treatment. -- However, we're not talking about statements about different kinds of pain. We are talking about the generic term associated with bodily pain. If you know of other definitions of this term as used in CM, I'd love to hear them. However, I'd like a Chinese definition of pain which is not just a listing of synonyms, such as aching and agony. I've already posted two Chinese dictionary definitions of pain in a response to James Ramholz. These really do not clarify further a deeper understanding of what Chinese mean when they say pain in terms of CM theory. Wiseman and Feng Ye give the following definition: " A more or less localized feeling of discomfort, distress, or agony that is felt as a result of knocks and falls, cuts in the flesh, severe hunger, contact with fire or hot objects, or various ailments of the body. " Interestingly, the authors of Jian Ming Zhong Yi Ci Dian (a Simple, Clear Dictionary of ) do not attempt a definition of tong (pain). They only define compound terms, i.e., specific types of pain. So if you have access to some more clarifying Chinese definition of pain vis a vis this discussion, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > > theory. > > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong). > > > > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment > > > of having no dictionary to hand. Can > > > you clarify what these terms are? > > > > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to > > > the old saying that says: > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > I agree tong may be translated as " connection " as opposed to free > > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these > two > > translations in their opinion fits best here. > > Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, I > engage in this sort of questioning all the > time. I just gave a talk at the systems > science forum at Beijing Normal University > and one of the things that came up, as it > always seems to, is how I would define qi4 > in English with just one word. As I've said > here in the past, I choose the word connectivity > as a starting point to answer that question. > > Several of the scientists in the room were > quite familiar with traditional Chinese ideas > and found this choice of words and my rationale > for making it worthy of consideration. > > The idea that I've expressed here is not something > that is unique or original to me. It's something > I've learned from my Chinese teachers and students. > > Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts are > not and really cannot be except in rare cases, > the final arbiters of what a successful translation > is. I believe this requires ratification of native > English speakers who are familiar both with the > source language and its context, the technical > material of the subject, and, of course, their > own native language...as an aboslute minimum set > of requirements. > > Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong English > translations of Chinese words because " that's the > way they do it. " Lacking a deep familiarity with > the ways of the English language, they often do not > even notice the errors until they are pointed out. > > I'm going to be > > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain. > > Well, then it should surprise you to learn that it > was a bunch of Chinese who first taught me that > understanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of the > whole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy and > physiology. After all, what connects or fails to > connect? > > Qi4. > > Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e. > unstated term in that old sayng. > > Further, > > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the > most > > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as > being " connectors " > > or " flow-freers " ? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, > Yan > > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc. > > Again, many Chinese use whatever terms are > in common use. I'm not talking about usage > patterns. I'm talking about the underlying > concept and the appropriate use of theory > to address pain. > > As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong. > It is simply one of a number of ideas that > are associated with the word tong1. And if > you translate tong1 as " flow " and do not > include in your explication of " flow " > the more basic and underlying > condition of connectivity or lack thereof, > you leave your readers with an incomplete > sense of the whole Chinese character. > > Alon, pay attention to this point if you > want another concrete example of how the > study of Chinese lanaguage can facillitate > the study of Chinese medical theory. > > The whole idea includes this notion of the > qi4 being connected or disconnected. The > flow of various things characterizes a > harmonious condition in which the qi4 > is well interconnected and > inter-communicating between the various > systems and sub-systems that traditional > anatomy and physiology identify. The > flow is not the qi4 but a characteristic > of qi4...just one. It has other characteristics > and to leave them out is an error. > > And I don't think this can be dismissed > as a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretations > of these words and ideas. > > It's really not such a far-fetched idea > from a very traditional point of view. > What is the theory of the viscera > and bowels, but a statement of the patterns > of communication between the principal > internal structures and systems of the > body? > > > > > > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen. > > Then please draw the limits for me > clearly and help me understand what > you mean. > > -- My statement about your tendency to philosophical thought was not meant as a put-down. We have agreed once before each person has certain interests, biases, and tendencies in thinking which lead to differences in opinion. I simply find much of your discussion more philosophical than I prefer to think when it comes to Chinese medicine. I too know the Chinese word tong1 means connect or communicate. However, I really don't see how this meaning helps us understand the concept of pain as it appears in the saying " tong ze bu tong. " This morning I have e-mailed a number of professors at Chinese medical colleges in the PRC as well as native Chinese practitioners of CM medicine living and working in the U.S. asking them which meaning of tong1 they believe is most germane to understanding the saying in question. Realistically, I don't think we can ignore what the Chinese say they intend when they use a certain term in a specific instance. When I get some responses, I will post these as a continuation to this thread. > > > > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in > > > understanding and dealing with pain is the > > > fact of its highly subjective nature. One > > > individual's pain is another's pleasure and > > > vice versa. > > > > Again, let's keep this common sense. > > I think it's altogether common sense to > recognize that if you're going to be doing > assessment of pain as part of diagnosis in > traditional Chinese medicine you should keep > in mind that what one person refers to as > pain another would not even stop to consider > as sensation. If you don't maintain this > perspective on pain, you can err in its > evaluation by relating to it as if it were > a static property of people. > > People have been talking about > > " injuries, " presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting > oneself. > > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, > in > > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > > others. > > I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningful > answer to an individual's experience of pain > is to be found in that individual's own mind, > body, symptoms, statements, etc. This gets > at the same error in orientation of basic > theory that I mentioned before, i.e. the > fitting of situations to theory. Theory > exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention. > It is not really meant as an analytic tool > for abstract reckoning. It's a tool for > for doing work in the clinic. > > Trying to come up with a theoretical explanation > of why some people experience pain more acutely > than others leads in the direction of creating > fixed ideas related to pain. Some people are > this way or that way and thus experience pain > more or less acutely. Such conclusions could > lead a clinician to approach people as if they > were expected to fit into one of these patterns. > > This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out, > applied to the patient, set aside if they don't > match, substituted, changed during the course > of treatment, etc. The idea that some people have > more of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experience > pain seems not just limited but limiting to me. But > as I said below, I still haven't fully grasped > your postulates on the subject. I will certainly > continue to think about them. > -- I was not suggesting retrofitting a pattern to a patient. Anyone familiar with my teaching knows that I am very much opposed to that. However, what I was suggesting is that, in my experience, certain types of patients with certain patterns produced by certain disease mechanisms seem to be more prone to hypersensitivity to pain than others. I also hypothesized on the mechanisms that might account for that hypersensitivity. Chinese doctors do this all the time. We wouldn't have any textbooks of CM if we didn't engage in this sort of process. > > > > If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose > words > > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.? > > Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Only > that it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choose > words that consciously liken the changes of qi4 to > those of water, there are several answers that suggest > themselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually. > > First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric function > of Chinese language that is meant not only as a way > of imparting a good deal of information in just a few > words, but also as a training regimen for the human > mind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study of > the language can help an individual develop. > > I find that Chinese classical writing can hardly > ever be taken at face value. There are always layers > of meaning that one has to peel away, peer through, > or otherwise take into consideration. It's another > factor that makes the study of the language both > challenging and rewarding. > > Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisons > in Chinese classical literature, one of the first > decisions that face a reader is how to take it. Is > it, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a more > concrete description. Of course the same thing holds > for statements that appear to be concrete descriptions. > > And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. > That is, a full understanding of the text often > results from the reader's merging of the metaphoric > and non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question. > > I suggest that the water metaphor for the movements > of qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding. > They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they really > attempt to present a concrete image of the movement of > qi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I think > the message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4, > is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions. > But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see its > traces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4. > > One of the big problems in limiting the understanding > of qi4 to strictly " energetic " terms, i.e. to consider > that it is something that flows through the body like > a river or stream, is that this approach naturally leads > one to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, looking > for something all day long that cannot be seen will not > likely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets us > all up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators, > guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finally > throw up their hands in despair announcing to the world > that it doesn't exist after all. > > So I think this is an important point. It's what > motivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4. > > Further, it > > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows > east); > > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for > th > > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a > stream > > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > > unstable, weak. > > Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrong > to want precise verbal definitions. I'm not a > scholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fuss > about the meaning and use of words because > they are my stock in trade. If we don't look > after 'em, who will? > > > > > > > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the > spirit > > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of > the > > spirit qi. > > I have now read this sentence at least > a dozen times, and I have to admit that > I don't know what you mean. I get hung > up right at the start, because I don't > know what you mean by sensation as a > function of consciousness. I tend to see > sensation as part of the substrate of > consciousness, i.e. consciousness relies > on sensation to a far greater degree than > sensation relies upon consciousness. > -- Sorry, having read the sentence over myself several times, this is exactly what I mean. Sensation is a function of the spirit brilliance (shen ming) which is a synonym for the functional aspects of the spirit qi and the spirit qi is the qi which accumulates in the heart. Therefore, we should be able to describe hyper and hyposensitivity in terms of the function and movement of the qi. When doing research for our psych book, one of the interesting pieces of information I came across was that 20% of the population is described as hypersensitive. The authors of that article assumed that this hypersensitivity was a function of nature, not nurture. If so, we should be able to describe and account for this with CM theory. > You can produce sensations in an unconscious > person, cause sensory responses of various > kinds, and so on. But I don't think that > there can be consciousness without sensation. > Consciousness is, in part at least, awareness > of sensation, or more precisely, awareness of > self being aware of sensation. This is a rough > paraphrase of the approach to understanding > consciousness contained in Damasio's The Feeling > of What Happens, that we've talked about before > if I remember correctly. -- I think you would agree that shen ming only refers to conscious sensation and that is all we are talking about in the context of this discussion. As Chinese doctor, as a Buddhist yogi and lopon, and as a human being, I accept Damasio's definition, but I don't see what bearing that definition has on our discussion. > > > I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is " not pain, " I picked that example > > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses > that > > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I > still > > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is > a > > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my > own > > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of " old > Chinese > > doctors " (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it. > > Well, my comments were and are limited to > the sense in which theory is applied generally. > It would certainly be interesting to get the > feedback of some Chinese experts. > > And it is certainly useful to be able to > talk it over with you. > > Thanks, > > Ken Me too. Bob > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 I was not suggesting retrofitting a pattern to a patient. Anyone familiar with my teaching knows that I am very much opposed to that. However, what I was suggesting is that, in my experience, certain types of patients with certain patterns produced by certain disease mechanisms seem to be more prone to hypersensitivity to pain than others. > >>>>>>This is a very important point as it pertains to risk factors. By definition it would be a generalization but can guide one to farther exploration. Which goes back to my question to Bob. Having the classification you do for antidepressants meds, what then would you consider giving a patient that does not have any particular pattern (beyond their depression be it any of TCM patterns) or side-effects, to prevent the meds dispersing drying qualities? Alon - pemachophel2001 Friday, January 04, 2002 8:41 AM Re: Qi regulation , "dragon90405" <yulong@m...> wrote:> Bob,> > > I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in > CM > > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm > not > > aware of lots of different theories about pain.> > That wasn't really the point I was making,> but there is indeed a good deal more theoretical> material in Chinese medicine on the subject> of pain. And another series of vivid images> in my memory consist of seeing and hearing> Chinese patients talk about their pains.> > Most American patients I've met, when asked> about the quality of their pain, reply with> some version of, "Huh?"> > The American acculturation to pain is quite> different from the Chinese. Here I just want> to re-emphasize what I said yesterday about> the highly individual and personal...even> private nature of pain, and about the nontheless> cultural dynamic in how an individual goes> about defining and experiencing pain.> > Chinese patients, at least the ones I've met> in Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulate> about the character and various qualities of> their pain, reflecting the traditional ideas> about what pain is and means. Even the bulk> of them, who could probably not accruately> repeat the theoretical considerations, still> recognize that the precise location, nature,> and behavior of their pain are important> bits of data that the doctor needs to have> in order to complete an accurate diagnosis.> > There are various kinds of pain identified by> traditonal theory, and the meaning and implications> of each are indeed quite important in both diagnosis> and treatment.-- However, we're not talking about statements about different kinds of pain. We are talking about the generic term associated with bodily pain. If you know of other definitions of this term as used in CM, I'd love to hear them. However, I'd like a Chinese definition of pain which is not just a listing of synonyms, such as aching and agony. I've already posted two Chinese dictionary definitions of pain in a response to James Ramholz. These really do not clarify further a deeper understanding of what Chinese mean when they say pain in terms of CM theory. Wiseman and Feng Ye give the following definition: "A more or less localized feeling of discomfort, distress, or agony that is felt as a result of knocks and falls, cuts in the flesh, severe hunger, contact with fire or hot objects, or various ailments of the body." Interestingly, the authors of Jian Ming Zhong Yi Ci Dian (a Simple, Clear Dictionary of ) do not attempt a definition of tong (pain). They only define compound terms, i.e., specific types of pain. So if you have access to some more clarifying Chinese definition of pain vis a vis this discussion, please let me know. > > > > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > > theory. > > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong).> > > > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment> > > of having no dictionary to hand. Can> > > you clarify what these terms are?> > > > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to> > > the old saying that says:> > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4> > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1> > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain> > > where there's pain there's no connection> > > I agree tong may be translated as "connection" as opposed to free > > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these > two > > translations in their opinion fits best here.> > Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, I> engage in this sort of questioning all the> time. I just gave a talk at the systems> science forum at Beijing Normal University> and one of the things that came up, as it> always seems to, is how I would define qi4> in English with just one word. As I've said> here in the past, I choose the word connectivity> as a starting point to answer that question.> > Several of the scientists in the room were> quite familiar with traditional Chinese ideas> and found this choice of words and my rationale> for making it worthy of consideration.> > The idea that I've expressed here is not something> that is unique or original to me. It's something> I've learned from my Chinese teachers and students.> > Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts are> not and really cannot be except in rare cases,> the final arbiters of what a successful translation> is. I believe this requires ratification of native> English speakers who are familiar both with the> source language and its context, the technical> material of the subject, and, of course, their> own native language...as an aboslute minimum set> of requirements.> > Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong English> translations of Chinese words because "that's the> way they do it." Lacking a deep familiarity with> the ways of the English language, they often do not> even notice the errors until they are pointed out.> > I'm going to be > > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain.> > Well, then it should surprise you to learn that it> was a bunch of Chinese who first taught me that> understanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of the> whole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy and> physiology. After all, what connects or fails to> connect?> > Qi4.> > Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e.> unstated term in that old sayng.> > Further, > > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the > most > > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as > being "connectors" > > or "flow-freers"? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, > Yan > > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc.> > Again, many Chinese use whatever terms are> in common use. I'm not talking about usage> patterns. I'm talking about the underlying> concept and the appropriate use of theory> to address pain.> > As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong.> It is simply one of a number of ideas that> are associated with the word tong1. And if> you translate tong1 as "flow" and do not> include in your explication of "flow"> the more basic and underlying> condition of connectivity or lack thereof,> you leave your readers with an incomplete> sense of the whole Chinese character.> > Alon, pay attention to this point if you> want another concrete example of how the> study of Chinese lanaguage can facillitate> the study of Chinese medical theory.> > The whole idea includes this notion of the> qi4 being connected or disconnected. The> flow of various things characterizes a > harmonious condition in which the qi4 > is well interconnected and> inter-communicating between the various> systems and sub-systems that traditional> anatomy and physiology identify. The> flow is not the qi4 but a characteristic> of qi4...just one. It has other characteristics> and to leave them out is an error.> > And I don't think this can be dismissed> as a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretations> of these words and ideas.> > It's really not such a far-fetched idea> from a very traditional point of view.> What is the theory of the viscera> and bowels, but a statement of the patterns> of communication between the principal> internal structures and systems of the> body?> > > > > > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen.> > Then please draw the limits for me> clearly and help me understand what> you mean.> > -- My statement about your tendency to philosophical thought was not meant as a put-down. We have agreed once before each person has certain interests, biases, and tendencies in thinking which lead to differences in opinion. I simply find much of your discussion more philosophical than I prefer to think when it comes to Chinese medicine. I too know the Chinese word tong1 means connect or communicate. However, I really don't see how this meaning helps us understand the concept of pain as it appears in the saying "tong ze bu tong."This morning I have e-mailed a number of professors at Chinese medical colleges in the PRC as well as native Chinese practitioners of CM medicine living and working in the U.S. asking them which meaning of tong1 they believe is most germane to understanding the saying in question. Realistically, I don't think we can ignore what the Chinese say they intend when they use a certain term in a specific instance.When I get some responses, I will post these as a continuation to this thread.> > > > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in> > > understanding and dealing with pain is the> > > fact of its highly subjective nature. One> > > individual's pain is another's pleasure and> > > vice versa. > > > > Again, let's keep this common sense.> > I think it's altogether common sense to> recognize that if you're going to be doing> assessment of pain as part of diagnosis in> traditional Chinese medicine you should keep> in mind that what one person refers to as > pain another would not even stop to consider> as sensation. If you don't maintain this> perspective on pain, you can err in its> evaluation by relating to it as if it were> a static property of people.> > People have been talking about > > "injuries," presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting > oneself. > > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, > in > > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > > others.> > I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningful> answer to an individual's experience of pain> is to be found in that individual's own mind,> body, symptoms, statements, etc. This gets> at the same error in orientation of basic> theory that I mentioned before, i.e. the> fitting of situations to theory. Theory > exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention.> It is not really meant as an analytic tool> for abstract reckoning. It's a tool for> for doing work in the clinic. > > Trying to come up with a theoretical explanation> of why some people experience pain more acutely> than others leads in the direction of creating> fixed ideas related to pain. Some people are> this way or that way and thus experience pain> more or less acutely. Such conclusions could> lead a clinician to approach people as if they> were expected to fit into one of these patterns.> > This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out,> applied to the patient, set aside if they don't> match, substituted, changed during the course> of treatment, etc. The idea that some people have> more of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experience> pain seems not just limited but limiting to me. But> as I said below, I still haven't fully grasped > your postulates on the subject. I will certainly> continue to think about them.> -- I was not suggesting retrofitting a pattern to a patient. Anyone familiar with my teaching knows that I am very much opposed to that. However, what I was suggesting is that, in my experience, certain types of patients with certain patterns produced by certain disease mechanisms seem to be more prone to hypersensitivity to pain than others. I also hypothesized on the mechanisms that might account for that hypersensitivity. Chinese doctors do this all the time. We wouldn't have any textbooks of CM if we didn't engage in this sort of process. > > > > If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose > words > > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.?> > Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Only> that it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choose> words that consciously liken the changes of qi4 to> those of water, there are several answers that suggest> themselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually.> > First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric function> of Chinese language that is meant not only as a way> of imparting a good deal of information in just a few> words, but also as a training regimen for the human> mind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study of> the language can help an individual develop.> > I find that Chinese classical writing can hardly> ever be taken at face value. There are always layers> of meaning that one has to peel away, peer through,> or otherwise take into consideration. It's another> factor that makes the study of the language both> challenging and rewarding.> > Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisons> in Chinese classical literature, one of the first> decisions that face a reader is how to take it. Is> it, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a more> concrete description. Of course the same thing holds> for statements that appear to be concrete descriptions.> > And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.> That is, a full understanding of the text often > results from the reader's merging of the metaphoric> and non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question.> > I suggest that the water metaphor for the movements> of qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding.> They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they really> attempt to present a concrete image of the movement of> qi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I think> the message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4,> is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions.> But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see its> traces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4.> > One of the big problems in limiting the understanding> of qi4 to strictly "energetic" terms, i.e. to consider> that it is something that flows through the body like> a river or stream, is that this approach naturally leads> one to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, looking> for something all day long that cannot be seen will not> likely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets us> all up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators,> guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finally> throw up their hands in despair announcing to the world> that it doesn't exist after all.> > So I think this is an important point. It's what> motivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4.> > Further, it > > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows > east); > > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for > th > > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a > stream > > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > > unstable, weak. > > Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrong> to want precise verbal definitions. I'm not a> scholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fuss> about the meaning and use of words because> they are my stock in trade. If we don't look> after 'em, who will?> > > > > > > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the > spirit > > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of > the > > spirit qi.> > I have now read this sentence at least> a dozen times, and I have to admit that> I don't know what you mean. I get hung> up right at the start, because I don't > know what you mean by sensation as a > function of consciousness. I tend to see> sensation as part of the substrate of> consciousness, i.e. consciousness relies> on sensation to a far greater degree than> sensation relies upon consciousness. > -- Sorry, having read the sentence over myself several times, this is exactly what I mean. Sensation is a function of the spirit brilliance (shen ming) which is a synonym for the functional aspects of the spirit qi and the spirit qi is the qi which accumulates in the heart. Therefore, we should be able to describe hyper and hyposensitivity in terms of the function and movement of the qi. When doing research for our psych book, one of the interesting pieces of information I came across was that 20% of the population is described as hypersensitive. The authors of that article assumed that this hypersensitivity was a function of nature, not nurture. If so, we should be able to describe and account for this with CM theory. > You can produce sensations in an unconscious> person, cause sensory responses of various> kinds, and so on. But I don't think that > there can be consciousness without sensation.> Consciousness is, in part at least, awareness> of sensation, or more precisely, awareness of> self being aware of sensation. This is a rough> paraphrase of the approach to understanding> consciousness contained in Damasio's The Feeling> of What Happens, that we've talked about before> if I remember correctly.-- I think you would agree that shen ming only refers to conscious sensation and that is all we are talking about in the context of this discussion. As Chinese doctor, as a Buddhist yogi and lopon, and as a human being, I accept Damasio's definition, but I don't see what bearing that definition has on our discussion.> > > I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is "not pain," I picked that example > > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses > that > > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I > still > > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is > a > > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my > own > > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of "old > Chinese > > doctors" (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it.> > Well, my comments were and are limited to> the sense in which theory is applied generally.> It would certainly be interesting to get the> feedback of some Chinese experts. > > And it is certainly useful to be able to> talk it over with you. > > Thanks,> > KenMe too.Bob> >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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 Ken: Can you recommend a list of authors or books you like reading for commentary and analysis of classical literature? My favorites have already been mentioned in previous posts---but I would add Donald Harper, Elisabeth de la Rochat, and Claude Larre to that list. Jim Ramholz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 IT would be interesting to see if opium is in the Materia Medica somewhere? Z'ev do you have it any of your resources? Others? > > 1 > > So the question returns to whether an herb or drug like morphine can be > called a blood mover. You seem to be saying since the drug has no > actual effect on blood circulation from a western perspective, but > merely blocks pain receptors, it does not actually cause movement. And > also that the condition of blood stasis (presumably from a TCM > perspective) is not really altered. That morphine does not lead to any > healing, such as the way an herb like hong hua, dan shen, chaun xiong > do. I'll add that most of the herbs I can think of that move blood in > TCM also alter circulation in WM. The thing that occurs to me as I > write this is that when one takes morphine or other opiates for pain > (many people are familiar with vicodin for dental work, as an example), > the perception of the patient is a restoration of qi flow, albeit > temporary. Can you clarify this? I am unclear what that means... (restoration of qi flow)? I am not sure that it says anywhere in the CM literature > that blood mover leads to healing. You are right, I have never read this.. But it seems that there is always some long-term, short-term healing or substantial (tangible) results associated with all blood movers - something more than just pain relief. So what is actually happening when blood and qi is moved? And if one were just to block the perception (i.e. with a hypnotic audio signal, or other external sources) I don't think that qi or xue is being moved (in at least a local area) to stop the pain (from a CM perspective). There is obviously qi movement in the brain, but this does not seem to be what the Chinese are talking about... or could it be? I get the impression qi/xue movement is in reference to 'the' local area (directly relational to the pain). What do you think? What more do the Chinese say about pain? It is a branch or excess pathology, > after all. Isn't it this change in subjective perception the basis of > all understanding in TCM. For example, an herb may lead to altered > perception of heat effusion without altering body temperature. > Nevertheless, could such an herb be said to have a heat clearing > function anyway? On a concrete level, taking morphine allows one who > is doubled over or crying in agony, who can't move even the slightest > bit to have their freedom of movement or function restored. Interesting point... something obviously has moved... So if pain is just pure perception, and if we can influence this perception with herbals or external sources I guess we are moving qi...? -JAson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 Jim, As I've told you in the past, my reading in the English language literature is way behind. However, there are a couple of truly enlightening bits of stuff I've come across for those who want some hard to come by insight into the nature of classical literature. Anything by Lin Yu Tang. And I think I've mentioned before on this list that the introduction to Original Dao by Roger Ames is one of the best exegesis of Han dynasty thought that I've ever read. I'm glad that you keep asking me for this kind of list as it reminds me that I really should sit down and do it up properly. But in the meantime, anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the methods and meanings of classical Chinese literarature can do far worse than to read as much LYT as they can get their hands on. Ken > Ken: > > Can you recommend a list of authors or books you like reading for > commentary and analysis of classical literature? > > My favorites have already been mentioned in previous posts---but I > would add Donald Harper, Elisabeth de la Rochat, and Claude Larre to > that list. > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 4, 2002 , " " <@o...> wrote: > > > Interesting point... something obviously has moved... So if pain is > just pure perception, and if we can influence this perception with > herbals or external sources I guess we are moving qi...? given the disparity in pain thresholds between diferent people and because pain can be changed with mental methods and placebo effect, it would seem that perception is a major aspect of pain or any sensation. Since we can only actually experience sx in our consciousness (dead men feel no pain ...), anything that alters perception must alter qi flow. this does not mean healing occurs or that this is wholly good. Many herbs that increase qi and blood flow have side effects and contraindications. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 5, 2002 At 12:34 AM +0000 1/5/02, dragon90405 wrote: >Anything by Lin Yu Tang. -- I had a patient who was a professor of Chinese literature at UC Berkeley, and Lin Yutang was his main author for teaching. He recommended I start with The Importance of Living, which I bought for $3.98 used. When I've finished my current reading (Bones of the Master by George Crane - highly recommended) I'll start with the Lin book. Rory -- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 5, 2002 Many herbs that increase qi and blood flow have side effects and contraindications.>>> I think the question is also with CM thinking should we look beyond pain being only do to lack of free flow Alon - 1 Saturday, January 05, 2002 12:29 AM Re: Qi regulation , "" <@o...> wrote:> > > Interesting point... something obviously has moved... So if pain is> just pure perception, and if we can influence this perception with> herbals or external sources I guess we are moving qi...?given the disparity in pain thresholds between diferent people and because pain can be changed with mental methods and placebo effect, it would seem that perception is a major aspect of pain or any sensation. Since we can only actually experience sx in our consciousness (dead men feel no pain ...), anything that alters perception must alter qi flow. this does not mean healing occurs or that this is wholly good. Many herbs that increase qi and blood flow have side effects and contraindications.Todd 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
