manaka vs. kendall

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

 

> However, I think that channels and network vessels and qi are more

> than just neuro-vascular networks. I personally think the

> informational model developed by Dr. Yoshio Manaka is more

> sophisticated in its understanding, especially in its reference to

> cutting edge knowledge in biology and physics.

 

Manaka's model is based upon the assumption that the channels are

independent entities through which chanel qi flows. If he is wrong about this

premise, then his model collapses. there is as yet no anatomical evidence

that Manaka is correct. I think Deke raises a good challenge to that model by

disputing the existence of channels in the first place. While I also am drawn

to the systems science based information model Manaka espouses, it has

always been unsatisfying as there is no verified substrate for action in this

model. I think the information model ultimately appeals to the same people

who once were more drawn to the metaphysical nature of qi. Now, having

rejected that, many such as myself have attempted to replace the mystical

metaphysical model with one that is scientifically metaphysical. By lacking

any physical substrate to satisfactorily correlate with the distribution of

information, this information model is the definition of metaphysical (beyond

physical).

 

My own writings on qi have left the matter unsettled. I felt that qi flow was

more of a perception than an energy or force of any kind - the flipside of the

coin for which the other is biochemistry (an analogy would be the labeling of

anger vs. the biochemical mediaotrs thereof). And when we use qi to mean

organ function, it definitely has no life of its own in this context - just an

umbrella term for the general nature of the organs functions. In other words,

if you add up the liver physiological functions, they all contribute to

maintaining free distribution of qi and blood. While I believe systems have

the tendency to self-organize, this seems to be an inherent property of nature,

not one dependent on some mysterious invisible force.

 

Another thing to be asked is what type of information could possibly be

transmitted over the channel network. One theory is that it is basically

piezoelectric upon the concept of transmission through crystalline structured

connective tissue. But hormones and enzymes are capable of encoding much

more complex information than can be contained in a piezoelectric charge. So

while not disputing that piezoelectric cell communication via connective

tissue occur and may contribute to qi effects, it does not make sense to me

that this system, if it exists, could be the prime mediator of such complex

information sharing. The body is designed to share information in a fluid

medium using biochemicals and ions; it is very easy and reproducible to prove

that manipulating those biochemicals causes predictable changes in

physiology. Manaka's experiments do not clarify what mediated the

therapeutic response, just that his ideas work clinically as expected. But all

his data could also be explained by Deke's theories, IMO.

 

[Guest guest]

By lacking

any physical substrate to satisfactorily correlate with the distribution of

information, this information model is the definition of metaphysical (beyond

physical).

 

>>>Todd i have to agree with you about most of the post. I also think that the

reaction to Qi not being " energy " is the new emotional and group phenomenon of

those that want to feel sophisticated and educated. Energy is such a broad

concept that even communication as the new fad likes to call qi can be described

as energy. Energy like qi is usually used to describe abstract (except when used

in physics) .

As far as monaka and all the other models, they are only models and non even

come close to explain what we know about physiology. I think Duke's attempt to

make the channels the vascular system does make some sense because we know that

human dissection took place during the Han. Why would they conceive of imaged

channels were they could clearly see the vascular and neural system? Who knows?

Remember that PU even says we do not know what they meant by saying muscle and

sinews.

I like to think of the channels as similar to the immune system. While it is a

clear system it does not have a simple physical substrate.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

This sounds reasonable, but how does that conflict with the Manaka

model?

 

 

On Mar 8, 2004, at 4:40 PM, alon marcus wrote:

 

> I like to think of the channels as similar to the immune system. While

> it is a clear system it does not have a simple physical substrate.

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Well, we don't want to digress into " what is Qi? " :-) but I am willing to

accept that Qi

is a " material substance " as it has been described so many times by chinese

docs.

Metaphysical as you describe it is not how I see it. I see it more as " not yet

measurable or quantifiable " than " beyond physical " . But it is just my faith (and

I guess

my subjective observations) that there is something beyond, above, surrounding

what

we, as scientists, can measure. Some of that is beyond physical, some of it

Western

Science will catch up. For me, this profession would be dull without that faith.

doug

 

, " " wrote:

> , " " <zrosenbe@s...>

> wrote:

>

> > However, I think that channels and network vessels and qi are more

> > than just neuro-vascular networks. I personally think the

> > informational model developed by Dr. Yoshio Manaka is more

> > sophisticated in its understanding, especially in its reference to

> > cutting edge knowledge in biology and physics.

>

> Manaka's model is based upon the assumption that the channels are

> independent entities through which chanel qi flows. If he is wrong about this

> premise, then his model collapses. there is as yet no anatomical evidence

> that Manaka is correct. I think Deke raises a good challenge to that model by

> disputing the existence of channels in the first place. While I also am drawn

> to the systems science based information model Manaka espouses, it has

> always been unsatisfying as there is no verified substrate for action in this

> model. I think the information model ultimately appeals to the same people

> who once were more drawn to the metaphysical nature of qi. Now, having

> rejected that, many such as myself have attempted to replace the mystical

> metaphysical model with one that is scientifically metaphysical. By lacking

> any physical substrate to satisfactorily correlate with the distribution of

> information, this information model is the definition of metaphysical (beyond

> physical).

>

> My own writings on qi have left the matter unsettled. I felt that qi flow was

> more of a perception than an energy or force of any kind - the flipside of the

> coin for which the other is biochemistry (an analogy would be the labeling of

> anger vs. the biochemical mediaotrs thereof). And when we use qi to mean

> organ function, it definitely has no life of its own in this context - just an

> umbrella term for the general nature of the organs functions. In other words,

> if you add up the liver physiological functions, they all contribute to

> maintaining free distribution of qi and blood. While I believe systems have

> the tendency to self-organize, this seems to be an inherent property of

nature,

> not one dependent on some mysterious invisible force.

>

> Another thing to be asked is what type of information could possibly be

> transmitted over the channel network. One theory is that it is basically

> piezoelectric upon the concept of transmission through crystalline structured

> connective tissue. But hormones and enzymes are capable of encoding much

> more complex information than can be contained in a piezoelectric charge. So

> while not disputing that piezoelectric cell communication via connective

> tissue occur and may contribute to qi effects, it does not make sense to me

> that this system, if it exists, could be the prime mediator of such complex

> information sharing. The body is designed to share information in a fluid

> medium using biochemicals and ions; it is very easy and reproducible to prove

> that manipulating those biochemicals causes predictable changes in

> physiology. Manaka's experiments do not clarify what mediated the

> therapeutic response, just that his ideas work clinically as expected. But

all

> his data could also be explained by Deke's theories, IMO.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> As far as monaka and all the other models, they are only models and

non even come close to explain what we know about physiology. I think

Duke's attempt to make the channels the vascular system does make some

sense because we know that human dissection took place during the Han.

Why would they conceive of imaged channels were they could clearly see

the vascular and neural system? Who knows? Remember that PU even says

we do not know what they meant by saying muscle and sinews.

 

Several people have commented on Deke's model making sense, but

because I have not read Deke's ideas, I decided not comment specifically.

 

However, I cannot help but to be disturbed by the notion of needling

the blood vessels and / or nerves. This does not seem right. If

someone believes the hand taiyin channel is an artery, why not needle

it (the artery) and see if you can calm wheezing?

 

I would imagine that it is not this simple, so if Deke's model is more

sophisticated, then I hope someone could expound, because given the

above notion, it seems not so well thought out.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

> , " alon marcus "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

> > As far as monaka and all the other models, they are only models and

> non even come close to explain what we know about physiology. I think

> Duke's attempt to make the channels the vascular system does make some

> sense because we know that human dissection took place during the Han.

> Why would they conceive of imaged channels were they could clearly see

> the vascular and neural system? Who knows? Remember that PU even says

> we do not know what they meant by saying muscle and sinews.

>

> Several people have commented on Deke's model making sense, but

> because I have not read Deke's ideas, I decided not comment

specifically.

>

> However, I cannot help but to be disturbed by the notion of needling

> the blood vessels and / or nerves. This does not seem right. If

> someone believes the hand taiyin channel is an artery, why not needle

> it (the artery) and see if you can calm wheezing?

>

> I would imagine that it is not this simple, so if Deke's model is more

> sophisticated, then I hope someone could expound, because given the

> above notion, it seems not so well thought out.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

Along those same lines, How does Kendall's idea account for

non-insertion needling? Yes we can easily see a physical response

with many styles of acupuncture, but others are more subtle which DO

deal with 'QI'... Maybe his interpretation has room for this, and if

someone could explain this I would like to hear it... My personal

evolution in acupuncture has demonstrated that there is something very

tangible yet subtle but not necessarily physical. Yet physical

changes do come about... Obviously we can not assume that science has

all the answers and account for everything observed. Therefore it is

just as reasonable that at the moment the scientific approach is

trying to fit a square peg into a round whole. I would like to know

how such a system (also) explains different effects by moving a

non-insertion acupuncture point a few millimeters. Or how different

points do different things to the body… Can anyone further elaborate

on this?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

This sounds reasonable, but how does that conflict with the Manaka

model?

>>>>>The monaka model is based upon the fascial substrate and DC systems which

do not even come close of explaining the complexity of the various systems and

communication methods the body uses

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

However, I cannot help but to be disturbed by the notion of needling

the blood vessels and / or nerves. This does not seem right. If

someone believes the hand taiyin channel is an artery, why not needle

it (the artery) and see if you can calm wheezing?

 

>>>>Great point

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

How does Kendall's idea account for

non-insertion needling?

 

>>>The electrical models explain it well

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I was going to ask the question this morning, " what about qi gong " and also

raise some issues about the blood. but these questions will suffice for

jumping off. first of all, for those who do not know me, I like to play devil's

advocate. Deke's ideas deserve to be aired and discussed. He spent his life

developing them and he is adamant about their veracity. I am making a case as

a lawyer or investigative journalist might. I have no idea where the evidence

will lead, butI am definitely curious. That being said,it is really hard to

engage in this discussion like any discussion without being literally on the

same page.

 

In order to dispute Deke,one must at least read his book, consider the

anatomical correlations he makes (which will require extensive consultation

with charts and drawings of the body), the linguistic issues (what does jing

mai mean?) and the huge bodyof research he cites tomake his case. No oneis

claiming Deke is deceitful, so we canassume he has chosen high quality

research to make his case. Nevertheless, one must actually go to the sources

or at least read the abstracts of relevant studies. I suppose one could just

dismiss it all out of hand based solely upon personal philosophy or experience,

but in that case, this conversation is over for me.

 

 

> >

> > However, I cannot help but to be disturbed by the notion of needling

> > the blood vessels and / or nerves. This does not seem right. If

> > someone believes the hand taiyin channel is an artery, why not needle

> > it (the artery) and see if you can calm wheezing?

 

If you read the book, you will see that what Deke says are being needled are

neurovascular nodes that arise along the course of the vessels, not the

vessels themselves.

 

 

> Along those same lines, How does Kendall's idea account for

> non-insertion needling? Yes we can easily see a physical response

> with many styles of acupuncture, but others are more subtle which DO

> deal with 'QI'... Maybe his interpretation has room for this, and if

> someone could explain this I would like to hear it...

 

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by non-insertion needling and

responses that occur on some other level than physical. If you touch the body,

even if just lightly, you influence points. Since I do believe the human body

generates an electromagnetic field and I do believe one can alter physiology

with one's mind, it is not at all outside the realm of science to me that one

might be able to at least briefly concentrate this field in the hands or

fingertips. Or perhaps it is the concentration of heat in the extermities that

accomplishes this. The increased focused burst of infrared or EM energy

would stimulate the points or channels/vessels, thus influencing physiology.

Just a thought. I can not dispute what you believe based upon your evolution

in acupuncture, but I do not believe anything happens without a physical

mediator or substrate of some kind. I would probably relegate the subtle

wholly non-physical effects you allege to the realm of placebo until I see

reproducible evidence of their existence.

 

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, which members consider

themselves primarily motivated by spiritual interests, mysticism,

metaphysics, etc. In other words, did one come into the field for such

reasons? And do you still consider these to be important motivators today?

Did you choose CM because of the word spirit in body, mind and spirit or for

some other reason? The case has been made by Bob Flaws that spirit (shen) is

not at all a mystical concept in CM (see chinese medical psych). Kendall

makes an even more detailed case. I suspect that throughout allof chinese

history, their were mystics and pragmatists. As Bob has mentioned in the

past,many of our disagreements come down to fundamental irreconcilable

differences about things like faith or metaphysics (which are not the same

thing - note the shifting alliances as we move from one topic to the other). I

have made it clear that mysticism and metaphysics once overtly drove me, but

no longer, yet I still easily and often blindly fall back into such a mode of

thinking (albeit disguised).