Verifiable Physical Substrate

[Guest guest]

 

 

> A verifiable physical substrate or mediator for transmission of signals is

> critical to my acceptance of manaka's ideas, regardless of whether he or

> anyone else felt that was unnecessary or irrelevant. I may be dense in that I

> don't get the subtle. I just don't think CM is about the subtle; I think it is

 

Yes, you are correct. If there is no fascia, if the fascia is not electrically-

active, Manaka's ideas are contradicted. However, the fascia has been

shown to be all of these things since Svyent-Gogy's work in the 1950's.

There is nothing non-physical or " etherial " about anything in Manaka's

description of the fascia, nor is there any big question about these fascial

properties in contemporary science. The currents used in Manaka's

experiments are low-level because the connectivity would otherwise be

dismissed as nervous system activity, however they are measurable and

require no faith in the " subtle. "

 

The point here is that Manaka's ideas do not depend upon non-systematic

channels, nor do they propose such, and that the fascia is no less a physical

substrate -- what Svyent-Gogry called " the ground substance " -- than the

structures Kendall writes-about.

 

 

Bob

 

 

 

Robert L. Felt bob

Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com

202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758

Taos, New Mexico 87571

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

 

> Yes, you are correct. If there is no fascia, if the fascia is not

electrically-

> active, Manaka's ideas are contradicted. However, the fascia has been

> shown to be all of these things since Svyent-Gogy's work in the 1950's.

> There is nothing non-physical or " etherial " about anything in Manaka's

> description of the fascia, nor is there any big question about these fascial

> properties in contemporary science.

 

nor is there any question in my mind about the fascia being electrically

active. the question still remains as to whether discrete fascial pathways

exist through which the x-signals flow. and will those pathways, if ever

mapped, resemble the neijing desriptions of the jingluo. If the jingluo have no

reality, then why were they mapped. and again, how could the internal

pathways and collaterals been determined if the architecture is invisible to

the naked eye. the fact that the fascia transmit electrical signals does not

prove these signals play a large role in regulating body function. I believe

most mainstream physiologists consider this electricity to be of no

significance, basically cellular discharge like heat. So I still think while

the

fascia might be such a substrate, I am unsatisfied as to the evidence that

proves this to be a vital communication and regulatory medium. and the

centralpoint still remains to me as to whether the existence of independent

" channels " is ever actually postulated in the nei jing. Because if it is not,

and

this is the crux of Deke's case, then it serves no purpose to explain something

which never existed in the first place. However, to play double devil's

advocate, if Deke is right, how come the prevailing view amongst the chinese

themselves is the channel view? Or is it?

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> fascia might be such a substrate, I am unsatisfied as to the

evidence that

> proves this to be a vital communication and regulatory medium. and the

> centralpoint still remains to me as to whether the existence of

independent

> " channels " is ever actually postulated in the nei jing. Because if

it is not, and

> this is the crux of Deke's case, then it serves no purpose to

explain something

> which never existed in the first place. However, to play double

 

Rather than just look at what Deke says regarding the channels

structures compared to what is said in Neijing, maybe a critical look

at what Deke says about channel usage in treatment would be more

revealing.

 

I know you think I should read the book, and, in time, I will.

 

It was mentioned that, according to Deke, the points are not on the

channels (blood vessels), but rather are neuruvascular junctions near

the blood vessels. What does the Neijing have to say about point

location. I have never read anything (in English) to suggest that the

points on the primary hand taiyin channel, for instance, were not

actually on the channel. By the time the Systematic Classic of

Acupuncture and Moxibustion came around, point location had a

standardization, as did the location of the primary channels. Did

these not correspond? When I read (in English) that a primary channel

passes through this point and branches off at that point, should I

think that it meant something else?

 

When I read the book, it will be interesting to see if Deke's ideas

can hold up pass the gross anatomy vs. Neijing channel decription. At

this point, I do not have faith, but I am open minded. Unless the

other commonly accepted classical notions regarding the channels, not

just the primary ones, as well as the classical notions regarding

points " on " the channels also correspond easily and seemlessly to

Deke's ideas, then I do not see how it would be of value.

 

Brian C. Allen