Manaka V. Kendal

[Guest guest]

 

 

> 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.

 

What are your referring to here?

 

Manaka challenges the " current in a wire " model of unidirectional channel

circulation and uses many easy-to-perform experiments with pressure pain

and magnets to demonstrate that the channel system respond to polarity.

However, this is not the same as saying that the channels are independent

entities. His " biological information system " idea is that the classical

descriptions of " energy flow " are " software " derived from the observation of

propagated sensations, needle stimulus, dermatological phenomena and the

clinical relationships between acupoints. He uses changes in pressure pain

from one side to another based on, for example, stretching of the channel by

limb movement to demonstrate that pressure pain is not necessarily

diagnostic of organ pathology but he does not propose a lack of

interconnectivity. In fact, he proposes that tradition channel theory

describes a subset of polar relationships within the human body.

 

His point is that the traditional channel theory describes a clinicaly

applicable set of relationships within the bodily information system that can

be used in treatment by understanding their polar aspects. An anatomical

presence for the channel system is hardly critical to his ideas; it is largely

irrelevant. The image of the human body that emerges from Manaka's

descriptions is more one where every cell can be influenced by every other

cell, rather than one of disconnected channel entities.

 

Kendall is proposing that the Suwen shows that its authors were expressing

their understanding of anatmo-physiological relationships within in the

human body. This makes for an essentially apples-to-oranges comparison

to Manaka, as well as to Unschuld. Whether Kendall's thesis is right or

wrong has no bearing on the biological information system Manaka

proposes, (as physiology responds to biological information). Neither is it

" disproof " of Unschuld's description of what the Suwen shows us about the

formative roots of CM.

 

Bob

 

 

Robert L. Felt bob

Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com

202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758

Taos, New Mexico 87571