Swallowing phlegm

[Guest guest]

I wonder if it's a " lost in translation " issue....

 

spittle that accumulates when the yin and yang connect between Ren 24 and Du

28 is like the jade spring

and should be preserved like sexual fluids (jing)... related to the KD

(pre-heaven).

 

saliva that contains digestive enzymes should also be preserved

(post-heaven) - SP/ST

 

but phlegm? that seems like it should be expelled from the body...

thoughts?

 

K

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Sara Anllo <sara.anllo wrote:

 

>

>

> I remember that when we studied qi gong in school, we learned exercises for

> each of the 5 phases/elements, and the SP exercise involved swallowing

> saliva, the fluid of the Spleen. However, saliva is a normal physiological

> fluid, while phlegm is pathological, thus it seems a little odd that a

> pathological fluid would be seen as serving any healthful purpose in the

> body.

>

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:49 AM, A. Brameier

<snakeoil.works<snakeoil.works%40verizon.net>>wrote:

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > Grim way to start the day, eh? But an acquaintance of mine is seeing an

> > acupuncturist (Chinese from Vietnam) for, among other things, lung issues

> > (partly derived from exposure to contaminated air around 9/11). This

> > acupuncturist told him that one should not bring up and spit out

> > expectorated phlegm, but should swallow it, as it aids in the stomach

> > digestion. Otherwise, if one does not, the lungs will produce more liquid

> > and it will take longer to get better.

> >

> > This triggered a vague memory of something like this that I'd heard in

> the

> > past, but I can't exactly recall the context, whether some kind of qi

> gong

> > practice or what have you.

> > Does anyone have any idea where this could come from?

> >

> > Naturally a google may alert you that this discussion has indeed

> fluttered

> > around the nets for a while (what hasn't?) But I don't see a resolution.

> >

> > Anybody got some (ahem) clarity?

> >

> > ann

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I've been told to swallow saliva during qi gong too, and even do morning qi

gong before urinating.

 

But I've never run into the benefits of swallowing phlegm. Western medicine

says it's no big deal, so I don't let it weird me out too much, but given

the opportunity, I prefer to spit it out. Preferably with as much velocity

and distance as possible. Lacking that, I shoot for accuracy.

 

It's an inner ten-year-old boy thing.

 

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, A. Brameier <snakeoil.workswrote:

 

> hi Sara,

> thanks for the comment. That is in line w/ a practice I recall from some qi

> gong instruction. I would tend to agree w/ your comment re saliva vs.

> phlegm.

> You'd think on this list there'd be lots of folks who might have been

> exposed to this idea... if it had any prevalence at all.

>

> Let's see what others might say...

> ann

>

>

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

http://twitter.com/algancao

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well, i've definitely heard of the saliva swallowing thing as preserving fluids,

etc. And by all means, hang on to that amylase and lipase.

Maybe this phlegm swallowing thing was some crackpot Chinese doc's idea of how

to keep ppl from spitting all over the streets - you know how spitting was

banned in NYC during TB epidemics, for instance.

 

Bet you're good at belching too, Al. :-)

 

a

 

On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Al Stone wrote:

 

> I've been told to swallow saliva during qi gong too, and even do morning qi

> gong before urinating.

>

> But I've never run into the benefits of swallowing phlegm. Western medicine

> says it's no big deal, so I don't let it weird me out too much, but given

> the opportunity, I prefer to spit it out. Preferably with as much velocity

> and distance as possible. Lacking that, I shoot for accuracy.

>

> It's an inner ten-year-old boy thing.

>

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:27 AM, A. Brameier

<snakeoil.workswrote:

>

> > hi Sara,

> > thanks for the comment. That is in line w/ a practice I recall from some qi

> > gong instruction. I would tend to agree w/ your comment re saliva vs.

> > phlegm.

> > You'd think on this list there'd be lots of folks who might have been

> > exposed to this idea... if it had any prevalence at all.

> >

> > Let's see what others might say...

> > ann

> >

> >

> --

> , DAOM

> Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

> http://twitter.com/algancao

>

>

[Guest guest]

I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when this

subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and others,

I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat. If

the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin, then

the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the phlegm

may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its response

to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to make

more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in some

way.

 

The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to think it

through.

 

RoseAnne

 

 

 

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM, <johnkokko wrote:

 

> I wonder if it's a " lost in translation " issue....

>

> spittle that accumulates when the yin and yang connect between Ren 24 and

> Du

> 28 is like the jade spring

> and should be preserved like sexual fluids (jing)... related to the KD

> (pre-heaven).

>

> saliva that contains digestive enzymes should also be preserved

> (post-heaven) - SP/ST

>

> but phlegm? that seems like it should be expelled from the body...

> thoughts?

>

> K

>

>

>

>

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Sara Anllo <sara.anllo wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > I remember that when we studied qi gong in school, we learned exercises

> for

> > each of the 5 phases/elements, and the SP exercise involved swallowing

> > saliva, the fluid of the Spleen. However, saliva is a normal

> physiological

> > fluid, while phlegm is pathological, thus it seems a little odd that a

> > pathological fluid would be seen as serving any healthful purpose in the

> > body.

> >

> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:49 AM, A. Brameier <snakeoil.works

> <snakeoil.works%40verizon.net>>wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Grim way to start the day, eh? But an acquaintance of mine is seeing an

> > > acupuncturist (Chinese from Vietnam) for, among other things, lung

> issues

> > > (partly derived from exposure to contaminated air around 9/11). This

> > > acupuncturist told him that one should not bring up and spit out

> > > expectorated phlegm, but should swallow it, as it aids in the stomach

> > > digestion. Otherwise, if one does not, the lungs will produce more

> liquid

> > > and it will take longer to get better.

> > >

> > > This triggered a vague memory of something like this that I'd heard in

> > the

> > > past, but I can't exactly recall the context, whether some kind of qi

> > gong

> > > practice or what have you.

> > > Does anyone have any idea where this could come from?

> > >

> > > Naturally a google may alert you that this discussion has indeed

> > fluttered

> > > around the nets for a while (what hasn't?) But I don't see a

> resolution.

> > >

> > > Anybody got some (ahem) clarity?

> > >

> > > ann

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Roseanne,

My son had some phlegm right now and had a hard time spitting it out...

not sure if he doesn't want to or just can't get it up. (He just turned 4)

 

Just put him in the steam from a hot shower (not his body, just breathing in

the steam).

That stopped the coughing, which was his body's way of trying to breathe,

open up his air passages

and expel the phlegm lodged in his lungs and throat.

 

So, 2 things.... kids usually go with what is natural (picking their noses

to take phlegm out of their nasal passages,

spitting up or swallowing their own phlegm)

 

and dislodging the phlegm to stop coughing is helpful.

 

My vote from having yucky phlegm in the past is that getting rid of phlegm

is better than retaining it... hence our whole tradition of phlegm

releasing/ expelling/ vaporizing herbs and formulas.

 

I think that some cultures make taboos against spitting on the ground when

you're sick,

because that's a way to spread pathogens, especially since a lot of people

sit on the ground in other cultures.

 

K

 

 

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

roseanne.spradlin wrote:

 

>

>

> I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

> experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when this

> subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and others,

> I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat. If

> the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin, then

> the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the phlegm

> may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its response

> to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to make

> more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in some

> way.

>

> The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to think it

> through.

>

> RoseAnne

>

>

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM,

<johnkokko<johnkokko%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > I wonder if it's a " lost in translation " issue....

> >

> > spittle that accumulates when the yin and yang connect between Ren 24 and

> > Du

> > 28 is like the jade spring

> > and should be preserved like sexual fluids (jing)... related to the KD

> > (pre-heaven).

> >

> > saliva that contains digestive enzymes should also be preserved

> > (post-heaven) - SP/ST

> >

> > but phlegm? that seems like it should be expelled from the body...

> > thoughts?

> >

> > K

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Sara Anllo

<sara.anllo<sara.anllo%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I remember that when we studied qi gong in school, we learned exercises

> > for

> > > each of the 5 phases/elements, and the SP exercise involved swallowing

> > > saliva, the fluid of the Spleen. However, saliva is a normal

> > physiological

> > > fluid, while phlegm is pathological, thus it seems a little odd that a

> > > pathological fluid would be seen as serving any healthful purpose in

> the

> > > body.

> > >

> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:49 AM, A. Brameier <

> snakeoil.works <snakeoil.works%40verizon.net>

> > <snakeoil.works%40verizon.net>>wrote:

>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Grim way to start the day, eh? But an acquaintance of mine is seeing

> an

> > > > acupuncturist (Chinese from Vietnam) for, among other things, lung

> > issues

> > > > (partly derived from exposure to contaminated air around 9/11). This

> > > > acupuncturist told him that one should not bring up and spit out

> > > > expectorated phlegm, but should swallow it, as it aids in the stomach

> > > > digestion. Otherwise, if one does not, the lungs will produce more

> > liquid

> > > > and it will take longer to get better.

> > > >

> > > > This triggered a vague memory of something like this that I'd heard

> in

> > > the

> > > > past, but I can't exactly recall the context, whether some kind of qi

> > > gong

> > > > practice or what have you.

> > > > Does anyone have any idea where this could come from?

> > > >

> > > > Naturally a google may alert you that this discussion has indeed

> > > fluttered

> > > > around the nets for a while (what hasn't?) But I don't see a

> > resolution.

> > > >

> > > > Anybody got some (ahem) clarity?

> > > >

> > > > ann

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

sorry about previous response... clicked wrong button.

 

Anyway.... RoseAnne - good cogitating. Maybe, if you're currently studying w/

Jeffrey, you could ask him about this belief about swallowing phlegm (as

distinct from the idea of swallowing saliva).

 

ann

 

On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:39 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin wrote:

 

> I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

> experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when this

> subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and others,

> I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat. If

> the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin, then

> the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the phlegm

> may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its response

> to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to make

> more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in some

> way.

>

> The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to think it

> through.

>

> RoseAnne

>

> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM, <johnkokko wrote:

>

> > I wonder if it's a " lost in translation " issue....

> >

> > spittle that accumulates when the yin and yang connect between Ren 24 and

> > Du

> > 28 is like the jade spring

> > and should be preserved like sexual fluids (jing)... related to the KD

> > (pre-heaven).

> >

> > saliva that contains digestive enzymes should also be preserved

> > (post-heaven) - SP/ST

> >

> > but phlegm? that seems like it should be expelled from the body...

> > thoughts?

> >

> > K

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Sara Anllo <sara.anllo wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > I remember that when we studied qi gong in school, we learned exercises

> > for

> > > each of the 5 phases/elements, and the SP exercise involved swallowing

> > > saliva, the fluid of the Spleen. However, saliva is a normal

> > physiological

> > > fluid, while phlegm is pathological, thus it seems a little odd that a

> > > pathological fluid would be seen as serving any healthful purpose in the

> > > body.

> > >

> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:49 AM, A. Brameier <snakeoil.works

> > <snakeoil.works%40verizon.net>>wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Grim way to start the day, eh? But an acquaintance of mine is seeing an

> > > > acupuncturist (Chinese from Vietnam) for, among other things, lung

> > issues

> > > > (partly derived from exposure to contaminated air around 9/11). This

> > > > acupuncturist told him that one should not bring up and spit out

> > > > expectorated phlegm, but should swallow it, as it aids in the stomach

> > > > digestion. Otherwise, if one does not, the lungs will produce more

> > liquid

> > > > and it will take longer to get better.

> > > >

> > > > This triggered a vague memory of something like this that I'd heard in

> > > the

> > > > past, but I can't exactly recall the context, whether some kind of qi

> > > gong

> > > > practice or what have you.

> > > > Does anyone have any idea where this could come from?

> > > >

> > > > Naturally a google may alert you that this discussion has indeed

> > > fluttered

> > > > around the nets for a while (what hasn't?) But I don't see a

> > resolution.

> > > >

> > > > Anybody got some (ahem) clarity?

> > > >

> > > > ann

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

For what it's worth, while I appreciate RoseAnne's attempt to think about

the dynamic and responsive nature of physiology, in this case I don't think

there's anything down this path. Recycling turbid fluids in the form of

phlegm back to the stomach only puts more stress on it. The body will either

(successfully) draw more yang to rarify that turbidity (ripening in the St,

transforming and transporting by the Sp) which would reinforce stagnant

heat, or the person will develop some degree of turbidity in the St. I don't

see any benefits to the " normal " physiology of the stomach in swallowing

phlegm. It's energetically a bit like eating cold pizza, without the

potential nutritional value of the pizza's ingredients (if the person can

generate sufficient yang to digest it well).

 

I agree with 's suggestion that there are both individual

differences in how easily one can bring phlegm far enough forward to spit it

out and also cultural restrictions in many societies about spitting on the

ground. I understand it's even illegal with fairly severe punishments in

some countries.

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I guess I'll start here. First this is something I have thought about for

several years and and have brought up to my many colleagues who invoke Yuen in

their " responses " . For the record, I enjoy much of what Yuen has to say, but

this is a point to which I do indeed have a knee jerk reaction.

 

Lets separate the issues while trying to not to offend any one.

 

First, perhaps in the original case, the person is spitting out so much phlegm

that they are damaging lung or stomach yin. However, we as doctors shouldn't say

that swallowing phlegm is a particularly good idea that will ultimately cure the

body but try to cure the original cause. (I think the original suggestion was

misguided, mistaking pathological phlegm for spittle created by qi gong.) (and

as a friend suggested... not spitting is not something we associate with Chinese

culture.)

 

RoseAnne objects to my ascribing intelligence to " response " . This is delicate. I

have no doubt that their is a progression of disease. But this is a progression

of Disease is not a cure for the disease. I think the phrase is that the body

doesn't make healthy pathogens.

 

We have the tools of CM which posits a healthy body as a base. This is an

interaction of healthy (zheng, if you will) and pathogenic Qi. And the build up

of Xie is what causes our ill-health. No arguments there, OK? My objection is

that the " response " as presented here is a healthy response. Whereas I see it as

a cascade of pathogenic actions. Of course the production of phlegm is " healthy "

if the zheng overcomes the xie. However, if not then we need the intervention of

CM (or other modality).

 

------Steve wrote: During the vast majority of Chinese medical history pathology

has been

understood as a progression, which often transforms (because of the

individual's physiological responses to it -- all of which can be sorted

out), rather than a manifestation to be classified.----

 

Yes, I would agree that to transformation, of course. It is the " response " word

that gets me. This is what I am calling intelligence.

 

 

 

Again, in the original post from RoseAnne:

" That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and others,

> I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> dampness, heat will come as a response. "

 

Again, sorry to jump on this, but I find the Jeffrey Yuen point of view

inadequate as in CM we have a series of tools, the qi mechanism being the major

one that explains a progression.

 

 

RoseAnne wrote...

Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat.

 

This is what I mean by a body intelligence and I would argue that this is

exactly what creates an " unhealthy " body model. And I'm sure that Yuen, as would

we all, suggest that these responses, transformations, progressions must be

unraveled to find an ultimate cure.

 

Doug

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

I think you're reading a transgression of thinking into what I wrote where

there really isn't one. I wrote: " One or the other [heat or dampness] can

be seen as the primary pathological process. " By using the word " primary "

in my sentence, I am already acknowledging that there is also a " secondary "

pathological response.

 

I did not mean to imply - and I think I can say that Jeffrey doesn't present

the theory - that dampness is a " healthy " physiological response. My

understanding of what he presents (at this point in time) is that if

dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to create

a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. The dampness is still

pathological, but to collect damp fluids in an area may be preferable to

letting the heat burn deeper into the body, to enter the Blood or Jing

levels and do damage there. Understanding which pathogen is " primary " will

affect the choice of treatment - ie. if one tries to drain damp as a first

line of treatment when heat is really primary, then one is " chasing the

dragon's tail " so to speak - focusing on the " response " rather than the

underlying cause - heat - or as you suggest, some kind of constraint of the

Qi mechanism that is creating heat.

 

So just to recap - I'm not equating " response " with " healthy. " I'm well

aware that the body's responses can be damaging, even life-threatening. But

I don't think we can deny that the body does indeed mount responses to what

is happening - at every moment - and we have to take these into account.

Even Western biomed is coming around to this point of view!

 

I know I'm not telling you anything you don't already know - and know well.

So why that word " response " is a sticking point for you - well, only you can

unravel that one....

 

I'm sure it is true that people do sometimes over-simplify and mis-use the

things that Jeffrey says or what they think he represents. And I hope I

don't do that, even though I realize I might, because perhaps I do not yet

fully understand the complexities of what he presents.

 

RoseAnne

 

 

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM, wrote:

 

> I guess I'll start here. First this is something I have thought about for

> several years and and have brought up to my many colleagues who invoke Yuen

> in their " responses " . For the record, I enjoy much of what Yuen has to say,

> but this is a point to which I do indeed have a knee jerk reaction.

>

> Lets separate the issues while trying to not to offend any one.

>

> First, perhaps in the original case, the person is spitting out so much

> phlegm that they are damaging lung or stomach yin. However, we as doctors

> shouldn't say that swallowing phlegm is a particularly good idea that will

> ultimately cure the body but try to cure the original cause. (I think the

> original suggestion was misguided, mistaking pathological phlegm for spittle

> created by qi gong.) (and as a friend suggested... not spitting is not

> something we associate with Chinese culture.)

>

> RoseAnne objects to my ascribing intelligence to " response " . This is

> delicate. I have no doubt that their is a progression of disease. But this

> is a progression of Disease is not a cure for the disease. I think the

> phrase is that the body doesn't make healthy pathogens.

>

> We have the tools of CM which posits a healthy body as a base. This is an

> interaction of healthy (zheng, if you will) and pathogenic Qi. And the build

> up of Xie is what causes our ill-health. No arguments there, OK? My

> objection is that the " response " as presented here is a healthy response.

> Whereas I see it as a cascade of pathogenic actions. Of course the

> production of phlegm is " healthy " if the zheng overcomes the xie. However,

> if not then we need the intervention of CM (or other modality).

>

> ------Steve wrote: During the vast majority of Chinese medical history

> pathology has been

> understood as a progression, which often transforms (because of the

> individual's physiological responses to it -- all of which can be sorted

> out), rather than a manifestation to be classified.----

>

> Yes, I would agree that to transformation, of course. It is the " response "

> word that gets me. This is what I am calling intelligence.

>

>

>

> Again, in the original post from RoseAnne:

> " That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and others,

> > I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> > body.

> > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> > dampness, heat will come as a response. "

>

> Again, sorry to jump on this, but I find the Jeffrey Yuen point of view

> inadequate as in CM we have a series of tools, the qi mechanism being the

> major one that explains a progression.

>

>

> RoseAnne wrote...

> Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> > can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat.

>

> This is what I mean by a body intelligence and I would argue that this is

> exactly what creates an " unhealthy " body model. And I'm sure that Yuen, as

> would we all, suggest that these responses, transformations, progressions

> must be unraveled to find an ultimate cure.

>

> Doug

---

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

> practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

For the record, I never suggested swallowing phlegm; I don't even like to

look at it or touch it, much less swallow it. I was just pondering out loud

based on something someone else brought up! Not a good idea, I guess...

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

> For what it's worth, while I appreciate RoseAnne's attempt to think about

> the dynamic and responsive nature of physiology, in this case I don't think

> there's anything down this path. Recycling turbid fluids in the form of

> phlegm back to the stomach only puts more stress on it. The body will

> either

> (successfully) draw more yang to rarify that turbidity (ripening in the St,

> transforming and transporting by the Sp) which would reinforce stagnant

> heat, or the person will develop some degree of turbidity in the St. I

> don't

> see any benefits to the " normal " physiology of the stomach in swallowing

> phlegm. It's energetically a bit like eating cold pizza, without the

> potential nutritional value of the pizza's ingredients (if the person can

> generate sufficient yang to digest it well).

>

> I agree with 's suggestion that there are both individual

> differences in how easily one can bring phlegm far enough forward to spit

> it

> out and also cultural restrictions in many societies about spitting on the

> ground. I understand it's even illegal with fairly severe punishments in

> some countries.

>

> Steven Alpern

> CCMforHealing.com

>

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

hmmmm....

 

Again, I have no problem with progression or transformation or even a little

transgression once in a while but it is this darn word response which I find a

non-CM concept. I associate it with choice and why I keep repeating the word

intelligence in reference.

 

I know I'm pretty nuts but this is what little reasoning I have left on this.

You say:

" dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to create a

kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. "

 

Yet dryness also " responds " to heat. Why in one case and not the other? Is

dampness a better response? In other words I would like to know the CM mechanism

for dampness not just that it is responding. Without an explanation it is just

luck or an " conscious " choice on part of the body whether it will be damp heat

or dryness or phlegm or cold. This lack of specificity is what I don't like

about Yuen's (students) ideas in this case (and I hear variations of it a lot).

This is all I'm saying here.

 

Doug

 

 

My

> understanding of what he presents (at this point in time) is that if

> dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to create

> a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. The dampness is still

> pathological, but to collect damp fluids in an area may be preferable to

> letting the heat burn deeper into the body, to enter the Blood or Jing

> levels and do damage there.

 

, RoseAnne Spradlin

<roseanne.spradlin wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Actually, I appreciate your questioning. It makes me realize that I am

basically understanding the dampness/heat relationship in terms of Yin and

Yang. So in that way of thinking, dryness and heat would not have the same

potential relationship as heat and dampness. Though perhaps dampness can at

times be implicated in the exacerbation of a heat pattern or condition,

dampness, by its basic nature, is Yin; it is water.

 

I think back to when I made jewelry - one moment you can be holding a nearly

molten piece of metal in your tongs that you've just blasted with your

torch, and a second or two later you can pick it up with your bare fingers -

that is - after you have thrown it into the cooling sink, where it cools

almost instantly as soon as it hits the water! I remember how shocked I was

when I first experienced that amazing phenomenon - how water can cool things

off like that. So my understanding is - water, by its nature is cooling, is

Yin; heat is Yang, and because they are in a Yin/Yang relationship, they are

drawn to each other, they are always responding to each other. Ok, it

sounds a little poetic put that way, but I think, in the body, this is the

way it is - because the body is trying to maintain homeostasis, and

temperature is very crucial.

 

Dryness and heat, on the other hand, are both more on the Yang side, or if

dryness is not yang, it's certainly not Yin. So I wouldn't see that dryness

could " respond " to heat in the same way that dampness does. Dryness may be

a result of heat, but it is not created by the body to counter heat. So

dryness is a result, not a response.

 

Well, it seems almost too simplistic when explained that way, but that's the

way my mind is chewing on it - at least this midnight.

RA

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:19 PM, wrote:

 

> hmmmm....

>

> Again, I have no problem with progression or transformation or even a

> little transgression once in a while but it is this darn word response which

> I find a non-CM concept. I associate it with choice and why I keep repeating

> the word intelligence in reference.

>

> I know I'm pretty nuts but this is what little reasoning I have left on

> this.

> You say:

> " dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to

> create a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. "

>

> Yet dryness also " responds " to heat. Why in one case and not the other? Is

> dampness a better response? In other words I would like to know the CM

> mechanism for dampness not just that it is responding. Without an

> explanation it is just luck or an " conscious " choice on part of the body

> whether it will be damp heat or dryness or phlegm or cold. This lack of

> specificity is what I don't like about Yuen's (students) ideas in this case

> (and I hear variations of it a lot). This is all I'm saying here.

>

> Doug

>

>

> My

> > understanding of what he presents (at this point in time) is that if

> > dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to

> create

> > a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. The dampness is

> still

> > pathological, but to collect damp fluids in an area may be preferable to

> > letting the heat burn deeper into the body, to enter the Blood or Jing

> > levels and do damage there.

>

> , RoseAnne Spradlin

> <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> >

>

>

>

> ---

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

> practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think the word I mean instead of " intelligence " is " agency " as in this

wikipedia definition - " In the social sciences, agency refers to the capacity of

individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)- "

So, I again I have no problem with phlegm or damp or dryness that is created

because of heat. I just think it is the result of the battle of zheng and Xie

and/or the result of a dysfunction of the Qi mechanism etc, not an independent

(intelligent or not-so intelligent) response to limit the pathogen.

 

Doug

 

 

, " " wrote:

>

> hmmmm....

>

> Again, I have no problem with progression or transformation or even a little

transgression once in a while but it is this darn word response which I find a

non-CM concept. I associate it with choice and why I keep repeating the word

intelligence in reference.

>

> I know I'm pretty nuts but this is what little reasoning I have left on this.

> You say:

> " dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to create

a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. "

>

> Yet dryness also " responds " to heat. Why in one case and not the other? Is

dampness a better response? In other words I would like to know the CM mechanism

for dampness not just that it is responding. Without an explanation it is just

luck or an " conscious " choice on part of the body whether it will be damp heat

or dryness or phlegm or cold. This lack of specificity is what I don't like

about Yuen's (students) ideas in this case (and I hear variations of it a lot).

This is all I'm saying here.

>

> Doug

>

>

> My

> > understanding of what he presents (at this point in time) is that if

> > dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to create

> > a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. The dampness is still

> > pathological, but to collect damp fluids in an area may be preferable to

> > letting the heat burn deeper into the body, to enter the Blood or Jing

> > levels and do damage there.

>

> , RoseAnne Spradlin

<roseanne.spradlin@> wrote:

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Perhaps the problem here is one of language. You don't like the word

" responsive. " How about " reactive, " for certainly human life is that.

Consider plunging your hand in a bucket of ice water. Peripheral arteries

constrict to preserve heat in the interior, and stress hormones are released

-- that's why Hans Selye used that a the canonical stressor for his seminal

studies on the physiology of stress. If that isn't CM enough for you, what

about Suwen chapter 2, which discusses at length how the human body responds

to the seasons. One example, which is clearly CM -- when the ambient

temperature is warm, the pores open to release yang out, and when it's cold

they close to preserve yang internally.

 

Call this " reactivity " if you like, but I like the word " responsive " because

I use this quality all the time to stimulate healing process in patients.

This is wei qi -- there is no choice involved, and it always adjusting and

responding to circumstances to allow individuals to sustain life.

 

I appreciate your claim of working for years of trying to understand this;

indeed, it is quite challenging. This is part of the " thinking process " I

referred to a couple months ago. I salute RoseAnne for working with it

around the question of swallowing phlegm; while I happen to think that

particular one is a blind alley, I believe learning and developing that

thinking process is important.

 

As for your assertion Doug, while dampness can be a response to heat,

dryness is not. Dryness is often a direct result of heat -- a complication

rather than a response. They are not the same thing.

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM, wrote:

 

>

>

> hmmmm....

>

> Again, I have no problem with progression or transformation or even a

> little transgression once in a while but it is this darn word response which

> I find a non-CM concept. I associate it with choice and why I keep repeating

> the word intelligence in reference.

>

> I know I'm pretty nuts but this is what little reasoning I have left on

> this.

> You say:

>

> " dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to

> create a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. "

>

> Yet dryness also " responds " to heat. Why in one case and not the other? Is

> dampness a better response? In other words I would like to know the CM

> mechanism for dampness not just that it is responding. Without an

> explanation it is just luck or an " conscious " choice on part of the body

> whether it will be damp heat or dryness or phlegm or cold. This lack of

> specificity is what I don't like about Yuen's (students) ideas in this case

> (and I hear variations of it a lot). This is all I'm saying here.

>

> Doug

>

>

> My

> > understanding of what he presents (at this point in time) is that if

> > dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to

> create

> > a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. The dampness is still

> > pathological, but to collect damp fluids in an area may be preferable to

> > letting the heat burn deeper into the body, to enter the Blood or Jing

> > levels and do damage there.

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> RoseAnne Spradlin <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

 

 

Actually, it would seems pretty unintelligent for the body to create damp as

a response to heat. Heat is much easier to eliminate as compared to heat

that combines with damp to form the stubborn combination of damp-heat. I

personally have never seen any Chinese source describe the creation of damp

as the body's way of respond to heat (or creating damp in an attempt to

eliminate heat). Has anyone else? But Chinese sources do talk about how

problematic it becomes once damp and heat combine. Furthermore, in cases of

damp-heat it is often discussed as two pathogens coming together and

intermingling.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Friday, April 16, 2010 9:20 PM

 

Re: Swallowing phlegm

 

 

 

 

 

hmmmm....

 

Again, I have no problem with progression or transformation or even a little

transgression once in a while but it is this darn word response which I find

a non-CM concept. I associate it with choice and why I keep repeating the

word intelligence in reference.

 

I know I'm pretty nuts but this is what little reasoning I have left on

this.

You say:

" dampness is " responding " to heat, it represents the body's attempt to

create a kind of inferior form of Yin to counter the heat. "

 

Yet dryness also " responds " to heat. Why in one case and not the other? Is

dampness a better response? In other words I would like to know the CM

mechanism for dampness not just that it is responding. Without an

explanation it is just luck or an " conscious " choice on part of the body

whether it will be damp heat or dryness or phlegm or cold. This lack of

specificity is what I don't like about Yuen's (students) ideas in this case

(and I hear variations of it a lot). This is all I'm saying here.

 

Doug

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Just for clarity sake, I was not implying that Doug was saying that it was

intelligent, I just happened to respond to his email.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:38 AM

 

RE: Swallowing phlegm

 

 

 

 

 

Doug,

 

Actually, it would seems pretty unintelligent for the body to create damp as

a response to heat. Heat is much easier to eliminate as compared to heat

that combines with damp to form the stubborn combination of damp-heat. I

personally have never seen any Chinese source describe the creation of damp

as the body's way of respond to heat (or creating damp in an attempt to

eliminate heat). Has anyone else? But Chinese sources do talk about how

problematic it becomes once damp and heat combine. Furthermore, in cases of

damp-heat it is often discussed as two pathogens coming together and

intermingling.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Actually, I have made up my mind up about

this a long time ago. I do like reactivity better because it better reflects the

laws of yin and yang. However, just to be nit-picking, reactivity is not the

same as response, slog through the past emails, I am responding/reacting to the

Jeffrey Yuen idea that the body makes up its mind to create " an inferior form of

Yin " in the form of damp in response to heat. (At this point I'm reacting more

to what I hear when my students and colleagues say it than RoseAnne has said.)

It is essentially a religious question to be blunt, is the human body above the

laws of Yin and Yang or just a part of it? In bringing up the western analogies

you posit the body as a series of pathologies. Without pathology the " western

body " is static entity- with no basis for the healthy body - think about it.

Doug

 

 

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

>

> Doug,

>

> Perhaps the problem here is one of language. You don't like the word

> " responsive. " How about " reactive, " for certainly human life is that.

> Consider plunging your hand in a bucket of ice water. Peripheral arteries

> constrict to preserve heat in the interior, and stress hormones are released

> -- that's why Hans Selye used that a the canonical stressor for his seminal

> studies on the physiology of stress. If that isn't CM enough for you, what

> about Suwen chapter 2, which discusses at length how the human body responds

> to the seasons. One example, which is clearly CM -- when the ambient

> temperature is warm, the pores open to release yang out, and when it's cold

> they close to preserve yang internally.

>

> Call this " reactivity " if you like, but I like the word " responsive " because

> I use this quality all the time to stimulate healing process in patients.

> This is wei qi -- there is no choice involved, and it always adjusting and

> responding to circumstances to allow individuals to sustain life.

>

> I appreciate your claim of working for years of trying to understand this;

> indeed, it is quite challenging. This is part of the " thinking process " I

> referred to a couple months ago. I salute RoseAnne for working with it

> around the question of swallowing phlegm; while I happen to think that

> particular one is a blind alley, I believe learning and developing that

> thinking process is important.

>

> As for your assertion Doug, while dampness can be a response to heat,

> dryness is not. Dryness is often a direct result of heat -- a complication

> rather than a response. They are not the same thing.

>

> Steven Alpern

> CCMforHealing.com

>

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM, wrote:

>

> >

> >