Bottom line?

July 22, 2004

Hi all

Been trying to keep away but with such interesting debates it is very

hard...

There has been so many words written lately that a glazed look has

been coming over my eyes. and my brain has fiszzled to a standstill.

Well, my brain never was one of my strong points.

I can philosophise to my heart's content as to nature of a human

being, but as far as acupuncture is concerned. the bottom line will

always be :

I stick a needle in a specific meridian in a person, I will turn it

clockwise, anticlockwise or neutral and I will have an effect on that

individual. (lets not complicate the example with cupping or moxa etc.)

Since the acupuncture point will be on a particular meridian, it will

affect the organ/ hormonal gland that directly links to that meridian

and because organs have associations with emotions and ways of

interacting in the world. so these qualities will also be affected.

Because nothing internal or external exists in isolation the effect on

that meridian we placed a needle in will spread across the generating

and controlling cycle.

If the meridian we stuck the needle in was, as the saying goes,

'minding its own business' then we have created dysfunction. If its

initial state was one of deficiency and requires tonfication ie.

turning a needle to be inserted clockwise then inserting a needle

anticlocwise and leaving it in 'may/or not' have a postive effect if

done once or twice but after that in my experience will increase

dysharmony (make the presenting symptom worse and may even give rise

to new symptoms).

The opposite scenario of tonification when sedation is required will

also create dysharmony.

In my experience imbalance is lack of/ stuck flow, this manifests at

all levels but but with diferent individuals will be highlighted at

different levels of being. this lack of flow IMO is a consistent

pattern (personality)

It should make no difference which theoretical approach I use help

that individual patient ( 5 element, TCM, Japanese, Korean etc.) as

long as we end up working on the right meridian (s) and inserting the

needles in the required direction(s).

When I have made mistakes in the past and inserted needles and moved

the energy in meridians that did not need tweaking there have been

times when I have produced benficial effects, I assume because of the

interrelationships between meridians. However, other uncalled for

symptoms also arose and If I persisted in inserting needles in these

meridians I altered people physically, emotionally and mentally and

NOT for the better.

salvador

July 22, 2004

Hi Salvador,

>

> It should make no difference which theoretical approach I use help

> that individual patient ( 5 element, TCM, Japanese, Korean etc.) as

> long as we end up working on the right meridian (s) and inserting the

> needles in the required direction(s).

>

> salvador

I guess in my experiences I have found that different practitioners

adopt different core principles (as Zev suggested they be called) with

different apparent outcomes.

My family has not seen a Western trained physician in over 20 years

nor have we used any Western pharmaceuticals in 30 years - with very

good results. We have seen a variety of alternative practitioners. In

this frame we have had the opportunity to use the services of three

very well trained and experienced acupuncturists in our area as well

as an equal number of Chinese trainined herbalists. The results were

very good but always seem to stop at a certain point.

We we able to go beyond that point when we began seeing a Chinese

trained doctor who used tuina and qigong as his modality. What I

observed immediately was that he didn't do any kind of diagnosis nor

did he attempt to tonify/sedate. He didn't work on any particular

energetic meridian (he worked on all using qigong) and he also worked

on the whole muscular/skeletal/sinew system. He worked in only one

direction - from the inside out and from the top down. The results

were very encouraging - for our family and for our friends who began

to flock to him because they experienced similar results.

From these experiences I began to rework my thought process concerning

Chinese medicine and the possible mechanisms at work. While doing

this, it occurred to me that a set of much simplier core principles

may be at work - so simple that people can begin taking care of

themselves via simple moving/massage techniques as well as simple

energetic qigong training. These simple core principles seem to have

some very real curative effects and I continue to try to understand

them. It is not to say that the core principles adopted by my previous

doctors were wrong - but they were different and these new core

principles may yield better results in a simplier mannner that at the

same time speed up treatments and empower the client/patient to take

care of themselves.

Regards,

Rich

July 22, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " Rich " <rfinkelstein@a...>

wrote:

> We we able to go beyond that point when we began seeing a Chinese

> trained doctor who used tuina and qigong as his modality. What I

> observed immediately was that he didn't do any kind of diagnosis nor

> did he attempt to tonify/sedate. He didn't work on any particular

> energetic meridian (he worked on all using qigong) and he also worked

> on the whole muscular/skeletal/sinew system. He worked in only one

> direction - from the inside out and from the top down.

I've learned much from a great Japanese practioner who practices a family style

--

very old-Kansai-district Japanese acumoxa as opposed to the

classical-Sino-Japanese

or physiotherapy-type acumoxa which is the standard. He doesn't use any channel

theory, doesn't really believe in qi, his style is very much palpation-based and

I base a

lot of my ideas on point location and suitability of certain techniques to

certain

palpatory findings from him. Is he a better or worse practitioner because he

doesn't

use channel theory or five-phase or indeed any CM theoretical structure? I

suppose it

depends on your point of view; certainly he's well respected in Japanese acumoxa

though how influential his writings are I can't say. But I'd be willing to say

that had he

decided to follow Meridian Therapy or some other classical style he probably

wouldn't

have developed his own very sophisticated methods to quite the same degree.

>

> From these experiences I began to rework my thought process concerning

> Chinese medicine and the possible mechanisms at work. While doing

> this, it occurred to me that a set of much simplier core principles

> may be at work - so simple that people can begin taking care of

> themselves via simple moving/massage techniques as well as simple

> energetic qigong training. These simple core principles seem to have

> some very real curative effects and I continue to try to understand

> them. It is not to say that the core principles adopted by my previous

> doctors were wrong - but they were different and these new core

> principles may yield better results in a simplier mannner that at the

> same time speed up treatments and empower the client/patient to take

> care of themselves.

I think the modality one uses has a lot to do with what core principles one

finds

useful. Tuina could probably be done using little to none of the standard TCM

principles, but Herbal med requires a more sophisticated approach. Certainly

the

phlegm discussion vis-a-vis moxibustion is a handy example. I personally think

one

can do acumoxa quite well without consideration of phlegm theory -- certainly

the

majority of Japanese practitioners I've met (all but one, and that one would be

Ikeda

sensei who is well into his theories and patterns) never seem to mention Phlegm

in

the TCM sense at all. And a quick look in the index of the Jia Yi Jing

translation

(Systematic Classic) shows only one reference for phlegm, and that is a passing

mention in treating respiratory conditions. Physicians treated with acumoxa for

centuries using Jia Yi Jing, and it remains a core classic of acumoxa study to

this day,

so I can only conclude that historically Phlegm theory has not been seen as

indispensible to acumoxa therapy.

robert hayden

July 22, 2004

Rich wrote......... We have seen a variety of alternative

practitioners. In

> this frame we have had the opportunity to use the services of three

> very well trained and experienced acupuncturists in our area as well

> as an equal number of Chinese trainined herbalists. The results were

> very good but always seem to stop at a certain point.

>

-----------------------

Hi Rich,

Thanks, for your input, You share some interesting examples that

highlight something of the points I wish to share,

There are many healing modalities which help people at a great variety

of levels, in my experience to date, for good or ill, none appear to

be more immediately specific than acupuncture.

It's sheer immediate power cuts both ways, in the hands of an

experienced acupuncturist with solid theory it is close to magical.

It is the solid theory bit I have problems with. To date I have yet to

meet anyone that has 'solid theory' and all the books I have read (not

that many) have not given me a 'solid theory that I can resonably

quickly translate into the treatment room.

This may sound like an arrogant statement. But I am of the growing

opinion that a certain amount of arrogance, stubborness, anarchistical

attitute (sheee.. there I go talking about myself again ) is

indispensable if we are to be willing to question the theories

presented to us as the 'truth'.

As you say Your family was treated by experienced acupuncturists and

even though they were heplful only got so far.

I Imagine many TCM practitioners will take exception to my above

statement. But I do not consider TCM acupuncture to have 'solid

theory' though it is probably 75% there . Nor do I consider 5

element to have solid theory either because if it did JR and 3 of his

1st liutenants would have done a good job on me yet they made me sick

as a dog over a number of years.

I like to think of the theories that underpin the above modalities as

Newtonian physics Indispensable, we couldn't have done with out

them. Yet to move into the 21st century we have required new theories

such as quantum mechanics, string theories etc., And even the

bedrock of 20th century physics, the constant speed of light is now

been questioned.

I think the time is ripe for a new unified theory of acupuncture. It

will not happen unless we question everything we have been taught and

accept that the insertion of needles is an extremly powerful way of

affecting a human being for good or ill.

salvador

July 22, 2004

Salvador wrote:... for good or ill, none appear to

> be more immediately specific than acupuncture.

>

> It's sheer immediate power cuts both ways, in the hands of an

> experienced acupuncturist with solid theory it is close to magical.

>

> It is the solid theory bit I have problems with. To date I have

yet to

> meet anyone that has 'solid theory' and all the books I have read

(not

> that many) have not given me a 'solid theory that I can resonably

> quickly translate into the treatment room.

Good points, Salvador. I think the phrase " solid theory " is a bit

oxymoronic. A theory is, after all, just a theory and is meant to be

modified after more information and experience are collected. It is

then, IMHO, fluid, not solid. So maybe we should start by proposing

that our TCM system could be based on " fluid theories " , flowing from

past to present with new discoveries on the horizon built on " laws "

or what we call " statements of fact " which are the closest thing to

laws that we have in TCM. In physics, as you probably know, there

are precious few laws. Almost everything is considered a theory,

relativity included. So as our form of " science " is even less

quantifiable, it poses even more problems both when rigor becomes

too rigid and creativity too creative. IMHO, we must use both sides

of our brains in the treatment room; looking for inovation when our

usual knowledge, based on education and rigor, are not producing

superior results, yet always using the experience of the masters as

a starting point and a point to which we can always return. I can't

see throwing out the baby with the bath water. It doesn't have to be

that cut and dried. Life is a dynamic system, never in complete

balance but shifting through a moving harmony with the sun and

seasons. There is a pattern but there are also so many variables

that we can never assume the system is closed and perfectly

repeating itself.

Regards, Shanna

>

> This may sound like an arrogant statement. But I am of the growing

> opinion that a certain amount of arrogance, stubborness,

anarchistical

> attitute (sheee.. there I go talking about myself again ) is

> indispensable if we are to be willing to question the theories

> presented to us as the 'truth'.

>

> As you say Your family was treated by experienced acupuncturists

and

> even though they were heplful only got so far.

>

> I Imagine many TCM practitioners will take exception to my above

> statement. But I do not consider TCM acupuncture to have 'solid

> theory' though it is probably 75% there . Nor do I consider 5

> element to have solid theory either because if it did JR and 3 of

his

> 1st liutenants would have done a good job on me yet they made me

sick

> as a dog over a number of years.

>

> I like to think of the theories that underpin the above modalities

as

> Newtonian physics Indispensable, we couldn't have done with out

> them. Yet to move into the 21st century we have required new

theories

> such as quantum mechanics, string theories etc., And even the

> bedrock of 20th century physics, the constant speed of light is now

> been questioned.

>

> I think the time is ripe for a new unified theory of acupuncture.

It

> will not happen unless we question everything we have been taught

and

> accept that the insertion of needles is an extremly powerful way of

> affecting a human being for good or ill.

>

> salvador

July 22, 2004

Salvador,

I think your ideas are interesting, and you have a point. How does

Chinese medical theory move ahead?

You might be interested i some recent texts, such as " Book of

Changes and " , or " DNA and the I Ching " for some ideas.

However, this revolution in Chinese medicine is not going to happen

without world-class scholars with a complete grasp of Chinese medical

theory, and we don't have those at this point.

Also, a unified theory hasn't even appeared yet in physics. And

just this week, Stephen Hawking admitted defeat in his attempts to

prove that there is no radiation out of black holes, and no total loss

of matter and experience in them.

Grand idea, difficult execution.

On Jul 22, 2004, at 11:32 AM, salvador_march wrote:

> I like to think of the theories that underpin the above modalities as

> Newtonian physics Indispensable, we couldn't have done with out

> them. Yet to move into the 21st century we have required new theories

> such as quantum mechanics, string theories etc., And even the

> bedrock of 20th century physics, the constant speed of light is now

> been questioned.

>

> I think the time is ripe for a new unified theory of acupuncture. It

> will not happen unless we question everything we have been taught and

> accept that the insertion of needles is an extremly powerful way of

> affecting a human being for good or ill.

>

> salvador

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

July 22, 2004

" wrote:

> Salvador,

> I think your ideas are interesting, and you have a point. How does

> Chinese medical theory move ahead?

> You might be interested i some recent texts, such as " Book of

> Changes and " , or " DNA and the I Ching " for some ideas.

> However, this revolution in Chinese medicine is not going to happen

> without world-class scholars with a complete grasp of Chinese medical

> theory, and we don't have those at this point.

> Also, a unified theory hasn't even appeared yet in physics. And

> just this week, Stephen Hawking admitted defeat in his attempts to

> prove that there is no radiation out of black holes, and no total loss

> of matter and experience in them.

> Grand idea, difficult execution.

Hi Z'ev,

thanks for the the book titles. I differ in view point from you. for

one thing a unified theory is not an absolute, such is the nature of

life that it will of necessity be a 'relative unified theory. However,

it will be more unified that it is at present hence one will have

better overall results than is experienced presently by the majority

of acupuncturist'.

I also have a different viewpoint wiht regards for the need of world

class scholars to bring this about. It is already happening, it is

been pulled together by the combination of the understanding provided

by the West, and the incorporation of the information laid down by

centuries of experience in the east. To which is been added the

interrelationship that already exists between us and the cosmos. And

it is happening by practical people who are not only willing to

question everthing but who dispasionately observe the results of

their theories as they are applied in the treatment room.

salvador

July 22, 2004

I'm sorry, but I think you idealize the present situation. All these

clinicians are not communicating with each other in any coherent or

organized manner, it is every man or woman for his or herself for the

most part, at least in the West. The amount of 'understanding' by the

West is quite limited, as we in general have a very limited grasp of

Chinese medicine at this point. This is because the profession is

young, few have a grasp of medical Chinese, and few have taken the

effort to truly study and develop the database of the last 2000 years.

Rather than a true interactivity of Western ideas about medicine (both

biomedical and naturopathic) and Chinese medicine, the trend is to

superimpose the Western concepts on a partially understood Chinese

medicine. I hope the profession doesn't make the mistake of

intellectual laziness, we still have a lot of work to do.

On Jul 22, 2004, at 2:45 PM, salvador_march wrote:

> I also have a different viewpoint wiht regards for the need of world

> class scholars to bring this about. It is already happening, it is

> been pulled together by the combination of the understanding provided

> by the West, and the incorporation of the information laid down by

> centuries of experience in the east. To which is been added the

> interrelationship that already exists between us and the cosmos. And

> it is happening by practical people who are not only willing to

> question everthing but who dispasionately observe the results of

> their theories as they are applied in the treatment room.

July 22, 2004

wrote:

> Salvador,

>

> Also, a unified theory hasn't even appeared yet in physics. And

> just this week, Stephen Hawking admitted defeat in his attempts to

> prove that there is no radiation out of black holes, and no total loss

> of matter and experience in them.

> Grand idea, difficult execution.

-

hi Z'ev,

Just a little aside,

IMO the west will not discover a truly unified theory for quite a

while, for the simple reason that there is no separation betwen

internal and externa reality. A truly unified theory would have to

incorporate the manifest AND the unmanifest and that leads to GOD. A

theory that truly explained the interrelationship of ALL, implies that

we as human beings would have evolved to a level where a large part of

humanity would also comprehend with the totality of their being that

we are indivisible drops of the same ocean.

salvador

July 23, 2004

Hi all,

I keep harping on about the value of western contribution, I do this

for the simple reason that I have found it valuable in my attempts to

make sense of what is going on with my patients.

If the eastern development of making sense of illness has been based

on interrelationships (female/ Yin) and the Western aproach has been

one of reducing all to the one / individual (Male / Yang). Why not

marry them and join them together? Thats what Nature does. and then

babies come along .

Eastern sciences developed concepts to explain their observations of

dis-ease . Western Sciences are doing exactly the same thing but from

the other end of the stick. They are both attempting to explain what

is going on with a human body when it goes 'wrong'.

So how can this blending take place in such a way that is of use to

us? knowledge and understanding are not the same for knowledge can

be forgotten, but understanding, once ours, its for keeps.

IMO Understanding usually requires input from a number of perspectives

outwardly, and inwarly all 3 brains must be active to experience.

If I take an example that seems to be flavour of the week :)like

'Phelgm' - in the stools. CM tells us it is to do with the SP. I can

take it at face value and over time I will make my own relationship

from experience with patients. But if I look at the knowledge adquired

by Western sciences. I will note that the small intestines produces

phlegm to protect itself from the acid brought down by the stomach

juices. and that the pancreas as well as releasing enzymes to aid the

assimilation of fat releases an alkyline substance to counteract the

acidity from the stomach.

With the above info. I have gained a new perspective on the CM

function of the SP, I have learned to diagnose better as far as stools

are concerned at least in so far as phelgm and floating stools are

concerned, I have also gained insight into subjects like candida. and

duodenal ulcers. Thank YOU Western Sciences!

This process can be done with all the internal organs for great

benefit and enhanced understanding.

salvador

July 23, 2004

On 23/07/2004, at 8:33 PM, salvador_march wrote:

> If I take an example that seems to be flavour of the week :)like

> 'Phelgm' - in the stools. CM tells us it is to do with the SP. I can

> take it at face value and over time I will make my own relationship

> from experience with patients. But if I look at the knowledge adquired

> by Western sciences. I will note that the small intestines produces

> phlegm to protect itself from the acid brought down by the stomach

> juices. and that the pancreas as well as releasing enzymes to aid the

> assimilation of fat releases an alkyline substance to counteract the

> acidity from the stomach.

>

> With the above info. I have gained a new perspective on the CM

> function of the SP, I have learned to diagnose better as far as stools

> are concerned at least in so far as phelgm and floating stools are

> concerned, I have also gained insight into subjects like candida. and

> duodenal ulcers. Thank YOU Western Sciences!

>

> This process can be done with all the internal organs for great

> benefit and enhanced understanding.

>

> salvador

>

Hi Salvador,

I too agree that western science contributes to our understanding of

disease. But I unclear on what you mean by this example. Could you

please explain how this example is used by specifically in clinic? What

are the new perspectives you gained about the Spleen from this? How is

it applied clinically? Do you still consider it phlegm? And how do you

translate this western knowledge into TCM treatment priniciples?

Best WIshes,

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0418 343 545

chinese_medicine

July 23, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " salvador_march "

<salvador_march@h...> wrote:

> I will note that the small intestines produces

> phlegm to protect itself from the acid brought down by the stomach

> juices. and that the pancreas as well as releasing enzymes to aid the

> assimilation of fat releases an alkyline substance to counteract the

> acidity from the stomach.

>

Phlegm in CM is considered pathological -- I cannot think of an instance I have

read

otherwise in any standard TCM text. What you are describing sounds more like

Jin-Ye

to me, a physiological function of fluids and humors produced in a normal manner

by

a healthy individual.

robert hayden

July 23, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " kampo36 "

<kampo36> wrote:

> I've learned much from a great Japanese practioner who practices a

family style --

> very old-Kansai-district Japanese acumoxa as opposed to the

classical-Sino-Japanese

> or physiotherapy-type acumoxa which is the standard. He doesn't use

any channel

> theory, doesn't really believe in qi, his style is very much

palpation-based and I base a

> lot of my ideas on point location and suitability of certain

techniques to certain

> palpatory findings from him. Is he a better or worse practitioner

because he doesn't

> use channel theory or five-phase or indeed any CM theoretical

structure? I suppose it

> depends on your point of view; certainly he's well respected in

Japanese acumoxa

> though how influential his writings are I can't say. But I'd be

willing to say that had he

> decided to follow Meridian Therapy or some other classical style he

probably wouldn't

> have developed his own very sophisticated methods to quite the same

degree.

This is hard to say, would he be better or worse we will never know...

In my (limited) experience, there are real powerful 'healers', it

doesn't matter what system they do (or no system at all) they can get

the job done. This sounds like a few of the people mentioned here.

There is though, a major downside; when they have no system, how do

they pass on their tradition, if there is no theory how do they

communicate? I personally have no super powers and need to learn

techniques that can be reproduced to produce healing my the average

Joe. IMO, these systems are not transmittable because the healer is

the one doing the healing. (does that make sense?), and this might be

from charisma, qi gong training, or whatever. This is what many call

placebo. IT has been stated in the past (CHA) that some practitioners

can get up to 60% placebo. I think because of this looking at things

scientifically (ala western medicine, as modern china and many

westerners do) attempts to figure out what is pure and impure, meaning

is it the healing environment / healer or technique. Granted all of

us should attempt to increase our placebo by as much as possible,

passing around anecdotal evidence that relies on such is, IMO, a

disservice to medicine. So, I question abandoning all rational thought

and theory because we see one qi gong healer do everything without any

system. But on the other hand, I applaud anyone who tries to emulate

these healing methods to increase their `placebo'… Double edged sword,

especially if we want our medicine to advance into the future.

-

July 23, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " salvador_march "

<salvador_march@h...> wrote:

> Hi all,

>

> I keep harping on about the value of western contribution, I do this

> for the simple reason that I have found it valuable in my attempts to

> make sense of what is going on with my patients.

>

> If the eastern development of making sense of illness has been based

> on interrelationships (female/ Yin) and the Western aproach has been

> one of reducing all to the one / individual (Male / Yang). Why not

> marry them and join them together? Thats what Nature does. and then

> babies come along .

>

> Eastern sciences developed concepts to explain their observations of

> dis-ease . Western Sciences are doing exactly the same thing but from

> the other end of the stick. They are both attempting to explain what

> is going on with a human body when it goes 'wrong'.

>

> So how can this blending take place in such a way that is of use to

> us? knowledge and understanding are not the same for knowledge can

> be forgotten, but understanding, once ours, its for keeps.

>

> IMO Understanding usually requires input from a number of perspectives

> outwardly, and inwarly all 3 brains must be active to experience.