RE: Emotions

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> Bingo! I am unclear about the meaning of your above statement, but

> how can we say grief is a " Lung symptom " …? I do not consider it a

> Lung symptom. IT may relate to the lung and it may not. Without

> other signs it is not a lung symptom.>>>

 

 

Jason:

 

Grief relates to Metal the way the Lung relates to metal. It is just

an oversimplification to say an emotion relates to an organ

directly. Think of grief similarly to the way a LI problem may

affect the lung. If one is excessive in terms of time or intensity

(too much grief), the other can become depleted (in this example,

lung).

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> contradictions left and right. So we really need citations from

> modern or pre-modern sources if there is going to be any proof of

> the matter, therefore warranting even that we should test such a

> hypothesis. So the way I see it, 'grief equaling a lung symptom' is

> only a hypothesis at the current moment.

> Bob, do you find grief listed as a symptom along with SOB, cough

> etc?? This seems to me should be the question of the moment…

 

In Wiseman's PD, it says, " Damage to the lung by sorrow is

characterized by crying, heat vexation and agitation, pale white

complexion, insufficiency of spirit qi (lack of vigor), and a tight or

bound pulse. "

 

I know this addresses sorrow as an etiology and not a symptom, but

look at the symptoms of the damaged LU. My question to you is this:

what is it about those symptom that are like the kind of symptoms you

are looking for, such as SOB, cough, etc.? Clearly, the LU is damaged

by sorrow, producing symptoms unlike those that you are looking for.

So, the LU is damaged: what is the pattern?

 

Given the above lack of typical LU symptoms and the fact that sorrow

damages the LU and therefore is a sign if LU pathology, it seems

reasonable to conclude that if there is pathological sorrow, then that

alone means there is LU pathology.

 

What type of treatment would fix this LU pathology? Would this

treatment also lessen the grief to a non-pathological state? Again,

these seem to be the important questions here. Does anyone have the

answers or some more clarifying information?

 

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Brian,

 

Sorry to say, I don't follow your logic here. A sign is an " objective "

indication, such as a facial color, pulse image, or tongue fur as

opposed to a symptom which is subjective. Tabor's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary:

" Any objective evidence or manifestation of an

illness or disordered function of the body. Signs are apparent to observers, as

opposed to symptoms which may be obvious only to

the patient. " Since grief if a subjective feeling, it is definitely a symptoms

as opposed to a sign in terms of how these terms are

technically understood in medicine.

 

However, I still think the important question is whether any credible and

authoritative Chinese doctors have used grief as a symptom

for establishing the presence of a pattern as opposed to a disease cause.

 

As an example, Wang Shu-he says on page 17 of the Blue Poppy version of the Mai

Jing (Pulse Classic):

 

" If the pulse is deep and fine in the cun, this is called yin within yang. The

diseases include the bitterness of susceptibility to sorrow,

melancholy, aversion to people's voice, diminished qi, occasional sweating,

inhibited yin qi, and inability to lift the arms. "

 

Does this qualify as a pattern? Wang says " diseases " (bing). I could certainly

make an argument for the list describing a heart-lung qi

vacuity.

 

Page 155 again lists sorrow as a symptom, this time of a gallbladder-stomach

condition. Page 157 lists sorrow as a symptom of heart

and pericardium condition. Again on pages 160 and 355.

 

On page 344, Wang quotes Zhang Zhong-jing relating the symptom of sorrow to

visceral agitation due to what we now identify as the

pattern of heart spirit malnourishment.

 

BTW, on page 64, Wang says that sorrow and lamentation disturb the center and

injure the hun or ethereal soul, not the lungs. So

Wang clearly does not think of the affects having a one-to-one exclusive

relationship to certain viscera.

 

Hua Tuo, in Blue Poppy's edition of the Zhong Zang Jing (Classic of the Central

Viscera) uses susceptibility to sorrow as a symptom

within lists of indications on pages 53 (cadervous transmission, i.e., TB,

presumably a lung yin vacuity), 65 (heart qi vacuity), and 85

(lung qi vacuity).

 

Do such early citations still have relevance in contemporary CM? Just a

question.

 

By the Yuan dynasty, Li Dong-yuan does not use sorrow as a symptom but only as a

disease cause. In the Qing dynasty, neither Fu

Qing-zhu or Liu Yi-ren (author of the Heart Transmission of Medicine) use sorrow

as a symptom.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

> Sorry to say, I don't follow your logic here. A sign is an

" objective " indication, such as a facial color, pulse image, or tongue

fur as

 

Thanks for the clarity, Bob. I get your point about sorrow being

subjective; I was thinking that the sorrow would be apparent to an

outside observer, but I did not think it through - for instance, the

person could be pretending.

 

> However, I still think the important question is whether any

credible and authoritative Chinese doctors have used grief as a symptom

> for establishing the presence of a pattern as opposed to a disease

cause.

 

>

> As an example, Wang Shu-he says on page 17 of the Blue Poppy version

 

Thanks for the many examples. Now, I do not have to thumb through the

books for Jason.

 

 

> Hua Tuo, in Blue Poppy's edition of the Zhong Zang Jing (Classic of

the Central Viscera) uses susceptibility to sorrow as a symptom

> within lists of indications on pages 53 (cadervous transmission,

i.e., TB, presumably a lung yin vacuity), 65 (heart qi vacuity), and 85

> (lung qi vacuity).

 

This is an interested idea that I have not clearly at all tried to

bring up. If there is a such thing as susceptibility to sorrow, then

what (does not have to be just one thing) in the body is the sorrow

processor? Is the LU? Is it a combination of zangfu? Are there any

mentions of this sort of thing anywhere?

 

 

> Do such early citations still have relevance in contemporary CM?

Just a question.

>

> By the Yuan dynasty, Li Dong-yuan does not use sorrow as a symptom

but only as a disease cause. In the Qing dynasty, neither Fu

> Qing-zhu or Liu Yi-ren (author of the Heart Transmission of

Medicine) use sorrow as a symptom.

>

> Bob

 

Unless a good reason is present as to why those citations would not be

relevent today, then why would they not be? You go on to mention the

lack of inclusion, but what there reason mentioned anywhere for the

lack of inclusion?

 

It would also be interesting to see if other emotionally based notions

other than sorrow have dropped out of fashion as being listed as a

symptom. If so, what motivated the trend? Is this trend in the best

interest of the patient? Were past treatments based on the ideas in

your earlier citations ineffective?

 

These questions are not necessarily directed at you, Bob, but rather,

I am just putting them out there for anyone to ponder or answer.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Brian C Allen wrote:

" As Bob Flaws pointed out, it is a statement of fact that great grief

damages the LU, so this kind of grief can be considered a sign,

rather than a symptom. "

 

 

Wouldn't it still be more acurate to say that grief should be

considered a disease cause; the signs being wasting of qi (xiao1) as

identified by pulse etc.?

 

Chad

 

Chadwick Moyer, L.Ac.

[Guest guest]

This question, I think, is the key to the discussion. If such a

treatment were to work, not just once, but in many cases, over time,

then it might be an indication that the classics were on to something.

If the treatments do not work, then maybe you are corrected about

other motivations for the coorespondances.

 

>>>>>>I agree with that

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Should we question " statements of fact "

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

> both excess and vacuity patterns are listed for all these

emotions, however only irascibility appears a keynote symptom of its

associated organ - the liver - when diagnosing complaints other than

emotional. In other words, joy is a chief complaint, but not used

to diagnose other heart patterns in sionneau >>>

 

 

 

:

 

A lot of the questions associated with this emotion thread can be

resolved by see their discrimination in the pulses. We can see the

emotion separately from the organ using the Nan Jing 3-depth method.

An emotion doesn't necessarily have to create symptoms commonly

associated with the organ, although it can if the emotion is long-

term or very intense. The emotion and the organ are connected

through their both being associated with one of the 5-Phases. For

example, grief and the lung are both associated with the metal

phase; in not an unsimilar way that LI and Lu are paired. Because

the texts are interested in analyzing and treating some pathology,

the examples presume a long-term or intense emotion. They are not

interested in transitional action or situations where the patient

rebalance and recover themselves.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much!

 

Andrea Beth

 

bcataiji <bcaom wrote:

,

<> wrote:

> Who is the author of this book? This is the first I've heard of it.

>

 

It is a great 700 page book. It was a Jin Dynasty (265-420 CE) text.

It gives much information on disease cause, diagnosis, and treatment

principles. It also details the classical point locations, needle

depth and retention duration, moxa perscriptions, point combinations, etc.

 

The Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxibustion

by Huang-fu Mi

A Translation of the Jia Yi Jing by Yang Shou-zhong and Charles Chace

published by Blue Poppy Press

ISBN 0-936185-29-5

 

I apologize in advance for this straying from the intent of the CHA.

I just want to provide this information as requested.

 

Brian C. Allen

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> , " Bob Flaws "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

>

> > Sorry to say, I don't follow your logic here. A sign is an

> " objective " indication, such as a facial color, pulse image, or

tongue

> fur as

>

> Thanks for the clarity, Bob. I get your point about sorrow being

> subjective; I was thinking that the sorrow would be apparent to an

> outside observer, but I did not think it through - for instance,

the

> person could be pretending.

 

(Playing catch-up)

 

Brian, actually, the way that you were using the emotion was more

etiology vs. sign or symptom.

 

>

> Thanks for the many examples. Now, I do not have to thumb through

the

> books for Jason.

>

>

 

Brian and all,

 

Bob did supply some classical references for emotions listed as

symptoms. This I knew and do not think there is a debate here. The

question as Bob reiterated, are these relevant today. I still am

waiting for some references from modern times (or in the last 200

years)... I do think they probably exist (somewhere), so would like

to see it. Otherwise I can only conclude the following.

It is clear that classically emotions where thought of as directly

related to organs, but we have to ask why these are no longer

mentioned like this. IT was not a communist conspiracy, as many

like to believe, that took these out, because this filtering

occurred earlier. So I will quote my previous post :

 

" So we really need citations from modern or pre-modern sources if

there is going to be [sic] any proof of the matter, therefore

warranting even that we should test such a

hypothesis. So the way I see it, 'grief equaling a lung symptom' is

only a hypothesis at the current moment. "

 

We can only conclude that this type of thinking was weeded out

because `the Chinese' found such correlations not clinically

relevant. Since these correlations were obviously written about in

the neijing etc. we can know that many many practitioners tried such

ideas clinically, and that its falling is because of failure.

Unless we can find some (semi)modern sources, agreed??? Waiting for

the references…

 

> > Do such early citations still have relevance in contemporary CM?

> Just a question.

> >

> > By the Yuan dynasty, Li Dong-yuan does not use sorrow as a

symptom

> but only as a disease cause. In the Qing dynasty, neither Fu

> > Qing-zhu or Liu Yi-ren (author of the Heart Transmission of

> Medicine) use sorrow as a symptom.

> >

> > Bob

>

> Unless a good reason is present as to why those citations would

not be

> relevent today, then why would they not be?

 

Because they have been weeded out, things from the past stick if

they work or fall by the way side.

 

You go on to mention the

> lack of inclusion, but what there reason mentioned anywhere for the

> lack of inclusion?

>

> It would also be interesting to see if other emotionally based

notions

> other than sorrow have dropped out of fashion as being listed as a

> symptom. If so, what motivated the trend? Is this trend in the

best

> interest of the patient? Were past treatments based on the ideas

in

> your earlier citations ineffective?

 

We can assume. Especially since the original correspondences may be

based on political or other influences. IF we do not except this

distillation process we open up a whole can of worms. Todd has

clearly stated the reasons why this is probably not the best use of

time (sifting through the archives, looking for things that have

been deemed not to work and retrying them.) IF though we had a non-

medical influence that was shown to wipe out a type of theory or

idea, then these we be worth reconsidering. Remember the Chinese do

have access to 'all' the ancient texts… We forget there are 1000's

and 1000's of therapies and ideas that are no longer used. For

example, an ancient cure for night blindness, go out under a full

moon and rub dog shit over one's body (I think that was it)… IF we

want to resurrect all the ancient failed ideas why not start with

that ONE. (just a little humor)…

 

-

[Guest guest]

Jason

What is going on with the flu in Co? i.e. what has been your experience so far?

Also, can somebody elaborate a little for me what are the basic principles of

Daoist hebology? Since Yin Yang, exterior pathogenic factors are not within the

model how do they categorize the herbs and therapies?

Thanks

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

 

> We can assume. Especially since the original correspondences may be

 

> -

 

I am a little bit surprised by this Jason. You want references only

from modern texts as a type of " proof " of the connection between grief

/ sorrow as a symptom and the LU.

 

However, rather than wanting references of any time period stating why

that connection stated in many classical texts is a bunch of bull, and

that treatments based on those concepts failed, you say that, " we can

assume. "

 

I have to wait for more information before making the decision.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> , " "

>

> > We can assume. Especially since the original correspondences

may be

>

> > -

>

> I am a little bit surprised by this Jason. You want references

only

> from modern texts as a type of " proof " of the connection between

grief

> / sorrow as a symptom and the LU.

 

Why be surprised??

 

>

> However, rather than wanting references of any time period stating

why

> that connection stated in many classical texts is a bunch of bull,

and

> that treatments based on those concepts failed, you say that, " we

can

> assume. "

 

Yes… call it what you will. But I believe that classically things

were over simplified and as later practitioners started to test

these theories they realized that it is not as black and white as

you (or others classically) suggest. Therefore, these

correspondences have fell by the way side. IF you can offer a

better alternative to why these direct correlations are not taken so

literally in modern times then present it. Was there some political

silencing? I don't know of one…

Otherwise, IMO, these one to one correlations are not clinically

useful (in and of themselves)… If they were that useful don't think

they were be showing up more often??? What treatments do you think,

that are successful, have been weeded out? Lets see them… Otherwise

yes `we can assume!...'

Furthermore, the modern references support the idea that classically

things were oversimplified and have expanded the emotional

relationships way beyond Lu=grief. So, IMO, the support is on my

side until further evidence is put worth.

I get the impression that you feel that neijing etc. included

flawless unquestionable information?? Sounds a little

fundamentalist. Am I wrong? OR do you just think since it an

ancient doctor wrote something that it must be true? I am unsure… I

personally am swayed by the distillation process & clinical reality

(which includes case studies)… Theory of the past is just that…

Further more, maybe for proof of such 1 to 1 correlations, you or

others could supply some Chinese case studies that make use of

these. Then we can see treatments in action instead of theoretical

lip service. I am open to this possibility, but theory is theory, I

say show me the money…

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Why be surprised??

 

When someone presents themselves as representatives of reason, I am

surprised by such blatant inconsistencies.

 

 

> correspondences have fell by the way side. IF you can offer a

> better alternative to why these direct correlations are not taken so

> literally in modern times then present it. Was there some political

> silencing? I don't know of one…

> Otherwise, IMO, these one to one correlations are not clinically

> useful (in and of themselves)… If they were that useful don't think

> they were be showing up more often??? What treatments do you think,

> that are successful, have been weeded out? Lets see them… Otherwise

> yes `we can assume!...'

 

This is an flawed " if...then " argument. Basically, you have said that

if I cannot come up with something, then " we " (the profession) " can

assume. " It is ignorant to put that type of responsibility onto me as

some sort of representative of the profession. No one else would

expect that of me.

 

 

> I get the impression that you feel that neijing etc. included

> flawless unquestionable information?? Sounds a little

> fundamentalist. Am I wrong? OR do you just think since it an

> ancient doctor wrote something that it must be true? I am unsure… I

 

You made another bad assumption here. If I were as you characterized,

then I would have to say that I was just plain stupid; were you taking

some sort of shot at me there? I am extrememly open minded about CM,

and will forever be a student of CM. I like to see consensus

agreements on theory, but at the same time, I like to see reasons for

the concensus as well. If something has been exluded, I would like to

see the reason for the exclusion, so that I can agree or disagree as

appropriate. Do you that if a modern doctor writes something that it

must be true? Probably not.

 

 

> (which includes case studies)… Theory of the past is just that…

 

Theory of the present is just that also.

 

 

> Further more, maybe for proof of such 1 to 1 correlations, you or

> others could supply some Chinese case studies that make use of

> these. Then we can see treatments in action instead of theoretical

> lip service. I am open to this possibility, but theory is theory, I

> say show me the money…

>

>

> -

 

I do not support that the connection is valid, only that it has been

stated as such, and you have been supplied references that you find

unacceptable because they are not modern.

 

If you support that the connections are invalid, then the burden of

proof is on you. Where are the references that show that treatments

based on the theory are bad treatments and do not work? Where are the

references that say that grief / sorrow is NOT a symptom of a type of

LU pathology? Where are the references that show the reasons for why

grief / sorrow as a symptom of a type of LU pathology has been left

out of many modern sources?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Furthermore, the modern references support the idea that classically

> things were oversimplified and have expanded the emotional

> relationships way beyond Lu=grief. So, IMO, the support is on my

> side until further evidence is put worth.

 

I posted a reference from Wiseman's PD about the symptoms that happen

when the LU is damaged by sorrow. I then asked what LU pattern that

was because it did not list typical LU symptoms such as cough, etc.

which is to what the very first post on this topic referred. Nobody

came up with an answer. Do you have an answer as to what LU pattern

that is? What would be the treatment of that LU pattern be? Would

that treatment have a positive effect in regards to the sorrow?

 

That questioning is the direction my posts went in, and I think the

answers to these questions will provide the modern clinical

information that you are looking for.

 

Also, on pages 197-198 of Deng's Practical Diagnosis in TCM, he states,

" When the lung qi is vacuous it causes the functioning of the

ancestral qi to be reduced, which can cause heart qi vacuity with

results such as the manifestation of deep and dispersed reflection,

and sorrow with a tendency to cry easily. "

 

That one statement show a pathomechanism for LU qi xu leading to

sorrow. The rest of the statements in that section treat sorrow as a

cause of lung and / or heart pathology, but that one statement still

shows sorrow as a result of lung qi vacuity.

 

His treament principle is to supplement and boost the heart and lung;

the representative formulas given are bao yuan tang or sheng mai san.

 

Also, Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture gives sadness and weeping as

indications for LU-3. It follows from this, that treating the LU via

LU-3 can treat sadness and weeping. However, none of the following

text contain those indications for LU-3: CAM; Wiseman's Fundamentals

of Chinese Acupuncture; and, Bensky's Acupuncture: A Comprehensive

Text. I think I remember you writing a few days ago that you were not

interested in acupuncture based evidence on this matter.

 

I am sorry that I do not YET read medical chinese, nor do I own

chinese language only sources, so I cannot give those type of references.

 

If you want to continue this thread with me, let's not make it

personal. Instead, try to address some of the questions and issues

that I presented above.

 

I am here only to learn; not to prove my take on anything. I think I

posed good questions on this topic, in this post and previous posts.

If those questions get answered, it would give many people in this

forum a chance to learn.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Also, Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture gives sadness and weeping as

indications for LU-3. It follows from this, that treating the LU via

LU-3 can treat sadness and weeping. However, none of the following

text contain those indications for LU-3: CAM; Wiseman's Fundamentals

of Chinese Acupuncture; and, Bensky's Acupuncture: A Comprehensive

Text. I think I remember you writing a few days ago that you were not

interested in acupuncture based evidence on this matter.

 

>>>>Does needling Lu-3 change one's sandness and weeping?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

>

> >>>>Does needling Lu-3 change one's sandness and weeping?

> Alon

>

 

Anecdotal only: yes, I've seen it work as a single point for this.

However, let's not turn this thread into a gooey debate on the merits

of an acupuncture point or protocol, guys. Brian was simply listing

sources that showed direct correlation between grief and the lung.

 

--Laurie Burton

[Guest guest]

Jason,

This sounds to me a bit like a 'bully pulpit'. Clearly the Nei Jing

included several models of correspondences used by different

practitioners and schools during the Han era and before, as there are

different chapters with different arrangements of correspondences.

These were then refined further in the Nan Jing. Bob Flaws in his post

last week pointed out passages in the Mai Jing that had different

correspondences of emotions to patterns of symptoms.

Modern textbooks continue to list the five phase correspondences of

emotions, and emotions continue to be one of the major causes of

disease. I see it as a shorthand system of classification, as a way of

arranging phenomena to allow a physician to gather symptoms and signs

and design treatment strategies. Some of these models conflict.

However, there is no reason why we shouldn't have access to this stuff

and decide what is relevant in a particular situation. The more

information, the more choices, the more flexibility.

As we've discussed many times before, clinical reality and study of

medical texts, both modern and classical is part of a continuum that

continues in China, Japan and Korea today. There is no reason why we

should limit ourselves to empiricism, as clinical practice in Chinese

medicine is always informed by theory.

As we still accept theories in modern science such as the

evolutionary theory of Darwin, and build on that, I see no problem with

accepting the ancient theories of Chinese medicine and building on them

in a continuum of knowledge. Darwin is still seen as the source of

evolutionary theory, and a fount of truth, even as evolutionary

knowledge grows more sophisticated.

Yin-yang, five phase, eight principle, channel theory, etc. remain

the foundation of Chinese medicine. Emotions as a cause of disease

remains an indisputable part of Chinese medicine. To discard theory is

to cast Chinese medicine adrift in a sea of empiricism. And guess what

will replace it?

 

 

On Dec 13, 2003, at 11:11 AM, wrote:

 

> Yes… call it what you will. But I believe that classically things

> were over simplified and as later practitioners started to test

> these theories they realized that it is not as black and white as

> you (or others classically) suggest. Therefore, these

> correspondences have fell by the way side. IF you can offer a

> better alternative to why these direct correlations are not taken so

> literally in modern times then present it. Was there some political

> silencing? I don't know of one…

> Otherwise, IMO, these one to one correlations are not clinically

> useful (in and of themselves)… If they were that useful don't think

> they were be showing up more often??? What treatments do you think,

> that are successful, have been weeded out? Lets see them… Otherwise

> yes `we can assume!...'

> Furthermore, the modern references support the idea that classically

> things were oversimplified and have expanded the emotional

> relationships way beyond Lu=grief. So, IMO, the support is on my

> side until further evidence is put worth.

> I get the impression that you feel that neijing etc. included

> flawless unquestionable information?? Sounds a little

> fundamentalist. Am I wrong? OR do you just think since it an

> ancient doctor wrote something that it must be true? I am unsure… I

> personally am swayed by the distillation process & clinical reality

> (which includes case studies)… Theory of the past is just that…

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Modern textbooks continue to list the five phase

correspondences of

> emotions, and emotions continue to be one of the major causes of

> disease.

 

Z'ev,

 

I am in no way debating what you are saying... Emotions are clearly

an important etiological factor. I don't think I or anyone else has

said otherwise.

 

I see it as a shorthand system of classification, as a way of

> arranging phenomena to allow a physician to gather symptoms and

signs

> and design treatment strategies. Some of these models conflict.

> However, there is no reason why we shouldn't have access to this

stuff

> and decide what is relevant in a particular situation. The more

> information, the more choices, the more flexibility.

 

Of course...

 

> As we've discussed many times before, clinical reality and

study of

> medical texts, both modern and classical is part of a continuum

that

> continues in China, Japan and Korea today. There is no reason why

we

> should limit ourselves to empiricism, as clinical practice in

Chinese

> medicine is always informed by theory.

 

But theory evolves and expands, and I find simple correspondences

are just that, simple. And not clinically relevant (sometimes.)

 

> As we still accept theories in modern science such as the

> evolutionary theory of Darwin, and build on that, I see no problem

with

> accepting the ancient theories of Chinese medicine and building on

them

> in a continuum of knowledge.

 

Exactly, and those basic 1 to 1 correspondences have been expanded.

 

Darwin is still seen as the source of

> evolutionary theory, and a fount of truth, even as evolutionary

> knowledge grows more sophisticated.

 

But many things he said have been expanded and some of his ideas

have become obsolete.

 

Ancient CM is the same way, yes there is a foundation that still

exists today, but many more practical applications have been

discarded because they just aren't effective. And many of the

theories have been expanded because the previous theories of the

past were inadequate. Why dwell on the past when we have more

comprehensive systems of the day that address things more

completely. I only think this is appropriate when we see that these

modern ideas do not work…

 

 

 

> Yin-yang, five phase, eight principle, channel theory, etc.

remain

> the foundation of Chinese medicine. Emotions as a cause of

disease

> remains an indisputable part of Chinese medicine. To discard

theory is

> to cast Chinese medicine adrift in a sea of empiricism …

 

I don't think anyone is saying this.

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

> , " "

> <@h...> wrote:

>

> > Furthermore, the modern references support the idea that

classically

> > things were oversimplified and have expanded the emotional

> > relationships way beyond Lu=grief. So, IMO, the support is on

my

> > side until further evidence is put worth.

>

> I posted a reference from Wiseman's PD about the symptoms that

happen

> when the LU is damaged by sorrow. I then asked what LU pattern

that

> was because it did not list typical LU symptoms such as cough, etc.

> which is to what the very first post on this topic referred.

 

I would like to stick to the distinction, which is IMO the really

only important question, between etiology and symptom. What you

mention above is discussing etiology.

>

> That questioning is the direction my posts went in, and I think the

> answers to these questions will provide the modern clinical

> information that you are looking for.

 

I am unclear how…??

 

>

> Also, on pages 197-198 of Deng's Practical Diagnosis in TCM, he

states,

> " When the lung qi is vacuous it causes the functioning of the

> ancestral qi to be reduced, which can cause heart qi vacuity with

> results such as the manifestation of deep and dispersed reflection,

> and sorrow with a tendency to cry easily. "

 

I read this passage and it is titled 'Sorrow damage pattern' which

refers to excessive grief damaging the heart and lung. And your

statement above with the context of the whole passage shows a couple

of things. A) the heart is just as much damaged as the lung

But more importantly b) It is talking about sorrow being the

etiological factor for the damage to the heart and the lung.

It does not give any evidence that modern texts list grief as a

symptom for lung patterns.

 

>

> That one statement show a pathomechanism for LU qi xu leading to

> sorrow.

 

No I don't agree, please re-read this and let me know what you

think… Taken out of context of the previous sentence I see what you

are saying but I feel that is missing the whole idea of the

paragraph. I find that it says that there is somewhat of a circular

kind of process going on… I.e. Sorrow damage causes lung qi damage…

lung qi causes heart qi damage, heart qi causes deep and dispersed

reflection and sorrow,… "

 

I still think that the only way to settle what all this means is to

see some case studies that demonstrate these theories. Or at least

see some pattern breakdowns for diseases, and see these emotions

included.

 

 

The rest of the statements in that section treat sorrow as a

> cause of lung and / or heart pathology, but that one statement

still

> shows sorrow as a result of lung qi vacuity.

>

> His treament principle is to supplement and boost the heart and

lung;

> the representative formulas given are bao yuan tang or sheng mai

san.

 

*** Again this is for the etiology of sorrow causing heart and lung

qi vacuity. Nothing new here. Actually it tells us nothing about

if this changes the sorrow itself, it just says that the symptoms

i.e. shortage of qi, lack of strength etc. are going to be helped.

Can we say that etiological factors are changed by the formulas?

The question I guess now is will sheng mai san help with grief?

Maybe.. maybe not… I don't think so...

 

-

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

 

> When someone presents themselves as representatives of reason, I am

> surprised by such blatant inconsistencies.

 

Please explain, I see none...

 

>

>

> > correspondences have fell by the way side. IF you can offer a

> > better alternative to why these direct correlations are not

taken so

> > literally in modern times then present it. Was there some

political

> > silencing? I don't know of one…

> > Otherwise, IMO, these one to one correlations are not clinically

> > useful (in and of themselves)… If they were that useful don't

think

> > they were be showing up more often??? What treatments do you

think,

> > that are successful, have been weeded out? Lets see them…

Otherwise

> > yes `we can assume!...'

>

> This is an flawed " if...then " argument. Basically, you have said

that

> if I cannot come up with something, then " we " (the profession) " can

> assume. " It is ignorant to put that type of responsibility onto

me as

> some sort of representative of the profession. No one else would

> expect that of me.

 

Flawed?? I don't think so at all... things (most of time) fall by

the way side that are clinically invalid... I stand by that...

I am not putting anything at all onto you... but I address you

because you are the one representing this possibly 'outdated'

viewpoint... I would like to see proof, it can be from anyone. But

I am curious why you believe it... SO I ask (you or anyone) let's

see it (the proof)...

 

>

>

> > I get the impression that you feel that neijing etc. included

> > flawless unquestionable information?? Sounds a little

> > fundamentalist. Am I wrong? OR do you just think since it an

> > ancient doctor wrote something that it must be true? I am

unsure… I

>

> You made another bad assumption here. If I were as you

characterized,

> then I would have to say that I was just plain stupid; were you

taking

> some sort of shot at me there?

 

Not at all...

 

I am extrememly open minded about CM,

> and will forever be a student of CM. I like to see consensus

> agreements on theory, but at the same time, I like to see reasons

for

> the concensus as well.

 

Good too hear your open-mindedness, so why do you think we don't see

those 1 to 1 correlations anymore and see more complex interrelated

relationships...??

 

If something has been exluded, I would like to

> see the reason for the exclusion, so that I can agree or disagree

as

> appropriate.

 

Yes... again why do you think it left?

 

Do you that if a modern doctor writes something that it

> must be true? Probably not.

>

>

> > (which includes case studies)… Theory of the past is just that…

>

> Theory of the present is just that also.

 

Yes but modern theory and modern doctors have 1 great IMPORTANT

advantage; they have the past to inform them... That is precisely

why modern theory (in general) is superior to classical theory.

That is why I make the statement, that modern doctors have seen that

your idea ( & neijing's), that clinical 1 to 1 correlations are

oversimplified and therefore do not make such statements anymore.

They understand things are more complex then once thought. This is

quite reasonable and makes sense to me clinically. That is my

hypothesis why grief does not wind up in lists for lung qi vacuity…

 

 

>

> I do not support that the connection is valid, only that it has

been

> stated as such, and you have been supplied references that you find

> unacceptable because they are not modern.

 

Of course because modern sources have moved on… This is quite

important for the evolution of medicine as a whole… The new has

replaced the old, why would I suddenly rely on the old???????? Only

if the new does not work, correct?

 

>

> If you support that the connections are invalid, then the burden of

> proof is on you. Where are the references that show that

treatments

> based on the theory are bad treatments and do not work?

 

Show me specific treatments (with case studies or discussion and

then we can talk).. sorry IMO the burden is on you so show us the

money… I am only stating what I have read in modern texts, and I do

give modern texts more weight that classical texts. (generally

speaking)

 

Where are the

> references that say that grief / sorrow is NOT a symptom of a type

of

> LU pathology?

 

the fact that grief is not listed in the lists of symptoms for lung

syndromes is the proof, period! You do not need to find a discussion

that says IT IS NOT A SYMPTOM, but the mere fact that it does not

show up is the proof! – I.e. Show me where excessive dreams are due

to the L.I. – It is never listed that is how we know that it is so…

Basic logic. We have already all agreed that multiple organs can

create grief, My hypothesis is that people realize it is not a

keynote sign therefore do not list it under lung patterns… I could

be wrong, just waiting to see…

 

Where are the references that show the reasons for why

> grief / sorrow as a symptom of a type of LU pathology has been left

> out of many modern sources?

 

This is starting to sound silly… Every time something is found not

to be clinically valid, do you think we have to have some discussion

on why they stopped doing it… Of course not… things just stop being

used and that is the proof, especially when the theory has been

replaced by a more evolved integrated version. I need no reference

because it does not exist. I am confused with the above logic,

maybe someone can explain things to me…??

 

-

[Guest guest]

Jason, I think you make a good case for modern theory. I dont mean to jump =

in the

middle of this but I see classical theory important when the modern cannot =

explain

what is needed. Certainly we need to treat " grief " more as a chief complain=

t more

often than doctors in 1960's China. (Not that it wasn't there, of course.) =

Can the

classics help us? Let's look.

Have I seen people treat " grief " with Sheng Mai San? All the time... is it =

effective?

Weellll, I'd have to go back and ask. Do I treat recovering drug addicts wi=

th Gan Mai

Da Zao and/or Chai Hu Long Gu Mu Li... yes, all the time. Is it effective? =

yes. Is it

classical or modern theory? don't really care.

 

doug

> >

> > > I get the impression that you feel that neijing etc. included

> > > flawless unquestionable information?? Sounds a little

> > > fundamentalist. Am I wrong? OR do you just think since it an

> > > ancient doctor wrote something that it must be true? I am

> unsure… I

 

> >

> > Theory of the present is just that also.

>

> Yes but modern theory and modern doctors have 1 great IMPORTANT

> advantage; they have the past to inform them... That is precisely

> why modern theory (in general) is superior to classical theory.

> That is why I make the statement, that modern doctors have seen that

> your idea ( & neijing's), that clinical 1 to 1 correlations are

> oversimplified and therefore do not make such statements anymore.

> They understand things are more complex then once thought. This is

> quite reasonable and makes sense to me clinically. That is my

> hypothesis why grief does not wind up in lists for lung qi vacuity…

>

>

> >

> > I do not support that the connection is valid, only that it has

> been

> > stated as such, and you have been supplied references that you find

> > unacceptable because they are not modern.

>

> Of course because modern sources have moved on… This is quite

> important for the evolution of medicine as a whole… The new has

> replaced the old, why would I suddenly rely on the old???????? Only

> if the new does not work, correct?

>

> >

> > If you support that the connections are invalid, then the burden of

> > proof is on you. Where are the references that show that

> treatments

> > based on the theory are bad treatments and do not work?

>

> Show me specific treatments (with case studies or discussion and

> then we can talk).. sorry IMO the burden is on you so show us the

> money… I am only stating what I have read in modern texts, and I do

> give modern texts more weight that classical texts. (generally

> speaking)

>

> Where are the

> > references that say that grief / sorrow is NOT a symptom of a type

> of

> > LU pathology?

>

> the fact that grief is not listed in the lists of symptoms for lung

> syndromes is the proof, period! You do not need to find a discussion

> that says IT IS NOT A SYMPTOM, but the mere fact that it does not

> show up is the proof! – I.e. Show me where excessive dreams are due

> to the L.I. – It is never listed that is how we know that it is so…

> Basic logic. We have already all agreed that multiple organs can

> create grief, My hypothesis is that people realize it is not a

> keynote sign therefore do not list it under lung patterns… I could

> be wrong, just waiting to see…

>

> Where are the references that show the reasons for why

> > grief / sorrow as a symptom of a type of LU pathology has been left

> > out of many modern sources?

>

> This is starting to sound silly… Every time something is found not

> to be clinically valid, do you think we have to have some discussion

> on why they stopped doing it… Of course not… things just stop being

> used and that is the proof, especially when the theory has been

> replaced by a more evolved integrated version. I need no reference

> because it does not exist. I am confused with the above logic,

> maybe someone can explain things to me…??

>

> -

[Guest guest]

There are other aspects of classical texts that may not be directly

important to some people, but are to me and others. Those aspects are:

1) inspiration: I find great inspiration in some of the classical texts

that gives me the juice to keep going after 23 years of Chinese

medicine. I read the modern case reports and textbooks, but I just

don't get as much inspiration from them, although the data is very

valuable.

2) the philosophy: Chinese medicine is as much a lifestyle and way of

thinking as a clinical practice. Enhancing one's thinking and way of

living is as healing if not more so than herbal medicine or

acupuncture. It's what we call today preventative medicine. The Su

Wen was largely about preventative medicine, and its lessons are still

valid today. A healthy lifestyle and healthy mind and body are the

best defense against disease.

 

The expansion of Su Wen theory occurred in the SHL and Jin/Yuan

theories up until the Qing dynasty and beyond. There is no problem

with this, but as we know with Chinese thought in general, one doesn't

discard traditional thought for the sake of the new. This is one

difference from modern medicine. The past is seen as largely obsolete,

and modern medicine constantly strains towards the new. In Chinese

medicine, we have the advantage of an unbroken chain of tradition. Why

discard the past for the sake of the new? I don't think we need to cut

off one limb for the sake of the other. Let's research the classical

texts and do clinical trials and studies at the same time. Let's grow

in all directions. Why sacrifice anything?

 

A tree only grows as tall as its roots grow deep.

 

 

 

 

On Dec 13, 2003, at 7:01 PM, wrote:

 

> Ancient CM is the same way, yes there is a foundation that still

> exists today, but many more practical applications have been

> discarded because they just aren't effective. And many of the

> theories have been expanded because the previous theories of the

> past were inadequate. Why dwell on the past when we have more

> comprehensive systems of the day that address things more

> completely. I only think this is appropriate when we see that these

> modern ideas do not work…

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> There are other aspects of classical texts that may not be directly

> important to some people, but are to me and others. Those aspects are:

> 1) inspiration: > 2) the philosophy:

 

 

I doubt anyone would disagree with this. but some are inspired to serve from

within

and the only philosophy they need is the one that places service above all else.

you

don't necessarily need the classics for this. but it was the classics that

inspired every

generation of CM, including our own. Before we had much else, there was Veith's

Nei

Jing and Lu's, as well. Funny how those now discredited books played such a

seminal

role amongst the founders of the american profession of CM. I wonder if a

Wiseman

or Unschuld Nei Jing would have stirred so many (not that Veith was all that

accessible, though Lu was quite influential).

 

I think it is also important to remember that not everyone is moved by

philosophy or

inspirational readings. Some may not be what one calls inspired at all. But

they may

be good serviceable clinicans who help the sick (a smaller number should never

have

been admitted to school in the first place, but this story is not about them).

But that

really begs the question whether everyone needs to be inspired to practice

medicine.

that would perhaps be ideal, but I do not think there are enough inspired people

to

serve.

 

Medicine has a utilitarian role first and foremost. Scholarship, research and

philosophy serve this purpose. So as long as some do these loftier things, the

others

will have the material they need to practice. To suggest that one can only

serve from

the loftiest place is just incorrect. The typical graduate of a modern american

TCM

school, whatever their shortcomings, knows a tremendous amount more than the

average joe and can serve safely and effectively for most complaints.

Nevertheless, it

still cannot be argued that the average student wouldn't be inspired by reading

annotated classics. the reverse is more likely true. After all the average

american is

still inspired in their daily lives by reading similarly ancient texts.

 

[Guest guest]

On the other hand; I have seen women keeping sad and crying after a divorce, and

in such cases I have found a heart-deficiency, and needling HT09 has solved the

problem.

This I have also seen in SP-deficiencies, so I guess that quite many unbalances

may lead to self pity and weeping in individuals that have such tendencies (self

pity).

Are

 

Are Simeon Thoresen

arethore

http://home.online.no/~arethore/

 

-

burtonperez

Sunday, December 14, 2003 12:49 AM

Re: Emotions

 

 

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

>

> >>>>Does needling Lu-3 change one's sandness and weeping?

> Alon

>

 

Anecdotal only: yes, I've seen it work as a single point for this.

However, let's not turn this thread into a gooey debate on the merits

of an acupuncture point or protocol, guys. Brian was simply listing

sources that showed direct correlation between grief and the lung.

 

--Laurie Burton

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.