Guest guest Posted May 26, 2006 Report Share Posted May 26, 2006 Thu, 25 May 2006 14:57:38 +0100, " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > Zhang Zhongjing describes in the classical text … how external wind affects the liver … It wasn't until later; during the Song and Yuan dynasties that internal wind was formulated and these preceding symptoms were categorised as being induced by an internal wind rather than an external pathogen. An important observation. As I understand it, Han medicine tends to trace everything back to EPFs (external pathogenic factors, and in particular wind), in terms of progressions of from EPFs through what we (under the influence of Song and later CM) would consider more internal conditions. And the treatment strategies often hinge on supporting response processes which counter the EPF with zhengqi to move it back out to the surface, reversing the etiological progression, and then out of the body. Han physiological understanding saw more channel dynamics, along the lines of root-and-termination channels, and the four- or six-stage progressions. In Song and later (i.e. modern TCM), zangfu and their linkage to the primary channel system came more into focus. A corollary issue is whether the historical development is interpreted as " progress, " i.e. rendering the earlier understanding obsolete, or as changing perspective according to changing social and technological conditions. My sense, and the reason why I believe " classical CM " is worth studying, is that with a cultivated understanding of the classical viewpoint(s), their clinical application is relevant and effective when the presentation matches how they saw things. (This line of thought is similar to that outlined by Christopher Vedeler, in RE: TCM - thinking differently (Thu, 25 May 2006 15:12:10 0700).) I'm looking forward to Part II of the wind article, Attilio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2006 Report Share Posted May 27, 2006 Hi Chris, You raise very interesting points. I agree that later forms of Chinese medicine, especially during the industrialist Han period, offer the modern practitioner a valuable insight into Chinese medicine. However, I still believe that we need to trace back the theories and look at the context in which they were formulated, only then can be truly understand Chinese medicine, what we are doing and hope to achieve our treatment strategies. Contrary to Dr Snow's statement that Chinese medicine practitioners do not wield chickens around their heads, he is very close to the literal truth as told by Dr Harper in the Mawangdui manuscripts. Chinese medicine does have it's roots in shamanistic traditions and yet has evolved along with the political and religious doctrines of the time. The Mawangdui manuscripts are a invaluable resource for all Chinese medicine practitioners. I set out the Wind article in two parts. Part one deals with the historical aspect of wind's development, how qi was able to develop from wind theory and how there may be a link to earlier bug aetiology as stated in the Mawangdui manuscripts. Part two deals with the clinical application of these theories including some unorthodox views as to the existence of internal wind based on these original theories. I hope you enjoy the article! Kind regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM, MATCM Editor Times +44 (0) 208 367 8378 enquiries www.chinesemedicinetimes.com <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Chris Macie 26 May 2006 13:05 Chinese Medicine RE: Re: the jerks (Attilio) Thu, 25 May 2006 14:57:38 +0100, " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote: > Zhang Zhongjing describes in the classical text . how external wind affects the liver . It wasn't until later; during the Song and Yuan dynasties that internal wind was formulated and these preceding symptoms were categorised as being induced by an internal wind rather than an external pathogen. An important observation. As I understand it, Han medicine tends to trace everything back to EPFs (external pathogenic factors, and in particular wind), in terms of progressions of from EPFs through what we (under the influence of Song and later CM) would consider more internal conditions. And the treatment strategies often hinge on supporting response processes which counter the EPF with zhengqi to move it back out to the surface, reversing the etiological progression, and then out of the body. Han physiological understanding saw more channel dynamics, along the lines of root-and-termination channels, and the four- or six-stage progressions. In Song and later (i.e. modern TCM), zangfu and their linkage to the primary channel system came more into focus. A corollary issue is whether the historical development is interpreted as " progress, " i.e. rendering the earlier understanding obsolete, or as changing perspective according to changing social and technological conditions. My sense, and the reason why I believe " classical CM " is worth studying, is that with a cultivated understanding of the classical viewpoint(s), their clinical application is relevant and effective when the presentation matches how they saw things. (This line of thought is similar to that outlined by Christopher Vedeler, in RE: TCM - thinking differently (Thu, 25 May 2006 15:12:10 0700).) I'm looking forward to Part II of the wind article, Attilio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.