homeopathic TCM

[Guest guest]

For those of you who are new to the list, this subject tends to ruffle

lot of feathers. So right at the outset I want to stipulate that I

consider homeopathy to be a valid healing art with its own long

tradition. Having said that , I want to follow on my last post which

laid out a framework for discussing the terms purist, eclectic,

rational, and empirical, based loosely on the work of Harris Coulter in

his book divided legacy. Working from that framework , homeopathy

became classified as an empirical and purist form of medicine while

traditional Chinese medicine was actually at the opposite end of the

spectrum. Traditional Chinese medicine actually fit into the quadrant of

rational and eclectic forms of medicine. On one hand, what this means is

that while we could conceivably incorporate homeopathic remedies into

traditional Chinese medicine, there's really no way to incorporate

homeopathic philosophy into Chinese medicine.

 

So the question is begged how did homeopathy ever come to be so closely

associated with the practice of acupuncture that is at practiced by many

practitioners? Ironically , I think the answer to this question is

bound up with the issue of terminology. In particular, I'm talking about

the meaning of the term qi, as it came to be popularly connotated in the

early days of the acupuncture profession in the West. Qi was equated

with the so-called vital force of homeopathy at this time. However,

since we have not yet identified in any measurable way either the vital

force of homeopathy or the traditional Chinese concept of qi, we can

only know these ideas by how they're defined. The nature of the vital

force of homeopathy is inherent in the word vital. Vital refers to a

quality of living organisms. This vital force was also always conceived

to be ethereal or energetic in nature. However , the traditional

Chinese concept of qi is much broader than this.

 

According to neoconfucian philosophy, qi is a component of non living

objects in the manifest world, as well. In addition, while qi has an

energetic component to it, qi is not merely an ethereal, energetic

force. By this equation of qi with the vital force of homeopathy, I

believe the similarity between these two forms of medicine has been

greatly overstated. It could perhaps be argued that the vital force of

homeopathy is but one aspect of what Chinese medicine refers to as qi.

Both forms of medicine also rely on diagnosis of patterns or syndromes,

not merely disease nosology. They also gather similar information, such

as general information regarding energy level and sleep patterns, as

well as tongue and pulse signs. But that is where the similarity ends.

Homeopathy uses non material forms of medicines to focus its therapeutic

effect on a completely non material aspect of qi. On the other hand,

traditional Chinese medicine uses material forms of medicine and

mechanical stimulation in the form of acupuncture to have an effect on

more substantial aspects of the qi, not to mention being essentially

heteropathic in remedy selection..

 

My working hypothesis would thus be as follows. Since homeopathy

appears to address an aspect of the qi not addressed by other forms of

Chinese medicine, the remedies appear to act according to a different

set of rules. So once again, we return to the choice of either having to

reorganize homeopathic remedies according to the principles of

traditional Chinese medicine or immerse oneself completely in the system

as it currently exists. Given the overwhelming complexity of the former

task, it would seem that the latter approach would be the rational one

to take, no pun intended.

 

I have additional thoughts on Homeopathy and TCM posted at

http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/homeo.html

 

[Guest guest]

>For those of you who are new to the list, this subject tends to ruffle

>lot of feathers. So right at the outset I want to stipulate that I

>consider homeopathy to be a valid healing art with its own long

>tradition. Having said that , I want to follow on my last post which

>laid out a framework for discussing the terms purist, eclectic,

>rational, and empirical, based loosely on the work of Harris Coulter in

>his book divided legacy. Working from that framework , homeopathy

>became classified as an empirical and purist form of medicine while

>traditional Chinese medicine was actually at the opposite end of the

>spectrum. Traditional Chinese medicine actually fit into the quadrant of

>rational and eclectic forms of medicine. On one hand, what this means is

>that while we could conceivably incorporate homeopathic remedies into

>traditional Chinese medicine, there's really no way to incorporate

>homeopathic philosophy into Chinese medicine.

 

 

Actually, I think homeopathic philosophy has a lot of similar ideas to some

of the great classical Chinese texts. . . .this is one reason that authors

such as George Soulie de Morant compared the practice of acupuncture with

homeopathy, and even sited Hua To as using potentized sweat of the 'five

animals' as medicine. Also, Wiehe's system of remedies corresponding to

acupuncture points, while I do not know anyone who has ever used it, is a

very interesting subject for speculation.

>

>So the question is begged how did homeopathy ever come to be so closely

>associated with the practice of acupuncture that is at practiced by many

>practitioners? Ironically , I think the answer to this question is

>bound up with the issue of terminology. In particular, I'm talking about

>the meaning of the term qi, as it came to be popularly connotated in the

>early days of the acupuncture profession in the West. Qi was equated

>with the so-called vital force of homeopathy at this time. However,

>since we have not yet identified in any measurable way either the vital

>force of homeopathy or the traditional Chinese concept of qi, we can

>only know these ideas by how they're defined. The nature of the vital

>force of homeopathy is inherent in the word vital. Vital refers to a

>quality of living organisms. This vital force was also always conceived

>to be ethereal or energetic in nature. However , the traditional

>Chinese concept of qi is much broader than this.

 

This vital force, or essence, also exists in the medicines in nature that

resonate with human beings' vital force. . . .not only minerals, but

synthetic substances and diseased tissues (nosodes). I am not so sure

where vital force ends and qi begins. . . .it is a difficult subject to

undertake, and I don't know if anyone has the answers to this.

>

>According to neoconfucian philosophy, qi is a component of non living

>objects in the manifest world, as well. In addition, while qi has an

>energetic component to it, qi is not merely an ethereal, energetic

>force. By this equation of qi with the vital force of homeopathy, I

>believe the similarity between these two forms of medicine has been

>greatly overstated. It could perhaps be argued that the vital force of

>homeopathy is but one aspect of what Chinese medicine refers to as qi.

>Both forms of medicine also rely on diagnosis of patterns or syndromes,

>not merely disease nosology. They also gather similar information, such

>as general information regarding energy level and sleep patterns, as

>well as tongue and pulse signs. But that is where the similarity ends.

>Homeopathy uses non material forms of medicines to focus its therapeutic

>effect on a completely non material aspect of qi. On the other hand,

>traditional Chinese medicine uses material forms of medicine and

>mechanical stimulation in the form of acupuncture to have an effect on

>more substantial aspects of the qi, not to mention being essentially

>heteropathic in remedy selection..

 

In such texts as the Jia Yi Jing, acupuncture, while using stone and metal

needles, is not just giving 'mechanical stimulation'. It is clear that

acupuncture is a method for focusing, manipulating and directing qi to

effect human life. I don't see any qualitative difference between the

effects of homeopathy and acupuncture, myself.

>

>My working hypothesis would thus be as follows. Since homeopathy

>appears to address an aspect of the qi not addressed by other forms of

>Chinese medicine, the remedies appear to act according to a different

>set of rules. So once again, we return to the choice of either having to

>reorganize homeopathic remedies according to the principles of

>traditional Chinese medicine or immerse oneself completely in the system

>as it currently exists. Given the overwhelming complexity of the former

>task, it would seem that the latter approach would be the rational one

>to take, no pun intended.

>

 

Agreed.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev

 

> This vital force, or essence, also exists in the medicines in nature that

> resonate with human beings' vital force. . . .not only minerals, but

> synthetic substances and diseased tissues (nosodes). I am not so sure

> where vital force ends and qi begins. . . .it is a difficult subject to

> undertake, and I don't know if anyone has the answers to this.

 

I've stayed out of this thread as I know virtually nothing about homeopathy,

but there is a point I want to make with respect to the meaning of the

word qi. It presents what has long appeared to me as the quintessential

problem of translation of ancient Chinese concepts into English.

 

Talk about things appearing difficult and mysterious! When I was teaching

in Chengdu, I used to tell the students in the seminar on the translation

of medical terminology and texts that it would take a whole book to

translate the word qi adequately. At their initial urging, we got to work

on such a book and it should be out next year some time.

 

Point being that as knotty a problem as the rendition of the Chinese

word qi into English can be, there are distinct solutions; but they

are not quick and easy ones. I submit that given an adequate investment

of intellect and energetic pursuit of the study of a wide range of

source materials, a thoroughly adequate definition of qi can

be developed, which can then be used as a benchmark against

which concepts such as " vital force " can be assessed and, hopefully

more well understood.

 

Orientalist that I am, I do believe that such intrguingly difficult

questions

as " What is qi? " can be productively pursued by the sincere

and that perseverance in such a quest will indeed further.

 

Conversely, without such sincerity and perseverance, I come to

the same conclusion as offered by Sun Si Miao, that we are doomed

to be like blind men in the dark.

 

Ken