MSU (making stuff up)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/19/01 9:42:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

zrosenberg writes:

 

> Will,

> I have also, from time to time, had students make remarkable insights

> into aspects of the classical Chinese medical literature. . . .there are

> some very bright people out there. This is why we owe them the best

> knowledge base we could possibly give them, that is, better access to the

> Chinese medical literature, both modern and classical.

 

> We certainly have more and better material than we used to. However, there

> are still problems. I still think it is necessary for a classical text to

> include the Chinese characters, pinyin, and English translation with

> accessible glossary, along with commentaries to explain the text. I also

> use the Blue Poppy Mai Jing and other such books, and really appreciate

> their availability and quality, but their usefulness is limited by the lack

> of Chinese and pinyin, or useful commentaries.

 

Z'ev....I agree with you wholeheartedly with you on these points. We are

discussing MSU and what criteria qualify a practitioner for engaging in such

pursuit. If it produces clinically valuable outcomes, I say it makes no

difference. Certainly the quality of MSU tends to be higher when the

practitioner has more experience and has studied the classics (Li Dongyuan,

Zhu Danxi). But...the use of the term regarding the French and divergents has

appeared many times in various forums. I say more power to them if it works.

And I say more power to the individual who can take a new piece of work and

create possibilities for the medicine. And, if the work can be linked back to

the classics rendering a complete circle -- kudos.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

on 3/20/01 7:22 AM, WMorris116 at WMorris116 wrote:

 

 

>

> Z'ev....I agree with you wholeheartedly with you on these points. We are

> discussing MSU and what criteria qualify a practitioner for engaging in such

> pursuit. If it produces clinically valuable outcomes, I say it makes no

> difference. Certainly the quality of MSU tends to be higher when the

> practitioner has more experience and has studied the classics (Li Dongyuan,

> Zhu Danxi). But...the use of the term regarding the French and divergents has

> appeared many times in various forums. I say more power to them if it works.

> And I say more power to the individual who can take a new piece of work and

> create possibilities for the medicine. And, if the work can be linked back to

> the classics rendering a complete circle -- kudos.

>

> Will

 

Will,

I am not familiar with Chaumfraut's work (is that the right spelling?), I

am with Van Nghi, and took several seminars with him. I will have to wait

for Chip and Miki's book on the divergents, which supposedly has an in-depth

discussion on the divergents from the French point of view. In the

meantime, perhaps you can update me on how they modified the knowledge base

on this subject.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think that MSU is an integral part of what we

practitioners do in order to push the boundaries of

. There is a ton of information out

there, and most of it is riddled with contradictions,

i.e., TCM theory, 5 Element theory, etc. Moreover,

this gets more confusing when we live in a society

overrun by western medical theory. MSU is a way of

attempting to make these theories more cohesive and

more relevant to the conditions presented in clinic.

 

As a beginner in this field, and frustrated with the

paucity of translated works, the quality of

translations, and the relevance to modern day clinical

practice, I find myself MSU'ing. The difference,

however, is that if something has clinic value, I

think almost by definition it is not really MSU --

because at some point, and on some level, it is

grounded in Chinese medical theory, for that was the

spark that initiated the " MSU " . What is important, I

think, is to not " MSU " carelessly -- to not have any

foundation for the theories upon which treatments are

based. While I do agree that a certain level of

experience and education is crucial to the ability to

expand Chinese medical theory, I don't think that it

is necessarily true that the more experience one has

the better the ability to MSU. Sometimes it is the

fresh eye that allows for particular types of insights

-- to be able to think outside the box -- this ability

transcends experience.

 

Ross

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/20/01 12:11:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, zrosenberg writes:

 

 

 

I am not familiar with Chaumfraut's work (is that the right spelling?), I

am with Van Nghi, and took several seminars with him. I will have to wait

for Chip and Miki's book on the divergents, which supposedly has an in-depth

discussion on the divergents from the French point of view. In the

meantime, perhaps you can update me on how they modified the knowledge base

on this subject.

 

 

I do not follow these works. Check Luc Deschepper for a Dutch point of view and especially Helm's Acupuncture Energetics for a concise recapitulation of the French approach to divergents -- one that I have found useful as have most of my students. I must say CAM is virtually useless in this regard. I think Jeffrey Yuen has an interesting hit on divergents and he seems to consume much European literature as well as read Chinese and have lineage. So this is all 'created' in recent times, but I find it useful on occasion and am content to extend from this material on a clinical basis.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Z'ev

 

In a message dated 3/21/01 8:01:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, zrosenberg writes:

 

 

I have Helm's text, and have taken jeffrey yuen's course that includes divergents. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a necessary reference point.

 

 

I like historical reference points as well, but not as a necessary point (the material is often-times chaotic and paradoxical). The necessary aspect for me is clinical viability. I find all these sources classical and contemporary, main stream and fringe useful and often intellectually stimulating, yet they require unbiased (as much as possible) clinical scrutiny. If I throw a notion out because there is no clear classical reference, I may miss something of value.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

on 3/21/01 6:16 AM, WMorris116 at WMorris116 wrote:

 

 

 

I do not follow these works. Check Luc Deschepper for a Dutch point of view

and especially Helm's Acupuncture Energetics for a concise recapitulation of

the French approach to divergents -- one that I have found useful as have

most of my students. I must say CAM is virtually useless in this regard. I

think Jeffrey Yuen has an interesting hit on divergents and he seems to

consume much European literature as well as read Chinese and have lineage. So

this is all 'created' in recent times, but I find it useful on occasion and

am content to extend from this material on a clinical basis.

 

Will

 

I have Helm's text, and have taken jeffrey yuen's course that includes divergents. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a necessary reference point. For Example, Dr. Manaka's work was quite innovative, but rooted squarely in classical materials, and he noted where he 'diverged' from the original source material. he also kept elaborate case histories and did admirable research protocols.

 

 

[Guest guest]

.. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a necessary reference point

>>>Does it metter if it will show to be clinically useful?

Alon

 

-

WMorris116

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 8:17 AM

Re: Re: MSU (making stuff up)

Z'ev In a message dated 3/21/01 8:01:13 AM Pacific Standard Time, zrosenberg writes:

I have Helm's text, and have taken jeffrey yuen's course that includes divergents. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a necessary reference point. I like historical reference points as well, but not as a necessary point (the material is often-times chaotic and paradoxical). The necessary aspect for me is clinical viability. I find all these sources classical and contemporary, main stream and fringe useful and often intellectually stimulating, yet they require unbiased (as much as possible) clinical scrutiny. If I throw a notion out because there is no clear classical reference, I may miss something of value. Will Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

on 3/20/01 8:29 AM, ross rosen at rossrosen wrote:

 

> I think that MSU is an integral part of what we

> practitioners do in order to push the boundaries of

> . There is a ton of information out

> there, and most of it is riddled with contradictions,

> i.e., TCM theory, 5 Element theory, etc. Moreover,

> this gets more confusing when we live in a society

> overrun by western medical theory. .

 

Ross,

What is it that you find 'riddled with contradictions' about TCM and Five

Phase Theory? What is confusing? Is it the way it has been taught, or the

presentation in textbooks in school?

>

 

>MSU is a way of

> attempting to make these theories more cohesive and

> more relevant to the conditions presented in clinic.

 

How can one make the essential principles of a medicine work clinically if

one is confused by them? How does one relate MSU to the essential theories

and clinical situation at hand?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

on 3/21/01 9:20 AM, alonmarcus at alonmarcus wrote:

 

.. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical

continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a

necessary reference point

>>>Does it metter if it will show to be clinically useful?

Alon

 

Alon,

I think we've been over this ground before. What is most important for me in the classical texts is the logical/theoretical structure, the basis on which this medicine is built. No matter what one does clinically, it is still based on yin yang, five phase, six channel theories et. al., the principles of formula construction, collected material on the effects of medicinals. CM extends all the way back to the Yi Jing/Book of Changes. If one is educated in this tradition, one's experiences and innovations make a continuity with what came before. . . .one needs to examine them to see if they are part of the CM tradition or not.

Because yin/yang theory is a tool with nearly infinite application, there is no limit to the variety of clinical applications that are possible.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think Chinese medicine is extremely difficult --

that is what I love about it. To take a complex set

of signs and symptoms, past medical history, family

history, emotional make-up, etc., and create a pattern

which addresses the root and not just the symptoms is

complex.

 

It is not that I find TCM theory or 5 Element theory

in themselves contradictory, but it is that both

theories can contradict each other. For example,

consider a patient who a 5 element practitioner may

diagnose as a Fire CF, and who a TCM practitioner

diagnoses as LV yang rising. If the TCM practitioner

were to drain a point like LV 2 to sedate the LV yang,

that may be detrimental to the patient since it will

further weaken fire.

 

So, it's not that I'm so confused by TCM or by 5

element theory, it's that I find it difficult to mesh

the two on many occasions, i.e., is HT 7 a source

point used to tonify the HT, or is it an earth point

which will sedate the HT? Does it simply depend on

how it's needled?, intention? I like when my

treatments are backed by both theoretical frameworks.

And this I find difficult and sometimes confusing.

 

Ross Rosen

 

 

 

--- <zrosenberg wrote:

> on 3/20/01 8:29 AM, ross rosen at

> rossrosen wrote:

>

> > I think that MSU is an integral part of what we

> > practitioners do in order to push the boundaries

> of

> > . There is a ton of information

> out

> > there, and most of it is riddled with

> contradictions,

> > i.e., TCM theory, 5 Element theory, etc.

> Moreover,

> > this gets more confusing when we live in a society

> > overrun by western medical theory. .

>

> Ross,

> What is it that you find 'riddled with

> contradictions' about TCM and Five

> Phase Theory? What is confusing? Is it the way it

> has been taught, or the

> presentation in textbooks in school?

> >

>

> >MSU is a way of

> > attempting to make these theories more cohesive

> and

> > more relevant to the conditions presented in

> clinic.

>

> How can one make the essential principles of a

> medicine work clinically if

> one is confused by them? How does one relate MSU to

> the essential theories

> and clinical situation at hand?

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

I think we've been over this ground before. What is most important for me in the classical texts is the logical/theoretical structure, the basis on which this medicine is built. No matter what one does clinically, it is still based on yin yang, five phase, six channel theories et. al., the principles of formula construction, collected material on the effects of medicinals. CM extends all the way back to the Yi Jing/Book of Changes.

>>>>If that is true then you should have no problem with new ideas, as long as one uses CM philosophy in coming up with such a development. There should be no need to search for confirmation

Alon

 

-

 

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:12 AM

Re: Re: MSU (making stuff up)

on 3/21/01 9:20 AM, alonmarcus at alonmarcus wrote:

.. This stuff is all interesting, but I like to have historical continuity in the ideas that I entertain for clinical application, as a necessary reference point>>>Does it metter if it will show to be clinically useful?AlonAlon, I think we've been over this ground before. What is most important for me in the classical texts is the logical/theoretical structure, the basis on which this medicine is built. No matter what one does clinically, it is still based on yin yang, five phase, six channel theories et. al., the principles of formula construction, collected material on the effects of medicinal. CM extends all the way back to the Yi Jing/Book of Changes. If one is educated in this tradition, one's experiences and innovations make a continuity with what came before. . . .one needs to examine them to see if they are part of the CM tradition or not. Because yin/yang theory is a tool with nearly infinite application, there is no limit to the variety of clinical applications that are possible. Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

 

ross rosen [rossrosen]

Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:44 AM

 

Re: Re: MSU (making stuff up)

 

I think Chinese medicine is extremely difficult --

that is what I love about it. To take a complex set

of signs and symptoms, past medical history, family

history, emotional make-up, etc., and create a pattern

which addresses the root and not just the symptoms is

complex.

 

It is not that I find TCM theory or 5 Element theory

in themselves contradictory, but it is that both

theories can contradict each other.

 

Well it is my understanding that 5 element and yin and yang were at opposite

poles for some time (Totally contradictory schools of thought -

originally)... And as Chinese medicine goes, if it stays around long enough

then they merge.. Which is what happened.

 

-

For example,

consider a patient who a 5 element practitioner may

diagnose as a Fire CF, and who a TCM practitioner

diagnoses as LV yang rising. If the TCM practitioner

were to drain a point like LV 2 to sedate the LV yang,

that may be detrimental to the patient since it will

further weaken fire.

 

So, it's not that I'm so confused by TCM or by 5

element theory, it's that I find it difficult to mesh

the two on many occasions, i.e., is HT 7 a source

point used to tonify the HT, or is it an earth point

which will sedate the HT? Does it simply depend on

how it's needled?, intention? I like when my

treatments are backed by both theoretical frameworks.

And this I find difficult and sometimes confusing.

 

Ross Rosen