Truth?

[Guest guest]

Jim: I find it curious that the SHL was written around the 3rd

century and there still is no resolution to these debates.

 

 

So this forms the basis for the school of thought

amongst many senior Chengdu professors that six division theory was

meant as a template for understanding the progression of chronic

illness as well as cold damage. This position is based on what he

learned from his teachers and his role as a scholar with a PhD in

Chinese Language and Philosophy. It is not accepted amongst many

Chinese (and some Americans) I have spoken with, who argue that six

division theory is for cold damage only. It lends itself to

typology, for better or for worse.

 

 

Jim: My own teacher, a Korean, also held the view that it was a

general text and a useful template for chronic illness.

 

 

Similarly, a symptom like alt. chills and fever being

implied in any SHL discussion of Shaoyang disease is not standard

interpretation as far as I can tell. That doesn't make it incorrect,

but it also offers no incontrovertible evidence that it has merit,

either.

 

 

Jim: Wouldn't a fine and stringlike pulse define Shaoyang

objectively? Any symptom may be caused by a variety of problems and

expressed in a variety of ways; they do not have a linear connection

to the body. Symptoms are far more variable and ambiguous than

pulses. This would reiterate Fruehauf's belief, too.

 

 

I think Heiner Fruehauf wouldn't accept the contention

that alt. chills and fever was mandatory to diagnose Shaoyang as his

scheme of things includes a much broader interpretation of

Shaoyang. His formula notes in fact list quite a few illnesses that

normally present without any fever symptoms at all as Shaoyang level

chronic diseases. Fruehauf translates zhang zhong jing's statement

of such contention, " not all of the defining symptoms have to be

there at the same time, one of them will suffice. "

The Chinese do not always have this holistic embrace of

paradoxes. I think has been true of Chinese philosophers and

certainly many, but not all physicians. According to Unschuld,

there are numerous examples in the literature of CM that demonstrate

a more linear right and wrong type of logic. For myself, it is one

thing to accept the various methods of selecting herbs and using the

one that seems most useful to interpret the case at hand. And this

may include consideration of zang-fu, modern clinical research,

pharmacology, five phases, six divisions, four levels, even entering

channels. It is a little harder to accept that one can believe that

alt. chills, etc. are necessary to diagnose Shaoyang and also

believe that they are not.

 

 

Jim: It is a mistake to assume or impose a single voice on Chinese

theory, or to think it is even possible. The paradox can be solved

when you're not solely relying on the symptoms. Symptoms are created

when there is sufficient contrast between different body systems,

depths, etc. If you rely on the pulse, you can treat before symptoms

arise.

 

 

In fact, Craig told me this when I asked him about the

idea of six division for chronic illness. It is just not widely

accepted. I hope more people who are so inclined access more

sources so I can look forward to reading their reports on these

literary debates.

 

 

Jim: Debating only continues these discussions at the level of

gossip, even though it's literary gossip. If they haven't resolved

the debates since the 3rd century, what makes us think we will?

What about clinical application as the evidence and argument as

to how theory should be explained? I think Chace and Shima's

treatment of divergent meridians is the best example of how to

resolve these conundrums. Even though I don't do Shima's style of

acupuncture, it is an effective argument as to how theory should be

conceived.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

The continuing debate combined is what keeps the tradition alive. Most

of the commentaries were written by clinicians. The issue is to do this

in an informed way, which means being educated in what came before.

 

 

On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 06:52 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Jim: Debating only continues these discussions at the level of

> gossip, even though it's literary gossip. If they haven't resolved

> the debates since the 3rd century, what makes us think we will?

>      What about clinical application as the evidence and argument as

> to how theory should be explained? I think Chace and Shima's

> treatment of divergent meridians is the best example of how to

> resolve these conundrums. Even though I don't do Shima's style of

> acupuncture, it is an effective argument as to how theory should be

> conceived.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm up for debate and discussion; but tradition also needs to adapt

and expand into new territory. Within a few hundred years, most

debates can or should be resolved. At least it seems to be that way

in Western physics and math---even the Catholic Church forgave

Galileo for being correct, after 300 years.

 

So, if we are still continuing a debate originating from the time of

the SHL without any clear or obvious conclusion, why has it not been

resolved? What is lacking in the theory or in us?

 

I think Chace and Shima have set the example for a practical

solution. If any theory is ambiguous or incomplete, then demonstrate

clinical effectiveness in treatments using the solution that you

propose.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> The continuing debate combined is what keeps the tradition alive.

Most of the commentaries were written by clinicians. The issue is to

do this in an informed way, which means being educated in what came

before.

>

>

> On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 06:52 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

>

> > Jim: Debating only continues these discussions at the level of

> > gossip, even though it's literary gossip. If they haven't

resolved the debates since the 3rd century, what makes us think we

will?

> >      What about clinical application as the evidence and

argument as to how theory should be explained? I think Chace and

Shima's treatment of divergent meridians is the best example of how

to resolve these conundrums. Even though I don't do Shima's style of

> > acupuncture, it is an effective argument as to how theory should

be conceived.

> >

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

 

>

>

> Jim: Debating only continues these discussions at the level of

> gossip, even though it's literary gossip. If they haven't resolved

> the debates since the 3rd century, what makes us think we will?

 

Is that the purpose of debate, to resolve a matter. Debate reveals

different points of view that may be unknown to observers and

participants. thus, one may revise their view in the course of debate.

some may not have been aware of the spectrum of thoughts on the SHL

ranging from very conservative and narrow to universally encompasssing.

 

> What about clinical application as the evidence and argument as

> to how theory should be explained?

 

I always think clinical application is paramount. the debate serves no

other purpose than to inform my practice. But I would take it a step

further and say we can only confirm the clinical applications through

research, not anecdote.

 

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> I think Chace and Shima have set the example for a practical

> solution. If any theory is ambiguous or incomplete, then demonstrate

> clinical effectiveness in treatments using the solution that you

> propose.

>

 

With regard to this SHL discussion, I think it is noteworthy that the

evidence of the application of xiao chai hu tang for conditions that

have no signs of fever is extensive and not merely anecdotal, either.

XCHT is the most researched chinese herb formula in the world. It has

demonstrated effectiveness for a wide range of these conditions in

controlled japanese studies. why do I mention XCHT again? Because it

is the formula that is indicated in the SHL by the one symptom (perhaps

plus fever?) that we have been discussing. This range of application

lends further support to the idea that fever is not essential to the

application of this formula. Arguably, one is not treating shaoyang

unless it is a feverish disease. this depends upon whether one

interprets six stages narrowly or broadly. clearly the actual patterns

in the shang han lun are feverish conditions. So it may really come

down to semantics. If you define shaoyang one way, fever is definitely

implied. But if define it by the application of shaoyang formulas

(like XCHT) in the JGYL and other texts over the centuries, then the

answer is different. So perhaps this is how one holds the paradox in

their mind. When talking about cold damage, fever must alt with

chills. However, when talking about chronic illness, this rule does

not apply. whether such chronic diseases can be accurately called

shaoyang is the question. However, the semantics don't matter near as

much as the application and efficacy. If it works and the theory you

used to guide you was helpful, that's all that really matters. People

can argue with your interpretation, but they can't argue with your

results.

 

[Guest guest]

> , " Todd Lugar " wrote:

Is that the purpose of debate, to resolve a matter. Debate reveals

different points of view that may be unknown to observers and

participants. Thus, one may revise their view in the course of

debate.

 

 

Jim: Unquestionably, discussion and debate are useful. So, how can

we *not* come to some sort of resolution about the meaning and

interpretation of the text? What was Zhang Ji thinking and saying as

he wrote those words? He was not a poet, so the use of " essential

ambiguity " (a useful term from when I was an English major in

college) to engage the reader's participation and enlarge upon the

meaning of the text was not his intention. Undoubtedly, he was

proposing specific treatments for definable conditions.

 

 

: >>>> I always think clinical application is paramount. the

debate serves no other purpose than to inform my practice. But I

would take it a step further and say we can only confirm the

clinical applications through research, not anecdote.

 

 

Jim: I agree that clinical application is primary. So, what

practitioners explicitly champion or specialize in SHL, then

interpret and use its language and formulas to diagnosis and treat

patients? Personally, I use pulse diagnosis to combine 5-Phases with

6 levels; so I wouldn't base treatments on SHL alone. But from the

SHL perspective, I wouldn't call a symptom shaoyang unless in was

confirmed by a fine and stringlike movement in the pulses.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

If you find a fine and stringlike pulse (mai xian xi) this " paradox "

is immediately resolved. The depth and the strength of the movement

(as well as what other movements were mixed in with it) will help

indicate whether the patient was feeling chills and fever, or the

condition is chronic. The only caveat is that chronic conditions

don't always show clear symptoms because there isn't enough vital

energy to express contrast.

 

I think the problem in this thread arises from not looking at the

whole SHL picture, but isolating and focusing on a few particular

symptoms.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it may really come down to semantics. If you define shaoyang one

way, fever is definitely implied. But if define it by the

application of shaoyang formulas (like XCHT) in the JGYL and other

texts over the centuries, then the answer is different. So perhaps

this is how one holds the paradox in their mind. When talking about

cold damage, fever must alt with chills. However, when talking about

chronic illness, this rule does not apply. whether such chronic

diseases can be accurately called shaoyang is the question. However,

the semantics don't matter near as much as the application and

efficacy. If it works and the theory you used to guide you was

helpful, that's all that really matters. People can argue with your

interpretation, but they can't argue with your results.

 

[Guest guest]

fine and stringlike pulse define Shaoyang objectively?

>>>I guess that depends on style\

Alon

 

-

James Ramholz

Saturday, November 24, 2001 8:52 PM

Re: Truth?

Jim: I find it curious that the SHL was written around the 3rd century and there still is no resolution to these debates. So this forms the basis for the school of thought amongst many senior Chengdu professors that six division theory was meant as a template for understanding the progression of chronic illness as well as cold damage. This position is based on what he learned from his teachers and his role as a scholar with a PhD in Chinese Language and Philosophy. It is not accepted amongst many Chinese (and some Americans) I have spoken with, who argue that six division theory is for cold damage only. It lends itself to typology, for better or for worse.Jim: My own teacher, a Korean, also held the view that it was a general text and a useful template for chronic illness. Similarly, a symptom like alt. chills and fever being implied in any SHL discussion of Shaoyang disease is not standard interpretation as far as I can tell. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also offers no incontrovertible evidence that it has merit, either. Jim: Wouldn't a fine and stringlike pulse define Shaoyang objectively? Any symptom may be caused by a variety of problems and expressed in a variety of ways; they do not have a linear connection to the body. Symptoms are far more variable and ambiguous than pulses. This would reiterate Fruehauf's belief, too. I think Heiner Fruehauf wouldn't accept the contention that alt. chills and fever was mandatory to diagnose Shaoyang as his scheme of things includes a much broader interpretation of Shaoyang. His formula notes in fact list quite a few illnesses that normally present without any fever symptoms at all as Shaoyang level chronic diseases. Fruehauf translates zhang zhong jing's statement of such contention, "not all of the defining symptoms have to be there at the same time, one of them will suffice." The Chinese do not always have this holistic embrace of paradoxes. I think has been true of Chinese philosophers and certainly many, but not all physicians. According to Unschuld, there are numerous examples in the literature of CM that demonstrate a more linear right and wrong type of logic. For myself, it is one thing to accept the various methods of selecting herbs and using the one that seems most useful to interpret the case at hand. And this may include consideration of zang-fu, modern clinical research, pharmacology, five phases, six divisions, four levels, even entering channels. It is a little harder to accept that one can believe that alt. chills, etc. are necessary to diagnose Shaoyang and also believe that they are not. Jim: It is a mistake to assume or impose a single voice on Chinese theory, or to think it is even possible. The paradox can be solved when you're not solely relying on the symptoms. Symptoms are created when there is sufficient contrast between different body systems, depths, etc. If you rely on the pulse, you can treat before symptoms arise. In fact, Craig told me this when I asked him about the idea of six division for chronic illness. It is just not widely accepted. I hope more people who are so inclined access more sources so I can look forward to reading their reports on these literary debates. Jim: Debating only continues these discussions at the level of gossip, even though it's literary gossip. If they haven't resolved the debates since the 3rd century, what makes us think we will? What about clinical application as the evidence and argument as to how theory should be explained? I think Chace and Shima's treatment of divergent meridians is the best example of how to resolve these conundrums. Even though I don't do Shima's style of acupuncture, it is an effective argument as to how theory should be conceived.Jim RamholzChinese 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]

However, when talking about chronic illness, this rule does not apply. whether such chronic diseases can be accurately called shaoyang is the question. However, the semantics don't matter near as much as the application and efficacy. If it works and the theory you used to guide you was helpful, that's all that really matters. People can argue with your interpretation, but they can't argue with your results.>>>Todd you are starting to sound like me. Be careful

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, November 25, 2001 2:33 AM

Re: Truth?

, "James Ramholz" <jramholz> wrote:> > I think Chace and Shima have set the example for a practical > solution. If any theory is ambiguous or incomplete, then demonstrate > clinical effectiveness in treatments using the solution that you > propose.> With regard to this SHL discussion, I think it is noteworthy that the evidence of the application of xiao chai hu tang for conditions that have no signs of fever is extensive and not merely anecdotal, either. XCHT is the most researched chinese herb formula in the world. It has demonstrated effectiveness for a wide range of these conditions in controlled japanese studies. why do I mention XCHT again? Because it is the formula that is indicated in the SHL by the one symptom (perhaps plus fever?) that we have been discussing. This range of application lends further support to the idea that fever is not essential to the application of this formula. Arguably, one is not treating shaoyang unless it is a feverish disease. this depends upon whether one interprets six stages narrowly or broadly. clearly the actual patterns in the shang han lun are feverish conditions. So it may really come down to semantics. If you define shaoyang one way, fever is definitely implied. But if define it by the application of shaoyang formulas (like XCHT) in the JGYL and other texts over the centuries, then the answer is different. So perhaps this is how one holds the paradox in their mind. When talking about cold damage, fever must alt with chills. However, when talking about chronic illness, this rule does not apply. whether such chronic diseases can be accurately called shaoyang is the question. However, the semantics don't matter near as much as the application and efficacy. If it works and the theory you used to guide you was helpful, that's all that really matters. People can argue with your interpretation, but they can't argue with your results.ToddChinese 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]

The pulse indications in the SHL are very general, basic, and an

important (if not decisive) part of the pattern; they should be

observable through any style of pulse diagnosis. In any case,

treating only according to symptoms sounds too confusing.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

>>> fine and stringlike pulse define Shaoyang objectively?

 

I guess that depends on style.

Alon