herb functions

[Guest guest]

To Todd and all:

What an interesting question. Which herb functions are " inherent "

and which are " dependent " upon combination with other herbs?

To me the herbs are all unique and complex individuals all with a

large variety of possible functions. The Chinese have made some

extremely useful, but nevertheless artifical categories to arrange them

in and help us organize our thinking about them. There are herbs like

Xuan Shen Scrophularia (Cools Blood) and Zhi Mu Anemarrhena (Drains

Fire) which maybe could have been put in the Yin categorie but for

whatever reason,(tradition?, wisdom?) were not.

Sionneau ( " Dui Yao " ) delineates 6 ways or reasons (some with

subcategories) that herbs are combined.

In reading this one can see that there are more than 2 mechanisms

(inherent or dependent) at work. Some herbs serve to guide, some to

counteract negative qualities, some to bring out shall we say the

recessive qualities the of other herbs, and so on.

Some of the combination qualities of herbs could be the result of

a chemical reaction resulting in a new function altogether. I think when

this happens it is usually not useful and results in a " do not use with "

proscription, but not always.

Such is my chich. Dana Corbin

[Guest guest]

and All,

 

Interesting questions.

 

Again, I highly recommend Unschuld's treatise

on the pharmacology of systematic correspondence.

He manages in a relatively few pages to provide

a comprehensive overview of the circumstances

of the appearance of these terms and theories

and whether or not anyone agrees that people

should know a little something about the subject's

origins in order to understand it responsibly,

Unschuld's text provides a sound foundation for

pursuing a meaningful discussion of the questions

you've raised.

 

Rather than summarize or restate his points,

I will just mention that he addresses these

issues and you might want to take a look at

p. 179 - 188 of Medicine in China if you haven't

checked it out recently. One insightful and

provocative remark he makes on p. 185:

 

" It seems likely that conclusions about the

effects of substances within the organism were

derived in reverse from the observed reactions. "

 

I've got a couple of additional comments to

offer, below as well as a question of my own.

 

[...]

>

> 1. to what extent are herb functions determined by context?

 

To the extent that one seeks to determine the

functions of medicinals according to the theories

of the medicine of systematic correspondence,

I think the answer is, completely.

 

Certainly one can and should investigate and catalog

functions according to other methodologies.

But the methodology of systematic correspondence,

being based in underlying precepts of change,

yin1, yang2, qi4, five phases, etc. is

essentially a context-driven approach.

 

The functions of any given medicinal are

therefore understood to be interactive

potentials and it is the responsibility

of the prescribing doctor to make the

necessary contextual adjustments based

upon the embracive theories and the specific

clinical data present...in each individual

context of each individual interaction

with each individual patient.

>

> 2. which herb functions are inherent and which are dependent?

>

> 3. what is really meant by the terms inherent and dependent (these

are

> my term choices, but I do feel like the dichotomy may be somewhat

> artifical)?

>

[...]

 

Where is the inside of an herb?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Dear  Dragon

 

 

Could you please introduce me the medicine in china.

 

Your assistant are appreciated.

 

Thank you

 

 

Best

regards

Desmond

Kee

 

 

 

dragon90405

[yulong]

Friday, April 19, 2002 6:06 AM

To:

 

Re:

herb functions

 

and All,

 

Interesting questions.

 

Again, I highly recommend Unschuld's treatise

on the pharmacology of systematic correspondence.

He manages in a relatively few pages to provide

a comprehensive overview of the circumstances

of the appearance of these terms and theories

and whether or not anyone agrees that people

should know a little something about the subject's

origins in order to understand it responsibly,

Unschuld's text provides a sound foundation for

pursuing a meaningful discussion of the questions

you've raised.

 

Rather than summarize or restate his points,

I will just mention that he addresses these

issues and you might want to take a look at

p. 179 - 188 of Medicine in China if you haven't

checked it out recently. One insightful and

provocative remark he makes on p. 185:

 

" It seems likely that conclusions about the

effects of substances within the organism were

derived in reverse from the observed reactions. "

 

I've got a couple of additional comments to

offer, below as well as a question of my own.

 

[...]

>

> 1. to what extent are herb functions

determined by context?

 

To the extent that one seeks to determine the

functions of medicinals according to the theories

of the medicine of systematic correspondence,

I think the answer is, completely.

 

Certainly one can and should investigate and

catalog

functions according to other methodologies.

But the methodology of systematic correspondence,

being based in underlying precepts of change,

yin1, yang2, qi4, five phases, etc. is

essentially a context-driven approach.

 

The functions of any given medicinal are

therefore understood to be interactive

potentials and it is the responsibility

of the prescribing doctor to make the

necessary contextual adjustments based

upon the embracive theories and the specific

clinical data present...in each individual

context of each individual interaction

with each individual patient.

>

> 2. which herb functions are inherent and

which are dependent?

>

> 3. what is really meant by the terms

inherent and dependent (these

are

> my term choices, but I do feel like the

dichotomy may be somewhat

> artifical)?

>

[...]

 

Where is the inside of an herb?

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

The discussion centers around which functions of herbs

>are inherent to the herb itself and which are dependent upon combination

>with other herbs.

 

This is very interesting to me, and I have been thinking about it a lot in

terms of modern formulas from PRC. It seems sometimes that these bigger

formulas are constructed according to individual herb function, and that

herbs for each aspect of the Western disease category as it has been

translated into TCM are included. To what extent does this reflect the

traditional emphasis upon the combinations and context?

 

Sonya

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

Sonya,

>

> This is very interesting to me, and I have been thinking about it a

lot in

> terms of modern formulas from PRC. It seems sometimes that these

bigger

> formulas are constructed according to individual herb function, and

that

> herbs for each aspect of the Western disease category as it has

been

> translated into TCM are included. To what extent does this reflect

the

> traditional emphasis upon the combinations and context?

 

I think we should continue this discussion

by defining " traditional emphasis " in a

bit more detail. As different schools

in different epochs have emphasized

different understandings of the implied

dynamics. Even within the broad category

of the pharmacology of systematic correspondence,

for instance, sections on medicinals to

treat purely according to symptoms have

often been included in compilations of

ben3 cao literature and presentations of

the theoretical considerations that

inform the ordering of the individual

medicinals.

 

So what constitutes traditional emphasis?

Unschuld describes the " Sung-Chin-Yuan

period " as the point at which the development

of a concrete pharmacology of systematic

correspondence was undertaken. But there

is certainly plenty of " traditional emphasis "

that survives from sources that predate

that period.

 

If we can zero in on particular key components

then these can perhaps be compared to various

approaches to forumlation and combinations

currently in vogue.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I think we should continue this discussion

>by defining " traditional emphasis " in a

>bit more detail. As different schools

>in different epochs have emphasized

>different understandings of the implied

>dynamics.

 

In saying " traditional emphasis " I was referring to the broad concept of

looking at things in context, rather than putting herbs together based on

individual function and not considering interaction.

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

Sonya,

>

> In saying " traditional emphasis " I was referring to the broad

concept of

> looking at things in context, rather than putting herbs together

based on

> individual function and not considering interaction.

 

Got it. I still think that the

broad context is so broad that

in order to speak to your original

question, we'd have to focus more

closely on particuar approachs

to considerations about interactions.

 

You raised the question about the

extent to which the contemporary

trend of combining herbs based upon

their supposed functions with respect

to western disease indications reflects

on the traditional emphasis. My point

was that the broad context of considering

the interactions of medicinals very much

includes such combinations of herbs based

not upon any theory whatsoever but upon

accumulated clinical experience that

shows that medicinal X seems to have

positive results with condition Y.

 

There's only so far one can go making

comparisons on the level of generalizations.

By the Ming and Qing dynasties " the conceptual

framework of systematic correspondence at

this time was nothing more than a complex

labyrinth, in which those thinkers seeking

solutions to medical questions wandered

aimlessly in all directions, lacking any

orientation, and unable to find a feasible

way out, " according to Unschuld.

 

So when we go about comparing modern

methods to traditional methods, we

should make clear as precisely as

possible which earlier methodologies

we have in mind for the comparison.

 

I believe this kind of precision

is particularly important when it

comes to research, both in the evaluation

of extant research literature and the

design of future research.

 

Ken