The nonsense about channel entry - gui1 jing1

[Guest guest]

Actually, I think that the concept of gui jing/channel entry is quite

profound. A lot of thought appears to have gone into it.

 

 

On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 10:03 AM, 1 wrote:

 

> > A far as the entering channels system concerned, it provides

> concise

> > nomenclature for the organ tropism of medicinal substances.

>

> I agree, but that is all it does.  It is an organizational tool.  It has

> no value more profound than that.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I would say to the MSU crowd that

> increasing the value of material due to one's understanding

> without citing precedents is the true scourge of this profession.

 

There is an earlier " scourge " that should

be recognized if we aim to discover the

causes and advance towards a solution.

This earlier scourge is the obfuscation

of the traditional knowledge base that

has been brought about by an approach

to transmission of the subject that

de-emphasizes access to primary sources.

 

Once people are effectively cut off

from the source of the knowledge, all

they can do is rely on their own

personal understanding and make up

explanations to fill in the void.

 

I don't tend to fault people for

making stuff up, as it is an expression

of the need to know and a manifestation

of the fact that if there is nothing

to know, we invent something to know.

 

But as Jim and Phil have pointed out

today, there is plenty of information

out there. People simply have to

recognize that access to it is a valid

prerequisite to the invention of ideas

that claim to be based upon it.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Actually, I think that the concept of gui jing/channel entry is

quite

> profound. A lot of thought appears to have gone into it.

 

A lot of thought does not make something profound. A lot of

thought went into copernicus's view of the solar system. he was

wrong. It is a principle of logic that a brilliant argument can be

made, but if the initial premise is wrong, then the whole

argument collapses.

 

[Guest guest]

Are you saying that the original premise here was incorrect? Certainly,

herbs entering channels is more obscure that needling points on

channels, but I don't know if we can dismiss it as incorrect. I don't

think this is Copernican.

 

 

On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 11:07 AM, 1 wrote:

 

> , " " <

> zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > Actually, I think that the concept of gui jing/channel entry is

> quite

> > profound.  A lot of thought appears to have gone into it.

>

> A lot of thought does not make something profound.  A lot of

> thought went into copernicus's view of the solar system.  he was

> wrong.  It is a principle of logic that a brilliant argument can be

> made, but if the initial premise is wrong, then the whole

> argument collapses.

>

 

>

>

 

>

>

> 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]

, " " <

zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Are you saying that the original premise here was incorrect?

 

If the initial premise is that herbs enter channels or that flavors

always determine functions, it may be correct or incorrect. Hsu

thought the former was wrong. So did some of my teachers.

Others swore by this concept. If the premise is wrong, then the

argument fails. If it is correct, then the argument has merit. but

the amount of thought and erudition that go into the proof is

really meaningless. I am questioning the premise that merely

giving something serious thought somehow gives it value.

 

My point remains that pharmaceutics seems to have been

largely a scholarly pursuit in TCM that has been accepted by

clinicians in varying degrees. I would never dismiss this data,

but I choose to deemphasize it in my practice because it often

leads to more confusion for me than guidance. Sure, I could

accept one source as right and take it from there. but that would

be like me accepting anything on faith when evidence suggests

otherwise. Its just not in my nature.

 

[Guest guest]

I may be a masochist for jumping in here but, from my understanding,

channel entry information was/is arrived at by logical inference, not

by any direct measurements or observations. For instance, if a

medicinal treats strangury conditions, then it is said to enter the

bladder and kidneys or maybe the small intestine, bladder, and

kidneys. Because there are 1) different patterns of a single disease

and 2) different theories about the relative importance of various

disease mechanisms in particular diseases, thus there are differences

of opinion in channel entry.

 

What I mean is, depending upon what one believes to be the main

viscera and bowels involved in a particular disease process, one may

assume that a medicinal which affects that disease process " enters "

those viscera and bowels. However, if one has a different idea about

the viscera and bowels involved in that disease process, they may come

to different conclusions about medicinals' channel entries which

affect that process. In other words, because this information seems to

have been arrived at by inference as opposed to some species of more

concrete assessment or observation, I suggested a number of days ago

taking it with a grain of salt.

 

Although I have been out of town and have not looked at every response

in this thread, I would suggest that we consider how this type of

information was developed before immediately arguing over its

relevance and importance. Information such as flavor and nature

(meaning temperature) are based on more direct methods of observation

and assessment which should allow for interrater reliability. For

instance, you can put a medicinal in your mouth and describe its

flavors. Therefore, these types of " facts " seem more concrete or

dependable to me (even though there are many differences of opinion in

the literature about such seemingly simple opinions as flavor and

nature).

 

So perhaps we should be discussing how the supposed " facts " of Chinese

medical herbology have been arrived at. Some of the categories of

information in the ben cao seem to be based on direct sensory

perception, while other categories seem to be based on logic and,

therefore, are a product of individual's opinion. If we are clear

about these different methodologies for arriving at this information,

then I think one is able to judge the reliability of each category of

information more circumspectly and not be abused by the ideas we are

merely using to achieve various pragmatic outcomes.

 

Bob

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> , " " <

> zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > Are you saying that the original premise here was incorrect?

>

> If the initial premise is that herbs enter channels or that flavors

> always determine functions, it may be correct or incorrect. Hsu

> thought the former was wrong. So did some of my teachers.

> Others swore by this concept. If the premise is wrong, then the

> argument fails. If it is correct, then the argument has merit. but

> the amount of thought and erudition that go into the proof is

> really meaningless. I am questioning the premise that merely

> giving something serious thought somehow gives it value.

>

> My point remains that pharmaceutics seems to have been

> largely a scholarly pursuit in TCM that has been accepted by

> clinicians in varying degrees. I would never dismiss this data,

> but I choose to deemphasize it in my practice because it often

> leads to more confusion for me than guidance. Sure, I could

> accept one source as right and take it from there. but that would

> be like me accepting anything on faith when evidence suggests

> otherwise. Its just not in my nature.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

I would suggest that we consider how this type of

> information was developed before immediately arguing over

its

> relevance and importance.

 

The history gives us a basis to challenge the idea. Knowing

history is the foundation of this critique and Ken and I have been

addressing this point somewhat.

 

 

I For

> instance, you can put a medicinal in your mouth and describe

its

> flavors. Therefore, these types of " facts " seem more concrete

or

> dependable to me (even though there are many differences of

opinion in

> the literature about such seemingly simple opinions as flavor

and

> nature).

 

We can agree on a flavor, perhaps, but this does not prove the

relationship between flavor and action. there are just too many

exceptions to these rules. OTOH, all plants that contain caffeine

stimulate the CNS. Systematic correspondence is not science

in the modern sense of establishing cause and effect. whether

it is science in the sense of chaos theory is the unanswered

question.

 

[Guest guest]

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

Systematic correspondence is not science in the modern sense of

establishing cause and effect. whether it is science in the sense of

chaos theory is the unanswered question.

 

:

 

SC can easily be discussed in terms of Complexity Theory. It's an

area where Western science and CM have some interesting things in

common. I often like to discuss ideas regarding Complexity in my

pulse seminars.

 

But this thread begs the question of how much of CM is verifiable,

how much is philosophical speculation, and how much is conjecture.

No wonder why Western medicine casts a jaundice eye our way.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

In school, we learned that these were mneumonic devices rather than gospel.

Shouldn't it be called Organ of Entry anyway?

 

-

pemachophel2001

Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:07 PM

Re: The nonsense about channel entry - gui1 jing1

I may be a masochist for jumping in here but, from my understanding, channel entry information was/is arrived at by logical inference, not by any direct measurements or observations. For instance, if a medicinal treats strangury conditions, then it is said to enter the bladder and kidneys or maybe the small intestine, bladder, and kidneys. Because there are 1) different patterns of a single disease and 2) different theories about the relative importance of various disease mechanisms in particular diseases, thus there are differences of opinion in channel entry. What I mean is, depending upon what one believes to be the main viscera and bowels involved in a particular disease process, one may assume that a medicinal which affects that disease process "enters" those viscera and bowels. However, if one has a different idea about the viscera and bowels involved in that disease process, they may come to different conclusions about medicinals' channel entries which affect that process. In other words, because this information seems to have been arrived at by inference as opposed to some species of more concrete assessment or observation, I suggested a number of days ago taking it with a grain of salt.Although I have been out of town and have not looked at every response in this thread, I would suggest that we consider how this type of information was developed before immediately arguing over its relevance and importance. Information such as flavor and nature (meaning temperature) are based on more direct methods of observation and assessment which should allow for interrater reliability. For instance, you can put a medicinal in your mouth and describe its flavors. Therefore, these types of "facts" seem more concrete or dependable to me (even though there are many differences of opinion in the literature about such seemingly simple opinions as flavor and nature). So perhaps we should be discussing how the supposed "facts" of Chinese medical herbology have been arrived at. Some of the categories of information in the ben cao seem to be based on direct sensory perception, while other categories seem to be based on logic and, therefore, are a product of individual's opinion. If we are clear about these different methodologies for arriving at this information, then I think one is able to judge the reliability of each category of information more circumspectly and not be abused by the ideas we are merely using to achieve various pragmatic outcomes. Bob, "1" <@i...> wrote:> , "" <> zrosenbe@s...> wrote:> > Are you saying that the original premise here was incorrect? > > If the initial premise is that herbs enter channels or that flavors > always determine functions, it may be correct or incorrect. Hsu > thought the former was wrong. So did some of my teachers. > Others swore by this concept. If the premise is wrong, then the > argument fails. If it is correct, then the argument has merit. but > the amount of thought and erudition that go into the proof is > really meaningless. I am questioning the premise that merely > giving something serious thought somehow gives it value. > > My point remains that pharmaceutics seems to have been > largely a scholarly pursuit in TCM that has been accepted by > clinicians in varying degrees. I would never dismiss this data, > but I choose to deemphasize it in my practice because it often > leads to more confusion for me than guidance. Sure, I could > accept one source as right and take it from there. but that would > be like me accepting anything on faith when evidence suggests > otherwise. Its just not in my nature.> 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]

Bob - I appreciate your ambivalent discourse. However, I think that functionality is going to win in my court because of the litmus test of clinical use. Remaining close to what the Chinese say is important for historical context and deeper insight - I share your ambivalence on this.

 

Will

 

 

That being said, functionally, I think you are correct. I think we are talking about tropism for particular viscera and bowels, not channels per se. However, this is not what the Chinese say, and I think it is important to stay as close to what the Chinese say as possible.

[Guest guest]

As has, I think, already been pointed out, the Chinese is gui1 jing1.

In this instance, gui1 means to converge on or collect in. Jing1 means

channel, not viscus or organ. That being said, functionally, I think

you are correct. I think we are talking about tropism for particular

viscera and bowels, not channels per se. However, this is not what the

Chinese say, and I think it is important to stay as close to what the

Chinese say as possible. Then, when what they say is not immediately

transparent, we can gloss or explain what we believe they actually

mean. This is the relationship between denotative and connotative

translation, and I think Ken has already made a case for the

importance of denotative translation in CM. On the one hand, there is

the maintainence and continuation of the tradition; on the other,

there is the explanation and understanding of that tradition or

transmission.

 

Bob

 

, " Wasserman " <danjan18@m...> wrote:

> In school, we learned that these were mneumonic devices rather than

gospel.

> Shouldn't it be called Organ of Entry anyway?

[Guest guest]

I don't know if anyone has done this yet in this conversation, but I

thought it might be useful to show how much diveristy of opinion there

exists about channel entry vis a vis particular meds. Here's the

channel entry info from the Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian on Caulis Bambusae In

Taeniis (Zhu Ru):

 

The authors of the Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian say this med enters the

stomach and gallbladder channels. However, five other materia medica

cited give the following opinions:

 

1. " Enters the foot yang ming stomach channel "

2. " Enters the two channels of the gallbladder and stomach "

3. " Enters the bladder and spleen channels "

4. " Enters the lungs and stomach "

5. " Enters the two channels of the heart and lungs "

 

It is my belief that those practitioners who think/thought this med

enters the gallbladder and stomach primarily or especially use Zhu Ru

to treat liver-stomach disharmonies, such as hiccup, acid

regurgitation, burping/bleching, nausea and vomiting in pregnancy,

etc. Those who say this med enters the lungs and stomach primarily or

especially use Zhu Tu to treat epistaxis, chest opression, lung

wilting, and cough due to phlegm heat, while those who say this med

enters the heart and lungs especially use this med to treat

palpitations, insomnia, and irritability. As for those who say this

med enters the urinary bladder and spleen, I'm not sure how to explain

this.

 

In any case, I do think these differences in opinion help substantiate

the clinical necessity of reading the literature widely and not

taking a single statement from a single source as some sort of gospel

truth.

 

Bob

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> , " pemachophel2001 " <

> pemachophel2001> wrote:

> I would suggest that we consider how this type of

> > information was developed before immediately arguing over

> its

> > relevance and importance.

>

> The history gives us a basis to challenge the idea. Knowing

> history is the foundation of this critique and Ken and I have been

> addressing this point somewhat.

>

>

> I For

> > instance, you can put a medicinal in your mouth and describe

> its

> > flavors. Therefore, these types of " facts " seem more concrete

> or

> > dependable to me (even though there are many differences of

> opinion in

> > the literature about such seemingly simple opinions as flavor

> and

> > nature).

>

> We can agree on a flavor, perhaps, but this does not prove the

> relationship between flavor and action. there are just too many

> exceptions to these rules. OTOH, all plants that contain caffeine

> stimulate the CNS. Systematic correspondence is not science

> in the modern sense of establishing cause and effect. whether

> it is science in the sense of chaos theory is the unanswered

> question.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

> In any case, I do think these differences in opinion help

substantiate

> the clinical necessity of reading the literature widely and not

> taking a single statement from a single source as some sort of

gospel

> truth.

 

Excellent point. One must read not only

as widely as possible but as deeply as

well. What results from dealing only

with translations is a foundation of

understanding that does not penetrate

into the deep layers of the subject

but rests precariously on the surface.

 

I agree as well with your earlier point

about taking a look at how the " facts "

of Chinese medicine attain their status

as accepted or rejected. This aspect of

education deserves far more attention

than it has received.

 

For instance, I understand the metaphor

of channel entry as a subset of images

meant to be used to piece together a

pattern of interactions that are all

effected through the medium known as

qi4, hence as ways of calculating the

dissemination of yin1 and yang2 influences

throughout the body.

 

Does the notion that the salty flavor

enters the kidney mean that molecules

of sodium chloride are transported to

the kidney organs? Or does it suggest

that foods and herbs with this flavor

affect the organism in such a way that

influences the kidneys in particular?

 

As Unschuld points out, the sensibility

in many classical texts tends towards

the latter understanding of influence.

And this makes sense given the constraints

in which ancient Chinese theorists operated.

 

The rationale for our book about qi4

was to make available to people who

want to understand theories and mechanisms

predicated on this term, what a wide

range of sources have had to say about

it and to reveal to readers who care

to see the fact that no one source

can make a legitimate claim to being

the gospel truth. This is meant to

focus attention on the need for

personal knowledge.

 

One of the key elements in traditional

Chinese education, at least in terms of

its ideals, is this notion of the necessity

of an individual's personal synthesis of

knowledge as the only valid basis for

building practical skills and cultivating

the capacity to deal effectively with

clinical realities.

 

What's written in the books is important,

but it is not what determines the skill

level and competence of clinicians. That

depends on what people do with what is

written in the books.

 

Ken