Deke Kendall, etc.

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel Segmen wrote:

>>>As an anatomist who as yet sees no basis in anatomy for acupuncture points and meridians, I have no problem accepting and utilizing the existence of acupuncture points and meridians.  I'm prepared for the existence of points and meridians to be supported by anatomy/physiology.  In the meantime, I see no point to jump to any conclusions.  CM works and is a complete system.  If WM did not exist, CM would still work.  I accept the world where it is now.<<<

 

Emmanuel et al.,

It seems to me that a reasonable definition of qi is physical life force. Cadavers contain all the nerves and other structures of 'anatomy,' but there are no longer any acupuncture channels. Qi is the driving force for physical life. One definition of a dead body is one that no longer contains any qi. Dead bodies still contain all the chemicals and structures that they did when they were living, but now they are dead. Why? Usually just because the qi is gone, for whatever reason. Extraordinary channels begin working at the embryonic level to organize, position and fulfill the orders of the life force as coded in the DNA. At birth, the main channels begin working to provide an independent bodily existence.

 

Western medicine has never provided a satisfactory definition of life, or life force. They continually ignore this simple but profoundly important fact. CM provides the tools with which to understand life and life force. This is the missing ingredient in Western medicine. The life force has its own consciousness and provides the intelligence to drive the physical body, providing its physical, emotional and mental motivations. Without qi, the body has no motivation, no life. The extraordinary channels are all about 'position,' as you put it.

Joseph Garner

[Guest guest]

Jim Ramholz wrote:

>>>Joseph

 

Isn't this the type of unprovable belief or metaphysical thinking

that they are trying to eliminate from the profession?<<<

 

Jim,

First of all, thank you for your comments. Although I don't have any more 'proof' than having studied this in books and feeling its rightness, I don't consider extraordinary channels being the matrix for embryology to be unprovable. It makes as much sense as any other explanation for why embryos develop as they do, and it answers a lot of questions that 'scientific' embryology doesn't. And because something is theoretical doesn't make it metaphysical in my book. It just means we don't fully understand its workings yet. Your apparent definition of metaphysical would have put the mechanism of aspirin in the metaphysical category for around 100 years.

 

> Western medicine has never provided a satisfactory definition of

life, or life force. They continually ignore this simple but

profoundly important fact. >>>

 

>>>You're correct here. But there is a possible definition of life from

complexity theory, termed autopoiesis. An autopoietic unit

determines its own making due to a network of reactions which takes

place in its own well-defined boundary. It continually generates and

specifies its own organization through its operations as a system of

its own components. The three conditions for it then are (1) self-

bounded, (2) self-generating, and (3) self-perpetuating. I'll try

and find the specific reference for this; but it should be in a

number of books.<<<

 

Jim Ramholz<<<

 

Here I must demur. I suppose I used the wrong words when I said 'definition of life.' What I'm talking about is a practical ability to access the physical life force. The above definition is a reasonable one, but although it describes life's functions, it doesn't really tell us what life is. The elusive word qi is the closest thing to a definition of life I have ever heard. I know that qi could be said to be in inanimate objects to an extent, in elemental forces such as wind and water and stars, but there seems to be a different quality to it from that which resides in bodies. Life force is the 900-pound gorilla in medical science. Everyone realizes it's there, but no one knows just what it is or how to handle it intellectually, so they dismiss anyone who claims to have some grasp of it as metaphysical. Many scientists use the very life force inside them to state that they don't believe in it. I do not believe this means anyone who believes in it is some kind of religionist. I just see an obvious fact. Life is, and it is not adequately contained in the teachings of modern science. CM seems to me to have a much better approach to reality in this case.

Joseph

[Guest guest]

, acugrpaz@a... wrote:

> It seems to me that a reasonable definition of qi is physical life

force. Cadavers contain all the nerves and other structures

of 'anatomy,' but there are no longer any acupuncture channels. Qi

is the driving force for physical life. One definition of a dead

body is one that no longer contains any qi.

> Dead bodies still contain all the chemicals and structures that

they did when they were living, but now they are dead. Why? Usually

just because the qi is gone, for whatever reason. Extraordinary

channels begin working at the embryonic level to organize, position

and fulfill the orders of the life force as coded in the DNA. At

birth, the main channels begin working to provide an independent

bodily existence. >>>

 

 

 

Joseph

 

Isn't this the type of unprovable belief or metaphysical thinking

that they are trying to eliminate from the profession?

 

 

> Western medicine has never provided a satisfactory definition of

life, or life force. They continually ignore this simple but

profoundly important fact. >>>

 

You're correct here. But there is a possible definition of life from

complexity theory, termed autopoiesis. An autopoietic unit

determines its own making due to a network of reactions which takes

place in its own well-defined boundary. It continually generates and

specifies its own organization through its operations as a system of

its own components. The three conditions for it then are (1) self-

bounded, (2) self-generating, and (3) self-perpetuating. I'll try

and find the specific reference for this; but it should be in a

number of books.

 

 

Jim Ramholz