more round and round

[Guest guest]

Joseph and Z'ev, I don't know, this doesn't sound satisfactory but

perhaps if you expand I'll " get it " also. Or is it a case of the

emperor has no clothes? I don't know.

I've always assumed that the hot and cold complex was an accumulation

of qi. Even though only subjective it is an accumulation.The issue of

if its " measurable physically " seems to be a red herring since qi

itself is a measurable substance. I certainly have had Qi gong

practitioners hone in exactly where my qi was " aggregated " .

I agree that excess may not be the best word but I simply don't

understand the word repletion. Read below and you'll see me trying to

track it down. This long section was from a few nights ago, in response

to Z'ev and Joseph.

>

Re: Re: Fullness without repletion

 

A perfect example is qi repletion in the channels, which doesn't

necessary have any substance associated with it. How can you have an

excess of something which is not measurable physically?

 

 

> Doug,

> Which is why, I think, Wiseman chose the word " repletion " to replace

> " excess. " Repletion does not necessarily mean there is too much of

> something. To me it

> speaks more to the quality of experience than to quantity. You can

> have a

> " ghost in the machine, " if you will, which interferes and blocks

> function without

> really being " there. "

> Joseph

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

>

> 12 terms out of a few thousand is not bad, Douglas.

>

>

> wrote:

>

>> And on Wiseman, I'm not that convinced we should accept his

>> terminology

>> across the board. There are those dozen weird terms that I think we

>> should not accept as a standard. There, I said it.

>

 

Z'ev, I agree it's not bad.... But my objection is that they happen to

be 12 of the 50 or so most primary terms we have.

 

Because I apparently have too much time on my hands I try very hard to

understand what people are saying. Case in point would be Joseph's

response, which is not to attack or question it. I just to understand

it and on the way I find coincidentally that the terminology Wiseman

has laid out, doesn't explain things for me.

 

OK,if we assume that Joseph (and Craig) uses the word fullness as

defined by Wiseman as Man3, which he defines " a subjective sensation of

expansion and pressure, which may or may not be associated with

objectively perceptible distention. " But actually Ban Xia Xie Xin

Tang treats Pi4 which Wiseman defines as aggregations " an accumulation

or amassment, as intestinal aggregation and strings and aggregations. "

hmmm, not too useful. So maybe Craig and Joseph actually meant

aggregations but Wiseman's definition is not quite correct or complete

enough. Bensky's description on page 151 for Ban Xia Xie xin Tang: " The

term focal distention (pi) refers to a focused, localized sensation of

discomfort, blockage and distention. Clumping in the epigastrium also

produces a sensation of fullness. " I'll go with this.

 

______BTW from a book (not widely distributed) from lectures by Richard

Liao, " this formula treats pi syndrome, a form of stagnation and

obstruction in the Stomach or Large Intestines. the pathology of this

condition begins with a deficiency of Stomach Qi or Yang. Deficiency in

the middle burner produces coldness, which progresses into cold

stagnation in the stomach. Left untreated, stagnation creates heat,

which in turns forces the Stomach qi to rebel. So what begins as

deficiency develops into a confusion of cold and hot signs, and the

resulting stagnation disrupts the ascending and descending movement of

qi, a problem of the spleen and Stomach organs. " ............

 

Then we get to the bugga-boo term, repletion. Here is where things,

including my brain, get circular. Wiseman: " repletion- shi- the

opposite of vacuity. see vacuity and repletion: repletion pattern " .

Ok, now to page 645: " repletion: fullness or strength. " there is a

further discussion, where the conditions of repletion is found and some

quotes, " where evil qi is exuberant, there is repletion. " But the

definition is only " fullness or strength " . So Craig and Joseph's quote

would appear contradictory, " Fullness without fullness " or " an

accumulation without fullness " But most of the cases in Craig's

presentation have some sort of distention or other pi like symptoms.

Under the etymology section we get, " shi, full solid, substantial...

Vacuity and repletion are closely related to the terms insufficiency

and superabundance respectively. " There is more but let's look at

superabundance first (page 592), " superabundance you3 yu2: EXCESS (of

qi, blood, or fluids). Compare vacuity and repletion " Complete quote.

Ok back to 645 to complete the quote where we left it, " In general, the

latter (insufficiency and superabundance) are quantitative terms

applied to specific entities with the body (blood, qi, yin, yang),

whereas the former (Vacuity and Repletion) are comparatively

qualitative terms that describe the same states in terms of their

relationship to the whole body. "

Let's go to insufficiency which is actually bu4zu2 (and not our

commonly used xu): " lack (of substance) or incompleteness (of

function); opposite of superabundance. compare vacuity and repletion.

see also exuberance and debilitation. " Complete quote. Vacuity at the

top of the page (645) is defined as weakness, emptiness.

Now, I understand, but bu zu, insufficiency, also is both " lack (of

substance) " and incompleteness (of function).

 

So can we say that superabundance means " too much " while repletion

means " more than " ? Insufficiency is " too little " while Vacuity is

" less than "

Is this the distinction?

 

If so then Fullness without repletion still eludes me. (Which I realize

was a quote from another writer. ) We do use excess as In Excess, more

than. As in Yin is IN EXCESS of Yang.

 

oh, I'm going on and on,

doug

[Guest guest]

 

Sunday, June 22, 2003 9:25 AM

>The issue of if its " measurable physically " seems

to be a red herring since qi itself is a measurable substance.

 

Viewing qi as measurable is considered

reductionist by some. The fact that aspects of qi manifest in a

measurable fashion is no proof that some aspects do not also manifest in an immeasurable

fashion.

 

> How can you have an excess of something which is

not measurable physically?

 

See above. Also, being

measurable, and having the know-how to measure are distinctly different. I

struggle with these same questions. I’m not very woo-woo and it is

sometimes troubles me to over-ponder things that may be “unknowable”.

I don’t know if the nature of qi as a whole is unknowable, but I’ve

forced myself to be willing to entertain the thought. I’ve heard

arguments of anima being a function of qi. I’m sure the more

metaphysical among us may attribute many more aspects to it. Thanks for

raising the question. I’m interested to hear how others respond regarding

the translation of shi2.

 

Tim Sharpe

[Guest guest]

Douglas,

By measurable I meant quantitative, not qualititative. Of course

one locates qi in the body. . .that doesn't mean one can say that six

ounces of qi are blocked at this acupuncture hole or channel, or there

are 5 grams of qi in one dose of ren shen. It isn't measurable stuff

in that sense.

 

As far as the term 'repletion' goes, I am going to contact Nigel

Wiseman about the term, as he is a linguist and I am not. I trust his

expertise in language and especially Chinese, it is well beyond mine.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I hope that your issue over the twelve or so

term choices in the Wiseman dictionary doesn't block you from studying

the rest of the dictionary.

 

 

On Sunday, June 22, 2003, at 09:24 AM, wrote:

 

> The issue of if its " measurable physically " seems to be a red herring

> since qi itself is a measurable substance. I certainly have had Qi

> gong practitioners hone in exactly where my qi was " aggregated " .

[Guest guest]

OK,

I think we've actually gotten off on a bit of a tangent. This phrase "fullness without repletion" seems to be a concoction by Craig or Zhang Ji or somebody to explain this particular type of presentation, which is fairly common, having a major formula to treat it. The phrase was apparently made up to differentiate from "fullness with repletion," for which other formulas would be appropriate. Fullness with repletion would present with the same glomus=subjective sensation of bloating, discomfort, i.e., an aggregation, but with a hard sensation in the epigastrium from the patient's perspective as well as hard to the practitioner's palpation, and probably frank pain as opposed to more of a discomfort. In the BXXXT presentation, there is an aggregation without any real "body" to it, sort of like a cup of coffee with no "body" or boldness to its flavor, though perhaps with plenty of grounds in the brewing stage: fullness without repletion. These phrases are just another yin-yang pair, each meaningless without the other.

Joseph Garner

 

>>>Joseph and Z'ev, I don't know, this doesn't sound satisfactory but

perhaps if you expand I'll "get it" also. Or is it a case of the

emperor has no clothes? I don't know.

  I've always assumed that the hot and cold complex was an accumulation

of qi. Even though only subjective it is an accumulation.The issue of

if its "measurable physically" seems to be a red herring since qi

itself is a measurable substance. I certainly have had Qi gong

practitioners hone in exactly where my qi was "aggregated".

  I agree that excess may not be the best word but I simply don't

understand the word repletion. Read below and you'll see me trying to

track it down. This long section was from a few nights ago, in response

to Z'ev and Joseph.

>

Re: Re: Fullness without repletion<<<