What can't be seen.

[Guest guest]

Emmanuel, Z'ev,

 

> You and I seem to be among the few who observe this.

[ . . . .]

 

People can't see what they do not have a concept for and they will not have

a concept for it, because qi -- the concept that might encompass a different

view -- has been redefined as energy.

 

This is easiest to see in regard to channel theory where the channel concept

is typically imagined as a kind of invisible wire; where the traditional

language of flow such as found in acupoint names, and the idea of qi itself,

are reduced to fit the conception of an electrical circuit. We take the form,

the idea of connectivity, and we label it with our own cultural imagery -- the

power grid, the electrical circuit, the things we describe in terms of

connectivity and flow. We make a traditional Chinese idea seem natural to

us by embedding it in a comfortable metaphor. This saves us the trouble of

dealing with the cognitive dissonance the Chinese conception creates by

proposing that qi is a relationship of like qualities that is unlinked from

causation or proximity in space and time.

 

I think the best " proof " of this is the appearance of channel flow concepts in

the West that do not exist in the traditional Chinese literature. We are re-

defining the channels to fit a concept of energy with which we are

comfortable.

 

If we look at the Chinese conception in its own context, the idea of flow and

the metaphors expressed in acupoint names and channel concepts can be

conceived in their economic and political sense. The qi concept, as well as

other CM ideas, were achieving maturity as Confucian and Legalist ideals

were rooting into a united empire. So, what flowed along the channels (the

public works projects of the time) of this generative era were goods and

information. The empire was united through the development of urban and

administrative centers linked by roads, rivers and canals. Thus, the

Chinese metaphors are those of economics and politics, and the

transportation and exchange of goods and information This is a global

conception that extends to the zang and fu.

 

Ironically, the metaphor of political economy is closer to today's idea of

information than is the 19th century conception of energy. It also fits the qi

concept better because unlike energy there can be linking without causation,

as well as discontinuity in space and time. The exchange of information can

make things happen without causing them to occur.

 

You can see the reductionism the energetic model creates in our literature

as well. For example, when Westerners write about the yin-yang " balance " -

- for example the teeter-totter boxes of " The Web " -- the relationship is two

dimensional, mechanical. However, when Manaka explains the same idea

the metaphor is that of a mobile where the inter-relations are mufti-

dimensional, informational. We have made ourselves comfortable with the

qi concept by eliminating those aspects of it that do not fir our Western

notions.

 

I think the same thing applies to our conceptions of herbology. The idea

that something actually warms or cools a particular area of the body, or

that something we ingest enters one area more than another, or provides

some essential substance once place rather than another, confounds our

conception of metabolism. The Chinese qi concept creates a dissonance for

us because it does not describe what we think food and drugs do. Again,

the idea of energy rescues us from this dissonance by moulding qi in our

own images. Since most of us (and drug researchers even more) are

comfortable with our conception of what drugs do, we re-define qi to fit.

Because we are much less comfortable with molecular biology where the

conception includes the exchange of information, (where an entity might

occupy a receptor that inhibits or disinhibits a cellular messenger), the idea

of energy keeps us in our conceptual comfort zone.

 

I doubt that anything will change the viewpoints of established drug

researchers, (that is anything short of the funeral-by-funeral progression of

science). However, unless we stop selling the reduction of qi to energy

ourselves, I think it unlikely that we can encourage a change of viewpoint in

others. This is difficult to do because to do so would create a great deal of

economic and social displacement -- there are both careers and fortunes in

the marketing of " energetic medicine. "

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037

Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive

505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

This is why we need to stimulate and develop the project Ken is working

on , the Complexity and group. Complexity theory and

related disciplines support the multi-dimensional model you are talking

about so eloquently in your post. I agree that Dr. Manaka's channel

model was much more sophisticated than anything else proposed in modern

times.

 

 

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 11:05 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

 

> People can't see what they do not have a concept for and they will not

> have

> a concept for it, because qi -- the concept that might encompass a

> different

> view -- has been redefined as energy.

 

This saves us the trouble of

dealing with the cognitive dissonance the Chinese conception creates by

proposing that qi is a relationship of like qualities that is unlinked

from

causation or proximity in space and time.

 

 

However, when Manaka explains the same idea

the metaphor is that of a mobile where the inter-relations are mufti-

dimensional, informational.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'm not acquainted with Manaka's theory, but as it has been explained in the

group by analogy to a mobile phone, I can't see that this is getting very far

from the modern Western concept of energy. After all, mobile phones work by

transmitting electromagnetic radiation, admittedly in a manner that conveys

information. Perhaps the insight people mean to convey here is that there is a

transmission of information, but are we really getting very far away from modern

scientific energetic concepts, including concepts of causation? Rather than

talk about mobile phones, wouldn't it be more straightforward to interpret

acupuncture in neurological terms, if we wish to apply modern scientific

concepts, rather than employ the image of mobile phones?

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:59 PM

Re: What can't be seen.

 

 

This is why we need to stimulate and develop the project Ken is working

on , the Complexity and group. Complexity theory and

related disciplines support the multi-dimensional model you are talking

about so eloquently in your post. I agree that Dr. Manaka's channel

model was much more sophisticated than anything else proposed in modern

times.

 

On Tuesday, September 30, 2003, at 11:05 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

 

> People can't see what they do not have a concept for and they will not

> have

> a concept for it, because qi -- the concept that might encompass a

> different

> view -- has been redefined as energy.

 

This saves us the trouble of

dealing with the cognitive dissonance the Chinese conception creates by

proposing that qi is a relationship of like qualities that is unlinked

from

causation or proximity in space and time.

 

 

However, when Manaka explains the same idea

the metaphor is that of a mobile where the inter-relations are mufti-

dimensional, informational.