PU

[Guest guest]

I am listening to PU tapes and as he makes clear much of the associations

between organs and bodily functions were made based on political social realms.

I have never been able to see any clear relationship between a particular

emotion to any organ in real patients. Patients for example suffering from grief

due to loss of spouses do not show any more LU symports than others that for

example suffer from friquent anxiety. How do people deal with the information

coming out or China and PU on the associations and CM natural laws, and their

use in clinical practice. Paul makes the point that we need to think about which

came first, the idea or the bodily associationis which i like to call clinical

vs theory. If we are to start thinking of a so-called standards should we

include what we actually see with our own patients or should we just try to

clarify the " Chinese " information?

Another question is the so-called depth of meaning of terms or characters. In

the other list a whole discussion on what is important for CM training was made

based around the meaning of the characters for medicine in Chinese. If i was to

make a whole spiritual discussion based on the WM symbol for medicine ie the

snake and needle would this be received as essential cultural symbol to

understand and to design medical education around? If we took such symbols from

our own culture would we just ignore them knowing they have little to do with

real patient care? If yes, why then people are so willing to see so much " depth "

in such symbols coming from China? And for me then it comes back to how do we

translate this to critical evaluation of " dogma " or excepted principles. Where

is our place in this discussion?

I for one have very little interest in patients spiritual life so that my

perspective is very materialistic for a lack of a better word. If i see a

patient for a pain and limitation i want to see an objective measurement of

improvement. Not the kind of improvement that comes from the patient having a

better sense of well being that is his/her range of motion increased on a

subjective measurement (done with active [ie done by the patient, range of

motion) but objective passive ROM, increased activity of daily living, return to

preinjury work, reduce use of medical intervention and cost, etc. If i see a

diabetic i need to see the glucose control improved.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Likewise, excessive exposure to grief may damage

the LU, but why does it have to damage all aspects of the LU

functioning? Perhaps just the grief management part would be impared.

It is like the idea of phlegm in the LU

>>>>My point is that if much of the so-called associations were made due to

political or possibly imaging (theoretical) factors, then why should we except

them as true associations. If strong exposure to grief does not result in lung

symptoms and signs then why associate it with the lungs. The brain makes more

sense to me

Alon