PU

[Guest guest]

, " ALON MARCUS "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

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

 

 

 

I have several points to make regarding the above.

 

Firstly, " suffering " from emotions is supposed to be normal to some

degree. At some point, it may become pathological, whereby the

jingluo or zangfu are affected beyond the transitory, but until that

point is reached, it is just a normal part of living.

 

Also, if someone is " suffering " grief in the pathological sense, then

that alone is a LU symptom. In other words, a vacuous LU can present

in many different ways, one of which is the inability to get past an

episode of grief. 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. The phlegm may have

accumulated there due to a SP qi xu condition. The phlegm could then

damage the depurative downbearing function of the LU. Likewise, if

the LU is xu in it's depurative downbearing function, then the

dampness would naturally accumulate and in time may turn to phlegm on

it's own.

 

Just because one aspect of a zang's functioning is impaired does not

mean that the other aspects must be affected. Much like if the SP

ability to hold blood is impaired, we will not necessarily also see

signs that SP movement and transformation functions have also been

impaired.

 

The important question is this:

 

If a patient is in a pathological state of grief, will treating the

LU, either directly or indirectly (such as in 5-Phase type

treatments), improve the situation? My guess is that it probably would.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

>

> Also, if someone is " suffering " grief in the pathological sense,

then

> that alone is a LU symptom. In other words, a vacuous LU can

present

> in many different ways, one of which is the inability to get past

an

 

I want to correct my previous post to the above statement. I am

wrong to say that the Chinese literature does not use emotions as

symptoms. Although they may not use emotions often in this way, I

just found some information to the contrary (to what I said). But

besides my partially wrong statement, the information uncovered

supports what I additionally said. That is sadness is not directly

equated to the lung nor is fear to the kidney. For example under a

sp and heart vacuity pattern, one sees both fear, sadness, and a

tendency to cry listed as symptoms.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>>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.

 

 

I would direct people to Unschuld's " medicine in china: a history of ideas " for

more on this. also the unschuld forum at paradigm's website. this book,

written in the late eighties, I believe, was required reading in my history of

medicine class at OCOM in 1990. I was involved at the time with a woman

who had exposed me to literary theory and the writings of various postmodern

deconstructionists like foucault, derrida, lacans. I read their works with

great

pleasure and was thus intrigued and amused by Unschuld's deconstruction of

CM, which I was exposed to at the same time. Though I doubt PU would care

for any comparison between himself and Jacques Derrida.

 

I never questioned anything PU wrote. I thought he was right on and have

quoted him liberally over the years. By the time I started CHA in 1999, I

assumed what he had written a decade before was a given for well read acus.

However my take on reading PU was that his position on the development of

chinese medical theory as a political construct made a case for studying CM

largely as a pragmatic medicine. that was day one for me in this field after a

half decade of new dabbling. reading that the theory was essentially cultural

trappings that had value only inasmuch as it facilitated some medical or

cultural need. I may have been wrong about this. However, its not news to

me that herbalists did not use systematic correspondence before 1100 AD or

that the SHL was lost for 800 years. I knew this 15 years ago, as did everyone

I went to school with. But it is no doubt true that many of these

misconceptions are still abundant and do lead to a romanticized practice of CM.

I believe a slightly different position is espoused in the unschuld forum, where

the nuances of his writings can be discussed at length. go to:

http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm-cgi-bin/w3t5/postlist.pl?Cat= &

Board=Unschuld

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Alon et al

 

--- " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>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.

 

Because part of the CM foundations is also in the correspondance

between the macrocosm and the microcosm, or the universal laws of

nature. You may call it romanticised, but it still is part of the

philosophical basis of CM.

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

At 9:56 PM +0000 12/8/03, bcataiji wrote:

>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

At 10:09 PM -0600 12/8/03, Alon Marcus wrote:

> >>>>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,

 

I believe it has been shown that death of a significant other leads

to a depleted immune system. This is often talked about in terms of

increased cancer risk, but I'd be interested to know if it is also

associated with more frequent respiratory illness; it does seem

probable.

 

In the nei jing the association of grief with the lung is not so

simple. Sadness is also associated with the heart, tears are

associated with liver, and it is the interaction of the these organs

that manifests as the symptoms of grief, not just the lung alone. On

another level, these are the organs that house the shen, the hun. and

the po, and I think these concepts have more to do with nei jing

theories related to grief than Han politics.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do you mean " brain " in the CM sense, or something else?

 

Pat

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any

computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility

of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is

accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising

in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================

[Guest guest]

That is sadness is not directly

equated to the lung nor is fear to the kidney. For example under a

sp and heart vacuity pattern, one sees both fear, sadness, and a

tendency to cry listed as symptoms.

>>>>And remember that even within the same classic texts the same emotion is at

times associated with different organs

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

However, its not news to

me that herbalists did not use systematic correspondence before 1100 AD or

that the SHL was lost for 800 years. I knew this 15 years ago, as did everyone

I went to school with. But it is no doubt true that many of these

misconceptions are still abundant and do lead to a romanticized practice of CM.

>>>Todd i would take this a step further and question the automatic patterns

associated with all diseases. Do we really have excess and deficiency, yin and

yang etc. Did pragmatic herbalists use such methods much? When such as approach

truly works? when is it just an excuse to justify failure? Should we even ask

these questions? or if we have not read in Chinese the majority of the texts

should we shut up? can we assume that the majority of the texts are/were mostly

perpetuating such traditions regardless of what PU call reality?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Because part of the CM foundations is also in the correspondance

between the macrocosm and the microcosm, or the universal laws of

nature. You may call it romanticised, but it still is part of the

philosophical basis of CM.

 

>>>>Wlwin of course it is now part of the philosophical basis of CM. But must it

remain so?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I believe it has been shown that death of a significant other leads

to a depleted immune system.

>>>Correct. But it does not lead to reparatory disease more than for example

heart attacks. A death of a spouse results in a hugely increased risk of death,

the development of cancer, and many other stress and immune related diseases. So

severe grief has potent effects, i do not question that.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do you mean " brain " in the CM sense, or something else?

 

Pat

>>>>>I am raising the questions about assumption within CM. I have no opinion as

to how these should be resolved. I would really like to know how are people

dealing with information that does not fit, or more importantly does not change

clinically when used within CM. Paul makes the point that we should always ask

our self's was the theory developed to explain physical reality or not. Since it

is my position that so much of what is written even in modern texts does not

wash in real life patients, should we start asking these questions?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

OK, I did understand that. I wasn't clear, however, whether you were

bringing in something else or not. Thanks.

 

Pat

 

 

Do you mean " brain " in the CM sense, or something else?

 

Pat

>>>>>I am raising the questions about assumption within CM. I have no

opinion as to how these should be resolved. I would really like to know how

are people dealing with information that does not fit, or more importantly

does not change clinically when used within CM. Paul makes the point that

we should always ask our self's was the theory developed to explain

physical reality or not. Since it is my position that so much of what is

written even in modern texts does not wash in real life patients, should we

start asking these questions?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rory.kerr@w...>

wrote:

 

I think these concepts have more to do with nei jing

> theories related to grief than Han politics.

>

> Rory

 

 

Let's remember that the Needham folks like Sivin do not agree with Unschuld

on his points about the predominance of sociopolitical factors in the

development of CM. My reading of Needham is that he considered CM to be

proto-scientific and his study of chinese civilization commented on why this

proto-science did not develop into modern science. So Needham saw the

concepts of CM as largely physiological, but framed in pre-scientific

vocabulary. Needham was a renowned embryologist and a proponent of

systems biology, a precursor to modern complexity theory. Thus he was of

course biased by his professional training. He saw immense medical and

scientific value in CM. Likewise a medical anthropologist is also biased by his

professional training.

 

To a certain extent, it doesn't really matter what one thinks is the most likely

explanation for the development of chinese thought, because I don't believe

most of us are qualified to make that judgement. We can just report what we

read in books by people who study this stuff in depth, what we think it means

and how we feel about that. I certainly have no idea what version of the past

is correct. Who can? The question is how does that affect us today, if at all.

I

think the most extreme interpretation of Unschuld is that CM theory is just an

outgrowth of politics; it can thus all be replaced with any other theory,

including modern science. That is not my reading, but it is the reading of the

Deke Kendall crowd. My reading of Needham is that many chinese medical

concepts have practical and scientific value. they cannot be reduced to

prevailing reductionistic science, yet they are nevertheless primitive and

culture-bound. They also evidence a deep understanding of interdependent

systems that is remarkably accurate in terms of modern understandings of

such things.

 

However I think Needham believed as I do that the future of medicine and

science could be influenced by CM if we act consciously, but that the

terminology and concepts of CM will never replace or subsume those of

modern science in the new paradigm. People will still talk about lab values,

but in a more expansive way. Patients will be typed by genetics and more

subtle tests and imaging. Drugs will focus on promoting normal physiology,

rather than suppression or attack. How will the chinese concepts of

maintaining health fit into this scenario? It may be hard to get mainstream

medicine to recognize concepts like liver qi depression, but they already accept

some of the ideas of yin yang relationships (inhibition and stimulation) and the

need for normal physiological heat versus pathological fever or inflammation.

granted, these ideas do not conform one to one. that is not my intent. I

merely submit them as evidence of a basic understanding of homeostasis in

modern biology and suggest that some of this actually trickles into medicine.

Perhaps the CM take on these things, whether five phase or 8 principle or

elsewise could help WM expand these concepts in its own domain. WM would

be so much richer for it.

 

Now none of this means that I think this will be better than premodern CM as

regards clinical efficacy. It may be like comparing vinyl to CD's. CDs never

really cut it with me, but its still music with most of the nuance. Or the " new

Medicine " may be better (though it didn't really fly in the PRC according to

Scheid). I just think this is going to be one of the developments in 21st

century medicine. So we either get to influence this development or not.

However, I assume there will always be those who study the original systems

of CM and always those who will prefer to utilize such practitioners. But I am

just as interested in the existence of CM as an alternative or complementary

practice as I am interested in seeing how it integrates and influences the

development of medicine and science in general. Because I do believe that

modern science, whatever it evolves into, will continue to dominate the

development of medicine that is accessed by the bulk of the population.

 

I think all these things will happen anyway, so we can either contribute or not.

I don't really think we can stop the integration of CAM or the practice of pure

CM (pre WM, that is) or a new medicine paradigm from all developing. So it

seems silly to debate which approach is right or wrong, but rather we should

see what clinical value we can glean from any and all of this. I definitely

think

the worst thing we can do as a profession is to fracture around these issues.

There will be no resolution of matters surrounding styles of practice. that is

why I strongly support the study of classics to see what that endeavor yields

side by side with modern research and clinical pioneering, as necessary.

Personally, I am interested in developing TCM standards as that is the

hallmark of this style in some ways. I assume others will unearth literature

that will affect these standards and influence and inspire myriad private

practices. Can both exist side by side? I think so.

 

Does anyone know the meaning of radical in the political sense? It is like

radix

or root. the radical approach to development is to cut something back to its

perceived roots and start over. This is evidenced in both religious

fundamentalism and extreme politics both left and right. The perceived roots

are different in each case and thus the utopian vision differs. But the theme

of

overthrowing the establishment is everpresent in radical literature. Radical

literature characterizes reformers as weak, kowtowing to the establishment

while pretending to to do something progressive. Yet things just remain the

same. We all have to decide for ourselves whether we are radicals or

reformers and which approach leads to real progress. Reformers can live with

radicals as long as the radicals remain on the margins. Reformers often

borrow from radicals to set their agenda, thus radical positions are included in

many reforms (such as slavery abolition or women's voting rights). The

question is whether radicals can compromise with reformers as any

compromise means one is no longer a radical but merely a reformer.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>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:

 

Because we can see those emotions in their associated organs in the

pulses. The " brain " is found in the sensory association of each

pulse position.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " Alwin van Egmond " wrote:

> Because part of the CM foundations is also in the correspondance

> between the macrocosm and the microcosm, or the universal laws of

> nature. You may call it romanticised, but it still is part of the

> philosophical basis of CM. >>

 

 

Alwin:

 

I agree with you. But you don't even have to acknowledge it as the

micro-/macrocosmic metaphor as the Chinese did. You only need to

look at the laws of nature and see that Mankind is not separate from

them. This becomes even more evident in Complexity Theory which,

like CM, tries to describe the behaviors of living systems.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " wrote:

> >>>>And remember that even within the same classic texts the same

emotion is at times associated with different organs >>>

 

 

alon:

 

That's why the classics must be verified in each generation. The

final artiber is the patients themselves. Their pulses will

accurately describe which emotion is present and, consequently, what

the physical consequence may be.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I definitely think

the worst thing we can do as a profession is to fracture around these issues.

There will be no resolution of matters surrounding styles of practice.

>>>In in our life time, or may be?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon Marcus wrote:

 

" 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. "

 

Alon,

I personally don't see anything wrong with this orientation to

treating your patients. I remember Bob Flaws some months ago asking

us all to consider our orientation to medicine and what goals we hope

to achieve with our patients. If we know where we're coming from in

this manner, and we know where each other stand, alot of context is

suddenly added for the arguments we make about what is important for

our practice, the field, etc.

 

Since you have been so forthright in stating your orientation, I will

try to be as well:

When a patient comes to me, my first concern is to treat their chief

complaint, whether it be physical (which it usually is), emotional,

whatever. However, the emotional/spiritual well-being of my patients

is of great importance to me. How they feel about their life, their

sense of self, connection to purpose and to others, all matters to

me. Ultimately, I'll go as far as to say that supporting the

unfolding destiny (to borrow Lonny Jarrett's phrase) of my patients

is the most important dimension of what I hope to offer as a

practitioner.

 

That's just my orientation.

 

I don't know how this bears on the discussion of herbs in particular

(beyond treatment of emotional sx and patterns in general), but I do

think the field of CM at-large certainly has encompassed this type of

orientation both classically and today.

 

Does this make my understanding of romantic? I

don't know. I was taught, by what the classics would call

a " superior physician " , that through practice, WE become the

medicine. Romantic perhaps, but I have seen this mode of practice in

action, and it is the ideal to which I aspire.

 

Respectfully,

Chad

 

Chadwick Moyer, L.Ac.

[Guest guest]

Nicely said, Chad. This is my aspiration as well.

 

Andrea Beth

 

 

chadwick_m <chadwick_m wrote:

Alon Marcus wrote:

 

" 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. "

 

Alon,

I personally don't see anything wrong with this orientation to

treating your patients. I remember Bob Flaws some months ago asking

us all to consider our orientation to medicine and what goals we hope

to achieve with our patients. If we know where we're coming from in

this manner, and we know where each other stand, alot of context is

suddenly added for the arguments we make about what is important for

our practice, the field, etc.

 

Since you have been so forthright in stating your orientation, I will

try to be as well:

When a patient comes to me, my first concern is to treat their chief

complaint, whether it be physical (which it usually is), emotional,

whatever. However, the emotional/spiritual well-being of my patients

is of great importance to me. How they feel about their life, their

sense of self, connection to purpose and to others, all matters to

me. Ultimately, I'll go as far as to say that supporting the

unfolding destiny (to borrow Lonny Jarrett's phrase) of my patients

is the most important dimension of what I hope to offer as a

practitioner.

 

That's just my orientation.

 

I don't know how this bears on the discussion of herbs in particular

(beyond treatment of emotional sx and patterns in general), but I do

think the field of CM at-large certainly has encompassed this type of

orientation both classically and today.

 

Does this make my understanding of romantic? I

don't know. I was taught, by what the classics would call

a " superior physician " , that through practice, WE become the

medicine. Romantic perhaps, but I have seen this mode of practice in

action, and it is the ideal to which I aspire.

 

Respectfully,

Chad

 

Chadwick Moyer, L.Ac.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

However, the emotional/spiritual well-being of my patients

is of great importance to me. How they feel about their life, their

sense of self, connection to purpose and to others, all matters to

me. Ultimately, I'll go as far as to say that supporting the

unfolding destiny (to borrow Lonny Jarrett's phrase) of my patients

is the most important dimension of what I hope to offer as a

practitioner.

>>>>Chad out of curiosity how is this manifested in you day to day practice

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

>>>>Chad out of curiosity how is this manifested in you day to day

practice

Alon

 

Good question, Alon.

 

Two basic directions to the answer, although this does take us

(further?) off-topic for this list.

 

First, I'd say that it manifests in the kinds of questions I ask my

patients, and what I try to see that they're not telling me -

especially if it looks to me like their liver is involved, or they

basically lack shen. It also manifests in the kinds of " homework " I

give patients - qigong, or awareness exercises that are meant to

invite them into a relationship with themself, to help put them in

touch with their innate aspirations, etc.

 

The second part has to do with my personal cultivation practice -

qigong, meditation, exercises to clarify my own vision and keep it

alive and unobstructed...

 

I have to be honest and state that helping patients fulfill their

life purpose largely remains in the domain of aspiration for me -

meaning I don't really feel all that accomplished in these endeavors -

just that I do know where I'm aiming.

 

Thanks for asking,

Chad

[Guest guest]

Hi Todd

 

I really liked your thoughtful posting about these developments.

 

--- " " wrote:

> I certainly have no idea what version of the past

> is correct. Who can? The question is how does that affect us

> today, if at all.

.......

> My reading of Needham is that many chinese medical

> concepts have practical and scientific value. they cannot be

> reduced to prevailing reductionistic science, yet they are

> nevertheless primitive and culture-bound. They also evidence a

> deep understanding of interdependent systems that is remarkably

> accurate in terms of modern understandings of such things.

 

What do you mean by primitive in: " ... yet they are nevertheless

primitive ... " ?

Do you feel us today more superior than they were at that time? By

what standards do you define primitive?

That they were not living in a technical age like ours does not make

them primitive to me. I think there are things in which I would

consider us much more primitive then ancient people were. Development

of human societies can IMO hardly be regarded as linear only going

upwards.

 

 

 

> We all have to decide for ourselves whether we are radicals or

> reformers and which approach leads to real progress. Reformers can

> live with radicals as long as the radicals remain on the margins.

> Reformers often borrow from radicals to set their agenda, thus

> radical positions are included in many reforms (such as slavery

> abolition or women's voting rights). The question is whether

> radicals can compromise with reformers as any compromise means one

> is no longer a radical but merely a reformer.

 

A radical does not have to compromise, he shouldn't!

There must not evolve a single compromise. Equilibrium is death. The

existence of radical ideas is a driving force in itself which can't

be missed for a healthy development. Yin-Yang you know.

The question should be IMO: Can the radical restrain himself enough

and revert only to means of persueing his ideals that are respectful

to the rights of others as well?

Virtueous people is what is lacking. Study of Taoist literature

should be mandatory :-)!!

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

, " Alwin van Egmond " <@v...>

wrote:

 

>

> What do you mean by primitive in: " ... yet they are nevertheless

> primitive ... " ?

 

Alwin

 

I was giving my reading of Needham, not my personal opinion. As far as I know,

these concepts may be quite advanced. I sometimes wonder if they were given to

the

chinese by some advanced intelligence, revealing layer after layer as humanity

progresses to unravel the code. Or something like that... :-)

 

>

Study of Taoist literature should be mandatory

 

 

Indeed. In fact, Needham's characteristically materialistic interpretation of

things

considered taoism to be mainly a radical political sect that rejected modern

society

for the natural life, very similar indeed to the hippies who tried to emulate

them 2500

years later. In the course of their journeys outside conventional society, they

tarried

with shamans and witches and thus learned the lore of the plant world and

developed

a fascination with the magical powers these shamans possessed. Or so they say.

:-)

 

[Guest guest]

Two basic directions to the answer, although this does take us

(further?) off-topic for this list.

 

First, I'd say that it manifests in the kinds of questions I ask my

patients, and what I try to see that they're not telling me -

especially if it looks to me like their liver is involved, or they

basically lack shen. It also manifests in the kinds of " homework " I

give patients - qigong, or awareness exercises that are meant to

invite them into a relationship with themself, to help put them in

touch with their innate aspirations, etc.

 

The second part has to do with my personal cultivation practice -

qigong, meditation, exercises to clarify my own vision and keep it

alive and unobstructed...

 

I have to be honest and state that helping patients fulfill their

life purpose largely remains in the domain of aspiration for me -

meaning I don't really feel all that accomplished in these endeavors -

just that I do know where I'm aiming.

 

Thanks for asking,

Chad

>>>>>>>Interesting that you see these as spiritual. While i do some of these i

do not

Alon

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Do you feel us today more superior than they were at that time? By

what standards do you define primitive?

>>>How about life span

Alon