Digest Number 1912

[Guest guest]

Dear Alon, Z'ev, et al,

 

I was hoping mention of this book would cause some interesting

discussion, and I'm glad to see it did so. you asked me what I

like about the book and why. There are several things.

 

First let me say that parts of the book are bold interpretations of Nei

Jing, which is possibly why Alon said it's " a lot of interesting MSU " .

Deke makes no apologies for his interpretation and seems quite confident.

Not being a Nei Jing scholar I cannot say with any authority that it is

good or bad, but I happen to like what he says and I have to admit I kind

of hope what he says is correct because it takes CM out of the

metaphysical realm and right into physiology, which I think is a very

reasonable interpretation. In this sense he may be pushing the limits of

interpretation, but I feel he may be pushing in the right direction.

There are connections he makes between zang-fu function and endocrine

glands; anatomical descriptions of the JingMai and JingJin (Muscle

distributions); and other interpretations of NeiJing, all of which some

may call MSU, but if you look at what he says you will find logic to it.

For me it's refreshing to remove metaphysics from CM as I'm not

comfortable practicing metaphysics-based medicine, which is probably why

I've gravitated more towards herbology.

 

He insists that the JingMai (which were originally described in Nei Jing

Ling Shu and translated commonly as " channels " or " meridians " ) are in

fact descriptions of blood vessels and blood circulation. I have seen

this mentioned as a possibility in several Chinese texts, and my wife (a

Beijing TCM Univ grad) also says that this interpretation is nothing new

but that it is generally only considered one possibility since we cannot

ask the authors of Nei Jing what they really meant. I have never seen

any elaboration on this in Chinese texts, although it may be out there.

Deke's book is the first I've seen to detail this idea, and it seems very

plausible to me.

 

There is also a significant section of the book dedicated to describing

the physiological mechanisms of acupuncture which can in no way be called

MSU as its based on scientific research, and is heavily referenced in

case you want to check his sources (Oxford University Press apparently

did verify all this before publishing it). I have never been much a fan

of metaphysics and have never been comfortable with the idea of Qi

flowing in invisible meridians, which is what I was taught, so this has

been a wonderful discovery for me. I figured maybe the ancient Chinese

had used the channel model because they lacked modern physiological

knowledge and had to describe the phenomenon in some way, but I always

figured someone would eventually find a physiological explanation. But

it is true that " meridian " is an incorrect translation, and Qi does not

translate as energy. Mai means vessel, xue mai means blood vessel, jing

mai and dong mai mean vein and artery respectively. Jing Mai is possibly

best translated as longitudinal vessel, and certainly does not mean

meridian. NeiJing says the xue/blood flows inside the mai/vessels. Why

would they make up some invisible meridians and say the blood flows in

them, especially since they had profound anatomical knowledge including

that of the blood vessels and blood circulation? So maybe the ancients

were not talking in metaphor or metaphysics, but were actually describing

correct anatomy and physiology? And why not? These people were

incredibly intelligent. Weren't they capable of doing this? Anyway, the

chapter called " Mechanisms of Action " gives a detailed physiological

description of the acupuncture mechanism, which I have found not only

extremely interesting, but clinically very useful, which is what it's all

about in the end, right?

 

After reading this book I feel my acupuncture practice has been revived.

I have more confidence in acupuncture now, whereas before I always put

more emphasis on herbs, and I've had some fantastic acupuncture teachers

and have seen amazing results. Still this knowledge has changed my view

and I am grateful to Deke for his work. It may be controversial, but I

tend to side with him.

 

 

>Greg

>

>We just got a copy of the book at PCOM at my request. I have been

>wanting to

>read it. This books has caused a tremendous amountof controversy amongst

>the faith ful, so I m always interested to hear an opinion of enthusiastic

>support. could you elaborate on what you liked and why? and remind me if

>you

>read chinese. I seem to recall you have spent some time in China.

 

I am taking a class with Deke and he has definitely rattled some cages

and stirred up debate and controversy within the class, so I am not

surprised to hear about other controversy, which is in fact why I wanted

to hear what people on CHA thought.

 

As for my Chinese, it is fairly good. I spent two years there after

finishing at Five Branches Institute. I can read modern CM texts pretty

easily, and I have a live-in teacher when I run into problems (Huiyu, my

wife, is a Beijing TCM Univ grad and her knowledge of Chinese language is

formidable- she excelled at Classical Chinese in school.).

 

Deke's Chinese is no joke, and he has over 20 years of clinical

experience as well, plus a background in rocket engineering which has

taught him to look for answers and see and explain things in a certain

way. The guy is smart.

 

 

>>>>>A lot of interesting MSU

Alon

 

It's a bit to simplistic to call it all MSU, as I've said. He makes a

bold interpretation, but he is VERY interested in maintaining the

integrity of CM.

 

 

 

 

As an interesting sidenote, I found this quote on a site called

christianacupuncture.com. Brian Carter writes, " In fact, two of our best

modern English-language scholar-historians who study Chinese medicine,

Paul

Unschuld and Donald E. Kendall, both say that Chinese medicine never

meant qi

to mean energy, and never described channels in which energy flow.

Kendall

says they were describing blood flow and neurovascular relationships. "

Carter

provides no further information, but I was not aware Unschuld supported

Deke's findings. Does anyone know if that's true?

 

Greg writes:

 

It is my understanding, although this is hearsay, that Unschuld is

beginning to accept some of Deke's interpretations of Neijing.

 

 

 

 

Finally, Deke makes it clear that his interest is NOT to reduce chinese

concepts to modern physiology, but rather demonstrate that CMi is ALREADY

a

physiological medicine (something one of my ND teachers, Jared Zeff, said

to

me almost word for word in 1988). And that perhaps there are chinese

ideas

that enhance standard physiological understandings. He states explicitly

that

the rejection of chinese concepts amongst medical acupuncturists is

because

of the prevailing energetic view of qi and meridians as distinct from the

neurovascular system. Once it becomes clear that the chinese were

actually

talking about the same systems modern anatomists are, then it will pave

the

way for acceptance of the classical information as physiological rather

than

metaphysical, according to Deke. Intriguing idea, one must say. Deke,

and the

association that has adopted him as patron, NOMAA, have been dismissed in

some circles as having the goal of scientifc reductionism vis a vis CM,

but I

think this matter is much more subtle than that. I will report more as I

read.

 

Greg writes:

 

Very well put, Todd. Deke is definitely not interested in scientific

reductionism as far as I can tell. He is passionate about CM and feels

any scientific interpretation of CM must follow CM and certainly not be a

replacement or reduction of it. I look forward to hearing your opinions

of the book, if you care to share them, as you read, or when you are done.

 

Best wishes to all,

 

Greg

 

 

 

 

Lake Street

Greg A. Livingston, L.Ac.

Wang Huiyu, BTCM

121-1/2 11th Avenue

San Francisco CA 94118

(415)752-3557

shanren

[Guest guest]

, Greg Livingston <shanren@c...>

wrote:

But

> it is true that " meridian " is an incorrect translation, and Qi does not

> translate as energy. Mai means vessel, xue mai means blood vessel, jing

> mai and dong mai mean vein and artery respectively. Jing Mai is possibly

> best translated as longitudinal vessel, and certainly does not mean

> meridian. NeiJing says the xue/blood flows inside the mai/vessels. Why

> would they make up some invisible meridians and say the blood flows in

> them, especially since they had profound anatomical knowledge including

> that of the blood vessels and blood circulation? So maybe the ancients

> were not talking in metaphor or metaphysics, but were actually describing

> correct anatomy and physiology?

 

 

this really is the crux. what does jingmai mean?

 

>

> After reading this book I feel my acupuncture practice has been revived.

> I have more confidence in acupuncture now, whereas before I always put

> more emphasis on herbs, and I've had some fantastic acupuncture teachers

> and have seen amazing results. Still this knowledge has changed my view

> and I am grateful to Deke for his work. It may be controversial, but I

> tend to side with him. Deke is definitely not interested in scientific

> reductionism as far as I can tell. He is passionate about CM and feels

> any scientific interpretation of CM must follow CM and certainly not be a

> replacement or reduction of it. I look forward to hearing your opinions

> of the book, if you care to share them, as you read, or when you are done.

 

 

I also have distanced myself from classical acupuncture over the years

because if its largely metaphsyical presentation and following in the west. I

never bought it and I never felt comfortable with it. So I did straight-ahead

TCM as an adjunct to herbs for internal diseases and orthopedic stuff for pain

- both clearly physiological in nature. Now as I read Deke, I have developed a

newfound interest in classical acupuncture. While Deke may be dismissed as a

reductionist _ I will always remember a livid student at PCOM who decided to

devote his life to taking deke down after hearing him speak at the Symposium

- I think he is actually a great example of the trend espoused by zhang xi chun

and embodied by jiao shu de. Maintaining the spirit of CM while integrating

with the west. Deke most definitely accomplished that goal.

 

His entire presentation of phsyiology and anatomy is completely from the

perspective of WM serving CM, not vice-versa. That CM will be proven to be

real just as it is written, not by scrapping large parts of the corpus to make

it fit science (as the modern chinese did somewhat in their state texts). He

believes every word of nei jing and he makes strong cases for pulse diagnosis

and classical point selection that never made sense to me before. As Deke

says, you can practice CM fine even if you believe in channels as invisible

conduits. So perhaps the classicists should be happy if Deke has inspired

more to join them. why would it matter if Deke was right about this. It

would certainly catapult acupuncute to new prominence. holding the old

metaphysical line has only made us laughing stocks. Yeah, that's right. MD's

are interested in what we do, but largely think WE ourselves are jokes.

 

[Guest guest]

Greg i think you will like my new upcoming book hearing what you like about

Deke's work

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Greg,

Deke, as I mentioned, has done a good job with his book, even if

many people misunderstand his ideas and take them out of context. The

main misunderstanding I've seen propagated is that Deke thinks " there

is no such thing as qi " . I think, like Paul Unschuld, Ken Rose, Bob

Felt and others, he thinks that qi is not energy. I have to agree on

that.

 

However, I think that channels and network vessels and qi are more

than just neuro-vascular networks. I personally think the

informational model developed by Dr. Yoshio Manaka is more

sophisticated in its understanding, especially in its reference to

cutting edge knowledge in biology and physics. The ability of cells

and structures to communicate with each other is beginning to be

mapped, and I think that we cannot leave out this data when comparing

CM and physiological information on channels, points and qi.

 

 

On Mar 8, 2004, at 8:18 AM, Greg Livingston wrote:

 

>

> Very well put, Todd. Deke is definitely not interested in scientific

> reductionism as far as I can tell. He is passionate about CM and feels

> any scientific interpretation of CM must follow CM and certainly not

> be a

> replacement or reduction of it. I look forward to hearing your

> opinions

> of the book, if you care to share them, as you read, or when you are

> done.