Guest guest Posted March 10, 2004 Report Share Posted March 10, 2004 You have eloquently said here what I wish to have said. Well done. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this subject as you progress through Deke's book. Sincerely, Greg >..... Deke does not say the qi is >the blood. >He just says what it says in the neijing su wen. the qi travels with the >blood >in the jingluo. there are no separate conduits which carry qi alone. >confirmed >by Unschuld. This does not address the issue of why this idea was so widely >accepted in later centuries. I am not disputing that and as everyone >knows, I >tend to favor later interpretations over earlier ones. > >However I have also thought about this concept that the qi moves the blood >and I think it really refers to function moving substance rather than >channel >qi moving vessel blood. According to Deke, qi can refer to a substance, the >function of an organ or spirit or the vitality of an organ or spirit. I >think the >assumption has been that the expression that the qi moves the blood refers >to >channel qi or at least some substance or force that moves the blood. >However, >the impression I get from Deke and others is that is hard to know what >context qi is being used in. The context he seems to give for this >expression >is that organ qi (function) is what moves the blood. In other words,heart >Qi >(function not force) moves the blood. Heart Qi (meaning heart function not >some kind of stuff in the heart) is dependent on spleen and lung qi >(spleen and >lung FUNCTION). that is what I get from Deke. > >What Deke does is not even remotely reductionistic because he leaves all >classical chinese concepts intact and does not have to remove any of them >from his model to make it work. I think reductionism is when one says the >anatomy in the yellow emperor's classic is just fantasy. That it's just >about >the pathways and connections we already understand from modern physiology. >But I read Deke as saying something very different. He says the anatomy in >the nei jing is real and a detailed study of that anatomy and physiology >reveals a different understanding of the same neurovascular system known to >modern science. > >Far from reducing CM to prevailing reductionistic ideas, Deke shows that >there is different way of understanding the neurovascular system and its >role >in health and disease and the neijing details that. His model explains >all the >effects of acupuncture satisfactorily and he attempts to ground his ideas >in a >reading of the classics. Rather than reducing CM with his model, Deke has >actually paved the way for EXPANDING western science to accommodate >explanations of phenomena hitherto inconceivable. Unbelievable as it may >seem to many of you, I think work like Deke's is exactly what leads to a >paradigm shift. The structures of normal science are challenged from >within >and an a more expansive model is developed as a result. This is exactly my >goal for the role of CM in the future. I do not think low tech CM as we >know >it will exist in 100 years (except as a curiosity), but I think the gift >of CM >will be its contribution to a truly holistic 21st century medicine. If >the ideas >of CM are valid, then they are grounded in the flesh. Deke does not rend >the >fabric of CM with his ideas. I think he only rends the personal >philosophies of >many who practice it. > >If you are invested in the energy medicine model, no matter how you >currently >label it, Deke will not make you happy. But I have always had a >physiological >orientation. Which is why herbs are more appealing to me. they make >perfect >sense on those terms. But I could never reconcile the anatomical issues >of the >channels, so I was only willing to practice TCM style acupuncture. >Otherwise >I felt I was in the realm of faith. So-called herbalized TCM acupuncture >really >does not make much use of channel theory. Points are selected on any >channel >for the sole reason of function w/o much regard to classical point >categories >or combination schemes. Deke's model provides me an intellectual space >inwhich I can explore these ideas. I have never accepted the idea of herbs >entering channels filed only with qi and I guess I have never accepted the >idea >of channels filled only with qi, either. there, I said it. :-) but as I >explore >this arena, I will try and keep and open mind that the chanel theory is >correct. >All I would suggest is that others do the same in both regards. > >Todd Lake Street Greg A. Livingston, L.Ac. Wang Huiyu, BTCM 121-1/2 11th Avenue San Francisco CA 94118 (415)752-3557 shanren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 wrote : > 1) IT is proposed that one must for optional absorption and > utilization take in (at one time) a specific ratio of 3:6:9 , getting > a cascading lipid effect. Therefore What is the proposed ratio of omega 3, 6 & 9? > 2) It is proposed that one of the best sources is macadamia nut (mixed > with a little evening primrose and black currant) - Does this source > also `just sound good on paper'? Sounds yummy to me - but then I love nuts & berries. ;-) kidding. I'd need to do some reading on it. Judy Saxe, L.Ac. Qing Ting Acupuncture LLC Denver, Colorado (303) 964-1996 http://www.QingTingAcupuncture.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.