Kendall

[Guest guest]

I have read Deke's book and attended one of his weekend

'orthopedic modules' where he discussed acupuncture's

physiological mechanisms. I've been intrigued by his work,

feeling much of his information is accurate and valuable. I

could say a lot of nice things about Deke, but they've been

said already, by people who know him better than I do.

Reading everyone's posts, I want to point out a couple

things.

 

While Deke doesn't throw out any of the classical concepts,

his physiological models don't fully explain them, either.

When I asked him whether there was a physiological correlate

to the actions of the transport points, or the activity of

the five phase points, his answer was 'no.' He said only

that perhaps since the points in the hands and feet have

more sensory representation, they were more

active--something to that effect.

 

Deke does not say there is anything like a one-to-one

correspondence between the CM vessels and the Western blood

vessels. Two different CM vessels can share correspondence

with a single Western blood vessel. Each CM vessel

corresponds along its course with several Western blood

vessels. It's the 'luo' (not the same luo as the 'luo

channels') that come to the surface of the body to form

neurovascular nodes called acupoints. What we call a

'meridian' is the result of someone(s) mistakenly connecting

the dots between the acupoints. But it's the deep Western

blood vessels that are the real correlates to Chinese

'vessels.' But why, if the Chinese were doing all that

anatomy work, wouldn't they have mapped the vessels as we

see them today? I think I've proven this is too complex to

talk about in writing. Suffice to say, if anyone has a

better understanding of these matters, and is bold enough to

try to talk about it here, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

While Deke spent lots of time discussing the minutiae of the

blood coagulation system, he did not spend nearly enough

time, as far as I'm concerned, discussing the slightly

'grosser' mechanisms of vessel pathways, correspondences,

etc.--the stuff that you can't get in a textbook and that

matters the most to me, as an acupuncturist.

 

Marian

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date:

12/25/2002

[Guest guest]

, " Marian Blum "

<marianb@r...> wrote:

 

> While Deke doesn't throw out any of the classical concepts,

> his physiological models don't fully explain them, either.

> When I asked him whether there was a physiological correlate

> to the actions of the transport points, or the activity of

> the five phase points, his answer was 'no.' He said only

> that perhaps since the points in the hands and feet have

> more sensory representation, they were more

> active--something to that effect.

 

Yes. this is what I was trying to point out previously. His model

doesn't not account for the many observable finding when one really

gets into acupuncture. Therefore adopting this model reduces

acupuncture to something that IMO limits it potential. I can see how

western oriented practitioners (MD, Chiro, or herbal acus) would like

to embrace this model, but again, IMO, it is not a true representation

of reality. Could someone reiterate what his feeling of `qi' are?

 

-

[Guest guest]

I was just reading about the roman physician Galen and how he had to study

anatomy by treating gladiators and their injuries, because dissections were not

expectable. While he was accurate about many things, and was an incredible

surging including doing brain surgery, seeing deep anatomy only via injured

people did result in some basic anatomical mistakes. Perhaps this was true for

the Chinese as well.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

> When I asked him whether there was a physiological correlate

> to the actions of the transport points, or the activity of

> the five phase points, his answer was 'no.'

 

Not surprising to me. After 26 years of doing this stuff, I think those ideas

are also theoretical bullshit. I guess that means I don't

put much stock in the Nan Jing even though I am one of its translators. perhaps

I don't put much stock in the Nan Jing because I am

one of its translators and, therefore, have spent a lot of time with it and

thinking about it.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> I was just reading about the roman physician Galen and how he had to study

anatomy by treating gladiators and their injuries, because dissections were

not expectable. While he was accurate about many things, and was an

incredible surging including doing brain surgery, seeing deep anatomy only via

injured people did result in some basic anatomical mistakes. Perhaps this was

true for the Chinese as well.

 

 

Kendall never says the chinese got it all right. He mentions they missed the

peripheral nerves and did not anatomically separate the endocrine glands from

other organs. The point is whether the intentof the chinese was, at least in

part, to describe the actual contents of the body or to be purely metaphorical,

particularly in regard to the jing luo network. while some concepts in the

neijing are purely metaphorical (the chart is the sovereign), others maybe

largely morphological. Now they may not have got the morphology exactly

right, but the question is whether the chinese were trying to be anatomists or

their intent was to postulate about the purely invisible. The jing luo are

described as invisible, but Kendall suggests that this refers to the fact that

jing mai are not visible unless you cut open the body.

 

I spoke to two other colleagues on this matter, one a chinese man who is well

versed in the classics, another an american who reads chinese and does

professional translation work, yet is no advocate of Deke's, per se. Both

agreed that both qi and blood flow in the vessels. I spoke with them

separately, BTW. They also agreed that it was never the intent of the chinese

to postulate a discrete invisible channel system that carried only an invisible

force or energy. They both said it is clear from both classical and modern

chinese sources that this " subtle force " or " field " theory has never been what

the chinese thought themselves about this matter. It has been overlaid by

westerners. Both gentlemen felt the nei jing description of the vessels was

primitive attempt at anatomy.

 

Because of the complexities of anatomy, the ancietn chinese were unable to

completely separate various conduits of information and substance, so they

used the term vessels as umbrella term to include both neurological,

lymphatic and vascular functions. But both of my informants felt that it was

the general view in china that vessel anatomy was an attempt at true

morphology and this area does need to be explored more. That it was incorrect

to assume the existence of a discrete channel system that carried only qi or

x-signals. and that this position is not suppoerted either textually or

anatomically. Interestingly, this same psoitin was largely echoed by our

Japanese acupuncture instructor. Now before anybody freaks out, I will

reiterate again that I see my role as investigator. I have approached sources

and colleagues unbiased to see whether his premises and/or conlcusions hold

any water. While his premises about what the nei jing said seems to have

wide acceptance, even in Unschuld's work on the same topic, I will note that

all three men whom I spoke with felt that the type of precise anatomical

specificity between channels and arteries Deke postulates is highly

speculative and not important for clinical practice. I don't disagree, except

to

the extent that more intellectually curious people may get into the field when

it is stripped of its mystical aura.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Marian Blum " <marianb@r...>

wrote:

 

>

> While Deke doesn't throw out any of the classical concepts,

> his physiological models don't fully explain them, either.

> When I asked him whether there was a physiological correlate

> to the actions of the transport points, or the activity of

> the five phase points, his answer was 'no.'

 

 

I heard him say on tape that there was no direct relationship between these

points and physiology. He also said he found the five phase dynamics to be

useful in some cases, but it was one of the chinese ideas that he did not think

was as accurate as many others, either clinically or anatomically. Of course

the use of five phase points was not well developed in china herself. Perhaps

this was due to the chinese feeling the same way as Deke on this matter.

 

But why, if the Chinese were doing all that

> anatomy work, wouldn't they have mapped the vessels as we

> see them today?

 

It was just too complex to do at that point in history.