Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I have been thinking more about this x-signal stuff. If there is an x-signal system in the fascia (and as Bob points out the electrical properties of the fascia are well documented), what are questions must answer to ascertain the relationship of this system to that described in the nei jing. the first is what flows in the jing luo - blood and qi. what are the jing luo - a attempt to explain communication and coordination between distant parts of the body by postulating that nutrients, air and information move through vessels. in modern times, these vessels correspond to the combined functions of vascular, nervous. lymphatic. Unschuld comments that the vessels referred to are NOT vascular because communication is understood to be going both ways at the same time, which couldn't happen in a single blood vessel. However he does not account for the vessels to include efferent and afferent nerve pathways running alongside vascular tubes. this is Kendall's conception. If some sort of electrical energy moves outside these known vessels, but in specific conduits running through the fascia, that might suggest that this system played SOME role in maintaining homeostasis. but it hardly suggest that this is THE system described in the nei jing. In fact, the consistent mention of both qi and blood flowing through the vessels suggests that this electrical system was NOT what was referred to in that text. this so-called x-signal system may thus be real and play some role in homeostasis, but it just does not seem to fit the bill for the vessels described in the nei jing. the question was raised to me that perhaps the blood in the channels is not the red stuff that comes out when you are cut. I doubted this. what do others think about that? The other question that has been on my mind has to do with needling methods. There is an article in JCM this month detailing the methods of needling described in the neijing. One of the arguments made by Manaka is that slight stimulus engages the x-signal system, while stronger the neurovascular. Let's assume this is correct. Except for needling for certain types of superficial pain, I would not call any of the methods described in JCM to be " subtle " at all. When did the chinese do subtle needling as a standard practice? Manaka may be right about the x-signal system, but I still don't see what this has to do with chinese medicine as it was practiced through most of history in china. Needling techniques described in both modern and classical texts are often pretty vigorous. Manaka's ideas seem very influenced a priori by modern concepts about information and the predominant emphasis on using light needling and even lighter techniques (like ion cords) are decidedly modern phenomena as well. And unfairly called " japanese " style. If the chinese have been needling vigorously as the predominant practice for thousands of years, then even according to manaka they were stimulating the neurovascular system and over-riding the x-signal system. If this was the case, then they were not using the x-signal system therapeutically. So whatever manaka has discovered, it doesn't seem like it was the system ancient chinese were addressing with their methods. Now if the nanjing authors or the japanese acupuncturists who developed that school of thought had a different or alternate idea than what clearly seem to be morphological descriptions and physiological needling techniques described in the nei jing, I can accept that. but if that is the case, then the nanjing represents a departure from the ideas in the nei jing into a more purely information oriented, functional, metaphorical form of CM. perhaps that is why the very pragmatic, materialistic chinese never gave this book the same status as its predecessor. If the japanese have been developing these ideas for some time, then they may have equal stature to those developed in china over the same period. According to shudo denmei, classical acupuncture in japan was born in the early 1900's. It was not a revival of an earlier style, according to denmei, but a new interpretation of the classics by those who rejected the modernist approach to acupuncture prevalent in Japan since the late 1800's. I remain curious about the actual prevalence of the nanjing in japan during the middle ages and the needling techniques of those eras. Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 single blood vessel. However he does not account for the vessels to include efferent and afferent nerve pathways running alongside vascular tubes. this is Kendall's conception. >>>>Nor venous and arterial alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Manaka's ideas seem very influenced a priori by modern concepts about information and the predominant emphasis on using light needling and even lighter techniques (like ion cords) are decidedly modern phenomena as well. And unfairly called " japanese " style. >>>>As well as German energetic Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 , wrote: > I have been thinking more about this x-signal stuff. If there is an > x-signal system in the fascia (and as Bob points out the electrical > properties of the fascia are well documented), what are questions must > answer to ascertain the relationship of this system to that described > in the nei jing. > > the first is what flows in the jing luo - blood and qi. > > what are the jing luo - a attempt to explain communication and > coordination between distant parts of the body by postulating that > nutrients, air and information move through vessels. in modern times, > these vessels correspond to the combined functions of vascular, > nervous. lymphatic. Unschuld comments that the vessels referred to are > NOT vascular because communication is understood to be going both ways > at the same time, which couldn't happen in a single blood vessel. > However he does not account for the vessels to include efferent and > afferent nerve pathways running alongside vascular tubes. this is > Kendall's conception. > > If some sort of electrical energy moves outside these known vessels, > but in specific conduits running through the fascia, that might suggest > that this system played SOME role in maintaining homeostasis. but it > hardly suggest that this is THE system described in the nei jing. In > fact, the consistent mention of both qi and blood flowing through the > vessels suggests that this electrical system was NOT what was referred > to in that text. this so-called x-signal system may thus be real and > play some role in homeostasis, but it just does not seem to fit the > bill for the vessels described in the nei jing. the question was > raised to me that perhaps the blood in the channels is not the red > stuff that comes out when you are cut. I doubted this. what do others > think about that? > > The other question that has been on my mind has to do with needling > methods. There is an article in JCM this month detailing the methods > of needling described in the neijing. One of the arguments made by > Manaka is that slight stimulus engages the x-signal system, while > stronger the neurovascular. Let's assume this is correct. Except for > needling for certain types of superficial pain, I would not call any of > the methods described in JCM to be " subtle " at all. When did the > chinese do subtle needling as a standard practice? More subtle " superficial " needling is mentioned as early as the LingShu... -JAson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 , " " < @h...> wrote: > > More subtle " superficial " needling is mentioned as early as the LingShu... > > -JAson I noted that was mentioned in the JCM article as one type and then asked if this method was ever mainstream through most of chinese history. It strikes me that in the last month or so you have made a major change in your criteria for acceptance of clinically relevant data from the classics. You now seem to consider a quote from a classic text as support for your current approach to acupuncture, whereas in the past you clearly were more interested in mainstream practice and have railed against what you are doing right now. You have dismissed the idea of consensus in CM in a recent post after signing on to participate in a project on developing consensus standards a few months back. Either you are just being argumentative or you have made a major change in your perspective. All of sudden, it appears you are no longer evidence oriented in the scientific sense. I feel the direction of your recent posts is quite different from those in the past. I wonder if you realize the perception you are presenting of yourself lately is more of a faith based practitioner. That is fine, but is that your intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 , " " wrote: > , " " < > @h...> wrote: > > > > > More subtle " superficial " needling is mentioned as early as the LingShu... > > > > -JAson > > I noted that was mentioned in the JCM article as one type and then asked if > this method was ever mainstream through most of chinese history. It strikes > me that in the last month or so you have made a major change in your criteria > for acceptance of clinically relevant data from the classics. You now seem to > consider a quote from a classic text as support for your current approach to > acupuncture, whereas in the past you clearly were more interested in > mainstream practice and have railed against what you are doing right now. > You have dismissed the idea of consensus in CM in a recent post after signing > on to participate in a project on developing consensus standards a few > months back. Either you are just being argumentative or you have made a > major change in your perspective. All of sudden, it appears you are no longer > evidence oriented in the scientific sense. I feel the direction of your recent > posts is quite different from those in the past. I wonder if you realize the > perception you are presenting of yourself lately is more of a faith based > practitioner. That is fine, but is that your intent. Hold the horses... lets not assume too much here. a) I am still interested in mainstream CM view. And actually still interested in the project (what happened with that?) – But that is not the only way either. b) I am also exploring a different way of evaluating clinically useful tools (i.e. Kazato groups, which I still believe have much more to offer than mainstream science). c) I am not at ALL saying that `because there is a classical quote' then this must be true. I was just demonstrating that Chinese DID have this idea as far back as the lingshu. That is it. I did not see that you already said this…?? d) My take on science is this. IF science can actually disprove or prove something than this means a lot. BUT just because science cannot PROVE (or disprove) something then it means nothing. e) Given the above, I don't think that my criteria has changed at all. My current support of this system has been through observation in others practice and my own. My mind is not made up at all, but I can tell you this, I am seeing much more profound changes and patient responses with this subtle style than I ever saw with basic TCM style acupuncture. At the current moment I could care less about what any classic says, and this is only because of the built in evaluation system (i.e. kazato) that lies upstream from what I am being taught, and midstream in my evaluation process. But the whole system is based on nanjing etc (and deviatations that DO occur are from clinical reality.) Meaning there is a consensus of many senior practitioners and this information is constantly being reevaluated. It is a holistic type of science that is IMO coming up with some amazing stuff. I see this type of system clearly different from i.e. NAET etc. I do consider it part of CM. f) Finally I don't see anything argumentative about my above statement, I was just pointing out what was said in the LINGSHU to give more information. But I will argue when I see modern science being the final word on what is `truth'. Especially when theory A cannot be proven (but is not disproved)… It only has some answers and I personally would like to keep open to other evaluation methods. But hey talk to me in 2 weeks and maybe I will change my mind …. (again) & #61514;. So I am evidence based, just wider than just basic western science. TO me kazato / toyohari is evidence based, and more importantly clinically based! TRUST ME I take NOTHING on faith... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2004 Report Share Posted March 15, 2004 Please be careful with categorizing practitioners in this way. In my mind, this is divisive. I know Jason seems to have had a 'perspective change', but so have several other practitioners, especially those of a younger generation than us. I'd like to see you clarify what you think is 'faith-based' medicine, as it seems to be an issue on CHA. And, in my opinion, much less of an issue than some people think. I know so few students or practitioners who are versed in the classical Chinese medical texts, that there is not enough interest or study to make a classically based 'movement'. Perhaps you are talking about Leamington acupuncture (Worsley) or Kampo? Tuning forks or color wheel acupuncture? Otherwise, I think this is a 'straw dog'. A target that doesn't really exist. I was trained in the era (70's to early 80's) of the war of the 'five-element practitioner' versus the 'eight-principle practitioner', each claiming to be the 'real Chinese medicine'. I knew enough even then to know that this was a destructive, artificial division in the ranks. Heck, we even had an attempt at the 'five-element people' taking over the licensing board in New Mexico, and our school rushed its students to the board meetings to attempt to stop it. A few of those on 'the other side' were meditating on the five vowel sounds associated with the five elements in an attempt to influence the proceedings. I can see it now; " evidence-based acupuncturists " vs. " faith-based acupuncturists " . Another useless, destructive division of the ranks. Let's keep the CHA out of it. On Mar 15, 2004, at 11:58 AM, wrote: > I wonder if you realize the > perception you are presenting of yourself lately is more of a faith > based > practitioner. That is fine, but is that your intent. 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.