unschuld on qi and blood

[Guest guest]

unschuld says some interesting things on qi and blood in his nei jing

book.

 

1. blood is the same blood we talk about in WM

 

2. the original concept of qi was air or vapors

 

3. that original concept has been greatly expanded over the years

beyond this idea and that expansion is already seen in the nei jing

 

4. the concepts of qi may have been derived from observed aspects of

the blood (vessels and movement, etc.) but the complexity of the ideas

that developed over the years have taken on their own life

 

5. the nei jing is clearly about qi manipulation, not blood

manipulation - here we come to a critical discrepancy between Kendall

and Unschuld

 

Kendall believes jing qi (conduit qi or channel qi) refers to vessel

function or vitality, not some mysterious channel substance. So when

explaining that qi moves the blood, he believes this refers to function

moving substance. Not one substance causing another to move. It is

not a matter of qi flowing through its own discrete channels as the

controlling factor as to whether blood flows freely in its own separate

channels. But rather proper function of various organs leads to vessel

integrity and free flow of blood, in which the qi (as air) is carried.

 

6. the nei jing does include morphological as well as abstract ideas

about qi, blood and vessels

 

Unschuld, as usual, leaves more questions than answers. He

consistently speaks of qi as a substance in instances when Kendall uses

the term as function or vitality. Both uses seem to make logical sense

in their contexts. However while Kendall is cocksure that he himself

is correct, Unschuld dismisses all his own words every few paragraphs,

repeating the mantra that we can never know. As with all his writings

in the past, I feel PU provides lots of evidence but few substantial

conclusions. He certainly develops hypotheses about qi and blood, but

does not firmly stand behind any of them, IMO. To a certain extent, he

operates as an ethnographer, recording the insights of of a society and

trying to contextualize them, but leaving the bulk of the

interpretation necessary to clinically apply this material up to us.

That is well and good. He is an anthropologist, not a physician. But

it pretty much leaves us where we started. We still need someone else

who is actually both a clinician and reads classical chinese to guide

us in the application. That person might be Deke or it might be Heiner

or someone else who fits the bill. I certainly will never sort out the

matter for myself. I am content with the idea that nei jing was, in

part, an attempt at rational morphology and physiology. The complex

overlay of qi theory as Unschuld has it is really neither here nor

there. Deke says it does not matter what you believe. Just follow the

classics. If having a morphological view leads one to use classical

ideas, so be it. If one is more comfortable with metaphor or

metaphysics, whatever floats your boat.

 

But having said that, I do feel that the morphological face is the one

to show the world. In the meantime, if people can actually demonstrate

the validity of other models experimentally, let's see it. I keep

coming back to those experiments where nerves were blocked and

acupuncture did not work. Whatever else is going on, the body does not

change unless its biochemistry is altered at some phase in the process.

I still lean towards qi flow as a perception more than anything else.

a description of what one feels when one pays attention to the body.

In the long centuries between dissections, I think it is distinctly

possible that the concept of qi became incredibly abstracted as an

aberration of not looking inside the body, not necessarily a positive

development. And also possibly confusing the insights of qi gong with

the actual anatomy that may have been part of the nei jing. Paracelsus

thought the same thing about greek medicine - lost in their heads,

disconnected from the actual body. In a certain way, if Kendall is

right about the morphological roots of CM, which he believes have

gotten all confused over the centuries, then he is actually a

neo-classicist.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

I feel PU provides lots of evidence but few substantial

conclusions.

>>>>Todd to do anything else is to MSU. Now PU is a scietists and must function

within the parameters of his science, that means not making interpertations if

posible. I agree with you that it than falls on us to do that, and that brings

me to your next point.....

 

 

the validity of other models experimentally, let's see it. I keep

coming back to those experiments where nerves were blocked and

acupuncture did not work. Whatever else is going on, the body does not

change unless its biochemistry is altered at some phase in the process.

>>>>>The question as i see it now is do we shift to scientific experimental

model or do we continue with prorogation of dogma. Do we create a yard stick

that is objective or do we just continue to make excuses for lack of

objectivity. These are some of the major issues i see that we need to start

addressing. Are we going to use O-ring tests,hand pressure tests (not even

dolometers), etc to support our system? Do we believe in the power of

predictability and therefore experimental science? or do we just say well we are

outside the scientific world because they are not advanced enough to understand

us?

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This is a nice thread, and gets to the crux of the issues we've

discussed earlier. I think it is important to compare Kendall's and

Unschuld's ideas.

On Mar 16, 2004, at 9:15 AM, wrote:

 

> 5. the nei jing is clearly about qi manipulation, not blood

> manipulation - here we come to a critical discrepancy between Kendall

> and Unschuld

 

However, there are sections in the Su Wen on bloodletting techniques.

>

> Kendall believes jing qi (conduit qi or channel qi) refers to vessel

> function or vitality, not some mysterious channel substance. So when

> explaining that qi moves the blood, he believes this refers to function

> moving substance. Not one substance causing another to move. It is

> not a matter of qi flowing through its own discrete channels as the

> controlling factor as to whether blood flows freely in its own separate

> channels. But rather proper function of various organs leads to vessel

> integrity and free flow of blood, in which the qi (as air) is carried.

 

This is an interesting hypothesis, but it is chicken or egg, tail

wagging dog thinking. Which came first? My hypothesis is that the

informational and physiological aspects are interdependent, and cannot

be separated, just as the mind and body cannot be separated. Yes, if

nerves are cut or acupoints injected with procaine chloride,

acupuncture doesn't work. There is a dependency on neurological

interfaces and blood circulation for the acupuncture effect, but does

this exclude the informational 'dimension'?

 

Michael Broffman and Japanese acupuncture teachers go even farther and

say that surgery will change the flow of qi in the channels, especially

existing scars.

 

 

[Guest guest]

informational 'dimension'?

 

>>>What is more involved in the informational dimensions than the nervous

system?

alon