perspective

[Guest guest]

My undergrad degree was in physiology. I went to naturopathic school

looking for a holistic understanding of physiology. I didn't find it

there, but I found it in the writings of Subhuti Dharmananda and Hong

Yen Hsu. They presented the holistic physiology and pharmacology I was

looking for in naturopathy. but what they taught was a physiological

understanding of CM. It all made perfect sense to me. I dropped out

of naturopathy and have been on the path of TCM herbology ever since.

Acupuncture training remained dominated by new age ideas, so I never

really took to the theory, though I have found the therapy quite useful

as adjunct to herbology. I would have never have stayed in the

holistic health field if I had not been exposed to Subhuti's work and

seen the brilliance of the ancient chinese in anticipating the findings

of modern science in so many ways.. After a brief dalliance with all

things new age myself, I was pretty much on the way back to western

medicine when I was introduced to ITM. So my perspective has been

shaped by a physiological orientation from the start. My reading of

Unschuld around the same time convinced me that much of the theory of

CM was just metaphorical doctrine, not an energetic map of the body,

not rooted in any mystical insights. Not ever being religious in my

life, I never looked back after I was set on this path. Now with

Kendall lending his words to the debate, I can finally understand how

classical acupuncture has physiological validity in its own right.

This doesn't really surprise me as many of my best experiences as a

patient have often been from meridian acupuncturists. I just assumed I

was highly suggestible. :-)

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

Kendall lending his words to the debate, I can finally understand how

classical acupuncture has physiological validity in its own right.

This doesn't really surprise me as many of my best experiences as a

patient have often been from meridian acupuncturists. I just assumed I

was highly suggestible

>>>Excuse me Todd but he says nothing that explains classical acupuncture in any

way. His section on acupuncture physiology is quite limited as well

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Kendall lending his words to the debate, I can finally understand how

> classical acupuncture has physiological validity in its own right.

> This doesn't really surprise me as many of my best experiences as a

> patient have often been from meridian acupuncturists. I just assumed I

> was highly suggestible

> >>>Excuse me Todd but he says nothing that explains classical

acupuncture in any way. His section on acupuncture physiology is quite

limited as well

> Alon

>

>