Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 I'm about two thirds way through the Kendall book and thought I would wait to comment but what the heck.... I have some reservations about the general thesis as I understand it. His concept is that there are no separate channels of qi. Is this correct and can we start from this? My objection goes like this. I appreciate his history of the autopsy and the influence it had on the acupuncture channels. However the concept of qi is so ingrained in Chinese culture that if the medicine and the general concept were as different as he claims then you would think this would be a major part of writings over time. When he makes the distinction I see it as twisting the intent in much the same way as say a Worsley practitioner might be accused of. What I hear him saying is that the true doctors thought like him with his own cultural (Western Science) paradigms. In other words, by claiming that Western science now explains everything, it blocks the idea that Western medicine may eventually " discover " Qi. My reasoning is simply that I have " seen " qi, and have no doubts that it also flows in the body, perhaps mainly along the lines of nerves etc... but I am open to this " material substance " that affects that which Western science cannot explain. oh well, that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2004 Report Share Posted May 25, 2004 I'm about two thirds way through the Kendall book and thought I would wait to comment but what the heck.... I have some reservations about the general >>>>I also have many questions as to his vascular interpretations and their anatomical sense Alon 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.