SV: liver detox formula now capitalization

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that the original thought to capitalize CM organs, which was

done by Bensky & O'Connor in Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text, although

well intentioned, obscured the many similarities between the functions of

the " TCM organ " and the " biomedical organ " . After all, the functions of

the biomedical lung, the biomedical kidney, (especially if we consider the

adrenal cortex and medulla), and others are quite similar. It is also

important to understand that the Chinese did not sit around and fantasize

about all of this but would, on occasion, dissect bodies and conduct

autopsies for forensic purposes. In adition, physicians treated severe

trauma, serious life threatening diseases, advanced cancers and other

conditions that made manifest many interior bodily processes. In so doing,

they understood perfectly well which organs they were naming. The Chinese

did not imagine a heart other than the heart that exists within the

body. The concept of pericardium (surrounding the heart/xin bao/heart

wrapper) emerges from direct observation of tissue of that very name, that

envelopes the heart.

 

If we consider an organ such as the spleen, it is fair to say that the

Chinese conflated the tissue of the spleen and pancreas, and this

conflation actually makes Chinese concepts of the spleen more intelligible

in a biomedical sense. At the end of the day, an informed reader of

specialist literature should be able to detect whether the functions

attributed to an organ are particular to biomedical constructions of the

organ, Chinese medical constructions, or shared. The use of capitals will

not educate an individual who is ignorant of biomedical concepts, nor will

it rescue the Chinese medicine neophyte. It has and will, however,

contribute to the spurious metaphysics of contemporary CM in the west,

which, confronted with challenges from the science based community,

retreats into a fantasized world of alternative organs. It has always been

difficult for the westerner confronted with the concept of qi, to allow qi

to be the vivid tangible bodily substance that it was for the

sages. Instead, the contemporary western practitioner of CM, when

confronted with what they imagined to be the contrasting reality of

contemporary biomedical anatomy and histology, retreats into an alternate

energetic domain rather than seeking to understand that both systems are

deeply imbedded in the same bodily experience. After all, the movement of

qi and blood described again and again in diagnosis and therapeutics in CM

involves every facet of the body's circulatory system, including the

capillary beds that pervade most tissue structures and the microcirculatory

events within the organ. We do need to endow our theory with an imaginary

quality when the actual facts of the body are so remarkably complex and

interpenetrating as to support most of the possibilities suggested by CM

thought without resort to special pleading for energetic bodies or imagined

physiological process. Capitalization is merely an artifact of an

imperfect attempt to separate something that was never separate in the

minds of the Chinese to begin with.

 

At 09:04 PM 9/14/2005, you wrote:

>I know in the European journal of Ch Med they say in their format for

>articles not to capitalize the organs, I don't know why?

>Heiko Lade

>M.H.Sc.(TCM)

>Lecturer and clinic supervisor

>Auckland College of Natural Medicine

>Website: www.acnm.co.nz

>

>

>

> -

>

>

> Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:20 PM

> Re: SV: liver detox formula

>

>

> Any ideas on how to differentiate the Chinese and western organs in

> print? Italics?

> >>>>>

> In my book TCM caps and wm noncap

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If we consider an organ such as the spleen, it is fair to say that the

Chinese conflated the tissue of the spleen and pancreas, and this

conflation actually makes Chinese concepts of the spleen more intelligible

in a biomedical sense.

>>>>>>

Marnae,I would also point out that " spleen " is a translation.

I disagree with your charectarization however. Since in my book i freely croses

paradigms within a discussion, ie not just saying this is a western condition

and then diffentiate it in chinese med. I found it necessary to have some signal

to clarify between systems. At the same time i have clearly pointed out how

similar some of the functional, and sometimes structural, descriptions of organs

within the two systems. To say that if one finds it necessary to use some kind

of signal to help clarify differences, lets say within a sentence, is belittling

chinese medicine in any way is i think reactionary at some level.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Marnae, I don't quite follow the leap in the trail from the Chinese describing

the organ to

the projected romantization of the Chinese medical system by non-Chinese

practioners.

Over and over we hear words from Chinese practitioners to the effect, It's not

the liver

itself (spleen etc...) its the function of the liver (whatever). I agree with

Z'ev that its usually

apparent by context what is being said. And I would say that now capitalization

is largely

an unneccesary formality but hardly a mystification.

doug

 

 

 

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote:

> It seems to me that the original thought to capitalize CM organs, which was

> done by Bensky & O'Connor in Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text, although

> well intentioned, obscured the many similarities between the functions of

> the " TCM organ " and the " biomedical organ " . After all, the functions of

> the biomedical lung, the biomedical kidney, (especially if we consider the

> adrenal cortex and medulla), and others are quite similar. It is also

> important to understand that the Chinese did not sit around and fantasize

> about all of this but would, on occasion, dissect bodies and conduct

> autopsies for forensic purposes. In adition, physicians treated severe

> trauma, serious life threatening diseases, advanced cancers and other

> conditions that made manifest many interior bodily processes. In so doing,

> they understood perfectly well which organs they were naming. The Chinese

> did not imagine a heart other than the heart that exists within the

> body. The concept of pericardium (surrounding the heart/xin bao/heart

> wrapper) emerges from direct observation of tissue of that very name, that

> envelopes the heart.

>

> If we consider an organ such as the spleen, it is fair to say that the

> Chinese conflated the tissue of the spleen and pancreas, and this

> conflation actually makes Chinese concepts of the spleen more intelligible

> in a biomedical sense. At the end of the day, an informed reader of

> specialist literature should be able to detect whether the functions

> attributed to an organ are particular to biomedical constructions of the

> organ, Chinese medical constructions, or shared. The use of capitals will

> not educate an individual who is ignorant of biomedical concepts, nor will

> it rescue the Chinese medicine neophyte. It has and will, however,

> contribute to the spurious metaphysics of contemporary CM in the west,

> which, confronted with challenges from the science based community,

> retreats into a fantasized world of alternative organs. It has always been

> difficult for the westerner confronted with the concept of qi, to allow qi

> to be the vivid tangible bodily substance that it was for the

> sages. Instead, the contemporary western practitioner of CM, when

> confronted with what they imagined to be the contrasting reality of

> contemporary biomedical anatomy and histology, retreats into an alternate

> energetic domain rather than seeking to understand that both systems are

> deeply imbedded in the same bodily experience. After all, the movement of

> qi and blood described again and again in diagnosis and therapeutics in CM

> involves every facet of the body's circulatory system, including the

> capillary beds that pervade most tissue structures and the microcirculatory

> events within the organ. We do need to endow our theory with an imaginary

> quality when the actual facts of the body are so remarkably complex and

> interpenetrating as to support most of the possibilities suggested by CM

> thought without resort to special pleading for energetic bodies or imagined

> physiological process. Capitalization is merely an artifact of an

> imperfect attempt to separate something that was never separate in the

> minds of the Chinese to begin with.

>

> At 09:04 PM 9/14/2005, you wrote:

> >I know in the European journal of Ch Med they say in their format for

> >articles not to capitalize the organs, I don't know why?

> >Heiko Lade

> >M.H.Sc.(TCM)

> >Lecturer and clinic supervisor

> >Auckland College of Natural Medicine

> >Website: www.acnm.co.nz

> >

> >

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> > Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:20 PM

> > Re: SV: liver detox formula

> >

> >

> > Any ideas on how to differentiate the Chinese and western organs in

> > print? Italics?

> > >>>>>

> > In my book TCM caps and wm noncap

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Oakland, CA 94609

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Wednesday, September 14, 2005 10:56 PM

>

> Re: SV: liver detox formula now capitalization

>

> If we consider an organ such as the spleen, it is fair to say that the

> Chinese conflated the tissue of the spleen and pancreas, and this

> conflation actually makes Chinese concepts of the spleen more

> intelligible

> in a biomedical sense.

> >>>>>>

> Marnae,I would also point out that " spleen " is a translation.

> I disagree with your charectarization however. Since in my book i freely

> croses paradigms within a discussion, ie not just saying this is a western

> condition and then diffentiate it in chinese med. I found it necessary to

> have some signal to clarify between systems. At the same time i have

> clearly pointed out how similar some of the functional, and sometimes

> structural, descriptions of organs within the two systems. To say that if

> one finds it necessary to use some kind of signal to help clarify

> differences, lets say within a sentence, is belittling chinese medicine in

> any way is i think reactionary at some level.

 

I agree with Alon, some differentiation definitely helps. Clearly there is

a difference between western and Chinese organs. Also I do not think that

traditionally 'The Chinese' had the organs completely mapped out. That is

why one now sees in CM articles i.e. functions of the S.I. equated with the

Spleen. That is a result of a traditional view of the spleen based on a

specific function that they now realizes comes from the S.I. - From my

understanding the issue of the Pancreas was a mistranslation. (but that is

another issue). I have no problem with Liver (for CM) using caps. This

conveys no mystical or fantasy based approach, IMO.

 

-

[Guest guest]

I agree with Z'ev that its usually

apparent by context what is being said. >>>>>

I agree except when one truly integrates the discussion for example within one

sentence.

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, I agree. I'm sure your book has many examples of this where the usage of

liver, liver

may be confusing.

doug

 

 

, " " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> I agree with Z'ev that its usually

> apparent by context what is being said. >>>>>

> I agree except when one truly integrates the discussion for example within one

sentence.

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

>