A philosophical question

[Guest guest]

Thank you all posters for such great detailed info lately, esp. re:

phlegm. I have a somewhat more abstract question for those who like to

think about this sort of thing;

 

To what degree do you treat Chinese medicine as a constitutional

modality?

 

In other words, are all people in need of the same care, do all

individuals achieve health in the same way, are the same paradigms

meant to apply to all?

 

For instance, in Ayurveda, there is a sense that individuals have an

innate constitution (Vata, Pitta, or Kapha) and then therapies are

employed to bring states of disease or imbalance back to a homeostasis

that is specific to the constitutional type.

 

To give a very simple example: would there be a correct amount of Qi

for all humans? Is there an actual bar (qualitative, not quantitative,

obviously..) determining deficiency? Or would practitioners consider

saying " This level of Qi might be deficient for some people, but it's

what this patient is used to and how he runs.

 

Or in the balance of Yin and Yang, would you as practitioners ever

say: This is a hot person, who tends to run a more Yang-like

existence, and all other processes have adapted and accomodated to

some level of organ heat, but it is " normal for him, (owing to his

constitution). "

 

The reason I ask is that ancient systems are often viewed in terms of

their parallels, and CM is frequently compared to Ayurveda and the

Galenic system which is equally humoral. Many people see the existence

of the 5 element theory, so central to , as comparable

to other elemental/humoral systems. In practice, I hear people off

hand discuss " Liver-type " people, and " Spleen-type " people, and there

are some slightly obscure currents of facial, hand, fingernail and

body type constitutional diagnoses.

But in practice, do you any of you consider there to be multiple

innate constitutions, and thus multiple types of " normal " when it

comes to deficiency, excess, and pathogenic states such as damp and dry?

 

Thanks for consideration,

Erico