PDA

View Full Version : Medicine's Oldest Idea



TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 01:03 AM
The following segment is a section from Dr. Paul Pearsall's book, The Heart's Code.


For twenty-three centuries, one of the oldest forms of medicine has focused on the heart as the center of the spiritual energy that expresses our soul.(1) While modern biomedicine grew from the Newtonian mechanical model of the body, Chinese medicine derived from a view of the body as an energy-driven ecosystem in which health depends on a proper balance of energy forces flowing throughout that system. Talking about and trying to measure life energy is not something modern Western medicine is comfortable with, but Chinese medicine, like almost every other older form of medicine, has always emphasized an energetic approach to understanding disease and healing.

A Taoist text reads, "The universe produced Qui" (spiritual energy, pronounced "chee").(2) This is a view of energy and mass as forms of the same cosmic stuff. while biomedicine sees that heart as a powerful pump constructed of passive, inert cells sending nurturing "stuff" to other passive, static, receptacle cells, the old and longest tested energetic medicines of the world have no trouble seeing the heart as both stuff and energy and particles and waves at the same time.

Sinologist Nathan Sivin points out the Qui (the Chinese version of subtle or "L" energy) is both ethereal [wave] and substantive [particle] at the same time. he says that we moderns tend to divide the world into either substance (mass) or function (energy) and, therefore, have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that the body is mass, energy, and information all at the same time. Sivin observes that "Qui," or subtle energy, is what makes life happen and, at the same time, what is happening to make life.(3) ... This quantum matter/energy/information interchangeability is the fundamental nature of the subtle energy the heart sends through and from us.


1) H. Beinfield and E. Korngold, "Chinese Traditional Medicine: An Introductory Overview," Alternative Therapies Vol. 1 (1995): pp.44-52.

2) Ibid., p.45

3) N. Sivin, Traditional Medicine in Contemporary China (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press (1987), pp. 47-53.



Food for thought?

Weightaholic
12-04-2008, 01:58 AM
The following segment is a section from Dr. Paul Pearsall's book, The Heart's Code.





Food for thought?
This isn't the first article you've posted in this vein... I'm curious. Why do you think the heart to be something nobler than a muscle that pumps blood around the body?

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 02:37 AM
This isn't the first article you've posted in this vein... I'm curious. Why do you think the heart to be something nobler than a muscle that pumps blood around the body?

Because for twenty-three centuries, up until relatively very recently, the heart was viewed very differently than the way it is viewed now.

Organichu
12-04-2008, 02:58 AM
Because for twenty-three centuries, up until relatively very recently, the heart was viewed very differently than the way it is viewed now.

I'd say that's a result of our knowing far more than we did in the past twenty three centuries. The development of the arts and sciences is explicitly exponential- it took us thousands of years to go from a wheel to a car but only fifty years to go from a car to a jet.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 05:19 AM
I'd say that's a result of our knowing far more than we did in the past twenty three centuries. The development of the arts and sciences is explicitly exponential- it took us thousands of years to go from a wheel to a car but only fifty years to go from a car to a jet.

We maybe much more advanced in our empirical knowledge, but is empirical knowledge the only type of knowledge that could be gained?

Empirically speaking, heart doesn't seem to be anything but a powerful pump. However, even this claim has been questioned greatly and certain empirical observations seem to suggest a very different opinion about the heart.

It's quite difficult to assume that for twenty-three centuries, almost every form of medicine held the same wrong belief about the heart.

tenthirtytwo
12-04-2008, 06:01 AM
We maybe much more advanced in our empirical knowledge, but is empirical knowledge the only type of knowledge that could be gained?

Empirically speaking, heart doesn't seem to be anything but a powerful pump. However, even this claim has been questioned greatly and certain empirical observations seem to suggest a very different opinion about the heart.

It's quite difficult to assume that for twenty-three centuries, almost every form of medicine held the same wrong belief about the heart.

Empirically speaking, your quads don't seem to be anything but a powerful muscle. But why do we make that assumption?

Do you see what I'm saying? This is what happens when the "question everything" philosophy you espouse all the time. You seem to come to these grandiose conclusions, but how would you even know your off the wall conclusions were right? Shouldn't you be questioning those too? Why do you accept that people in previous times had it right in the first place? Maybe your shoulder muscles are the key to your spiritual soul. Maybe your abs hold your Qui or whatever it is.

When you say that it is difficult for you to assume (you probably meant understand) that for twenty three centuries, people held idea X and it was wrong, it reveals a lot about you. Tell me, how many primitive ideas do you consider still plausible that aren't one of these wild philosophical ones? Do you consider phrenology plausible? How about bloodletting?

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 06:28 AM
Empirically speaking, your quads don't seem to be anything but a powerful muscle. But why do we make that assumption?

The claim in regards to the heart is different from the Quads, since almost all ancient ideologies, belief systems and philosophies held a common belief in regards to the heart.



Do you see what I'm saying? This is what happens when the "question everything" philosophy you espouse all the time. You seem to come to these grandiose conclusions, but how would you even know your off the wall conclusions were right? Shouldn't you be questioning those too? Why do you accept that people in previous times had it right in the first place? Maybe your shoulder muscles are the key to your spiritual soul. Maybe your abs hold your Qui or whatever it is.

Yes, I do choose my own conclusions after my holistic examinations of various topics. Why do you assume that I do not/have not questioned "the other side"?
I do not accept as of yet, rather I consider it a starting point to seriously investigate this issue further.

I am not sure how much you have looked into the topic of the heart, from a non empirical biomedical perspective. I cannot compare the heart to shoulders and Abs, due to the prevalence of the former (the heart) in almost all traditions, and the absence of the latter (shoulder and abs) in almost all traditions.



When you say that it is difficult for you to assume (you probably meant understand) that for twenty three centuries, people held idea X and it was wrong, it reveals a lot about you. Tell me, how many primitive ideas do you consider still plausible that aren't one of these wild philosophical ones?

If I encounter more "wild" philosophical ideas that I find interesting and perhaps plausible I will post them on this forum. For now, my interest revolves around the heart. :)


Do you consider phrenology plausible?

I haven't looked into this topic, so I cannot make any comment about it.


How about bloodletting?

What about it?

I do believe there's more to bloodletting than what we are led to think, therefore, I won't easily dismiss it as a practice of the dark ages.

It was a tremendously popular medical practice from antiquity up to the late 19th century, a time span of almost 2,000 years.

But then again, because I haven't extensively researched it, I cannot comment any further.
I'd rather leave the doors open for later, than close them.


In fact, I am planning to give cupping a try, sometime soon. :)

SlammaJamma
12-04-2008, 07:38 AM
There are reports of people with heart transplants inheritting the memories and bits of the personalities of the original owner.

google it, it's pretty interesting.

edit - here's a link http://web.archive.org/web/20070403092859/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CellularMemories.html

bluegold04
12-04-2008, 08:20 AM
How is the placebo effect accounted for? Does this not challenge some of our perceived knowledge of how the body interacts with itself, and the form and function of certain parts?

Rune
12-04-2008, 08:44 AM
This quantum matter/energy/information interchangeability is the fundamental nature of the subtle energy the heart sends through and from us.

I'm sorry, but any time I see this quantum stuff get thrown around into things like this it just sounds like hoakie psudo-science. There's no doubt that the heart plays a roll in information transfer (hormones are delivered through the blood afterall), as well as how we function (as it will determine how much oxygen is getting to your cells), but this guy really just sounds like he's reading way more into it, without providing any real reason to believe so, other than the claims of previous esoteric knowledge.

Mr Bounce
12-04-2008, 10:05 AM
To TranceNRG:

For countless ages have humans known that the heart pumps blood around the the body and thus maintains 'life' within us. The Aztecs would rip out the heart of living humans, believing that it was the ultimate sacrifice to their Gods (and yes, killing someone is quite a sacrifice...).

I don't think that the previous milleniums of "medicine" are in any way comparable to our modern medicine. Our scientific understanding has progressed exponentially in the last several decades, and will only increase many-times-fold.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 10:13 AM
To TranceNRG:

For countless ages have humans known that the heart pumps blood around the the body and thus maintains 'life' within us. The Aztecs would rip out the heart of living humans, believing that it was the ultimate sacrifice to their Gods (and yes, killing someone is quite a sacrifice...).

I don't think that the previous milleniums of "medicine" are in any way comparable to our modern medicine. Our scientific understanding has progressed exponentially in the last several decades, and will only increase many-times-fold.

You are correct, they are not comparable.
Our scientific understanding has indeed progressed exponentially in a materialistic direction, and this is exactly the reason why our medicine and the medicine for millenia before us are quite different. They each hold a different opinion on the definition of healing, on their understanding of the human body and on their goals.

I am not rejecting one in order to accept the other one.
I am not saying one is more true than the other. Rather I am curious to see whether there is a way to reconcile the two together?

ElHombre
12-04-2008, 10:16 AM
'Dr.' Pearsall needs to go back to medical school. i agree with you that the Newtonian mechanical interpretation of the body (indeed, of organic life since the 1700s) is lacking, even an impediment to our understanding of what is 'healthy' (said notion may even be said to be evidence of the reductionist approach).

it's an interesting idea, and often the accumulated wisdom of culture over thousands of years holds more truth than recently developed scientific notions (nutrition comes to mind).

if you really want some cool stuff on heart science, look up the recent evidence of neurons being situated on the heart. heart transplant recipients often find that they take on sudden new 'memories' or likes/dislikes after the transplant, and these new memories/tendencies turn out to be those of the donor. it's really cool, and the discovery of neurons on the heart suggest there may be more to this than coincidence or whimsical thinking by the recipients. there's a documentary on google video somewhere.

asiya-sparkles
12-04-2008, 10:27 AM
This isn't the first article you've posted in this vein... I'm curious. Why do you think the heart to be something nobler than a muscle that pumps blood around the body?

But it is fact that the heart is interconnected with the mind and that emotional pain absolutely is experienced in the heart.


"...research reveals an intimate relationship between heart and brain. Now described as a sensory organ with a little brain of its own, the heart ..."

Encyclopedia of Educational psychology
by Neil J. Salkind, Kristin Rasmussen - 2008 -

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 10:29 AM
'Dr.' Pearsall needs to go back to medical school. i agree with you that the Newtonian mechanical interpretation of the body (indeed, of organic life since the 1700s) is lacking, even an impediment to our understanding of what is 'healthy' (said notion may even be said to be evidence of the reductionist approach).

it's an interesting idea, and often the accumulated wisdom of culture over thousands of years holds more truth than recently developed scientific notions (nutrition comes to mind).

if you really want some cool stuff on heart science, look up the recent evidence of neurons being situated on the heart. heart transplant recipients often find that they take on sudden new 'memories' or likes/dislikes after the transplant, and these new memories/tendencies turn out to be those of the donor. it's really cool, and the discovery of neurons on the heart suggest there may be more to this than coincidence or whimsical thinking by the recipients. there's a documentary on google video somewhere.

Exactly.

Dr. Pearsall dedicates one whole chapter to heart transplant patients, and reports the major life/personality changes that occur to patients post-surgery.

This fascinating phenomenon could indeed be used to understand the ancient wisdom. The ancient traditions seem to have been aware of such heart-brain connections, and the overall multi-dimensionality of the heart within the human body. As we progress, we seem to be able to find the means to understand the ends that they pursued for millenia.

Quite fascinating.

tenthirtytwo
12-04-2008, 11:07 AM
The claim in regards to the heart is different from the Quads, since almost all ancient ideologies, belief systems and philosophies held a common belief in regards to the heart.

That would be great if ancient people's beliefs somehow was evidence of something. You are saying that because enough ignorant people believed X, X might be true. That is a dangerous way of thinking, in my opinion.


If I encounter more "wild" philosophical ideas that I find interesting and perhaps plausible I will post them on this forum. For now, my interest revolves around the heart. :)

My question still remains. Outside of the quantum mysticism and personal energy that you seem to be fascinated with, how many other things that have been rejected by modern science/medicine do you feel are still viable?

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 11:53 AM
That would be great if ancient people's beliefs somehow was evidence of something. You are saying that because enough ignorant people believed X, X might be true. That is a dangerous way of thinking, in my opinion.


I consider it dangerous to think that for millenia, all the wise men were ignorant, and even today only those who do not question the current biomedical perspectives are not ignorant.



My question still remains. Outside of the quantum mysticism and personal energy that you seem to be fascinated with, how many other things that have been rejected by modern science/medicine do you feel are still viable?

To be honest, I haven't made a list.
There could be many, there could be a few, but at this point, God knows best.

If you're wondering whether I use the modern science/medicine as my yardstick to evaluate ancient wisdom, ancient medicine and/or anything else, I would say no, I do not.

Lager1
12-04-2008, 12:01 PM
The fact that ancient peoples thought the heart was anything more than a muscle which pumps blood does not change the fact that the heart is simply a muscle which pumps blood.

SYRIANKID
12-04-2008, 07:14 PM
It is interesting how thinking was associated with the mind but courage, faith, and love were associated with the heart.

Many human emotions such as feelings of self-worth were associated with the liver.

Lager1
12-04-2008, 07:20 PM
It is interesting how thinking was associated with the mind but courage, faith, and love were associated with the heart.

Many human emotions such as feelings of self-worth were associated with the liver.
"Gut" feeling maybe?

SlammaJamma
12-04-2008, 07:26 PM
The fact that ancient peoples thought the heart was anything more than a muscle which pumps blood does not change the fact that the heart is simply a muscle which pumps blood.

We don't know if that's completely true.

SYRIANKID
12-04-2008, 07:33 PM
"Gut" feeling maybe?

Probably had something to do with "gall" and "bile". Because if you were disgusted with something you produced more "gall".

~Serpent~
12-04-2008, 07:54 PM
Taoist text reads, "The universe produced Qui" (spiritual energy, pronounced "chee").(

Interesting to note, Taoism and its practices are "pagan". Food for thought? :)

Lager1
12-04-2008, 07:56 PM
We don't know if that's completely true.

But there's no reason to think it is true.

KhanPaulsen
12-04-2008, 08:03 PM
How is the placebo effect accounted for? Does this not challenge some of our perceived knowledge of how the body interacts with itself, and the form and function of certain parts?

The placebo effect has had my interest for awhile.

I didn't know about the heart-transplant people taking on pieces of the original owner, so-to-speak. Interesting.

You learn something new everyday.

SlammaJamma
12-04-2008, 08:19 PM
But there's no reason to think it is true.

There is some evidence. See the link I posted.

Lager1
12-04-2008, 08:25 PM
There is some evidence. See the link I posted.

Sigh...that's not evidence.

SaviorSix
12-04-2008, 09:11 PM
The fact that ancient peoples thought the heart was anything more than a muscle which pumps blood does not change the fact that the heart is simply a muscle which pumps blood.

Yes, it is a muscle which pumps blood, but it may not be just a muscle that pumps blood.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:19 PM
It is interesting how thinking was associated with the mind but courage, faith, and love were associated with the heart.

Dr. Pearsall in his book shows how thinking is even associated with the heart.



Many human emotions such as feelings of self-worth were associated with the liver.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:24 PM
The placebo effect has had my interest for awhile.

Placebo (and nocebo) effects are in fact quite interesting.
The power of the mind over body...



I didn't know about the heart-transplant people taking on pieces of the original owner, so-to-speak. Interesting.

You learn something new everyday.

Heart is a fascinating organ.

Very interesting changes were noticed post-surgery. I.e. change of taste in food, music and etc., change of mood, seeing an accurate representation of the donor in dreams (eventhough the donor was never met.) and etc.

Dr. Pearsall makes a great case for the heart.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:25 PM
Yes, it is a muscle which pumps blood, but it may not be just a muscle that pumps blood.

x2 :)

SYRIANKID
12-04-2008, 09:26 PM
Interesting, I didn't know that.

Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Cultural_allusions


Cultural allusions

? The liver has always been an important symbol in occult physiology. As the largest organ, the one containing the most blood, it was regarded as the darkest, least penetrable part of man's innards. Thus it was considered to contain the secret of fate and was used for fortunetelling. In Plato, and in later physiology, the liver represented the darkest passions, particularly the bloody, smoky ones of wrath, jealousy, and greed which drive men to action. Thus the liver meant the impulsive attachment to life itself. ?
?James Hillman[11]

In Greek mythology, Prometheus was punished by the gods for revealing fire to humans, by being chained to a rock where a vulture (or an eagle) would peck out his liver, which would regenerate overnight. (The liver is the only human internal organ that actually can regenerate itself to a significant extent.)

Many ancient peoples of the Near East and Mediterranean areas practised a type of divination called haruspicy, whereby they tried to obtain information from examining the livers of sheep and other animals.

The Talmud (tractate Berakhot 61b) refers to the liver as the seat of anger, with the gallbladder counteracting this.

In the Persian, Urdu, and Hindi languages, the liver (جگر or जिगर or jigar) refer to the liver in figurative speech to refer to courage and strong feelings, or "their best," e.g. "This Mecca has thrown to you the pieces of its liver!" [12]. The term jan e jigar literally "the strength (power) of my liver" is a term of endearment in Urdu. In Persian slang, jigar is ssed as an adjective for any object which is desirable, especially women.

The legend of Liver-Eating Johnson says that he would cut out and eat the liver of each man killed after dinner.

In the motion picture The Message, Hind bint Utbah is implied or portrayed eating the liver of Hamza ibn ?Abd al-Muttalib during the Battle of Uhud.
Inuit will not eat the liver of polar bears (a polar bear's liver contains so much Vitamin A as to be poisonous to humans), or seals [13]

Gruenburger
12-04-2008, 09:35 PM
Because for twenty-three centuries, up until relatively very recently, the heart was viewed very differently than the way it is viewed now.

sort of like alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and ummm....MAGIC

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:36 PM
Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Cultural_allusions

Quiet interesting.
I haven't read much about the liver, so I can't really state if it stands on the same elevated position as the heart or not, according to the ancient traditions.

SYRIANKID
12-04-2008, 09:39 PM
Quiet interesting.
I haven't read much about the liver, so I can't really state if it stands on the same elevated position as the heart or not, according to the ancient traditions.

I think we can safely say that the heart is the most famous organ. But definitely brain, heart, liver, and stomach are among the famous "energy" centers.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:41 PM
sort of like alchemy, astrology, phrenology, and ummm....MAGIC

Phrenology doesn't fit the rest of what you mentioned since it was originally developed in 1796.

As for alchemy, I haven't read much about it in order to be able to readily and completely dismiss it.

And what about astrology and magic? They are still practiced in various cultures, and perhaps aside from materialists, others attest to their truths.

yoj
12-04-2008, 09:42 PM
If your claim is that the heart was a foundation of ancient medicine and therefore must be more important than we give it credit for, then what of bloodletting? One of the most popular medical procedures across the globe for thousands of years. Certainly we didn't have it right all along that time.

Second, where is this wave/particle/energy of the heart? All of these things are measurable and we should be detecting this Qui. What you are suggesting is then an undetectable supernatural energy. If you believe in that, then so be it. But don't come in here attempting to pass it off as anything besides supernatural.

And as for "neurons found in the heart", no ****. Neurons are just cells that send electrical signals and they are found over your entire body. They are what fires your muscles (one of which happens to be the heart). It is an interesting idea to think that some of the neurons located in the heart could play a role in memory.

I would give some credit to the possibility that neurons other than just those in the brain can be responsible for memories in some way. I don't think it is very likely since brain neurons are just so much more dense (ie the brain has such a large percentage of all our neurons) that statistically they are more likely to carry information. As far as I know we don't definitively understand the mechanism for how memory is stored so it can't be ruled out as a possibility.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 09:45 PM
I think we can safely say that the heart is the most famous organ. But definitely brain, heart, liver, and stomach are among the famous "energy" centers.

According to Tibetan Buddhism, heart is the most powerful energy source within the body. In fact, according to our own scientific tools, heart indeed has more energy (electromagnetic energy) than brain.

TranceNRG
12-04-2008, 10:02 PM
If your claim is that the heart was a foundation of ancient medicine and therefore must be more important than we give it credit for, then what of bloodletting? One of the most popular medical procedures across the globe for thousands of years. Certainly we didn't have it right all along that time.

Certainly?...


Second, where is this wave/particle/energy of the heart? All of these things are measurable and we should be detecting this Qui. What you are suggesting is then an undetectable supernatural energy. If you believe in that, then so be it. But don't come in here attempting to pass it off as anything besides supernatural.

It is where UV light was before our invention of UV light detectors.


And as for "neurons found in the heart", no ****. Neurons are just cells that send electrical signals and they are found over your entire body. They are what fires your muscles (one of which happens to be the heart). It is an interesting idea to think that some of the neurons located in the heart could play a role in memory.

It is interesting that you pass this new discovery with a "no ****" comment, whereas scientists who have recently discovered such presence, find it quite fascinating.


I would give some credit to the possibility that neurons other than just those in the brain can be responsible for memories in some way. I don't think it is very likely since brain neurons are just so much more dense (ie the brain has such a large percentage of all our neurons) that statistically they are more likely to carry information. As far as I know we don't definitively understand the mechanism for how memory is stored so it can't be ruled out as a possibility.

Yes, the topic of "what is memory" deserves its own thread.
However, the key phrase that you stated is "as far a I know."
First, how do you know what you know?
Second, for millenia "as far as the wisemen knew", heart was indeed beyond just being a pump.