Subject: Re: health
From: Charlie Kane <charkane.earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:35:46 -0700
> > Constitutional herbalism excels here -- treating not necessarily overt conditions (because there aren't any) but underling disharmonies (the little inconveniences that annoy)
> > Charlie
> I'd like to hear more.
Sooo many different approaches here --TCM, ayurvedic, Tibb, western energetic herbal medicine (Culpepper/Galen) which we're seeing a reassurance of. But many times what divides between constitutional herbal med. and symptomatic herbal med. is not what structure or framework one uses or the amounts of herbs, or what one calls the problems, or even the substances used themselves, but the focus and perspective. Every healing system uses symptoms or signs as guide posts to treatment. Conventional medicine and some of its herbal/naturopathic counter-parts use the last symptom or at least almost the last symptom -- before eminent breakdown and death to base treatment on. Constitutional methods still use symptoms and signals of disharmony but go further back in the layering. Paramount for this to work is having, even if it's an eclectic mix, a structure to work out off and enough info. about the tools (herbs) to make it work. Can't you see the acupuncturist saying "this is the toughest bout of kidney yin deficiency I've ever seen" and then the Buddhist priest says "it goes much deeper than that - he's paying for past actions" --Who's the most constitutional here?
Just some ramblings,