문제를 해결하려는 것이 아니라 이용하려는 게 문제
證人(회원)
정치란 문제를 해결하려는 게 아니라 이용하려는 데 문제가 있다. 국내든 국제든 쉽게 해결될 듯싶은 문제들이 해결되지 않는 것은 대개 이를 해결하려는 것이 아니라 이용하려는 세력이 있기 때문이다. 국내적으로는 그 대표적인 예가 '김대중 정치'다. 그냥 놔둬도 무너질 듯하던 김씨 왕조를 많은 돈을 들여 되살려 놓았다.
오래 전 일이지만 내가 직장 생활할 때도 그런 경우를 종종 봐왔다. 간단히 해결할 문제를 어렵게 꼬아서 극적으로 해결하는 행태 말이다. 소위 '능력 있는' 자들의 '능력 경연'이다. 그렇게 해서 상도 받고 여러 실리를 취한다. 그러니 능력 없는(정직한) 사람들은 속이 타 들어갈 수밖에 없다.
나는 한국의 역대 대통령을 다 겪어봤지만 정말 대한민국을 사랑하고 국가와 국민들을 위하겠다는 진정성 있는 대통령은 이승만, 박정희, 전두환 등 세 사람이 전부라는 생각이다. 돌이켜 보면 나머지는 모두 사기꾼들이었다. 언제까지가 될지는 모르겠으나 우리는 5년마다 대통령 뽑는 게 아니라 사기꾼을 뽑고 있다는 생각이 든다. (조갑제닷컴, 발췌)
---> 좌파들의 true believer(篤信者)들은 정치를 이용하려는 것이 아니라, 정말로 좌파적 프로그램을 실행하면 지상 낙원이 온다고 믿는 바보들이 많다. 그게 문제의 핵심이다.
-------------------------------
한(漢)의사들이 한무당이라 욕 먹는 이유.
1. 의도(醫道)을 잃고 돈맛에 들려, 의술을 돈 벌이에 이용하기 때문이다. 요즘 한의원에 가면 한의사들이 진찰하고 난 뒤에, 환자에게 10일에서 30일 정도의 약을 수 십만원을 받고 팔아 넘긴다. 웬만한 명의가 아니면 그렇게 많은 약을 한번에 환자에게 넘길 수가 없다. 우선 2 ~ 3일 치만 조제하고, 경과를 봐서 다시 약을 조제해야 맞는다. 하지만 돈맛을 들인 한의사들은 약을 상품으로 생각한다. 많이 팔면 대수라고 믿는 한의사들이 너무 많다.
2. 한의학의 기본을 모르는 의사들이 많다. 어려서부터 서구의학의 세례, 서구과학의 세례를 받아서, 한의사조차도 환원론적인 사고에 빠져 있는 경우가 상당히 많다. 한의사들이 티비에 나와서, 사과에는 무슨 성분이 있어서 몸에 좋다는 식의 말을 서슴지 않고 한다. 한의사라면 적어도 이시진(李時珍)의 본초강목(本草綱目)을 인용해야 하는 거 아닌가?
3. 이것이 내가 강조하고 싶은 항목인데, 한국의 한의사 대부분이 후세방에 빠져 장중경의 경방을 모르고 있다는 것이다. 요즘은 대학에서 장중경의 상한론도 강의하고 있지만, 얼마전까지 한국의 한의학은 <동의보감>으로 대표되었다.
하지만 경방가(經方家)들은 한의학이 당나라까지만 해도 장중경의 본의(本意)가 지켜졌지만, 그 이후로는 많이 왜곡되어서 잘못된 길로 나가게 되었다고 생각한다. 후세방 중에도 뛰어난 방제들이 있는 건 사실이다. 하지만 후세방은 너무 많고 중구난방이라 헷갈리기 쉽다.
이에 비해 경방은 약재나 방제가 약 300여 가지로 간단하고, 방증만 맞는다면 효과는 확실하고 더구나 저렴하다. 그렇다면 의사들은 환자를 대할 때, 가장 먼저 경방을 떠올려야 한다. 현재 경방가들은 장중경의 경방만을 갖고도 모든 병을 대처하고 있다.
따라서 지금 한의학계에서 가장 시급한 일은, 장중경이 생각했던 인체와 질병에 대한 생각을 복구하는 것이다. 한의사들은 다음과 같은 질문을 끊임없이 해야 한다.
“그가 현대 사회의 다양한 질병을 대한다면, 어떤 방법으로 치료를 했을까?”
만일 장중경의 머리 속에 있던 한의학 지도를 복구하는데 성공한다면, 우리는 현대의 다양한 질병들을 좀더 자신있게 대처할 수 있을 것이다.
---------------------------------
大醫精誠
唐•孫思邈《備急千金要方》
【作者】孫思邈（581 ~ 682），京兆華原（今陝西耀縣）人，唐代著名醫學家。他鑽研諸子百家，善談老莊，兼通佛典，精於醫藥。
당나라의 손사막(孫思邈)은 그의 저서 《천금요방千金要方》에서 “대의정성大醫精誠”이란 문장을 써서, 대의“大醫”가 갖춰야 할 의덕醫德을 말했는데, 이 문장은 동양의 히포크라테스 선서로 일컬어지기도 한다. 아래는 원문
【原文】張湛曰：“夫經方之難精，由來尚矣。”今病有內同而外異，亦有內異而外同，故五臟六腑之盈虛，血脈榮衛之通塞，固非耳目之所察，必先診候以審之。而寸口關尺，有浮沉絃緊之亂；俞穴流注，有高下淺深之差；肌膚筋骨，有厚薄剛柔之異。唯用心精微者，始可與言於茲矣。今以至精至微之事求之於至麤（粗）至淺之思，其不殆哉！若盈而益之，虛而損之，通而徹之，塞而壅之，寒而冷之，熱而溫之，是重加其疾，而望其生，吾見其死矣。故醫方蔔筮，藝能之難精者也，既非神授，何以得其幽微？世有愚者，讀方三年，便謂天下無病可治；及治病三年，乃知天下無方可用。(한의사들이 자주 인용하는 구절) 故學者必須博極醫源，精勤不倦，不得道聽途說，而言醫道已了，深思誤哉！
凡大醫治病，必當安神定志，無慾無求，先發大慈惻隱之心，誓願普救含靈之苦。若有疾厄來求救者，不得問其貴賤貧富，長幼妍媸（yán chi），怨親善友，華夷智愚，普同一等，皆如至親之想；亦不得瞻前顧後，自慮吉凶，護惜身命。見彼苦惱，若己有之，深心悽愴（chuàng），勿避艱險、晝夜、寒暑、饑渴、疲勞，一心赴救，無作功夫形跡之心。如此可爲蒼生大醫，反此則是含靈巨賊。自古名賢治病，多用生命以濟危急，雖日賤畜貴人，至於愛命，人畜一也。捐彼益己，物情同患，況於人乎！夫殺生求生、去生更遠。吾今此方所以不用生命爲藥者，良由此也。其蟲、水蛭之屬，市有先死者，則市而用之，不在此例。只如雞卵一物，以其混沌未分，必有大段要急之處，不得已隱忍而用之。能不用者，斯爲大哲，亦所不及也。其有患瘡痍、下痢，臭穢（huì）不可瞻視，人所惡見者，但發慚愧淒憐憂恤（xù）之意，不得起一念蒂芥之心，是吾之志也。
夫大醫之體，欲得澄神內視。望之儼然，寬裕汪汪，不皎不昧。省病診疾，至意深心，詳察形候，纖毫勿失，處判針藥，無得參差。雖曰病宜速救，要須臨事不惑，唯當審諦覃思，不得於性命之上，率而（爾）自逞俊快，邀射名譽，甚不仁矣！又到病閡（家），縱綺羈（羅）滿目，勿左右顧眄，絲竹湊耳，無得似有所娛，珍羞疊焉（迭薦），食如無味，醽醁兼陳，看有若無。所以爾者，夫壹人向隅，滿堂不樂，而況病人苦楚，不離斯須，而醫者安然歡娛，傲然自得，茲乃人神之所共恥，至人之所不爲，斯蓋醫之本意也。
夫爲醫之法，不得多語調笑，談謔諠譁，道說是非，議論人物，衒耀聲名，訾毀諸醫，自矜己德，偶然治槎一病，則昂頭戴面，而有自許之貌，謂天下無雙，此醫人之膏肓也。
所以醫人不得恃己所長，專心經略財物，但作救苦之心，於冥運道中③，自感多福者耳。又不得以彼富貴，處以珍貴之藥，令彼難求，自衒功能，諒非忠恕之道。志存救濟，故亦曲碎論之，學者不可恥言之鄙俚也。
아래는 현대 중국어 번역
【今譯】張湛說：“經方難以精通，這種情況的存在已經很久了。”有的病本質相同但是現象不一，也有的病本質不同但是現象一致，所以五臟六腑的虛或實，血脈榮衛的通或塞，本來不是耳目能察辯得到的，必須先診察證候來判定它。可是寸口的脈象，有浮沉弦緊的混雜；穴位的氣血流注，有高低深淺的區別；肌膚筋骨，有強壯柔弱的差異。只有用心精細的人，才可同他談論這些道理啊。如果對非常精微的醫學道理，用極其粗淺的想法去推求，難道不危險嗎？假使實證卻補益它，虛證卻損耗它，泄瀉證卻用通利法，壅塞證卻用固澀法，寒證卻用寒涼藥，熱證卻用溫熱藥，這種治法只是加重病人的病情，這類庸醫還期望病人痊癒，我卻預見病人將要死亡。所以醫方占卜，是難以精通的技藝，既然不是神仙傳授，憑什麽來瞭解其中精深微妙的道理呢？社會上有些愚蠢的人，讀了三年醫方，就認爲天下的方劑已全部掌握，再沒有什麽病值得一治；等到治了三年疾病，方才知道天下的疾病實在太多，竟然沒有什麽方劑可以使用。所以學醫的人必須全面地窮盡醫學的本源，專心勤奮，毫不懈怠，不可輕信傳聞，就說醫道已經完全掌握，否則將嚴重地貽誤自己啊！
大凡品德高尚、技術精湛的醫生治病，必要安定神志，心平氣和，沒有任何私欲和貪求，不可有其他雜念，首先要有慈悲同情憐憫之心，決心普救病人疾苦。如有患者前來就醫，不可關心過問他的地位高低，家境貧富，老少美醜，是仇人還是親人，是一般關係還是密切的朋友，是漢族還是少數民族（包括中外），是聰明的人還是愚笨的人，都應一樣看待，一視同仁，完全如同對待自己的親人一樣替他們著想；也不可顧慮重重，猶豫不決，憂慮個人的得失禍福，吝惜自己的身家性命。看到病人痛苦煩惱，就要像自己有病一樣體貼他，從內心對病人同情悲戚，不怕艱險，無論是白天還是黑夜，寒冷或暑熱，飢渴或疲勞，要全心全意地去救治他，不要裝模做樣，心裡另有想法，嘴裡藉故推託。這樣便可成爲民衆的好醫生，若與此相反，就於民衆無益而有大害。自古名醫治病，多用活物來救治危急的病人，雖然說牲畜低賤，人類貴重，至於愛命，人畜相同。損害對方來補益自己，無論物理人情對這種做法都是厭恨的，何況對於人有損呢！殺害牲畜以求得生存，離開救生的本意更遠。我現在編窩的《千金要方》中不用活物作爲藥餌的原因，實在是出於這一番苦心啊。如果虻蟲、水蛭這一類活物，街市上有已死的，就購買並使用它，不在此例。只是象雞蛋這種物質，因爲它一片混沌。尚未成形。必定要有危急的時候，迫不得已而勉力含忍地施用它。能不用的人，方是才識遠超一般的人，而我還偶而用它，這正是我比不上大哲的地方。假使有患瘡瘍、瀉痢，汙穢不堪入目，甚至別人都很厭惡看到的病人，醫生必須從內心萌發羞愧、悲傷、同情、憂苦的想法，體貼病人，感到難受，而不能産生些微不快之意，這是我的心願啊。
大醫的風度，要能精神安定，排除雜念，看上去莊重大方，氣度寬宏，不亢不卑。診斷疾病，用心專一，詳察證候，絲毫勿誤，處方治療，不出差錯。雖說疾病應當儘快救治，但是必須遇事毫不慌亂，只該全面審察，深入思索。不能在人命關天的大事上，草率地診治，炫耀自己醫技出衆，動作快速，這樣地追求名聲稱譽，就太不道德了！再說醫生到病人家中，即使閃光的絲織品舉目皆是，也不要左右張望，美妙的樂曲聲耳畔回響，亦不能似有欣喜之狀，佳餚頻繁進獻，食而無味，美酒同時陳列，視而不見。抱這種態度的原因，由於一人有病，全家不樂，何況病人的痛苦，片刻不息，醫生卻心安理得地尋歡作樂，目空一切地自鳴得意，這是人神都認爲可恥的行爲，大醫不應做出的舉動，這是醫生的基本道德啊。
做醫生的標準，不可多言取樂，高聲談笑，說長道短，非議他人，炫耀聲名，誹謗衆醫自己誇耀自己的德行，偶然治癒一病，就昂頭仰面，流露出自我欣賞的神態，認爲天下無雙，這是醫生的難以去除的惡劣習氣啊。
所以醫生不可憑藉自己擅長的本領，一心謀求錢財，而只能産生拯救苦難的心意，這樣在陰間氣數上，便會自感多福了。又不能因爲病人富貴，就隨意用珍貴藥物處方，使他們難以求取，以此來炫耀自己的功績才能，這實在違背忠恕之道。我懷有救世濟民的心意，所以也就瑣碎地談論這些道理，學醫的人可不要因我講得粗俗而感到恥辱啊。
손사막 같은 명의도 자신이 치료한 환자 중에 오진한 사례가 있다고 고백하고 있다. 그만큼 한의학이 어렵다. 인체라는 복잡계를 해석하기가 어렵기 때문이다.
-------------------------------------------
황황의 경방 체질론
황황이 말하는 그의 약인藥人과 방인方人
黃煌經方體質說
一，我的體質觀的形成
1973年，我開始跟家鄉江蘇省江陰市的名老中醫葉秉仁學醫，其間又向夏奕鈞，邢鸝江等先生問業。夏，邢兩先生均是蘇南名醫朱莘農先生的弟子。朱莘農先生幼承家學，壯年以擅治傷寒大症而享盛名，平生對“傷寒論”鑽研甚勤，臨床重視驗體辨證。他有句名言：“醫道之難也，難於辨證，辨證之難也，難於驗體，體質驗明矣，陰陽可別，虛實可分，病症之或淺或深，在臟在腑，亦可明悉，而後可以施治，此醫家不易之準繩也。“其辨體質，多從望診和切診入手，尤其是擅長使用“咽診”與“臍診。”我雖無緣親睹朱莘農先生診病的風采，但從夏奕鈞，邢鸝江先生的用藥來看，他們非常重視強調客觀指徵，常常或凝神直視，或按壓腹部，或察看咽喉，臨床思忖良久，而當機立斷，說：“此人要吃桂枝！”“此人要吃黃連！”“此人是桂甘龍牡湯證！“這種以藥 - 人相應，方 - 人相應的思路，對我的臨床思路的形成影響很大。我曾一遍遍地翻閱蘇南醫家推崇的清代葉天士”臨證指南醫案“，從醫案中歸納總結葉天士體質辨症的思想和經驗，當時對體質的認識尚是零碎的經驗和想法。
1979年，我考入南京中醫學院（南京中醫藥大學的前身）攻讀中醫各家學說，有機會深入研讀了柯韻伯先生的“傷寒來蘇集”，其以方類證的思路深深吸引了我。其後，又翻閱到日本一貫堂醫學的體質論，其簡便易用的思路讓我耳目一新。80年代中後期，我已經開始注意到不同體型不同體貌患者在辨證用藥上的不同點，將臨床診療的思路從單純的症狀辨別以及對病論治轉向辨體質論治。
1989年我受中國政府派遣，赴日本京都大學醫學部進修，期間我細細閱讀了細野史郎先生的“漢方醫學十講”，並有機會向細野診療所的坂口弘先生以及中田敬吾先生學習日本漢方，對日本漢方求實的思想產生了強烈的共鳴。在細野診療所每週一次的讀書會上，為求易記和實用，我大膽地用藥物名來命名體質，由此而形成了“藥人”的概念。回國以後，我又將此“藥人”概念為基礎，將在日本講學的講稿整理成書，名“中醫十大類方”。此時，我的體質論基本形成。以後，在臨床上不斷補充，成為本人臨床處方用藥的基本思路
二，我所認識的“藥人”
所謂“藥人”，就是適合長期服用某種藥物及其類方的體質類型。這種體質，服用這種藥及其類方，往往起效快，而且相對安全。我在“中醫十大類方“中提出了五種”藥人“，即”桂枝體質“，”麻黃體質“，”柴胡體質“，”黃芪體質“，”大黃體質“。後來，在臨床上又發現了”半夏體質“等“藥人”。遵循藥人的經驗識別，可以大致了解該體質患者可以考慮哪一類方。這些“藥人”，雖然以單味的藥名命名，但就其內涵來說，應該冠之以“某某類方體質”可能更合適。不過，就如“傷寒論”中有“桂枝證”，“柴胡證”的提法一樣，這種簡約的提法，可能更便於記憶。下面，是我在臨床常見的幾種藥人。
“桂枝體質”：患者膚色白而缺乏光澤，皮膚濕潤而不乾燥，口唇暗淡而不鮮紅，體型偏瘦者多，肌肉比較堅緊，一般無浮腫，腹部平，腹部肌肉較硬而缺乏底力，如同鼓皮，嚴重者腹部扁平而兩腹直肌拘急。多見於循環系統疾病，消化道疾病，營養不良患者。桂枝體質是適合長期服用桂枝以及桂枝湯類方的一種患者體質類型。代表方為桂枝湯，小建中湯，桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯等。這類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為心腎陽氣的不足，或肝胃陰液的不足，易於表虛，易於陽越，易於氣脫，易於氣陰兩虛。
“柴胡體質”：患者體型中等或偏瘦，面色微暗黃，或青黃色，或青白色，缺乏光澤。肌肉比較堅緊，舌苔正常或偏幹。主訴以自覺症狀為多，對氣溫變化反應敏感，情緒波動較大，食慾易受情緒的影響，四肢冷。女性月經週期不准，經前多見胸悶乳房脹痛結塊等。多見於精神神經系統疾病，免疫系統疾病，呼吸系統疾病，膽道疾病患者。柴胡體質是適合長期服用柴胡以及柴胡類方的一種體質類型。代表方為小柴胡湯，柴胡桂枝湯，柴胡加龍骨牡蠣湯，四逆散等。此類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為氣機的鬱滯或逆亂，或外邪鬱於半表半裡不易透發，或肝膽胃的氣機易於逆亂，或氣滯，或血瘀。
“麻黃體質”，患者體格粗壯，面色黃暗，皮膚乾燥且較粗糙。惡寒喜熱，易於著涼，著涼後多肌肉酸痛，無汗發熱，易於鼻塞，氣喘，易於浮腫，小便少，口渴而飲水不多。身體沉重，反應不敏感。咽喉多不紅，舌體較胖，苔白較厚，脈浮有力。多見於體格壯實的中青年和體力勞動者。呼吸道疾病，骨關節痛，寒冷，疲勞等常是這種體質患者患病的主要誘因。麻黃體質是適合較大劑量服用麻黃以及安全使用麻黃以及麻黃類方的一種體質類型。代表方為麻黃湯，麻黃附子細辛湯，葛根湯等。此類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為寒氣鬱表，或肺氣鬱閉，或寒濕滯留經絡之間，或表裡俱實。
“大黃體質”：體格健壯，肌肉豐滿，食慾旺盛，但容易腹脹，或大便秘結，口唇紅或暗紅，舌苔多厚。皮膚易生瘡痘。血壓偏高，或血脂偏高，或血粘度偏高。精神狀態飽滿，易煩躁，易激動。消化系統疾病，代謝病，感染性疾病等多見這種體質。這種患者長期使用大黃比較有效而且安全。大黃體質多見於中老年人。代表方為大柴胡湯，三黃瀉心湯，桃核承氣湯，黃連上清丸，防風通聖散等。此類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為積滯傷食，或腑氣不通，或瘀熱於內，或積熱上衝，或積熱逆於營衛之間。
“黃芪體質”：其人多面色黃白或黃紅隱隱，或黃暗，都缺乏光澤。浮腫貌，目無精彩。肌肉鬆軟，腹壁軟弱無力，猶如棉花枕頭，按之無抵抗感以及痛脹感。平時易於出汗，畏風，遇風冷易於過敏，或鼻塞，或咳喘，或感冒。易於浮腫，特別是下肢腫，手足易麻木。咽喉多不紅，舌質淡胖，舌苔潤。這種體質的形成，除與遺傳有關外，尚與缺乏運動，營養不良，疾病，衰老等有關。患有心腦血管疾病，糖尿病，骨關節退行性病變，免疫系統疾病，血液病，呼吸道疾病，消化道疾病的中老年人多見黃芪體質。黃芪體質是適用長期服用黃芪及其類方的體質類型。代表方如黃芪桂枝五物湯，防己黃芪湯，黃芪建中湯，玉屏風散等。此類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為肺脾氣虛，或表氣不固，或氣虛血瘀，或氣虛濕阻，或中虛等。
“半夏體質”：營養狀況較好，膚色滋潤或油膩，或黃暗，或有浮腫貌，但缺乏正常的光澤，形體並不羸瘦，肥胖者居多。主訴較多而怪異，多疑多慮，易於精神緊張，情感豐富而變化起伏大，易於出現噁心感，咽喉異物感，粘痰等。脈象大多正常，或滑利。舌象多數正常，或舌苔偏厚，或幹膩，或滑苔粘膩，或舌邊有兩條由細小唾液泡沫堆積而成的白線，或有齒痕舌。半夏體質是適合與較長時間或大量服用半夏及其類方的體質類型。代表方為小半夏加茯苓湯，溫膽湯，半夏厚朴湯等。此類患者在疾病狀態中多表現為痰熱內壅，痰氣交阻，風痰上擾，痰濕內阻等
此外，還有見人參體質，當歸體質，芍藥體質等。
三，我所認識的“方人”
“方人”，是近年來本人在藥人的基礎上提出的一個新的概念。2003年來，我在給南京中醫藥大學開設“經方應用”中，為使大學生能更快捷地使用經方，而將本人應用經驗作一總結，特別提出適合使用本方的患者在體型體貌，心理行為特徵，發病趨勢等方面上的特徵，並以此方命名此類患者，簡稱“方人”。也就是說，所謂“方人”，即對本方有效而且適合用長期服用此方的體質類型。比如我對那些服用溫經湯有效，而且長期服用也比較安全的患者，常常稱之為溫經湯體質。所以，常常病人一來，大致就曉得該用何方。比起藥人來說，方人更具體，範圍更明確，往往與某些疾病或某類疾病相關，可以說，方人是體質與疾病的結合體。下面，也是我臨床常見的幾種方人。
“溫經湯體質”：羸瘦，肌肉鬆弛，腹壁薄而無力。口唇乾燥而不紅潤，皮膚乾枯發黃發暗，缺乏光澤，或潮紅，或暗紅，或黃褐斑。有些患者的手掌腳掌出現裂口，疼痛或發熱感。指甲變薄變脆，缺乏光澤。還有的女性可以出現陰道炎，陰道乾枯瘙癢，毛髮出現脫落，乾枯，發黃，易於折斷。許多婦科疾病，特別是卵巢功能性疾病患者多見這種體質類型。
“三黃瀉心湯體質”：營養狀態比較好，無明顯虛弱表現，面部暗紅，腹部充實有力，食慾較好，大便幹結或便秘，多有出血傾向。咽喉多充血，唇色或舌質紅或暗紅，脈象滑數。體檢血壓，血脂，血液粘度，血尿素氮較高者。目前最多見於高血壓，動脈硬化患者以及出血性疾病。
“炙甘草湯體質”：羸瘦，面色憔悴，皮膚乾枯，貧血貌。這種體質狀態，多見於大病以後，或大出血以後，或營養不良者，或極度疲勞者，或腫瘤患者經過化療以後。患者精神萎靡，有明顯的動悸感，並可伴有早搏或心房心室顫動等心律失常。消耗性疾病，呼吸道疾病，或循環系統疾病，或血液系統疾病等的患者多見這種體質類型。目前在臨床上多見於腫瘤患者及老年病患者。
“黃芪桂枝五物湯體質”：其人多肌肉鬆弛，皮膚缺乏彈性，平時缺少運動，食慾雖好，但經常疲乏，頭暈，氣短，尤其是在運動時更感力不從心，甚至出現胸悶胸痛，或頭暈眼花。運動心電圖常提示心肌缺血。面色黃暗，也有見暗紅者，其舌質多淡紅。頭痛，胸痛，身痛，肢麻的中老年人多見這種體質類型。
“桂枝茯苓丸體質”：患者體質比較強壯，面色多紅或暗紅，皮膚乾燥或起鱗屑，唇色暗紅，舌質暗紫等。腹部大體充實。臍兩側尤以左側下腹更為充實，觸之有抵抗，主訴大多伴有壓痛。多有頭痛，便秘，腹痛腰痛，心悸等症狀。婦科病，男性的生殖系統疾病，皮膚病，周圍血管病變以及五官科疾病等的患者多見這種體質。
此外，還有如桂枝加龍骨牡蠣湯體質，大柴胡湯體質，四逆散體質，當歸芍藥散體質，防己黃芪湯體質，防風通聖散體質等。
四，幾點說明
一，體質的確定，是有效並且安全使用中藥的基礎。由於當前疾病譜的變化，中醫的服務對象主要是慢性病患者，慢性病的治療原則以調整體質狀態為主，服用藥物的週期長，如果不針對體質用藥，常常會出現許多副作用。所以，“藥人”，“方人”的提出，也是有時代背景的。
二，以上列舉的“藥人”與“方人”，並不能包涵人類體質的全部，而僅僅是本人臨床上常見的適合使用某種方藥的體質類型。就其人種來說，僅僅限於亞裔黃種人。也就是說，我的藥人方人說，不屬於體質人類學的範疇，而是一種應用中藥及其配方的技術。
三，我所認識的“藥人”與“方人”，應該是藥證與方證的延伸，尤其是突出藥證方證中“人”的部分，也就是突出了患者的體型體貌以及發病趨勢的特徵，從而突出了藥證方證的客觀性和整體性。這樣，可以使人更易於把握方證與藥證，更容易從整體的角度看問題。換句話說，方人藥人的提出，與其說是經驗的傳授，到不如說是思維方式的強調。從本人的教學實踐看，講方人藥人，可以讓當今的中醫大學生們的思路發生很大轉變，一方面，讓他們從紛繁的理論中擺脫出來，轉向樸實無華的臨床技術，還有一方面，讓他們從“對病用藥”以及“對症狀用藥”的思路中解放出來，轉向整體的用藥思路。所以，藥人方人說的提出，是一種中醫臨床思維方式的技術調整。
四，重視患者的體質特徵，是古典中醫學的基本思想。在“傷寒論”“金匱要略”兩本書中，有許多有關患者的體貌體態特徵及疾病的易趨性的記載。如尊榮人，失精家，亡血家，支飲家，中寒家，濕家，喘家，嘔家，冒家，淋家，黃家，瘡家，衄家，汗家，盛人，強人，瘦人等。這些病人的個體特徵，為張仲景的處方用藥提供了十分重要的參照及依據。本人的“藥人”與“方人”，很多都能從張仲景所說的那些“人”，那些“家”中找到影子，比如黃芪體質與尊榮人相似，桂枝體質與失精家相似，麻黃體質與濕家相似。
五，作為本人處方用藥的參照系，藥人方人說具有一定的預測病情以及指導選方用藥的臨床實用價值。但這種體質歸納，經驗性很強，許多是經典的訓示以及前人臨床經驗的提示和總結，當然。其中許多是本人的臨床經驗。所以，這個學說尚不是十分成熟的，需要不斷改進和完善。
（此為 2006年南京國際中醫藥論壇上發言稿）
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shang Han Lun Interview Part 1 - The Road
황황 교수를 인터뷰하는 미국인(?)
상한론에 대해 외국인이 묻고, 황황이 대답하는 영상.
황황은 중국어로 말하고, 통역이 영어로 말하는데, 통역의 한의학 이해가 상당히 높다. 아마도 한의학을 배우는 학생인 거 같다. 모두 3부로 되어 있다.
------------------------------------------------------
Marx: The Economist's Economist
•Carmen Elena Dorobăț
With the general election campaigns heating up in the UK, the two major parties are playing a game of duelling manifestos. The Conservatives are upholding a classic interventionist line of fixing energy prices and increasing the national living wage, but Labour has brought to the table a unique potpourri of disastrous ideas. Among other things, they propose to renationalize the British railways and the Post Office, and scrap university tuition fees. More tragically, in their desire to appear intellectually-minded, they’ve also associated themselves with great thinkers — their choice is Karl Marx, whom Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader, praised as “a great economist” alongside Smith and Ricardo.
His remark was met with a mixture of ridicule and indifference by the public and the press. Tabloids, searching for sensationalism, discussed in passing the crimes of communism. But the more respectable press, such as the Economist, offered a defense of Marx as a thinker and prophet of modern times.
The column in question made use of every possible Marxist fallacy still alive today, such as the class struggle, the exploitation of workers by the capitalists, and the immiseration of the poor under a capitalist system. Their examples were muddled too, in good Marxist fashion: to explain why capitalism is unfair, they pointed to the salaries and influence of retired politicians such as Tony Blair and George Osbourne. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, they blamed the economic crisis solely on unregulated financial markets.1 The Economist’s concluding advice was that, even in 2017, Marx still has a thing or two to teach us about capitalism. This runs against the advice they gave no more than five months ago to abandon the “myth of Marx,” arguing that Marx was out of step with the theoretical developments of 19th century economics, and that his writings were dense and nonsensical.
More importantly, the Economist fails to see that reasonable statements Marx might have made were borrowed from classical economics. His original thinking, on the other hand, amounted to nothing more than equivocal statements, half-baked arguments, and crude claims unsupported by any empirical facts. According to Mises (2001, 79), since Marx’s death,
we continue to await [the class struggle’s] scientific definition and delineation. No less vague are the concepts of class interests, class condition, and class war, and the ideas on the relationship between conditions, class interests, and class ideology.
Over the last century and a half, pretty much every word Marx wrote has been discredited (examples can be found here, here and here), and the tragedy of Marxism in practice thoroughly documented (here, here, and here). But these days, such critiques are met with much more scorn than any nonsense Marx ever said. As are many serious objections brought against the Conservative and Labour Party manifestos. It is disheartening to witness not only how such bad ideas never fully die, but how they come back with a vengeance at perhaps the most vulnerable times in human history.
Combating them, therefore, has become a task for the bold and the perseverant. Mises (2000, 49) explained the importance of this continued fight as follows:
It is a thankless job indeed to express such radical and "subversive" opinions […] But it is not the duty of an economist to be fashionable and popular; he has to be right. Those timid souls who fear challenging spurious doctrines and superstitions because they have the support of influential circles will never improve conditions.
-----------------------------
미제스의 마르크스 비판
생산력의 성장이 모든 것을 설명한다면, 정작 이런 성장을 결정 짓는 것은 무엇인가? 그것은 개인의 행동 밖에 없다. 계급이나, 생산력, 생산 관계 등은 모두 추상적 관념일 뿐이다.
또 나아가 생산력이 인간의 행동을 결정하지 않고, 인간이 그들의 행동으로 생산력을 창조한다면, 하나의 경제 체제에서 다른 하나로 전이하는 게 필연적일 수는 없다.
그런 변화는 단지 개인들이 그것을 창조하기 위해 행동해야만 일어나는 현상이다.
사회주의 중앙통제 체제에서는 시장이 존재하지 않으므로, 자원을 사용하여 상품을 만들 때에, 그것이 효율적인지 아닌지 판단할 수가 없다. 다시 말해 합리적인 계산을 할 수가 없으므로, 필연적으로 불가능하게 된다.
Mises Contra Marx
•David Gordon
If asked to name the foremost critic of Marxism, most economists sympathetic to the free market would name Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, who in his treatise Capital and Interest and his separate brochure Karl Marx and the Close of His System demolished the labor theory of value, the linchpin of Marxist economics.
But the labor theory is but one part of Marxism: what about the remainder of the system? Here one must turn to the work of Böhm-Bawerk's greatest student, Ludwig von Mises, whose devastating analysis of Marxism is of surpassing excellence. His contribution to the critique of Marxism is principally to be found in two of his books: Socialism and Theory and History.
The Communist Manifesto (1848) famously states: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Each social system, in the Marxist view, is characterized by a different variety of class conflict. In the capitalist system, of course, the protracted conflict finds capitalists opposed to proletarians. In the course of the social struggle between the classes, members or friends of each class elaborate theories of various sorts to advance the interests of that class. These theories, whatever they may claim, do not stem from the search for objective truth. Like all "ideological" thought, economic, social, and political theories reflect class interest.
Mises, more forcefully than any other critic of Marx, at once penetrates to the essence of this fallacious view. If all thought about social and economic matters is determined by class position, what about the Marxist system itself? If, as Marx proudly proclaimed, he aimed at providing a science for the working class, why should any of his views be accepted as true? Mises rightly notes that Marx's view is self-refuting: if all social thought is ideological, then this proposition is itself ideological and the grounds for believing it have been undercut. In his Theories of Surplus Value, Marx cannot contain his sneering at the "apologetics" of various bourgeois economists. He did not realize that in his constant jibes at the class bias of his fellow economists, he was but digging the grave of his own giant work of propaganda on behalf of the proletariat.
Mises never tired of emphasizing a theme he expresses tersely in Liberalism: "Man has only one tool with which to fight error: reason." By "reason," he meant a logical procedure claiming universal validity. To deny the power of reason is in effect to refute oneself. If reason must be subordinated to some other faculty, whether class interest, hermeneutic understanding, or whatever non-rational intellectual fad one pleases, the result can be nothing other than stultifying. Without logic, what reason can be given for the acceptance of the postulated account?
Mises did not confine his assault on Marxism to the essential, yet arcane, area of epistemology. He also analyzed in detail the principal themes of Marx's interpretation of history. According to Marx, the key to history lies in the forces of production. (Very roughly, the forces of production of a society consist of the society's technology.) These forces, throughout history, have a constant tendency to develop. As they do so, they compel changes in the relations of production, i.e., the economic and social system existing in a particular society. At one time, e.g., feudalism was best adapted to develop the forces of production. When it ceased to be the most efficient system, capitalism replaced it, breaking what Marx called the "fetters" on production imposed by the manorial economy of feudalism. In turn, at the dictate of the forces of production, capitalism will be replaced by socialism, a system Marx anticipated would be enormously more productive than its predecessor.
Mises in Theory and History posed a simple query that proved lethal to the alleged "science of historical materialism." As just explained, growth of the forces of production is supposed to explain all else of importance. But what determines this very growth? As Mises often reminds us, only individuals act: classes, "forces of production," "relations of production," etc., are in themselves but abstractions. Apart from the action of human beings, they are void and powerless. Like Hegel's Geist (Spirit), Marx's forces of production are a self-developing phenomenon governing human will. Marx never bothers to explain how such forces, in themselves the effects of human action, can exclusively determine all important human action.
Once one has grasped the point that it is individuals, not the forces of production, who act, the entire Marxist scheme of historical evolution falls by the wayside. If human beings create by their acts the forces of production, rather than the forces determining these acts, then nothing is inevitable about the transition from one economic system to another. Such changes will take place as persons act to create them, no more and no less. If one objects that there are laws determining human action, perhaps the objector would be good enough to produce them for inspection. That the results of what persons create may not be to their liking is another matter.
Marxism, as the Stalinist "philosopher" M.B. Mitin liked to declare portentously, is "a guide to action." And the action the Marxists have in mind is of course the replacement of capitalism by socialism. In a famous passage in volume III of Das Kapital, Marx foresees a rosy day ahead under the blessings of socialism in which people will be able to devote most of their time to leisure. Work for mere survival will become a thing of past.
Such is the Marxist promise: the reality, Mises demonstrated, was quite another matter. In his argument, Mises did not principally rely on the results of attempting to turn socialism from idea to reality in Soviet Russia. Instead, as those acquainted with his praxeological method will have anticipated, Mises offered proof that socialism was of its nature impossible.
He presented his argument in a famous article appearing in 1920 that, with much elaboration, was incorporated into his great work Socialism (1922). Characteristic of Mises, his point is in essence a simple one: the great Austrian economist had an unerring instinct for the heart of any issue of theory he considered. Given a list of goods to produce, whether those desired by the members of society in their roles as consumers or those on an agenda concocted by a dictator, any developed economy must have a way to decide how to employ its resources in the best possible way to produce the desired goods.
Under capitalism, this challenge receives a response fully adequate to the difficulty it poses. Resources, whether land, labor, or capital, exist subject to ownership by individuals. These persons, in a fashion elaborated in minute detail in Mises's Human Action and Murray N. Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, will trade in markets. Doing so will enable them to price production goods according to their most efficient use in securing the desired consumption goals.
The details of the process cannot be here elaborated, and in any event, no one seriously denies that the free market can perform the task of economic calculation I have briefly described. The gravemen of Mises's indictment of socialism, and the controversial aspect of his argument, is his contention that only capitalism can solve the calculation problem. Socialism in particular cannot.
Again without descending into detail, the main point of Mises's reasoning can be quickly comprehended. Socialism by definition consists of the centralized direction of the economy, its main means of production being under "public," i.e., government, ownership. How can a centralized system, in the absence of markets, decide whether a use of resources to produce a good is more efficient than a rival use? Any "prices" the director of the economy imposes will be arbitrary and of no value for genuine calculation. (One technicality ought to be mentioned, lest the argument be misunderstood: it is production goods, not first order or consumption goods, that Mises maintains a socialist system lacks the means to calculate.)
We can at once see how Mises's argument administers the coup de grace to Marxism. That system claims that socialism will arrive because the development of the forces of production will demand its institution. Even if one were to neglect Mises's point, that the growth of the forces of production is not inevitable, one can see that Marx's view is laughably inept. It is capitalism that is not only the most efficient economic system, but the only economic system that is efficient. If the forces of production did, per impossible inevitably grow of their own accord, it is not socialism but capitalism that they would establish.
Continuing his assault on Marxism, Mises explored Marx's reasons for not considering the problem of efficiency. Here Mises's answer admits of no dispute. Marx said nothing about the calculation problem because he devoted virtually no attention whatever to the economic institutions of socialism. To do so, he thought, would be to establish "blueprints" for the future, in the style of the Utopian socialists he was quick to scorn. With complete intellectual irresponsibility, he preached the overthrow of the intricate economy of capitalism he himself acknowledged as the most productive in history in order to establish a scheme whose institutions he had not bothered to analyze.
When one considers the responses of Mises's socialist critics, however, perhaps Marx's policy of averting his eyes from the problems of socialism was wiser than he knew. Mises had little difficulty in refuting all the attempted socialist solutions of his calculation problem. Some looked to mathematics: a system of simultaneous equations that would enable the necessary prices to be discovered. How, in a regime of constant change, these equations were to operate, the proponents of this approach left unsaid. The most popular response to Mises, though, lay elsewhere. The Polish economist Oskar Lange, long a resident in the United States until, following the Second World War, the blandishments of Communist Poland proved too much for him to resist, claimed that a socialist economy need not abandon the market. Though to some "market socialism" has little more sense than a "square circle," Lange was of course not among them. But his proposal, though original, fared no better than the others. Mises subjected it to withering attack, the details of which I leave the interested reader to explore in Mises's work. In particular, his illuminating discussion of his critics in Human Action should be consulted.
Mises exposed several irremediable and crucial errors in Marxism. A reader of his criticism cannot help but apply to Marxism the well-known line from Ozymandias:
Round the decay of that colossal wreck, ...
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
[Originally published in The Free Market Reader]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the socialistic community economic calculation would be impossible. In any large undertaking the individual works or departments are partly independent in their accounts. They can reckon the cost of materials and labour, and it is possible at any time … to sum up the results of [their] activit[ies] in figures. In this way it is possible to ascertain with what success each separate branch has been operated and thereby to make decisions concerning the reorganization, limitations or extension of existing branches or the establishment of new ones. … It seems natural then to ask why … a socialistic community should not make separate accounts in the same manner. But this is impossible. Separate accounts for a single branch of one and the same undertaking are possible only when prices for all kinds of goods and services are established in the market and furnish a basis of reckoning. Where there is no market there is no price system, and where there is no price system there can be no economic calculation. (Mises 1922/1936/1951, p. 131)
시장이 없는 곳에는 가격 체계가 없고, 가격 체계가 없는 곳에서는 경제적 계산이 불가능하다. ---미제스
--------------------------------------------------
시장이 없는 곳에는 가격 체계가 없고, 가격 체계가 없는 곳에서는 경제적 계산이 불가능하다. ---미제스
--------------------------------------------------
인도네시아에서 기독교 정치인을 쿠란에 대한 불경죄로 투옥했다. 이는 이슬람 율법에 대한 굴복일 뿐 만 아니라, 폭도들의 요구에 대한 굴복이다.
Islamists Just Threw A Christian Politician In Jail For ‘Blasphemy’ Against The Quran
What’s most disturbing is that the judges’ decision is a capitulation not only to Islamic law but to the demands of the mob.
By Megan G. Oprea
May 16, 2017
The outgoing governor of Jakarta, Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, has been sentenced to two years in prison. His crime wasn’t corruption or bribery. It was “insulting the Quran.” This is a bad sign for Indonesia’s democracy, and an ominous warning for Christians in Indonesia.
출처: the federalist
박 대통령의 구속 역시 좌파 선전선동과 폭도들에 대한 굴복이었다. 세계 역사가 퇴보하고 있다.
--------------------------------
재정적 대량 살상 무기: 미국 상위 25개 은행들이 222 조 달러의 파생상품 위험에 노출되어 있다.
Financial Weapons Of Mass Destruction: Top 25 US Banks Have 222 Trillion Dollars Derivatives Exposure
Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,
The recklessness of the “too big to fail” banks almost doomed them the last time around, but apparently they still haven’t learned from their past mistakes. Today, the top 25 U.S. banks have 222 trillion dollars of exposure to derivatives. In other words, the exposure that these banks have to derivatives contracts is approximately equivalent to the gross domestic product of the United States times twelve. As long as stock prices continue to rise and the U.S. economy stays fairly stable, these extremely risky financial weapons of mass destruction will probably not take down our entire financial system. But someday another major crisis will inevitably happen, and when that day arrives the devastation that these financial instruments will cause will be absolutely unprecedented. (발췌)
--------------------------------------------------------------
春望詞四首（薛濤 唐詩）
花開不同賞，花落不同悲。
欲問相思處，花開花落時。
攬草結同心，將以遺知音。
春愁正斷絕，春鳥複哀吟。
風花日將老，佳期猶渺渺。
不結同心人，空結同心草。
那堪花滿枝，翻作兩相思。
玉箸垂朝鏡，春風知不知。
가곡 동심초는 한때 작사가 신사임당으로 되어 있기도 했지만, 사실은 당나라 여류 시인 설도의 시 춘망사의 시를 시인 김억이 번역한 것이다. 춘망사는 모두 4 수인데, 동심초는 3번째시의 번역이다.
소프라노 홍혜경의 노래 동심초
소프라노 신영옥 노래
소프라노 김순영
소프라노 마혜선
소프라노 김유섬
---------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기