----------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
국민들이 들고 일어나 들통난 문재인의 비핵화 사기극을 단죄해야! 조갑제
-------------------------------------------한국이 북한에 의해 적화된다면, 훗날의 역사가들은 이에 관해 아마 수백권의 책을 쓸 것이다. 하지만 한국의 적화는 어쩌면 "살찐 돼지가 굶주린 늑대에게 잡아먹혔다."라는 한 마디로 요약될 수도 있다.
북한에서는 3대에 걸쳐 수천, 수만 명이 아침부터 저녁까지 오로지 적화의 방법과 전략을 연구했다. 하지만 한국에서는 박 대통령 이후로 북한을 염두에 두고 대전략을 짜는 지도자가 없었다. 그의 딸조차도 북한의 위험성을 과소평가했다. 또 국민들은 경제적 부(富)에 취해 모든 경계심을 잃어버렸다. 그런 상황이 시간이 지나면서 오늘의 결과를 만들어냈다.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
黃敎安 체제의 최우선 課題는 鬪爭性 확보 - 3.1절 남대문 집회에 참가하라
이동복
필자의 생각으로는 황교안 지도부가 직면하는 시급한 과제는 두 가지다. 하나는 대정부 투쟁의 투쟁성을 확실하게 확보하는 것이고 또 하나는 투쟁 과제를 확실하게 선정하는 것이다.
그렇게 한 뒤, 황교안 체제로의 당 체제 정비가 이루어지는 대로 당의 공식 기구를 통하여 앞으로 문재인(文在寅) 정권에 대한 대정부 투쟁은 원내∙외 투쟁을 병행한다는 당론을 확정하고 이 당론에 입각하여 원외에서의 모든 대정부 투쟁이 자유한국당의 주도 하에 전개되도록 하는 것이 필요하다고 필자는 생각한다.
다음으로, 대정부 투쟁의 과제는 최근 김경수 현직 경남지사의 1심에서의 실형 언도를 초래한 작년 5·9 대통령선거 과정에서의 ‘킹 크랩’ 방식에 의한 '댓글 조작'을 내용으로 하는 선거부정 행위의 전모(全貌)를 파악하기 위한 국회에서의 국정조사와 특검제 발동을 요구하는 원내 활동을 전개하는 것은 물론 부정선거로 당선된 문재인 대통령의 퇴진을 요구하는 원외 투쟁을 적극적으로 전개하는 것을 중심 과제로 삼아야 한다고 생각된다.
이와 아울러, 이른바 ①소득주도 성장론, ②공정 경제, ③최저임금, ④청년실업, ⑤탈원전 등 실정(失政)을 집중 공격하는 것과 함께 ①김태우, ②신재민 등이 폭로한 비리∙비위들과 ③손혜원, ④손석희, ⑤문다혜 등이 관련된 스캔들들을 집중적으로 파헤쳐서 이들을 정치적 이슈로 개발하는 한편 ①김정은(金正恩)의 방남(訪南)을 저지하는 동시에 ②‘상해 임시정부’와 대한민국을 혼동하여 대한민국의 정통성을 훼손하며 ③교과서를 통하여 이념적으로 왜곡∙오도된 사관(史觀)으로 청소년을 오염시키는 등 문 정권이 자행하는 반민족적 행위들을 저지하고 시정하는 원내외 투쟁을 과감하게 전개해야 한다. (발췌)
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
김진태는 패했는가? 그에게는 할 일 많다
많은 애국진영 인사들이 김진태의 압승을 진단했었다. 하지만 붉은 언론들은 김진태를 언제나 3등으로 보도했다. 그리고 결과는 보도내용 그대로 나왔다. 음모라는 생각이 스친다. 8명이 경쟁한 김준교 청년당원도 3만여 표를 얻었는데 모든 지역에서 열린 전당대회장에서 시종 압도적인 인기를 누린 김진태가 2만 표를 얻었다는 것은 상식에 어긋난다.
그런데 참으로 한심한 것은 이번 선거 관리 시스템이다. 핸드폰과 투표관리실의 컴퓨터 사이에 이루어지는 투표는 그 자체가 불법이다. 핸드폰을 가진 사람들이 무슨 장난질을 치는지, 컴퓨터를 가동하는 사람들이 무슨 장난을 치는지, 아무도 감시하는 사람이 없다. 오로지 빨갱이가 90%를 차지하고 있다는 선관위만이 문을 걸어 잠그고 투표관리를 독점한다는 것은 그 자체가 코미디다.
김진태의 입장에서는 이번 기회를 “투표관리 시스템”의 신뢰성을 검증하는 계기를 마련하기 위해 선거결과와는 무관하게 오로지 “시스템의 신뢰성 검증” 차원에서 문제를 제기하는 것이 국가의 미래를 위해 매우 유익할 것이라는 생각이 든다. (발췌)
2019.2.27. 지만원
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
문죄인이 독재국가 북한과 통일을 하려는데, 그게 민주제에 유익할까?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
태영호의 뉴욕타임즈 회견
김정은의 목적은 시간을 버는 것이고, 다음으로 제재를 완화하는 것이고, 또 핵무기 보유국으로서의 지위를 인정받는 것이다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
상해 주식시장이 6% 상승했다. 미중 무역협정 타결에 대한 기대감에서 상승했다고 하는데, 사실은 시진핑이 얼마전에 주식시장의 중요성을 언급했다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80대 노인이 18세로 자신을 소개하는 날이 올지도 모른다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greener Childhood Associated With Happier Adulthood
어릴 때 자연 속에서 성장한 사람은 성인이 되어서 정신 질환에 걸릴 위험이 적다.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
무솔리니의 말과 잘못된 해석
개인의 자유는 문명이 진보한 결과이다. 그리고 인간의 자유에 필수적인 분업은 사회가 복잡해진 결과이다.
사회주의와 파시즘이 반동적인 사상인 이유는, 그것들이 고대인간의 충동이 만들어낸 부족주의와 권위주의로 회귀하려 하기 때문이다.
Mussolini and Misinterpretations
By JONAH GOLDBERG
I know this is now old news, but I feel like I should throw in my two cents on this one.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) tweeted the following quote from Mussolini:
Senator John Cornyn
@JohnCornyn
“We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.” Benito Mussolini
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pounced (along with a lot of other people):
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
@AOC
In case you missed it, while the GOP is calling paying a living wage “socialism,” a Republican Senator full-on quoted National Fascist Party leader and Hitler ally Benito Mussolini like it’s a Hallmark card.
Now, I think that the way Cornyn quoted Mussolini without making it clear that he wasn’t endorsing Mussolini — which he didn’t and doesn’t — was a mild mistake given the way Twitter encourages stupid misinterpretations. But that doesn’t mean the stupid misinterpretations are any less stupid.
There are a bunch of things that come to mind. In no particular order:
First, there’s the irony that Mussolini was in favor of a minimum wage. The Fasci Italiani di Combattimento founded by Mussolini called for a minimum wage and he boasted of his support for it in his autobiography.
Second, the Nazi Party supported minimum wages (and later, maximum wages too).
Third, both the Nazis and the Italian Fascists supported all sorts of economic policies that resemble aspects of the Green New Deal, from the nationalization of various industries to heavy regulation of finance and even the appropriation of “unearned” wealth.
Fourth, Mussolini, a huge fan of William James and the idea of a “Moral Equivalent of War,” shared with AOC and others the idea that society should be organized along the lines of war mobilization to address domestic needs (Hence Mussolini’s various “Battle of the Grains” campaigns and whatnot).
Fifth, the 1930s saw new deals in America, Germany, and Italy alike. This contention is far, far, more controversial in 2019 than it was in the 1930s. If you’re interested in this topic, I suggest you read Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s Three New Deals. Or you could read my first book. Or you can do what I did in the course of writing that book and read what prominent New Dealers were saying in the 1930s. Rexford Guy Tugwell, a prominent member of FDR’s Brain Trust, said of Italian Fascism, “It’s the cleanest, neatest most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious.” “We are trying out the economics of Fascism without having suffered all its social or political ravages,” proclaimed the New Republic’s editor George Soule, an enthusiastic supporter of the FDR administration.
I could go on at book length about all of this (again), but I’d like to make one last point. The quote from Mussolini is garbage. And I’m not simply referring to Mussolini’s false claim that the Italian Fascists “were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.” This idea had wide currency long before Mussolini embraced the Fascist label (he became famous as a leader of socialists, fwiw). The 19th and early 20th century debates about the “social question” in Europe and the U.S. asserted this idea all of the time. It was widely believed by intellectuals that the disorganized individualism of the 19th century had to give way to collective forms of governance. “Now men are free,” Walter Rauschenbusch the leading Social Gospel progressive declared in 1896, “but it is often the freedom of grains of sand that are whirled up in a cloud and then dropped in a heap, but neither cloud nor sand-heap have any coherence.” To remedy this, Rauschenbusch insisted, “New forms of association must be created. Our disorganized competitive life must pass into an organic cooperative life.”
No, the real reason that quote is trash is that it’s not true. Individual freedom is the product of civilizational advancement. The division of labor, essential to the free market, and the division of meaning, essential to human liberty, are the result of society becoming more “complicated.” Fascism, like socialism, was reactionary, precisely because it sought to restore the ancient human impulses of tribalism and authoritarianism. The cult of unity is simple, freedom is complex.
Mussolini was just one of thousands of intellectuals who thought that economic planning, nationalism, socialism, and collectivism generally were more sophisticated and advanced ideas. He was wrong, and so are the people who make the exact same claims today.
-----------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Schivelbusch의 책 <3개의 뉴딜>
Wolfgang Schivelbusch의 책 <3개의 뉴딜>
Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933–1939
During World War II the United States took on the role of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” supplying its allies the wherewithal to battle Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, as well as assuming global leadership in opposing those aggressive fascist regimes that threatened world peace. It is often forgotten, however, that in the 1930s many American and European commentators focused on the many similarities between Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the planned economies in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.
Historian Wolfgang Schivelbusch takes a fresh look at these similarities in Three New Deals. He is quick to point out that he is not saying that FDR’s New Deal was the same as the Nazi regime. Hitler rapidly established an absolute dictatorship that suppressed all political opposition. In America civil liberties and freedom of the press were never abridged by the Roosevelt administration, however much political and economic power was increasingly concentrated in Washington during the 1930s.
But nonetheless the methods of controlling the economy and influencing public opinion were closely parallel, as Schivelbusch shows. World War I had ushered in a new politicization of society and captured the spirit of many intellectuals and policy advocates in the 1920s and 1930s. Government architecture in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and FDR’s America were all bigger than life, creating an imagery of power and awe transcending the mundane efforts and achievements of private individuals.
What Schivelbusch brings out is the change in the role and conception of political leadership. Gone was the notion that those in political office were executors of constitutionally limited responsibilities. Now the “leader” spoke and led outside the ordinary restraints of the political process. Both Hitler and Roosevelt appealed to “the people” directly, with the claim that unusual circumstances required extraordinary authority. With his fireside chats FDR took advantage of a popular new technology, radio, to create the impression that he was addressing every American’s hopes and fears; the President thus became a member of every family.
In Germany radios were far less widely used. So Hitler took advantage of that other means of mass communication—giant rallies and ceremonies at which thousands could directly see and hear their Fuehrer. But even in the United States rallies and parades were used to arouse support for the New Deal recovery programs, especially the National Recovery Administration, which tried to impose the same type of fascist planning on business that Mussolini and soon Hitler established in their countries.
Grand government projects were all part of the projection of state power and authority. In Italy Mussolini cleared the Pontine Marshes outside Rome and designed model communities for resettlement of the unemployed. In Germany Hitler oversaw the construction of the autobahn system even though the number of privately owned cars was a fraction of that in the United States. In America the power of government was symbolized by the Tennessee Valley Authority, through which Washington changed the course of rivers, built massive dams, and electrified an entire region of the country. Of course in every one of those projects, the people whose lives were disrupted or uprooted counted for little compared to the task of remaking society according to the central plans of the “leaders.”
Military power was an essential imagery in the rhetoric. Hitler glorified uniformed legions in torch-lit parades. Roosevelt emphasized military imagery in his speeches, such as his 1933 inaugural address, in which he spoke of the Depression as if it were a foreign foe. If Americans did not voluntarily comply with his proposed recovery programs, he would not hesitate to use the full coercive powers of the state to win the “war” against unemployment. He spoke of the Blue Eagle, the symbol of the NRA, as a badge that all patriotic businesses should proudly display to prove they were doing their part and to distinguish them from “enemies” of recovery who refused to go along with the government’s plans.
American and European commentators in the 1930s also pointed out Hitler’s and Roosevelt’s centralization of power. Dictatorship was never imposed in the United States in the same way it was in Nazi Germany, but thoughtful writers wondered if such centralization did not run the risk of undermining the constitutional separation of powers. Unchecked power could easily extinguish freedom in the United States.
Finally, Schivelbusch reminds his readers of a book by John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching, that was published in 1944. Flynn had been a long-time critic of the New Deal. In the book he pointed out the many similarities among the three fascisms. Italian and German fascism were the “bad” kind. But the American brand was dangerously seen as the “good fascism,” Flynn warned. Wrapped in the stars and stripes and presented as a new dawn of American economic vitality and global leadership, complete with unrestrained presidential power, the American brand of fascism threatened to destroy all that the Founding Fathers had built for a country of liberty.
Regulation and planning at home, political and military adventures abroad, and greater power in the hands of the head of state meant a different type of America from what had existed in the past, Flynn feared. Six decades later those dangers seem in many ways even more real than in 1944. Wolfgang Schivelbusch has reminded us that the danger of concentrated political power was understood back in the 1930s. We should pay attention today.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism and Capitalism
Ludwig von Mises
[From the Introduction to Mises's Liberalism (1927).]
A society in which liberal principles are put into effect is usually called a capitalist society, and the condition of that society, capitalism. Since the economic policy of liberalism has everywhere been only more or less closely approximated in practice, conditions as they are in the world today provide us with but an imperfect idea of the meaning and possible accomplishments of capitalism in full flower.
Nevertheless, one is altogether justified in calling our age the age of capitalism, because all that has created the wealth of our time can be traced back to capitalist institutions. It is thanks to those liberal ideas that still remain alive in our society, to what yet survives in it of the capitalist system, that the great mass of our contemporaries can enjoy a standard of living far above that which just a few generations ago was possible only to the rich and especially privileged.
To be sure, in the customary rhetoric of the demagogues these facts are represented quite differently. To listen to them, one would think that all progress in the techniques of production redounds to the exclusive benefit of a favored few, while the masses sink ever more deeply into misery. However, it requires only a moment's reflection to realize that the fruits of all technological and industrial innovations make for an improvement in the satisfaction of the wants of the great masses. All big industries that produce consumers' goods work directly for their benefit; all industries that produce machines and half-finished products work for them indirectly.
The great industrial developments of the last decades, like those of the 18th century that are designated by the not altogether happily chosen phrase, "the Industrial Revolution," have resulted, above all, in a better satisfaction of the needs of the masses. The development of the clothing industry, the mechanization of shoe production, and improvements in the processing and distribution of foodstuffs have, by their very nature, benefited the widest public. It is thanks to these industries that the masses today are far better clothed and fed than ever before. However, mass production provides not only for food, shelter, and clothing, but also for other requirements of the multitude. The press serves the masses quite as much as the motion-picture industry, and even the theater and similar strongholds of the arts are daily becoming more and more places of mass entertainment.
Nevertheless, as a result of the zealous propaganda of the antiliberal parties, which twists the facts the other way round, people today have come to associate the ideas of liberalism and capitalism with the image of a world plunged into ever-increasing misery and poverty. To be sure, no amount of deprecatory propaganda could ever succeed, as the demagogues had hoped, in giving the words "liberal" and "liberalism" a completely pejorative connotation. In the last analysis, it is not possible to brush aside the fact that, in spite of all the efforts of antiliberal propaganda, there is something in these expressions that suggests what every normal person feels when he hears the word "freedom."
Antiliberal propaganda, therefore, avoids mentioning the word "liberalism" too often and prefers the infamies that it attributes to the liberal system to be associated with the term "capitalism." That word brings to mind a flint-hearted capitalist, who thinks of nothing but his own enrichment, even if that is possible only through the exploitation of his fellow men.
It hardly occurs to anyone, when he forms his notion of a capitalist, that a social order organized on genuinely liberal principles is so constituted as to leave the entrepreneurs and the capitalists only one way to wealth, viz., by better providing their fellow men with what they themselves think they need. Instead of speaking of capitalism in connection with the prodigious improvement in the standard of living of the masses, antiliberal propaganda mentions capitalism only in referring to those phenomena whose emergence was made possible solely because of the restraints that were imposed upon liberalism.
No reference is made to the fact that capitalism has placed a delectable luxury as well as a food, in the form of sugar, at the disposal of the great masses. Capitalism is mentioned in connection with sugar only when the price of sugar in a country is raised above the world market price by a cartel. As if such a development were even conceivable in a social order in which liberal principles were put into effect. In a country with a liberal regime, in which there are no tariffs, cartels capable of driving the price of a commodity above the world market price would be quite unthinkable.
The links in the chain of reasoning by which antiliberal demagogy succeeds in laying upon liberalism and capitalism the blame for all the excesses and evil consequences of antiliberal policies are as follows: One starts from the assumption that liberal principles aim at promoting the interests of the capitalists and entrepreneurs at the expense of the interests of the rest of the population and that liberalism is a policy that favors the rich over the poor. Then one observes that many entrepreneurs and capitalists, under certain conditions, advocate protective tariffs, and still others — the armaments manufacturers — support a policy of "national preparedness"; and, out of hand, one jumps to the conclusion that these must be "capitalistic" policies.
In fact, however, the case is quite otherwise. Liberalism is not a policy in the interest of any particular group, but a policy in the interest of all mankind. It is, therefore, incorrect to assert that the entrepreneurs and capitalists have any special interest in supporting liberalism. Their interest in championing the liberal program is exactly the same as that of everyone else. There may be individual cases in which some entrepreneurs or capitalists cloak their special interests in the program of liberalism; but opposed to these are always the special interests of other entrepreneurs or capitalists. The matter is not quite so simple as those who everywhere scent "interests" and "interested parties" imagine.
That a nation imposes a tariff on iron, for example, cannot "simply" be explained by the fact that this benefits the iron magnates. There are also persons with opposing interests in the country, even among the entrepreneurs; and, in any case, the beneficiaries of the tariff on iron are a steadily diminishing minority. Nor can bribery be the explanation, for the people bribed can likewise be only a minority; and, besides, why does only one group, the protectionists, do the bribing, and not their opponents, the freetraders?
The fact is that the ideology that makes the protective tariff possible is created neither by the "interested parties" nor by those bribed by them, but by the ideologists, who give the world the ideas that direct the course of all human affairs. In our age, in which antiliberal ideas prevail, virtually everyone thinks accordingly, just as, a hundred years ago, most people thought in terms of the then-prevailing liberal ideology. If many entrepreneurs today advocate protective tariffs, this is nothing more than the form that antiliberalism takes in their case. It has nothing to do with liberalism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
생명의 출입승강出入升降 운동.
출입이 없으면 生長壯老가 없고
승강이 없으면 生長化藏이 없다
論氣機之左升右降
王文德
生命現象源於氣機的出入升降運動。“出入廢則神機化滅，升降息則氣立孤危。故非出入，則無以生長壯老已；非升降，則無以生長化藏”（《素問．六微旨大論》），升降是氣機主要的運動形式之一，是人體內裡氣之間的變化聯系。升降相宜，是維持人體內環境動態平衡的保證。
五臟的氣機以升降為主：心肺在上，在上者宜降；肝腎在下，在下者宜升；脾胃斡旋中焦，為升降之樞紐。“上者右行，下者左行”（《素問．五運行大論》），即所謂左升右降；脾氣左升，則肝腎隨之上交；胃氣右降，心肺隨之下降。這是人體氣機升降的總趨勢。脾主運化，輸布水穀精微上升；腎為水臟，主藏精，腎水上升，上濟於心，方使心陽不亢；肝屬風木，疏散條達，體陰而用陽，此三臟皆以升為用。肺金主肅降，布散精微津液下行，以降為順；心為火臟，主血脈，出神明，其位在上，心火下濟於腎，而使腎水不寒，以降為主；胃主納食，以降為和。故在臨床中要順其性而調之，否則會氣機逆亂而致病。《醫方考．醫門》曰：“氣變則物易，氣亂則物病。”
而臟與腑之間，又是臟主升而腑主降的關係；臟屬陰而腑屬陽，左右者，陰陽之道路也，陰左而升，陽右而降，即所謂左升右降。臟與腑在生理上相互配合，如脾氣運化水穀需要胃氣腐熟功能的支持；膀胱排尿需要腎氣的蒸騰氣化；肝氣的疏通條達有賴於膽氣排泄膽汁的配合…在病理上也密切相關，如王孟英《王氏醫案釋注》中肺氣不清，胃氣不降。肺熱壅盛，失於和降，可致大腸傳導失職而大便秘結。六腑以通為用，恢復其實而不滿的狀態，下通則上實自除。
五臟之中，心腎是氣機升降的根本，脾胃居於中焦，為升降的樞紐，而肝肺具有輔佐升降的作用。
腎是升降的總動力。腎水屬陰，內含坎陽，坎陽發動，則水升火降，坎離交泰，是為左陰升，右陽降的根源。由於腎陽的溫煦，使脾不致過濕，脾氣得以上升；因腎水的滋涵，使肝木不致太亢，肝木方能舒發。即言：肝脾的左升取決於腎陽的調和。肝脾不升往往從腎來治。例如：清陽不升而引起的眩暈，臨床上經驗取穴常用左太衝右太溪。滋水涵木，以解除肝木對脾土的過剋，使脾氣得升，清陽上達於頭目，眩暈自然減輕或痊癒。而心屬離火，內含心陰。胃喜柔潤，在心陽的溫煦下，使之不致過濕；肺為燥金，心陰滋養，使其不致過燥。燥濕調和，肺胃才能順降。
脾胃居中，脾氣主升而胃氣主降，相反相成，一升一降共為升降之樞紐。“脾為陰土而升於陽，胃為陽土而降於陰，土位中而火上水下，左木右金，左乎升右乎降，…故中氣旺則脾升而胃降四象得以輪轉，中氣收則脾郁而胃逆，四象失其運行。”一句話準確而又詳盡的描述出脾胃在氣機升降中的樞紐作用。若脾胃氣機功能失常，就會產生頭暈目眩、噁心嘔吐、胃脘墜脹、泄瀉或內臟下垂等病症。所謂“清氣在下，則生飧泄，濁氣在上，則生瞋脹”（《素問．陰陽大象論》）。治療時常選左三里右陽陵，來調理脾胃氣機，氣機復常，升降相宜，疾病乃癒。
肝木生於左，疏散條達，輔佐脾之升清；肺金降於右，佐胃之降濁。肺主氣，肝臟血，二者一左一右、一氣一血，共佐脾胃之升降濁。“人身氣機合乎天地自然，肝從左而升，肺從右而降，升降得宜，則氣機舒展，人身精氣得以輸布流行” – 葉天士。肝肺氣機失常而發病，如《傷寒論．大陽病下篇》中所說的“傷寒發熱，嗇嗇惡寒，大渴欲飲水，其腹必滿，自汗出小便利，其病欲解，此肝乘肺也，名曰橫，刺期門”。期門是肝經的募穴，是脾經、肝經、陰維脈三條經的交會穴，也是十二經的最後一個穴位，是經氣經胸的門戶。刺之舒肝經之郁滯，降肺氣之上逆，宣通氣血，舒筋緩急，瀉肝之實，使肝氣可升，肺氣可降。而在用藥上常用小柴胡湯。柴胡辛味主升入肝經，黃芩苦味主降入肺經，而根據“左肝右肺”的理論，肝主升於左，肺主降於右，柴胡配黃芩，使機體氣機左升右降，通暢無滯，肝郁得舒，條達復常。
然氣機的升降運動是一個“升中有降，降中有升”的復雜問題。如心推動血液運行於周身，上榮於面供應神明，而心陽必須下降，溫煦周身；肺主宣發，將脾氣轉輸至肺的水液和水穀之精中較輕的部分，向上向外布散，上至頭面諸竅，外達全身皮毛肌腠，然肺又通過肅降作用，將傳輸至肺的精微中較稠厚部分，向內向下輸送到其他臟腑，併將其代謝所產生的濁液下輸至腎和膀胱……其他臟腑亦是如此。可見五臟是共具有升降的特性，所謂主升主降，無非是相對而言。
升降運動是臟腑的生理特性，也是其功能的體現，與臟腑之氣的盛衰有密切關係。臟氣偏亢則升降太過，如肝火熾盛，循經上攻頭目，則頭暈脹痛，面紅目赤；臟氣偏衰則升降不及，如脾虛下陷而引起臟器脫垂等。即“亢則害，承乃制”《素問．六微旨大論》。
總之，在腎陽命門之火的發動和心陽君火的照臨下，中土樞軸轉動，肝脾溫升而肺胃源降，是氣機左升右降的要旨
---------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기