文在寅 씨의 ‘평화’는 레닌이 말한 ‘평화’와 같은 것인가, 다른 것인가?
이동복
세계 공산주의 운동의 아버지인 소련의 레닌(Vladimir Lenin)이 ‘평화’에 관하여 남긴 어록(語錄)이다. 그는 “궁극적으로 ‘평화’라는 것은 ‘공산주의가 세계를 지배하는 것’을 말한다”(“As an ultimate objective, 'peace' simply means communist world control.”)고 갈파(喝破)했었다.
문재인 씨가 김정은(金正恩)과 주고받는 ‘평화’는 이같이 레닌이 정의한 ‘평화’와 같은 것인가 다른 것인가, 이에 관한 문재인 씨의 입장 표명이 기다려진다. (발췌)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
김문수
지금은 주사파가 대한민국의 권력을 잡았습니다. 자유파 대통령 박근혜와 이명박은 감옥에 갇혀 재판받고 있습니다. 주사파와 자유파 사이에 체제전쟁 중입니다.
2. 2020.4.15.선거 때는 경제파탄으로 인한 민생투쟁이 격화될 것입니다. 사상이념·권력의 고지를 점령한 문재인 주사파 세력은 권력유지·연장을 위해서라면 수단방법을 가리지 않고 피를 흘릴 것입니다. 따라서 자유민주주의 세력이 순진하게, 선거법을 지키면서 선거운동을 하면 이길 수 있을 것이라는 생각은 비현실적입니다. 선거공학, 정책 위주 선거전략으로는 문재인 주사파를 이길 수 없습니다.
3. 4.15.선거는 사상이념 투쟁장이며, 조직투쟁·민생투쟁의 장입니다. 따라서 통상의 선거운동으로는 이미 권력을 잡고 있는 주사파를 이길 수 없습니다. 자유한국당은 사상이념성, 조직성, 연대성, 투쟁성을 강화해야 합니다.
<자유 대한민국 수호 비상국민연대>를 구성하여, 국회를 기반으로 비상국민회의, 대수장(대한민국수호장성단), 태극기 세력, 우리공화당, 새벽당, 기독자유당, 전대협, 새마을, 동창회, 향우회, 군인조직, 행정동우회, 외교관 조직 등 모든 애국세력과 빅 텐트를 치고, 주사파 집권세력과 싸워 이겨서 자유민주주의 대한민국을 지켜야 합니다. (발췌)
3. 4.15.선거는 사상이념 투쟁장이며, 조직투쟁·민생투쟁의 장입니다. 따라서 통상의 선거운동으로는 이미 권력을 잡고 있는 주사파를 이길 수 없습니다. 자유한국당은 사상이념성, 조직성, 연대성, 투쟁성을 강화해야 합니다.
<자유 대한민국 수호 비상국민연대>를 구성하여, 국회를 기반으로 비상국민회의, 대수장(대한민국수호장성단), 태극기 세력, 우리공화당, 새벽당, 기독자유당, 전대협, 새마을, 동창회, 향우회, 군인조직, 행정동우회, 외교관 조직 등 모든 애국세력과 빅 텐트를 치고, 주사파 집권세력과 싸워 이겨서 자유민주주의 대한민국을 지켜야 합니다. (발췌)
------------------------------------------------------
(斷想) '징용 판결' 外 문재인 정권 이후 韓日갈등 事例
펀드빌더
문재인 정권 이후로, 큰 실익도 없으면서 불필요하게 日本을 자극하고 공격한 행위들을 꼽아본다면, 당장 떠오르는 것만 봐도 이렇다.
¶트럼프 訪韓時 청와대 만찬에 韓美와 상관도 없는 前 위안부, 독도새우 등장시킨 일(2017. 11. 7)
¶韓日정상회담時 아베 수상이 준비해 내놓은 '문 대통령 취임 1주년 축하' 케익을, 그 자리에서 문 대통령이 "이빨 안 좋아 케익 못 먹는다"며 홀대한 일(2018. 5. 9)
¶日本 군함旗(욱일기) 배척 목적으로 日本의 관함식 참석을 사실상 봉쇄한 일(2018. 10. 5)
¶위안부 재단 해산한 일(2018. 11. 21)
¶日本 초계기向 무기발사用 레이더 照射(2018. 12. 20) 이슈 발생시키고, 오히려 日本을 '저공 위협비행'으로 몰아붙인 일
¶국회의장(문희상)이 "전범의 아들인 아키히토 일왕이 위안부 문제 사죄해야 한다"며 요구한 일(2019. 2. 8)
¶징용 판결 이후 日本의 요청(중재위 설치) 지속적으로 無視한 일
¶기타(한국인들의 여전한 국내외 위안부像 설치, 욱일기 사냥, 과거 피해 부풀리기 및 날조 등) (발췌)
¶트럼프 訪韓時 청와대 만찬에 韓美와 상관도 없는 前 위안부, 독도새우 등장시킨 일(2017. 11. 7)
¶韓日정상회담時 아베 수상이 준비해 내놓은 '문 대통령 취임 1주년 축하' 케익을, 그 자리에서 문 대통령이 "이빨 안 좋아 케익 못 먹는다"며 홀대한 일(2018. 5. 9)
¶日本 군함旗(욱일기) 배척 목적으로 日本의 관함식 참석을 사실상 봉쇄한 일(2018. 10. 5)
¶위안부 재단 해산한 일(2018. 11. 21)
¶日本 초계기向 무기발사用 레이더 照射(2018. 12. 20) 이슈 발생시키고, 오히려 日本을 '저공 위협비행'으로 몰아붙인 일
¶국회의장(문희상)이 "전범의 아들인 아키히토 일왕이 위안부 문제 사죄해야 한다"며 요구한 일(2019. 2. 8)
¶징용 판결 이후 日本의 요청(중재위 설치) 지속적으로 無視한 일
¶기타(한국인들의 여전한 국내외 위안부像 설치, 욱일기 사냥, 과거 피해 부풀리기 및 날조 등) (발췌)
-------------------------------------------------------------
거대한 폭탄이 만들어지고 있다. 이미 알고 있는 사실이지만
반복해도 지나치지 않다.
반복해도 지나치지 않다.
------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
트럼프 정부가 지난주 화웨이에 중국의 요구를 들어주더니, 이제는 이란의 석유 제재에서 중국에게 특혜를 주려하고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
중국에게 철강의 과다 생산을 감산하라고 했지만, 5월에 중국의 철강 생산은 89m 톤으로, 전세계 생산량의 55%나 되었다.
---->시장도 보지 않고 계속해서 철강을 생산하는 이유는?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
멋진 광경을 연출하는 문어 연
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What the US and China each got out of the Trump-Xi meeting in Japan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
믿고 맡겼던 학교 교육에 빨간불이 켜지다_부모들이 경각심을 가져야 한다 :
최윤숙 자매, 사랑침례교회, 정동수 목사, (2019. 6.30)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
사람을 죽여도 집행유예로 풀려나는, 상상할 수 없었던 일들이 자꾸 일어난다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
천 전 수석은 노무현 정부 시절 북핵 6자회담 수석대표와 외교부 2차관을 지냈다. 이명박 정부에서는 청와대 외교안보수석을 맡았다. 현재 한반도미래포럼 이사장으로 동북아시아 정세를 분석하는 전문가로 활약하고 있다.
▷일본의 경제 보복이 시작됐습니다.
“경제에 먹구름이 드리우고 있습니다. 이번 사태는 근본적으로 사법부가 행정부의 영역인 외교 사안에 개입하면서 빚어진 비극입니다.”
출처: 한국경제
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
국민의 뜻이 모든 정부의 유일한 합법적 토대이고, 그들의 자유로운 표현을 보호하는 게 국가의 첫번째 사명이다.
자유는 과학과 도덕의 어머니이고, 자유가 많아질수록 국가는 그에 비례해 과학과 도덕에서도 위대해진다. ---토머스 제퍼슨
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
겨울에 영하 50도이다.
지붕이 없다.
문을 두드리지 못하도록 못을 박아 놓았다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
아래는 그가 쓴 소책자
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
환경운동의 반인류
오랫동안 공산주의자들은 생산수단의 사유화가 대중을 가난하게 한다고 비난했다. 하지만 서구의 프롤레타리아가 점점 부유하게 변하자, 자본주의 비판가들은 제3세계로 눈을 돌렸다. 그들은 북반구의 부가 남반구의 가난을 착취해서 얻은 결과라고 매도했다. 하지만 지구화 이후 제3세계조차 더 잘살게 되면서, 그런 비난도 먹혀들지 않았다.
그래서 그들은 전략을 바꿔서 서구의 시장경제가 인간 사회와 환경을 망치고 있다고 말한다.
좌파들이 근대 사회를 위축시키는 궁극적인 방법은 인간에게서 가치의 기준이라는 자격을 빼앗는 것이다. 그에 따라 생물 중심 학파들이 들어와, 동식물과 환경계에 내재적인 가치를 부여하고 있다.
새로운 맬서스주의자들처럼 환경운동의 주도자들은 인간을 자연에 해를 끼치는 바이러스에 비유한다.
프랑스 정치가 앙트완 부에노는 출산의 허가증을 도입해야 한다고 주장하고 있다.
The Green Movement's Anti-Humanism
Ferghane Azihari
For a long time, Marxists have blamed the private ownership of the means of production for impoverishing the masses. The gentrification of the Western proletariat then led the critics of capitalism to update their catastrophic scenario. They turned to rhetoric about the Third World and how the wealth of the countries of the North was fueled by the poverty of the countries of the South. But then this narrative collapsed as globalization made even the Third World better off than before.
So Marxists now turn to political ecology and anti-growth movements to provide the enemies of liberal societies with a new strategy: to claim that market economies corrupt human societies and their environment. Thinkers like André Gorz and Pierre Fournier lead the way in deploring the material abundance that capitalism now delivers. This, we are told, is obtained at the expense of a new victim: the environment.
However, there is still a difficulty to be solved. How to define this environment that everyone should want to protect?
What Is the Environment?
Traditionally, Western thought conceives of the environment as a set of natural elements that can be domesticated by man for his benefit. A philosopher like John Stuart Mill writes, for example, that even the most advanced industrial techniques cannot be judged against nature.
All incorporate the laws of physics, biology, or chemistry in the service of human needs. Yet Man is just as natural as the living beings with whom he competes. We cannot base a morality on nature without being banal.
Man, who for thousands of years has used pesticides to eradicate species hostile to his food security, acts as naturally as plants that produce toxic substances against their predators.
The technician who eradicates a wetland to control malaria-bearing mosquitoes acts as normally as the beaver who modifies its ecosystem by building dams so as not to be the victim of other wild animals.
The same is true for the farmer who converts a forest into a field of genetically modified crops in the name of food security; the Promethean who thinks of geo-engineering to administer the earth's climate in the interests of the human race; or the entrepreneur who buys and privatizes a nature reserve by making it profitable to protect the species he loves.
But to support these initiatives, it is still necessary to adhere to the premise of the primacy of Man over other living species. However, this notion is attacked by the disciples of "deep ecology." They have integrated the need to destroy the moral pillar of Western civilization that is anthropocentrism in order to dismantle industrial capitalism.
An ally of these ecologists, philosopher Catherine Larrère writes "sticking to the anthropocentric paradigm of defending the environment is, in the end, to settle on cost-benefit calculations so complex that one can always find some other solution less favorable to the protection of the environment."
Such an admission suggests ecological discourse is less concerned with safeguarding a desirable environment for mankind than with combating its human elements. This is true even when it is justified on a utilitarian level — that is to say for the well-being of mankind. The ultimate solution to thwarting modern societies is therefore to forfeit the human utility of its status as a value standard.
Hunting Humanity
This is where "biocentric" or "ecocentric" schools come in, which give intrinsic value to animals, plants, and primary ecosystems. Their rhetoric is bold, denying Man's legitimacy to exploit an immanent nature logically destroys private property and all its corollaries: the free disposal of unduly appropriate things, technology, trade or industry.
However, the intellectual Left that is rushing into this breach does not avoid a contradiction. The same ideological movement likes to eradicate all traces of biology to explain our relationship to the family, the nation or the economy. "Everything is social construction," we are told.
But now let's extract the construction of this eminently social domain that is the relationship of homo sapiens with its environment. Many ecologists, like Christian Lévêque, point out, for instance, that the most appreciated "natural" environments — such as the countryside — are very often the result of human intervention.
Biologists who see a correlation between the means allocated to protecting a species and its beauty are the first to witness the role of cultural and subjective perceptions in defining an ideal nature. The same is true for the French who are arguing about the opportunity to reintroduce the wolf in certain regions or for Australians who want to exterminate millions of stray cats that harm a certain idea of local wildlife.
In addition to the ecologists' refusal to consider the environment as a social construct, there is the story of a deified and harmonious primitive nature that echoes the Rousseauian myth of the Noble Savage. His apostles neglect the brutality of the law of nature and the struggle for existence that it implies.
For anthropophobic ecology, Man is the only species deprived of the right to participate in this struggle. Humanity's demotion is all the more perfidious because it relies on the corruption of Judeo-Christian culture which, alongside Greek philosophy, has long placed humanity at the top of the hierarchy of species.
Animism, Pantheism, and Primitivism
In a famous article entitled "The Historical Roots of the Ecological Crisis," American historian Lynn White accuses certain types of Christianity of having committed the original ecological sin.
The mission that God entrusts to Adam and his descendants to dominate animal and plant species would have liberated the Western hubris toward nature. This speech ended up contaminating the minds of those who for a long time presented themselves as the guardians of the temple of Western humanism.
In his second encyclical, Laudato si', Pope Francis, wishing to invalidate ecological critics against an "excessively anthropocentric" Christianity, multiplies the animist and pantheistic innuendoes that traditionalists would readily attribute to heresy.
According to this ideology, God is no longer exclusively the Being who transcends the world. God, instead permeates an immanent natural world. We understand in these conditions that "any crime against nature is a sin against God," as the pontiff claims.
But, it remains to be seen what a "crime" against "nature" is. Should we repress all loggers and rat exterminators as some proto-terrorists who persecute and butcher in the name eradicating human chauvinism? That some conservatives claim to be part of this "integral ecology" — that carries within it the seeds of the destruction of the Western idea — illustrates the extent of the intellectual victory of ecologists.
This animism explains the psychosis surrounding the sixth mass extinction. The lack of rigour in this discourse has not failed to be raised by scientists who point out the imperfection of our knowledge of the biosphere, the number of species on earth, their typology, and their evolution.
Even if the account of the extinction of millions of wild species would be perfectly correct, its anthropophobic nature is identified by the refusal of its propagators to integrate these evolutions into a cost-benefit calculation.
The Splendor and Misery of the Anthropocene
One of the few audible voices to temper the damning sentence of conservationist movements is that of Dr. Chris D. Thomas, a specialist in evolutionary biology at York University. In a book published in 2017, Thomas promotes a more optimistic view of our anthropocene era.
Tempering the story that depicts Man as gravedigger of nature, Thomas first recalls humanity's historical role in the growth of biodiversity through the global trade in animal and plant varieties. Then, digging up an argument well known to scientists, the British academic invites us not to forget that extinction, far from signifying the end of the world, opens up new evolutionary perspectives that it would be vain to equate to a degradation of the biosphere.
This is why he recommends that the state of the biosphere be totally subordinated to the dynamics of the anthropocene and not the other way around. All that would be left for mankind to do would be to abandon species that are insufficiently valued, unlikely to be domesticated and unable to adapt to the changes in the environment dictated by its prosperity.
Can this rational discourse triumph over animism that is on the verge of considering the law of the jungle superior to the civil code? Or do we have to reconsider a certain conception of the sacred to relegate human existence?
Until an intrepid mind answers this question, the anthropophobic intellectual climate persists in feeding odious words and totalitarian measures against humanity. Like the neo-Malthusians who consider the planet overpopulated, the advocates of the ecologist movement multiply comparisons equating humanity with a virus foreign to nature that deserves to be fought. It is therefore not surprising that some people are starting to take them at their word.
Thus French politician Antoine Buéno can publish without any nuance — with a leading publisher — an essay that calls for the introduction of a permit to procreate. As for the environmental organization WWF, it arms and finances militias that commit criminal acts against populations expropriated from their lands for the benefit of nature reserves in Africa.
Political ecology is therefore no longer just the new avatar of totalitarian collectivism. It is the logical stage of an anti-capitalist bitterness that, not content with having failed to transform this vile selfish human nature in the last century, now dreams of seeing it wither away.
"Ferghane Azihari is a freelance journalist and policy analyst based in Paris. He regularly collaborates for libertarian think tanks in France and in the US. His main interests include European Policy, Trade, Competition and International Relations. He belongs to the networks Students for Liberty and Young Voices. Twitter
------------------------------------------------------------------
비재생자원은 절대 소진되지 않는다
줄리언 사이먼이 1981년 <궁극적인 자원>에서 말했듯이, 자연자원은 경제적 의미에서 유한하지 않다.
1944년 석유의 부존량은 51bn 배럴이었지만, 2018년에는 1500bn으로 거의 30배가 늘었다.
Non-Renewable Resources Never Really Run Out
Joakim Book
There’s a remarkable confusion in the modern debate over energy sources. Informed by geological rather than economic considerations, energy sources and some raw materials are thought of either as “Renewables” or “Non-Renewables” — and the former is somehow much preferred to the later.
We’ve all heard versions of the following story: the use of non-renewable energy sources and digging up of non-renewable metals are what propelled the Industrial Revolution and underlined the build-up of our current rich societies and economies — but they are physically limited and finite, they will “run out,” and their use is “unsustainable” (the meaning of which is far from clear).
In a trivial sense this is of course true: the anti-capitalist environmentalists are superficially correct about no Planet B and the impossibility of infinite growth of material consumption. But it’s also, as Tim Worstall explains, “supremely unimportant.” In comparing the use of finite resources to food in the fridge, Worstall explodes the “No Breakfast Fallacy” — the conviction that once we’ve consumed today’s breakfast from the fridge, it is gone and there is consequently no more breakfast:
In that first instance we would agree with Worstall: eating breakfast does mean no breakfast in the fridge. We’d also agree that Worstall is mad because we understand that there is a vast industry dedicated solely to replenishing that breakfast before 7 am tomorrow.
Sure, like food in the fridge, “unsustainably” using up raw materials means that we run out of them. But also precisely like the food in the fridge, we replenish the raw materials we need, making “unsustainable” food consumption quite sustainable. How can this be?
Since “hardly anyone who is not an economist believes” this counter-intuitive notion, let’s examine it further.
How Non-Renewable Resources Don’t Run Out
In 1944 the world’s amount of proven oil reserves were 51bn barrels of oil. In 2018 the world’s proven oil reserves were almost 1,500bn (BP estimates 1,730bn ), i.e., about thirty times that of 1944 — and this despite humanity’s pretty voracious appetite for oil during the seven-odd decades in between. Anyone immersed in the naïve resource depletion theory has to incredulously ask himself — how can this be?
Simply put: we found more of it.
Markets with well-defined property rights use prices and profit motives to guide the allocation of resources — including, in this case, the investment resources that go into prospecting for oil or digging up metals in the ground. Markets use prices to convey information about the present and future availability of raw materials — with innovation allowing us to find, extract, and use them more efficiently and substitution regulating our want for them.
At any given time, there is some oil in storage, some proven (but not-yet-extracted) oil in the ground, some plausible pockets of oil and natural gas that geologists in various ventures are prospecting — and a big unknown chunk of oil reserves the amount and location of which nobody knows anything about. All of these actions (use, distribution, storage, extraction, prospecting) are governed and regulated by the market price of oil. If, as the resource depletion theory suggests, we would exhaust our known supplies of oil and raw materials, their market prices would rise — sending a palatable signal to all market actors. Three things then happen:
1) At higher market prices, previously uneconomical wells (or known pockets of oil that were previously too expensive to extract) now become available. Not physically available, mind you — they were always there — but economically available, which is what really matters. What’s known as the Shale Gas revolution is a splendid example of this.
2) At higher market prices, consumers curtail their use and start rationing oil — perhaps switching to smaller cars or improving energy efficiency of their houses.
3) Recycling materials become a profitable endeavor when market prices for the material rise. Copper already in use in power lines might be replaced by a relatively cheaper material while the copper itself is recycled to be re-sold into different production lines. This might not work as well for combustibles like oil where consumption changes the chemical composition of the material — although carbon capture initiatives suggest that it might not be impossible .
A recent Bloomberg article summarizes the point:
Economists teach us that resources don't just run out. As something becomes scarcer, its price rises, triggering a search for new supplies or the discovery of substitutes.
While it is true that the Earth as such has a finite amount of oil or copper or iron ore, the fraction of which is actually discovered is unknown — and has to be unknown, at least until we’ve found the last drop available. But even if the entire world’s stock of oil or copper was neatly assembled into one large fixed pool as Harold Hotelling hypothesized in 1931, we still wouldn’t run out. The second point above, work as it does through the price mechanism, would still function and neatly ration our use while incentivizing the adoption of substitutes.
…But Renewables Do
The remarkable contrast to this point is the reverence often given to so-called renewables, i.e., energy sources that don’t run out. The ideal example is the sun, ceaselessly blasting the Earth with more energy than we’ll ever need. Other examples include tapping into naturally occurring processes, ranging from the never-ending tides of the ocean or blowing of the wind or volcanic activity to the growth of forests or reproduction of animals. Some of these are truly “renewable” in that their sources never run out (wind, thermal, ocean, sun), but they come with well-known problems of capture, scale, storage, and distribution.
Other renewables do run out; rivers that ran dry ruined the renewable hydro dams built upon them; forests, euphemistically referred to as ‘biomass’, are chopped down and “renewably” burned for fuel — but actually relying on it as a modern energy source means complete deforestation, and so no forests to chop down tomorrow; whaling for oil found its “renewable” ecological limit in the 1860s when easily accessible whales ran out (read: were killed). Even wind, a never-ending source of energy, may very well run into similar constraints. Ignoring technical problems of storage and distribution mentioned above, at capacity factors of 35%, we’d need almost 500 million standard 3MV turbines to just get wind energy to cover 10% of current world energy needs — that’s 1200 times more windmills than the world currently has. Non-renewable physical space might run out.
So, while we have a physically finite planet and a geologically limited amount of, say, rare earth metals (or whatever the latest fad of environmental hysteria may conjure up), the economic take-home point is that non-renewable resources actually don’t run out. In his hugely popular 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, Julian Simon forever changed the way a lot of people think about resources and raw materials. Simon pointed out that
Over the course of history, up to this very moment, copper and other minerals have been getting less scarce rather than more scarce, as the depletion theory implies … natural resources are not finite in any meaningful economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion may be.
Simon’s assessment almost forty years ago still rings true today: raw materials have become more plentiful, not scarcer — contrary to what the depletion theorists would have you believe. While renewable energy sources do run out — often as a result of insufficient property rights — non-renewable resources don’t. The conclusion from a century-plus of raw materials’ extraction can thus be neatly summarized as: burn all you want — we’ll find more .
Joakim Book is an economics graduate of the University of Glasgow, and is currently a graduate student at the University of Oxford. He writes regularly at Life of an Econ Student.
--------------------------------------------------------
의난병疑难病 치료 방법
五、治疗疑难病证的主要方法
辨治各种疑难病证，或从气治，或从血治，或气血双治。处方用药多从“通”字着眼，以调畅气血而安脏腑为治疗原则。针对疑难病证的不同病因病机,详辨虚实,而运用相应的方药，若病邪阻遏气血而属实证者,则用疏通法;若因脏腑虚弱导致气血不通者，则用通补法。通过调畅气血,以达到“疏其血气，令其条达而致和平”的治疗目的。
（一）从气论治
1.疏畅气机法
临床所及,气机郁滞以肝、肺、胃病变最为多见,因肝气易郁结,肺气易壅逆,胃气易阻滞,每用逍遥散化裁统治之。逍遥散以柴胡疏肝解郁,归、芍补血养肝，茯苓、白术、甘草健脾和胃，薄荷、生姜宣畅肺郁,肝、肺、胃同治，以疏畅气机,使气血平和，循环无阻,达到五脏六腑协调，邪祛正安目的,如取逍遥散加黛蛤散等治支气管扩张咯血，加山羊角、石决明等治高血压病,加生蒲黄、葛根等治冠心病心绞痛,加平地木、仙人对坐草治乙型肝炎,合四逆散治慢性胃炎，合痛泻要方治结肠炎,合化瘀赞育汤治不孕不育等。若气郁化火，兼有痰热者，则取柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤加减，此方以小柴胡汤之半去甘草加桂枝，意在疏畅肝气，加茯苓、大黄清泄痰热，佐以龙骨、牡蛎重镇邪热所扰之魂魄，加铅丹之重坠者，以驱膈上之痰，因其有毒，且对胃肠有刺激等副作用，常用代赭石替代之。临床对脑动脉硬化、震颤麻痹、顽固性失眠、癫痫等难治病,凡属肝胆郁 热，痰浊内扰者，取此方加减治之，多可取效。
辨治各种疑难病证，或从气治，或从血治，或气血双治。处方用药多从“通”字着眼，以调畅气血而安脏腑为治疗原则。针对疑难病证的不同病因病机,详辨虚实,而运用相应的方药，若病邪阻遏气血而属实证者,则用疏通法;若因脏腑虚弱导致气血不通者，则用通补法。通过调畅气血,以达到“疏其血气，令其条达而致和平”的治疗目的。
（一）从气论治
1.疏畅气机法
临床所及,气机郁滞以肝、肺、胃病变最为多见,因肝气易郁结,肺气易壅逆,胃气易阻滞,每用逍遥散化裁统治之。逍遥散以柴胡疏肝解郁,归、芍补血养肝，茯苓、白术、甘草健脾和胃，薄荷、生姜宣畅肺郁,肝、肺、胃同治，以疏畅气机,使气血平和，循环无阻,达到五脏六腑协调，邪祛正安目的,如取逍遥散加黛蛤散等治支气管扩张咯血，加山羊角、石决明等治高血压病,加生蒲黄、葛根等治冠心病心绞痛,加平地木、仙人对坐草治乙型肝炎,合四逆散治慢性胃炎，合痛泻要方治结肠炎,合化瘀赞育汤治不孕不育等。若气郁化火，兼有痰热者，则取柴胡加龙骨牡蛎汤加减，此方以小柴胡汤之半去甘草加桂枝，意在疏畅肝气，加茯苓、大黄清泄痰热，佐以龙骨、牡蛎重镇邪热所扰之魂魄，加铅丹之重坠者，以驱膈上之痰，因其有毒，且对胃肠有刺激等副作用，常用代赭石替代之。临床对脑动脉硬化、震颤麻痹、顽固性失眠、癫痫等难治病,凡属肝胆郁 热，痰浊内扰者，取此方加减治之，多可取效。
2.升降气机法
脾胃为气机升降枢纽，脾主升清，胃主通降，为生化之本，若脾气失健而不升，胃气失和而不降，气机升降失常，湿、痰、瘀诸邪内生，则心下痞满、脘胁胀痛、形体日瘦等症迭起，习用苍术气香而性燥，统治三焦湿浊，质重而味厚，以导胃气下降，配以升麻质轻而味薄，引脾气上腾，二味相配，俾清气得以升发，浊气得以下泄，临床辨证加入诸方中，用治慢性胃炎、胃下垂、胃肠功能紊乱、慢性肝炎、胆囊炎、胰腺炎等，颇多效验。临床推崇“脾统四脏”之说，脾胃健旺，五脏六腑的气机升降就有动力来源，因此常用升降气机法治疗全身多种疾病，如枳壳配桔梗升降气机治冠心病，柴胡配青皮宽胸畅中治肝胆疾病，升麻配乌药、茯苓提壶揭盖治泌尿系统疾病，葛根配枳实升清降浊治结肠炎等。
肝肺为气机升降之辅佐，肝以升发为顺，肺以宣降为常，由于肝藏血，肺主气，故肝肺的升降实质上也是气血的升降，若肝气横逆，肺失宣降，则一身气血皆滞。肝肺升降失常的调理，肺之宣降也是一个重要方面，因肺失宣降则木受金刑，致肝气不得升发，正如王孟英所谓：“清肃之令不行，升降之机亦窒。”治疗疑难病证常用“轻可去实”之法，以质地轻扬，气味轻薄之品，性能宣透透达，归经入肺，有助于恢复肺的宣降本性，使气机升降有度，如取辛夷花、苍耳子宣通肺窍治过敏性鼻炎，石楠叶、苦丁茶苦泄降气治神经性头痛;紫菀启上开下治二便不利，桑叶、桑皮引药入肺治面部色素沉着等，往往一举中的。
3.降气平逆法 此法能使上逆之气得以平顺，所以又称平气、顺气法，多用于肺气上逆、肝气上逆等证。因呼吸系统的疑难病证多缘肺失宣肃而起，对咳呛频仍、喘促胸满、痰多气涌、头胀目眩等肺气上逆证，论治用药每参以葶苈子、苏子、旋复花、枇杷叶等肃肺之品，以冀上逆之肺气得以肃降，葶苈子能疗肺壅上气咳嗽，止喘促，除胸中痰饮，集降气、消痰、平喘诸作用，凡宜肃降肺气者，不必见痰壅热盛，即可投之，如咽痒咳喘，痰粘难出等热证，则取麻杏石甘汤加葶苈子等清热肃肺，痰多白沫，形寒神怯属寒证者，则用小青龙汤、麻黄附子细辛汤加葶苈子等温经肃肺，先发制人，一鼓而下，往往立竿见影。我根据《内经》“怒则气上”之说,指出精神系统的疑难病证与肝气上逆相关，对精神分裂症、癫痫、老年性痴呆、神经衰弱等难治病，习用金石药与介类药以重镇降气，如对狂躁为主症者，选用生铁落合桃核承气汤以平逆泻火;若见健忘失眠、幻听幻觉者，则首选磁石配菖蒲、蒲黄、丹参等降逆活血开窍;兼有盗汗、遗精者，则用龙骨、牡蛎以收敛肝气;伴有头晕目眩、两耳作鸣者，则重用山羊角、生石决，并配以通天草、海藻、钩笹等平肝潜阳。
气有余便是火，气降即火降，降气法除具有平顺上逆之气外，尚有降火作用。气火逆乱，则脉络不宁，血溢脉外而导致出血，故降气平逆法是治疗血证的主要疗法之一。凡火热亢盛，或气逆冲上引起阳络受伤，证见咳、吐、衄血，色红量多，烦躁郁怒,喜冷恶热者，我多宗缪希雍“宜降气不宜降火”之法，辄投以降气平逆法，首选降香折其逆气，既能降气以降火，又可止血而不留瘀，用于血证，有一举二得之妙。此外，我在治疗出血重症时，还配合应用外治法，以平逆降气，如取附子粉，姜汁调敷两足涌泉穴，或用生大黄，鸡子清调敷两太阳穴等，临床屡用屡验。
4.补气升阳法
补气升阳法还具有引血上行的作用，清阳之气出上窍，实四肢，发腠理，血液上行于脑，亦全赖清阳之气的升发，人体随着年龄的增长，清阳之气日渐衰弱，以致气血上奉渐至减少，血气不升，脑络失养，则头痛，眩晕，健忘及清窍失聪，诸如高血压病、脑动脉硬化、老年性痴呆等病丛生。每以补气升阳为基础，而辅以散风之类，如蔓荆子、葛根、细辛、白芷等，再加人川芎、赤芍、桃仁、红花等活血化瘀之品以调整气血升降，引血上行，对眩晕绵绵，遇劳更甚,少气懒言，脉细，舌淡紫荅薄等气虚兼有清窍失聪者最为合拍。
5.通补阳气法
在通补阳气的治则下，根据不同的病因采用相应的治则和方药，若病属邪痹阳遏者，则用通阳法；因脏腑阳虚而元真不通者，则用补阳法。由于疑难病证病情复杂，每每虚实相随，正邪互变，更多的是将通阳法与温阳法融于一炉，即在辨证基础上辄加附子治之，附子为补命门真火第一要药，其性雄壮彪桿，力宏效捷，走窜十二经脉，既行气分，又入血分，既能通阳，又可温阳，虽辛烈有毒，但配以生地甘润制其燥，佐以甘草甘缓制其毒，则其应用范围大为扩大:如取附子加入滋肾通关丸治肾盂结石;配以苓桂术甘汤防治支气管哮喘;伍入补中益气汤治重症肌无力;佐以六味地黄丸治尿毒症、肝硬化腹水等，随证配伍，皆有疗效。
心居阳位，为清旷之区，诸阳受气于胸中，若心阳不振，则血脉失畅，胸痹、心痛之证即发，据此，习用《伤寒论》少阴病方剂治疗心血管病，疗效显著。如取麻黄细辛附子汤治慢性肺源性心脏病，由于咳喘日久，肺病及肾，正气不固，屡招寒袭，形成肺蕴寒饮，肾虚不纳的病理状态。症见咳喘气短，咯痰白沫，遇寒频发，胸痞心悸，肢体浮肿，脉沉细等。治疗亟当宣肺散寒，补肾温阳，方用麻黄细辛附子汤最为合拍，方中麻黄虽治咳喘，但作用在肺，其效甚暂，必与附子配伍，肺肾同治，内外衔调，方可使风寒散而阳自归，精得藏而阴不扰。细辛入肺、肾二经，功能温饮定喘，用量须达4.5-9克才能起效，其虽辛散有余，但合以附子，则可泻肺纳肾，攻补兼顾，常与小青龙汤、三子养亲汤、苓桂术甘汤同用，有相得益彰之功。取附子汤治冠心病，心绞痛及心肌梗塞等引起的胸痛，多伴有痛势彻背，神萎乏力，汗时自出，舌淡质紫，脉沉弱等，其实质多属阳虚阴凝，阳虚为本，阴凝为标，立法用药当以温阳为主，附子汤以附子温阳散寒，人参、白术、茯苓甘温益气，芍药和营活血，诸药合用，共奏温经散寒，益气活血之功，用于冠心病，不仅止痛效果明显，且疗效巩固持久。若胸闷心悸者加丹参、葛根，胸痛剧烈者，加参三七、血竭，唇青舌紫者加莪术、水蛭等。取通脉四逆汤治病态窦房结综合征，所表现的脉象如沉、迟、涩、结、代等证，病机为阳气衰惫，寒凝血脉，立法务必峻补阳气，逐寒通脉，方用通脉四逆汤大辛大热之剂，意在离照当空，阴霾自去，则脉复出，临症又需加减化裁，如神疲短气者加党参、黄芪以补气，舌红口干者加麦冬、五味子以养阴，胸闷不舒者加郁金、菖蒲以开郁等。
脾胃为气机升降枢纽，脾主升清，胃主通降，为生化之本，若脾气失健而不升，胃气失和而不降，气机升降失常，湿、痰、瘀诸邪内生，则心下痞满、脘胁胀痛、形体日瘦等症迭起，习用苍术气香而性燥，统治三焦湿浊，质重而味厚，以导胃气下降，配以升麻质轻而味薄，引脾气上腾，二味相配，俾清气得以升发，浊气得以下泄，临床辨证加入诸方中，用治慢性胃炎、胃下垂、胃肠功能紊乱、慢性肝炎、胆囊炎、胰腺炎等，颇多效验。临床推崇“脾统四脏”之说，脾胃健旺，五脏六腑的气机升降就有动力来源，因此常用升降气机法治疗全身多种疾病，如枳壳配桔梗升降气机治冠心病，柴胡配青皮宽胸畅中治肝胆疾病，升麻配乌药、茯苓提壶揭盖治泌尿系统疾病，葛根配枳实升清降浊治结肠炎等。
肝肺为气机升降之辅佐，肝以升发为顺，肺以宣降为常，由于肝藏血，肺主气，故肝肺的升降实质上也是气血的升降，若肝气横逆，肺失宣降，则一身气血皆滞。肝肺升降失常的调理，肺之宣降也是一个重要方面，因肺失宣降则木受金刑，致肝气不得升发，正如王孟英所谓：“清肃之令不行，升降之机亦窒。”治疗疑难病证常用“轻可去实”之法，以质地轻扬，气味轻薄之品，性能宣透透达，归经入肺，有助于恢复肺的宣降本性，使气机升降有度，如取辛夷花、苍耳子宣通肺窍治过敏性鼻炎，石楠叶、苦丁茶苦泄降气治神经性头痛;紫菀启上开下治二便不利，桑叶、桑皮引药入肺治面部色素沉着等，往往一举中的。
3.降气平逆法 此法能使上逆之气得以平顺，所以又称平气、顺气法，多用于肺气上逆、肝气上逆等证。因呼吸系统的疑难病证多缘肺失宣肃而起，对咳呛频仍、喘促胸满、痰多气涌、头胀目眩等肺气上逆证，论治用药每参以葶苈子、苏子、旋复花、枇杷叶等肃肺之品，以冀上逆之肺气得以肃降，葶苈子能疗肺壅上气咳嗽，止喘促，除胸中痰饮，集降气、消痰、平喘诸作用，凡宜肃降肺气者，不必见痰壅热盛，即可投之，如咽痒咳喘，痰粘难出等热证，则取麻杏石甘汤加葶苈子等清热肃肺，痰多白沫，形寒神怯属寒证者，则用小青龙汤、麻黄附子细辛汤加葶苈子等温经肃肺，先发制人，一鼓而下，往往立竿见影。我根据《内经》“怒则气上”之说,指出精神系统的疑难病证与肝气上逆相关，对精神分裂症、癫痫、老年性痴呆、神经衰弱等难治病，习用金石药与介类药以重镇降气，如对狂躁为主症者，选用生铁落合桃核承气汤以平逆泻火;若见健忘失眠、幻听幻觉者，则首选磁石配菖蒲、蒲黄、丹参等降逆活血开窍;兼有盗汗、遗精者，则用龙骨、牡蛎以收敛肝气;伴有头晕目眩、两耳作鸣者，则重用山羊角、生石决，并配以通天草、海藻、钩笹等平肝潜阳。
气有余便是火，气降即火降，降气法除具有平顺上逆之气外，尚有降火作用。气火逆乱，则脉络不宁，血溢脉外而导致出血，故降气平逆法是治疗血证的主要疗法之一。凡火热亢盛，或气逆冲上引起阳络受伤，证见咳、吐、衄血，色红量多，烦躁郁怒,喜冷恶热者，我多宗缪希雍“宜降气不宜降火”之法，辄投以降气平逆法，首选降香折其逆气，既能降气以降火，又可止血而不留瘀，用于血证，有一举二得之妙。此外，我在治疗出血重症时，还配合应用外治法，以平逆降气，如取附子粉，姜汁调敷两足涌泉穴，或用生大黄，鸡子清调敷两太阳穴等，临床屡用屡验。
4.补气升阳法
补气升阳法还具有引血上行的作用，清阳之气出上窍，实四肢，发腠理，血液上行于脑，亦全赖清阳之气的升发，人体随着年龄的增长，清阳之气日渐衰弱，以致气血上奉渐至减少，血气不升，脑络失养，则头痛，眩晕，健忘及清窍失聪，诸如高血压病、脑动脉硬化、老年性痴呆等病丛生。每以补气升阳为基础，而辅以散风之类，如蔓荆子、葛根、细辛、白芷等，再加人川芎、赤芍、桃仁、红花等活血化瘀之品以调整气血升降，引血上行，对眩晕绵绵，遇劳更甚,少气懒言，脉细，舌淡紫荅薄等气虚兼有清窍失聪者最为合拍。
5.通补阳气法
在通补阳气的治则下，根据不同的病因采用相应的治则和方药，若病属邪痹阳遏者，则用通阳法；因脏腑阳虚而元真不通者，则用补阳法。由于疑难病证病情复杂，每每虚实相随，正邪互变，更多的是将通阳法与温阳法融于一炉，即在辨证基础上辄加附子治之，附子为补命门真火第一要药，其性雄壮彪桿，力宏效捷，走窜十二经脉，既行气分，又入血分，既能通阳，又可温阳，虽辛烈有毒，但配以生地甘润制其燥，佐以甘草甘缓制其毒，则其应用范围大为扩大:如取附子加入滋肾通关丸治肾盂结石;配以苓桂术甘汤防治支气管哮喘;伍入补中益气汤治重症肌无力;佐以六味地黄丸治尿毒症、肝硬化腹水等，随证配伍，皆有疗效。
心居阳位，为清旷之区，诸阳受气于胸中，若心阳不振，则血脉失畅，胸痹、心痛之证即发，据此，习用《伤寒论》少阴病方剂治疗心血管病，疗效显著。如取麻黄细辛附子汤治慢性肺源性心脏病，由于咳喘日久，肺病及肾，正气不固，屡招寒袭，形成肺蕴寒饮，肾虚不纳的病理状态。症见咳喘气短，咯痰白沫，遇寒频发，胸痞心悸，肢体浮肿，脉沉细等。治疗亟当宣肺散寒，补肾温阳，方用麻黄细辛附子汤最为合拍，方中麻黄虽治咳喘，但作用在肺，其效甚暂，必与附子配伍，肺肾同治，内外衔调，方可使风寒散而阳自归，精得藏而阴不扰。细辛入肺、肾二经，功能温饮定喘，用量须达4.5-9克才能起效，其虽辛散有余，但合以附子，则可泻肺纳肾，攻补兼顾，常与小青龙汤、三子养亲汤、苓桂术甘汤同用，有相得益彰之功。取附子汤治冠心病，心绞痛及心肌梗塞等引起的胸痛，多伴有痛势彻背，神萎乏力，汗时自出，舌淡质紫，脉沉弱等，其实质多属阳虚阴凝，阳虚为本，阴凝为标，立法用药当以温阳为主，附子汤以附子温阳散寒，人参、白术、茯苓甘温益气，芍药和营活血，诸药合用，共奏温经散寒，益气活血之功，用于冠心病，不仅止痛效果明显，且疗效巩固持久。若胸闷心悸者加丹参、葛根，胸痛剧烈者，加参三七、血竭，唇青舌紫者加莪术、水蛭等。取通脉四逆汤治病态窦房结综合征，所表现的脉象如沉、迟、涩、结、代等证，病机为阳气衰惫，寒凝血脉，立法务必峻补阳气，逐寒通脉，方用通脉四逆汤大辛大热之剂，意在离照当空，阴霾自去，则脉复出，临症又需加减化裁，如神疲短气者加党参、黄芪以补气，舌红口干者加麦冬、五味子以养阴，胸闷不舒者加郁金、菖蒲以开郁等。
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기