Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Hi Zev Actually as I have have posted in many times recently if you read the book you would see he gives very detailed reasons for why he has named things the way he did. And your argument would be correct if we were talking about TCM doing its own thing how ever we are talking about combining TCM and WM to make a whole new medicine, this is another subject all together.TCM doctors can continue to practice TCM as they have always done but as stated before thepotential of combining the two are far greater providing nothing valuable or essential is lost. This meanss TCM theory would not be watered down at all, the term for this new medicine is Synergetic Medicine. Read the articles I have posted, I will try to find some reviews and post them soon. Regards Manu <zrosenbe wrote: This line of argument doesn't strike any chord with me. All a CM physician has to do is communicate and explain what kidney qi vacuity means, and then there won't be confusion. If a patient runs to a Western doctor afterwards asking to have his kidneys checked, then the CM physician has not properly done their job in explaining what they are talking about. I haven't seen you propose any alternative terms to use for those you think are problematic, so your argument is falling on deaf ears until you give specific examples with their Chinese source characters, pinyin and equivalents. Inventing an entirely different terminology with the sole goal of impressing Western ears seems to be building castles made of sand, in my opinion. A term like 'vitality system' really doesn't mean anything if it doesn't relate to the source characters that were originally used. On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very > common. For example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and > been told they have a kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM > doctor and ran a test on there kidney, the WM doctor said there is > nothing wrong with your kidney according to the tests. After talking > with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor was talking about > the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM doctor > says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is > talking about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone > strength, horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a > western educated person is misleading, this is the problem with the > commonly used interpratations and translations. As stated before this > is easily soved, the meridian system has to be made easily > destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM doctor > said you have a problem with your vitality system > (instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no > assumption that you are simply talking about the actual organ. For > anyone to argue with this point is just sticking there head in the > sand, we are in the west and must adapt not the other way round as > doug explained nicely the other day. ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 15, 2004 Report Share Posted October 15, 2004 Manu, This is a big turnaround from the type of posts that I replied to. What happened to TCM having to not clash with WM to survive? This is the first mention that I can recall where you propose a new separate medicine called " synergetic medicine " . I have taken all your previous posts on this topic claiming the end of TCM if is does not fit and please WM. You seemed quite clear about all this previously and this seems a large change of opinion on your behalf. Best Wishes, Steve On 15/10/2004, at 3:56 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Zev > > Actually as I have have posted in many times recently if you read the > book you would see he gives very detailed reasons for why he has named > things the way he did. And your argument would be correct if we were > talking about TCM doing its own thing how ever we are talking about > combining TCM and WM to make a whole new medicine, this is another > subject all together.TCM doctors can continue to practice TCM as they > have always done but as stated before thepotential of combining the > two are far greater providing nothing valuable or essential is lost. > This meanss TCM theory would not be watered down at all, the term for > this new medicine is Synergetic Medicine. Read the articles I have > posted, I will try to find some reviews and post them soon. > > Regards > > Manu > > <zrosenbe wrote: > This line of argument doesn't strike any chord with me. All a CM > physician has to do is communicate and explain what kidney qi vacuity > means, and then there won't be confusion. If a patient runs to a > Western doctor afterwards asking to have his kidneys checked, then the > CM physician has not properly done their job in explaining what they > are talking about. > > > I haven't seen you propose any alternative terms to use for those you > think are problematic, so your argument is falling on deaf ears until > you give specific examples with their Chinese source characters, pinyin > and equivalents. Inventing an entirely different terminology with the > sole goal of impressing Western ears seems to be building castles made > of sand, in my opinion. A term like 'vitality system' really doesn't > mean anything if it doesn't relate to the source characters that were > originally used. > > > On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very >> common. For example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and >> been told they have a kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM >> doctor and ran a test on there kidney, the WM doctor said there is >> nothing wrong with your kidney according to the tests. After talking >> with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor was talking about >> the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM doctor >> says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is >> talking about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone >> strength, horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a >> western educated person is misleading, this is the problem with the >> commonly used interpratations and translations. As stated before this >> is easily soved, the meridian system has to be made easily >> destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM doctor >> said you have a problem with your vitality system >> (instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no >> assumption that you are simply talking about the actual organ. For >> anyone to argue with this point is just sticking there head in the >> sand, we are in the west and must adapt not the other way round as >> doug explained nicely the other day. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Hi Zev Fair point, but be careful as I believe you may have taken some of the questions I am replying to out of context. I still do believe that TCM would be far more excepted if it did not conflict with TCM that goes without saying. The subject is so big go back and look at my posts and you will see I was answering a very specific question. I believe people can continue to use traditional terminology if they wish however if we can have a non conflicting version as well this would benefit us all. Regards Manu Steven Slater <laozhongyi wrote: Manu, This is a big turnaround from the type of posts that I replied to. What happened to TCM having to not clash with WM to survive? This is the first mention that I can recall where you propose a new separate medicine called " synergetic medicine " . I have taken all your previous posts on this topic claiming the end of TCM if is does not fit and please WM. You seemed quite clear about all this previously and this seems a large change of opinion on your behalf. Best Wishes, Steve On 15/10/2004, at 3:56 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > > > Hi Zev > > Actually as I have have posted in many times recently if you read the > book you would see he gives very detailed reasons for why he has named > things the way he did. And your argument would be correct if we were > talking about TCM doing its own thing how ever we are talking about > combining TCM and WM to make a whole new medicine, this is another > subject all together.TCM doctors can continue to practice TCM as they > have always done but as stated before thepotential of combining the > two are far greater providing nothing valuable or essential is lost. > This meanss TCM theory would not be watered down at all, the term for > this new medicine is Synergetic Medicine. Read the articles I have > posted, I will try to find some reviews and post them soon. > > Regards > > Manu > > <zrosenbe wrote: > This line of argument doesn't strike any chord with me. All a CM > physician has to do is communicate and explain what kidney qi vacuity > means, and then there won't be confusion. If a patient runs to a > Western doctor afterwards asking to have his kidneys checked, then the > CM physician has not properly done their job in explaining what they > are talking about. > > > I haven't seen you propose any alternative terms to use for those you > think are problematic, so your argument is falling on deaf ears until > you give specific examples with their Chinese source characters, pinyin > and equivalents. Inventing an entirely different terminology with the > sole goal of impressing Western ears seems to be building castles made > of sand, in my opinion. A term like 'vitality system' really doesn't > mean anything if it doesn't relate to the source characters that were > originally used. > > > On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote: > >> With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very >> common. For example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and >> been told they have a kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM >> doctor and ran a test on there kidney, the WM doctor said there is >> nothing wrong with your kidney according to the tests. After talking >> with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor was talking about >> the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM doctor >> says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is >> talking about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone >> strength, horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a >> western educated person is misleading, this is the problem with the >> commonly used interpratations and translations. As stated before this >> is easily soved, the meridian system has to be made easily >> destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM doctor >> said you have a problem with your vitality system >> (instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no >> assumption that you are simply talking about the actual organ. For >> anyone to argue with this point is just sticking there head in the >> sand, we are in the west and must adapt not the other way round as >> doug explained nicely the other day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 --- manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote: > > with this patient it was obvious that the TCM > doctor was talking about > > the reproductive system not the actual kidney. This is the point that rubs me a little the wrong way. The kidney, in western medicine, is limited and defined by its /supposed/ anatomical boundaries - therefore the statement " the actual kidney " . What if we really understood that the suprarenal glands are located right on top of the western-delimited kidney for a real good reason? And what if we knew that the western kidney stores a white matter which is " actually " the jing (it does and can be seen upon dissection)? What if we knew that there was a set of tissues which connect the left and right kidneys together and serve to conduct qi between them? It is then not so easy to say that western medicine has the " correct " definition of kidney. Certainly WM has a very specific definition of kidney. In and of itself, however, that definition does not mean anything except that something has been defined. Thanks for reading, Hugo _________ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.