Terminology, language & communication RE: Doc

[Guest guest]

Hi Doc

 

I dont disagree with the fact the problem is the way western educated people see

the problem at all. The point I was trying to make is when using very simular

terms that can have double or misleading meanings it is easy to jump to the

wrong conclusion. Yes people can learn the differences but surely it is common

sense to make things as clear as possible. If we used the term vitality system

rather than Kidney energy they would have no preconceptions regarding the

meaning and the this term leads the mind to thinking far more is involved than

just the actual organ. With this in mind what is the harm in making things more

clear. As for me being arrogant im sure that could be said about most people on

here at times.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Doc <Doc wrote:

 

Manu,

 

The underlying syndrome in this case is the difference in paradigms. What

Alopaths see as THE DISEASE is to the TCM/CM practitioner no more than one of

many factors in creating a picture or pattern.

 

The problems that arise in terms of communication are not the words or terms we

use. To place that as the problem is similar to seeing an ulcer as a single

disease or syndrome when we know through our CM studies that an ulcer is no more

than a symptom of many differing syndromes.

 

With this in mind I often work with Alopathic docs.

I communicate quite well with MDs and RNs by explaininmg and educating them as

we talk.In the process i help educate them to the ways in which CM can help

their patients, thus generating more referals for my clinic and -long term- for

TCM.

 

Fully 10% of my patient referals come from MDs.

 

 

I also BTW lecture at the local Alopathic University as part of their CAM

sstudies. This allows the would be docs to have this as part of their picture

long before they enter the clinic.

 

As to the Unification you seem so keen on; having read what you have posted of

the book I reject the concept.

 

Doc

 

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

 

 

Hi Homi

 

The idea was not is not to change every word to western word just the ones that

have simular, misleading or confusing context when when working with TCM. As

often many western versions do have this problem.

 

 

" The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,

but because of the people who don't do anything about it. "

-- Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think you are missing the point, Manu.

There is no way 'vitality system' can substitute for shen qi/kidney

qi(not 'energy')', as kidney qi is a very specific term among many

applying to the kidney. Look at any Chinese language medical

dictionary under kidney, and you will see what I mean, or the Wiseman

Practical Dictionary. By substituting 'vitality system' for kidney qi

you have lost all of the nuances of Chinese diagnosis to a general

rubric that is not by any means an equivalent term. There are many

aspects to the kidney in Chinese medicine, and several terms that apply

to the channel, the zang/viscera, and diagnosis/differentiation of

patterns associated with the kidney. You might as well use 'vitality

system' to refer to the spleen.

 

Without a direct connection to the Chinese language and use of

dictionaries, you are simply making up comparisons based on the whims

of the author.

 

So, you've hardly convinced me of anything.

 

Does the author's book have a glossary?

 

 

On Oct 17, 2004, at 10:25 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> I dont disagree with the fact the problem is the way western educated

> people see the problem at all. The point I was trying to make is when

> using very simular terms that can have double or misleading meanings

> it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. Yes people can learn the

> differences but surely it is common sense to make things as clear as

> possible. If we used the term vitality system rather than Kidney

> energy they would have no preconceptions regarding the meaning and the

> this term leads the mind to thinking far more is involved than just

> the actual organ. With this in mind what is the harm in making things

> more clear. As for me being arrogant im sure that could be said about

> most people on here at times.

[Guest guest]

(Doc said) <The underlying syndrome in this case is the difference in

paradigms.>

 

(Manu said)>I dont disagree with the fact the problem is the way western

educated people see the problem at all.<

 

Manu, you miss my point completely. I am /was saying that wishing to change our

language is an approach that sees symptom as syndrome.

Allopathic medicine and CM/TCM have two completly different world views.

Changing our terms so that they no longer connect to the original Chinese

concepts will not change that. It will however make it even more dificult to

teach non Chinese speakers to embrace the underlying paradigm of CM.

 

 

(Manu said)>surely it is common sense to make things as clear as possible. If

we used the term vitality system rather than Kidney energy they would have no

preconceptions regarding the meaning and the this term leads the mind to

thinking far more is involved than just the actual organ.<

 

Using terms that do not in any way correspond to the concepts of CM is not

common sense. Far from it.

 

>With this in mind what is the harm in making things more clear.<

 

If it made things more clear your statement would be true but as an example

vitality system does not describe even a small portion of the functions of the

Shen (Kidney). I am not an Alopathic Physician. I am a Doctor of Oriental

Medicine. I do not have any desire to abandon the basic paradigm of my medicine.

We think in words and changing words changes concepts.

I do not wish to do this. To that end i learned to speak Medical Chinese just as

an Allopath learns at least basic Medical Latin.

 

 

Doc

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Zev

 

Yes there is a glossary, tell me what you want to know and I will look it up.

Regarding the veriance in terms that is dealt with, I am just trying to make a

simple general point if you would like a more specific example give me one.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

I think you are missing the point, Manu.

There is no way 'vitality system' can substitute for shen qi/kidney

qi(not 'energy')', as kidney qi is a very specific term among many

applying to the kidney. Look at any Chinese language medical

dictionary under kidney, and you will see what I mean, or the Wiseman

Practical Dictionary. By substituting 'vitality system' for kidney qi

you have lost all of the nuances of Chinese diagnosis to a general

rubric that is not by any means an equivalent term. There are many

aspects to the kidney in Chinese medicine, and several terms that apply

to the channel, the zang/viscera, and diagnosis/differentiation of

patterns associated with the kidney. You might as well use 'vitality

system' to refer to the spleen.

 

Without a direct connection to the Chinese language and use of

dictionaries, you are simply making up comparisons based on the whims

of the author.

 

So, you've hardly convinced me of anything.

 

Does the author's book have a glossary?

 

 

On Oct 17, 2004, at 10:25 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> I dont disagree with the fact the problem is the way western educated

> people see the problem at all. The point I was trying to make is when

> using very simular terms that can have double or misleading meanings

> it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion. Yes people can learn the

> differences but surely it is common sense to make things as clear as

> possible. If we used the term vitality system rather than Kidney

> energy they would have no preconceptions regarding the meaning and the

> this term leads the mind to thinking far more is involved than just

> the actual organ. With this in mind what is the harm in making things

> more clear. As for me being arrogant im sure that could be said about

> most people on here at times.

[Guest guest]

Hi Doc

 

The point you have addressed is another major part of the argument e.g. symptom/

syndrome. This is such a big subject with out viewer all parts of his proposal

it is impossible to see how it could work. Rearding there world view both TCM

& WM doctors need to learn the differences in thinking patterns as they both have

there advantages. Regarding making it harder for westerners to learn I can

assure you that is not the case as it has helped me emmensly. I struggled to

make sense of TCM theory and even when I finally thought I had it I was still

often off the mark. Since reading this book I find it considerable easier to

understand TCM text when studying now as the concepts are obvious now. Every

seems to think the idea is throw the baby out with the water, this is not the

case the original theory still remains.

 

Regarding our discussion about using the term vitality systen instead of kidney

energy, the term kidney energy makes things even less clear for an uneducated

person. In both cases it comes down to correct education about what the term

means, well if you have to teach them anyway why not use the less conflicting

term. I hope this will give you some food for thought, kepp them coming.

 

Regards

 

manu

 

 

Doc <Doc wrote:

 

(Doc said) <The underlying syndrome in this case is the difference in

paradigms.>

 

(Manu said)>I dont disagree with the fact the problem is the way western

educated people see the problem at all.<

 

Manu, you miss my point completely. I am /was saying that wishing to change our

language is an approach that sees symptom as syndrome.

Allopathic medicine and CM/TCM have two completly different world views.

Changing our terms so that they no longer connect to the original Chinese

concepts will not change that. It will however make it even more dificult to

teach non Chinese speakers to embrace the underlying paradigm of CM.

 

 

(Manu said)>surely it is common sense to make things as clear as possible. If we

used the term vitality system rather than Kidney energy they would have no

preconceptions regarding the meaning and the this term leads the mind to

thinking far more is involved than just the actual organ.<

 

Using terms that do not in any way correspond to the concepts of CM is not

common sense. Far from it.

 

>With this in mind what is the harm in making things more clear.<

 

If it made things more clear your statement would be true but as an example

vitality system does not describe even a small portion of the functions of the

Shen (Kidney). I am not an Alopathic Physician. I am a Doctor of Oriental

Medicine. I do not have any desire to abandon the basic paradigm of my medicine.

We think in words and changing words changes concepts.

I do not wish to do this. To that end i learned to speak Medical Chinese just as

an Allopath learns at least basic Medical Latin.

 

 

Doc

[Guest guest]

Manu,

You site yourself as an example of how this system helps improve the level of

understanding of TCM / CM theory.

In no way do i mean to be insulting or put you down however;

i must note that my experience of you from what you have written on the list is

exactly the type of misunderstanding of TCM/CM concepts that i fear would arise

from the sytem you advocate.

Doc

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

>..... Regarding making it harder for westerners to learn I can assure you that

is not the case as it has helped me emmensly. I struggled to make sense of TCM

theory and even when I finally thought I had it I was still often off the mark.

Since reading this book I find it considerable easier to understand TCM text

when studying now as the concepts are obvious now. <

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Doc

 

You know what that is a fair comment and one of the biggest problems is their

are so many versions of TCM with so many interpretations. The reason I had

trouble learning some concepts is that often western teachers cannot explain

things clearly and after reading so many books it felt like other than the basic

theory they were all talking about different things. You would think talking to

Chinese tutors would help but ther english is often very limited so

misunderstandings are so prevelant in TCM education. So in general I dont

disagree with your comment of how I who is not trained in traditionally in China

for example could still be slightly off the mark with some aspects now. Now that

is not an easy thing to admit, most western trained practitioners will never

admit there training is less than someone born and trained in China. Now to put

your mind at rest I am getting several acupuncturists (qualified and trained in

China) to read this book and write a review for this forum. I will

post them no matter what the feedback, good or bad. I have already had one guy

read it and he had an even higher opinion than me, I am waiting for him to put

his opinion in writing, hes in no hurry because he knows its just for this

forum. Will let you know when they are recieved.

 

Lastly I will say that when I respond to people's specific questions we are only

discussing a small part of each subject. Unless you ask me a very specific

question you should expect a very general answer, a general answer makes it very

easy to go it will never work because this. For once I would like to hear

someone say how has he solved this problem rather than it could never worked

because. This is why I pasted the bruce Lee quote that was called arrogant, all

I get is negative comments rather than intelligent questions to dwelve deeper.

Thanks Doc you do have some solid points.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Doc <Doc wrote:

 

Manu,

You site yourself as an example of how this system helps improve the level of

understanding of TCM / CM theory.

In no way do i mean to be insulting or put you down however;

i must note that my experience of you from what you have written on the list is

exactly the type of misunderstanding of TCM/CM concepts that i fear would arise

from the sytem you advocate.

Doc

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

>..... Regarding making it harder for westerners to learn I can assure you that

is not the case as it has helped me emmensly. I struggled to make sense of TCM

theory and even when I finally thought I had it I was still often off the mark.

Since reading this book I find it considerable easier to understand TCM text

when studying now as the concepts are obvious now. <

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Manu,

I admire your tenacity but can you not see when you are flogging a dead

horse?

All the best Ray Ford

 

----

 

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, 21 October 2004 2:45:18 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Terminology, language & communication RE: Doc

 

Hi Doc

 

You know what that is a fair comment and one of the biggest problems is

their are so many versions of TCM with so many interpretations. The reason I

had trouble learning some concepts is that often western teachers cannot

explain things clearly and after reading so many books it felt like other

than the basic theory they were all talking about different things. You

would think talking to Chinese tutors would help but ther english is often

very limited so misunderstandings are so prevelant in TCM education. So in

general I dont disagree with your comment of how I who is not trained in

traditionally in China for example could still be slightly off the mark with

some aspects now. Now that is not an easy thing to admit, most western

trained practitioners will never admit there training is less than someone

born and trained in China. Now to put your mind at rest I am getting several

acupuncturists (qualified and trained in China) to read this book and write

a review for this foru!

m. I will

post them no matter what the feedback, good or bad. I have already had one

guy read it and he had an even higher opinion than me, I am waiting for him

to put his opinion in writing, hes in no hurry because he knows its just for

this forum. Will let you know when they are recieved.

 

Lastly I will say that when I respond to people's specific questions we are

only discussing a small part of each subject. Unless you ask me a very

specific question you should expect a very general answer, a general answer

makes it very easy to go it will never work because this. For once I would

like to hear someone say how has he solved this problem rather than it could

never worked because. This is why I pasted the bruce Lee quote that was

called arrogant, all I get is negative comments rather than intelligent

questions to dwelve deeper. Thanks Doc you do have some solid points.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Doc <Doc wrote:

 

Manu,

You site yourself as an example of how this system helps improve the level

of understanding of TCM / CM theory.

In no way do i mean to be insulting or put you down however;

i must note that my experience of you from what you have written on the list

is exactly the type of misunderstanding of TCM/CM concepts that i fear would

arise from the sytem you advocate.

Doc

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

>..... Regarding making it harder for westerners to learn I can assure you

that is not the case as it has helped me emmensly. I struggled to make sense

of TCM theory and even when I finally thought I had it I was still often off

the mark. Since reading this book I find it considerable easier to

understand TCM text when studying now as the concepts are obvious now.