Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the effort and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that it was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version of what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the translation to our students. Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an important historical perspective by being a fairly literal translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used for the national boards. We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It projects the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)--- although there is that pun with the " mount " and the character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems in English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we in the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is on their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance is not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it refers to the rupture itself. We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We need to communicate with each other as well as with medical professionals in different fields and the public at large. Wiseman's terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained translators. ((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? But I don't want to start a new argument.)) While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language and explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done in the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb new ideas and make them it's own, too. When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for brief passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never really appreciated. I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if this note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 Hi Jim, sorry I am responding to a different email, but I too, would like a copy of your 'cancer and pulse diagnosis article.' Thank you. Paul --- James Ramholz <OMJournal wrote: > Having been an English major in college, I can > appreciate the effort > and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and > the fact that it > was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the > final version of > what a contemporary medical translation should be, > largely because > the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up > translating the > translation to our students. > > Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman > because it offers an > important historical perspective by being a fairly > literal > translation. But because we live in a Western > culture and are > attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) > with it, I feel we > should craft Chinese medicine in a professional > Western language. > Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in > textbooks used > for the national boards. > > We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for > shan4. It projects > the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on > another object)--- > although there is that pun with the " mount " and the > character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I > think Wiseman > uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi > shan). But, I go > along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too > many problems in > English if it's going to be our contemporary > terminology. > > While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's > translation brings across > the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen > had in mind, we in > the West have already catagorize the problem > differently. There's a > wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, > the focus is on > their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical > dictionaries I > have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese > reference appears to > focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the > protuberance is > not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal > hernias; it refers > to the rupture itself. > > We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the > other for > contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. > There is enough > room for medical anthropology, and creating a > contemporary clinical > vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are > grafting to. We > need to communicate with each other as well as with > medical > professionals in different fields and the public at > large. Wiseman's > terminology, while historically useful does not seem > to be the best > choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument > will be moot in > the future. It's going on now because our field is > too small, the > resources are so limited, and there are so few well > trained > translators. > > ((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can > translations be > reliable if the translators are not successful > clinicians, too? But I > don't want to start a new argument.)) > > While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or > " medical > acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely > scientific language and > explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot > science can > offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm > combining the > material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm > not familiar > with any precedent other than my teacher. It's > certainly not done in > the literature that I've read. And I also discuss > how epistemology > is changed by quantum mechanics, how information > theory and > complexity form a conceptual perspective to > understand pulses and 5 > elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can > also absorb new > ideas and make them it's own, too. > > When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have > any translations. > I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly > acupuncture and > herbal indications. I have about 300 books in > Chinese, from basic > herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. > Except for brief > passages, I have no real interest to be a translator > per se. It > sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts > are never really > appreciated. > > I may have have hit the reply from your email so I > apologize if this > note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. > > > > > > > > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Messenger. http://im./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 Dear Jim, 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have had many dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity theory and systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), which uses a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb down' and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few terms may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of the English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. I have been using the Wiseman technical language in my Chinese internal medicine classes for the last few years, and I have NEVER had a student complain about the choice of terms, or have difficulty understanding them. Au contraire, the dictionary and terminology actually have increased their perception of terms , and has inspired many of the students to take on the study of medical Chinese voluntarily. 2) The Wiseman dictionary is still evolving. . .he is available for input on choice of English terms, and has already made changes. You can contact him through Bob Felt. >Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the effort >and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that it >was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version of >what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because >the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the >translation to our students. > >Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an >important historical perspective by being a fairly literal >translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are >attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we >should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. >Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used >for the national boards. > >We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It projects >the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)--- >although there is that pun with the " mount " and the >character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman >uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go >along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems in >English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. > >While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across >the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we in >the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a >wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is on >their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I >have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to >focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance is >not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it refers >to the rupture itself. > >We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for >contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough >room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical >vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We >need to communicate with each other as well as with medical >professionals in different fields and the public at large. Wiseman's >terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best >choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in >the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the >resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained >translators. > >((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be >reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? But I >don't want to start a new argument.)) > >While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical >acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language and >explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can >offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the >material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar >with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done in >the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology >is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and >complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 >elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb new >ideas and make them it's own, too. > >When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. >I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and >herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic >herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for brief >passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It >sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never really >appreciated. > >I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if this >note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. > > > > > > > > >------ >@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net. >Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now: >http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 When I look at chinese characters, it is not clear to me what they mean. I am forced to use a stroke order dictionary to identify most of the characters. then I finally reach a translation and a common english definition of the term or phrase. In some cases, the translation term is literal, other times connotative, others medicalized. An example of this triumvirate for shan qi could be foxy mounting, protuberance and hernia. Since reading chinese comes tediously to me, I prefer to read English. If I read the term hernia, which was typical back in the eighties, then shan qi has been reduced to the modern understanding of hernia, when it actually may include testicular torsion, varicocele, spermatocele, epididymitis, among others. Shan is a symptom/sign complex that is not merely the intestines poking a hole through connective tissue. So in both historical AND clinical AND academic texts, I prefer a term that does not suggest connotations that may be wrong. As a new student, I would have to start from scratch, so it really would be no harder to learn vacuity than deficiency, for example, no harder than saying si or oui instead of yes. I would indeed be forced to a glossary frequently, especially early in my studies, but so what? I would avoid the trap of connotating TCM terms acco Just like reading Chinese foces one to the dictionary, so does any professional jargon force one to the glossary. I mean anatomists could just say, " the kneebone is connected to the shinbone " , but that lack of precision would hardly be a basis for safe surgery. Why doesn't TCM demand the same level of precision. This level of technical precision hardly precludes a orthopedic surgeon from talking about knee surgery to his patient in general, lay terms. But I wouldn't get surgery from a doctor whose limit of understanding ended with activities that could only be expressed in common speech. I expect my professionals to know things in depth. Wiseman terminology gives this depth. No one says we have to talk that way. It reminds me of the first year medical history student who asked if we had to read the small print in Unschuld. Well, the small print is the source material. The large print is the commentary. If you only read commentary, which includes all connotatively translated TCM texts in my opinion, then you are at the mercy of the translator's biases. there is no way to trace the ideas back to their source. there is no way to be sure what term was used in the source. So your translator better be infallible in every way. Personally, I argue for a middle ground, where classics are translated with commentary, as in Paradigm's SHL. Finally, as for the issue of whether a translator must also practice, that would only be the case when considering the commentary portion of a translation. Since the methodology presented by wiseman is denotative, clinical experience should not be an issue once the terminology has been standardized. It is also worth noting that the original work in this area was done by a team that included several practitoners, including Andy Ellis. And the work continues to be revised with input from all interested translators, most of whom are practitioners. Paradigm's SHL is a great example, because it was done by Wiseman plus an American px and a chinese scholar/px. , " " < zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > Dear Jim, > 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have had many > dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity theory and > systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), which uses > a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific > dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb down' > and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few terms > may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of the > English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 Z'ev, I totally agree with everything you said about the Wiseman translations. I have not had any problem, nor have most students, although some non-English-as-a-first-language students have had problems. I think his language is rich and faithful to the original Chinese (not that I could know for sure, but it sounds it). Someone recently said that some of this group " look down their collective noses " at things like NAET and candida and homeopathy...I don't! I feel that I have chosen TCM as my medicine, and it could take a lifetime and more to fully understand it. Anything that deepens my understanding and allows me to be a purist in TCM, including Wiseman's wise language, is of the utmost value to me. Julie Chambers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 James, A very thoughtful and insightful reply. And yes, it does make sense to have some of the reference texts done up this way, but for day to day, practical use it doesn't make much sense to me either. Perhaps a practical way to meet in the middle of this issue is to have the texts written in " readable english " (or " chinglish " (g)), with the appropriate western medical terminology, and then have " Wiseman et al's " grammatically correct translations added in paraenthesis, or as a foot note at the bottom of the page, and then linked to a text specific glosary in the back of the book listing these " textual appendages " , along with the original chinese characters, a brief discription of the term used, reference to the appropriate dictionary(s), and a list of all the appropriate synonyms and alternate definitions and explanations for the terms used. This could preserve all the good intentions and hard work of the translators, while also giving us usable, practical, and readable documents and texts to further the study and education of TCM in America. You know James, the funny thing is I also read a little (Xiao Yi Dian) Medical Chinese, and the characters I can read don't " say " anything even similar to this new style of translation. I guess it's all just part of the process of our growing pains in developing our own unique form of TCM here in the west. I also completely agree with you about TCM being more than able to (and actually needing to) accomodate and incorporate new ideas, new knowledge, and scientific, technical, clinical, practical, and philosophical constructs, and modern technology into it's ever growing and evolving matrix. Enjoyed your thoughtful response. All the best, Bruce ----(original message follows) In a message dated 05/10/2000 1:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time, OMJournal writes: << Subj: More about translation 05/10/2000 1:31:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time OMJournal (James Ramholz) Reply-to: <A HREF= " " > @</A> Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the effort and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that it was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version of what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the translation to our students. Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an important historical perspective by being a fairly literal translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used for the national boards. We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It projects the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)--- although there is that pun with the " mount " and the character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems in English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we in the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is on their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance is not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it refers to the rupture itself. We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We need to communicate with each other as well as with medical professionals in different fields and the public at large. Wiseman's terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained translators. ((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? But I don't want to start a new argument.)) While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language and explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done in the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb new ideas and make them it's own, too. When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for brief passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never really appreciated. I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if this note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. ------ @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net. Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now: http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ ------ Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <sentto-201013-912-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT) > Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v73.12) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 May 2000 04:31:15 -0400 Received: from hl. (hl. [208.50.144.86]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 May 2000 04:30:50 -0400 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-201013-912-GRCanning=aol.com (AT) returns (DOT) Received: from [10.1.10.37] by hl. with NNFMP; 10 May 2000 08:30:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 32758 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO qg.) (10.1.2.27) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 904 invoked from network); 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 Received: from ef. (10.1.2.111) by iqg. with SMTP; 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: OMJournal Received: from [10.1.10.30] by ef. with NNFMP; 10 May 2000 08:30:21 -0000 Message-ID: <8fb6mo+duf5 (AT) eGroups (DOT) com> In-<36.5b0a611.264a636d User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster " James Ramholz " <OMJournal MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list ; contact -owner Delivered-mailing list Precedence: bulk List-Un: <-> Wed, 10 May 2000 08:30:16 -0000 More about translation Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 Thanks for the feedback, Julie. I don't understand why anyone would think this list was 'down on' homeopathy or candida. . . . I personally love classical homeopathy. Candida is a bian bing/a disease diagnosis, categorized under chong/parasitic disorders in Chinese medicine. All Todd or I were saying was that treating it only symptomatically won't cure it. As far as NAET goes. . . .I won't open that can of worms right now. >Z'ev, I totally agree with everything you said about the Wiseman >translations. I have not had any problem, nor have most students, although >some non-English-as-a-first-language students have had problems. I think his >language is rich and faithful to the original Chinese (not that I could know >for sure, but it sounds it). Someone recently said that some of this group > " look down their collective noses " at things like NAET and candida and >homeopathy...I don't! I feel that I have chosen TCM as my medicine, and it >could take a lifetime and more to fully understand it. Anything that deepens >my understanding and allows me to be a purist in TCM, including Wiseman's >wise language, is of the utmost value to me. > >Julie Chambers > >------ >Win $500 at freewarranty.com! >Click Here: >http://click./1/4031/9/_/542111/_/958020289/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2000 Report Share Posted May 10, 2000 hello Dr. Rosenburg, my training and philosophy are akin to those of Dr. James Ramholz. i find Dr. Wiseman's vocabulary very heavy-handed. i much prefer that of G. Maciocia or the Toyohari Japanese school. In my training we were often referred to allopathic pathology, where " Kidney Vacuity " referred to adrenal insufficiency, further refined to a DHEA or cortisol insufficiency, and a Deficiency in the San Jiao pulse position reflected as a lack of proper function in the nervous system and, depending on the balance of the other pulse indications, often an irregular functioning of the hypothalmus. We live in a Western world. Oriental medicine as incorporated here must respect these cultural parameters. Furthermore, if we are to gain respect with accepted practitioners of medicine, such as MD's, DO's, etc., we must be able to communicate in the language of this culture. So though I may be treating a deficient kidney jing condition, i speak in terms of adrenal hormones when corresponding with allopathic physicians. When treating a Damp (slippery, etc.) condition, e.g. Spleen to Lung pulse movement, often indicating Excess Phlegm, i refer to allergic parameters as understood by allopathic practitioners; and i use their jargon. i find it detrimental to my communicatiom with non-Oriental practitioners to refer to the Wiseman vocabulary. i respect and even admire Wiseman's work, but i must comment that it is ultimately misguided. sincerely, luke , " " <zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > Dear Jim, > 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have had many > dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity theory and > systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), which uses > a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific > dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb down' > and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few terms > may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of the > English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. I have been using the > Wiseman technical language in my Chinese internal medicine classes for the > last few years, and I have NEVER had a student complain about the choice of > terms, or have difficulty understanding them. Au contraire, the dictionary > and terminology actually have increased their perception of terms , and has > inspired many of the students to take on the study of medical Chinese > voluntarily. > > 2) The Wiseman dictionary is still evolving. . .he is available for input > on choice of English terms, and has already made changes. You can contact > him through Bob Felt. > > > > > > >Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the effort > >and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that it > >was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version of > >what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because > >the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the > >translation to our students. > > > >Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an > >important historical perspective by being a fairly literal > >translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are > >attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we > >should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. > >Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used > >for the national boards. > > > >We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It projects > >the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)- -- > >although there is that pun with the " mount " and the > >character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman > >uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go > >along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems in > >English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. > > > >While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across > >the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we in > >the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a > >wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is on > >their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I > >have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to > >focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance is > >not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it refers > >to the rupture itself. > > > >We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for > >contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough > >room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical > >vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We > >need to communicate with each other as well as with medical > >professionals in different fields and the public at large. Wiseman's > >terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best > >choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in > >the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the > >resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained > >translators. > > > >((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be > >reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? But I > >don't want to start a new argument.)) > > > >While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical > >acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language and > >explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can > >offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the > >material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar > >with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done in > >the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology > >is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and > >complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 > >elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb new > >ideas and make them it's own, too. > > > >When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. > >I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and > >herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic > >herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for brief > >passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It > >sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never really > >appreciated. > > > >I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if this > >note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- ----- > >@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net. > >Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now: > >http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ > >- ----- > > > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 Luke, To say that kidney vacuity EQUALS adrenal, DHEA or cortisol insufficiency is speculative at best. . . .if you are talking 'Western world' parameters, there have been none of the necessary clinical studies done to make such concrete correlations. It is an error to reduce kidney jing to adrenal hormones, and a disservice to communicate to an allopathic physicians in this way. Chinese medical language is NOT based on anatomy or physiology. As Wiseman points out, " it is the qualitative relationships, not the component parts, that are the subject of the (Chinese) physician's clinical investigation. " In my experience, not only do allopathic physicians respect Chinese medicine when communicated well, and, yes, according to Wiseman definitions, they do not like pseudo-allopathic reductionism of Chinese medical terms. Chinese medicine is not some pre-modern, crude version of modern medicine. It is a grand system that stands side by side with Western medicine, each with its strengths and weaknesses, each to be communicated on its own terms. Luke, why shouldn't we demand that Western physicians communicate their data to us in Chinese medical terms? Does this sound ridiculous to you? Even specialists within Western medicine when communicating often have to reach for their dictionaries to understand certain concepts. >hello Dr. Rosenburg, > >my training and philosophy are akin to those of Dr. James Ramholz. i >find Dr. Wiseman's vocabulary very heavy-handed. i much prefer that >of G. Maciocia or the Toyohari Japanese school. > >In my training we were often referred to allopathic pathology, >where " Kidney Vacuity " referred to adrenal insufficiency, further >refined to a DHEA or cortisol insufficiency, and a Deficiency in the >San Jiao pulse position reflected as a lack of proper function in the >nervous system and, depending on the balance of the other pulse >indications, often an irregular functioning of the hypothalmus. > >We live in a Western world. Oriental medicine as incorporated here >must respect these cultural parameters. Furthermore, if we are to >gain respect with accepted practitioners of medicine, such as MD's, >DO's, etc., we must be able to communicate in the language of this >culture. So though I may be treating a deficient kidney jing >condition, i speak in terms of adrenal hormones when corresponding >with allopathic physicians. When treating a Damp (slippery, etc.) >condition, e.g. Spleen to Lung pulse movement, often indicating >Excess Phlegm, i refer to allergic parameters as understood by >allopathic practitioners; and i use their jargon. > >i find it detrimental to my communicatiom with non-Oriental >practitioners to refer to the Wiseman vocabulary. > >i respect and even admire Wiseman's work, but i must comment that it >is ultimately misguided. > >sincerely, > >luke > > > > > > > > , " " ><zrosenberg@p...> wrote: >> Dear Jim, >> 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have >had many >> dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity >theory and >> systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), >which uses >> a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific >> dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb >down' >> and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few >terms >> may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of >the >> English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. I have been >using the >> Wiseman technical language in my Chinese internal medicine classes >for the >> last few years, and I have NEVER had a student complain about the >choice of >> terms, or have difficulty understanding them. Au contraire, the >dictionary >> and terminology actually have increased their perception of terms , >and has >> inspired many of the students to take on the study of medical >Chinese >> voluntarily. >> >> 2) The Wiseman dictionary is still evolving. . .he is available >for input >> on choice of English terms, and has already made changes. You can >contact >> him through Bob Felt. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the >effort >> >and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that >it >> >was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version >of >> >what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because >> >the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the >> >translation to our students. >> > >> >Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an >> >important historical perspective by being a fairly literal >> >translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are >> >attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we >> >should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. >> >Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used >> >for the national boards. >> > >> >We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It >projects >> >the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)- >-- >> >although there is that pun with the " mount " and the >> >character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman >> >uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go >> >along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems >in >> >English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. >> > >> >While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across >> >the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we >in >> >the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a >> >wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is >on >> >their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I >> >have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to >> >focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance >is >> >not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it >refers >> >to the rupture itself. >> > >> >We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for >> >contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough >> >room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical >> >vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We >> >need to communicate with each other as well as with medical >> >professionals in different fields and the public at large. >Wiseman's >> >terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best >> >choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in >> >the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the >> >resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained >> >translators. >> > >> >((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be >> >reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? >But I >> >don't want to start a new argument.)) >> > >> >While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical >> >acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language >and >> >explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can >> >offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the >> >material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar >> >with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done >in >> >the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology >> >is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and >> >complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 >> >elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb >new >> >ideas and make them it's own, too. >> > >> >When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. >> >I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and >> >herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic >> >herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for >brief >> >passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It >> >sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never >really >> >appreciated. >> > >> >I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if >this >> >note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >- >----- >> >@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the >net. >> >Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install >now: >> >http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ >> >- >----- >> > >> >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > >------ >Win $500 at freewarranty.com! >Click Here: >http://click./1/4031/9/_/542111/_/958024515/ >------ > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 Hello Z'ev, I thank you for your comments and hope that you are healthy and content. I would like to point out that I did not write that Kidney Vacuity EQUALS adrenal, DHEA, or cortisol insufficiency but that it referred to this situation. And though anecdotal, at American WholeHealth, physicians often used Great Smokies functional medicine labs to determine hormone levels and we found that there was a correlation between adrenal deficiency and Jing deficiency. Forgive me if I was not clear. I would never reduce the richness of East Asian medicine to an allopathic blueprint! I agree with you when you explain that Chinese medical language is NOT based on anatomy. But I wonder about the physiology aspect. Much of my interest in Oriental medical cosmology is due to these " qualitative relationships " (as Wiseman points out). I have come to appreciate that physiology as explained in terms of functional medicine is much the same regarding a qualitative perspective. Einstein once described scientific theory in terms of a watch that could never be opened, so that we could never fully know exactly how it worked. We could merely theorize. Naturally different people would have different theories. The value of the various theories was judged on the ability to predict future events. I agree with you fully when you write that East Asian medicine is a grand system that stands side by side with Western medicine. But I believe there is Truth in the Universe, and along with Einstein, I hope that as we progress, a unification of all of these medical systems will occur. There is much to be praised in the work of those who strive to understand vibrational or energetic phenomenon and attempt to unite these various medical systems into a comrehensive model. I live and work in an American culture. I am however a practitioner of Oriental medicine. Naturally when I communicate with you I assume that when I speak of Jing Deficiency, you have a refined understanding and awareness of this pattern. When I explain it to a patient I explain the meanings of Jing, Qi, and Shen in a different way. When I work with allopathic physicians I do not dumb down my Oriental medical diagnosis. I try to understand it, and then to convey my understanding, from as many perspectives as possible. I do not " equate " one system with the other. I do however search for relationships and a language that best conveys these ideas. luke , " " <zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > Luke, > To say that kidney vacuity EQUALS adrenal, DHEA or cortisol > insufficiency is speculative at best. . . .if you are talking 'Western > world' parameters, there have been none of the necessary clinical studies > done to make such concrete correlations. It is an error to reduce kidney > jing to adrenal hormones, and a disservice to communicate to an allopathic > physicians in this way. Chinese medical language is NOT based on anatomy > or physiology. As Wiseman points out, " it is the qualitative > relationships, not the component parts, that are the subject of the > (Chinese) physician's clinical investigation. " > > In my experience, not only do allopathic physicians respect Chinese > medicine when communicated well, and, yes, according to Wiseman > definitions, they do not like pseudo-allopathic reductionism of Chinese > medical terms. Chinese medicine is not some pre-modern, crude version of > modern medicine. It is a grand system that stands side by side with > Western medicine, each with its strengths and weaknesses, each to be > communicated on its own terms. > > Luke, why shouldn't we demand that Western physicians communicate their > data to us in Chinese medical terms? Does this sound ridiculous to you? > Even specialists within Western medicine when communicating often have to > reach for their dictionaries to understand certain concepts. > > > > > > >hello Dr. Rosenburg, > > > >my training and philosophy are akin to those of Dr. James Ramholz. i > >find Dr. Wiseman's vocabulary very heavy-handed. i much prefer that > >of G. Maciocia or the Toyohari Japanese school. > > > >In my training we were often referred to allopathic pathology, > >where " Kidney Vacuity " referred to adrenal insufficiency, further > >refined to a DHEA or cortisol insufficiency, and a Deficiency in the > >San Jiao pulse position reflected as a lack of proper function in the > >nervous system and, depending on the balance of the other pulse > >indications, often an irregular functioning of the hypothalmus. > > > >We live in a Western world. Oriental medicine as incorporated here > >must respect these cultural parameters. Furthermore, if we are to > >gain respect with accepted practitioners of medicine, such as MD's, > >DO's, etc., we must be able to communicate in the language of this > >culture. So though I may be treating a deficient kidney jing > >condition, i speak in terms of adrenal hormones when corresponding > >with allopathic physicians. When treating a Damp (slippery, etc.) > >condition, e.g. Spleen to Lung pulse movement, often indicating > >Excess Phlegm, i refer to allergic parameters as understood by > >allopathic practitioners; and i use their jargon. > > > >i find it detrimental to my communicatiom with non-Oriental > >practitioners to refer to the Wiseman vocabulary. > > > >i respect and even admire Wiseman's work, but i must comment that it > >is ultimately misguided. > > > >sincerely, > > > >luke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , " " > ><zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > >> Dear Jim, > >> 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have > >had many > >> dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity > >theory and > >> systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), > >which uses > >> a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific > >> dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb > >down' > >> and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few > >terms > >> may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of > >the > >> English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. I have been > >using the > >> Wiseman technical language in my Chinese internal medicine classes > >for the > >> last few years, and I have NEVER had a student complain about the > >choice of > >> terms, or have difficulty understanding them. Au contraire, the > >dictionary > >> and terminology actually have increased their perception of terms , > >and has > >> inspired many of the students to take on the study of medical > >Chinese > >> voluntarily. > >> > >> 2) The Wiseman dictionary is still evolving. . .he is available > >for input > >> on choice of English terms, and has already made changes. You can > >contact > >> him through Bob Felt. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the > >effort > >> >and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that > >it > >> >was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version > >of > >> >what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because > >> >the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the > >> >translation to our students. > >> > > >> >Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an > >> >important historical perspective by being a fairly literal > >> >translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are > >> >attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we > >> >should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. > >> >Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used > >> >for the national boards. > >> > > >> >We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It > >projects > >> >the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)- > >-- > >> >although there is that pun with the " mount " and the > >> >character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman > >> >uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go > >> >along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems > >in > >> >English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. > >> > > >> >While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across > >> >the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we > >in > >> >the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a > >> >wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is > >on > >> >their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I > >> >have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to > >> >focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance > >is > >> >not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it > >refers > >> >to the rupture itself. > >> > > >> >We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for > >> >contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough > >> >room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical > >> >vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We > >> >need to communicate with each other as well as with medical > >> >professionals in different fields and the public at large. > >Wiseman's > >> >terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best > >> >choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in > >> >the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the > >> >resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained > >> >translators. > >> > > >> >((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be > >> >reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? > >But I > >> >don't want to start a new argument.)) > >> > > >> >While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical > >> >acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language > >and > >> >explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can > >> >offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the > >> >material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar > >> >with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done > >in > >> >the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology > >> >is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and > >> >complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 > >> >elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb > >new > >> >ideas and make them it's own, too. > >> > > >> >When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. > >> >I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and > >> >herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic > >> >herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for > >brief > >> >passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It > >> >sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never > >really > >> >appreciated. > >> > > >> >I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if > >this > >> >note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >------------------------------- --- > >----- > >> >@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the > >net. > >> >Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install > >now: > >> >http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ > >> >------------------------------- --- > >----- > >> > > >> >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > > > >- ----- > >Win $500 at freewarranty.com! > >Click Here: > >http://click./1/4031/9/_/542111/_/958024515/ > >- ----- > > > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 Having been trained in both the western and eastern medical arenas (I'm a naturopathic physician, a graduate of a four-year accredited medical school), I can say that both the western and eastern terminology has its pros and cons. True, it is very important to COMMUNICATE between practitioners which may have different backgrounds (note, that I dont also say EQUAL backgrounds). Eastern medicine (and western naturopathic medicine) are far superior in both disease management and prevention. I agree that modern western medicine has its many indispensible attributes; I speak generally, here. Disease differentiation and treatment from an eastern (primarily CLASSICAL) medical standpoint is by far more refined and effective, in my experience. Part of the problem with TCM these days is that it is, by nature, westernized (starting back with Mao's quest to separate, dissect, classify and quantify the BASIC elements of Chinese medical tradition). Too much has already been tossed. Further " tossing " of eastern terminology from what exists in the few translated texts would be simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In a sense, a new, less tried-and-true system of medicine is created having nothing to do with the original Daoist fundamentals which explain health and disease. Remember, Chinese medicine isn't about the body itself (the way a particular part is or isn't working right, e.g. the adrenal gland -which is a component of the greater Kidney organ system), but the microcosmic system which is our body and its relationship to the macrocosmic universe. Truely, the more I learn about Western medicine -and I'm always learning more, as my profession requires- the more I can appreciate the absolute genius of Classical Chinese Medicine. Regard, Thad Jacobs, N. D., M. S. O. M. - Luke Klincewicz <l.klincewicz Wednesday, May 10, 2000 10:55 PM Re: More about translation > hello Dr. Rosenburg, > > my training and philosophy are akin to those of Dr. James Ramholz. i > find Dr. Wiseman's vocabulary very heavy-handed. i much prefer that > of G. Maciocia or the Toyohari Japanese school. > > In my training we were often referred to allopathic pathology, > where " Kidney Vacuity " referred to adrenal insufficiency, further > refined to a DHEA or cortisol insufficiency, and a Deficiency in the > San Jiao pulse position reflected as a lack of proper function in the > nervous system and, depending on the balance of the other pulse > indications, often an irregular functioning of the hypothalmus. > > We live in a Western world. Oriental medicine as incorporated here > must respect these cultural parameters. Furthermore, if we are to > gain respect with accepted practitioners of medicine, such as MD's, > DO's, etc., we must be able to communicate in the language of this > culture. So though I may be treating a deficient kidney jing > condition, i speak in terms of adrenal hormones when corresponding > with allopathic physicians. When treating a Damp (slippery, etc.) > condition, e.g. Spleen to Lung pulse movement, often indicating > Excess Phlegm, i refer to allergic parameters as understood by > allopathic practitioners; and i use their jargon. > > i find it detrimental to my communicatiom with non-Oriental > practitioners to refer to the Wiseman vocabulary. > > i respect and even admire Wiseman's work, but i must comment that it > is ultimately misguided. > > sincerely, > > luke > , " " > <zrosenberg@p...> wrote: > > Dear Jim, > > 1) Again I am surprised at your response. In the past, we have > had many > > dialogues online and in person on the comparisons of complexity > theory and > > systems theory (as in such texts as Kelso's " Dynamic Patterns " ), > which uses > > a very technical language that often needs a glossary or scientific > > dictionary to understand. Why does Chinese medicine have to 'dumb > down' > > and use 'common English' to be used by practitioners? While a few > terms > > may be more difficult. . . .'foxy mounting' being one. . ..most of > the > > English choices are quite adequate, in my opinion. I have been > using the > > Wiseman technical language in my Chinese internal medicine classes > for the > > last few years, and I have NEVER had a student complain about the > choice of > > terms, or have difficulty understanding them. Au contraire, the > dictionary > > and terminology actually have increased their perception of terms , > and has > > inspired many of the students to take on the study of medical > Chinese > > voluntarily. > > > > 2) The Wiseman dictionary is still evolving. . .he is available > for input > > on choice of English terms, and has already made changes. You can > contact > > him through Bob Felt. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Having been an English major in college, I can appreciate the > effort > > >and trouble it took to assemble the dictionary---and the fact that > it > > >was necessary. But, I agree with you, it is not the final version > of > > >what a contemporary medical translation should be, largely because > > >the English end of it doesn't work well. We wind up translating the > > >translation to our students. > > > > > >Classical texts are well served by the Wiseman because it offers an > > >important historical perspective by being a fairly literal > > >translation. But because we live in a Western culture and are > > >attempting to intergrate (or at least interface) with it, I feel we > > >should craft Chinese medicine in a professional Western language. > > >Even use Western terms when applicable. At least in textbooks used > > >for the national boards. > > > > > >We shouldn't have to use terms like " mounting " for shan4. It > projects > > >the wrong idea in English (of something hanging on another object)- > -- > > >although there is that pun with the " mount " and the > > >character. " Protuberance " is acceptable. In fact, I think Wiseman > > >uses it when talking about umbilicus hernia (qi shan). But, I go > > >along with Deadman's ciriticisms in JCM. There's too many problems > in > > >English if it's going to be our contemporary terminology. > > > > > >While Felt is correct in saying Wiseman's translation brings across > > >the imagery that the Chinese authors of the Su Wen had in mind, we > in > > >the West have already catagorize the problem differently. There's a > > >wide variety of hernias and, in Western terminology, the focus is > on > > >their location. Other contemporary Chinese medical dictionaries I > > >have also translate it as hernia. The Chinese reference appears to > > >focus on an observable protrubance. In the West, the protuberance > is > > >not necessarily visible as in hiatal or esophageal hernias; it > refers > > >to the rupture itself. > > > > > >We need two tiers of textbooks: one historical, the other for > > >contemporary clinical use and undergraduate study. There is enough > > >room for medical anthropology, and creating a contemporary clinical > > >vocabulary that is in sync with the culture we are grafting to. We > > >need to communicate with each other as well as with medical > > >professionals in different fields and the public at large. > Wiseman's > > >terminology, while historically useful does not seem to be the best > > >choice. We isolate ourselves with it. This argument will be moot in > > >the future. It's going on now because our field is too small, the > > >resources are so limited, and there are so few well trained > > >translators. > > > > > >((And a separate quention can be raised later: Can translations be > > >reliable if the translators are not successful clinicians, too? > But I > > >don't want to start a new argument.)) > > > > > >While I don't want to follow the modern Chinese or " medical > > >acupuncturists " in saying that only a purely scientific language > and > > >explanation will be the correct one, there is a lot science can > > >offer. When I teach classical pulse diagnosis, I'm combining the > > >material from the Nan Jing and from Li Shi-zhen. I'm not familiar > > >with any precedent other than my teacher. It's certainly not done > in > > >the literature that I've read. And I also discuss how epistemology > > >is changed by quantum mechanics, how information theory and > > >complexity form a conceptual perspective to understand pulses and 5 > > >elements. My point here is that Chinese medicine can also absorb > new > > >ideas and make them it's own, too. > > > > > >When I started studying in the 70s we didn't have any translations. > > >I've taught myself to read some Chinese---mostly acupuncture and > > >herbal indications. I have about 300 books in Chinese, from basic > > >herbal texts to some classics such as the Mai Jing. Except for > brief > > >passages, I have no real interest to be a translator per se. It > > >sounds like it's much too difficult and your efforts are never > really > > >appreciated. > > > > > >I may have have hit the reply from your email so I apologize if > this > > >note is presented twice. This is the corrected text. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- > ----- > > >@Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the > net. > > >Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install > now: > > >http://click./1/2345/9/_/542111/_/957947423/ > > >- > ----- > > > > > >Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > > > ------ > Win $500 at freewarranty.com! > Click Here: > http://click./1/4031/9/_/542111/_/958024515/ > ------ > > Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 > >I agree with you fully when you write that East Asian medicine is a >grand system that stands side by side with Western medicine. But I >believe there is Truth in the Universe, and along with Einstein, I >hope that as we progress, a unification of all of these medical >systems will occur. There is much to be praised in the work of those >who strive to understand vibrational or energetic phenomenon and >attempt to unite these various medical systems into a comrehensive >model. Luke, Thank you for your thoughtful response. I wanted to point out, however, that those who want to understand vibrational or energetic phenomena (as in complexity theory, or communications theory in molecular biology) are outside of the mainstream of biomedicine, at least at this point in time. I agree with you that physiological PROCESSES may have correlations with descriptions of jing or kidney in Chinese medicine. Z'ev Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2000 Report Share Posted May 11, 2000 I think language is a tricky thing. It is so easy to confuse the map with the territory. To see the sign, but not realize where it is pointing. Wheather we talk about vacuity, deficiency or xu. I think we are in essence saying there is a lack of, something is missing. What is more important, is that because something is missing, there is a problem. And it manifests in a certain way. I tend to be reluctant to say kidney deficiency equals a problem with the adrenals. Sure, there are often times when there is indeed a problem with the organ itself. But, in my limited experience as a practitioner, I don't find it helpful to think of a person have depleted adrenals. When I think about a kidney deficiency, I'm looking not just at a bio-medical substrate. I look for the role of fear in a person's life. What sort of shape is their zhi (will) in. Do they have the voice of someone with a weak kidney? Do they manifest problems in a way that points to a problem with some aspect of the kidney system. When I have treated people based on a western point of view, for some reason my treatments don't work that well. When I diagnose and treat based on the principles of , I tend to get better results. I'm beginning to think that language is simply a shorthand way of making sense of the world. The important thing is not so much to see how a patient fits my ideas of the world, as it is to discover how it is that my patient IS in the world. Yes, we live in a Western world. And it is probably my own shortcoming in communicating with Western doctors, but I have a difficult time translating from Chinese medical thought to a Western bio-medical perspective. Yes, I do allude to fluid metabolism problems when taking about dampness. Blood circulation problems when talking about blood stagnation. But, I don't feel comfortable saying " this in Chinese medicine = that in Western medicine " . It is more complex than that, and I feel like a do a dis-service to the medicine to dumb it down in such a way. It is more 3 dimensional than that. I think it is important not to leave this out of our communications. Partly, I think we have a languaging problem, because we practice a medicine that is inherently non-linear and profoundly integrative. Just now in the Western world it is popular to talk about the 'mind-body connection', which of course, presupposes a disconnection. How can we really explain an integrative medicine that didn't even consider such a profound split? How can you tell a 2 dimensional being about 3 dimensions? Chinese medicine is metaphoric, and so is it's language. This is not to say that it is arbitrary or inconcise. Quite the opposite, it is to say that it very much about understanding the patient, their context (within and without) and the various relationships that exist at multiple levels. Which is much more complex than discovering that someone has a low level of XYZ hormone or enzyme. Michael ------ Michael Max, Licensed Acupuncturist michaelmax http://www.home.earthlink.net/~michaelmax 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.