translation

[Guest guest]

" much ado about... "

 

So much fine commentary and I am glad.

 

When I translate from one language to another, i simultaneously include the

sayer, the listener and the nuance implied in the message and how a listener

will comprehend.

 

" Much ado about nothing... " (except for those with vested interest.) Take a

document, dialogue, treatise, or commentary; what's the point? A

translator endeavours to convey as much meaning in as simple a way (in the

most finely refined language of the one who is receiving the translation).

I must agree with Peter Deadman's appreciation of and respect for the

English language. There really is something distasteful and frankly,

laughable, in calling a medical condition " foxy mounting... " .

 

But fine. I am willing to attempt to understand all versions. I spoke in

previous commentaries about Kidney vacuity. I don't like that term. What's

wrong with " deficiency " ? Why must we complicate things? But OK, i strive

to understand and incorporate...

 

It seems to me that there is a dicotomy, where some are of the thought that

Traditional East Asian Medicine must make itself so distinct from allopathic

medicine, as to language and content, as to become an antogistic entity; the

other hoping to find a bridge of intercourse.

 

I'm sorry, but " foxy mounting " just does not work for me. I undestand

hernia, small intestine protruding into... and i certainly have respect for

the nuances....

 

Still, I'm still not sure of how " foxy mounting... " fits into five phases,

six energies, " ba gua " , " i ching " , and stems and branches. The description

of a pattern of dis-ease must map into some epistemological parameters.

Naturally these often don't fit into a jigsaw-puzzle-direction regarding

ontology. But how is it that we understand the methodology of our diagnoses

(epistemology) and treatment protocols?

 

There is always a map! That is the way of structuring all medical methods.

We learn to understand a vague reality (oncology) in terms of a system

(epistemology).

 

I'm respectful of the uniqueness of various cultures. And as a practitioner

of Oriental Medicine, I am certainly appreciative of East Asian culture.

 

Returning to the point of translation:

 

1. We must have a faithful understanding of the language which we are

translating (and not necessarily the author). Although if we undertake the

task of translation, we certainly have an interest in the content, and most

certainly the author.

 

2. We must do the best possible job to " convey " the nuance of the text

which we to convey.

 

3. What is the goal? We want to help someone in one culture understand (?)

something from another culture.

 

 

My apologies to Bob Felt's for my simple English. I believe that the

purpose of dialogue on a sight as this is to express ideas in as accessible

a vocabulary as possible. My gratitude to Todd. WOW, what an effort to

convey information! And isn't that what it's all about?

 

One of the spheres of medicine that I have in my mind is that of

Anthroposophy. This method catagorizes (epistemologically) disease into 4

levels:

 

1. mineral

2. plant

3. animal

and

4. human.

 

There is so much richness in this cosmology!

 

We discourse upon the vocabulary used in translation and miss the point.

 

Personally, I hope to understand the meaning of someone writing centuries

ago, when I read an interpretation (translation) of their text.

 

And Bob (Felt) , though I disagree with your effort to monopolize Wiseman's

epistemology, I certainly commend your work! Well done! Thank You!

 

luke

[Guest guest]

>

>When I translate from one language to another, i simultaneously include the

>sayer, the listener and the nuance implied in the message and how a listener

>will comprehend.

 

In the field of medicine, if you make it a totally personal undertaking,

you undervalue the importance of peer review with your colleagues; in other

words, your results, cases and treatment are not able to be reproduced.

What value is there for the community of Chinese medicine practitioners?

Or do you like balkanization, because it puts you off the hook? No one can

judge what it is you are doing, to see if it has clinical validity or not.

>

> " Much ado about nothing... " (except for those with vested interest.) Take a

>document, dialogue, treatise, or commentary; what's the point? A

>translator endeavours to convey as much meaning in as simple a way (in the

>most finely refined language of the one who is receiving the translation).

>I must agree with Peter Deadman's appreciation of and respect for the

>English language. There really is something distasteful and frankly,

>laughable, in calling a medical condition " foxy mounting... " .

 

First of all, Peter has already said that he doesn't read Chinese. So how

does that make him a translator? I think his points book is excellant, but

who is translating, who makes the term choices, and who decides what the

correct English term is in such a circumstance? Luke, there has to be some

criteria or scheme in these situations, so that a textbook designed to

teach Chinese medicine health professionals has some accountability to the

profession. Otherwise, an otherwise valid INTERPRETIVE text becomes a

de-facto standard, as per schools, state exams, etc. As Bob Felt said, if

he writes a book about Bob's experience with acupuncture points, this is

different than writing the " New Fundamentals of Acupuncture " .

>

>But fine. I am willing to attempt to understand all versions. I spoke in

>previous commentaries about Kidney vacuity. I don't like that term. What's

>wrong with " deficiency " ? Why must we complicate things? But OK, i strive

>to understand and incorporate...

 

I think Ken Rose has already answered that question. I don't see what is

so complicated about vacuity. For me, lack of accuracy in translation is

complicated. For example, a generation of practitioners (including myself)

trained in the fiction of bu as 'tonification' and xie as 'sedation'.

There is no such phenomena as sedation in acupuncture! So a large part of

the profession does not even understand what is happening when one inserts

an acupuncture needle as the result of an inaccurate translation of an

essential Chinese medical term!

>

>It seems to me that there is a dicotomy, where some are of the thought that

>Traditional East Asian Medicine must make itself so distinct from allopathic

>medicine, as to language and content, as to become an antogistic entity; the

>other hoping to find a bridge of intercourse.

 

Aren't we making a very broad judgement here? It is a gross generalization

to say that only allopathic health professionals are making a bridge of

communication. If we are required to understand allopathic medical

terminology, why shouldn't western health professionals also make the

effort to understanding Chinese medical terminology? Better yet, why

shouldn't Chinese medical health professionals undertake to learn Chinese

medical terminology? The terminology IS distinct, Luke.

>

 

 

>Still, I'm still not sure of how " foxy mounting... " fits into five phases,

>six energies, " ba gua " , " i ching " , and stems and branches. The description

>of a pattern of dis-ease must map into some epistemological parameters.

>Naturally these often don't fit into a jigsaw-puzzle-direction regarding

>ontology. But how is it that we understand the methodology of our diagnoses

>(epistemology) and treatment protocols?

 

Foxy mounting is a bian bing, a disease diagnosis, one of ten types of

pattern diagnosis. When one puts this local diagnosis into the

constellation of symptoms that make the overall pattern, there should be no

problem adapting yi jing, ba gua, five phase, etc. It depends on the

clinical situation, Luke. Chinese medicine also treats acute patterns and

diseases, like this one.

>

 

 

>

>One of the spheres of medicine that I have in my mind is that of

>Anthroposophy. This method catagorizes (epistemologically) disease into 4

>levels:

>

>1. mineral

>2. plant

>3. animal

>and

>4. human.

>

>There is so much richness in this cosmology!

 

Here I feel like you are rambling. What is the point here. Yes, this

cosmology is rich, and not unlike Chinese cosmology of tian/heaven,

ren/human, and earth/di. But what is the point here?

>

>We discourse upon the vocabulary used in translation and miss the point.

>

We will definately miss the point if we mistranslate terminology. This has

already happened to disastrous levels in our profession. Chinese medical

practitioners cannot even communicate data on pulses effectively to each

other. What an embarrassment!

>

>And Bob (Felt) , though I disagree with your effort to monopolize Wiseman's

>epistemology, I certainly commend your work! Well done! Thank You!

 

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here! What is this about

monopoly? If someone else comes up with a glossary or dictionary of this

quality, backs it up with their time, work, money and reputation, all power

to them! This dictionary is a great gift to the profession, and rather

than simply deal with individual term choices or offer concrete

alternatives or suggestions, individuals such as yourself just pick them

apart! Why? The terminology is a structure to build on, learn from, and

more.

 

 

>