practical dictionary

[Guest guest]

First, it is absolutely critical that the author of a passage from an article

be cited. In this case, it was Giovanni Maciocia, who wrote in

JCM 63:

"The most important thing is to teach people how to master pulse

diagnosis: it does not matter if the xian pulse is called "wiry" or "bow-string"

as long as practitioners know what it feels like and what it means."

Alon Marcus commented:

>>>>Yes Yes and terminology that distracts one from this task is just a

pretentious exercise. We are dealing

with medicine and modern patients not a study of anthropology. The language

is their to facilitate learning

not boggle the mind

 

Now I would agree with Mr. Maciocia that, in this limited context, the

term chosen is ultimately less important than the ability to actually feel

the quality. However, I would totally disagree with Alon Marcus that

the question of terminology is just some distracting pretentious exercise.

For, in fact, quite a few writers and teachers still casually refer to

the xian pulse as "tight" or the jin pulse as "wiry". The reason

to have a standard is to be clear about what we are referring to.

I totally agree it is the meaning that matters, not the term. So

is it a xian pulse or a jin pulse? Well, we only know that the source

character was xian if the translator used a standard translation for xian

and not whatever term he finds most descriptive. Pulse terms are

not merely descriptive; they contain technical information. I think

Mr. Maciocia's comment actually supports the opposition view in that he

emphasizes that we must know what we are talking about. I think Wiseman,

Rose, et al have argued this same position.

However, I notice this debate often comes down to wrangling over the

most familiar terms. Yet, the Practical Dictionary contains thousands

of TCM medical definitions, many terms of which are not familiar to those

only versed in basic textbooks and connotatively translated western works.

So it is not really about terms like wiry or vacuous. It is about

all the others that I want to have open access to when I read a translation.

What is pretentious is to not provide a thorough glossary and thus demand

the reader rely on the author's sole authority as expert. No thanks.

I want to know that an author meant shan in the TCM sense and not hernia

in the western physiological sense. That is an important clinical

distinction to me.

BTW, do not allow the Practical Dictionary to be dismissed as mind boggling

academic distraction. It is filled with detailed easily accessible

clinical information that cannot be found anywhere else in english, especially

on herbology. But even if it were a purely academic undertaking,

I can't believe anyone would suggest that there is no place for scholarship

in modern TCM. Only a small number of members of the field are doing

serious research or writing, so I doubt we are in danger of being overwhelmed

by academic pretension anytime soon.

[Guest guest]

Amen.

[Guest guest]

My main point is that All terminology should be easy to relate to and not distracting from the clinical information. Some of the new terminology does seem to do just that

Alon

 

-

cha

Saturday, July 15, 2000 11:36 PM

practical dictionary

First, it is absolutely critical that the author of a passage from an article be cited. In this case, it was Giovanni Maciocia, who wrote in JCM 63: "The most important thing is to teach people how to master pulse diagnosis: it does not matter if the xian pulse is called "wiry" or "bow-string" as long as practitioners know what it feels like and what it means." Alon Marcus commented: >>>>Yes Yes and terminology that distracts one from this task is just a pretentious exercise. We are dealing with medicine and modern patients not a study of anthropology. The language is their to facilitate learning not boggle the mind Now I would agree with Mr. Maciocia that, in this limited context, the term chosen is ultimately less important than the ability to actually feel the quality. However, I would totally disagree with Alon Marcus that the question of terminology is just some distracting pretentious exercise. For, in fact, quite a few writers and teachers still casually refer to the xian pulse as "tight" or the jin pulse as "wiry". The reason to have a standard is to be clear about what we are referring to. I totally agree it is the meaning that matters, not the term. So is it a xian pulse or a jin pulse? Well, we only know that the source character was xian if the translator used a standard translation for xian and not whatever term he finds most descriptive. Pulse terms are not merely descriptive; they contain technical information. I think Mr. Maciocia's comment actually supports the opposition view in that he emphasizes that we must know what we are talking about. I think Wiseman, Rose, et al have argued this same position. However, I notice this debate often comes down to wrangling over the most familiar terms. Yet, the Practical Dictionary contains thousands of TCM medical definitions, many terms of which are not familiar to those only versed in basic textbooks and connotatively translated western works. So it is not really about terms like wiry or vacuous. It is about all the others that I want to have open access to when I read a translation. What is pretentious is to not provide a thorough glossary and thus demand the reader rely on the author's sole authority as expert. No thanks. I want to know that an author meant shan in the TCM sense and not hernia in the western physiological sense. That is an important clinical distinction to me. BTW, do not allow the Practical Dictionary to be dismissed as mind boggling academic distraction. It is filled with detailed easily accessible clinical information that cannot be found anywhere else in english, especially on herbology. But even if it were a purely academic undertaking, I can't believe anyone would suggest that there is no place for scholarship in modern TCM. Only a small number of members of the field are doing serious research or writing, so I doubt we are in danger of being overwhelmed by academic pretension anytime soon. Todd Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.