easy terminology

[Guest guest]

While it is clear from Dr. Bensky's post that there is intelligent

debate on this subject and that reasonable people can disagree, one

thing is not in dispute amongst the actual translators (Bensky, Flaws,

Wiseman, Maciocia, Ellis, Clavey, etc.). They all seem to agree that

the literature of chinese medicine needs to somehow faithfully

transmitted to the west, whether with transparency or as part of a

technical jargon. I think it is very important to understand that none

of these teachers is suggesting that Chinese medicine can develop

satisfactorily without such a transmission. While there is not

agreement about terms or methodology, this exercise is hardly considered

a distraction from clinic, as has been suggested by others.

 

It is my understanding that Seattle Institute students learn to read

medical chinese as part of their training. I am curious as to whether

Dr. Bensky is of the opinion that reading Chinese is a necessary skill

to practice effective TCM. Reading Chinese somewhat moots the issue of

translation. However, if teaching based on translated texts is

inherently inadequate, then ultimately no terminology is good enough.

Thus, english language text books may serve as quick ways for native

english speakers to access clinical data, but not as a way to achieve

any sophisticated understanding, regardless of translation methodology.

For that, one must read Chinese. I think Flaws actually holds this

viewpoint; that is the sense I have gotten from his posts.

 

Personally, I can say this. I have learned a tremendous amount from the

works of Flaws, Bensky, Clavey, Wiseman, Fruehauf and Ellis. Those

authors have provided me with my textual foundations in TCM. And they

don't all use the same terminology, half preferring transparent and

connotative methodologies. My education would be lacking without each

of their works. Perhaps when one actually reads Chinese, one may take

certain things for granted. It doesn't matter what term one chooses,

because you are familiar with the entire richness of the language. So

whatever term you choose to best fit a certain context, your own mind

can never escape the depth of the original term. Yet the reader is

limited to whatever connotation one has decided is most transparent.

This is fine, if the translator is up to the task of transmission. But

when it comes to word for word translation of classics, I think I would

rather be given a standard terminology that is purposely not

transparent. In those cases, I want to be able to trace a term to its

source and make up my own mind, as best possible. However, I have

argued in the past that such translated classics will have little

utility for either American clinicians or teachers unless they contain

extensive transparent commentary. To me, this captures the best of both

worlds.

 

I think what we all want to avoid is people just making up TCM as they

go along. It kind of reminds me of the current ploy used by creation

scientists. They argue that since there is disagreement amongst

evolutionary biologists about certain issues, that the entire field can

be dismissed as invalid. If any of the translators are making that

point, I missed it.