Guest guest Posted March 1, 2001 Report Share Posted March 1, 2001 jramholz [jramholz] Friday, March 02, 2001 4:09 AM More about Reading and Teaching : I feel Flaws has overstated his position, but it still has some merit. In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language and medical history should be teaching beginning students and some master level courses; they would be the best qualified. But the emphasis on the ability to read Chinese suggests that there are no competent interpretations of Chinese medical theory available. Actual clinical practice demonstrates otherwise---patients get well. This means very little to me.. patients get well no matter what- an estimated 60-70% placebo when a practitioner is involved... This does mean you are doing anything correct in regard to TCM, but you might. You just don't know. Reading Chinese is, in itself, not any real measure of diagnostic or clinical skill; using Wiseman's terminology does not guarentee that a theory will be correctly interpreted and applied. And it's not like the Chinese classics have written down everything clearly, accurately, and completely. The standardization of TCM by the Communists only gives the illusion of common argreement, and goes to underscore our current situation. Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that the best and most quoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not practicing clinicians and so they may not be skilled at applying theory in practice. But I don't think that this limitation has to be interpreted as detraction from their value as authorities. And like you, I've heard some famous, published, Asian practitioners say some completely outrageous things. Jim Ramholz Friday, March 02, 2001 12:13 AM cha attribution and tone I personally disagree with Bob flaws that only those who read chinese are qualified to teach. However, I do believe that only those who study chinese culture and history and use rigorously translated material as their basis for understanding should be teaching at the master's level. Relying on personal conjecture and material from poorly translated sources does this field a grave disservice. there is a middle ground of quality teaching that involves teaching skills mixed with good sourcing of knowledge. I know many chinese speakers who are lousy teachers. I also know many great teachers who misinform their students because of their lack of knowledge and their errors are compounded by their charisma and confidence in the classroom. I think there are very few great teachers who also know chinese, certainly not enough to fill the teaching posts at american TCM schools. We need to cultivate those in the middle realm of knowledge so that the posts do not end up being filled with those at the lower end only. Because those of us in the middle (amongst them myself) would rather give up our posts than do a disservice to the field. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 Todd: I feel Flaws has overstated his position, but it still has some merit. In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language and medical history should be teaching beginning students and some master level courses; they would be the best qualified. But the emphasis on the ability to read Chinese suggests that there are no competent interpretations of Chinese medical theory available. Actual clinical practice demonstrates otherwise---patients get well. Reading Chinese is, in itself, not any real measure of diagnostic or clinical skill; using Wiseman's terminology does not guarentee that a theory will be correctly interpreted and applied. And it's not like the Chinese classics have written down everything clearly, accurately, and completely. The standardization of TCM by the Communists only gives the illusion of common argreement, and goes to underscore our current situation. Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that the best and most quoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not practicing clinicians and so they may not be skilled at applying theory in practice. But I don't think that this limitation has to be interpreted as detraction from their value as authorities. And like you, I've heard some famous, published, Asian practitioners say some completely outrageous things. Jim Ramholz Friday, March 02, 2001 12:13 AM cha attribution and tone I personally disagree with Bob flaws that only those who read chinese are qualified to teach. However, I do believe that only those who study chinese culture and history and use rigorously translated material as their basis for understanding should be teaching at the master's level. Relying on personal conjecture and material from poorly translated sources does this field a grave disservice. there is a middle ground of quality teaching that involves teaching skills mixed with good sourcing of knowledge. I know many chinese speakers who are lousy teachers. I also know many great teachers who misinform their students because of their lack of knowledge and their errors are compounded by their charisma and confidence in the classroom. I think there are very few great teachers who also know chinese, certainly not enough to fill the teaching posts at american TCM schools. We need to cultivate those in the middle realm of knowledge so that the posts do not end up being filled with those at the lower end only. Because those of us in the middle (amongst them myself) would rather give up our posts than do a disservice to the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 From a student perspective it seems that the most important element is for the teacher to encourage the development of critical thinkers. It is a fact of life that there will be differing interpretations of principals and theories, regardless of you field of study. It is the responsibility of the student to examine the evidence gained through experience and either refute or confirm the lessons taught. This is a dynamic field and each of our petients will respond differently to treatments offered. That is not to say that there are not basic principles that need to be taught - only that it will be through exposure to various teachers and real life experience that the student will advance their own practice. The danger lies as in any field in preaching a dogma. As long as we all continue to challenge what we experience and communicate with each other, medicocrity should be avoided. --- jramholz wrote: : > > I feel Flaws has overstated his position, but it > still has some merit. > In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in > Chinese language and > medical history should be teaching beginning > students and some > master level courses; they would be the best > qualified. But the > emphasis on the ability to read Chinese suggests > that there are no > competent interpretations of Chinese medical theory > available. Actual > clinical practice demonstrates otherwise---patients > get well. > > Reading Chinese is, in itself, not any real measure > of diagnostic or > clinical skill; using Wiseman's terminology does not > guarentee that a > theory will be correctly interpreted and applied. > And it's not like > the Chinese classics have written down everything > clearly, accurately, > and completely. The standardization of TCM by the > Communists only > gives the illusion of common argreement, and goes to > underscore our > current situation. > > Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that > the best and most > quoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not > practicing clinicians > and so they may not be skilled at applying theory in > practice. But I don't > think that this limitation has to be interpreted as > detraction from their > value as authorities. And like you, I've heard some > famous, published, > Asian practitioners say some completely outrageous > things. > > Jim Ramholz > Friday, March 02, 2001 12:13 AM > cha > attribution and tone > > > I personally disagree with Bob flaws that only those > who read chinese > are qualified to teach. However, I do believe that > only those who > study > chinese culture and history and use rigorously > translated material as > their basis for understanding should be teaching at > the master's > level. > Relying on personal conjecture and material from > poorly translated > sources does this field a grave disservice. there > is a middle ground > of > quality teaching that involves teaching skills mixed > with good > sourcing > of knowledge. I know many chinese speakers who are > lousy teachers. I > also know many great teachers who misinform their > students because of > their lack of knowledge and their errors are > compounded by their > charisma and confidence in the classroom. I think > there are very few > great teachers who also know chinese, certainly not > enough to fill the > teaching posts at american TCM schools. We need to > cultivate those in > the middle realm of knowledge so that the posts do > not end up being > filled with those at the lower end only. Because > those of us in the > middle (amongst them myself) would rather give up > our posts than do a > disservice to the field. > > > > Get email at your own domain with Mail. http://personal.mail./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 Saying that a placebo can be effective does not negate my point; and patients don't always " get well no matter what. " Too many people remain ill or are dieing from the wrong placebo, then. You can argue that a placebo works only because the nervous system, immune system, and endocrine system are interconnected and directly influence each other. This is certainly the case when looking at things from a 5-Phase perspective (it isn't as clear from a general TCM perspective) and also from a Western psychoneurobiological perspective. So, it's affects are understood and accounted for within the medical models of both cultures. In some of the classics (I have the Suwen and Mai Jing in mind), there are methods of not simply diagnosing but predicting the arising of a disorder or the time of death. And in pulse diagnosis, you can see problems arising well in advance of any symptomology the patient can be aware of. To diagnosis, predict, and successfully treat a problem goes beyond the effect of any placebo and illustrates the necessary role of theory and the efficacy of diagnosis and treatment---especially if a success rate is better than 50-50. Jim Ramholz Jim wrote: > But the > emphasis on the ability to read Chinese suggests that there are no > competent interpretations of Chinese medical theory available. Actual > clinical practice demonstrates otherwise---patients get well. Jason wrote: > This means very little to me.. patients get well no matter what- an > estimated 60-70% placebo when a practitioner is involved... > This does mean you are doing anything correct in regard to TCM, but you > might. You just don't know. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 The standardization of TCM by the Communists onlygives the illusion of common argreement, and goes to underscore ourcurrent situation.Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that the best and mostquoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not practicing clinicians >>>>>>These two points, and the ramification of this type of thinking, are the crux of what I have been saying all along. And why many times the egoup seems to be a self congratulatory environment. Alon - Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:17 PM RE: More about Reading and Teaching jramholz [jramholz]Friday, March 02, 2001 4:09 AM Subject: More about Reading and TeachingTodd:I feel Flaws has overstated his position, but it still has some merit.In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language andmedical history should be teaching beginning students and somemaster level courses; they would be the best qualified. But theemphasis on the ability to read Chinese suggests that there are nocompetent interpretations of Chinese medical theory available. Actualclinical practice demonstrates otherwise---patients get well.This means very little to me.. patients get well no matter what- anestimated 60-70% placebo when a practitioner is involved...This does mean you are doing anything correct in regard to TCM, but youmight. You just don't know.Reading Chinese is, in itself, not any real measure of diagnostic orclinical skill; using Wiseman's terminology does not guarentee that atheory will be correctly interpreted and applied. And it's not likethe Chinese classics have written down everything clearly, accurately,and completely. The standardization of TCM by the Communists onlygives the illusion of common argreement, and goes to underscore ourcurrent situation.Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that the best and mostquoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not practicing cliniciansand so they may not be skilled at applying theory in practice. But I don'tthink that this limitation has to be interpreted as detraction from theirvalue as authorities. And like you, I've heard some famous, published,Asian practitioners say some completely outrageous things.Jim RamholzTodd Friday, March 02, 2001 12:13 AMcha attribution and toneI personally disagree with Bob flaws that only those who read chineseare qualified to teach. However, I do believe that only those whostudychinese culture and history and use rigorously translated material astheir basis for understanding should be teaching at the master'slevel.Relying on personal conjecture and material from poorly translatedsources does this field a grave disservice. there is a middle groundofquality teaching that involves teaching skills mixed with goodsourcingof knowledge. I know many chinese speakers who are lousy teachers. Ialso know many great teachers who misinform their students because oftheir lack of knowledge and their errors are compounded by theircharisma and confidence in the classroom. I think there are very fewgreat teachers who also know chinese, certainly not enough to fill theteaching posts at american TCM schools. We need to cultivate those inthe middle realm of knowledge so that the posts do not end up beingfilled with those at the lower end only. Because those of us in themiddle (amongst them myself) would rather give up our posts than do adisservice to the field.Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcarepractitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializingin Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,including board approved online continuing education. 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.