Guest guest Posted March 19, 2001 Report Share Posted March 19, 2001 Ken wrote: > There is one fundamental way in which we > in the West have not imitated China with > respect to medical authority, namely that > we have tended to ignore the Chinese medical > literature. As Z'ev has pointed out, there > are few practitioners or teachers among the > cohort of Westerners who are active in > Chinese medical practice and education who > can even read the Chinese literature. Jim replied: I hope you realize that no one (least of all me) is arguing we should ignore or NOT be translating and reading classic texts. While I have taught myself a little medical Chinese and gone through only a few hundred Chinese books on acupuncture and herbs, I claim no expertise except in my own system of pulse diagnosis (a Korean system). At issue is the practicality (not the ethical consequences) of your position, of reading the classics (along with their inherent problems), and how to achieve it both as individuals and as a profession. But by raising the standard much higher than what it is today, new problems also arise. Inherent in this discussion are some interesting questions concerning the logistics of the education you propose if one is to qualify as an authority, scholar, or even be taken seriously as a practitioner: We are presented with a paradox: are we establishing an educational standard that no one in America can achieve? To resolve this paradox, four questions need to be answered first: 1. How many of the 13,000 Chinese medical texts (the number comes from an earlier posting) does it take to become an acupuncturist or herbalist? To be proficient? To acquire expertise? 2. Are the currently available translations of the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Ling Shu, Shan Han Lun, Mai Jing, Jia Yi Jing, Li Dong-yuan, Hua To, Qin Bowei, Li Shi-zhen, Fu Qing-zhu, Jiang Xin-jing, Zhu Dan-xi too poor, too impractical, or too inadequate to allow us to practice acupuncture and herbalism? 3. Which texts and authors, if not those mentioned above, represent the core curriculum of TCM and provide a sufficient background to support a minimal standard of practice? Has anyone read them all, so we can be assured that none can be ignored? How many have the role-model, elder Chinese practitioners you alluded to read? 4. If none of the translations above, what English translation passes your litmus test? > Would we lend any credence, as a culture > or as individuals, to anyone who purveyed > " new ideas " in the realm of physics, to > further your very pertinent reference to > that subject, who had not familiarized > themselves with the accumlated literature > on the subject? As in the history of other professions---and probably the very character of the classics themselves---only serious ideas last. I can think of no better forum for sifting out of those ideas than this one. It uses 21st century technology to help resolve what are probably millennia old issues. > I am not arguing for a mere orthodoxy. I > believe very strongly in the necessity for > a modern recapitulation of Chinese medical > theory. But I believe just as strongly that > such a recapitulation must be rooted in > the substantive roots of the subject itself. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing against your last point, either. But I don't mind an orthodoxy (I hope to become part of it myself one day). There's bound to be one when TCM is institutionalized in our culture. Throughout history, the entrenchment of ideas---politically and intellectually---is a product of human behavior until a new paradigm takes its place. And orthodoxy can help protect us against goofy, unsubstantiated ideas (unless they are the orthodoxy). Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 Jim, > Jim replied: > I hope you realize that no one (least of all me) is arguing we should > ignore or NOT be translating and reading classic texts. I didn't mean to imply that you were, but I hope that everyone realizes that for several decades now, whether or not anyone has ever argued for it, anedifice of Chinese medical education has been constructed in the United States that sorely lacks a proper foundation. There is a defacto situation that needs to be carefully studied and remedied. > > At issue is the practicality (not the ethical consequences) of your > position, of reading the classics (along with their inherent problems), > and how to achieve it both as individuals and as a profession. But by > raising the standard much higher than what it is today, new problems > also arise. I'm not sure what new problems you have in mind. It seems to me that the problems associated with achieving high standards of medical education are relatively old problems. The fact that we in the West have attempted to avoid these old problems for years does not make them new. Inherent in this discussion are some interesting questions > concerning the logistics of the education you propose if one is to qualify > as an authority, scholar, or even be taken seriously as a practitioner: Agreed. > > We are presented with a paradox: are we establishing an educational > standard that no one in America can achieve? To resolve this paradox, I don't see the paradox. It seems quite straightforward to me. > four questions need to be answered first: > > 1. How many of the 13,000 Chinese medical texts (the number comes > from an earlier posting) does it take to become an acupuncturist or > herbalist? To be proficient? To acquire expertise? My comments in yesterday's post did not concern the training of practitioners. They concerned the question of invention of new ideas based upon medical theories that are contained in books that the inventors have not read. This is an altogether different question than the requirements to achieve clinical proficiency. Many professionals in many fields are adequately trained to do their respective work without becoming theorists. Why do so many people in involved in the practice of Chinese medicine find themselves inventing new ideas to deal with old problems? I suggest that to some extent it is due to a widespread lack of familiarity with the old ideas. > 2. Are the currently available translations of the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Ling > Shu, Shan Han Lun, Mai Jing, Jia Yi Jing, Li Dong-yuan, Hua To, Qin > Bowei, Li Shi-zhen, Fu Qing-zhu, Jiang Xin-jing, Zhu Dan-xi too poor, > too impractical, or too inadequate to allow us to practice acupuncture > and herbalism? As I've told you before, I am somewhat unfamiliar with the full extent of the translated literature. I know that the recent translation of Shang Han Lun by Mitchell, Wiseman and Feng Ye is excellent. Note that it presents not just one but two versions of the Chinese text along with extensive discussions of the language as well as the clinical application of the material in that book. Based upon the translations with which I am familiar, I consider this book to be a high water mark. If (and as) more such material is made widely available, we can consider that we are making substantial progress towards a proper reception of Chinese medical traditions. > > 3. Which texts and authors, if not those mentioned above, represent the > core curriculum of TCM and provide a sufficient background to support > a minimal standard of practice? Has anyone read them all, so we can > be assured that none can be ignored? How many have the role-model, > elder Chinese practitioners you alluded to read? This is a big question. I have commissioned an article on the subject from colleagues at the Chengdu University of TCM which will appear in CAOM as soon as it is available. > > 4. If none of the translations above, what English translation passes > your litmus test? Again, the question of translation and transmission is a big question. It's not a matter of a litmus test. It's a matter of developing a profession-wide awareness of the need for translation standards so that translated material can be adequately compared to originals by those who seek to verify the validity of English renderings of Chinese materials. Nigel Wiseman's paper in the current issue of CAOM addresses this question, and rather than try and paraphrase it here, I recommend it to those who want to understnad the issue more deeply. > > > As in the history of other professions---and probably the very character > of the classics themselves---only serious ideas last. I can think of no > better forum for sifting out of those ideas than this one. It uses 21st > century technology to help resolve what are probably millennia old > issues. I agree very strongly with your point about this forum, which is why I participate. As I have stated many times in the past, I place a high value on everyone's participation and only wish that more people would speak their minds more thoroughly so that we can all understand one another more clearly. I don't agree that only serious ideas last. A lot of foolish ideas have lasted for a very long time. That's one of the reasons why there is a constant, persistent need to compile, study, revise, and recapitulate the medical classics. But how can this process be done except by attaining a professional standard of quality with respect to the handling of such material? Clearly it cannot. It cannot in Chinese medicine any more than it could be in physics, mathematics, French literature, or any other subject that has an substantial accumulated body of data that must be sifted through. This is part of the traditional requirement of traditional Chinese medicine. I personally refuse to believe that American students and educators are not up to the task. But in order to test whether or not my confidence is well placed, we have to insist upon higher standards that begin by conforming with the traditional requirements. > > > I don't think anyone is seriously arguing against your last point, either. > But I don't mind an orthodoxy (I hope to become part of it myself one > day). There's bound to be one when TCM is institutionalized in our > culture. Throughout history, the entrenchment of ideas--- politically and > intellectually---is a product of human behavior until a new paradigm > takes its place. And orthodoxy can help protect us against goofy, > unsubstantiated ideas (unless they are the orthodoxy). Well, personally, I will be among the first to argue against any new orthodoxy just as soon as it materializes. My personal reading of Chinese classics has informed me that orthodoxies of all kind are stultifying. Nor is this a uniquely Chinese notion. Max Planck pointed out one of the major impediments to scientific progress when he said that what it takes for new ideas to take root is the death of the generation that treasured the old ideas (my paraphrase). Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2001 Report Share Posted March 20, 2001 on 3/19/01 10:52 PM, jramholz at jramholz wrote: > > At issue is the practicality (not the ethical consequences) of your > position, of reading the classics (along with their inherent problems), > and how to achieve it both as individuals and as a profession. But by > raising the standard much higher than what it is today, new problems > also arise. Inherent in this discussion are some interesting questions > concerning the logistics of the education you propose if one is to qualify > as an authority, scholar, or even be taken seriously as a practitioner: > > We are presented with a paradox: are we establishing an educational > standard that no one in America can achieve? To resolve this paradox, > four questions need to be answered first: Jim, I think the solution is an evolutionary one for the most part. It will take several years, I think, to get enough decent translations out there to serve a higher educational standard, or get enough people reading medical Chinese to make a major change. But it will come, starting with our small efforts right now. Some political organizations and institutions resist these changes, but the demand will come from students and practitioners anyway. In the meantime, the classical Chinese medicine track in the PCOM doctorate will begin to deal with some of these issues. Otherwise, I think continuing education programs emphasizing these issues will be a way to go in the interim as we continue to upgrade the educational process. > > 1. How many of the 13,000 Chinese medical texts (the number comes > from an earlier posting) does it take to become an acupuncturist or > herbalist? To be proficient? To acquire expertise? When I get some time, I am going to translate and list the essential texts that Dr. Kok Leung listed, donated to me by Phillipe Riviere. That can serve as one basic standard list. > 2. Are the currently available translations of the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Ling > Shu, Shan Han Lun, Mai Jing, Jia Yi Jing, Li Dong-yuan, Hua To, Qin > Bowei, Li Shi-zhen, Fu Qing-zhu, Jiang Xin-jing, Zhu Dan-xi too poor, > too impractical, or too inadequate to allow us to practice acupuncture > and herbalism? The translations vary in quality, but except for the Shang Han Lun, they don't have the characters (except Unschuld's Nan Jing, unfortunately with Wade-Giles), pinyin and commentary for the most part, limiting their usefulness to some degree. But, no, not inadequate to allow us to practice. Again, the quality issue is an evolving one, and will continue to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 Z'ev wrote: > When I get some time, I am going to translate and list the essential texts > that Dr. Kok Leung listed, donated to me by Phillipe Riviere. That can > serve as one basic standard list. Hurry up. > The translations vary in quality, but except for the Shang Han Lun, > they don't have the characters (except Unschuld's Nan Jing, > unfortunately with Wade-Giles), pinyin and commentary for the most >part, limiting their usefulness to some degree. But, no, not >inadequate to allow us to practice. Again, the quality issue is a > evolving one, and will continue to improve. Don't forget Henry Lu's translation of the Su Wen with characters, too. You bring up a very important point about printing the Chinese characters with the translation. You're right, it should be the standard--- especially at this point in our professions efforts. I can get along with Wiseman, and even Unschuld's translation of qi as " influences, " because I can read the character and its context. Like you, without the characters to refer to, I'm often suspicious of a translation's quality. Can you bring this up as the new publishing standard at the next COMP meeting? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2001 Report Share Posted March 21, 2001 on 3/21/01 10:20 PM, jramholz at jramholz wrote: > Don't forget Henry Lu's translation of the Su Wen with characters, too. > You bring up a very important point about printing the Chinese > characters with the translation. You're right, it should be the standard--- > especially at this point in our professions efforts. I can get along with > Wiseman, and even Unschuld's translation of qi as " influences, " > because I can read the character and its context. Like you, without the > characters to refer to, I'm often suspicious of a translation's quality. > > Can you bring this up as the new publishing standard at the next COMP > meeting? I actually did in my presentation at the last COMP meeting in november 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2001 Report Share Posted March 22, 2001 Was there a decision or consensus opinion? I fear that if COMP members don't agree and act in unison, there is little chance for any quality standardization. Jim Ramholz , " " <zrosenberg@e...> wrote: > on 3/21/01 10:20 PM, jramholz at jramholz wrote: > > > Don't forget Henry Lu's translation of the Su Wen with characters, too. > > You bring up a very important point about printing the Chinese > > characters with the translation. You're right, it should be the standard--- > > especially at this point in our professions efforts. I can get along with > > Wiseman, and even Unschuld's translation of qi as " influences, " > > because I can read the character and its context. Like you, without the > > characters to refer to, I'm often suspicious of a translation's quality. > > > > Can you bring this up as the new publishing standard at the next COMP > > meeting? > > > > I actually did in my presentation at the last COMP meeting in november 2000. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2001 Report Share Posted March 23, 2001 on 3/22/01 10:26 PM, jramholz at jramholz wrote: > Was there a decision or consensus opinion? > > I fear that if COMP members don't agree and act in unison, there is little > chance for any quality standardization. > > Jim Ramholz > > Dear Jim, No, suggestion was recorded, not as a standard, but as the recommendation of a professor and clinician who uses these texts on a daily basis. 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.