list protocols

[Guest guest]

I agree that in the long run it is a good idea to identify whom said what. As an recent example the blunder that I made between shen1 and shen2 is "acceptable" when knowing the fact that I do not speak Chinese and as such have limited experience, as well as still feel very much like a student more then a practitioner.

 

And, it is also a self evident argument that at least medical Chinese ought to begin at undergraduate...

 

However and there is a big however, this is more to do with knowing where one is at in the life long process of learning rather then a so call title nor even historical accomplishments (in them self).

 

As someone said in a previous letter that Volker apparently mention something like:

 

"In the west we are not even in the first generation of Chinese medical practitioners"

 

And in Guatemala the foundation to create generations of Chinese medicine practitioners still remains to be planted...

 

What I am trying to say is that it is a tricky question on one hand it is obvious that people like Ken Rose and Bob Felt and others have an understanding and comprehension of Chinese medical matters that is say more profound then say Marco (shen1 or shen2 mistake, but at least a lesson learnt - LEARN CHINESE)

 

Still. the list is not a monolog by a device to create a learning dialog so that there are so many silent members of such a potentially and indeed a very useful list is probably inter-related to the topic "list protocols" that maybe could be better referred to as list ethic.

 

I also suspect that this list server is when it comes to politics in general is fairly "hemonic" and North American (no offence intended:-), this to affects the realm of medicine. The recent hey hey second that on Unshults comments is probably an example of this, how applicable are his comments of so call definition of a profession in say Uspantan - Guatemala where the Indigenous population still are in resistant against globalisation.

 

The point is that no matter whom says what you and I (as in third person, i.e. not directed to Todd personally) always need to contemplate the information which no doubt is restricted from our personal experiences no matter how "good" they are.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the content of letter obviously interrelated to socio-historical-cultural and INTENTIONAL aspirations of the writer.

 

Marco in Guatemala very grateful to all on (?) the list and that there are people that have raised and thus are rasing the standards...

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> If Bob Flaws's posts were unsigned,

> would they have as much import? Or Z'ev's or Ken's. These

> folks all share many ideas that I cannot directly scrutinize for

> myself at my current state of understanding chinese.

 

I understand where you're coming from and appreciate the valuable

input from the folks you mentioned. When I came to this list, I had no

idea who you, Ken, Z'ev, Will, Jim, Felt, Marcus, et al, were. I knew

who Bob Flaws is since I've been reading his writings from the early

90's. It wasn't their credentials but the content of their posts that

kept me reading their input.

 

> If I don't know who they are and thus their credentials, how am I

> to evaluate the correctness of their interpretations?

 

There's an old passage admonishing us to " ..examine all things and

hold fast to that which is good " . Of course, one can raise the

question of how does one know what's good if one lacks understanding

of Chinese. Well, I guess we're left with clinical evidence as a last

resort.

 

 

Regards,

 

~Fernando

[Guest guest]

I would like to know who is saying what so that I can relate to

them and what they are saying as indiividuals and put what they are

saying now into context, a context derived from previous posts and what

I may know about the person from other sources.

 

Toham Kum Rah, Dana Corbin