Chinese language

[Guest guest]

All,

 

> Isn't there a middle ground here, where practitioners can make

> use of good translated materials and resources like CHA to be

> medium level doctors?

 

I think the reason this discussion is so difficult is that there is no

distinction

made between what is necessary for an individual's practice and what is

necessary for the preservation and development of the field. The fact that

you can learn to practice Chinese medicine without Chinese sources is

neither evidence that this is " the best way " nor proof that the current model

of clinical practice in Western nations is the best or most appropriate

utilization. Chinese medicine - like most powerful ideas - has viability at

many levels of expertise.

 

For example, In the late 1960's, I " practiced acupuncture " along side a

native woman herb doctor in a pre-modern fishing village in Southern

Mexico. I was clinically successful with a store of knowledge that could not

have passed today's exams. However, the nature of the conditions, the

nature of the presenting ills, and the expectations of the population treated

were such powerful outcome determinants that my petty knowledge was

sufficient for people to like me and keep me well supplied with fruit and

tortillas.

 

In the same sense, but at a much higher level, the degree of success we have

achieved in the clinical practices of persons trained without solid access to

the knowledge available in Chinese proves only that Chinese medicine

provides so rich and powerful a source of therapeutic resources that even

partial knowledge is clinically viable. What it does not prove is that we have

mastered those resources. It seems to me that clinical success with our

current level of access suggests not that greater access is unnecessary, but

that the Chinese sources are worth an even greater effort to explore.

 

Saying the Chinese language is necessary for the full understanding of

Chinese medicine is not the same as saying that everyone must stop and

learn Chinese. It is instead a recognition of the fact that a western field

disconnected from the knowledge and experience that is stored and

continuously generated in the Chinese language will be impoverished. If I

did not believe that properly formed English language texts could

contribute to the training of clinicians, I would not risk money publishing

them. However, if I did not believe that the most accessible source of

clinical experience was Chinese, I would not spend the money it takes to link

those books to a place in the Chinese knowledge store, or to pay for the

considerably more difficult and expensive work it takes to make the

English-Chinese associations rigorous and open, all of which is rooted in

linguistic access.

 

I also feel that the idea of the nuances of the Chinese language being

important is seen in too narrow a light. Consider a less emotively-charged

example from the English language. Most English speakers are completely

unaware that the English terms they use every day are rich with the

vocabulary of sailing. We use words like " first rate " and " bitter end " with no

idea of where these terms came from. We can successfully transmit our

meanings using those words without knowing that our ancestors went

anywhere by boat. However, because researchers and scholars are aware of

our language's roots, anyone who promotes the idea that English-speakers

share some particular characteristic because they lack a nautical history

will be quickly recognized as uninformed.

 

Even if no clinical decision was ever enhanced by such a nuance -- which I

strongly doubt -- linguistic access to Chinese allows us to sort-out those

ideas that have a root in Chinese thought and those that do not. This is also

true of history, intellectual history, and other cultural studies. Today we

see Confuscians quoted as evidence that CM is predominantly Daoist in

origin, and people argue vehemently about the " truth " of CM principles that

have varied throughout history.

 

Anyone who has been around Chinese medicine for the last couple of

decades is well aware that what we believe to be true about Chinese

medicine today is considerably different that what we believed about

Chinese medicine in 1968, 1975, 1980, etc. Consider TCM. In the late

1970's I was told by more than one expert that herbs had nothing to do with

Chinese medicine. Can anyone really say that the on-going political combat

that results from a partial knowledge of Chinese medical history has not

been the source of wasted energy and political strife?

 

A profession is not simply a collection of economically surviving

practitioners. It is the organization and development of a body of

knowledge and practice. In that organization there will be people who

perform jobs that are sufficiently limited in scope to play a useful and

economically rewarding role because they know how to execute certain

skills. But, there must also be people to teach, to lead, to generate new ideas

based on the knowledge of the past, as well as those whose native curiosity

and intellectual vitality push them to know more. These people should, and

will, have access not only to Chinese medical language, but modern and

historic medical philosophy, economics and methods of delivery.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

Robert L. Felt Brookline MA 02445

617-738-4664

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

I very much agree with Bob und Todd.

After 20 years in practice I spend 1997 in China, observing many different

doctors. In this time I learnt to read chinese. This was only possible,

because I was away from my practice and other responsiblities. Although I

enjoyed the learning of the characters and reading texts by myself, I did and

do not feel that it enhanced my understanding of chinese medicine.

In many ways I was also quite disappointed concerning the ability to diagnose

and prescribe by the native chinese doctors, especially those who were not as

long in practice as myself and my collegue Walter Geiger, who speaks chinese

fairly well. This of course means that to speak or read chinese is not enough

to comprehend the complexties of chinese medicine.

And indeed I agree with that a " middle way " should be the aim.

Barbara Kirschbaum

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

As always, well thought and well put.

 

Bob

 

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

> All,

>

> > Isn't there a middle ground here, where practitioners can make

> > use of good translated materials and resources like CHA to be

> > medium level doctors?

>

> I think the reason this discussion is so difficult is that there is

no distinction

> made between what is necessary for an individual's practice and what

is

> necessary for the preservation and development of the field. The

fact that

> you can learn to practice Chinese medicine without Chinese sources

is

> neither evidence that this is " the best way " nor proof that the

current model

> of clinical practice in Western nations is the best or most

appropriate

> utilization. Chinese medicine - like most powerful ideas - has

viability at

> many levels of expertise.

>

> For example, In the late 1960's, I " practiced acupuncture " along

side a

> native woman herb doctor in a pre-modern fishing village in Southern

> Mexico. I was clinically successful with a store of knowledge that

could not

> have passed today's exams. However, the nature of the conditions,

the

> nature of the presenting ills, and the expectations of the

population treated

> were such powerful outcome determinants that my petty knowledge was

> sufficient for people to like me and keep me well supplied with

fruit and

> tortillas.

>

> In the same sense, but at a much higher level, the degree of success

we have

> achieved in the clinical practices of persons trained without solid

access to

> the knowledge available in Chinese proves only that Chinese medicine

> provides so rich and powerful a source of therapeutic resources that

even

> partial knowledge is clinically viable. What it does not prove is

that we have

> mastered those resources. It seems to me that clinical success with

our

> current level of access suggests not that greater access is

unnecessary, but

> that the Chinese sources are worth an even greater effort to

explore.

>

> Saying the Chinese language is necessary for the full understanding

of

> Chinese medicine is not the same as saying that everyone must stop

and

> learn Chinese. It is instead a recognition of the fact that a

western field

> disconnected from the knowledge and experience that is stored and

> continuously generated in the Chinese language will be impoverished.

If I

> did not believe that properly formed English language texts could

> contribute to the training of clinicians, I would not risk money

publishing

> them. However, if I did not believe that the most accessible source

of

> clinical experience was Chinese, I would not spend the money it

takes to link

> those books to a place in the Chinese knowledge store, or to pay for

the

> considerably more difficult and expensive work it takes to make the

> English-Chinese associations rigorous and open, all of which is

rooted in

> linguistic access.

>

> I also feel that the idea of the nuances of the Chinese language

being

> important is seen in too narrow a light. Consider a less

emotively-charged

> example from the English language. Most English speakers are

completely

> unaware that the English terms they use every day are rich with the

> vocabulary of sailing. We use words like " first rate " and " bitter

end " with no

> idea of where these terms came from. We can successfully transmit

our

> meanings using those words without knowing that our ancestors went

> anywhere by boat. However, because researchers and scholars are

aware of

> our language's roots, anyone who promotes the idea that

English-speakers

> share some particular characteristic because they lack a nautical

history

> will be quickly recognized as uninformed.

>

> Even if no clinical decision was ever enhanced by such a nuance --

which I

> strongly doubt -- linguistic access to Chinese allows us to sort-out

those

> ideas that have a root in Chinese thought and those that do not.

This is also

> true of history, intellectual history, and other cultural studies.

Today we

> see Confuscians quoted as evidence that CM is predominantly Daoist

in

> origin, and people argue vehemently about the " truth " of CM

principles that

> have varied throughout history.

>

> Anyone who has been around Chinese medicine for the last couple of

> decades is well aware that what we believe to be true about Chinese

> medicine today is considerably different that what we believed about

> Chinese medicine in 1968, 1975, 1980, etc. Consider TCM. In the

late

> 1970's I was told by more than one expert that herbs had nothing to

do with

> Chinese medicine. Can anyone really say that the on-going

political combat

> that results from a partial knowledge of Chinese medical history has

not

> been the source of wasted energy and political strife?

>

> A profession is not simply a collection of economically surviving

> practitioners. It is the organization and development of a body of

> knowledge and practice. In that organization there will be people

who

> perform jobs that are sufficiently limited in scope to play a useful

and

> economically rewarding role because they know how to execute certain

> skills. But, there must also be people to teach, to lead, to

generate new ideas

> based on the knowledge of the past, as well as those whose native

curiosity

> and intellectual vitality push them to know more. These people

should, and

> will, have access not only to Chinese medical language, but modern

and

> historic medical philosophy, economics and methods of delivery.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

> bob@p... Paradigm Publications

> www.paradigm-pubs.com 44 Linden Street

> Robert L. Felt Brookline MA

02445

> 617-738-4664

>

>

> ---

> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

I'll second that. This post gets right to the heart of the issue.

 

 

 

On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 07:39 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

>

> Bob,

>

> As always, well thought and well put.

>

> Bob

>

> , " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

> > All,

> >

> > > Isn't there a middle ground here, where practitioners can make

> > > use of good translated materials and resources like CHA to be

> > > medium level doctors?

> >

> > I think the reason this discussion is so difficult is that there is

> no distinction

> > made between what is necessary for an individual's practice and what

> is

> > necessary for the preservation and development of the field. (Bob

> Felt)

[Guest guest]

I very much agree with Bob und Todd.After 20 years in practice I spend 1997 in China, observing many different doctors. In this time I learnt to read chinese. This was only possible, because I was away from my practice and other responsiblities. Although I enjoyed the learning of the characters and reading texts by myself, I did and do not feel that it enhanced my understanding of chinese medicine.In many ways I was also quite disappointed concerning the ability to diagnose and prescribe by the native chinese doctors, especially those who were not as long in practice as myself and my collegue Walter Geiger, who speaks chinese fairly well. This of course means that to speak or read chinese is not enough to comprehend the complexties of chinese medicine.And indeed I agree with that a"middle way" should be the aim.>>>>>How do you say in English DIDO i think

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " ALON MARCUS " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> And indeed I agree with that a " middle way " should be

the aim.

> >>>>>How do you say in English DIDO i think

 

 

I think you meant ditto. Most practitioners I know who have made

long study of chinese language feel this way. That the most

significant gain from knowing chinese is the information one can

access, much moreso than any gain in understanding. There

are notable exceptions to this rule, but I have been querying

people on it for years. And this seems to be the general

consensus. Even Wiseman has stated that if sufficient material

was available in english, than it would no longer necessary for

american teachers to read chinese. That there may be nuance

lost in translation is more a matter for poets than doctors, in my

opinion. And this may be the crux of the issue. For those who

are artistically inclined, the nuance of language is of more

significance than those who are scientifically inclined, I believe.

We may have to agree to disagree if this is not based in logic,

but rather temperment.

 

[Guest guest]

That there may be nuance lost in translation is more a matter for poets than doctors, in my opinion. And this may be the crux of the issue. For those who are artistically inclined, the nuance of language is of more significance than those who are scientifically inclined, I believe. We may have to agree to disagree if this is not based in logic, but rather temperment.>>>Todd that is why i say look for the "beef"

alon

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote:

> A profession is not simply a collection of economically surviving

> practitioners. It is the organization and development of a body

of knowledge and practice. In that organization there will be

people who perform jobs that are sufficiently limited in scope to

play a useful and economically rewarding role because they know how

to execute certain skills. But, there must also be people to teach,

to lead, to generate new ideas based on the knowledge of the past,

as well as those whose native curiosity and intellectual vitality

push them to know more. These people should, and will, have access

not only to Chinese medical language, but modern and historic

medical philosophy, economics and methods of delivery.

 

 

Bob:

 

You've reframed the issue very well. I don't think anyone would

disagree. But I think the issue is larger than the Chinese language,

per se. I did a pulse seminar this weekend in Denver at the school

where I teach. Out of the 20 practitioners and few students who

attended, only 2 had read any of the English translations of the Li

Shi-zhen, Nan Jing, and Mai Jing.

 

Beyond what is mandatory for the NCCAOM exam, few practitioners try

to develop their skills beyond a weekend seminar, perhaps several a

year (the minimum required to continue their NCCAOM standing),

because they believe they have already " completed " their education

and got the job.

 

For those less self-motivated or less able to learn Chinese (an

altogether different set of skills than actually practicing

medicine), we need to introduce the Li Shi-zhen, Nan Jing, Mai Jing,

and other already available translated texts into the curriculums to

develop and expand the profession. Trying to raise the bar for the

profession in this area after graduation is probably too difficult;

and requiring extensive Chinese langauge skills before graduation a

poor ROI for schools considering the limited time avaiable.

 

If publishers got a better ROI because more texts were used in

classes and reading and research skills were developed earlier, they

could include the Chinese characters in each translation and in that

way help develop an intellectual environment where the Chinese

characters themselves would be more immediate, accessible, and

influential.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

 

 

While I understand your point of view and it is sound, one has to remind

oneself of specific issues that pertain to this discussion. For

example, different Chinese characters having the same pinyin spelling

but different meanings (and sometimes tones) . It isn't just artistic

nuance, it is also an issue of the technical and professional

differentiation of terminology. For example yu2 for stasis and yu4 for

depression. Recently a native Chinese instructor at PCOM insisted to a

student that yu was stasis (as in blood stasis), and that I had

mistranslated yu as depression. However, he was referring to a

different character and tone with the same pinyin. A misunderstanding

that could have been avoided with a common dictionary reference.

Another example is bi4 for impediment (painful obstruction/Bensky), bi4

for block (different characters, close but distinct meanings in

medicine), or bi1 for nose, bi4 for thigh, and on and on. Seemingly

small but important distinctions that could lead to confusion. As

instructors, we are obligated to seek clarity as much as possible, and

this issue is just one possibility for obscuring accuracy.

 

Another example: I have waited many years for a more comprehensive

materia medica than Bensky or Hong Yen-hsu to come out, with more

medicinals and more in-depth explanations, but it hasn't happened yet

for various reasons. Without basic Chinese skills, I would have no

access to the zhong yao da ci dian/Great Dictionary of Chinese

Medicinals, which list over 5000 medicinals in far more detail than any

English text. This would seem to be a very significant loss of

information for practitioners of herbal medicine.

 

Information can benefit understanding and visa versa. New information

allows one to synthesize new thoughts, be exposed to new ideas, and

builds flexibility and freedom.

 

Again, a little Chinese access goes a long way. This doesn't imply, in

my opinion, that one cannot gain a good understanding of the subject,

especially clinically, without knowing Chinese, but it can be very

helpful, especially when one is teaching the medicine as well as

practicing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Monday, July 29, 2002, at 10:59 AM, 1 wrote:

>

> I think you meant ditto.  Most practitioners I know who have made

> long study of chinese language feel this way.  That the most

> significant gain from knowing chinese is the information one can

> access, much moreso than any gain in understanding.  There

> are notable exceptions to this rule, but I have been querying

> people on it for years.  And this seems to be the general

> consensus.  Even Wiseman has stated that if sufficient material

> was available in english, than it would no longer necessary for

> american teachers to read chinese.  That there may be nuance

> lost in translation is more a matter for poets than doctors, in my

> opinion.  And this may be the crux of the issue.  For those who

> are artistically inclined, the nuance of language is of more

> significance than those who are scientifically inclined, I believe. 

> We may have to agree to disagree if this is not based in logic,

> but rather temperment.

>

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

I had to think about this overnight. I agree that reading Chinese

gives you direct, personal access to a huge volume of otherwise

unavailable information. However, I do believe that reading Chinese is

more important for the quality of understanding Chinese medicine than

simply for more information. It is my experience that people who read

Chinese tend to understand the system better than those that don't.

It is also my experience that this improved understanding translates

into better clinical results.

 

Bob

 

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

> , " ALON MARCUS " <

> alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

> > And indeed I agree with that a " middle way " should be

> the aim.

> > >>>>>How do you say in English DIDO i think

>

>

> I think you meant ditto. Most practitioners I know who have made

> long study of chinese language feel this way. That the most

> significant gain from knowing chinese is the information one can

> access, much moreso than any gain in understanding. There

> are notable exceptions to this rule, but I have been querying

> people on it for years. And this seems to be the general

> consensus. Even Wiseman has stated that if sufficient material

> was available in english, than it would no longer necessary for

> american teachers to read chinese. That there may be nuance

> lost in translation is more a matter for poets than doctors, in my

> opinion. And this may be the crux of the issue. For those who

> are artistically inclined, the nuance of language is of more

> significance than those who are scientifically inclined, I believe.

 

> We may have to agree to disagree if this is not based in logic,

> but rather temperment.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

However, I do believe that reading Chinese is

> more important for the quality of understanding Chinese

medicine than

> simply for more information. It is my experience that people

who read

> Chinese tend to understand the system better than those that

don't.

 

Bob

 

I will be curious to get other responses. as I said, the majority of

answers to my queries over the years have been more like

Barbarba'a than yours. It is hard for me to judge the depth of

understanding amongst chinese speakers, since arguably my

own understanding may be lacking. While on the average, your

statement is probably true, I wonder if it often reflects something

other than reading chinese. I know plenty of non-readers who

are much more adept than readers. So the apparent skill of the

readers maybe due to the fact that those who study chinese also

enhance their practice in many other ways, while those who do

not often are more likely to be lazy and fall back on things like

NAET. But with numerous exceptions on both sides. Until a

survey is done that controls for various factors like this, it is hard

to make the " greater success " claim valid in my mind. In my own

case, I often learn things I never heard before, but I never hear

anything I don't understand.

 

In any event, it is not merely understanding we are discussing

here, it is also whether the nature of chinese characters also

contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words

and thus something of immense value is lost in translation.

Wiseman clearly does not think this supposed quality is

essential to transmission. So can you be sure that the reason

chinese readers do better than those who do not is merely

because they can access the information non-readers cannot.

 

[Guest guest]

Character-based language is processed in different, more artistic parts of the brain than letters are. I studied Chinese intensively and focused on characters when I learned herbs. Sometimes I feel I am using intuition when I prescribe herbs, but I just realized that I probably am accessing that so-called right portion of my brain. It's so easy to discount intuition as too feminine. You know the study showing how we women use both hemispheres when we think? Maybe Chinese characters can help male students activate more of their brain! Veronica 1 wrote: whether the nature of chinese characters also contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words and thus something of immense value is lost in translation. Wiseman clearly does not think this supposed quality is essential to transmission. So can you be sure that the reason chinese readers do better than those who do not is merely because they can access the information non-readers cannot.ToddChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

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

> In any event, it is not merely understanding we are discussing

> here, it is also whether the nature of chinese characters also

> contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words

> and thus something of immense value is lost in translation.

> Wiseman clearly does not think this supposed quality is

> essential to transmission. So can you be sure that the reason

> chinese readers do better than those who do not is merely

> because they can access the information non-readers cannot.

 

:

 

The more immediate problem is not the nuance of Chinese characters

but how to enhance our profession with what is already available.

Being able to read herbal books in Chinese certainly puts to shame

the limited catagories and number of formulas available in

translation. So, while it's true that if you can read any Chinese

you have access to much more material, if you're looking at

translation as the sole variable in this equation you will arrived

at skewed conclusions. People who make an effect to learn how to

translate some things are already far more motivated than others;

hence, their superior skills, even when they do not have the entire

opus of CM accessed. A practitioner who makes an effort to keep up

with the literature in English is far better off than one who takes

seminars only to fulfill his NCCAOM requirements.

 

It takes years and significant talent to immerse yourself in a

foreign language to understand its nuances of etymology or empheral

(nonliteral) dimensions in its classical literature. Perhaps in this

light it's not surprising that some of the most important

translators in our field do not have any clinical expertise.

 

This problem is further reflected not only in the lack of Chinese

translations but also in the lack of commentaries in English on what

already has been translated. Although the number is growing, there

are still too few books like Elisabeth Hsu's 'Innovation in Chinese

Medicine' or Michael Strickmann's 'Chinese Magical Medicine.'

 

Those with the motivation and skill to translate will continue to do

so. But while we're lamenting the lack of self-motivation that makes

the majority of practitioners want to speak the mother tongue of our

field, we can make use of what we already have in translation and in

commentaries and make it part of our curriculums. It can be as

simple as having students read two or three other texts besides

those few that are NCCAOM approved for the exam. It will mean the

difference between their developing mere technical proficiency and

real skills.

 

Or we can continue to argue this point 10 years from now.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

 

 

Agreed. To test my personal observations objectively, one would have

to control for a number of extraneous factors. But I have never had a

conversation with a Western Chinese medical practitioner who reads

Chinese who didn't agree with me that the reading of the Chinese

conveys a clearer, more technically accurate understanding of the

practice of the medicine. I've had this conversation numerous times in

the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. I frequently get

letters, phone calls, and e-mails substantiating this opinion from

practitioners who formerly did not read Chinese and then took up the

study.

 

I also don't think there is something ephemeral and hugely important

in the characters themselves. One of the problems is that many

Westerners persist in the idea that the characters are ideograms.

DeFrancis, in The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy, does a nice job

deconstructing this myth. Most Chinese characters are phonemes. Only a

small percentage are true ideograms. The investing of Chinese

characters with mystical meaning is yet another example of Western

Orientalism.

 

Bob

 

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

> , " pemachophel2001 " <

> pemachophel2001> wrote:

> However, I do believe that reading Chinese is

> > more important for the quality of understanding Chinese

> medicine than

> > simply for more information. It is my experience that people

> who read

> > Chinese tend to understand the system better than those that

> don't.

>

> Bob

>

> I will be curious to get other responses. as I said, the majority

of

> answers to my queries over the years have been more like

> Barbarba'a than yours. It is hard for me to judge the depth of

> understanding amongst chinese speakers, since arguably my

> own understanding may be lacking. While on the average, your

> statement is probably true, I wonder if it often reflects something

> other than reading chinese. I know plenty of non-readers who

> are much more adept than readers. So the apparent skill of the

> readers maybe due to the fact that those who study chinese also

> enhance their practice in many other ways, while those who do

> not often are more likely to be lazy and fall back on things like

> NAET. But with numerous exceptions on both sides. Until a

> survey is done that controls for various factors like this, it is

hard

> to make the " greater success " claim valid in my mind. In my own

> case, I often learn things I never heard before, but I never hear

> anything I don't understand.

>

> In any event, it is not merely understanding we are discussing

> here, it is also whether the nature of chinese characters also

> contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words

> and thus something of immense value is lost in translation.

> Wiseman clearly does not think this supposed quality is

> essential to transmission. So can you be sure that the reason

> chinese readers do better than those who do not is merely

> because they can access the information non-readers cannot.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

But I have never had a

> conversation with a Western Chinese medical practitioner who

reads

> Chinese who didn't agree with me that the reading of the

Chinese

> conveys a clearer, more technically accurate understanding of

the

> practice of the medicine.

 

Bob

 

Maybe we are not arguing about the same thing. Let me see. If I

open a book like Mitchell's shang han lun, which has both

characters and wiseman translation, then you are saying the

characters convey the meaning better than the standardized

english terms? In order for me to understand the wiseman

terms, I need to use the practical dictionary. in order for me to

understand the characters, I also need to use a dictionary. My

understanding of either the words or characters depends on me

learning their definitions, not their colloquial connotation. What

is it that the english cannot convey that characters can? I may

not be able to pick up a book and read chinese, but I am familiar

enough with chinese medical terminology and basics of chinese

grammar that I can quickly figure out what characters go with

which pin yin and which wiseman terms in a book like Mitchell's

SHL. To understand a clause, does it really matter what

language it is conveyed in? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Perhaps this can only be understood with more advanced

reading skills. Either way this means, as some have argued,

that the chinese language is capable of storing and transmitting

information in a way not possible in alphabetic languages.

 

[Guest guest]

In any event, it is not merely understanding we are discussing here, it is also whether the nature of chinese characters also contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words and thus something of immense value is lost in translation. >>>This has always been my question and I am still waiting for some good examples

Alon

[Guest guest]

, ver christie <scampy68>

wrote:

>

> Character-based language is processed in different, more

artistic parts of the brain than letters are.

 

Veronica

 

How do you know that to be true? Have functional MRI's been

done to show the chinese use a different part of their brain to

process language than we do? Are you sure it is not you who

processes information in a more right brained way and this

carries over into everything thing you do, including language

study. I am trying to see where our temperment influences our

assessments. In my own case, my perception is biased by my

tendency to be analytical and skeptical of subjective/anecdotal

forms of proof. This bias no doubt affects my appreciation of

certain nuances. I used to share your belief, but it has never

manifested for me in any concrete way, so it has faded from my

mind. IMO, there has been a long trend in mainstream CM

practice to build a diagnostic case based on logic and rationale

that is surprising similar to that used in western sciences. If one

is to give credence to this left brain/right brain distinction, then

history seems to support that that there is plenty of left brain in

CM.

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

One good example is the translations of Meridians. According to Dr. Kendall there are no Meridians. Of course the first question our class had for him was why do the Chinese refer to them as Meridians. He said that the West did a thing of connecting the Dots and called them Meridians... the Chinese figure if that is what we want to call it, then so be it... apparantly "they" went along with it. I was very skeptical at having to hear Dr. Kendall speak for an entire weekend, I did not want to hear that there are NO Meridians, however by the end of the weekend, I became a believer. Reading Dr. Kendall's book makes more sense to me, then anything else I have read as to how and why Acupuncture works. I certainly will be using him as a reference on some power point presentations that I am putting together.

 

As for learning the Chinese language, it could take a life time. In Junior college I took 4 years of Spanish, and I still cannot speak Spanish. Would I be a better practioner if I could speak and write Chinese... I doubt it. I have had numerous patients say they have been to Chinese TCM Doctors, however left their office with horrible anxieties... much like Post Traumatic Streess Disorder. Also, have had several patients say the treatments they received did not change their pain and whatever I am doing is working for them. I always tell my patients that there are infinate ways to get up the Mountain, as with the medicine I practice there are many ways to practice *S*

 

Sometimes we have to try different things and not get stuck using one idea of treament.

 

In Health,

 

Teresa Hall

 

 

 

-

 

Alon Marcus

Tuesday, July 30, 2002 10:43 AM

Re: Re: Chinese language

 

In any event, it is not merely understanding we are discussing here, it is also whether the nature of chinese characters also contain something ephemeral that cannot be captured in words and thus something of immense value is lost in translation. >>>This has always been my question and I am still waiting for some good examples

AlonChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

 

 

I spend the lion's share of every working day attempting to translate

medical Chinese into English. So obviously I think there are some good

reasons to do this. It does serve a purpose. But I am also extremely

aware of the limitations of this endeavor. They are the limitations I

struggle with as a translator each and every day.

 

1) Most Chinese words are multivalent (as are most English language

words). Nigel's dictionary, great as it is, is only a starting place.

One also needs to look a word up in a regular general dictionary to

see its range of meanings, usages, and associations. These are also

important in really grokking the Chinese word. While Nigel has come up

with some fabulous term choices which catch multiple meanings, such as

network (luo) and quicken (huo), other choices are not as successful.

Take resolve (jie). This does not really convey the sense of untying

or unbinding (at least not for me). When you know that resolve also

means to untie or unbind, then I think you can better understand what

needs to be resolved, as in toxins, the exterior, and depression.

 

2) Chinese grammar is not the same as English grammar. When

translating from Chinese into English, we invariably have to add words

that are not in the Chinese. These added words force the Chinese to be

more specific than the original. The original Chinese is almost always

more open-ended, more ambiguous, and less specific than any English

translation. Therefore, the Chinese tends to convey more levels of

meaning and association than the English. Due to the structural

dissimilarities of these two languages, it's my experience as a

translator that every English language translation of Chinese, to a

greater or lesser extent, is reductionist.

 

3) There is a logic inherent in the grammar and construction of the

Chinese language which is not completely captured by any English

translation. This logic is a different way of thinking than how we

think in English. People who speak different languages do not think or

even feel alike. The form and logic of the language shape a person's

way of thinking and experiencing the world. When I speak, read, and

think in French or Italian, I'm a different Bob than when I speak,

read, and think in English. I'm a different Bob yet again when I'm

using Yiddish, Hindi, or Tibetan. This logic inherent in the Chinese

language is the same logic upon which Chinese medicine is based. It's

not just the words and it's not the way of writing, it's the very

structure of the language.

 

Bob

 

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

> , " pemachophel2001 " <

> pemachophel2001> wrote:

> But I have never had a

> > conversation with a Western Chinese medical practitioner who

> reads

> > Chinese who didn't agree with me that the reading of the

> Chinese

> > conveys a clearer, more technically accurate understanding of

> the

> > practice of the medicine.

>

> Bob

>

> Maybe we are not arguing about the same thing. Let me see. If I

> open a book like Mitchell's shang han lun, which has both

> characters and wiseman translation, then you are saying the

> characters convey the meaning better than the standardized

> english terms? In order for me to understand the wiseman

> terms, I need to use the practical dictionary. in order for me to

> understand the characters, I also need to use a dictionary. My

> understanding of either the words or characters depends on me

> learning their definitions, not their colloquial connotation. What

> is it that the english cannot convey that characters can? I may

> not be able to pick up a book and read chinese, but I am familiar

> enough with chinese medical terminology and basics of chinese

> grammar that I can quickly figure out what characters go with

> which pin yin and which wiseman terms in a book like Mitchell's

> SHL. To understand a clause, does it really matter what

> language it is conveyed in? It doesn't seem that way to me.

> Perhaps this can only be understood with more advanced

> reading skills. Either way this means, as some have argued,

> that the chinese language is capable of storing and transmitting

> information in a way not possible in alphabetic languages.

>

 

[Guest guest]

pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> The investing of Chinese

> characters with mystical meaning is yet another example of Western

> Orientalism.

 

This is one of the problems that I have with those who are teaching the

psycho-spiritual aspects of TCM by finding hidden meanings in the

characters.

 

Or as my point energetic teacher James Houston often said, " Sometimes a

cigar is just a cigar. "

 

--

Al Stone L.Ac.

<AlStone

http://www.BeyondWellBeing.com

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

>

> 3) There is a logic inherent in the grammar and construction of

the

> Chinese language which is not completely captured by any

English

> translation. This logic is a different way of thinking than how we

> think in English. People who speak different languages do not

think or

> even feel alike. The form and logic of the language shape a

person's

> way of thinking and experiencing the world.

 

Bob

 

Well put. Perhaps some are always able to discern deeper

levels of meaning than the average person, in whatever the

pursuit. Studying chinese gives one access to this archive, but

is no guarantee that you will " grok " what you find (to use your

term, via Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land).

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 11:10 AM, Teresa Hall wrote:

 

> Alon,

>  

> One good example is the translations of Meridians.  According to Dr.

> Kendall there are no Meridians.  Of course the first question our class

> had for him was why do the Chinese refer to them as Meridians.  He said

> that the West did a thing of connecting the Dots  and called  them

> Meridians... the Chinese figure if that is what we want to call it,

> then so be it... apparantly " they " went along with it.  I was very

> skeptical at having to hear Dr. Kendall speak for an entire weekend, I

> did not want to hear that there are NO Meridians, however by the end of

> the weekend, I became a believer.   Reading Dr. Kendall's book makes

> more sense to me, then anything else I have read as to how and why

> Acupuncture works.  I certainly will be using him as a reference on

> some power point presentations that I am putting together.

 

(Z'ev) Out of context, it is difficult to address Deke Kendall's

argument here. But I know him well enough to assume that he wouldn't

make a statement as outrageous as Westerners 'connecting the dots' to

make meridians. It is clearly in the Chinese medical literature from

the beginning. For example, see the discussions of divergent channels

in Miki Shima and Chip Chace's recent text, " The Channel Divergences " .

From my understanding, channels or meridians represent relationships of

parts of the body representing functional systems. It is similar to

western concepts of planetary orbits. They are not physical entities

that exist, but observed phenomena that follow patterns. The concept of

zang xiang/visceral manifestation (that internal processes can be viewed

and influenced from the exterior body) is so central to Chinese medicine

that it cannot be eliminated without seriously damaging the conceptual

framework of the system.

>  

> As for learning the Chinese language, it could take a life time.  In

> Junior college I took 4 years of Spanish, and I still cannot speak

> Spanish.  Would I be a better practioner if I could speak and write

> Chinese... I doubt it.   I have had numerous patients say they have

> been to Chinese TCM Doctors, however left their office with horrible

> anxieties... much like Post Traumatic Streess Disorder.  Also, have had

> several patients say the treatments they received did not change their

> pain and whatever I am doing is working for them.  I always tell my

> patients that there are infinate ways to get up the Mountain, as

> with the medicine I practice there are many ways to practice *S*

>  

(Z'ev) The goal is not to speak and write general Chinese language. The

goal of learning enough medical Chinese (a much more limited range of

characters) to read basic texts is much more realistic. For example,

if you had studied literary Spanish in order to read Borges in the

original, this would be a more focused, and less time-consuming endeavor

than learning to speak and write the language like a native. I am not

saying that this isn't a valuable use of time, but unnecessary to

further one's knowledge of Spanish literature. Similarly, learning to

speak and read Chinese language at a graduate level is not necessary to

access Chinese medical literature.

 

As far as treatment by Chinese TCM doctors, we should be careful about

generalizations. There is a complex range of factors that influences

treatment results and methodology, and some modern Chinese TCM doctors

may be influenced by the desire of native Chinese patients for stronger,

quick acting treatment. I favor your style of acupuncture as well in my

own practice, but perhaps a read of Volker Scheid's " in

Contemporary China " will give you a more complete overview of the

present situation in China

 

It is apples and oranges to argue that it is not important to learn

medical Chinese because of the aggressive treatment styles of some

modern Chinese TCM doctors. I fail to see what one has to do with the

other in forwarding the argument that one shouldn't consider learning

medical Chinese.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Al,

One example I know of ( teaching mystical meanings of Chinese

characters) is just reading into the translated English names of the

characters, and investing psycho-spiritual meanings into them. This

then leads to building an entire body of knowledge on that, without any

source material support or access to the host language.

 

Having said that, I do want to point out that a bit of 'mysticism' is

good for heart and soul, it is simply finding the wonder and joy in life

that comes with making new discoveries. One can have this experience

with scientific discoveries, spiritual insight, or artistic

appreciation. In my opinion, Chinese medicine has aspects of all three;

art, science and spiritual insight (wisdom). It just takes some sincere

effort to get there, not just reading what one wants into the material.

Without the artistic or spiritual dimension, Chinese medicine just

becomes dry bones, lifeless and stiff.

 

 

On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 11:41 AM, Al Stone wrote:

 

> pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> > The investing of Chinese

> > characters with mystical meaning is yet another example of Western

> > Orientalism.

>

> This is one of the problems that I have with those who are teaching the

> psycho-spiritual aspects of TCM by finding hidden meanings in the

> characters.

>

> Or as my point energetic teacher James Houston often said, " Sometimes a

> cigar is just a cigar. "

>

> --

> Al Stone L.Ac.

[Guest guest]

Of course I was relying on neurological studies in my reference to brain activity. Is it possible that you were so biased against my statements, the only "subjective temperament" was yours? To elaborate on my original point: even a rudimentary knowledge of characters can activate more of a student's brain. An effective practitioner uses as much of her/his brain as possible. Perhaps that's not as necessary for an academician. But Chinese characters do convey meaning as well as indicate phonetics, and an appreciation and experience of that can enhance our profession. If it also gets acupuncture students away from the so-called left-brained thinking that has proven such a disaster for Western medicine and its recipients, so much the better, I say. Our medicine can encompass it ALL. Don't restrict us to the merely male-brained model. (Yes, there are studies showing that women use both hemispheres more often.) Signed, Veronica, Todd's ex-housemate who is used to arguing with him

1 wrote: , ver christie <scampy68> wrote:> > Character-based language is processed in different, more artistic parts of the brain than letters are.VeronicaHow do you know that to be true? Have functional MRI's been done to show the chinese use a different part of their brain to process language than we do? Are you sure it is not you who processes information in a more right brained way and this carries over into everything thing you do, including language study. I am trying to see where our temperment influences our assessments. In my own case, my perception is biased by my tendency to be analytical and skeptical of subjective/anecdotal forms of proof. This bias no doubt affects my appreciation of certain nuances. I used to share your belief, but it has never manifested for me in any concrete way, so it has faded from my mind. IMO, there has been a long trend in mainstream CM practice to build a diagnostic case based on logic and rationale that is surprising similar to that used in western sciences. If one is to give credence to this left brain/right brain distinction, then history seems to support that that there is plenty of left brain in CM.ToddChinese 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.

[Guest guest]

 

-

 

Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:57 PM

Re: Re: Chinese language

On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, at 11:10 AM, Teresa Hall wrote:

Alon, One good example is the translations of Meridians. According to Dr. Kendall there are no Meridians. Of course the first question our class had for him was why do the Chinese refer to them as Meridians. He said that the West did a thing of connecting the Dots and called them Meridians... the Chinese figure if that is what we want to call it, then so be it... apparantly "they" went along with it. I was very skeptical at having to hear Dr. Kendall speak for an entire weekend, I did not want to hear that there are NO Meridians, however by the end of the weekend, I became a believer. Reading Dr. Kendall's book makes more sense to me, then anything else I have read as to how and why Acupuncture works. I certainly will be using him as a reference on some power point presentations that I am putting together.(Z'ev) Out of context, it is difficult to address Deke Kendall's argument here. But I know him well enough to assume that he wouldn't make a statement as outrageous as Westerners 'connecting the dots' to make meridians. It is clearly in the Chinese medical literature from the beginning. For example, see the discussions of divergent channels in Miki Shima and Chip Chace's recent text, "The Channel Divergences". From my understanding, channels or meridians represent relationships of parts of the body representing functional systems. It is similar to western concepts of planetary orbits. They are not physical entities that exist, but observed phenomena that follow patterns. The concept of zang xiang/visceral manifestation (that internal processes can be viewed and influenced from the exterior body) is so central to Chinese medicine that it cannot be eliminated without seriously damaging the conceptual framework of the system.

 

(Teresa):

Z'ev, I hardley think that I made that up on my own!!! *lol* Dr. Kendall correlated connecting the dots of Acupoints which the Chinese have named individually and we in the West have put numbers to, to represent where they fall on a Meridian pathway. One of the things that I took away from Dr. Kendall's lecture is more about how nodes of energy fall on different muculature and that the mucles can be effected by needling particular nodes near specified nerve roots. This was a lecture on Acupuncture Orthopedics, so maybe it is different from things you have heard.

 

I am looking through "The Channel Divergences" book and it does not explain it at all, like Dr. Kendall has. Yes, the " The Channel Divergences" is a great book, it has given me more of an understanding of Divergent Channels, which I use all the time, however the text is nothing like DEK's book.

 

(Z'ev)

As far as treatment by Chinese TCM doctors, we should be careful about generalizations. There is a complex range of factors that influences treatment results and methodology, and some modern Chinese TCM doctors may be influenced by the desire of native Chinese patients for stronger, quick acting treatment. I favor your style of acupuncture as well in my own practice, but perhaps a read of Volker Scheid's " in Contemporary China" will give you a more complete overview of the present situation in China

 

(Teresa)

I agree, we should be careful with generalizations. I am only speaking about my *minute* experience, as you know I am only a beginner! Granted there are a wide range of factors affecting treatment outcome, however it is my understanding that scientific work is being done to replicate treatment protocals with pretty impressive outcomes, for example studies with IVF. I have yet to read Volker's Scheid's book. I have almost an entire shelf of unread books. Thats what I love about this medicine is that there is soooooooooo much to learn *S* which really appeases the student in me *S*

(Z'ev)It is apples and oranges to argue that it is not important to learn medical Chinese because of the aggressive treatment styles of some modern Chinese TCM doctors. I fail to see what one has to do with the other in forwarding the argument that one shouldn't consider learning medical Chinese.

 

(Teresa)

Again I agree... apples and oranges. I do not think one person can be and do everything! I know for me, I have to constantly change my "hat" from business women, promoter, marketer, practioneer, student, yada, yada. At this time, I would rather support and pay for translators to do what they do... Translate books. Even if I could read medical chinese, there would be a huge time factor, as I do not think Chinese and English language are that interchangeable? For now, I am content on learning what other people do like Dr. Tan, Dr. Kendall etc. I know sometime when I have developed a "specialty" then I will hit the books harder, in order to translate. In the meantime hopefully I can get some of the language semantics down.