scholars and the rest of us

[Guest guest]

Ken

 

I don't know if you are around, but I just read your editorial in what I

think was the most recent CAOM journal. You were explaining why you had

devoted so much space in a " clinical " journal to issues that some consider

" academic " and thus somehow not relevant, I guess??? Its a neverending

quest, eh? Anyway, while I completely agree with basic assumptions about

the impossibility of accurately transmitting chinese medicine to our

community without accurate translation and/or access to source material as

the key, I have a question about the anecdote you present to illustrate

your point. You illuminate a meaning in several similar words that would

not be apparent to anyone but a reader of chinese. No translation would

ever capture the essence of what you described. You wrote that such data

encoded in the characters informed generations of physicians in this way.

 

But I wonder how many physicians throughout chinese history were really

sensitive to these nuances of their own language. Just because someone

reads or speaks a language does not mean they will understand it at any

but the most superficial level. for instance, I have long been interested

in latin and greek roots of english and etymology of language in general

(ever since I read Tolkien in my youth). But I think the average person

and even most western doctors are pretty utilitarian about words. And

while there were a small number of scholar doctors in ancient, I can

hardly believe that most doctors in ancient times were any less

utilitarian as a group, just because they were chinese. In fact, many of

my chinese colleagues are the most utilitarian doctors I have ever met

(and often quite skillful in terms of success rates). So I still maintain

that except for the rarefied few, the importance of learning the chinese

language is mainly to get access to more data. while there are some who

may actually come to deeply understand the depth you describe, I suspect

these will be few and that they were always few, even in ancient china

herself.

 

I know some people disagree with the importance of this issue altogether.

But we must also reach a consensus amongst those who do place importance

on this issue. Where do we set the bar, what is it's purpose and who

needs to pass it (all, some, most)? The current wording in the doctoral

proposal you quote seems to allow the possibility that all that will be

required is a study of chinese medical terminology, not medical chinese.

While the former does elevate the knowledge of students immensely, it is

already required at most good master's programs and involves no actual

study of chinese characters, grammar, etc. I definitely think the bar

needs to be higher than that. In fact, if someone with no clinical

experience is going to be able to call themselves doctor and I am not, I

want that bar to be real high.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always been violently opposed by mediocre minds " --

Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

So I still maintain that except for the rarefied few, the importance

of learning the chinese language is mainly to get access to more

data. while there are some who may actually come to deeply

understand the depth you describe, I suspect these will be few and

that they were always few, even in ancient china herself.

 

 

 

:

 

The lack of consensus of native speakers and readers of the classics

in China supports this perception. I think you reframed many of the

earlier concerns raised by myself and others quite eloquently here.

It brings to bear much of the criticism and controversy regarding

the problems of translation and the language requirement.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

So I still maintain that except for the rarefied few, the importance of learning the chinese language is mainly to get access to more data. while there are some who may actually come to deeply

>>>Todd what were the examples Ken used in his article? Did they contribute to your understanding of patient care?

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>Todd what were the examples Ken used in his article? Did

they contribute to your understanding of patient care?

> Alon

 

Too complicated for me to get into, but the short answer to your

question is no. I found them to be quite esoteric and of no

clinical relevance. But then I am one of the dense who just

doesn't " grok " chinese terms beyong their face value. But that, of

course, is my point. Other will tell you this nuance is of great

import. Once again,only a clinical study will tell.

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>Todd what were the examples Ken used in his article? Did

they contribute to your understanding of patient care?

> Alon

 

Too complicated for me to get into, but the short answer to your

question is no. I found them to be quite esoteric and of no

clinical relevance. But then I am one of the dense who just

doesn't " grok " chinese terms beyong their face value. But that, of

course, is my point. Other will tell you this nuance is of great

import. Once again,only a clinical study will tell.