pi wei lun

[Guest guest]

Again,

Why rob Peter to pay Paul? If students need more time, increase the

hours, or prioritize other subjects to make room for medical Chinese.

They do at Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, why not at other

schools?

 

PCOM will require medical Chinese in the doctorate program, and

hopefully, soon in the masters program.

 

 

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 09:24 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

> What do you make of the fact that people

> argue so forcefully against inclusion

> of language learning in training curricula?

> Why don't schools teach their students

> to understand the language of the subject?

>

> >>May be becouse some feel strongly that time is better served doing

> other activities such as clinics etc

> alon

>

[Guest guest]

My 2 cents on learning Chinese to be a physician.

My wife and 5 year old daughter both speak fluent Mandarin. My five year old

_often _corrects my feeble attempts at saying " good morning " . My Chinese

acupuncture/herb teacher (et al) get me a very quizzical frown every time I

attempt to say " Gui Zhi " . (My five year old has more patience).

 

through " Biting Through " hexagram 21 and " Limitation " hexagram 60, I did

successfully pass the California Acupuncture Exam. I do have a modest

practice and a few patients have actually gotten better (where western med

had no answers!)

No matter what anybody says (including my wife who's studying nursing)

western medicine, even written in English, is not English!

 

The archaic western medicine language was/is written to exclude people.

How many physicians speak a language that the person standing in front of

them can understand. (think elbow). Without your own language - coming from

the heart -the best is to copy some one else.

Chinese does include English into its language because it is a living

language one that common people understand. (think computer)

The gift is to understand what they are saying and not to be caught up in

how they said it - and then to do it and help others understand what you

have done so they can take something from you that adds value to their

lives.

 

You guys are the elite, I do wish to encourage your endeavors, so that

others may follow and to bring about true family health care.

 

ed kasper lac

santa cruz, ca

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release 11/13/2002

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I assume you mean by non-practitioners.

 

However, since I am in full-time practice and a professor as well, and

am part of the discussion, it disproves this point.

 

But you do bring up some interesting issues.

 

I think Ken is right,

 

There is an illiteracy in our profession. This doesn't mean that

acupuncturists are 'stupid' on one hand, they may have high academic

degrees in several subjects. However, it also doesn't limit the topic

of learning medical Chinese to some supposed 'elite' group that is out

of touch with reality.

 

The reality bites me on the hands every single day, as I practice and

as I teach. I struggle with my relative illiteracy in medical Chinese,

as it takes me an unwieldy amount of time to translate material I need

to make my point. While I am learning and growing in the subject, I

am also entering my sixth decade of life. I wish I had access to

medical Chinese in my 20's when I first began my studies in Chinese

medicine.

 

Waiting a year or two for decent books to come out (in English) on

essential subjects became inadequate to me several years ago. Not

having access to classical case histories of any stripe is inexcusable

for a professional physician. Yes, it is an illiteracy for a

profession.

 

I have bit the bullet and am struggling with medical Chinese for seven

years, even though I have little time and many mouths to feed, patients

to treat, and students to teach. A stipend, paid sabbatical, or some

type of financial encouragement would be helpful in my quest. But,

nonetheless, I must do it.

 

It would be much easier if we demanded as a profession access to these

tools in our colleges. And, yes, every year I see my students gain

more and more understanding of essential concepts, thanks to tools like

the Practical Dictionary. We may debate it, but the students at PCOM

understand its essential importance, of knowing the language of our

profession. From there, it is a quick skip and jump to the realization

that the study of medical Chinese is important.

 

I also want to point out to this list that there are two new tools out

from Paradigm Press, a textbook on Chinese Medical Chinese, and an

" Introduction to English Terminology of . " They are

practical and a great beginning to the study of medical Chinese

language.

 

To sum up, I, for one, don't feel like I am standing in some ivory

tower looking down on the profession. I'm right in there, a street

fighting man, rolling up my sleeves every day and getting to work. Ken

Rose, and the rest of us on this list are right there with you,

Alon, in the trenches, fighting for our medicine.

 

In peace,

 

 

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 09:16 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

> discussion elitist and not worth the effort

> >>>Done almost exclusively my none practitioners

> Alon

[Guest guest]

Why rob Peter to pay Paul? If students need more time, increase the hours, or prioritize other subjects to make room for medical Chinese. They do at Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, why not at other schools

>>>Because 4000 hours are a short time. I would think that to learn good Chinese would take almost the entire time

Alon

[Guest guest]

To sum up, I, for one, don't feel like I am standing in some ivory tower looking down on the profession. I'm right in there, a street fighting man, rolling up my sleeves every day and getting to work. Ken Rose, and the rest of us on this list are right there with you, Alon, in the trenches, fighting for our medicine.>>>I have no doubt and still there are plenty of opinions

Alon

[Guest guest]

think we've already addressed this several times. In short, Chinese medicine is as much literary and clinical, and there is no division between clincal practice and study. Remember that quote from Maimonides I posted last week? This idea is not unique to Chinese medicine, but in the West as well. Read Sir William Osler's essays as well.>>>>True, but still, we are not at a point that conclusions can be made. Assuming that they way it has been it the best way to go is still an assumption

Alon

[Guest guest]

I don't agree. I think within 30 hours, one can begin simple

translation work.

 

 

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 03:42 PM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

> Why rob Peter to pay Paul? If students need more time, increase the

> hours, or prioritize other subjects to make room for medical Chinese.

> They do at Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, why not at other

> schools

> >>>Because 4000 hours are a short time. I would think that to learn

> good Chinese would take almost the entire time

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

In , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> I don't agree. I think within 30 hours, one can begin simple

> translation work.

 

 

I essentially agree with Z'ev. Even if you are only able to read

herbal names, acupuncture points, and basic indications a huge

amount of Chinese literature is immediately available to you.

 

Studying to read the classics and commentaries would require years

of more dedicated training. I suspect schools will probably have

trouble incorporating a full language program until more than 30%

(or so) of their graduates can make a full-time and comfortable

living.

 

The sad irony right now is that much of the translated material is

ignored by most.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

 

>

> The sad irony right now is that much of the translated material is

> ignored by most.

 

and if it wasn't, the perceived illiteracy problem would be greatly diminished.

while there is no doubt great benefit to reading chinese, if everyone relied on

rigorous translations to guide education, there would much less MSU and

blatant errors being made.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

>

> PCOM will require medical Chinese ....

> hopefully, soon in the masters program.

>

 

 

I think that is wishful thinking, but we shall see. I would support it.

 

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with both of you (Todd and Jim) here. There is

certainly a body of literature out there in English that too small a

percentage of our profession actually reads.

 

 

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 09:20 PM, wrote:

 

>> The sad irony right now is that much of the translated material is

>> ignored by most.

>

> and if it wasn't, the perceived illiteracy problem would be greatly

> diminished.

> while there is no doubt great benefit to reading chinese, if everyone

> relied on

> rigorous translations to guide education, there would much less MSU and

> blatant errors being made.

[Guest guest]

Dear Colleagues,

 

Happy Thanksgiving -

 

As it stands, we have inadequite data to take a strong position on either side of the language fence. We shall see if Bensky's educational experiment at SIOM bears fruit in terms of practitioners who make a difference - and a better living. Apparently, PCOM will add another center to this study "does the ability to speak and read Chinese make a better practitioner?"

A great number of people singing the illiteracy song are those whose primary income is from translation and publishing, and this causes a skewed view. I say do a decent needs analysis and find out if such language requirements are a perceived need for practitioners here in America. Then we have a baseline to compare the groups of people entering practice out of SIOM and PCOM ten years from now. Till we begin to see real clinical results, this is all bluster.

 

Will

 

Why rob Peter to pay Paul? If students need more time, increase the hours, or prioritize other subjects to make room for medical Chinese. They do at Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, why not at other schools

>>>Because 4000 hours are a short time. I would think that to learn good Chinese would take almost the entire time

[Guest guest]

OK -

I have a little time this morning, so you are all subject to a T-day rant...

 

I am amazed at the claims by westerners about translation of ancient and classical texts. Even the Chinese have committees who struggle with these texts and discover truths that have been taught incorrectly in mainstream TCM institutions. For example: Dr. Ma who is one of the new generation of PhDs from China studied with a colleague who discovered through translation of ancient Chinese texts into modern Chinese that the influential point of the bone is actually Du 14 not UB 11. This was a mistake made by the Chinese doing translation. My solution is to continue studying Chinese and use consultants who are familiar with old characters.

 

This whole arena gets even stickier with the rich metaphorical expressions of earlier Chinese writings. My consultants bring this home to me on a regular basis when comparing literal translation to interpretive. While it is admirable for us to seek deeper understanding of this medicine through language and culture, I think that it is being approached from a somewhat naive point of view.

Will

 

I don't agree. I think within 30 hours, one can begin simple translation work.

[Guest guest]

 

>

> and if it wasn't, the perceived illiteracy problem would be

greatly diminished.

> while there is no doubt great benefit to reading chinese, if

everyone relied on

> rigorous translations to guide education, there would much less

MSU and

> blatant errors being made.

 

Calling it " the perceived illiteracy problem "

makes a subtle and important shift.

 

There are clearly two distinct and inter-related

problems. One is that people generally do not

know Chinese medical language and can neither

read nor write the basic terms of Chinese

medicine. When people share a common language

they can communicate and exchange information.

In the place of this, we've got a scene in

which people use various English terms that

are loosely and supposedly linked to Chinese

medical terms. This works to obstruct rather

than to facilitate communication and exchange

of ideas and information in the field.

 

This is what I refer to as the illiteracy

problem.

 

Then, as has now been pointed out in recent posts,

people also tend to ignore the English language

translations. This is a second, distinct, and

related problem. It would, I agree, be a good

thing to encourage and achieve a higher level

of familiarity with literature in translation.

This would tend to encourage translation, and

translation, as we agreed earlier, is an important

aspect of language acquisition.

 

But reading in translation does not, cannot

and will not address, let alone diminish

the very real problem of illiteracy.

 

Good doctors have to be able to think

with the theories. Thinking with the theories

of Chinese medicine implies knowing how

the theories work. It is a completely

unnecessary and unreasonable impediment

to saddle students with to make them

have to learn how to think with the

theories without knowing the integral

meanings of the words and how the

words work together to develop into

ideas and theories.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I don't agree. I think within 30 hours, one can begin simple translation work.>>>Zev i thought the argument was that in order to understand the medicine one needs to be able to look deeply within the characters? If it only about simple translation then probably by the time a student is going to graduate (ie) every 4 years their would be a growing base of new books that are done by people like Ken that have a deep understanding of the langue. Again, I do not say that one is not better off knowing Chinese, its a question of what makes one a better practitioner within a 4 year training. What would make one be able to make a better living and be an effective and safe primary care provider with a specialty in

Alon

[Guest guest]

I essentially agree with Z'ev. Even if you are only able to read herbal names, acupuncture points, and basic indications a huge amount of Chinese literature is immediately available to you.

>>>I was able to do this without a class in Chinese in a very short time. I am not sure how much it helped me, except for when I was in China when obviously it was essential as all prescriptions where written in Chinese. Again to do this one only needs a few hours of study. Perhaps there should be a prerequisite to enter school a year of Chinese if a deeper understanding could be shown to improve ones comprehension of the principles. I just think once in school 4000 hours is a short time to spend in-depth time into language.

Alon

[Guest guest]

I think that is wishful thinking, but we shall see. I would support

>>How about as a prerec for entrance to the program

alon

[Guest guest]

I have to agree with both of you (Todd and Jim) here. There is certainly a body of literature out there in English that too small a percentage of our profession actually reads.

>>>That would be sad. I wander why? Have tried and found it unhelpful, irrelevant or just being lazy

Alon

[Guest guest]

It is a completelyunnecessary and unreasonable impedimentto saddle students with to make themhave to learn how to think with thetheories without knowing the integralmeanings of the words and how thewords work together to develop intoideas and theories.>>>>Zev as i said here we see that little knowledge of simple character recognition would not help what Ken perceives as the problem. I think that if he for one can not convey these in English then this is all a moot discussion. One needs to be a major in Chinese and go and live in China to learn TCM.

Alon

[Guest guest]

The problem with a prerec is that it would be best to study

specifically medical Chinese, and this isn't available outside of the

CM community.

 

 

On Thursday, November 28, 2002, at 07:41 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

> I think that is wishful thinking, but we shall see.  I would support

> >>How about as a prerec for entrance to the program

> alon

>

[Guest guest]

At 9:31 AM -0600 11/28/02, Alon Marcus

wrote:

>>>Zev i thought the argument was that in order to

understand the medicine one needs to be able to look deeply within the

characters? If it only about simple translation then probably by the

time a student is going to graduate (ie) every 4 years their would be

a growing base of new books that are done by people like Ken that

have a deep understanding of the langue. Again, I do not say that one

is not better off knowing Chinese, its a question of what makes one a

better practitioner within a 4 year training. What would make one be

able to make a better living and be an effective and safe primary care

provider with a specialty in

--

 

Alon, I think your argument has a couple of problems. First, and

of less importance, Zev was suggesting a way to start understanding

the characters, not that 30 hours is the end of the process. Second,

you are implying that the only criteria for including material in the

training for Chinese medicine is " to

make a better living and be an effective and safe primary care

provider with a specialty in " . Also you

are making a comparative claim (better or worse practitioner than

what?) without offering something to compare to.

 

I believe there are several educational objectives in any health

care professional education that go beyond simply the technical

abilities involved, for example those involved in the acculturation

process. With respect to learning basic Chinese translation abilities,

apart from the contribution made towards acculturation to the

profession, another example might be the ability to independently

critique an idea in English that is based on a translation from

Chinese. Another example might be to be able to access some journal

articles in a timely manner. These would definitely contribute to

one's betterment as a practitioner. They are teaching one to fish, as

opposed to giving one a fish.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

It is a completely

> unnecessary and unreasonable impediment

> to saddle students with to make them

> have to learn how to think with the

> theories without knowing the integral

> meanings of the words and how the

> words work together to develop into

 

Ken

 

I guess I will just never follow your logic. When I look at a chinese character

(and I do this every day, by the way; that I can't seem to remember them is

another issue altogether; languge acquisition is very burdensome for some

people; I took french for six years, got A's, studied all the time and still can

barely read a sentence; on the other hand, I can quote intricate details of

biochem and physiology - hey, maybe I just chose the wrong field). to start

again, when I look at a chinese character, the only way I know what it means

is because I have another book that tells me the definition. when I look at an

obscure wiseman term, the only way I know the definition is by having another

book that tells me the definition. In both cases, whether looking a character

or

a wiseman term, I rely an chinese-english dictionary to tell me what it means.

the meaning is acquired in the same fashion in both cases and no matter how

long I stare at the character it does not change my understanding of the

wiseman term.

 

How can it possibly be that the same exact definition is more valid when

referenced to a chinese character than to a standard translation term. Terms

signify something. According to modern literary theory (see Literary theory by

Eagleton), terms have no inherent meaning; we only know them by learning

what they signify. If the argument then falls back to the fact that characters

have many meanings and knowing the character in all its nuances gives

insight into what it actually means and this is also clinically important, I

would

argue back that:

 

1. This point is debatable. Other translators feel that characters used in TCM

have narrow technical meanings and it is often erroneous from a medical

perspective to read more into it than that. for example, that the meaning of qi

as it used in chinese philosophy may have little bearing on medical practice,

per se.

 

2. However, assuming it is vitally important to know all about qi, for example,

how am I better served by being able to recognize the character than I am by

reading book, which is written in english?

 

Contrary to your earlier assertion, I am very interested in what words mean. In

fact, etymology has been a lifelong interest of mine. ever since I read Tolkien

at 12, who wrote the lord of the rings as an exercise in philology, I have been

fascinated by what words mean and their roots in other languages. In fact, I

am often accused of being far too anal in this area of my teaching. But

apparently, I could go farther. but to suggest that I do not care what words

mean, that I " ceaselessly " take this position is completely ludicrous. Perhaps

you have as much trouble following my train of thought as I have following

yours. But my steadfast public support of wiseman terminology for over 12

years is solely because the meanings of words are so damn important to me.

that I disagree with you on how to acquire meaning is another issue.

However, you are not right because you say so with authority. Others with

equal authority in my estimation beg to differ.

 

 

[Guest guest]

A great number of people singing the illiteracy song are those whose primary income is from translation and publishing, and this causes a skewed view. I say do a decent needs analysis and find out if such language requirements are a perceived need for practitioners here in America. Then we have a baseline to compare the groups of people entering practice out of SIOM and PCOM ten years from now. Till we begin to see real clinical results, this is all bluster. >>>>Thank you totaly agree

alon

[Guest guest]

another example might be the ability to independently critique an idea in English that is based on a translation from Chinese. Another example might be to be able to access some journal articles in a timely manner. These would definitely contribute to one's betterment as a practitioner. They are teaching one to fish, as opposed to giving one a fish.

>>>>>Rory don't you think to achieve both these goals one needs to study much more than is proposed. I was to be able to critic Ken's translations I would need to spend at least as long as he has on the language.

The questions of journal article for me is still more about the readability of the information than excess to it. I think discussion and in-depth analysis of that topic is more important. We have hundreds of good translation of new I articles that that can be done on.

Alon

[Guest guest]

What claims are you speaking of? And what does this have to do with

the ability to begin simple translation with 30 hours of study?

Obviously, I am not speaking of translating the Nei Jing, I am speaking

of simple work on herb and point names (see books such as Grasping the

Wind), and then one can work up from there. The texts are there, such

as Unschuld's " Learning to Read Chinese " , Wiseman/Feng Ye's " Chinese

Medical Chinese/Grammar and Vocabulary " , and the Clinical Dictionary.

 

I think most of us are aware of the great fortitude necessary to

translate classical texts as a whole. The Unschuld Nei Jing project,

with a team of translators and years of work is a prime example.

However, this doesn't exclude the ability for an individual to access

material from these texts on one's own.

 

 

On Thursday, November 28, 2002, at 08:23 AM, WMorris116 wrote:

 

> I am amazed at the claims by westerners about translation of ancient

> and classical texts. Even the Chinese have committees who struggle

> with these texts and discover truths that have been taught incorrectly

> in mainstream TCM institutions. For example: Dr. Ma who is one of the

> new generation of PhDs from China studied with a colleague who

> discovered through translation of ancient Chinese texts into modern

> Chinese that the influential point of the bone is actually Du 14 not

> UB 11. This was a mistake made by the Chinese doing translation. My

> solution is to continue studying Chinese and use consultants who are

> familiar with old characters.