contemporary materials and the classics

[Guest guest]

Bob Flaws:

I am much more interested in knowing

what contemporary Chinese clinicians are doing and thinking. Until or

unless one has access to a large proportion of contemporary materials,

I think the "classics" are largely a waste of time.

Malino:

Bob, I when read BP Treatise on Spleen/Stomach a feeling sneaks up on me that says, "How do I use some of this stuff?" I feel this text requires a guide or person to tell you how use the book. I find it ironic and refreshing that you would make such a statement.

There seemed to be disconnect in how the Blue Poppy catalog description touts can a book’s importance, but upon review, the book doesn’t fulfill the catalogue description. Example: The Spleen/Stomach back cover touts itself as being important for complicated diseases like AIDS, SLE, MS, CFIDS, and many cancers. Yet I feel books like Treatment of Modern Western Medical Diseases fulfill their mission much better than Spleen/Stomach.

So what is a practitioner supposed to do? So far BP articles on Yin Fire, and Treatment of Modern western Medical Diseases help flesh out classic book like Spleen/Stomach.

Are BP books like Modern Western Diseases, Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus, and Chinese Medical Psychiatry attempts to blend classic material with contemporary materials? So far I have enjoy them, and found them more accessable and digestable than most of the other classic stuff. But that has not discouraged me from trying to read the classics. BP’s Heart Transmission of Medicine is one of the better ones that I enjoy. The jury is still out on the Pulse Classic.

Are efforts (at least on you end) being made to link contemporary and classic material in a way that is informative and useful?

Malino the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*

[Guest guest]

Malino,

 

You point is well taken. I agree that it takes a lot of education

(such as a reading knowledge of the original Chinese) to see that the

Pi Wei Lun is actually about autoimmune and allergic diseases. In my

classes, I tell students that they should not expect to understand

what Li is talking about on the first or even the second reading. This

requires active, not passive reading, and one has to bring to the task

a good knowledge of clinical medicine in order to reframe the material

into contemporary categories.

 

So, on the one hand, I think the the BP catalog description is

accurate. However, on the other, practical experience as a teacher

shows that most Westerners do not have the knowledge and education it

takes to understand how to read this book. Even for a native Chinese

speaker, it would not be an easy read and would require commentary and

explanation by a real-live teacher. At one point, we had hoped to

publish a companion volume of commentary on the Pi Wei Lun, but the

author who was going to do that project never carried through. As you

note, I have been trying to provide commentary through my own essays

and explanations. For instance, I teach on Li-Zhu medicine in many of

Blue Poppy Institute's Distance Learning programs. You might want to

check out our program titled, " Complex Formulas for Complex Patients. "

I'll be teaching this same information live this weekend in Santa

Monica, CA. In other words, I do think that Blue Poppy has made

commentary and explanation on the Pi Wei Lun available in English, if,

granted, not all in one place.

 

That being said, the introductory section of the Treatment of Western

Disease is an example of how Li-Zhu medicine can be reframed to help

explain complex, multi-pattern presentations in allergies, autoimmune

diseases, and other complex modern Western medical diseases.

 

At some point in the future, when I'm older, wiser, and better read, I

do hope to write a book length project on Li-Zhu medicine and its

clinical application in contemporary practice.

 

I agree entirely with you that I am not all that sure just how

clinically relevant the Mai Jing is. It is historically of huge

importance, but clinically? I ain't that useful to me. There's been a

lot of water under the bridge of Chinese pulse examination since then.

In my experience, I would hate to be cut off from the Bin Hu Mai Xue

or any of the other famous Ming and Qing dynasty books on the pulse

or, for that matter, any of the 15-20 contemporary Chinese books on

pulse examination I have on my shelf. Nor, I believe, would I

understand the pulse as well as I do if I were not able to read

various articles on specific pulse images published over the last 10

years in various Chinese medical journals.

 

Bob

 

, " Malino Khun " <QiMed@H...> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know who wrote this passage:

 

> I agree entirely with you that I am not all that sure just how > clinically relevant the Mai Jing is. It is historically of huge > importance, but clinically? I ain't that useful to me.

But -

I have had huge clinical breakthroughs using the Mai Jing. It explained issues related to the pulse that Shen and Hammer could not. I must admit that the foundation they gave me made it possible to extract practical clinical strategies form the book. It was not easy, I had to sit with it for weeks on end....but then it happened - insight. It is certainly not like reading a book where a particular diagnosis or herbal bit of information is provided. Classics are often arcane and mandate an ability to red between the lines.

 

Will Morris

[Guest guest]

> I agree entirely with you that I am not all that sure just how

> clinically relevant the Mai Jing is. It is historically of huge

> importance, but clinically? I ain't that useful to me.

 

Did BP publish the Mai Jing and other texts like it, primarily for

its historical significance?

 

Malino

[Guest guest]

Gotta read the lines - in English and Chinese.....But. I maintain it is best done with a team, one English, with at least one expert in old characters.

 

Will

 

How do you read between the lines if you

don't read the lines?

[Guest guest]

You got it Jim.

For me, the ability to read between the lines is directly and dually informed by family lineage and clinical experience (logging over 50,000 patient visits). My Chinese translational partners often have little to say as to what a classical passage indicates in a clinical sense. But, when they speak it, a form of logos occurs between us such that the potentials of a passage are realized (this is often not easily accomplished, we may take months on a single passage). I will often cull the English texts for an area I want to focus on. Then sit with my Chinese partner, find the similar passages in various texts from different time frames and work it through.

Will

 

My fear was that if I wasn't actually practicing what they're writing about, I would be missing out on most of the deeper context and meaning. Today, pulses constitute almost all of my diagnosis in clinic; so, like Will, I find the Mai Jing familiar and informative.

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

It is certainly not like reading a book where a particular diagnosis

or herbal bit of information is provided. Classics are often arcane

and mandate an ability to read between the lines.

 

 

Will:

 

" Reading between the lines " is putting it politely. This has been my

experience too. Great clinical ideas are often mentioned but not

laid out or developed.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim, Will,

 

> , WMorris116@A... wrote:

> It is certainly not like reading a book where a particular

diagnosis

> or herbal bit of information is provided. Classics are often

arcane

> and mandate an ability to read between the lines.

>

>

> Will:

>

> " Reading between the lines " is putting it politely. This has been

my

> experience too. Great clinical ideas are often mentioned but not

> laid out or developed.

 

How do you read between the lines if you

don't read the lines?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In , " dragon90405 <yulong@m...>

wrote:

> How do you read between the lines if you don't read the lines?

 

 

Unlike you, I am not an expert in classical literature. But I do

read the lines. I read the Chinese (as best I can); then compare

translations (when available), look up terms in the Wiseman

dictionary and other dictionaries. Then I compare what I find to my

own extensive clinical practice (nearly 30 years).

 

Clinical practice is the ultimate motivation for and source of the

literature. The Chinese obviously couldn't write down everything in

their books---even after 13,000 texts. The real art is in the

practice, not in the talking about it. Consequently, they often

mention things in passing that are [iMO] immensely important, or

start mentioning an idea without developing it further. They are

obviously counting on context (literary and clinical) and

application for elucidating further meaning.

 

My fear was that if I wasn't actually practicing what they're

writing about, I would be missing out on most of the deeper context

and meaning. Today, pulses constitute almost all of my diagnosis in

clinic; so, like Will, I find the Mai Jing familiar and informative.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

> You got it Jim.

 

Sounds fascinating. I hope you publish some of your findings soon.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Will did you read the book pulsalogy? What do you think of it

Alon

[Guest guest]

Will, Jim, and all,

 

I really appreciate this exchange as it leads to

a question that has been on my mind for some time.

It's related, I think, to the question Bob Felt

posed the other day about why the discussion of

language and classics heats up in the peculiar

way it does.

 

It's obvious to me from your comments that you

both place great importance on the study of

the classics and on reading them in their

original form. Not only reading but undertaking

the arduous task of interpreting and then

applying your interpretations to your work

in the clinic.

 

Lest anyone mistake this for a scolding, I

want to point out once again that I am not

an expert. I am a student. And, like Will,

I generally approach classical Chinese with

all the help I can get from native speakers

who have studied the classical language at

length and depth.

 

But here's my question. What is the logic

that leads from your personal experience

to the position that we don't really know

if this kind of study is valuable or should

be included in the training of clinicians?

 

The vast majority of people who have undertaken

the study of the language and who have invested

even a little of themselves in the study of

Chinese medical literature, classical or contemporary,

report benefit.

 

Will, you mentioned research and studies on this

point. But don't your own experiences carry

weight? Why deny students something

that is clearly so beneficial?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

In , " dragon90405 <yulong@m...> "

> But here's my question. What is the logic

> that leads from your personal experience

> to the position that we don't really know

> if this kind of study is valuable or should

> be included in the training of clinicians?

 

But we do know. Of course this study is valuable and, ideally,

should be included in some way; minimally, the etymology of

essential terms and the history of ideas should always be included

in introductory classes.

 

I think you're talking about learning Chinese out of the real

context. This context is the first 3-4 years of education. So, if

we're talking only about the first 3-4 years of school with its

restrictions on time and finances, it's a judgment call whether to

have a full language program. The real question is not whether

Chinese would be useful to know---we know that it is. The correct

question is " How do you best make use of those limited hours and

resources in the first 3-4 years of education? "

 

Without a doubt, these first years should be focused on what is

clinically important. I would think that exposing students to

clinically important topics like pulse diagnosis and English

translations of the Suwen, Wen Bing, Ling Shu, Mai Jing, would use

up an extra time. The reading list should be expanded to include

selections from auxillary literature such as the essays of Shigehisa

Kuriyama, Elisabeth Hsu, Vivienne Lu, Donald Harper, Volker Schied,

etc. The history and interpretation of important terms are included

in these readings.

 

To make learning Chinese language a manditory part of the first 3-4

years, you would need to exclude something from the above list to

make time for it. It's a matter of managing time and finances, not

whether learning Chinese would be valuable. Once the practitioner is

familiar with all the literature and theories that are already

available in English (probably an impossible task in that limited

amount of time), learning the Chinese language becomes more

important, productive, and necessary.

 

 

Jim Ramholz