types of engagement

[Guest guest]

I think there are several basic ways people engage each other on lists

like CHA. Because of the tendency for subtlety to get lost in email, I

thought I would briefly lay this out. Much of the conflict that occurs

online is due to not putting each other's words in the proper context.

While these are not technical definitions, they are my own spin, I think

they reflect at least how I behave:

 

1. discussion - this is when 2 or more parties already have a lot of

mutual agreement on a topic and use that basis as a jumping off point for

deeper understanding. we see this, for example, in case discussions

between practitioners who adhere to the same school of thought. they may

not agree on every point, but the goal is to advance each other's

knowledge through dialogue. It is typical for those in a discussion to

engage each other directly for many posts.

 

2. debate - this is when 2 or more parties begin with fundamental

disagreements on a topic. in most cases, it is highly unlikely that

either party will ever convince the other of his position. We see this,

for example, in the language and terminology debate, where, according to

my scorecard, no vocal participant in this debate has ever changed their

position on this list. the goal of a debate is to win, to have one's view

prevail. however, this type of engagement should be thought of more like

a courtroom trial than discussion. One should center on convincing the

judge and jury (those who read our posts), not one's adversary. In a

courtroom, one would never expect the defense lawyer to close his argument

with an admission that the prosecutor was right, after all. the goal is

not to convince one's adversary; that almost never happens.

 

Debates often involve issues that are deeply held passionate beliefs and

we cannot expect people to change their minds. however, we can try and

sway majority sentiment one way of another on an issue. It is typical for

those in a debate to state their position and then step back. Lawyers do

not directly engage each other; they make their cases and occasionally

object to procedural breaches (such as ad hominem attacks online). It may

be disconcerting to some who are uncomfortable with this type of

engagement, as it is not generally considered polite conversation to

behave this way outside New York City. However, we are not having drinks

over dinner. This is serious stuff and debate is often appropriate.

Personally, when in debate mode, I will not reply to every post on a topic

that challenges my points. I only reply to those points that I think are

so persuasive as to weaken my case. A lawyer does not rebut point for

point. sometimes it is best to leave someone else's words unchallenged as

that strengthen's my case by allowing a weak argument to collapse under

its own weight.

 

3. polemic - this is a type of tactic I use frequently. I list it by

itself here as it illustrates an important matter related to number 2

above. Polemic is a debate tactic in which one takes a very polar point

of view (the pole in polemic). One may or may not believe in one's own

argument (as is often the case with lawyers). The point is to force one's

opponent to rebut extreme points of view. I do this when an argument has

logical and evidentiary merit, even if I don't hold the belief myself. I

do this when I feel the counterargument has not been made with adequate

logic. I want to force the counterargument to include logic and facts to

support itself. This is a tactic pure and simple. However, it may often

be confused with passionate commitment of views. So, for example, I do

feel passionate about the herb standards issue; I merely find the language

issue to be illogical. My posts on language issues are polemic because I

think many of the most ardent advocates for this position have done a very

poor job convincing anyone outside the choir of the logic of their case.

 

4. journalistic - sometimes we are just presenting information we

discover out in cyber world. journalism should be unbiased and without

editorialization. it may involve forwarding an abstract or reporting a

study without comment. we occasionally see this.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Perhaps (but I am not so convinced) within the confines of this group

you are correct. Perhaps a poll on this subject would be germane.

 

Within the profession? Certainly, more and more students at PCOM and

other institutions are interested, and more people are interested (in

medical Chinese) in the profession at large. I know this to be true,

because only a few years ago, interest in studying medical Chinese was

near zero. While Andy Ellis and Michael Broffman were expressing the

importance of studying medical Chinese quietly for years, it was

largely Bob Flaws who led the battle cry.

 

The problem with this issue is that until one tackles the issue of

language directly, it doesn't make any sense. This is why the Wiseman

dictionary is such a great text. It provides a bridge from English

language study of CM to pinyin and Chinese. Before this tool was

available, the possibilities of accessing medical Chinese writing was

much more remote.

 

 

On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 09:05 AM, wrote:

 

> I merely find the language issue to be illogical. My posts on

> language issues are polemic because I think many of the most ardent

> advocates for this position have done a very poor job convincing

> anyone outside the choir of the logic of their case.

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Perhaps a poll on this subject would be germane. . . . Certainly,

more and more students at PCOM and other institutions are

interested, and more people are interested (in medical Chinese) in

the profession at large. >>>

 

There is always a contingency that are intrested in learning to

translate CM texts. But how fast has that contingency really grown

over the last 5 years? I would guess only in proportion to the

profession as a whole.

may want to set up a poll for the CHA, but one poll is always

active: the number of schools that offer Chinese language classes as

part of their core curriculum. Wanting to study it isn't enough.

Students, like everyone else, vote with their dollars. The school

where I teach offered classes several times in the past but there

weren't enough interested (paying) students to justify continuing

them.

 

Your interest seems to want to make Chinese langauge compulsory in

school. So, the question becomes: out of the total number of

schools, how many already make Chinese langauge classes compulsory?

How many offer it as a elective?

 

 

>>> Before this tool was available, the possibilities of accessing

medical Chinese writing was much more remote.... This is why the

Wiseman dictionary is such a great text. >>>

 

I think your viewpoint about access is exaggerated. After all, many

books were translated before Wiseman; and don't forget that we have

always had access through native Chinese teachers for many years---

who, in turn, have access to the entire corpus of CM literature.

So, the notion of a lack of access to the entire body of CM

literature may be a red herring.

 

While some standardization is necessary to provide consistancy to

the plethora of concepts and historical voices of CM, some of

Wiseman's choices for translation clearly inhibit and may ultimately

limit support for it---even among those of us who (want to)

translate. Questions of translation may be only deemed resolved

inside the clique of Wiseman supporters.

 

I see my role not as an antagonist, but as a member of the loyal

opposition, because we both want many of the same things for

ourselves and this profession.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

At 9:05 AM -0800 1/18/03, wrote:

>3. polemic - this is a type of tactic I use frequently. I list it

>by itself here as it illustrates an important matter related to

>number 2 above. Polemic is a debate tactic in which one takes a

>very polar point of view (the pole in polemic). One may or may not

>believe in one's own argument (as is often the case with lawyers).

>The point is to force one's opponent to rebut extreme points of

>view. I do this when an argument has logical and evidentiary merit,

>even if I don't hold the belief myself. I do this when I feel the

>counterargument has not been made with adequate logic. I want to

>force the counterargument to include logic and facts to support

>itself. This is a tactic pure and simple. However, it may often be

>confused with passionate commitment of views. So, for example, I do

>feel passionate about the herb standards issue; I merely find the

>language issue to be illogical. My posts on language issues are

>polemic because I think many of the most ardent advocates for this

>position have done a very poor job convincing anyone outside the

>choir of the logic of their case.

--

 

On the whole I think you use this tactic well. However, it can

definitely cause problems in on-line discussions. When it's done in

person there are many cues to what is going on that are lacking in

email. For example, playing devil's advocate in person is usually

easily read by other debaters, who can then go along with the game to

the benefit of all. In on-line discussions it is often impossible to

gauge, and people feel duped by the lack of authenticity of the

perpetrator. This often gives rise to anger and withdrawal, rather

than a deeper examination of the soundness of the arguments. On the

whole I think if you use this tactic, you should make it abundantly

obvious that you are doing so.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Compulsory is a term that sounds forbidding, no? I think having

medical Chinese in the cirriculum would be refreshing, interesting, and

important.

 

My feeling is that not having a grounding in medical Chinese in school

has been a handicap that I've been struggling in later adulthood to

catch up with. I still find it difficult to access what I need to

write or teach the subjects I have at heart.

 

I don't think the next generation of practitioners should have that

struggle; to finish their training and find that their access to

Chinese medical literature is limited by lack of reading skills in

Chinese.

 

 

On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 01:02 AM, James Ramholz

<jramholz wrote:

 

> Your interest seems to want to make Chinese langauge compulsory in

> school. So, the question becomes: out of the total number of

> schools, how many already make Chinese langauge classes compulsory?

> How many offer it as a elective?

[Guest guest]

 

 

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on

the matter of the format and presentation

of ideas here.

 

My own approach is far more simple minded

than yours. I view these lists as opportunities

to engage people in conversations. Period.

 

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything.

 

Just speaking my mind and enjoying reading

what others have to say.

 

As in all conversations, there is a certain

emotional factor and emotions run sometimes

high, sometimes low. They are, I believe, an

important factor in how we understand life

in general and certainly the topics that we

discuss on these lists.

 

Your comments prompted a couple of additional thoughts,

below...

 

 

> I think there are several basic ways people engage each other on

lists

> like CHA. I merely find the language

> issue to be illogical. My posts on language issues are polemic

because I

> think many of the most ardent advocates for this position have

done a very

> poor job convincing anyone outside the choir of the logic of their

case.

 

Truth be told, we are limited in discussing

the language issue to the extent to which

we understand the langauge.

 

The logic of the language issue is also

utterly simple and summed up in a quote

from Carl Jung.

 

" The mere use of words is futile if you

do not know what they mean. "

 

Ken