Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 Phil, Thanks, again, for your input. Very thought provoking. > > Agreed, though Alice and the Mad Hatter might disagree. We will > come back to the MEANINGS of the terms later; one MUST study > the MEANINGS intended in the Chinese terms. Can you elaborate on the pathways connecting meanings and words? How do we study one without the other? > > Ken again: > > … if we continue to ignore the language we simply reduce our > > effectiveness in limit our own knowledge and influence. > > It ai'nt necessarily so! We can know an enormous amount about a > people, culture, or their philosophy without ever knowing their > language. How? By learning from those scholars who have made it > a priority to know the language and immerse themselves in that > culture. And who are these? Of course even reading the " original " texts in the subject is nothing more than learning from those scholars who have made it a priority to know the language and immerse themselves in that culture. Those are the folks who wrote the books and continue to write the books, do the teaching, and most importantly practice the medicine. You refer to " those scholars " in a contemporary context as if we are overrun by such. But I'm only aware of a handfull, and the situation that we've got is this handfull of people trying to carry oceans by the bucketfull. This is one of the reasons why I believe we need a far more widespread push for familiarity with the Chinese language, i.e., to sew more seeds that might give rise to a greater number of scholars who can devote themselves to the subject. This is what I mean, in part, when I talk about our responsibilities as individuals. Plus I believe that traditional Chinese arts and sciences include an approach to the cultivation of knowledge that requires of each individual student a certain self-discipline that is rooted in the same cultural soil which is so largely composed of language and linguistic concepts. [...] > > Ken again: > > Do you see any relationship between the theoretical > > principles/practical applications of TCM and the modes of thought > > and expression that are embedded in the langauge? > > C'mon Ken! Of course! But we can learn these via teachers rather > than spending our lives trying to master a language that most of us > will never use outside of the study area. Two brief comments on this point. 1. I don't believe that this relationship is widely or universally recognized; 2. Who are these teachers and how do they go about teaching students how to access these modes of thought and expression without recourse to the Chinese language itself? > > For >60 years, the Irish Government has made it COMPULSORY > for all students to learn the Gaelic language in our primary- and > secondary- schools. It is still compulsory today, and our students > MUST take Gaelic as a subject in their pre-university exams. > > Thus, Irish children have " been taught " Gaelic for c. 1 hour/day for > 13-14 consecutive years! In spite of that, the attempt to resurrect > Gaelic as a spoken language here has failed miserably. Though > many of us know a few Gaelic words and phrases, <15000 people > from a population of c. 4 million can speak it fluently. > > We are proud of our culture, our music and our history and the > " English " that is spoken here has clear overtone- and syntactical- > differences from " Oxford Exglish " that trace back to direct > translation from Gaelic to English. However, we do not speak it and > most of us could not do so if our lives depended on it. Why? > > IMO, the reason is twofold. (1) Most people, especially the Irish, > detest compulsion. (2), and more importantly, we lack the > MOTIVATION to speak it. Like it or not, English is the language of > science, art, business and politics, etc. in this neck of the woods. Well, like it or not, Chinese is the language of Chinese medicine. QED. > > While I see great value (and heart and emotion etc) in Gaelic, I > believe that our students would be better educated if compulsory > Gaelic were abolished and the extra time were devoted to studying > maths, science and " living languages " instead. I have no problem > with OPTIONAL Gaelic (or optional Chinese) and I would argue that > I can know my people, history and culture WITHOUT knowing > Gaelic. This would be a difficult argument to rebut since you are the only one who knows. But could the Gaelic language and the culture and history in which it devleloped have accumulated that development if your Irish ancestors had felt...and acted the same way? Language, culture, medicine, and the like only endure, as you have clearly pointed out when people need them. If we are aware that we need the Chinese medical language and literature, then we need to take responsibility for it. > > I had written: > > IMO, CHM and AP schools would be better to teach the Pinyin terms > > alongside the English (or local-language) terms but FORGET about > > teaching the Chinese language as part of the medical course. > > Ken asked: > > If the handling of Chinese language is limited to pinyin, what > > benefit do students get? After all, pinyin simply provides a > > pronounciation guide. It would be equivalent to spelling out > > English words with Chinese characters that produce roughly > > equivalent sounds when spoken. It would help anyone understand > > either the meanings of the words of the structure of the thought > > and logic of the theories. > > Maybe I did not express myself well, but THAT is what I meant! > IMO, it is enough to learn the Pinyin (AND its meaning) side-by- > side with the English terms. It is the MEANING that is important, > not the LANGUAGE. Again, I just have to ask you to clarify as to where you draw the line between meaning and language. > > > When I came to China >10 years ago, it was very rare to find > > foreigners who were fluent in Chinese. Today the picture is > > completely different. In Beijing I run into non-Chinese who are > > fluent speakers, readers, writers of the language nearly every day. > > And most of these people are here holding down well paid jobs. > > Yes, but presumably not in TCM! Of course many western > professionals learn Asian languages! But their motivation usually is > business-oriented; if one wants to do business with Martians, one > better learn the Martian language. That presumption is not correct. The actual numbers are, of course, far fewer than in the business community, but roughly speaking the percentages are comparable. I find far more non-Chinese studying Chinese as an integral aspect of their study of Chinese medicine. And this doesn't just include Western non-Chinese. There are lots of Koreans in Beijing studying TCM, and they all manage to learn Chinese, some quite haltingly and some utterly fluently. And if you look at the Chinese medical scene in places like Korea where the language of the subject has been widely embraced and accepted as an indispensable dimension of the study of the subject, you find a vastly different character of the integration of Chinese medicine in the local culture. Basically, what historical experience has shown is that in those non-Chinese areas in which the students and practitioners enthusiastically accept the responsibility for the Chinese medical language, the subject and its study and practice tend to flourish. > > > Mastery of any subject is usually a matter of the evaluation of > > others. Study and self-growth is something that is more or less up > > to ourselves. My message to all of my colleagues and fellow > > students of the subject is that we should all be concerned with > > continual self-improvement. In nature, things are either expanding > > or contracting. While we have life and consciousness, it's never > > too late or too difficult to " master " anything we set our minds > > to. > > Precisely! But we MUST prioritise the areas for work/study. IMO, > LIMITED time is better spent on studying CONCEPTS and > PRACTICE rather than on studying LANGUAGE. One of the students in a seminar I taught in Chengdu years ago pointed out to me the close congruence between traditional Chinese medical theory and information theory. And he illuminated his whole discussion in class over a period of several weeks by refernce to varioius Chinese words and terms. I guess where I'm not tracking with your argument here is this categorical distinction you seem to be making between ideas and words. In my mind, they seem closely related. .... > > > If you haven't already joined the ChineseMedicine.net list, I urge > > you to do so. Bob Felt has just posted a long reply to many of the > > recent topics that have been occupying our attention here at CHA. > > Ken > > Thanks for the tip. I d today. See you there. And thanks, again. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2003 Report Share Posted January 25, 2003 > > But I'm only aware of a handfull, > and the situation that we've got > is this handfull of people trying > to carry oceans by the bucketfull. > > This is one of the reasons why I > believe we need a far more widespread > push for familiarity with the Chinese > language, i.e., to sew more seeds that > might give rise to a greater number > of scholars who can devote themselves > to the subject. > > Ken, Nail on the head... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 , " < @h...> " <@h...> wrote: > > > > This is one of the reasons why I > > believe we need a far more widespread > > push for familiarity with the Chinese > > language, i.e., to sew more seeds that > > might give rise to a greater number > > of scholars who can devote themselves > > to the subject. > > > > > > > Ken, > > Nail on the head... > > -Jason No one has ever argued against the need for familiarity with chinese language on this list. We have argued against the need to study chinese in chinese at the masters level. This debate has not centered on the issue of familiarity in the past few years. It has centered on the perceived need for ALL of us to access TCM data in chinese on our own in order to practice effectively. Perhaps not fluency, but far more than simple " familiarity " has been demanded. Translation skills have been demanded. You guys can back off now, but if this is all you ever wanted, I guess we all always agreed and can just move on from what is not in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Todd: Nail on the head! Jim Ramholz , " <@i...> " <@i...> wrote: > No one has ever argued against the need for familiarity with chinese language on this list. We have argued against the need to study chinese in chinese at the masters level. This debate has not centered on the issue of familiarity in the past few years. It has centered on the perceived need for ALL of us to access TCM data in chinese on our own in order to practice effectively. Perhaps not fluency, but far more than simple " familiarity " has been demanded. Translation skills have been demanded. You guys can back off now, but if this is all you ever wanted, I guess we all always agreed > and can just move on from what is not in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 > > No one has ever argued against the need for familiarity with chinese > language on this list. We have argued against the need to study chinese in > chinese at the masters level. This debate has not centered on the issue of > familiarity in the past few years. It has centered on the perceived need for > ALL of us to access TCM data in chinese on our own in order to practice > effectively. Perhaps not fluency, but far more than simple " familiarity " has > been demanded. Translation skills have been demanded. You guys can > back off now, but if this is all you ever wanted, I guess we all always agreed > and can just move on from what is not in dispute. You are correct - Firstly, my agreeance with Ken was maybe hasty... I only should have agreed with the last part, about sewing the seeds... But exposure... I do not think translation skills are needed, or profieciency... Everyone does not need to access to literture- Just as all of us do not need to do ONE tests... If we all can agree that exposure is important, why can't we agree that is should be in a mster's level course.? I think the too full arguement does not hold up... What is the next resistance idea? - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.