Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Todd: There have been at least several conspicuously absent voices in this discussion. While this forum is regularly visited by highly vocalized supporters, has anyone heard from other publishers, Macioca, Bensky, or Deadman (et al) on Wiseman's use of standardized langauge? Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Maciocca has a response on his website. I've heard nothing from Dan or Peter Deadman on this subject for quite some time. There has been no discussion in the Journal of Chinese Medicine to speak of in a few years. On Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 05:07 PM, James Ramholz <jramholz wrote: : > > There have been at least several conspicuously absent voices in this > discussion. While this forum is regularly visited by highly > vocalized supporters, has anyone heard from other publishers, > Macioca, Bensky, or Deadman (et al) on Wiseman's use of standardized > langauge? > > > Jim Ramholz > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed > healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate > academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety > of professional services, including board approved online continuing > education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Jim, Though you directed your question to I can remind you that Deadman published a " debate " of sorts on the terminology issues a few years back. I haven't heard from any of the people you mention on the subject for quite a while. Back in 2000 I invited Dan to write a piece for CAOM on his views, which he stated in this forum that a translation standard is more trouble than it's worth. He might have said that it causes more problems than it solved. I don't recall the exact wording. I didn't really understand what he meant at the time, which is largely why I invited him to clarify his views. But to date he has declined to do so. If you read the introduction to the glossary in the back of early editions of Materia Medica, the authors make their views on the subject of terminology quite clear. Rather than paraphrase them, I suggest that anyone who is interested just get a copy and read it for themselves. I believe, but am not sure, that after the second edition, this particular part of the book was changed. The literature in English in general and by the authors you name in particular, has tended to lack any comprehensive treatment of the nomenclature of the subject. What the collective voice on the subject in the English language has had to say about it prior to Wiseman's work: ignore it. Of course there have been others talking about it, but Nigel and Feng Ye are the ones who did the heavy lifting and did something about aligning English language terms with their Chinese equivalents. And contrary to their work representing some sort of mind-enslaving potential, which has been suggested many times in the past, we now find that it is having a truly liberating effect as it allows us to discuss terms, concepts, theories, formulas, and treatments much more clearly. It would be very interesting to hear from other authors as to why this collective ignorance of the nomenclature has been perpetuated, but what they have to say about standardized use of terms in Chinese medicine is a matter well recorded in past publications. Ken : > > There have been at least several conspicuously absent voices in this > discussion. While this forum is regularly visited by highly > vocalized supporters, has anyone heard from other publishers, > Macioca, Bensky, or Deadman (et al) on Wiseman's use of standardized > langauge? > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 , " James Ramholz < jramholz> " <jramholz> wrote: : > > There have been at least several conspicuously absent voices in this > discussion. While this forum is regularly visited by highly > vocalized supporters, has anyone heard from other publishers, > Macioca, Bensky, or Deadman (et al) on Wiseman's use of standardized > langauge? > > > Jim Ramholz Bensky has made his point known on this list in the past. Wiseman responds directly to Bensky in one of the file articles at CHA. Giovanni has not made a formal declaration on the matter in print that I have seen, though reportedly he has been given the opportunity. Deadman has made his position clear in his review of the PD several years back and the ensuing rebuttals he published. All three are on the membership of the CHA list, yet have chosen to not respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 , " " < zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Maciocca has a response on his website. http://www.ambrit.co.uk/giovanni-maciocia/articles/onterminology.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 , " <@i...> " <@i...> wrote: > > Maciocca has a response on his website. > http://www.ambrit.co.uk/giovanni- maciocia/articles/onterminology.html : I find Maciocia's various arguments about translation and its clinical applications very articulate and persuasive. All the more so in light of my own difficulties of describing clinical features of a pulse diagnosis system that is not standardized. Obviously, one size does not fit all. Jim Ramholz 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.