TCM text book

July 16, 2003

, " seacell1 " <seacell@n...> wrote:

>

> So I asked the question initially what was needed to make the ideal

> text book for a STUDENT since the majority of texts used in our

> schools today are criticized by most graduates and students

Dave

Da Feng's book is not a textbook. So Bensky still is the ideal textbook (until

someone does something as comprehensive in wiseman terms). I also like xu

and wang's chinese materia medica.

As for bullets flying, I feel very strongly that the oldtimers on the list are

very

careful to attack ideas and not people in most cases. Newcomers are more

likely to cross this line as has happened several times in the past month as the

list and volume have grown dramtically. However, I am subject to more

personal attacks than anyone else on this list. I believe I was called a racist

earlier today. I typically turn the other cheek because I don't want to be

perceived as guiding the list according to my emotional whims. I will also

rescue anyone who deserves rescuing and chastise anyone who deserves

chastising. So be bold in your questioning, but be clear that many statements

will be challenged vigorously because anything less would be a shirking of our

collective responsibility. And don't be too attached to your current thoughts.

My mind has changed so many times in the past 16 years, it makes my head

spin. Consider evidence and be prepared for bluntness. We know each other

personally from back in the day, so you can be sure anything I write is meant

with your interests at heart.

July 16, 2003

<<< Steve wrote: They don't understand how frustrating and unclear

the current default, poorly written English references and

terminology is as they still think in Chinese. I believe

this " thinking " explains infinitely more in their own minds that is

not deemed necessary to translate or too difficult to with their

current TCM English vocabulary. >>>

Steve:

While using Wiseman terminology settles some problems of

translation, it is not a guarantee of meaning. If you look at Steven

Birch's Winter 2003 article in EJOM, " What is the Sanjiao, Triple

Burner? An Exploration, " you can see the wide variety and

conflicting ideas regarding the definition of " Sanjiao; " some of the

theories do not even have any clinical application that matches the

theory. Another example: the controversy started in the 7th century

regarding whether it is correct to say 'defensive qi' has its origin

in the lower burner has not be resolved. Su Si-mo claimed that the

term 'xia/lower' was a textual error made in transcribing the Ling

Shu; it should have read 'shang/upper.'

This controversy, disputing part of the very foundation of CM, may

never be resolved. It certainly has not been resolved in Chinese

terms in many centuries. But perhaps it could be if we weren't

exhorted and convinced to ignore biomedical terms and ideas. Some

major componenets of the immune system (IMO, we can equate this with

wei qi function)---white blood cells and platelets---grow from a

single precursor cell known as a hematopoietic stem cell prduced by

the bone marrow, and some lymphocytes mature in bone marrow. So we

can say that wei qi is produced or begins its development in the

lower jiao, since other components of the immune system develop in

the thymus (an endocrine gland associated with spleen). So, while in

one sense wei qi is produced in the lower jiao, it is also produced

or developed in the middle jiao. Then expressed by the lung. Most

contact between antigens and lymphocytes occurs in the lymphoid

organs---the lymph nodes, spleen, and tonsils, as well as

specialized areas of the intestine, and lungs. So, the answer to the

dispute is more complex than the Chinese anticipated in the 7th

century, in that it takes all 3 jiaos. Following the lead of

neurophysiology and Complexity Theory, the basic unit is now

networks and dynamic interactions; not parts acting in isolation.

Some will say that I am mixing apples and oranges, but I think the

parallel is practical and helps resolves the dispute. We certainly

can't ignore WM---the Chinese don't.

Birch sums up his article by saying: " Looking at the various

descriptions above, how should we select one set of ideas and not

others? By what criteria should we make such judgments? In the end,

it is probably best to acknowledge that our understanding of this

difficult historical entity is limited. It is best not to believe

that how we each use it individually in the context of our practices

is the whole picture. It is better to remain open to the

possibilities of different ways of understanding what the triple

burner might be. Furthermore it is probably useful to acknowledge

that choosing to believe and utilize certain models makes them

neither 'right' nor 'wrong', just valuable in the context of how

each of us practices. "

By using Wiseman we can budge the door open a little, but it will

not be a panacea or ultimate solution.

Just thinking out loud.

Jim Ramholz

July 16, 2003

Hi James,

Your points are well taken. I fully realise that Wiseman terminology is not a panacea; it is just the best solution I can see for the problems we all face with learning TCM in English at this time. Especially at the basic foundation level. For example, translating the entire curriculum of actual basic TCM texts used in china into Wiseman terminology would serve as a good basis for our own professional education. They would form a credible foundation similar to the default in china. Really, that is all I guess I am hoping for at this stage.

This may very well be a pipe dream at this stage due to the colossal work involved and the limited financial incentive for undertaking such a task......it would be a labour of love rather then for monetary gain. Such a sacrifice of time and talent would certainly be gratefully appreciated by the western student community and a generous legacy to the growth of TCM in the west. With texts such as “Fundamentals of ” by Wiseman and “Practical Diagnosis in Traditional ” by Marnae Ergil we have a great start in this pursuit. Unfortunately, they have limited use in professional TCM programs in the west at this stage in a true reference fashion......to my eyes they are often on the reference text list without concern for what this actually means.i.e they are not given the respect the term “reference” infers if any difference of opinion is expressed by a Chinese teacher.

The issue of definitions of concepts which have a controversial history is not at all what I am talking about when suggesting Wiseman terminology would clear much of the learning problems/text issues up. But even in these cases, having an English equivalent for each term/character used in these arguments would allow those of us without Chinese reading ability to more fully understand and consider these controversies for ourselves.

Best wishes

Steve

my general suggestion is On 16/7/03 7:08 PM, " James Ramholz " <jramholz wrote: