Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Ken, It so happens that besides Ted Kaptchuk, another very important of my teachers was ... Giovanni Maciocia. I thought that after Ted, Giovanni would probably be next. You may be interested in an article Giovanni wrote, entitled 'On Terminology' which is at http://www.giovanni-maciocia.com/articles/onterminology.html Wainwright - " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 > And he or she who defines Chinese medical > terms rules the Chinese medical world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 Wainwright, Everybody is next, at least according to my plan. I've been saying that from the beginning of this thread. I think we need to carefully examine all of the major contributors, representations, presumptions, etc. as an ongoing matter of professional integrity. I'm familiar with Maciocia's views on terminology. Peter Deadman a couple of years back published somewhat of a debate on the topic in his journal. Despite the procedural points raised recently in response to my latest post on the subject, no one has yet managed to convince me or anyone else (probably including themselves) that the premise that it's better to know what the words we use mean than not to makes any sense whatsoever. I will respond in a minute to the points Rory and Marnae raised concerning the deficiencies in my treatment of Harriet and Efrem and their book. But I wanted to let you know that I am keenly aware of what Maciocia has had to say on the subject of terminology. In a word, he's wrong. But that doesn't make me unwilling to listen to him. I'd invited him to publish further on the topic in CAOM, but he became impatient with how slow I am as an editor and in the end withdrew his submission. I hope to hear from him if and when he has more to say. I would really love it if someone could just convince me that it really makes no sense to know Chinese in this field. Then I could spend a lot of time doing other things. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 23, 2003 Report Share Posted October 23, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " wrote: > Despite the procedural points raised > recently in response to my latest > post on the subject, no one has yet > managed to convince me or anyone > else (probably including themselves) > that the premise that it's better to know > what the words we use mean than not > to makes any sense whatsoever. >>> Ken: I think you misrepresent the previous arguments against Wiseman's standardization. Much of the disagreement was actually about whether a literal translation style (like Wiseman) or a more figurative style of translation was the best way to convey ideas from CM. I don't think anyone argued that it is 'better not to know.' Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2003 Report Share Posted October 24, 2003 Ken, can you re-phrase this? I didn't catch the meaning. doug Ken wrote: Despite the procedural points raised recently in response to my latest post on the subject, no one has yet managed to convince me or anyone else (probably including themselves) that the premise that it's better to know what the words we use mean than not to makes any sense whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 At 01:46 PM 10/24/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Jim, > > > > > Much of the disagreement was actually about whether a literal > > translation style (like Wiseman) or a more figurative style of > > translation was the best way to convey ideas from CM. I don't think > > anyone argued that it is 'better not to know.' > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > >The entire field, more or less, has not >only argued but accepted the argument >that it is better not to know the >nomenclature. That's one net result >of going on thirty years of teaching >the subject in courses and from books >that do not include the nomenclature >laid out in such a way that students >are able to acquire it as they proceed >through their studies. > >Ken > Ken - I have to disagree - I see more and more members of the field adopting a standard terminology and using it and appreciating it and in many cases learning Chinese themselves. No, this is not widespread, but it is insidious. Thirty years of doing something one way does not mean it cannot be done another way. Or that the books used for the past 30 years cannot be used as representative of a problem that can be solved. Marnae > >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 October 26, 2003 Report Share Posted October 26, 2003 Much of the disagreement was actually about whether a literal > > translation style (like Wiseman) or a more figurative style of > > translation was the best way to convey ideas from CM. I don't think > > anyone argued that it is 'better not to know.' > > > > > > Jim Ramholz >>>>>>>>>>>Jim i am amazed that the argument is still made that people do not want to know just because they do not like Wisemanion. Alon 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.