Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 I have reexamined my original opinions on the Chen text after reading the glossary/PDF file and Ken's post. I think the Chens did a very good job with the glossary, it is comprehensive and charts a new direction for clinical textbooks. What I don't understand is why they used an older, more confusing terminology in the actual text material that is online. On Nov 12, 2003, at 4:32 PM, kenrose2008 wrote: > Julie, > > Had someone suggested that his glossary was > invalid? If so I missed it. > > I'd be very interested if someone sees some > invalidating flaw in it. > > Ken > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not mistaken. See Z'ev's next message, too. Julie - " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:32 PM Re: John Chen's glossary > Julie, > > Had someone suggested that his glossary was > invalid? If so I missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 No, I hadn't seen or read the glossary at that point. So, I am adjusting my opinion on the book. The Chens did an excellent job with the translator, and I think it sets a new standard for texts. I saw it at the Pacific Symposium and looked through it. Nice layout, good printing, good organization. I still don't understand why the terminology in the actual text wasn't adjusted, and I am concerned about the drug-herb interaction section. On Nov 12, 2003, at 4:43 PM, Julie Chambers wrote: > Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not > mistaken. > > See Z'ev's next message, too. > > Julie > > - > " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008 > > Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:32 PM > Re: John Chen's glossary > > >> Julie, >> >> Had someone suggested that his glossary was >> invalid? If so I missed it. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 Julie, Thanks. Z'ev has clarified his take on it. I'm curious to know what Todd found to fault. I've not had time to examine the glossary in detail or to look carefully at the bulk of the book. But the one feature of providing a comprehensible map between Chinese terms and Engilsh terms seems valuable in and of itself. I remember not long ago when this kind of artifact was villified in the abstract by people who had little to no idea of what was actually meant by the phrase " bilingual gloss " . Well, here it is. The proposition was floated here long ago that translation standards cause more problems than they solve, or some such. But I don't see a single problem with the existence of either John Chen's term list or Nigel Wiseman's specifically because both have been carefully pegged to the Chinese terms. Note that it does not solve all problems or answer all questions related to meaning and interpretation of meaning. But it certainly doesn't cause any trouble... other than the flaps that generate arguing about it...and it does provide a useful baseline against which further discussion and progress can proceed. Ken , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not mistaken. > > See Z'ev's next message, too. > > Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 , Julie Chambers <info@j...> wrote: > Dear Ken, > > Thanks. Last time I looked at the aompress website, I couldn't find a link > to the glossary. I think this is a very good glossary, and the only one I > have seen in table format presenting two different versions of English > terms, the Chinese characters, and a detailed definition. I don't think > anyone can say that John Chen didn't produce a valid glossary, now. Julie thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in that it conforms to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms and characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption in such a glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth glossing. Bensky and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300 terms of medical signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have clearly decided that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is well and good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat med must be fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not interested. P.S. If I knew Chen, I might feel different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 what would you mean by " fully glossed? " What did Chen not gloss that he should have? Are you speaking of terms like " expel " , " dispel " , " treat " ? I don't have his book yet so cannot search for other examples. Julie - " " < Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:21 PM Re: John Chen's glossary > > thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in that it conforms > to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms and > characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption in such a > glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth glossing. Bensky > and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300 terms of medical > signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have clearly decided > that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is well and > good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat med must be > fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not interested. > > > P.S. If I knew Chen, I might feel different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 , " " wrote: > , Julie Chambers <info@j...> > wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > > > Thanks. Last time I looked at the aompress website, I couldn't find a link > > to the glossary. I think this is a very good glossary, and the only one I > > have seen in table format presenting two different versions of English > > terms, the Chinese characters, and a detailed definition. I don't think > > anyone can say that John Chen didn't produce a valid glossary, now. > > Julie > > thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in that it conforms > to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms and > characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption in such a > glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth glossing. Bensky > and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300 terms of medical > signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have clearly decided > that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is well and > good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat med must be > fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not interested. The question is, is it necessary to gloss every single term used. I thought the point of glossing is only if the term is different from some standard (which I assume is Wiseman, from default)... Otherwise one would have to have an extra 100 page `dictionary' for each book... Todd or Z'ev or others who are not happy with Chen's choices, can you point out some examples that represent confusion by not being glossed or using a standardized term? I read a few sample chapters and did not find anything that disturbing...Let us not forget that even within Chinese sources, different authors use different words in different situations... I agree with Bensky that as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak, IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am just confused' - Now of course there is the argument that 'hey this is medicine, one should need a dictionary to read a paper- these are technical terms' - I don't know how much I agree with this - and I think there is a middle ground... Ideas are sometimes more powerful than a specific word or `term'. This is where Bensky (and some others) shine. He may call something liver qi blue – but he makes it clear that within his context what this means and how it relates to x or y.. There are not too many times that I am just dieing to know the Chinese term that Bensky is thinking of. Although I admit with poorly written stuff/ translations I more often ask what the hell are they talking about, I wish I had the Chinese… But this is the difference between good and bad authors, and usually between MSU and CMU… ( Understood) – Finally – I am sure Bensky will have a complete gloss of the terms he likes to use in his next book… So I do vote for a gloss, just on every term?? Was it even necessary for chen to gloss deficiency ? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and perseverance perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel helped create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd like to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing or term standardization. -Tim Sharpe wrote: I agree with Bensky that as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak, IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am just confused' - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 2003 Report Share Posted November 12, 2003 Tim and Jason, you can tell your Chinese colleagues that at least one American-born feels the same way about these texts. I really agree with both of the points below. doug " Tim Sharpe " <listserve@d...> wrote: > I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well > known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in > understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem > with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu > for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text > than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and perseverance > perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel helped > create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby > encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd like > to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing or > term standardization. > > -Tim Sharpe > > > > wrote: > > I agree with Bensky that > as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language > and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's > eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is > he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical > this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak, > IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration > idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to > terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I > understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am > just confused' - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Doug, Jason, Tim, and All, I think it's terribly important that we make clear what we are talking about when we discuss the issues related to terminology and translation. First of all, whereas individuals who are experienced clinicians are certainly qualified to comment on the readibility and clinical appropriateness of texts, unless someone can compare a text that purports to discuss Chinese medicine with the Chinese sources, if indeed the author of the text in question cites Chinese sources, that individual is not really in a position to speak to the fidelity of such a text to the originals. So this raises a lot of questions. Should authors writing about Chinese medicine cite Chinese sources or even know Chinese sources? Certainly the approach of ignoring the Chinese sources in favor of translations can lead to complete ignorance of what the orginals actually say. Translation based materials may or may not identify themselves clearly as translations or even if they do may or may not be at all consistent with the contents of the originals of which they claim to be translations. Is Chinese medicine in the West today still Chinese medicine? Or is it already something else entirely? How close a connection to the contents of the ancient Chinese medical literature does the current profession of Chinese medicine in the West maintain and, as we've discussed in the past, represent itself as maintaining? And in those areas where the connection has become attenuated, why and how did this occur? Before you dispense with all of this as utterly irrelevant to the clinic and to your concerns as clinicians, there are a couple of further points that I urge you to take a minute or two and think over. I am not challenging your opinions about term choices. The work that results in any particular term choice is what matters far more than the actual term chosen. As we've discussed often, the true significance of the bilingual gloss is that it provides a map for readers that charts their position in the English with relative positions in the Chinese. I think this is what Tim pauses to recognize when he tips his hat to Bob Felt and Paradigm for the dedicated decades spent building such tools. They are not easy tools. John Chen said it took him an additional four years or more to deal with the terminology related issues in his book, and this was just a case of applying the tool set of the Practical Dictionary to a relatively limited set of problems related to his materia medica. It took Nigel the better part of twenty years to beat the methodology as well as the term set itself into shape that forms the crux of the PD. The methodology earned him a PhD from Exeter in the UK, which is a place that plenty of people recognize as somewhat of a leader in fields related to cross-cultural influences in medicine. Steve Birch got his PhD in acupuncture research there if I'm not mistaken. I'm not a big fan of PhDs or of academic life in general, but I recognize its importance in the general society and I mention it in the context of our recent discussions about credentials in this field and what they mean. As John Chen demonstrates in his book, all anyone has to do who doesn't like any given term in the PD or every term in the PD is use a different term. The PD can be used to supply English terms to people who want to talk about Chinese medicine in English. It can also be used by people who have strong feelings about individual words or words in general to quickly and easily refer to the Chinese originals by simply citing the term in the English language found in the PD, while they rely on their own favorites in this or that instance. The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly than it is a set of specific term choices. My point in starting this thread was to illustrate this assertion with John Chen's example. It's fine with me that you've taken this opportunity to voice your opinions about the terms in the PD. I suggest that if you value the benefits it provides, as Tim clearly does, and continue to find faults in its term selections, then you owe it to yourself and to your community of fellow students and practitioners to contribute to the correction of the material in the PD. Once you actually enter into the discussion with an eye to improving the situation rather than merely commenting on it or critiquing it, you will discover that " I like " and " I don't like " really don't serve very well beyond registering a basal response to the material. The PD forces a question: Does it matter that we relate what we study and practice to Chinese sources? If it does then all the PD is is a tool that can be used to make these relationships clearly. Why are you complaining about the tool? The only way to solve the problems is to do the work. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote: > Doug, Jason, Tim, and All, > > I think it's terribly important that we make clear > what we are talking about when we discuss > the issues related to terminology and translation.> .... > Why are you complaining about the tool? Ken, Yes let's get clear... I (hopefully) don't think that I, Tim, or Doug ever said that this tool (PD) is a problem... We are not at all complaining about it. Yes there are terms that many of us don't agree with, but that is a serperate issue. My post revolves around the issues of; 1) having to gloss every single term 2) sometimes an idea is more important than a term, and 3) looking for examples at how Chen has done us wrong and created confusion, 4) and books written in straight wiseman speak vs. writing a book, among some other ramblings... I love the PD and use it daily, but that is not my point. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008> wrote: > > How close a connection to the contents of the ancient > Chinese medical literature does the current profession > of Chinese medicine in the West maintain and, as we've > discussed in the past, represent itself as maintaining? > > Ken, I see this question as completely moot. And this is one of my problems with the whole neijing/ PU discussion. We should IMO, really only be talking about how close our CM (in the west) is similar or different from what is done in China as a whole, Today. (fringe sects aside). We obviously are much different than any time period in the past, thank Buddha. And so is China. Also, 99.9% of us have little authority (IMO) to be interpreting ancient texts and saying that modern CM is just wrong... CM has developed for a reason and it is not like they don't have access to these materials. They have in fact have had access to these texts plus about 99% of others that we don't have. Now this is not saying that we cannot get inspiration from these texts, and occasionally get some greater clinical insight. But I am waiting to see the big discovery that some westerner (PU or others) points out in the neijing (or something else) that the Chinese have missed all these years and can redefine the medicine. Give me an example that changes the way I practice clinically. It is amazing to me how much is written on topics in Chinese, and this is not just a modern phenomena. They are not stupid, and have thought about many issues far before us and with greater depth. We ARE playing catch-up. Although, one may say, but our culture is different, yes? I say yes…this is the question. Does the medicine that modern CM is practicing fail in our culture? Generally speaking I say no… Although the emotional considerations brought in the Kaptchuk posts are one area that could be discussed. This is one area that may need to be developed, but in my practice I have not found much of a problem seeing through what people's emotional experiences mean in CM. Comments? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Hi Jason jason blalack wrote: > We should IMO, really only be talking about how close our CM (in > the west) is similar or different from what is done in China as a > whole, Today. Should I read this as that you don't care about what CM has been in the past, even when CM today maybe less 'complete' than it has been in the past or even is digressing from what is has been in the past? I'm not stating that this is so, these are just hypothetical situations trying to clarify your point of view. I'm in no position to say whether this is so or not. Alwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " Alwin van Egmond " <@v...> wrote: > Hi Jason > > jason blalack wrote: > > We should IMO, really only be talking about how close our CM (in > > the west) is similar or different from what is done in China as a > > whole, Today. > > Should I read this as that you don't care about what CM has been in > the past, even when CM today maybe less 'complete' than it has been > in the past or even is digressing from what is has been in the past? Alwin, To clarify... a) I do care about the past, but i care more about the present. b) I do not think that present day CM is less complete than the past. IMO, it is just the opposite, because we have the past and the present. We have the option of looking at things from a western disease perspective; and we have the option to putting on a different pair of glasses and viewing things through a SHL perspective. We have it all ... c) and yes it is digressing from the past. Now everyone breathe because this is the reality, and learn to be okay with it.. CM has never stood static, and why should it now in a time where we have access to more information and communication than ever.. grow grow grow... - > > I'm not stating that this is so, these are just hypothetical > situations trying to clarify your point of view. I'm in no position > to say whether this is so or not. > > Alwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Everyone is entitled to their opinion on Wiseman terminology, but the fact remains that only Wiseman terms have been fully glossed. Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom? Are we any less professional that biomedical physicians or technicians? Do native Chinese physicians translate biomedical terms or learn the original terms in a 'user-friendly' format? There is nothing user-friendly about reading a typical Western medical textbook or lab test result, unless you are trained to understand and define the terminology. There is a lot of technical language in biomedicine, and I've never heard anyone complain about it in the Chinese medical universe. Would the Chinese physician that Jason mentions complain about Western medical texts and their technical terminology? On Nov 12, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Tim Sharpe wrote: > I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well > known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty > in > understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a > problem > with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker > (Guohui Liu > for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level > text > than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and > perseverance > perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel > helped > create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby > encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd > like > to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing > or > term standardization. > > -Tim Sharpe > > > > wrote: > > I agree with Bensky that > as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language > and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's > eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is > he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical > this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak, > IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration > idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to > terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I > understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am > just confused' - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Jason, The authors of the Su Wen and Nan Jing were people just like ourselves, apparently very intelligent ones who faced the same problems of illness, health care systems, and how to conceptualize a system of medicine that would work for them. In some ways we are different than our ancestors, in some ways we are the same. This, for example, is why the Torah and its associated literature is still so important as guides to life for observant Jews. Human nature is still essentially the same. I personally don't buy the view that human beings have changed that much over the years, even though societies have, often radically. Systematic correspondence is still the name of the game in Chinese medicine, and the Su Wen and Nan Jing, along with the Shang Han Lun, are the core texts from which this approach developed. I think they deserve careful study. My experience is not only that it enriches one's practice (I've been reading the Nan Jing over and over since 1987), but that it is a source of personal inspiration as well. Chaque a son gout, but I find the classical literature relevant, even more relevant than the modern literature at times. It all depends on what you are looking for. Technical information is one area of study, but inspiration is equally important. On Nov 13, 2003, at 6:52 AM, wrote: > I see this question as completely moot. And this is one of my > problems with the whole neijing/ PU discussion. We should IMO, really > only be talking about how close our CM (in the west) is similar or > different from what is done in China as a whole, Today. (fringe sects > aside). We obviously are much different than any time period in the > past, thank Buddha. And so is China. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Todd or Z'ev or others who are not happy with Chen's choices, can you point out some examples that represent confusion by not being glossed or using a standardized term? I read a few sample chapters and did not find anything that disturbing...Let us not forget that even within Chinese sources, different authors use different words in different situations... I agree with Bensky that as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's eyes glossed, than we have a creation... >>>>Thank you, i cant believe how anal some people can get Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. >>>And that book is the best example Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Jason, > The authors of the Su Wen and Nan Jing were people just like > ourselves, apparently very intelligent ones who faced the same problems > of illness, health care systems, and how to conceptualize a system of > medicine that would work for them. I do not agree that the illnesses of 2000 years ago are the same as today. Our problems are much different. In some ways we are different than > our ancestors, in some ways we are the same. This, for example, is why > the Torah and its associated literature is still so important as guides > to life for observant Jews. I do not see any practical correlation between medicine and religion, although some of course choice to view ancient medical texts religiously. (I do not)-- medicine vs. philosophy. Human nature is still essentially the > same. I personally don't buy the view that human beings have changed > that much over the years, even though societies have, often radically. Inherent Nature may or may not be the same... But I am sure our lifestyles, therefore diseases are quite different than 2000 years ago. This is not even factoring in cultural differences in regard to disease and medicine. Obviously the medical theory of 2000 years ago was not adequate for the changing times of Chinese history. The SHL and wenbing clearly demonstrate that. So either human's (nature) changed or environments (society, lifestyle, climate, etc) changed because the medicine needed to improve to accommodate. Therefore it is clear to me that change has occurred and is still occurring and the medicine MUST change with it. Why would our western culture be more similar to ancient china than the chinese? > Systematic correspondence is still the name of the game in Chinese > medicine, and the Su Wen and Nan Jing, along with the Shang Han Lun, > are the core texts from which this approach developed. I think they > deserve careful study. Yes… I agree, but there is far more to medicine that just basic yin yang theory or systematic correspondences. This is precisely why it has evolved. Again if it was enough, why would have things so drastically expanded. These are the roots, and should be understood, but modern discoveries are just as important if not more so because they are directly dealing with today's issues – using these past theories. Take yourself back 200-300 years at the start on wenbing era. Do you think you were one of the people clutching onto SHL theory or using the new discoveries of the time treat the ill. Hopefully you were doing both. (without the clutching)… Again I ask to be shown some kernel of the neijing that has been overlooked by the Chinese and therefore not incorporated into modern understanding of disease. This is quite possible. For example, our changing times, that are different than the Chinese modern times, might have something similar to the times of ancient china therefore allowing us to pick up on some kernel that is not thought valuable by modern Chinese practitioners… But this seems like a long shot…. These classic texts have been sussed out over and over again… This does not mean don't study them, but let us not overvalue the past with disregard to the present. My experience is not only that it enriches > one's practice (I've been reading the Nan Jing over and over since > 1987), but that it is a source of personal inspiration as well. I agree 100% as my posted conceded. One CAN gain much inspiration from such texts, as well as a text like chicken soup for the soul (which BTW I have never read, but that is besides the point)…. but, For this discussion I am primarily focusing on the technical side… > on what you are looking for. Technical information is one area of > study, but inspiration is equally important. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 > As John Chen demonstrates in his book, all > anyone has to do who doesn't like any given > term in the PD or every term in the PD is use > a different term. The PD can be used to supply > English terms to people who want to talk about > Chinese medicine in English. > > It can also be used by people who have strong > feelings about individual words or words in > general to quickly and easily refer to the > Chinese originals by simply citing the term in > the English language found in the PD, while they > rely on their own favorites in this or that instance. > > The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly > than it is a set of specific term choices. IMO, absolutely correct. No whining. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Yes and no. People still suffer from rheumatic diseases, digestive disorders, diseases of heat and cold, strokes, etc. There are new complicating factors in modern society, as in cancer and autoimmune diseases, but principles for dealing with complexity arise from simple principles. On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:58 AM, wrote: > I do not agree that the illnesses of 2000 years ago are the same as > today. Our problems are much different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 I agree. On Nov 13, 2003, at 9:01 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: >> The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly >> than it is a set of specific term choices. > > IMO, absolutely correct. No whining. > > Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 To clarify... a) I do care about the past, but i care more about the present. b) I do not think that present day CM is less complete than the past. IMO, it is just the opposite, because we have the past and the present. We have the option of looking at things from a western disease perspective; and we have the option to putting on a different pair of glasses and viewing things through a SHL perspective. We have it all ... >>>>>>>And putting this in perspective, reading the SHL every day i have to question may self how does this relate to today's reality. Almost the entire text is about damage by medical intervention. Patients are said to develop these horrible reactions to mild formulas that in know we do not see these days. What am to make of this? What am to make of much of the descriptions in han medicine that have so little resemblance to any of the patients that walk into my clinic? If my patients look much more like recent OM literatures is that what should i pay attention to? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 > Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom? Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's terminology, I personally find comfort with it is directly proportional to two things: 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better. 2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is able to read Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for luo, impediment for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to understand Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare and the King James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment, one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less felicitous term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is related to the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up. What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what popular magazines consider the common denominator). It makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully unique English language. English has more words than any other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. Yet, it is my experience that a truly Master's level of education provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our problems has been that, all too often, our education has been conducted in second and third grade English. It is my experience as a teacher that students with better education and higher intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs have more problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at ACOM schools, have just as much problem when I use English medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do need to decide what level of intelligence and education are necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the people making those decisions are themselves not the best and the brightest. IMO. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language > > In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents. > English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek > (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem > with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or > foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better. > I am glad someone mentioned these points. They seemed obvious to me, but I did not feel like replying to the earlier posts that warrented your response. It still amazes me that the Chinese teachers at PCOM will use the English term stagnation for both qi and blood, when they know for a fact that in Chinese, the words are different (zhi, yu). The Chinese teachers do not really seem to care to get the terms correct. They learned enough the of English Chinese Medical lingo to get buy, they do not get questioned, and they collect their paychecks. It is sad, because teachers with full working knowledge of the technical aspects of Chinese Medical terminology have the potential to offer quite a bit of understanding, and they choose not to. Brian C. Allen 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.