Wiseman and Maciocia-the thrilla in Manila

[Guest guest]

Dear Fernando,

 

At present, Giovanni Maciocia's books are considered the critical textual

authority, the gold standard, by which the State of California and the

national boards determine their terminology and medical theory. As a

student preparing for the California state board, I have a serious

problem with that. Professors of mine, have pointed out terminology

and diagnostic errors in his texts. himself and many others as

well have casually unloaded their contempt for his quirkiness and

outright errors. As yet other interesting books presenting Chinese

medical theory and case histories, I have no problem with his books, and

am certainly not suggesting to burn them! BUT TO USE HIS BOOKs AS THE

BASIS, THE BACKBONE AND THE FOUNDATION OF WESTERN ORIENTAL MEDICINE, I AM

LOATHED BY THAT REALITY. As far as I am concerned that lack of better

standard texts contributes to the present level of educational mediocrity

and perhaps is a contributing factor to the miserably small number of

successful practitioners relative to those who graduate from out schools.

(Maybe that's too big of a leap, but I still feel that many of our

practitioners lack of precision in interaction with other professionals

and patients as well derives at least partially from the use of his

texts. They're also outrageously expensive, relative to their value, as

far as I'm concerned).

 

BTW, I think that you are absolutely right in assessing Ken's lack of

objectivity. But I think he is making an important point: We are all

students of scholarship. Why not let those whose scholarship is

recognized, admired and yet at the same time controversial, present their

views side by side, for us to comparatively evaluate. I, for one, feel

so fortunate to live in a free society where differences of opinion are

encouraged in order for the level of scholarship and enlightenment to

rise. As does the cream...It always rises to the top. So bring on the

debate, and let's see how we can grow from it.

 

Respectfully,

 

Yehuda

 

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:12:54 -0000 " Fernando Bernall "

<flb writes:

> Ken,

>

> Is this really what CHA needs right now? Another debate? One more

> who's right, who's wrong brouhaha?

>

> I appreciate the value of debates. However, from push-hands

> practice,

> I've learned to value timing much more. A time to 'listen,

> interpret,

> yield, follow and transform.' Excessive use of 'pressing and

> 'warding

> off' will eventually lead one into a precipice.

>

> I for one would like to see a time of reconciliaton. A healthy

> dosage

> of humility may do us all good.

>

> Fernando

>

> ps. From your post it's clearly evident you've already decided who's

>

> right any way. What's the point?

>

>

>

> , " kenrose2008 "

> <kenrose2008> wrote:

> > All,

> >

> > You've now had a chance to read Nigel's

> > responses to Giovani's piece that Waitwright

> > posted here a few days back. I said that

> > I had my own comments, and I do. But

> > I think rather than bore you all with

> > them, I will just propose a more concrete

> > step that might be taken to help people

> > understand what is going on in the supposed

> > " debate " about terminology.

> >

> > What I propose is an actual debate

> > between Giovani and Nigel.

> >

> > Let's keep things simple.

> >

> > The debate question could be simply

> > phrased as:

> >

> > Who's approach to the terminology of

> > traditional Chinese medicine is correct,

> > Nigel Wiseman's or Giovani's Maciocia's?

> >

> > Clearly they can't both be correct,

> > because Giovani refers to his two page

> > glossary as " complete " in his first book,

> > and in all subsequent books he has published,

> > the glossary never grows to more than a couple

> > hundred terms at most.

> >

> > Nigel's Practical Dictionary, which is just

> > a selection of terms from the term set that

> > in Chinese dictionaries of the subject runs

> > to as many as 20,000 to 30,000 terms, contains

> > some 6,000 terms.

> >

> > Here is a case where simply the quantitative

> > comparison reveals a qualitative difference.

> >

> > So who's right?

> >

> > We all deserve to, in fact reallly need to

> > know.

> >

> > Shall we believe Nigel?

> >

> > Or shall we dispense with Nigel's obsessive

> > approach to terminology in favor of Giovani's

> > far friendlier and more laid-back approach?

> >

> > I think a debate between the two of them

> > will be the way to sort this out, and then

> > we really could stop talking about it all

> > the time.

> >

> > And, just to let us all know that we are

> > dealing with qualified individuals who

> > really know what they are talking about,

> > let's make one of the ground rules in

> > this debate that the debators debate in

> > Chinese and that the judges who judge

> > their arguments be fluent in Chinese.

> >

> > Even those of you who think of me as

> > a lunatic of incomparable dimensions

> > must accept the simple logic that anyone

> > professing expert opinions about Chinese

> > medical terminology ought to be able to

> > do so in Chinese.

> >

> > So, in keeping with Todd's refutation of

> > certain unnamed individuals on the basis

> > of " clinical experience " and Alon's clinical

> > challenge of a few days back, let's have

> > a debate.

> >

> > Giovani and Nigel. Face to face, debating

> > Chinese medical terminology in Chinese.

> >

> > Having fought this fight for more than

> > three years now, I, for one, would love

> > to see it resolved.

> >

> > And as I've thought about this for the past

> > few days it seems to me that this oughta do

> > it.

> >

> > I will transmit this suggestion to the good

> > doctors, Maciocia and Wiseman. I will even

> > suggest to both of them that the judges

> > be chosen from Chinese medical institutions

> > that include both Nanjing, where Giovani

> > spent his time studying in China and Taipei

> > where Nigel has spent the last 20+ years

> > teaching.

> >

> > I'll see if we can round up a few impartial

> > judges from places like the China Academy of

> > TCM. And we'll ask folks like Dan Bensky,

> > Ted Kaptchuk, and other experts on the subject

> > to come and listen so that they can represent

> > to their various constituencies who says what.

> >

> > I will undertake to get the whole event

> > planned, scheduled, organized, funded

> > and will see to it that it actually takes

> > place and that the proceedings are translated

> > into English and other Western languages

> > and properly disseminated.

> >

> > Don't you think this should do it?

> >

> > Ken

>

>

>