Wiseman and Maciocia-the thrilla in Manila

[Guest guest]

, yehuda l frischman wrote:

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. >>>

 

 

 

 

Yehuda:

 

My teacher always pointed out errors in the original Chinese of the

Suwen, Nan Jing, etc. You would probably consider the 'quirkiness

and outright errors'---as well as the lacunas, ellipses, and

idiosyncracies---in the original Chinese texts unacceptable too.

 

Consider Birch's recent article in the EJOM on the " San jiao " . It

appears that almost no two authors defined those two characters the

same way, and some historical controversies about it still remain

unsolved hundreds of years later. Unfortunately, Chinese literature

itself seems to suffer from a lack of a standardization. CM is an

art, and is not always as precise as many would want it to be. So, a

translation may always seem controversial to someone.

 

But, if you want to impose precision and create a more controlled

contemporary definition of terms and simplify things for

contemporary teaching, it can be argued that Wiseman can fulfill

that role.

 

Good luck on your CA tests.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Thanks Jim,

 

I have yet to find anyone who can read and understand Chinese, and has

carefully studied his textbooks that is comfortable with them. As to

inconsistancies in classic texts, three observations: one, as my profs

have conjectured, the original texts, written on bamboo or rice paper

were copied incorrectly or lost, two, later generations may have had

their own agenda and three, as Unschuld has pointed out there isn't a

completely consistant and coherent Chinese medical tradition necessarily.

That being said, at the very least, translations and interpretations of

that which we do have as a presentation of Chinese medical scholarship

should be consistant with the general understanding in the original text

or a close facsimile, thereof, and the impression I get from those more

knowledgeable than myself is that it isn't there with Maciocia. So why

not teach from clear, consistant, and texts faithful to the generally

accepted interpretation, and why has " the foundations of Chinese

Medicine " (maciocia) replaced " Fundamentals of Chinese Acupuncture " and

" Grasping the Wind " ? Even more significantly, why is CAM still used

instead of Deadman " s Manual of Acupuncture?

 

I await your answers.

 

Yehuda

PS I saw Birch's article, and recognize the problem of inconsistancy but

doesn't it just compound it when, like a game of telephone, it is further

adulterated?

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:14:27 -0000 " James Ramholz " <jramholz

writes:

> , yehuda l frischman wrote:

> 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. >>>

>

>

>

>

> Yehuda:

>

> My teacher always pointed out errors in the original Chinese of the

> Suwen, Nan Jing, etc. You would probably consider the 'quirkiness

> and outright errors'---as well as the lacunas, ellipses, and

> idiosyncracies---in the original Chinese texts unacceptable too.

>

> Consider Birch's recent article in the EJOM on the " San jiao " . It

> appears that almost no two authors defined those two characters the

> same way, and some historical controversies about it still remain

> unsolved hundreds of years later. Unfortunately, Chinese literature

> itself seems to suffer from a lack of a standardization. CM is an

> art, and is not always as precise as many would want it to be. So, a

>

> translation may always seem controversial to someone.

>

> But, if you want to impose precision and create a more controlled

> contemporary definition of terms and simplify things for

> contemporary teaching, it can be argued that Wiseman can fulfill

> that role.

>

> Good luck on your CA tests.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, yehuda l frischman wrote:

As to inconsistancies in classic texts, three observations: one, as

my profs have conjectured, the original texts, written on bamboo or

rice paper were copied incorrectly or lost, two, later generations

may have had their own agenda and three, as Unschuld has pointed out

there isn't a completely consistant and coherent Chinese medical

tradition necessarily. >>>

 

And don't forget that many authors did not really write to explicate

their ideas the way we would have in the West. Things or contexts

are implied or tacitly understood. For some of my own teacher's

ideas, that he only mentioned in passing, it took me years to figure

out and be able to duplicate. A problem from my teacher that was

only mentioned once in passing, and that I am writing about now,

took me 15 years to figure out. I hope my own students catch on

faster.

 

That's why I don't see a strict or consistant standard for

translations but believe that the original Chinese should be

included; or at least a glossary for unfamiliar terms. For example,

the way the Unschuld Nan Jing and the recent SHL editions were

published. That way the meaning of a character can be seen and

understood in and from the instance it is found; not being

predetermined. For example, if you look at " qi " it changes

throughout history; and if you look at the essays edited by

Elisabeth Hsu, the term changes its sense when in context with other

terms.

 

 

>>> So why not teach from clear, consistant, and texts faithful to

the generally accepted interpretation, . . . >>>

 

" Generally accepted interpretation? " Whose? Maybe Wiseman is

generally accepted where you come from. Here in Colorado, there are

only a few adherents. Who else can everyone agree with and look to?

For example, the right proximal pulse is sometimes defined as kidney

yang, SI, lower abdomen, pelvis area, Sanjiao, brain, and maybe a

few others that I can't think of offhand. Which is correct? Which do

we standardize on? Which authority do we follow? Different

authorities have emphasized different interpretations at different

times in history. The contemporary " accepted interpretation "

eliminates most of those.

 

My own answer is that in contemporary clinical practice anyone one

of them, or often several in combination, are correct. The truly

correct question here is " *When* is it any particular one of them? "

I've seen patients who exhibit them all. In the Dong Han system, we

know how and when to use them all. How do we know when an author

means " outthrust " and when he means something else with the same

character, if we always use the standard " outthrust " ?

 

 

>>> PS I saw Birch's article, and recognize the problem of

inconsistancy but doesn't it just compound it when, like a game of

telephone, it is further adulterated? >>>

 

Yeah. Got a problem with that? The problem with that adulterated

inconsistancy is that it was created by the Chinese themselves many

times. As psychotherapists like to say in their own work, " Just deal

with it " . When the Chinese are consistant, you be consistant. When

the Chinese are inconsistant, you be inconsistant. Just like in

Taiji, the opponent is never wrong.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

and

outright errors.

>>>Can you share these errors in his texts?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yeah. Got a problem with that? The problem with that adulterated

inconsistancy is that it was created by the Chinese themselves many

times. As psychotherapists like to say in their own work, " Just deal

with it " . When the Chinese are consistent, you be consistent. When

the Chinese are inconsistent, you be inconsistent. Just like in

Taiji, the opponent is never wrong.

 

>>>>The other problem i see is that adulterated by Chinese is OK but possibly by

Maciocia is not. The problem is that much of this rings of cultism and religion,

i.e. i am theologically right you are wrong. Can we see in-depth analysis of

Maciocia " mistakes. " can they be demonstrated to not reflect anyone's thought in

the history of CM? If they can be shown unique to him, is Maciocia part of the

growing CM historical community?

While i do not know him i would ask those that do how good of a practitioner is

he? For those that found his mistakes can you show me when his ideas turned out

to be clinically wrong? If you can, how do you know this to be true and how did

you show it. Or are we back at equating words with medicine.

Now Todd i just like to say that i would not mind having Ken input on such

things, although i know he would not really take the time and truly answer these

question beyond just more argument for linguistics

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Different

authorities have emphasized different interpretations at different

times in history. The contemporary " accepted interpretation "

eliminates most of those. "

 

Dear Jim

 

This is an important point. We are taught a specific accepted

interpretation, pretty much based upon the theory and practice of what is

taught in the PRC. However, it is my read of our status quo, that

because of the great thirst for knowledge, information and a desire to

learn the classical sources in their original language, Westerners have

opened up a Pandora's box, a mish-mash of different divergent, at times

contradictory schools of thought and practice for the matter. From the

Westerner's need for one truth this creates an identity crisis, and we

desparately need answers to the questions: What is qi? What are zang fu?

What do are mai telling us? What system of diagnosis do we use? Porkert,

Kapchuk and Maciocia all present what appears to be a coherent, organized

and consistant medical system packaged beautifully, just like a Hollywood

movie and complete with a happy ending.

 

Yet, as with chaos theory quantum physics, as with traditional Jewish

philosophy (I am not talking about the differences in modern Jewish

movements, most of which are disingenuous laziness and intellectual

dishonest), and I would venture to say (ignorant though I am) as with the

many contradictory threads of the fabric of Chinese philosophy (as

someone mentioned in an earlier thread, one can be a daoist in the

morning and a Confucionist at night, or was it the other way around?)

there can be many different contradictory answers which are all true,

or all part of a larger true picture that we mortals are unable to

perceive. The term that is used in Judaism is " elu ve'elu divrei

E-lokim Chaim. " Anyway, I don't have a problem with the

inconsistancies, but what we do need to understand is that the system

that is taught as the gospel of in our schools is the

PRC version, and if Western Oriental medicine is going to originate from

that approach, then it is important that its terminology be consistant

and in English CLEARLY conveys the message that the Red Chinese have

exported, and that our boards have bought into lock, stock and barrel.

That's all I'm saying. And for that reason I believe the debate would be

beneficial, let the arguments be presented, and let everyone draw their

own conclusions, including the boards.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful reply,

 

Yehuda

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

I would love to look up my notes from the last 3 1/2 years, but I just

don't have the time, sorry. What I will tell you, and what comes to mind

off the cuff, is that for certain patterns, Maciocia lists tongues and

pulses that are different than in clinical practice. This I heard on at

least 5 different occasions. Again, sorry that I can't be more helpful.

Can anyone give some examples of errors in Maciocia's books?

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:50:56 -0600 " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

writes:

> and

> outright errors.

> >>>Can you share these errors in his texts?

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well put, Alon.

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 11:12:44 -0600 " Alon Marcus " <alonmarcus

writes:

> Yeah. Got a problem with that? The problem with that adulterated

> inconsistancy is that it was created by the Chinese themselves many

> times. As psychotherapists like to say in their own work, " Just deal

>

> with it " . When the Chinese are consistent, you be consistent. When

> the Chinese are inconsistent, you be inconsistent. Just like in

> Taiji, the opponent is never wrong.

>

> >>>>The other problem i see is that adulterated by Chinese is OK but

> possibly by Maciocia is not. The problem is that much of this rings

> of cultism and religion, i.e. i am theologically right you are

> wrong. Can we see in-depth analysis of Maciocia " mistakes. " can they

> be demonstrated to not reflect anyone's thought in the history of

> CM? If they can be shown unique to him, is Maciocia part of the

> growing CM historical community?

> While i do not know him i would ask those that do how good of a

> practitioner is he? For those that found his mistakes can you show

> me when his ideas turned out to be clinically wrong? If you can, how

> do you know this to be true and how did you show it. Or are we back

> at equating words with medicine.

> Now Todd i just like to say that i would not mind having Ken input

> on such things, although i know he would not really take the time

> and truly answer these question beyond just more argument for

> linguistics

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, yehuda l frischman wrote:

Westerners have opened up a Pandora's box, a mish-mash of different

divergent, at times contradictory schools of thought and practice

for the matter. From the Westerner's need for one truth ... >>>

 

" One truth? " There isn't any.

 

 

.... but what we do need to understand is that the system that is

taught as the gospel of in our schools is the

PRC version, and if Western Oriental medicine is going to originate

from that approach, then it is important that its terminology be

consistant and in English CLEARLY conveys the message that the Red

Chinese have exported, and that our boards have bought into lock,

stock and barrel. >>>

 

I haven't studied that basics for 30 years. When I teach now, I tend

to deviate from the syllabus and have gotten in trouble for it. So

students sometimes have difficulty following my ideas---until they

reach the clinic and need to apply them to a patient. I am fond of

often reminding them that nothing I know is on the National Boards

Exam; but will most certainly show up in their patients every day.

 

So your point may be well taken for the first few years of

education. I don't see any problem in *creating* a new standard or

consistancy where there wasn't one before, in order to help

facilitate learning. All the variences and contradictions will need

to be addressed though later.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Westerners have

opened up a Pandora's box, a mish-mash of different divergent, at times

contradictory schools of thought and practice for the matter.

>>>Are you sure the word westerners applies. Is it less in Asians that speak or

read Chinese?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

We almost totally agree. My question of the Westerner's need for one

truth was nothing but a rhetorical question. We are raised as children

to seek utopia, camelot. And no matter what happens to shatter that

hope, we continue to hope until the bitterness of failure drowns it out

of us. Yet even then...we can still hope. After JFK was assassinated

people were shocked and numbed, yet LBJ was elected by landslide with the

promise of civil rights for all. From the disillusionment of Vietnam

came a movement of hope, peace and new openness. Yes, we may not find

utopia in this world, but we can pursue the balance and wellness that ALL

SYSTEMS OF CHINESE MEDICINE SEEK TO PROMOTE. I see this combination of

Western society's hopefulness and pursuit of truth, and Chinese

medicine's need to find balance as a brilliant confluence capable of

overpowering the cynicism which have brought destruction and ruin to both

worlds.

 

Yehuda

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:11:12 -0000 " James Ramholz " <jramholz

writes:

> , yehuda l frischman wrote:

> Westerners have opened up a Pandora's box, a mish-mash of different

> divergent, at times contradictory schools of thought and practice

> for the matter. From the Westerner's need for one truth ... >>>

>

> " One truth? " There isn't any.

>

>

> ... but what we do need to understand is that the system that is

> taught as the gospel of in our schools is the

> PRC version, and if Western Oriental medicine is going to originate

> from that approach, then it is important that its terminology be

> consistant and in English CLEARLY conveys the message that the Red

> Chinese have exported, and that our boards have bought into lock,

> stock and barrel. >>>

>

> I haven't studied that basics for 30 years. When I teach now, I tend

>

> to deviate from the syllabus and have gotten in trouble for it. So

> students sometimes have difficulty following my ideas---until they

> reach the clinic and need to apply them to a patient. I am fond of

> often reminding them that nothing I know is on the National Boards

> Exam; but will most certainly show up in their patients every day.

>

> So your point may be well taken for the first few years of

> education. I don't see any problem in *creating* a new standard or

> consistancy where there wasn't one before, in order to help

> facilitate learning. All the variences and contradictions will need

> to be addressed though later.

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yehuda,

 

You may be opinionated, buy who are you to judge?

As a Jew, I find this remark totally offensive; as an editor, well, I find it in

need of editing.

Is this sort of castigation of a group of people necessary to the discussion of

Chinese herbal medicine? I am sure there are hate sites that would welcome your

point of view.

 

 

 

 

yehuda l frischman < wrote:

 

Yet, as with chaos theory quantum physics, as with traditional Jewish

philosophy (I am not talking about the differences in modern Jewish

movements, most of which are disingenuous laziness and intellectual

dishonest),

Yehuda

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!