Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 believe me it's not that they are " too lazy " . In fact it is the opposite, that because of the ineveitable lawsuits, every question is indeed tied to a page number. Giovanni provides a theory and a practical book thus the two can be tied together. It becomes problematic when you " invent " cases. I agree that things need changing. The last 5 years have seemed to brought things under control some what. I can see that the Deng theory book would be the next step to add to the books. Although it's easy to say after passing the exam, the acupuncture test is one of the easiest of the California professional exams. Most others require many more retests. doug > > > > I do not know what their motivations are, but I would hope that the > > people who write the CA exam are interested in having good > > practitioners rather than Giovanni robots who memorize phrases (often > > along with the exact page numbers) just so they can pass a test. From > > the outside, it seems like they are just too lazy to update the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 , " " wrote: Unfortunately, in reading the actual text, many of his term choices did not make it into the glossary. For example, in the ma huang/ephedra section, he uses terms such as diaphoresis, antipyretic, yin sores, or painful obstruction for bi which cannot be found in the glossary. Therefore, many of the terms remain unexplained, and there is no pinyin or Chinese characters used to help anyone find the definitions. >>> Z'ev: Is he translating a particular text, like Jiao Shude's " Ten Lectures on Medicinals " , or is he doing a survey of the literature? There is a different demand for each writer. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 Is he translating a particular text, like Jiao Shude's " Ten Lectures on Medicinals " , or is he doing a survey of the literature? >>>Not only its a survey of lots of sources not all chinese, he tries to make the material clinically and easily accessible. If terms such as diaphoresis are not clear enough i think the need to cling to terms is excessive, but again what do i know alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " " wrote: > Finally, something I have always said about such projects is that such a > manual in america should also include standard agreements on eight extra, 5 > phase, hara, divergent, luo and sinew channel patterns. When you say " hara " , which is a Japanese term, i assume you are intending inclusion of Japanese medicine into this standardization plan. This would prove even more knotty than so-called TCM standards since the Japanese government has no hand in standardizing Toyo Igaku (East Asian Medicine) beyond approval of herb formulae and licensing standards (which are based largely on biomedicine). The acumoxa profession itself is full of competing models and intepretations of classical theory. In most cases, the abdominal patterns most commonly taught in the West are familiar to us only because of the presence of a popular and vocal advocate for that particular model (Birch, Kiiko, Shima, et al). IMO, the Japanese themselves would likely reject such standards coming from our side. robert hayden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > I would like to here Stephen Birch go into more detail about his > views on Wiseman terminology and Japanese medicine. I assume he is > correct that an additional glossary would be necessary to cover much of > the material used in Japanese medicine, and I, for one, would be glad > to see it. i would like to hear this too. It is interesting that his wife helped to coordinate Japanese terms with the Chinese terms in the original glossary -- a book on which i continue to rely to this day. Seems to me, however, that his position would indicate that he feels the Wiseman gloss is unsuitable for anything but translating PRC materials since for example in classical texts we have no idea whether the various authors meant precisely the same thing in using a given term as they would in modern times. While it is true that many Japanese author-practitioners have a sometimes highly personalized interpretation of classical CM materials, i can't believe this is unique to Japan vs Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc., and perhaps even in the PRC itself. So either the Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not. robert hayden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Dear Jason, I think you find more people then less agreeing with your view points about these books and all the shades inbewteen... Jason Robertson explianes all this in a recent letter... Anyway I try to think of books as " personalities " some books have more agreaiabble then others and each have thier merit most of the time... The PDCM is a great start which has been said many times but I am also quite hopefull that Spanish and or say Mexican schollars will try to do something similiar to the Wiseman dictionary in not to distant futuer. The reaseon for this is that there are many books that need to be transmited into the spanish language and altough the source i.e. Chinese or an Asian language would be the ideal. First " steep " would be to translate some books from the English language to Spanish of which the most " transperent " once might be the " most " usefull for the time being.... Marco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " kampo36 " wrote: While it is true that many Japanese author-practitioners have a sometimes highly personalized interpretation of classical CM materials, i can't believe this is unique to Japan vs Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc., and perhaps even in the PRC itself. So either the Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not. >>> robert: I don't know if being so black or white about Wiseman---or anything-- is practical. Perhaps the real question should be " when? " does Wiseman work. If not for more personalized interpretations, or even Qin-bo Wei now, maybe it would be useful to organize the first few years of study as a foundation and starting off point. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " James Ramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > So either the > Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not. >>> > > > > robert: > > I don't know if being so black or white about Wiseman---or anything- - > is practical. Perhaps the real question should be " when? " does > Wiseman work. perhaps i should have said " broadly useful " ; Birch's apparent argument is that it is not. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " kampo36 " wrote: > perhaps i should have said " broadly useful " ; Birch's apparent > argument is that it is not. robert: Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo Wei may not translate well using it! Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 I think you are right, Marco. Other target languages must be chosen, and dictionaries developed based on those target languages. I am still planning to obtain the Larre dictionary, which is in French. I've seen the difficulty of having the source language 'twice removed' in Israeli schools, where there are attempts to teach in Hebrew from translated English texts (except, of course, for those Israelis with excellent English skills). Many of these English texts are themselves somewhat removed from Chinese source texts. It leads to chaos. Any Israelis on the list who care to comment? On Nov 30, 2003, at 7:10 AM, Marco wrote: > The reaseon for this is that there are many books that need to be > transmited > into the spanish language and altough the source i.e. Chinese or an > Asian > language would be the ideal. First " steep " would be to translate some > books > from the English language to Spanish of which the most " transperent " > once > might be the " most " usefull for the time being.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 The Qin Bowei anthology, which I think you are referring to, was translated before the Wiseman dictionary was published. While the author had access to Wiseman terminology, it was an earlier, pre-publication version of it. I don't want to speak for the authors, but I have a feeling if they updated the text, some things would be different. Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. Translation is a difficult job, and we do the best with the tools we have. There are a lot more tools available now than eight years ago. On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:03 AM, James Ramholz wrote: > robert: > > Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo > Wei may not translate well using it! > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Does anybody know Macioca well? While the only book of his i read carefully is his basic theory text, which is very basic but so is the other Fundamentals, i wander if he likes to write from his experience treating in the west or more " translating " chinese texts and thus transmitting what could be called standard CM. From the few conditions i have seen in his practice of CM it looks like he often uses formula modifications that can easily look like what i see at my clinic (as apposed to many texts i read from china), although the categorization is still quite artificial. Does anybody know what his style is or as anybody studied his newer books in depth and tell if he uses ? As anybody studied his product lines? do they seem to be reflecting what people see in their clinics? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 I want to agree with Zev here with reservations. I want to make it clear that for the last few days (and years) I've been thinking out loud on the depression/stagnation issue. With the help of the Deng diagnosis book (thank you Marnae) I've been able to, I think, at last to sort this out. My colleagues comments notwithstanding with three books cross-referenced I am clear about what zhi means... The Qin Bo-Wei book is consistent it would seem with the Wiseman dictionary. The key was talking to colleagues who studied the material in the original. (The key was that Wiseman spent precious little time on the stagnation definition, not providing the delineation that I needed.) Am I now a Wise-head :-) ? I still think depression is a lousy word choice, but wish him luck in finding a word-for-word translation glossary. Should use it as the standard for the practitioners of Chinese medicine in English? I think it is Alon that says that it still takes someone to explain these terms and still think we should reach a flexible and descriptive language for everyday discourse. doug , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > The Qin Bowei anthology, which I think you are referring to, was > translated before the Wiseman dictionary was published. While the > author had access to Wiseman terminology, it was an earlier, > pre-publication version of it. I don't want to speak for the authors, > but I have a feeling if they updated the text, some things would be > different. > > Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. Translation is a > difficult job, and we do the best with the tools we have. There are a > lot more tools available now than eight years ago. > > > On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:03 AM, James Ramholz wrote: > > > robert: > > > > Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo > > Wei may not translate well using it! > > > > > > Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 , " " wrote: The Qin Bo-Wei book is consistent it would seem with the Wiseman dictionary. The key was talking to colleagues who studied the material in the original. (The key was that Wiseman spent precious little time on the stagnation definition, not providing the delineation that I needed.) >>> doug: The only real question here is not whether Chip's translation is consistent with Wiseman---that's a separate issue. This kind of consistancy is not a guarentee of accuracy and meaning. The real question is whether that is what Qin-bo Wei actually said and/or meant. If he did use it the way Wiseman did, then fine. If he didn't, then there is a problem imposing a standard that changes the original meanings. This will be a very educational test case. Fortunately, many of the Chinese authors have been dead quite a while and don't have anyone with living memory or first and second generation students to raise this issue. Jim Ramholz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Any Israelis on the list who care to comment? >>>I have never seen the Hebrew texts on CM alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 I think it is Alon that says that it still takes someone to explain these terms and still think we should reach a flexible and descriptive language for everyday discourse. >>>>I will continue to say liver congestion qi stagnation alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 The real question is whether that is what Qin-bo Wei actually said and/or meant. If he did use it the way Wiseman did, then fine. If he didn't, then there is a problem imposing a standard that changes the original meanings. This will be a very educational test case. Fortunately, many of the Chinese authors have been dead quite a while and don't have anyone with living memory or first and second generation students to raise this issue. >>>>Well it would only apply to Qin-bo and he is one that likes standards and a strong advocate of TCM 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.