Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Well, I have found many instances where " distention " is not assoicated with Qi Deficiency; Maciocia, Foundations; pg 312 is just one and good for this conversation. " For example if a person has diarrhoea, chillines, tiredness, poor appetite, abdominal distention, a Weak pulse and a Pale tongue, the complexs of these clinical manifestations cleary points to its Root, i.e, Speen-Yang Deficiency... Now, if I was reading this and according to the rule, and taking a test, I would of had to answer that it is Spleen Qi Deficinecy. Recall that I was STRONGLY told, over and over, " distention " no matter what, is Qi Dificiecy. I understand that there is cold, however, the RULE is distention, is Qi......lol. I do not believe myself qualified to get into a pissing match with someone with years of experience. As a student I just had a question because of much confusion, being that I had also been taught that I should see " pain " with distention, along with reading books that used the term based on lose translations. Thanks you so much for your time, and if I should take the chance to disagree ever again, I will disagree with text book and page in hand. Regards, Holly --- < wrote: > > , holly > mead <flwfree> wrote: > > > I would not > > accept that " distention " was only a disorder of > Qi. > > > > I have looked it up in several books and > distention is > > also used also for Dampness and Phlem. > > > > I guess the question is, should I accept > distention > > only as a disorder of Qi, and forget what I read? > > > Holly > > Excellent question. You most certainly should not > forget what you read. But you must > read critically and also look to verify the things > you are told in books. If you cannot find > the textbook citation to either support or defend > the teacher's point of view, politely ask > him or her where you can read more on this matter. > If you have read that dampness and > phlegm also lead to distention in some of your > required texts, the instructor should be > able to explain the discrepancy. I suspect this may > come down to translation terminology. > If one author is translating one term as distension > and a second author another, then you > may be both right. the only way to have this > discussion is if we get our terms straight. > Now this is hardly your fault. It is the fault of a > profession that stubbornly resists the > obvious and thus makes education a far more arduous > task than it need be. > > So the first question is what sources support each > point of view? What does Wiseman say? > Maciocia? Kapchuk? Only the first uses a standard > translation terminology that may be > easily investigated with regards to the original > chinese character. thyerein lies the crux of > the problem. Do you know if the instructor who > " took you to task " made a point of > identifying his or her sources. Or if they were > speaking from their personal reading in > chinese, what standard do they use for translation > or at least what is the pin yin for the > word in question? These are all reasonable > questions if asked with all due respect. > > I can tell you that on page 31 of Wiseman's > Introduction to English Terminology of TCM, it > says, " signs of dampness encumbering the spleen > include ... abdominal distention " . There > are in fact dozens of refrences in this book to > distention associated with numerous other > pathogens. But in each case that pathogen is > probably obstructing the qi and that is > perhaps the most proximate pathomechanism of the > distention. But that really is > somewhat semantic. It is certainly true qi > stagnation is differentiated by distending pains, > but I am not sure the converse is also true, that is > distention is always an indication of qi > stagnation and nothing else. The definition in the > first edition of FCM refers only to visible > expansion of the skin and does not limit it to any > pathomechanism. From a clinical > perspective, IMO, all pathogenic accumulation always > causes qi stagnation if not caused by > it. So this becomes somewhat moot in practice. I > am sure some of language experts can > clarify further. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 Holly, For me, you've made the case for rigorous translation standards better than any argument among teachers and practitioners. Every technical term in Chinese medicine translated into English should be linked with pinyin, tone and if possible, character, so that it can be discussed without the confusion that is being revealed here. For example, Bensky describes the hard and sometimes painful bloating with constipation as 'focal distention' (pi man), which clearly is a replete condition associated with yang ming bowel disease. So much for being 'only' qi vacuity. On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:41 AM, holly mead wrote: > > I do not believe myself qualified to get into a > pissing match with someone with years of experience. > As a student I just had a question because of much > confusion, being that I had also been taught that I > should see " pain " with distention, along with reading > books that used the term based on lose translations. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: For > example, Bensky describes the hard and sometimes painful bloating with > constipation as 'focal distention' (pi man), so Bensky uses distention where Wiseman says fullness, a purely subjective sensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2005 Report Share Posted February 11, 2005 This academic term translation issue is interesting in light of clinical realities based on experience. If one used tx to move qi stasis that worked, that experience guides one. You start to notice things clinically that aren't necessarily in the classics or the modern TCM texts. I took a class with Mazin Al-Khafaji on dermatology, and he clearly stated that " the Chinese texts say it's always such and such .. but things weren't working and I tried more herbs for firetoxin and found that this was clinically what made the difference. " Those specific clinical experience based observations from treating current patients in modern post-industrial societies are what can make a huge difference. Yes, he read the Chinese books, but clinical experience leads to clarification. My main herb teacher found from experience that " if steroid hormones make a condition better, you know there is Kidney jing vacuity " because she saw that connection, made the hypothesis, tried treating the Kidney jing vacuity and it worked. All the leading practitioners I know do that. They are well grounded and well read (so keep reading and expanding your knowledge), then they can start finding what actually works best. Book knowledge is just that. And you will find books (and teachers) who say many differing things, so how do you determine which is correct? If it makes sense to you, try it and see if it works or not. I assume we all learned (or will learn if still in school) differences between shi pi man & zao (at least when learning the da/xiao ....cheng qi tang based formulas), which Z'ev described one instance of below. They have different characteristics and you have to know which you are talking about - " " distended " sensation only, physical expansion, and with hardness or not etc. I learned them with those chinese terms, since it's just too cumbersome in English. You learn what characteristics of each are and once you know it, the term is clear. One could use a single Wiseman term for each or another term for each, it just has to be defined when one teaches it. I see a big gap here between translation semantics and clinical application. If you want to move the qi mechanism with acu or herbs, because you know it will start to move the damp or the repletion in the bowels, that can be a strategy from clinical experience. You may not need so many drain damp or transform damp or dry dampness herbs. I think there is a case as Todd wrote, that ultimately qi stasis is a factor in all those other patterns. You really should use some herbs that move qi when you compose formulas to treat damp stasis or blood stasis. Of course, you can't ignore those other factors if they are there, so the balance and one's choice of treatment strategy become the issue. Sounds like you are on the right track questioning and reading more, just consider the experience aspect before negating what a teacher says. Karla <zrosenbe Feb 11, 2005 3:47 PM Re: Distention.... Holly, For me, you've made the case for rigorous translation standards better than any argument among teachers and practitioners. Every technical term in Chinese medicine translated into English should be linked with pinyin, tone and if possible, character, so that it can be discussed without the confusion that is being revealed here. For example, Bensky describes the hard and sometimes painful bloating with constipation as 'focal distention' (pi man), which clearly is a replete condition associated with yang ming bowel disease. So much for being 'only' qi vacuity. On Feb 11, 2005, at 10:41 AM, holly mead wrote: > > I do not believe myself qualified to get into a > pissing match with someone with years of experience. > As a student I just had a question because of much > confusion, being that I had also been taught that I > should see " pain " with distention, along with reading > books that used the term based on lose translations. > > 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.