Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Well said, Jonah. Eric , " hershowitz " <jonah@e...> wrote: > > Alon, > > Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional Western medical > systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize precisely the > subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study Western medical > terminology not because patients use terms like " pruritus " > or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's gaze rather than > the patient's—but because standardized professional language allows > us to limit the subjectivity of our differentiations, treatments, > and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese medical terminology is > not used by Chinese patients to describe their complaints: that is > why it is medical terminology. > > I strongly disagree with your statement that " the most important > aspect when dealing with translating related to medical care is to > consider how patients in the other culture experience and > communicate what we hope are similar experiences. " This is indeed a > very important and undervalued aspect of our education, and should > accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical terminology. We > hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes experiences that > are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should give due > attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and pathologies, and the > correlations between `patient-speak' and `physician-speak'. But this > does not strengthen the argument to interpret Chinese medical > writings through the lens of our patients' clinical language when > rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient descriptions vary not > only between China and `the West', but regionally, and locally, down > to the personal level. Just because my patient feels " swollen, " > or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in Naples) doesn't make > those any less accurate as textual translations for zhang4, any more > than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach > ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should be taken at > their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in clinic for > these descriptions and should be able to understand the > discrepancies between texts, including those translated from Chinese > that linguistically respect their sources, and clinical realities. > > Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't work, you > misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for plug-in > translation? The philological issues raised by the transmission of > traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are challenging and deserve > careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes Wisemanology or any > other gloss will lead to robotic translation. Rather, we hope that > using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the subtleties of > Chinese medical language, theory and practice, resisting and > reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce concepts for the > tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation. > > Sincerely, > > Jonah Hershowitz > > , " " > <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > > I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just right' > > >>>And the most important aspect when dealing with translating > related to medical care is to consider how patients in the other > culture experience and communicate what we hope are similar > experiences. This whole argument about distension just highlights > this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have ever heard a > patient say he feels distended, so unless we can truly understand > what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then translate it to > what western patients experience and communicates, we are back to > talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the clinician a > clinical translation is much more important (which to a SMALL extent > Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at patient care > academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical text should be > relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric makes is important > if one is to truly understand another language and then translate > meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English (which is a > closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which words are often used > differently within different contexts) when I just covert words the > meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A standard plugged-in > translation just cant do the job for anything that has > depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like to see more > Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not just > translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to have a clearer > separation between the so-called academic translators and medical > writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems in TCM > education in the west. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 Holly, A few loose threads.... You were discussing the treatments of qi stagnation and dampness. In treatment, it is essentially a gradation of different signs and a variance in the presciption to reflect the relative levels of qi stagnation and dampness. Dampness is treated by moving qi while transforming dampness, drying dampness, or disinhibiting dampness (largely dependent on whether the dampness is in the upper, middle, or lower burner respectively). Pure qi stagnation doesn't necessarily involve herbs to treat dampness, but dampness virtually always requires moving qi. In the textbook, they appear to be very distinct and black and white, but in reality, there is a wide range of prominent signs. Treatment varies depending on how severe each component is. Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult, because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort. > I have always wondered why we as beginners are not > taught directly from translations of the classics. The classics are too difficult for the very initial stages of education. The classics are used at the advanced levels of study to allow students to think through complex scenarios and gain a deeper understanding of theory. The basic information is the most common part of general practice, and a sound knowledge of the basics will allow the classics to make much more sense than if you just go straight to the classics. Modern Chinese students also focus on the basics and then later on the classics, even though there is no issue with terminology and language for them. Archaic Chinese is difficult for everyone, because it is very vague. Eric , holly mead <flwfree> wrote: > > I believe that this is a very big problem for new > students. > > Did you know that most students will not read > different sources of information simply because of the > vast variations of medical terms described by each > book? > > Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and > we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of > the others I speak with, will not learn from books, > they study and learn strictly from the instructors > notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance > grade. > > I was instructed for my next exam to answer only from > the terms as described by Maciocia's, The Foundation > of , and disregard the knowledge > gained from my other sources. > > Maybe that is the right way to do things, since there > seems to be nothing to help new students catch the > " nuances " which was described in the previous e-mail. > > > I have always wondered why we as beginners are not > taught directly from translations of the classics. > > Holly > --- hershowitz <jonah@e...> wrote: > > > > > Alon, > > > > Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional > > Western medical > > systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize > > precisely the > > subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study > > Western medical > > terminology not because patients use terms like > > " pruritus " > > or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's > > gaze rather than > > the patient's—but because standardized professional > > language allows > > us to limit the subjectivity of our > > differentiations, treatments, > > and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese > > medical terminology is > > not used by Chinese patients to describe their > > complaints: that is > > why it is medical terminology. > > > > I strongly disagree with your statement that " the > > most important > > aspect when dealing with translating related to > > medical care is to > > consider how patients in the other culture > > experience and > > communicate what we hope are similar experiences. " > > This is indeed a > > very important and undervalued aspect of our > > education, and should > > accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical > > terminology. We > > hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes > > experiences that > > are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should > > give due > > attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and > > pathologies, and the > > correlations between `patient-speak' and > > `physician-speak'. But this > > does not strengthen the argument to interpret > > Chinese medical > > writings through the lens of our patients' clinical > > language when > > rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient > > descriptions vary not > > only between China and `the West', but regionally, > > and locally, down > > to the personal level. Just because my patient feels > > " swollen, " > > or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in > > Naples) doesn't make > > those any less accurate as textual translations for > > zhang4, any more > > than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach > > ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should > > be taken at > > their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in > > clinic for > > these descriptions and should be able to understand > > the > > discrepancies between texts, including those > > translated from Chinese > > that linguistically respect their sources, and > > clinical realities. > > > > Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't > > work, you > > misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for > > plug-in > > translation? The philological issues raised by the > > transmission of > > traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are > > challenging and deserve > > careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes > > Wisemanology or any > > other gloss will lead to robotic translation. > > Rather, we hope that > > using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the > > subtleties of > > Chinese medical language, theory and practice, > > resisting and > > reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce > > concepts for the > > tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Jonah Hershowitz > > > > , " Alon > > Marcus DOM " > > <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > > > I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just > > right' > > > >>>And the most important aspect when dealing with > > translating > > related to medical care is to consider how patients > > in the other > > culture experience and communicate what we hope are > > similar > > experiences. This whole argument about distension > > just highlights > > this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have > > ever heard a > > patient say he feels distended, so unless we can > > truly understand > > what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then > > translate it to > > what western patients experience and communicates, > > we are back to > > talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the > > clinician a > > clinical translation is much more important (which > > to a SMALL extent > > Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at > > patient care > > academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical > > text should be > > relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric > > makes is important > > if one is to truly understand another language and > > then translate > > meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English > > (which is a > > closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which > > words are often used > > differently within different contexts) when I just > > covert words the > > meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A > > standard plugged-in > > translation just cant do the job for anything that > > has > > depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like > > to see more > > Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not > > just > > translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to > > have a clearer > > separation between the so-called academic > > translators and medical > > writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems > > in TCM > > education in the west. > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > > removed] > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 To the degree > that Wiseman is " Caucasian " (why that term is in current use I'm not > sure) and a non-clinician, he will need the council of those who have > native fluency in Chinese and who understand at least to his level of > competence the clinical context of the text, if needed. And to the > degree that Feng is Chinese and a clinician, he would be well- advised > to work with (and I think also to leave the final translation > decisions to) a native English speaker who specializes in Chinese > medical translation. Yes, this is the pivotal reason that Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye work as a team. Nigel background is as a PhD in applied linguists, and he has a very sound knowledge of both languages, as well as translation theory, and experience from translating a wide range of texts. There are things that require a clinician like Feng Ye to provide clarity. So they have the exact process that you are discussing- a native English speaker who specializes in CM translation making the final translation decisions, and a clinician making sure that those decisions are correct. They have the best of both worlds. I agree that being a clinician does not guarantee being a good translator. In fact, it oftens gets in the way, because clinicians have a hard time resisting the tempation to keep their own opinions out of it. Language ability is the most important factor in translation, and one needs to have familiarity with the specific technical language in the target subject. So while my previous post pointed out that clinicians were available in the production of those books, it is also worth noting that an experienced expert translator was involved as well- Nigel Wiseman. Eric , " hershowitz " <jonah@e...> wrote: > > Alon, > > I very much appreciate your comments and am heartened by your level- > headed and practical approach. I can't agree more that the /authors/ > (is there a standard substitute for italics or emphasis in e- > writing?) should be the most informed, intelligent, experienced > people possible. We all want great books written by great folks who > know what they're talking about, using the language that suits them, > including technical terminologies and so-called lay terms. I look > very much to purchasing your book when I return to the Bay Area in > April, and it is indeed your well-evidenced clinical scholarship as > an author that interests me. > > A translator working with a Chinese author's work on Chinese > medicine, on the other hand, is best served with at least a glossary > in hand in addition to standard dictionaries and so on. Which leads > me to: > > Eric, > > While the clinical credentials of the individuals you mention are > undeniable merits which can only credit their translation skills, > they are not in my opinion the bottom-line measure for the quality of > a translator. I place far more value in a translator's linguistic > abilities, and expect that clinicians be consulted as editors when > necessary. Clinicians may make better or worse translators, and for > that matter, use of standardized terminology is no guarantee for good > translation, as so many have previously pointed out in this > discussion. But it sure helps, and those equipped with such tools are > better prepared to face the difficulties of transmission. I would > prefer a bad translator use the PD rather than not. To the degree > that Wiseman is " Caucasian " (why that term is in current use I'm not > sure) and a non-clinician, he will need the council of those who have > native fluency in Chinese and who understand at least to his level of > competence the clinical context of the text, if needed. And to the > degree that Feng is Chinese and a clinician, he would be well- advised > to work with (and I think also to leave the final translation > decisions to) a native English speaker who specializes in Chinese > medical translation. All the better if that specialist is an > experienced clinician. > > What do you think? > > Jonah Hershowitz > > , " " > <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > > Jonah > > I have no problem with technical terminology and i believe CM > practitioners must study the depth of the medicine, including all its > technical terms. I also do not have any problem using such terms > especially when translating some texts (when the original authors > have all used the same terms to have similar meanings). I have > enjoyed and have learned form several WT texts. I think when > translating classical works a standard translation has many > advantages but also weaknesses (and we should also remember that we > often do not really know what many of the terms mean and therefor > should still be open to many varying interpretation). On the other > hand i do have problems with books that are more clinically oriented > if the terms do not conform, make sense, or translate culturally. A > book written for use in a western clinical setting should relate > terms to the reality of western patients (and still be as accurate > regarding the Chinese experience as possible, a tall order).When > additional explanation beyond standard stated terms, and i think is > needed often, it must be provided. Relying on standard technical > terminology is often less ideal. When one writes or translates modern > clinical manuals i think one MUST struggle with issues that are not > always best dealt with standardized terms.That is also why i believe > if one is to write a modern clinical manual one should only write > about areas in which he/she have extensive clinical experience. It is > some of these books that i have referred to as having the feeling of > almost being computer generated(obviously many of the texts we have > have been written by practitioners with vast experience in the > particular field they have written on, but many have not). Again, as > a profession i believe we are better served by having flexibility. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult, because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort. >>>I may be mistaken but i was under the impression that Macioccia does not " translate. " but writes on CM topics. Am i wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 I look > very much to purchasing your book when I return to the Bay Area in > April, and it is indeed your well-evidenced clinical scholarship as > an author that interests me. >>>>>>>Please contact me i would love to visit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges the input of quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are heavily " influenced " by translators whom he had employed. > >>>I may be mistaken but i was under the impression that Macioccia does not " translate. " but writes on CM topics. Am i wrong? > > , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult, > because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if > it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several > Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in > his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges the input of quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are heavily " influenced " by translators whom he had employed. >>>>So are they basically based on translated texts? I have never read his work in-depth but the few section i have read seemed like he includes opinions and interpretations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 I wouldn't say that they are " basically based on translated texts " and they certainly contain alot of his opinions and interpretations which I think is great. However, will all the books and especially with this latest Diagnosis book it's hard to distinquish between his opinions and (Chinese) concensus. This is what I find rather frustrating... for example we have the idea of the outer shu points which so far has seemed to only to have come from his books. Read Deadman and you get a lot of comments about how this or that idea (not all Giovanni's) has no basis in the classic texts. It would be nice to get a fully footnoted Foundations copy. He does tend to more freely admit the influence of Dr. Shen in the new Diagnosis book. doug > >>>>So are they basically based on translated texts? I have never read his work in- depth but the few section i have read seemed like he includes opinions and interpretations > > > , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges the input of > quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are heavily > " influenced " by translators whom he had employed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 However, will all the books and especially with this latest Diagnosis book it's hard to distinquish between his opinions and (Chinese) concensus. >>>>That is why in my book i try to add a foot note any time something is not traditionally based Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 Holly, This may be controversial, but it would seem that it would be difficult to use the terms only from the Maciocia text for an exam, since there are few terms defined. Depending on the text, for example, " The Practice of " which is a huge text, the glossary is only a few pages and a relative handful of terms. In my own herb classes, I use classical texts such as the Shang Han Lun for all relevant references, along with Wen Bing Xue, among others. However, in order to do this, I must be able to define the important terms, which are only available in the Practical Dictionary of CM. I then will reference relevant terms to the Bensky use or other authors if necessary. But the only standardized terminology available is the Wiseman/Ye, therefore there is no other competing standard. On Feb 19, 2005, at 2:09 PM, holly mead wrote: > > > I believe that this is a very big problem for new > students. > > Did you know that most students will not read > different sources of information simply because of the > vast variations of medical terms described by each > book? > > Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and > we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of > the others I speak with, will not learn from books, > they study and learn strictly from the instructors > notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance > grade. > > I was instructed for my next exam to answer only from > the terms as described by Maciocia's, The Foundation > of , and disregard the knowledge > gained from my other sources. > > Maybe that is the right way to do things, since there > seems to be nothing to help new students catch the > " nuances " which was described in the previous e-mail. > > > I have always wondered why we as beginners are not > taught directly from translations of the classics. > > Holly > --- hershowitz <jonah wrote: > >> >> Alon, >> >> Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional >> Western medical >> systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize >> precisely the >> subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study >> Western medical >> terminology not because patients use terms like >> " pruritus " >> or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's >> gaze rather than >> the patient's—but because standardized professional >> language allows >> us to limit the subjectivity of our >> differentiations, treatments, >> and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese >> medical terminology is >> not used by Chinese patients to describe their >> complaints: that is >> why it is medical terminology. >> >> I strongly disagree with your statement that " the >> most important >> aspect when dealing with translating related to >> medical care is to >> consider how patients in the other culture >> experience and >> communicate what we hope are similar experiences. " >> This is indeed a >> very important and undervalued aspect of our >> education, and should >> accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical >> terminology. We >> hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes >> experiences that >> are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should >> give due >> attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and >> pathologies, and the >> correlations between `patient-speak' and >> `physician-speak'. But this >> does not strengthen the argument to interpret >> Chinese medical >> writings through the lens of our patients' clinical >> language when >> rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient >> descriptions vary not >> only between China and `the West', but regionally, >> and locally, down >> to the personal level. Just because my patient feels >> " swollen, " >> or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in >> Naples) doesn't make >> those any less accurate as textual translations for >> zhang4, any more >> than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach >> ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should >> be taken at >> their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in >> clinic for >> these descriptions and should be able to understand >> the >> discrepancies between texts, including those >> translated from Chinese >> that linguistically respect their sources, and >> clinical realities. >> >> Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't >> work, you >> misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for >> plug-in >> translation? The philological issues raised by the >> transmission of >> traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are >> challenging and deserve >> careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes >> Wisemanology or any >> other gloss will lead to robotic translation. >> Rather, we hope that >> using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the >> subtleties of >> Chinese medical language, theory and practice, >> resisting and >> reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce >> concepts for the >> tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Jonah Hershowitz >> >> , " Alon >> Marcus DOM " >> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: >>> I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just >> right' >>>>>> And the most important aspect when dealing with >> translating >> related to medical care is to consider how patients >> in the other >> culture experience and communicate what we hope are >> similar >> experiences. This whole argument about distension >> just highlights >> this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have >> ever heard a >> patient say he feels distended, so unless we can >> truly understand >> what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then >> translate it to >> what western patients experience and communicates, >> we are back to >> talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the >> clinician a >> clinical translation is much more important (which >> to a SMALL extent >> Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at >> patient care >> academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical >> text should be >> relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric >> makes is important >> if one is to truly understand another language and >> then translate >> meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English >> (which is a >> closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which >> words are often used >> differently within different contexts) when I just >> covert words the >> meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A >> standard plugged-in >> translation just cant do the job for anything that >> has >> depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like >> to see more >> Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not >> just >> translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to >> have a clearer >> separation between the so-called academic >> translators and medical >> writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems >> in TCM >> education in the west. >>> >>> >>> >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been >> removed] >> >> >> >> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, > including board approved continuing education classes, an annual > conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > " The Practice of " which is a huge text, the glossary > is only a few pages and a relative handful of terms. Also of note is that Foundations of has a 2 page glossary that has mistakes in the Chinese that were not corrected in subsequent editions. Most authors who read Chinese would instantly notice this mistake and hastily correct it for the second edition. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Also of note is that Foundations of has a 2 page glossary that has mistakes in the Chinese that were not corrected in subsequent editions. Most authors who read Chinese would instantly notice this mistake and hastily correct it for the second edition. >>>>Eric at the same time when looking at many of the texts that have used WT the amounts of technical terms that are not easily transferable is truly minimal, most are terms like vacuity Vs deficiency or emptiness etc. Some that refer to treatment principles while are consistent in WT when looking at other texts the term becomes clear as soon as the herbs are written. I truly think we are making more of this than it deserves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: >It would be nice to see more books by Feng Ye I would also love to see more books by Feng Ye. Fortunately, he is involved with three more books that are coming out within the next few years. His contributions are very valuable. If you look at Paradigm's Shang Han Lun, his influence is very obvious because he provided so much clarity in the commentary. Since the Shang Han Lun has had so much commentary over the years, having someone like Feng Ye to steer one towards the best sources for commentary alone is important, and his ability to discern the meaning in the various ambiguities really brings a lot of clarity to what would otherwise be a very difficult classical work. Unfortunately, we have a very difficult time convincing Feng Ye that it is worthwhile to be involved in the Western TCM world. Even though his total page count of English works is basically equal to the total page count of all of Bensky's English works, people still are hardly aware of him. People have made comments for years about the supposed absence of clinicians in the development of PD terminology as though he didn't even exist. Feng Ye is far from a household name even though his total page count in English is currently about equal to Bensky's and will far surpass Bensky's and even Macioccia's total page count within the next year or two. Sadly, Feng Ye is unfortunately becoming convinced that Westerners are color-blind and only pay attention to other Westerners, so he doesn't really see much point in working on book projects, even though he likes to teach. We do our best to try to keep him on-board because he gives us invaluable feedback, but we would really like to get him to write more for us. Much of his work is done in Chinese for the Chinese world, but we keep courting him to try to keep him involved in the Western arena as well. He has a series of DVDs from his hospital and university lectures in Chinese and several publications in Chinese, but it takes all the effort that we can exert to convince him not to give up on the English-speaking world. His concerns that we are color-blind aside, Feng Ye truly loves Western society and wants to contribute to the transmission of CM, but he suffers from a similar problem that many clinicians face: Being a good clinician keeps one very busy and makes book production difficult. Since doctors make very good money and TCM authors/translators make probably less than 25 cents per hour for their efforts, it is no great surprise that many clinicians are too busy earning a living to produce many books. Bensky's new book would have taken a collosal amount of work to complete, all the longer because he was probably maintaining a practice as well as his other duties with his school, etc. Z'ev has been working on his translation projects for years but he has many patients to take care of and many classes to teach, so the book production seems to take a very long time. Bob Damone tirelessly continues to produce translated texts, but again, it takes a long time because he has patients to treat and classes to teach. Craig Mitchell similarly has his efforts spread between patients, classes, and Chinese texts. Everyone suffers from the same problem. Translation is something that people enjoy and become passionate about, and people like to contribute to the literature of the field. But it is essentially like doing charity work because it earns virtually no money in comparison to the other options available to bilinguals or TCM professionals. So in short, I am grateful that we have so many books with Feng Ye already, and I look forward to the new ones to come. I know that the CM community is one of the most internationally appreciative and cultural respectful subgroups in Western society, so hopefully we can ensure that the Asian members of our community feel the appreciation that they so richly deserve so that we get more and more publications with their input. On a similar vein, I hope that more PRC publishing houses get the clue that their books need to have the input of Westerners to be successful works in English. There are many books that are produced in the PRC in English that are virtually worthless because they don't understand the need for native speakers and sensible translation methods. If both cultures were working together more and appreciating what each has to offer, we would experience a vast proliferation of wonderful literature. The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all appreciate the value of learning English, so we have the raw material for excellent translation teams if everyone works together. We have native speakers of each language with increasingly sophisticated TCM educations, we have an endless quantity of Chinese source books, a blossoming professional audience in the West, and a sensible and inclusive translation methodology. The next hundred years in the West will see incredible growth in the world of TCM. Most young and motivated Chinese students of WM appreciate the need to learn English. Now more and more young and motivated CM students are realizing that learning Chinese can revolutionize their career options to an equal degree. The world is growing closer very quickly, and it is a great time to be involved in CM. Studying Chinese, Japanese, or Korean may not be the best use of time for some of the more experienced and established practitioners on this list, but all the students who read this list should be aware that it will completely transform their options for the rest of their life. Language opens many doors and Asian nations have options to gain clinical experience that far surpasses what most of us have access to in the West. And savory meats in various dough-like wrappers with tasty dipping sauces. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Z'ev has been working on his translation projects for years but he has many patients to take care of and many classes to teach, so the book production seems to take a very long time. Bob Damone tirelessly continues to produce translated texts, but again, it takes a long time because he has patients to treat and classes to teach. Craig Mitchell similarly has his efforts spread between patients, classes, and Chinese texts. Everyone suffers from the same problem. Translation is something that people enjoy and become passionate about, and people like to contribute to the literature of the field. But it is essentially like doing charity work because it earns virtually no money in comparison to the other options available to bilinguals or TCM professionals. >>>>>Tell me about it, you have to give up sleeping and have a passion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Eric thanks for the input. I do think the SHL is one of the best and most difficult projects that we have in English. Any chance Feng Ye can be convinced to write about modern clinical work? We need much more realtime, real-life materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Eric > thanks for the input. I do think the SHL is one of the best and most difficult projects that we have in English. > > Any chance Feng Ye can be convinced to write about modern clinical work? We need much more realtime, real-life materials. We are trying to get him involved in this type of thing. Some of his current projects are basic works intended to lay a solid foundation for new students, and others are more advanced and historical. I agree with you that the next thing we should be developing is real- time clinical stuff. Some of Feng Ye's Chinese materials are like this, particularly his classes at the hospital (some of which are on dvd). He teaches student interns how to ask questions to determine the diagnosis efficiently and what things to pay particular attention to in the clinic. I'm not sure whether this material would be of as much you to an experienced practitioner like yourself, but it would be great for student interns. We could probably translate such a thing at some point in the future, but I don't know what medium it would be in (video, text, etc). One of Feng Ye's specialties is pulse diagnosis. While it is advanced and oriented towards real-life, it is difficult to teach didactically and via text. What I would really like to see is a book of Feng Ye's personal notes, just a random collection of his best clinical tips. The problem with many people with a lot of experience is that they know so much it is hard to figure out where to begin. I feel so overwhelmed by Feng Ye's knowledge that I don't even know where to start when I ask him questions. I get a mini-dissertation with every random question I pose, and I have no idea how to organize my questions so that all the ground of a given topic is covered. What kind of stuff would we most like to see, if we could have a real- life book written about any topic? Alon, I know that you have studied in hospitals in China and I'm sure that you were able to thus absorb a lot of information that couldn't have been accessed by books. Knowing that observation in a hospital or clinic is the best way to learn about the real-life clinical situations, how would you go about trying to transfer that type of knowledge to texts? Making texts of data or translating textbooks is straightforward, but it is challenging to think of a way to get all the clinical gems into text. Most of the best stuff that one learns is something that shows up when observing the doctor confronting a clinical problem. Getting it into text is a big challenge. I would love to see Feng Ye or other doctors produce this type of work. As you know all too well from sacrificing sleep and any semblance of a social life in order to write your book while maintaining your practice, it is hard to find enough hours in the day to write. Maybe we could do some work off Feng Ye's dvds or something, because he doesn't have any time at present to write a new book from scratch. I don't think that my notes from watching him at the hospital would be particularly useful because they would be too random. However, one idea that I have thought about is this: Many classical texts have commentary from later authors. What if we translated a classical text on medicinals and had Feng Ye write the modern commentary? Maybe that would be too similar to something like Jiao Shu-De, but the Jiao texts are very good. It might also get him more recognition for his talents. It would get him of the list of authors and into the book title itself. Feng Ye is currently a bit less well-known than Wiseman just as Gamble and Barolet are less well- known than Bensky. Books are often done with teams of contributors, so it is hard to tell who plays a powerhouse role and who is a more minor contributor. Even though I recognized his name in print, it wasn't until I actually met Feng Ye that I realized his role in PD works is as crucial as it is-I had assumed PD was largely based on Wiseman alone. Perhaps having Feng Ye write more original works and modern commentary would be a good way for people to recognize that he is truly a heavyweight champion and not just a name on a list of multiple authors. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 ....Most authors who read Chinese would instantly > notice this mistake and hastily correct it for the second edition. > > Eric Sadly, books for Chinese medicine practitioners and students (with the general exception of those published by university presses) pullulate with errors not only in Chinese glossaries, but throughout. I wonder if line editing is just too costly. Jonah Hershowitz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Knowing that observation in a hospital or clinic is the best way to learn about the real-life clinical situations, how would you go about trying to transfer that type of knowledge to texts? >>>>Eric which hospital does he work in? I wander if i met him while in taiwan. I think what we need most is case histories where the complexities are dealt with in depth, not the usual the patient was treated with such and such and then i considered this sign and wala i gave this rx and the patient is now cured. We need indepth discussion on treatment priorities, why some s/s are ignored while others are important, how long do you continue with a treatment plan even when clinical signs are confusing or not changing, what are long term treatment priorities and what to look for when deciding on the appropriate course, etc. We also need a lot more information on what can be realistically achieved in different disorders.Obviously this can go on and on.In short i think we have lots of information on principles and relatively little information and real application. You might think about doing subtitles for the DVDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Thanks Alon, that is good feedback. I agree with you that those are the key things that we need to know. Feng Ye works at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital now, but I think he may have worked at the hospital in China Medical College when you were here, if it was more than 5 years ago or so. I have mentioned before that Taiwan has some practitioners who use traditional theory and others who rely on herbal pharmacology. Feng Ye is a firm believer that better results come from pattern diagnosis, and I am more interested in this style myself. But good pattern diagnosis is more of an art to master. It would be interesting to see some clinical stuff from the other camp, to see the various protocols for pharmacologically-based herbal therapies for biomedical diseases. The two are different approaches just as traditional acupuncture is from orthopedic acupuncture. Both work to some degree. Even though I personally favor the pattern diagnosis approach, the pharm approach would be interesting to see more of, to give less-skilled tcm practitioners another option and to have something that is more easily integrated in WM. Feng Ye is not a good source for this because he doesn't really support that approach, but I'm sure there is a lot out there that could be written on to complement the more traditional approach and make us more informed overall. Feng Ye is also working within a big study on stroke patients that compares 4 groups: placebo, drug, herbal medicine (with pattern differentiation- PRC rating system-style), and acupuncture. It would be interesting to see more studies like that. He is in the herbal med group. This type of study will help to give us a reasonable idea of what outcomes can be expected for different therapies. This type of research is also good in Taiwan, because Western-standard research protocols are more established than in the PRC at present. Eric , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Knowing that observation in a hospital > or clinic is the best way to learn about the real-life clinical > situations, how would you go about trying to transfer that type of > knowledge to texts? > >>>>Eric which hospital does he work in? I wander if i met him while in taiwan. > I think what we need most is case histories where the complexities are dealt with in depth, not the usual the patient was treated with such and such and then i considered this sign and wala i gave this rx and the patient is now cured. We need indepth discussion on treatment priorities, why some s/s are ignored while others are important, how long do you continue with a treatment plan even when clinical signs are confusing or not changing, what are long term treatment priorities and what to look for when deciding on the appropriate course, etc. > We also need a lot more information on what can be realistically achieved in different disorders.Obviously this can go on and on.In short i think we have lots of information on principles and relatively little information and real application. > > You might think about doing subtitles for the DVDs. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Chang Gung Memorial Hospital >>>>>I spent a couple of days at chang gung and also gave a talk but am not sure if he was there or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 Eric Does Feng Ye use the Taiwanese/Japanese style of mixing prepared Rx or more PRC style in his practice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I agree 100%. There has been little translated on in-depth case histories with pathomechanisms and long-term followup. I've enjoyed, in this light, some of Volker Scheid's articles over the years, and cases of his that were included in a Churchill-Livingstone text on Western CM case histories. Also, there are good discussions in Judith Farquhar's book, " Knowing Practice " . On Feb 22, 2005, at 8:50 PM, wrote: > > I think what we need most is case histories where the complexities > are dealt with in depth, not the usual the patient was treated with > such and such and then i considered this sign and wala i gave this rx > and the patient is now cured. We need indepth discussion on treatment > priorities, why some s/s are ignored while others are important, how > long do you continue with a treatment plan even when clinical signs > are confusing or not changing, what are long term treatment priorities > and what to look for when deciding on the appropriate course, etc. > We also need a lot more information on what can be realistically > achieved in different disorders.Obviously this can go on and on.In > short i think we have lots of information on principles and relatively > little information and real application. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Just got back from a week in the mountains of New Mexico and read this - AMEN! Marnae At 10:44 AM 2/22/2005, you wrote: > , " " ><alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > >It would be nice to see more books by Feng Ye > >I would also love to see more books by Feng Ye. Fortunately, he is >involved with three more books that are coming out within the next >few years. His contributions are very valuable. If you look at >Paradigm's Shang Han Lun, his influence is very obvious because he >provided so much clarity in the commentary. Since the Shang Han Lun >has had so much commentary over the years, having someone like Feng >Ye to steer one towards the best sources for commentary alone is >important, and his ability to discern the meaning in the various >ambiguities really brings a lot of clarity to what would otherwise be >a very difficult classical work. > >Unfortunately, we have a very difficult time convincing Feng Ye that >it is worthwhile to be involved in the Western TCM world. Even >though his total page count of English works is basically equal to >the total page count of all of Bensky's English works, people still >are hardly aware of him. People have made comments for years about >the supposed absence of clinicians in the development of PD >terminology as though he didn't even exist. Feng Ye is far from a >household name even though his total page count in English is >currently about equal to Bensky's and will far surpass Bensky's and >even Macioccia's total page count within the next year or two. >Sadly, Feng Ye is unfortunately becoming convinced that Westerners >are color-blind and only pay attention to other Westerners, so he >doesn't really see much point in working on book projects, even >though he likes to teach. We do our best to try to keep him on-board >because he gives us invaluable feedback, but we would really like to >get him to write more for us. Much of his work is done in Chinese >for the Chinese world, but we keep courting him to try to keep him >involved in the Western arena as well. He has a series of DVDs from >his hospital and university lectures in Chinese and several >publications in Chinese, but it takes all the effort that we can >exert to convince him not to give up on the English-speaking world. > >His concerns that we are color-blind aside, Feng Ye truly loves >Western society and wants to contribute to the transmission of CM, >but he suffers from a similar problem that many clinicians face: >Being a good clinician keeps one very busy and makes book production >difficult. Since doctors make very good money and TCM >authors/translators make probably less than 25 cents per hour for >their efforts, it is no great surprise that many clinicians are too >busy earning a living to produce many books. Bensky's new book would >have taken a collosal amount of work to complete, all the longer >because he was probably maintaining a practice as well as his other >duties with his school, etc. Z'ev has been working on his >translation projects for years but he has many patients to take care >of and many classes to teach, so the book production seems to take a >very long time. Bob Damone tirelessly continues to produce >translated texts, but again, it takes a long time because he has >patients to treat and classes to teach. Craig Mitchell similarly has >his efforts spread between patients, classes, and Chinese texts. >Everyone suffers from the same problem. Translation is something >that people enjoy and become passionate about, and people like to >contribute to the literature of the field. But it is essentially >like doing charity work because it earns virtually no money in >comparison to the other options available to bilinguals or TCM >professionals. > >So in short, I am grateful that we have so many books with Feng Ye >already, and I look forward to the new ones to come. I know that the >CM community is one of the most internationally appreciative and >cultural respectful subgroups in Western society, so hopefully we can >ensure that the Asian members of our community feel the appreciation >that they so richly deserve so that we get more and more publications >with their input. > >On a similar vein, I hope that more PRC publishing houses get the >clue that their books need to have the input of Westerners to be >successful works in English. There are many books that are produced >in the PRC in English that are virtually worthless because they don't >understand the need for native speakers and sensible translation >methods. If both cultures were working together more and >appreciating what each has to offer, we would experience a vast >proliferation of wonderful literature. > >The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all appreciate the value of >learning English, so we have the raw material for excellent >translation teams if everyone works together. We have native >speakers of each language with increasingly sophisticated TCM >educations, we have an endless quantity of Chinese source books, a >blossoming professional audience in the West, and a sensible and >inclusive translation methodology. The next hundred years in the >West will see incredible growth in the world of TCM. Most young and >motivated Chinese students of WM appreciate the need to learn >English. Now more and more young and motivated CM students are >realizing that learning Chinese can revolutionize their career >options to an equal degree. The world is growing closer very >quickly, and it is a great time to be involved in CM. > >Studying Chinese, Japanese, or Korean may not be the best use of time >for some of the more experienced and established practitioners on >this list, but all the students who read this list should be aware >that it will completely transform their options for the rest of their >life. Language opens many doors and Asian nations have options to >gain clinical experience that far surpasses what most of us have >access to in the West. And savory meats in various dough-like >wrappers with tasty dipping sauces. > >Eric > > > > > > > > >Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including >board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a >free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 , " " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Eric Does Feng Ye use the Taiwanese/Japanese style of mixing prepared Rx or more PRC style in his practice? > > Sorry for the delay, offline for a few days. Feng Ye does both. I don't know much about how it is done in Japan, but in Taiwan many doctors now compound granule formulas and add single meds as additions. This is much more common than combining singles as granules (which I have seen in the PRC) to make a formula from scratch. However, when patients request raw herbs instead of granules, Feng Ye writes the prescription from scratch in the normal style, without any extraneous ingredients. In Taiwan, national healthcare covers granules but does not cover raw herbs. Patients and doctors know that raw herbs are more effective, but because patients have to pay out of pocket and raw herbs are inconvenient, they are used less frequently. Granules are still regarded as effective, and the modern method of compounding formulas and adding singles is also considered to be effective, even though it is not traditional. If you ask Feng Ye or other docs about this, they will tell you that this new style is basically a mass-scale experiment. They see that it is effective, so they go along with it, but it is without a doubt a modern technique with little historical precendent. The reason they use combined formulas with added singles instead of combining singles from scratch is because research shows that different chemicals are produced when the formula is cooked together (at the factory) than when the pure singles are combined in water. They want the effect of decocting meds together, so they combined formulas, but they accept the fact that they have some ingredients present that are not really required for the case and also acknowledge that the formula is bigger and more complex with ingredients than necessary. It is basically a vast experiment, but it has been going on for a long time and has been used for millions of cases with a basically good effect. It is what the gov't pays for and is what many patients prefer. The doctors may ideally prefer writing formulas from scratch, but that happens in the minority of cases these days. The Taiwanese understand that they are taking it into a new frontier, with some risks, some gains, and some unknowns, but still a basically useful end result. There is concern that new generations of doctors who rely on this method will lose their ability to master writing prescriptions from scratch. This is a similar concern to the use of computers with regard to the ability of young Chinese people to write characters from scratch. The old folks lament the fact that some high school kids are forgetting how to write hard and obscure characters by hand (because computers allow you to write by recognition, which is MUCH easier). Anyway, such is life in the modern world, it seems. Eric 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.