wiseman standards

July 2, 2005

I was excited to hear about the adoption of Wiseman terminology as

the international standard for our profession. However, I do wonder

if this really is a sign of TCM in the west coming of age. I will be

posting an article on the site about TCM and the development of a

mature profession. The basic gist is that vigorous and often

uncollegial debate is the rule not the exception in the development

of a mature profession and that we need the battle to reach its peak

before there can be any hope of resolution. So is this standard a

point of coming together or just a flag to rally around or against.

time will tell, but no argument here has swayed anyone yet. In all

likelihood the American trait of stubborn independence and suspicion

of centralized authority will likely dominate. The most common

refrain against wiseman all these years has been that the

" imposition " of the terminology is akin to tyranny. I have argued

exactly the reverse. Search my many posts on the subject for details

(BTW, the site at craneherb.com is the best place to search CHA

messages before July 2003). Wiseman AND terminology should work.

The strong supporters of standardized terminology are a minority in

the profession. My estimate would be less than 10%. I do not think

this will change just due to some decree in a foreign land (see the

analogy here). Will this change that fact almost of the required

board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent

to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new

matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky

certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many

years against the need for any such standard. Will Maciocia or

Deadman come around either. It seems unlikely. The two herb related

Wiseman term board exam texts in California are Fundamentals of

and Practical Diagnosis. Both superb books, both

required at PCOM, both largely ignored by the students despite pleas

from the likes of myself, Z'ev, Bob Damone and Warren Sheir. The

rest of the faculty are not in accord on this matter. And while we

might assume that those who do not speak or write about this matter

with passion are either neutral or split evenly, I would suggest

otherwise. The silent majority usually supports the status quo,

which is why they remain silent. They may not be strong supporters

of the status quo, but they see nothing that needs to be fixed. Most

folks are practical that way. So how will this really impact us?

It will impact the Asians who adopt this format for future books

published in Asia and also translations of journal literature.

However translations done by native speakers of the source tongue are

not ideal and most Americans in the field do not buy many books, much

less to Asian journals. Even the only two real active

forums for TCM (CHA and Attilio's TCM) have a combined overlapping

membership of probably less than 2000. Most of our English language

journals are defunct or on the way, except for JCM. The American

audience who would theoretically embrace technical term standards in

chinese medicine are academics in various sciences and medical

doctors who respect rigor in their literature. But neither group has

expressed any particular interest in Chinese medical concepts. Most

of the TCM research being done in the west is allopathic and disease

oriented and this trend appears to be mounting. Researchers are

interested in our herbs, our techniques and discovering the

scientific mechanism for all of it. but as for the conceptual basis,

opinions range from silence to neutrality to contempt. Since the

Wiseman standards are primarily concerned with the transmission of

the classic and modern TCM terms, I am hard pressed to see how this

will have major impact without a similar decree from American

accreditors or standards of publication adopted by all presses. The

late Jim Ramholz frequently compared the use of standards to

censorship, so this seems unlikely to fly. This is a great day for

those of us who will look forward to an explosion of material in

Wisemanese emanating from Asia. Perhaps over time, this will just

amount to a dwarfing of the nonstandard terms used in other works.

As long as the current official position (schools, ACAOM, boards,

etc.) on term standard remains no standard, this will all amount to

no more than a hill of beans.

Chinese Herbs

July 2, 2005

Good speech. What do you mean by the term " boards " ? I believe that only CA

and NV have boards while the others use the certification exam by the

NCCAOM. Isn't this an incorrect usage of the terminology?

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> <

>

>cha

> wiseman standards

>Sat, 2 Jul 2005 06:49:44 -0700

>

>I was excited to hear about the adoption of Wiseman terminology as

>the international standard for our profession. However, I do wonder

>if this really is a sign of TCM in the west coming of age. I will be

>posting an article on the site about TCM and the development of a

>mature profession. The basic gist is that vigorous and often

>uncollegial debate is the rule not the exception in the development

>of a mature profession and that we need the battle to reach its peak

>before there can be any hope of resolution. So is this standard a

>point of coming together or just a flag to rally around or against.

>time will tell, but no argument here has swayed anyone yet. In all

>likelihood the American trait of stubborn independence and suspicion

>of centralized authority will likely dominate. The most common

>refrain against wiseman all these years has been that the

> " imposition " of the terminology is akin to tyranny. I have argued

>exactly the reverse. Search my many posts on the subject for details

>(BTW, the site at craneherb.com is the best place to search CHA

>messages before July 2003). Wiseman AND terminology should work.

>

>The strong supporters of standardized terminology are a minority in

>the profession. My estimate would be less than 10%. I do not think

>this will change just due to some decree in a foreign land (see the

>analogy here). Will this change that fact almost of the required

>board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent

>to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new

>matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky

>certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many

>years against the need for any such standard. Will Maciocia or

>Deadman come around either. It seems unlikely. The two herb related

>Wiseman term board exam texts in California are Fundamentals of

> and Practical Diagnosis. Both superb books, both

>required at PCOM, both largely ignored by the students despite pleas

>from the likes of myself, Z'ev, Bob Damone and Warren Sheir. The

>rest of the faculty are not in accord on this matter. And while we

>might assume that those who do not speak or write about this matter

>with passion are either neutral or split evenly, I would suggest

>otherwise. The silent majority usually supports the status quo,

>which is why they remain silent. They may not be strong supporters

>of the status quo, but they see nothing that needs to be fixed. Most

>folks are practical that way. So how will this really impact us?

>

>It will impact the Asians who adopt this format for future books

>published in Asia and also translations of journal literature.

>However translations done by native speakers of the source tongue are

>not ideal and most Americans in the field do not buy many books, much

>less to Asian journals. Even the only two real active

>forums for TCM (CHA and Attilio's TCM) have a combined overlapping

>membership of probably less than 2000. Most of our English language

>journals are defunct or on the way, except for JCM. The American

>audience who would theoretically embrace technical term standards in

>chinese medicine are academics in various sciences and medical

>doctors who respect rigor in their literature. But neither group has

>expressed any particular interest in Chinese medical concepts. Most

>of the TCM research being done in the west is allopathic and disease

>oriented and this trend appears to be mounting. Researchers are

>interested in our herbs, our techniques and discovering the

>scientific mechanism for all of it. but as for the conceptual basis,

>opinions range from silence to neutrality to contempt. Since the

>Wiseman standards are primarily concerned with the transmission of

>the classic and modern TCM terms, I am hard pressed to see how this

>will have major impact without a similar decree from American

>accreditors or standards of publication adopted by all presses. The

>late Jim Ramholz frequently compared the use of standards to

>censorship, so this seems unlikely to fly. This is a great day for

>those of us who will look forward to an explosion of material in

>Wisemanese emanating from Asia. Perhaps over time, this will just

>amount to a dwarfing of the nonstandard terms used in other works.

>As long as the current official position (schools, ACAOM, boards,

>etc.) on term standard remains no standard, this will all amount to

>no more than a hill of beans.

>

>Chinese Herbs

>

July 2, 2005

, " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...>

wrote:

>

> Good speech. What do you mean by the term " boards " ? I believe that only CA

> and NV have boards while the others use the certification exam by the

> NCCAOM. Isn't this an incorrect usage of the terminology?

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but for those who will care about

the

distinction, you are wrong on both accounts. first, even if the NCCAOM was not

a board,

the use of the term " boards " in this informal context is quite clear in meaning.

This is a

casual forum and even if your jibe was meaningful or accurate, we have never

required

term standardization on this list anyway. Speaking of political and government

organizations in this way is not even remotely comparable to being careless with

technical

translation terms that affect clinical choices. I am sure most of the group

sees that you

are comparing apples and oranges here. But the point is really moot. The

NCCAOM is

indeed a board and even notes that diplomates have the right to refer to

themselves as

board certified. From the nccaom website:

BENEFITS OF NCCAOM DIPLOMATE STATUS

NCCAOM certification provides important benefits. NCCAOM certification allows

you to:

• Describe yourself as " nationally board certified " and, according to the

credential(s)

earned, use the title(s):

o Diplomate in Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) or Dipl. O.M. (NCCAOM)

o Diplomate in Acupuncture (NCCAOM) or Dipl. Ac. (NCCAOM)

o Diplomate in Chinese Herbology (NCCAOM) or Dipl. C.H. (NCCAOM)

o Diplomate in Asian Bodywork Therapy (NCCAOM) or Dipl. A.B.T. (NCCAOM)

So the statement is not only clear in context but also literally accurate.

July 2, 2005

I should like to address your reponse in parts.

>I shouldn't even dignify this with a response, but for those who will care

>about the

>distinction, you are wrong on both accounts.

First, why not address this even though it was initially a play on the

terminolgy discussion we are having? Dont' you think that the professional

issue over terminolgy also should include what we use to describe our

profession. I have heard many a student say that they are preparing for

their state boards, only MN does not have any such thing, in fact, most

states do not mention any such language in their acupuncture statutes.

Please feel free to read the laws and comment. This is why I mentioned CA

and NV as being the only ones, I could be wrong.

>first, even if the NCCAOM was not a board,

>the use of the term " boards " in this informal context is quite clear in

>meaning. This is a

>casual forum and even if your jibe was meaningful or accurate, we have

>never required

>term standardization on this list anyway.

we both should know by now that the NCCAOM is not a governmental body

and that their usage of the terms " nationally board certified " or students

usage of " state boards " is very misleading. In fact, if we were more legit

in most states we would have a clearer separation of these two powers. Know

of any states where you are required to pay a non-governmental agency for

part of your state license renewal?

>Speaking of political and government

>organizations in this way is not even remotely comparable to being careless

>with technical

>translation terms that affect clinical choices. I am sure most of the

>group sees that you

>are comparing apples and oranges here. But the point is really moot.

using insults instead of proving your point is a sign of ignorance not

professional discourse. I see that you have taken this all too personally.

Actually, the point is quite rellevent to this topic of discussion as our

profession, for years, has sought to do things in ways that are not

recognized as legit. Our professional image has taken quite a blow over the

years and this will continue until we rectify it or try to ignore it, which

is what we have been doing for years.

>The NCCAOM is

>indeed a board and even notes that diplomates have the right to refer to

>themselves as

>board certified.

please show me in the name NCCAOM where you read the words " Board "

such as American Board of Plastic Surgeons or the National Board of

Acupuncture Orthopedics, etc. The NCCAOM offers a certification for BASIC

acupuncture/OM training and not Board specialization such as in other

medical professions. This continual misrepresentation offers us no

credibility with other professionals.

>From the nccaom website:

>

>BENEFITS OF NCCAOM DIPLOMATE STATUS

>

>NCCAOM certification provides important benefits. NCCAOM certification

>allows you to:

>

>• Describe yourself as " nationally board certified " and, according to the

>credential(s)

>earned, use the title(s):

>o Diplomate in Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) or Dipl. O.M. (NCCAOM)

>o Diplomate in Acupuncture (NCCAOM) or Dipl. Ac. (NCCAOM)

>o Diplomate in Chinese Herbology (NCCAOM) or Dipl. C.H. (NCCAOM)

>o Diplomate in Asian Bodywork Therapy (NCCAOM) or Dipl. A.B.T. (NCCAOM)

>

>So the statement is not only clear in context but also literally accurate.

>

>Todd

>

Actually, the NCCAOM as well as the profession have chosen to circumvent the

normally recognized process of licensure, in most states, as well as changed

the terminology to call this a board exam. It is neither a Board specialty

nor a licensing exam. I encourage dialogue as this is a part of the bigger

issue on truth in advertising. Thanks and by the way, I did enjoy

your initial post on the terminolgy problem.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

July 2, 2005

Actually, the point is quite rellevent to this topic of discussion as our

profession, for years, has sought to do things in ways that are not

recognized as legit.

>>>>You hit the nail right on the head. This is still the reason why so many

>>>>cannot make a living.

Oakland, CA 94609

July 2, 2005

Alon,

I wish this simple truth was not accurate but feel that until we change this

we will have difficulties. Ever wonder why both the DC and ND have chosen a

professional structure similar to the MD?

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>Re: wiseman standards

>Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:15:07 -0700

>

>Actually, the point is quite rellevent to this topic of discussion as our

>profession, for years, has sought to do things in ways that are not

>recognized as legit.

> >>>>You hit the nail right on the head. This is still the reason why so

>many

> >>>>cannot make a living.

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

July 3, 2005

There are two ways to instigate change, by revolution or evolution.

More and more people will be exposed to Wiseman terminology with

time. Remember, this is still the first generation of Chinese

medicine in America, and sixteen years ago when I started teaching

such materials as the Practical Dictionary or Fundamentals did not

exist. There is no need to abandon the Bensky texts, they are great

books and can easily be cross-referenced with Wiseman terminology as

I've done in all of my classes. As long as the highest quality

translation is done, it will fly.

On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:49 AM, wrote:

> Will this change that fact almost of the required

> board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent

> to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new

> matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky

> certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many

> years against the need for any such standard.

July 3, 2005

>

> On Behalf Of

> Sunday, July 03, 2005 6:52 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> There are two ways to instigate change, by revolution or evolution.

> More and more people will be exposed to Wiseman terminology with

> time. Remember, this is still the first generation of Chinese

> medicine in America, and sixteen years ago when I started teaching

> such materials as the Practical Dictionary or Fundamentals did not

> exist. There is no need to abandon the Bensky texts, they are great

> books and can easily be cross-referenced with Wiseman terminology as

> I've done in all of my classes.

[Jason]

Has anyone put together a cross-reference list between i.e. Bensky,

Maciocia, Deadman, and Wiseman (etc.)??

-Jason

As long as the highest quality

> translation is done, it will fly.

>

> On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:49 AM, wrote:

>

> > Will this change that fact almost of the required

> > board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent

> > to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new

> > matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky

> > certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many

> > years against the need for any such standard.

>

July 3, 2005

In Steven Clavey's new journal and the new Bensky/Clavey materia

medica, there are terms cross-referenced.

On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:05 PM, wrote:

> Has anyone put together a cross-reference list between i.e. Bensky,

> Maciocia, Deadman, and Wiseman (etc.)??

>

> -Jason

July 4, 2005

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> In Steven Clavey's new journal and the new Bensky/Clavey materia

> medica, there are terms cross-referenced.

>

> On Jul 3, 2005, at 7:05 PM, wrote:

>

> > Has anyone put together a cross-reference list between i.e. Bensky,

> > Maciocia, Deadman, and Wiseman (etc.)??

I don't think that it is possible to put an exact cross reference

between Deadman and Macioccia and PD terminology. They are based on

totally different principles. PD terminology allows English words to

be traced to their Chinese origins, Deadman and Macioccia's approach

does not do this. PD terms are " source-based, " they reflect the

source language. Deadman/Macioccia simplify the technical expression

to make it more acceptable to Western readers for marketing-

presumably because they fear that they will lose customers if their

work appears too complex.

Chen & Chen's materia medica has a nice cross-reference of some 160

technical phrases. Bensky/Clavey's MM has about a third of this list,

but it covers many of the problematic terms. Bensky/Clavey and

Chen/Chen generally have a means of distinguishing technical terms,

with the exception of a few simplified phrases such as spermatorrhea

(a combination of four different meanings distinguished in Chinese-

verified by the well-researched Chinese term lists presented for the

WHO, BTW) or tonification (a combination of seven related but distinct

Chinese terms). These authors translate consistently and explain the

meanings of their action terms. The information is presented in a way

that allows professionals to distinguish key points of technical

information. Both books are very good sources of information for

professional use, and each specializes in a different arena-

pharmacology vs. history.

While Bensky appears to differ from the consensus of Asian

professionals by the assertion that CM has only a few hundred

technical terms, his work is nonetheless internally consistent and

preserves accuracy based upon internal standards. His action terms

are clearly related to the Chinese concepts. The main objection with

his approach is the fact that there is not a publically available list

that provides the standard terms pegged to the Chinese. It is rumored

that there is a list of 300+ Chinese terms with an Eastland standard,

but readers are only clued in to the 50+ terms that are glossed in the

MM. Since the WHO has independently verified a minimum of 4000

technical terms, I don't know how a standard can be based on only 300+

terms, but I do know that their use of the 300 terms is consistent and

we can all clearly understand the meaning in the final product.

By contrast, Deadman and Macioccia's texts are translated on a level

more suited to lay readers or students with basic educational needs.

Deadman's book covers a huge amount of great information and has

beautiful pictures, but it has some gross oversimplication of action

terms. Many points are given the action of " regulating (rectifying?-

I can't remember which) " but exactly what this terms means in his work

is elusive. In Chinese, several different words describe

regulation/rectification, etc. Such words express specific actions.

If they are all expressed by only one English term, how can someone

create a cross-reference that will link up terminologies?

Linking together terminological systems would be great, but it can

only be done if the term systems have a similar degree of specificity.

With Bensky/Clavey or Chen/Chen, the translations are consistent and

specific, so they are easier to match to defined Chinese terms within

their own glossaries or the PD. For these books, we can say that term

A in book 1 matches term D in book 2. But for books like Deadman and

Macioccia, we can only say that term A in book 1 could be term C, D,

E, F, G, H, or J in book 2. There is no way to use these books to

know what the original Chinese text says, which is the whole point in

translation in the first place.

Eric

July 5, 2005

Todd -

Many comments I could make - but I will make only one - rather than

" pleading " for the books. SImply require them. We do. We test outof

them, we use the language in classes and in clinic as much as possible (not

to the exclusion of other terms but for the most part) and we teach from

them. Many of our students do not even own a copy of Maciocia's

Foundations or the " Gold " book (whatever it is called) or the Gyn

book. There are many, many other books that are as good or better that use

a more standardized terminology. Stop pleading and require. Students

don't get to choose the book they want for class - the instructor gets to

choose the book they think is best. And hopefully, they have some basis

for making this judgement - that is why they are the teacher right?

marnae

At 09:49 AM 7/2/2005, you wrote: