Guest guest Posted August 17, 2005 Report Share Posted August 17, 2005 isnt the tom profession in english-speaking countries enuf of a market? lynn --- wrote: > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > but I don't > > think that language acquisition is necessary to comprehend the subject > > matter for the instances when good English translations are available. > > Eric, > > But I think the point is that we DON'T have good English Translations. Would > anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For Jin Gui we have none. > Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these other books. I really can't > see anytime in the near future that people will be pumping out (translating) > SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no market. You are talking > about a possible future being that if we have good translations then > everything is fine. I am only talking about the present. Therefore, to > really understand the SHL one must read more that Mitchell's book.. To do > this (at present) it is simple, one must read Chinese...To understand the > JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But anything is possible in > the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... > > - > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of J. Lynn Detamore > Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:17 AM > > RE: ? chinese lang need? > > isnt the tom profession in english-speaking countries > enuf of a market? Lynn Not really, most practitioners do not buy that many books, especially on more fridge subjects. For example, I know a great number of practitioners that have not bought Mitchell's SHL... You can then ask, how many of the people that did would buy an additional commentary or case study book on the SHL. Furthermore, to buy the rights to a book is quite expensive; one must recoup the loss after purchase, translation, printing costs (etc), otherwise it is not worth it to 'them'. - > --- > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > Behalf Of Eric Brand > > but I don't > > > think that language acquisition is necessary to > comprehend the subject > > > matter for the instances when good English > translations are available. > > > > Eric, > > > > But I think the point is that we DON'T have good > English Translations. Would > > anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For > Jin Gui we have none. > > Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these > other books. I really can't > > see anytime in the near future that people will be > pumping out (translating) > > SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no > market. You are talking > > about a possible future being that if we have good > translations then > > everything is fine. I am only talking about the > present. Therefore, to > > really understand the SHL one must read more that > Mitchell's book.. To do > > this (at present) it is simple, one must read > Chinese...To understand the > > JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But > anything is possible in > > the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 This debate over reading chinese is particularly interesting in the light of the fact that most CM practitioners were barely literate in ancient times and most did not practice bian zheng medicine. many who could read just read primers even back in the day or why would that have been such a large genre during the ming and the qing. according to scheid, the founders of TCM tried to center studies on the classics and it failed. that is one of the main reasons why they developed the TCM textbooks (not merely for communist propaganda). plus as we have all agreed, there are plenty of great px who do not read chinese and plenty of lousy ones who do in terms of either financial or clinical success or both. So why all the continual fuss? for those 10-15% of ones cases that will be truly knotty, even less if one does not actively seek out those cases? yes, we need scholars producing translations and we need practitioners to know when they need to refer. But much of the time, a referral would not be to a scholar but to one who is known to have great success with this or that. There is evidence from Unschuld that then as now the continual refrain that scholarship is necessary to practice medicine is just elitest and territorial and has no bearing on safety or efficacy. It is unclear that even a basic knowledge of classical theory is necessary to practice effectively, much less a deep knowledge of the classics. There is this idea of the scholar-physician. but remember that man was a confucian gentleman who did not earn a living from practice. One of the things one might claim about chinese medicine in selling it to your patients is that a great civilization could not survive without effective medicine. I agree. However the medicine that allowed chinese culture to exist for thousands of years was not TCM or even classical CM. It was mostly allopathic and symptomatic. In the end, the main thing is that you help people without hurting them. And if you do that, you have succeeded. If a person lives to be 90 using chinese herbs the " wrong way " or the less educated way and another person lives to be 90 using them the right way, who won? If one is to suggest that using herbs only according to bian zheng is effective, you can't point to chinese history as your evidence. So what is your evidence, then? There is no evidence that chinese medicine results in less morbidity and mortality when practiced this way or that way. It is very pluralistic and no conclusions can be drawn except perhaps that bian zheng style medicine probably only ever served a small fraction of population and this is least likely to reflect the mass reality of an apparently successful healthcare system. Perhaps in difficult cases, it makes a difference, but I have certainly seen SHL experts prescribe warming formulas when TCMers wanted to clear heat and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. We all say we know lousy px and the reason is that they don't understand this or that finer point. Maybe they are just stupid or lack compassion or empathy, etc. I will admit there is a lack of case translations and these are essential to learn process. One needs profuse and varied examples of such examples during their education according to modern learning theory. However, they do not need to endlessly read such examples after a point. It no longer increases ability. So it is vital that one is able to study such cases during their education in order to learn the ins and outs of thinking TCM style or SHL style, etc. Once one has attained a certain skill in the process, reliance on such examples declines. Really busy successful clinicians have never been big readers as far as I can tell (there are exceptions, of course). And even if you choose to read a bit, the busy clinician is easily consumed by excellent English translations, including a decent amount of case literature. Only scholars are hungry for more, but that is lust not need. I will also submit my observation that sometimes scholars get so lost in the trees they fail to see the forest. For most educational and clinical purposes there is a far more limited demand for cases that could be easily filled in a short time. I certainly have enough cases available to me for all my classes. It is not a truism of education that studying more and more examples makes better practitioners of those who were already well trained under their nornal practice conditions. It is actually a truism that fading the use of such examples and increasing the time spent in practice are what actually leads to success under normal conditions. Thus, having unlimited access to cases or research literature is only necessary in very knotty or abnormal cases. Finally, then as now, the best indicator that one knows what one is doing when all is done and said is whether you have satisfied patients or not. All the rest is " sound and fury, signifying nothing " (including all mine over the years past and the years to come). , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of J. Lynn Detamore > > Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:17 AM > > > > RE: ? chinese lang need? > > > > isnt the tom profession in english-speaking countries > > enuf of a market? Lynn > > Not really, most practitioners do not buy that many books, especially on > more fridge subjects. For example, I know a great number of practitioners > that have not bought Mitchell's SHL... You can then ask, how many of the > people that did would buy an additional commentary or case study book on the > SHL. Furthermore, to buy the rights to a book is quite expensive; one must > recoup the loss after purchase, translation, printing costs (etc), otherwise > it is not worth it to 'them'. > > - > > > --- > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > > Behalf Of Eric Brand > > > but I don't > > > > think that language acquisition is necessary to > > comprehend the subject > > > > matter for the instances when good English > > translations are available. > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > But I think the point is that we DON'T have good > > English Translations. Would > > > anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For > > Jin Gui we have none. > > > Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these > > other books. I really can't > > > see anytime in the near future that people will be > > pumping out (translating) > > > SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no > > market. You are talking > > > about a possible future being that if we have good > > translations then > > > everything is fine. I am only talking about the > > present. Therefore, to > > > really understand the SHL one must read more that > > Mitchell's book.. To do > > > this (at present) it is simple, one must read > > Chinese...To understand the > > > JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But > > anything is possible in > > > the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 I have a very hard time buying your argument. I have a full practice and have had for sometime. I constantly read and study modern articles/ books / and doctors as well as classical material, usually guided by my clinical practice. I find material all the time that is just not in the English language. Latest two examples are azoospermia and enuresis. I find my skills and clinical options constantly improving with such study. And YES there will probably always be a better practitioner than me (out there) that doesn't read any Chinese. But that is not the point! The point is can I increase MY clinical skills with accessing the mounds of material in Chinese... ah ... no brainer... Consequently, I find the most abundant and useful material in Chinese, but also read the English literature which is valuable but limited. No one is saying one HAS to read Chinese to be a good practitioner. But like I said if one i.e. WANTS to master a SHL/JGYL style approach then reading Chinese is essential without a teacher. but traditionally many did not read but they apprenticed with someone for quite some time. I know for a fact that my latest research in writing this Zhang Ji (SHL/JGYL) article has lead me to some incredibly successful clinical options that I would not (and DID NOT previously) think of. It is not about just reading the SHL, but reading commentaries, case studies, etc. But I ask you, How can you judge the efficacy of such an approach when you have not done it. Because Unschuld (not a practitioner)_ says so...???? I don't get where your certainty is from? But as Eric pointed out, writing is an excuse to study a subject more in depth. Studying a subject increases clinically options and better (or quicker) results. I really don't even know why I am responding, I think it is just laughable to consider all the Literature that is still in Chinese as useless. That is what you are really saying... That somehow we know it all already and everything we need is in English. Do you have any idea how many books there are in Chinese? Furthermore, most students that graduate have such a poor understanding of CM, especially herbs, that I have no idea how you can justify your stance. I have practitioners on an ongoing basis ask me to help them with cases because they do not have the basic skills to Diagnose or write a Rx. And sometimes it is a classical passage or idea that is the answer. So to say that one only has to study when in school and reading case studies after a certain point is useless, is IMO, just silly. One can always hone one's skills. - > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:44 PM > > Re: ? chinese lang need? > > This debate over reading chinese is particularly interesting in the light > of the fact that > most CM practitioners were barely literate in ancient times and most did > not practice bian > zheng medicine. many who could read just read primers even back in the > day or why > would that have been such a large genre during the ming and the qing. > according to > scheid, the founders of TCM tried to center studies on the classics and > it failed. that is > one of the main reasons why they developed the TCM textbooks (not merely > for > communist propaganda). plus as we have all agreed, there are plenty of > great px who do > not read chinese and plenty of lousy ones who do in terms of either > financial or clinical > success or both. > > So why all the continual fuss? for those 10-15% of ones cases that will > be truly knotty, > even less if one does not actively seek out those cases? yes, we need > scholars producing > translations and we need practitioners to know when they need to refer. > But much of the > time, a referral would not be to a scholar but to one who is known to have > great success > with this or that. There is evidence from Unschuld that then as now the > continual refrain > that scholarship is necessary to practice medicine is just elitest and > territorial and has no > bearing on safety or efficacy. It is unclear that even a basic knowledge > of classical theory > is necessary to practice effectively, much less a deep knowledge of the > classics. > > There is this idea of the scholar-physician. but remember that man was a > confucian > gentleman who did not earn a living from practice. One of the things one > might claim > about chinese medicine in selling it to your patients is that a great > civilization could not > survive without effective medicine. I agree. However the medicine that > allowed chinese > culture to exist for thousands of years was not TCM or even classical CM. > It was mostly > allopathic and symptomatic. In the end, the main thing is that you help > people without > hurting them. And if you do that, you have succeeded. If a person lives > to be 90 using > chinese herbs the " wrong way " or the less educated way and another person > lives to be 90 > using them the right way, who won? > > If one is to suggest that using herbs only according to bian zheng is > effective, you can't > point to chinese history as your evidence. So what is your evidence, then? > There is no > evidence that chinese medicine results in less morbidity and mortality > when practiced this > way or that way. It is very pluralistic and no conclusions can be drawn > except perhaps that > bian zheng style medicine probably only ever served a small fraction of > population and > this is least likely to reflect the mass reality of an apparently > successful healthcare system. > Perhaps in difficult cases, it makes a difference, but I have certainly > seen SHL experts > prescribe warming formulas when TCMers wanted to clear heat and sometimes > it works > and sometimes it doesn't. We all say we know lousy px and the reason is > that they don't > understand this or that finer point. Maybe they are just stupid or lack > compassion or > empathy, etc. > > I will admit there is a lack of case translations and these are essential > to learn process. > One needs profuse and varied examples of such examples during their > education > according to modern learning theory. However, they do not need to > endlessly read such > examples after a point. It no longer increases ability. So it is vital > that one is able to study > such cases during their education in order to learn the ins and outs of > thinking TCM style > or SHL style, etc. Once one has attained a certain skill in the process, > reliance on such > examples declines. Really busy successful clinicians have never been big > readers as far as > I can tell (there are exceptions, of course). And even if you choose to > read a bit, the busy > clinician is easily consumed by excellent English translations, including > a decent amount of > case literature. Only scholars are hungry for more, but that is lust not > need. I will also > submit my observation that sometimes scholars get so lost in the trees > they fail to see the > forest. > > For most educational and clinical purposes there is a far more limited > demand for cases > that could be easily filled in a short time. I certainly have enough > cases available to me for > all my classes. It is not a truism of education that studying more and > more examples > makes better practitioners of those who were already well trained under > their nornal > practice conditions. It is actually a truism that fading the use of such > examples and > increasing the time spent in practice are what actually leads to success > under normal > conditions. Thus, having unlimited access to cases or research literature > is only necessary > in very knotty or abnormal cases. Finally, then as now, the best > indicator that one knows > what one is doing when all is done and said is whether you have satisfied > patients or not. > All the rest is " sound and fury, signifying nothing " (including all mine > over the years past > and the years to come). > > > , " " <@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of J. Lynn > Detamore > > > Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:17 AM > > > > > > RE: ? chinese lang need? > > > > > > isnt the tom profession in english-speaking countries > > > enuf of a market? Lynn > > > > Not really, most practitioners do not buy that many books, especially on > > more fridge subjects. For example, I know a great number of > practitioners > > that have not bought Mitchell's SHL... You can then ask, how many of > the > > people that did would buy an additional commentary or case study book on > the > > SHL. Furthermore, to buy the rights to a book is quite expensive; one > must > > recoup the loss after purchase, translation, printing costs (etc), > otherwise > > it is not worth it to 'them'. > > > > - > > > > > --- > > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > > > Behalf Of Eric Brand > > > > but I don't > > > > > think that language acquisition is necessary to > > > comprehend the subject > > > > > matter for the instances when good English > > > translations are available. > > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > > But I think the point is that we DON'T have good > > > English Translations. Would > > > > anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For > > > Jin Gui we have none. > > > > Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these > > > other books. I really can't > > > > see anytime in the near future that people will be > > > pumping out (translating) > > > > SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no > > > market. You are talking > > > > about a possible future being that if we have good > > > translations then > > > > everything is fine. I am only talking about the > > > present. Therefore, to > > > > really understand the SHL one must read more that > > > Mitchell's book.. To do > > > > this (at present) it is simple, one must read > > > Chinese...To understand the > > > > JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But > > > anything is possible in > > > > the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 I want to be clear about something... I am not saying that one must study i.e. the SHL or Chinese to be a good practitioner or get better results. One may decide to spend all their time reading i.e. Subhuti articles coupled with modern pharmacology to get a greater understanding. One may study with a shaman in Arizona and learn how to use the local plants in some integrated CM fashion. Or one may just practice qigong for 3 hours a day so that one can needle better. These methods may all give forth better clinical results. Seeing ones own patients is clearly a great way to learn. There are many roads. But one thing is for sure, there is a roadmap to study subjects in more detail, I.e. SHL if one accesses the Chinese language. The Chinese language has 1000x more articles and books than in English, so one can not only search case studies, classical commentaries, modern commentaries on classical works, but also modern research on diseases based on 'Western Names' like azoospermia. Where was this info in English when I needed it.. no where I HAD to look elsewhere. One can look at what Bob Flaws is putting Out. Do you find those articles useful? Do they help your clinic? (Granted they are mostly Western based research, but I have used them) Now multiply that by 1000, if not more. Nuff said. Finally Todd argues that history dictates that the majority of physicians were illiterate... and??? We live in an information era. Take it and gain, ignore it and lose. 3 years at your local acupuncture school is no match for a lifetime of dedicating oneself to a clinical practice and the study of Chinese medicine. Without Chinese Language one just practices looking up at a glass ceiling. To summarize, one can advance one's clinical skills many ways, but one cannot deny that reading Chinese, studying the classics and modern works, contains the most abundant information, hence the broadest perspectives, hence probably the best clinical results. This is a lifetime pursuit... - > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:30 PM > > RE: ? chinese lang need? > > > > I have a very hard time buying your argument. I have a full > practice and have had for sometime. I constantly read and study modern > articles/ books / and doctors as well as classical material, usually > guided > by my clinical practice. I find material all the time that is just not in > the English language. Latest two examples are azoospermia and enuresis. > I > find my skills and clinical options constantly improving with such study. > And YES there will probably always be a better practitioner than me (out > there) that doesn't read any Chinese. But that is not the point! The > point > is can I increase MY clinical skills with accessing the mounds of material > in Chinese... ah ... no brainer... > > Consequently, I find the most abundant and useful material in > Chinese, but also read the English literature which is valuable but > limited. > No one is saying one HAS to read Chinese to be a good practitioner. But > like I said if one i.e. WANTS to master a SHL/JGYL style approach then > reading Chinese is essential without a teacher. but traditionally many > did > not read but they apprenticed with someone for quite some time. > I know for a fact that my latest research in writing this Zhang Ji > (SHL/JGYL) article has lead me to some incredibly successful clinical > options that I would not (and DID NOT previously) think of. It is not > about > just reading the SHL, but reading commentaries, case studies, etc. But I > ask you, How can you judge the efficacy of such an approach when you have > not done it. Because Unschuld (not a practitioner)_ says so...???? I > don't > get where your certainty is from? > > But as Eric pointed out, writing is an excuse to study a subject > more in depth. Studying a subject increases clinically options and better > (or quicker) results. I really don't even know why I am responding, I > think > it is just laughable to consider all the Literature that is still in > Chinese > as useless. That is what you are really saying... That somehow we know it > all already and everything we need is in English. Do you have any idea > how > many books there are in Chinese? Furthermore, most students that graduate > have such a poor understanding of CM, especially herbs, that I have no > idea > how you can justify your stance. I have practitioners on an ongoing basis > ask me to help them with cases because they do not have the basic skills > to > Diagnose or write a Rx. And sometimes it is a classical passage or idea > that is the answer. > > So to say that one only has to study when in school and reading case > studies > after a certain point is useless, is IMO, just silly. One can always hone > one's skills. > > - > > > > > > > On Behalf Of > > Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:44 PM > > > > Re: ? chinese lang need? > > > > This debate over reading chinese is particularly interesting in the > light > > of the fact that > > most CM practitioners were barely literate in ancient times and most did > > not practice bian > > zheng medicine. many who could read just read primers even back in the > > day or why > > would that have been such a large genre during the ming and the qing. > > according to > > scheid, the founders of TCM tried to center studies on the classics and > > it failed. that is > > one of the main reasons why they developed the TCM textbooks (not merely > > for > > communist propaganda). plus as we have all agreed, there are plenty of > > great px who do > > not read chinese and plenty of lousy ones who do in terms of either > > financial or clinical > > success or both. > > > > So why all the continual fuss? for those 10-15% of ones cases that will > > be truly knotty, > > even less if one does not actively seek out those cases? yes, we need > > scholars producing > > translations and we need practitioners to know when they need to refer. > > But much of the > > time, a referral would not be to a scholar but to one who is known to > have > > great success > > with this or that. There is evidence from Unschuld that then as now the > > continual refrain > > that scholarship is necessary to practice medicine is just elitest and > > territorial and has no > > bearing on safety or efficacy. It is unclear that even a basic > knowledge > > of classical theory > > is necessary to practice effectively, much less a deep knowledge of the > > classics. > > > > There is this idea of the scholar-physician. but remember that man was > a > > confucian > > gentleman who did not earn a living from practice. One of the things > one > > might claim > > about chinese medicine in selling it to your patients is that a great > > civilization could not > > survive without effective medicine. I agree. However the medicine that > > allowed chinese > > culture to exist for thousands of years was not TCM or even classical CM. > > It was mostly > > allopathic and symptomatic. In the end, the main thing is that you help > > people without > > hurting them. And if you do that, you have succeeded. If a person > lives > > to be 90 using > > chinese herbs the " wrong way " or the less educated way and another > person > > lives to be 90 > > using them the right way, who won? > > > > If one is to suggest that using herbs only according to bian zheng is > > effective, you can't > > point to chinese history as your evidence. So what is your evidence, > then? > > There is no > > evidence that chinese medicine results in less morbidity and mortality > > when practiced this > > way or that way. It is very pluralistic and no conclusions can be drawn > > except perhaps that > > bian zheng style medicine probably only ever served a small fraction of > > population and > > this is least likely to reflect the mass reality of an apparently > > successful healthcare system. > > Perhaps in difficult cases, it makes a difference, but I have certainly > > seen SHL experts > > prescribe warming formulas when TCMers wanted to clear heat and > sometimes > > it works > > and sometimes it doesn't. We all say we know lousy px and the reason is > > that they don't > > understand this or that finer point. Maybe they are just stupid or lack > > compassion or > > empathy, etc. > > > > I will admit there is a lack of case translations and these are > essential > > to learn process. > > One needs profuse and varied examples of such examples during their > > education > > according to modern learning theory. However, they do not need to > > endlessly read such > > examples after a point. It no longer increases ability. So it is vital > > that one is able to study > > such cases during their education in order to learn the ins and outs of > > thinking TCM style > > or SHL style, etc. Once one has attained a certain skill in the process, > > reliance on such > > examples declines. Really busy successful clinicians have never been > big > > readers as far as > > I can tell (there are exceptions, of course). And even if you choose to > > read a bit, the busy > > clinician is easily consumed by excellent English translations, > including > > a decent amount of > > case literature. Only scholars are hungry for more, but that is lust > not > > need. I will also > > submit my observation that sometimes scholars get so lost in the trees > > they fail to see the > > forest. > > > > For most educational and clinical purposes there is a far more limited > > demand for cases > > that could be easily filled in a short time. I certainly have enough > > cases available to me for > > all my classes. It is not a truism of education that studying more and > > more examples > > makes better practitioners of those who were already well trained under > > their nornal > > practice conditions. It is actually a truism that fading the use of > such > > examples and > > increasing the time spent in practice are what actually leads to success > > under normal > > conditions. Thus, having unlimited access to cases or research > literature > > is only necessary > > in very knotty or abnormal cases. Finally, then as now, the best > > indicator that one knows > > what one is doing when all is done and said is whether you have > satisfied > > patients or not. > > All the rest is " sound and fury, signifying nothing " (including all mine > > over the years past > > and the years to come). > > > > > > > , " " > <@c...> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of J. Lynn > > Detamore > > > > Wednesday, August 17, 2005 3:17 AM > > > > > > > > RE: ? chinese lang need? > > > > > > > > isnt the tom profession in english-speaking countries > > > > enuf of a market? Lynn > > > > > > Not really, most practitioners do not buy that many books, especially > on > > > more fridge subjects. For example, I know a great number of > > practitioners > > > that have not bought Mitchell's SHL... You can then ask, how many of > > the > > > people that did would buy an additional commentary or case study book > on > > the > > > SHL. Furthermore, to buy the rights to a book is quite expensive; one > > must > > > recoup the loss after purchase, translation, printing costs (etc), > > otherwise > > > it is not worth it to 'them'. > > > > > > - > > > > > > > --- > > > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On > > > > Behalf Of Eric Brand > > > > > but I don't > > > > > > think that language acquisition is necessary to > > > > comprehend the subject > > > > > > matter for the instances when good English > > > > translations are available. > > > > > > > > > > Eric, > > > > > > > > > > But I think the point is that we DON'T have good > > > > English Translations. Would > > > > > anyone not agree? For the SHL we have 1 book. For > > > > Jin Gui we have none. > > > > > Therefore one MUST know Chinese to access these > > > > other books. I really can't > > > > > see anytime in the near future that people will be > > > > pumping out (translating) > > > > > SHL commentaries and Case Studies, there is just no > > > > market. You are talking > > > > > about a possible future being that if we have good > > > > translations then > > > > > everything is fine. I am only talking about the > > > > present. Therefore, to > > > > > really understand the SHL one must read more that > > > > Mitchell's book.. To do > > > > > this (at present) it is simple, one must read > > > > Chinese...To understand the > > > > > JGYL one must read Chinese - there is nothing... But > > > > anything is possible in > > > > > the future, but it is a slow road to hoe... > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 Megusurino-ki >>>>Robert do you know which herb is that? Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 Genno-shoko >>>How about this one? Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 I.e. SHL if one accesses the Chinese language. The Chinese language has 1000x more articles and books than in English, so one can not only search case studies, classical commentaries, modern commentaries on classical works, but also modern research on diseases based on 'Western Names' like azoospermia. >>>>I have always wandered however about human limitations in both absorption of materials, I know I have, and the number of approaches one can one realistically try in one's practice on a particular patient. If I see a patient with azoospermia i would have a limited amount of specific information and reading chinese would greatly enhanced my options. But for the conditions that walk into my clinic, 50% pain related and 50% garden variety internal med stuff, i often have more options and approaches in english then i can realistically try on a patient. Most of my patients give me a short time to show positive change and leave if i do not. So i wander how you would benefit from 1000 articles on heart failure for example? Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > >>>>I have always wandered however about human limitations in both > absorption of materials, I know I have, and the number of approaches one > can one realistically try in one's practice on a particular patient. If I > see a patient with azoospermia i would have a limited amount of specific > information and reading chinese would greatly enhanced my options. But for > the conditions that walk into my clinic, 50% pain related and 50% garden > variety internal med stuff, i often have more options and approaches in > english then i can realistically try on a patient. Most of my patients > give me a short time to show positive change and leave if i do not. So i > wander how you would benefit from 1000 articles on heart failure for > example? This is a good point, but my response would be- you don't need 1000 articles on heart failure. But when a heart patient comes through the door with a specific semi-critical issue, one can due a lit search and grab the 2-3 pertinent articles that may make a huge difference. But I guess if you see mainly pain and garden stuff and have no problems dealing with those cases, then why bother??? I personally see some pretty out there stuff and I find great solace in being able to access a whole culture that usually has some idea of what to do. Why re-invent the wheel. Furthermore, many times the problem isn't that out there (garden variety) and it just doesn't respond to the basic TCM approach, actually this is not that uncommon.. So what does one do... try something else... On a equal level as lit searches is just accumulating different perspective and systems. I.e. SHL & Wenbing etc. Sometimes someone just walks through your door and you say that is clearly best suited with a SHL approach... But you will never have that option unless you have studied the system. Consequently it is real easy to see the patient through the lens that you are trained i.e. zang-fu or whatever... and think that is it... How would one ever get mahuangtang for dysmenorrhea without extensive SHL study?? (See Bensky's article in the latest Lantern for a more in-depth discussion). But you are right everyone has limits (time and brain power)... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 But when a heart patient comes through the door with a specific semi-critical issue, one can due a lit search and grab the 2-3 pertinent articles that may make a huge difference. >>>>>My point is, i already have several sources with several approaches to heart failure and similar disorders, how would i use many more. Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 How would one ever get mahuangtang for dysmenorrhea >>>unless one really likes to try SHL ideas, one may already have many other approaches in the lit for treating cold. So if i suspect cold, even if retained pathogen,why would i pick mahuangtang (SHL) before trying more common approaches. My typical patient will not be there if i have not helped within a cycle or two. How many approaches would i try before using mahuang? That is the issue i have regarding time management as a clinician.I think it is a no brainier that one is better off knowing chinese. The question is with the time needed will i be better off looking at information available in english Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:18 PM > > Re: ? chinese lang need? > > How would > one ever get mahuangtang for dysmenorrhea > >>>unless one really likes to try SHL ideas, one may already have many > other approaches in the lit for treating cold. So if i suspect cold, even > if retained pathogen,why would i pick mahuangtang (SHL) before trying more > common approaches. But maybe the SHL is the best choice from the get go... We are not talking about trying 1 method, see if it works, oh well, try the next, nope oh well.. try the next. (This is not a MD pharmaceutical list) - We are talking about seeing patients through the best lens possible... Sometimes the SHL approach will be the fastest and most efficient way to deal with the problem, but if you do not have that option, you will never know... But if your basket is full, then no need, mine is not yet full... My typical patient will not be there if i have not > helped within a cycle or two. How many approaches would i try before using > mahuang? None... I think Bensky actually addresses this issue in his article... That is the issue i have regarding time management as a > clinician.I think it is a no brainier that one is better off knowing > chinese. The question is with the time needed will i be better off looking > at information available in English Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not... English is less than 1% of the literature IMO... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2005 Report Share Posted August 18, 2005 Sometimes the SHL approach will be the fastest and most efficient way to deal with the problem, but if you do not have that option, you will never know... >>>>>> That is the million dolor question. I for one have NEVER seen anyone able to do this and i did study and worked with a SHL expert in china,same guy bob demon (? spelling) did. He used all the known methods including SHL. In reality, and i think this was also true for the case history of bensky, this did occur; i.e., other dr tried did not work so i than did, well the other doctors that tried all the other methods started the process of elimination, correct? That is typical of the case histories, what Dr Lai used to call lucky Dr, the last in the chain. Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:05 PM > > Re: ? chinese lang need? > > Sometimes the SHL > approach will be the fastest and most efficient way to deal with the > problem, but if you do not have that option, you will never know... > >>>>>> > > That is the million dolor question. I for one have NEVER seen anyone able > to do this and i did study and worked with a SHL expert in china,same guy > bob demon (? spelling) did. He used all the known methods including SHL. > In reality, and i think this was also true for the case history of bensky, > this did occur; i.e., other dr tried did not work so i than did, well the > other doctors that tried all the other methods started the process of > elimination, correct? That is typical of the case histories, what Dr Lai > used to call lucky Dr, the last in the chain. Yes I agree that most of the case studies are this Dr. Lucky style... But some are not... There are people that use SHL Rxs straight out of the gate.. I.e. Dan B. will use ma huang jia zhu tang (presentation dependent) for lower back pain. Either way (first or last choice) this style is a viable option. I know for a fact that by me studying this era I have used many ideas straight out of the gate that I never would have thought of... From studying the wen re lun (warm disease) - I have used many many ideas for acute URTI (et al) that are not so apparent in zang-fu (TCM). I guess your question (or response) is - but there is always some other method... I do not disagree. One could use homeopathy (for example). But I have a hard time with people thinking there is nothing useful outside of basic TCM or to further that - TCM in English... wooooo... But Alon I am curious, from your books it looks like you use much more than basic TCM (modern supplements etc)... Doesn't this mean that your TCM knowledge doesn't cover all the bases? I would say mine doesn't... You choose to look for answers in that realm, I also venture into different realms. What is the gripe? Why does it make people so uncomfortable to think that there is useful information in Chinese that is not in English? Or for that matter in a pre-modern book like the 'wen re lun'??? {Not directed at anyone specifically} - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Obviously knowing more languages gives one access to more information. As an example, look at Chinese practitioners of WM. They have a wide-range of sources, clear terms and definitions, and more than enough information to practice medicine intelligently, safely, and effectively. If they can read English, they gain access to a wide amount of literature that has not yet been translated into Chinese. If they can also read Japanese, the amount of available information increases even more. If they add Spanish, French, or German, even more sources of information are accessible. This is just common sense. Availability of information is closely connected with language. At a minimum, we need to learn WM terms to gain access to good WM info, we need to learn CM terms to gain access to good CM info. People learn new languages based on their interests. There is a finite amount of time that one can spend learning languages, and very few people master more than 3-4 languages at most (even though adding additional languages would continue to expand their horizons). At a certain point, people reach a cutoff and devote their attention to other subjects of interest. This cutoff point varies for all of us. I would argue that it is as important for us to study Chinese as it is for Chinese WM doctors to study English, based on pure volume of information to be potentially gained. More Chinese WM doctors pursue English than native English-speaking TCM practitioners pursue Chinese. But many excellent practitioners do not have this language combination and do not necessarily need to pursue it. Learning a language well takes a long time and is best done far from home; not everyone is in a position to spend 10 years of their life studying a language. Many people don't even like the experience of living in another culture in the first place. Still others would rather spend the same 10 years studying something useful in a parallel field. However, one thing that we should learn from the Asian assimilation of WM is that each Asian language has adapted very specific and accurate terminology for the transmission of medical information. They do not have lots of individual authors making up their own terminology with greater or lesser specificity based on market demands and interest in selling the most books. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus> wrote: > However, one thing that we should learn from the Asian assimilation of > WM is that each Asian language has adapted very specific and accurate > terminology for the transmission of medical information. Think of how silly it would be if Japanese (or Chinese, French, German, Korean, or Egyptian...) doctors all had discussions like: " Well, in the Merck Manual diabetes mellitus is called A, in Harrison's it is called B, in Mosby's it is called C..... " Yet we do this all the time in the Western TCM world. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 I just received the SHL case history book based on Craig Mitchell's recommendation. I must say I was more than impressed by Craig's presentation at the CHA symposium last year and the followup article by Dan Bensky in the Lantern journal. What impressed me was an alternative logical system applied to clinical situations that ends up with different prescriptions and treatments (including acupuncture and moxa) than the standard TCM zang-fu approach. Indeed, the SHL style developed in this text (presently only in Chinese) uses a more channel- based approach. I think with all this talk of evidence- based medicine, we forget that there are often great variances in approach possible in treatment, and that Chinese medicine is much more of a logical approach than merely empirical. There is a series of logical steps and deductions that lead to clinical decisions, not just 'this worked before for so-and-so, let's try this'. On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:04 AM, wrote: > Yes I agree that most of the case studies are this Dr. Lucky > style... But > some are not... There are people that use SHL Rxs straight out of > the gate.. > I.e. Dan B. will use ma huang jia zhu tang (presentation dependent) > for > lower back pain. Either way (first or last choice) this style is a > viable > option. I know for a fact that by me studying this era I have used > many > ideas straight out of the gate that I never would have thought > of... From > studying the wen re lun (warm disease) - I have used many many > ideas for > acute URTI (et al) that are not so apparent in zang-fu (TCM). I > guess your > question (or response) is - but there is always some other > method... I do > not disagree. One could use homeopathy (for example). But I have > a hard > time with people thinking there is nothing useful outside of basic > TCM or to > further that - TCM in English... wooooo.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Zev, have you read 30 years of Kampo, another interesting SHL approach Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 But Alon I am curious, from your books it looks like you use much more than basic TCM (modern supplements etc)... Doesn't this mean that your TCM knowledge doesn't cover all the bases? I would say mine doesn't... You choose to look for answers in that realm, I also venture into different realms. What is the gripe? >>>>>>> Jason, non at all, actually i use SHL from the start quite often. I am just sharing thoughts, not opinions, i thought you would know me by now. Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 I really enjoy that book. It was one of the first case history texts published in English 20 years ago (Keisetsu Otsuka). On Aug 19, 2005, at 10:57 AM, wrote: > Zev, have you read 30 years of Kampo, another interesting SHL approach > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > I have a very hard time buying your argument. I have a full > practice and have had for sometime. I constantly read and study modern > articles/ books / and doctors as well as classical material, usually guided > by my clinical practice. And I am sure you are the average practitioner/student. I am not making a personal argument, I am presenting a case based upon evidence in educational research as I read it. This is not to say that people don't need lifelong learning, just not nearly to the degree you suggest (unlimited access to the work of premodern physicians), at least not to succeed in general practice. I think a survey of the actual practices of most of our peers would not show correlation between success in clinic with either good grades or ongoing scholarship and research. There is a reason they say C students have the most success in medicine. Because its true. There are many skills that come to bear on success and clinical efficacy and powerful intellect is only one and perhaps not the most important. If anyone wants to read these articles, I have provided the relevant cites from a paper I am writing. There are about 100-150 pages here plus the thousands of pages of cites in these cited articles. Have fun. It has taken me about 6 months to assess the literature to determine the consensus in the field of instructional design on the nature of expert training and performance. I am reporting the general consensus, much of it based upon research, that examples of expert practice become less and less important over time. And the fact that any one person reads a lot and finds it valuable and essential in practice is a nice anecdote, but hardly lends any counterweight to the widely accepted notion that that most CM scholars did not practice except to attend to filial responsibilities and most who did practice were barely literate. Again, not my argument. de Jong, T. (n.d.). Discovery learning with computer simulations. Retrieved Aug. 06, 2005, from Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations Web site: http:// phoenix.sce.fct.unl.pt/simposio/Ton_de_Jong.htm van Merrienboer, Jeroen J.G., et. al., Blueprints for Complex Learning: The 4C/ID-Model, Educational Technology Research and Development 50 no2 39-64 2002 Merrill, M. D, First Principles of Instruction, Educational Technology Research and Development 50 no3 43-59 2002 Merrill, M. D. (2004). First principles of instruction: a synthesis . Retrieved Aug. 06, 2005, from Learntel Web site: http://www.learntel.com.au/PDF%20files/ Reiser_1st_Principles_Synth.pdf Nadolski, RJ, et. al. A Model for Optimizing Step Size of Learning Tasks in Competency- based Multimedia Practicals; Educational Technology Research and Development 49 no3 87-103 2001 Jonassen, David, et. al. (1993). A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Technology in Higher Education., In T. Duffy, D. Jonassen, & J. Lowyck (Eds), Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, New York: Springer-Verlag Kester, L., et. al., A Model for Just-in-Time Information Presentation, retrieved Aug. 08, 2005, from Open University Netherlands Website: http://64.233.161.104/search? q=cache:VDeFl-rf3qYJ:www.ou.nl/otecresearch/publications/Angela%2520Stoof/The% 2520boundary%2520approach%2520DefinitiveVersion.pdf+ & hl=en%20target=nw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Friday, August 19, 2005 6:52 PM > > Re: ? chinese lang need? > > , " " <@c...> > wrote: > > > > > > I have a very hard time buying your argument. I have a full > > practice and have had for sometime. I constantly read and study modern > > articles/ books / and doctors as well as classical material, usually > guided > > by my clinical practice. > > And I am sure you are the average practitioner/student. I am not making a > personal > argument, I am presenting a case based upon evidence in educational > research as I read > it. Is this based on medicine, or all fields of education? This is not to say that people don't need lifelong learning, just not > nearly to the degree > you suggest (unlimited access to the work of premodern physicians), at > least not to > succeed in general practice. First let me say I really respect all your work with studying education (methodology) etc... I am glad someone is doing this... You obviously know much more about this than I, but let me play the devil... I do agree with you that one can succeed in general practice without accessing pre-modern physicians. Hell, I know plenty of successful practitioners that never crack a book. Your point is well taken. But let us step back and look at the goals of our profession. Do we have any? First we are in the field of medicine - not accounting. Are we really satisfied with our level of medical competency, of our status, or more simply the level of the average practitioner? What is successful?? For what I have seen, many of these successful practitioners are not even really practicing TCM, many are more counselors, tuning fork specialists, or supplement pushers etc... (Using their license to do other things...) Does that count in evaluating our TCM educational system? I think it says more than not... What is the ultimate level of expertise we strive for from a graduate? Will our schools ever start rejecting sub-par students? I really do like to compare ourselves to the Western Medical establishment in a sense of quality of students and the work they put into their programs. Do you feel we compare? Are we comfortable being on the same level as massage therapists in many states? Academic excellence can surely build the groundwork for future acceptance as a profession. If our attitude is - minimum knowledge is all we need to NOT DO HARM, and have a successful practice, how far can we really get? I also compare what we do here to what is going on in China. They study their arses off, and yes there are exceptions, but the majority of the Chinese Doctors have much more than Western Practitioners. And consequently they can treat a wider range of conditions. Clearly there educations system is stronger, but they do, most of time, study heavily the classics as well as modern information. Do you think they have it all wrong??? Until we start pumping out average practitioners that really know medicine then I will question this more lackadaisical attitude. But I guess if your mission is to pump out as many basic workhorses as possible, to treat simple problems and have no primary care responsibility, then you are right - Why study anything but the basic I get that point. We just have a difference in goals. I would like to see well rounded medically competent doctors pumped out. But your position may be much more realistic than mine, and maybe that is your point, I will think about it. But I ask you, would you let the average student at the average school treat your family? If Yes, With what kind of problems? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2005 Report Share Posted August 19, 2005 Well put Jason\ Oakland, CA 94609 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.