Guest guest Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 Is the 'Dao of ' (Kendall) a full translation of the neijing? Just parts? Just commentary? Thanx, - <Chinese Medicine> tel: <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 It is none of those. He simply quotes small blocks of the Neijing text and takes off from there. On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:52 PM, wrote: > > > Is the 'Dao of ' (Kendall) a full translation of the > neijing? Just parts? Just commentary? > > > > Thanx, > - > > > > > > <Chinese Medicine> > > tel: > > <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me? > u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me > to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a > signature > like this? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 Z'ev, Thanx... and your opinion of the book? -Jason > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:02 PM > > Re: dao? > > It is none of those. He simply quotes small blocks of the Neijing > text and takes off from there. > > > On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:52 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > Is the 'Dao of ' (Kendall) a full translation of the > > neijing? Just parts? Just commentary? > > > > > > > > Thanx, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > <Chinese Medicine> > > > > tel: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me? > > u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me > > to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a > > signature > > like this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2005 Report Share Posted September 22, 2005 Deke is an engineer, and has an excellent grasp of neuro-anatomy. I enjoy some of his musings, but I think his conclusion about the nature of qi, channels, points/holes and other concepts of Chinese medicine tends to be limited and one-sided. I would still highly recommend the book. On Sep 22, 2005, at 5:27 PM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > Thanx... and your opinion of the book? > > -Jason > > > > >> >> >> On Behalf Of Z'ev >> Rosenberg >> Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:02 PM >> >> Re: dao? >> >> It is none of those. He simply quotes small blocks of the Neijing >> text and takes off from there. >> >> >> On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:52 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> Is the 'Dao of ' (Kendall) a full translation of the >>> neijing? Just parts? Just commentary? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanx, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <Chinese Medicine> >>> >>> tel: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me? >>> u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me >>> to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a >>> signature >>> like this? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:44 PM > > Re: dao? > > Deke is an engineer, and has an excellent grasp of neuro-anatomy. I > enjoy some of his musings, but I think his conclusion about the > nature of qi, channels, points/holes and other concepts of Chinese > medicine tends to be limited and one-sided. I would still highly > recommend the book. I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of his basic premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO had major theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed obvious for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to be not directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his lens that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he went into the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his belief system into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are talking about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as puzzled why said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after reading this book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking this book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it gave me a good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class I am teaching... - > > > On Sep 22, 2005, at 5:27 PM, wrote: > > > Z'ev, > > > > Thanx... and your opinion of the book? > > > > -Jason > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> On Behalf Of Z'ev > >> Rosenberg > >> Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:02 PM > >> > >> Re: dao? > >> > >> It is none of those. He simply quotes small blocks of the Neijing > >> text and takes off from there. > >> > >> > >> On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:52 PM, wrote: > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Is the 'Dao of ' (Kendall) a full translation of the > >>> neijing? Just parts? Just commentary? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanx, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> - > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <Chinese Medicine> > >>> > >>> tel: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me? > >>> u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me > >>> to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a > >>> signature > >>> like this? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Jason, When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: > I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly > recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of > his basic > premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO > had major > theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a > misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed > obvious > for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to be not > directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his > lens > that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he > went into > the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his > belief system > into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are > talking > about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as > puzzled why said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after > reading this > book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking > this > book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it > gave me a > good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class I am > teaching... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at his diagrams in the text), >>>> The text however is more about vascular anatomy and speculation Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 I wonder if this has anything to do with his involvement with the highly controversial NOMAA (newly attempting accrediting group) with their own ideas about channels being the blood vessels and nerves. The NOMAA states that the rest of us were given mistranslations of the classical understanding. With debate over the depth of this author's Chinese language understanding it makes me wonder if the group is not trying to create their own reality. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: dao? >Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:48:29 -0700 > >Jason, > When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in >the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of >these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the >author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, >but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different >authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he >is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he >seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language >in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at >his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in >the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into >modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. > > >On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > > I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly > > recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of > > his basic > > premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO > > had major > > theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a > > misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed > > obvious > > for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to be not > > directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his > > lens > > that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he > > went into > > the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his > > belief system > > into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are > > talking > > about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as > > puzzled why > said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after > > reading this > > book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking > > this > > book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it > > gave me a > > good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class I am > > teaching... > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Are you wondering if This is our CHA group? And that the CHA is trying to create their own reality? Or that NOMAA is trying to create its own reality? Please clarify to head off the firestorm ahead. Thanks, doug , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...> wrote: > I wonder if this has anything to do with his involvement with the highly > controversial NOMAA (newly attempting accrediting group) with their own > ideas about channels being the blood vessels and nerves. The NOMAA states > that the rest of us were given mistranslations of the classical > understanding. With debate over the depth of this author's Chinese language > understanding it makes me wonder if the group is not trying to create their > own reality. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > " " <zrosenbe@s...> > > > > > >Re: dao? > >Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:48:29 -0700 > > > >Jason, > > When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in > >the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of > >these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the > >author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, > >but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different > >authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he > >is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he > >seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language > >in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at > >his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in > >the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into > >modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. > > > > > >On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > > > > I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly > > > recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of > > > his basic > > > premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO > > > had major > > > theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a > > > misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed > > > obvious > > > for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to be not > > > directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his > > > lens > > > that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he > > > went into > > > the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his > > > belief system > > > into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are > > > talking > > > about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as > > > puzzled why > > said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after > > > reading this > > > book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking > > > this > > > book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it > > > gave me a > > > good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class I am > > > teaching... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 With all of my respect for Deke Kendall's work, I think embedding it as the core of a political organization is a tremendous mistake. To force this idiosyncratic view on the rest of the profession and educational institutions would be highly destructive indeed. On Sep 27, 2005, at 5:25 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > I wonder if this has anything to do with his involvement with the > highly > controversial NOMAA (newly attempting accrediting group) with their > own > ideas about channels being the blood vessels and nerves. The NOMAA > states > that the rest of us were given mistranslations of the classical > understanding. With debate over the depth of this author's Chinese > language > understanding it makes me wonder if the group is not trying to > create their > own reality. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > >> " " <zrosenbe >> >> >> Re: dao? >> Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:48:29 -0700 >> >> Jason, >> When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in >> the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of >> these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the >> author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, >> but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different >> authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he >> is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he >> seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language >> in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at >> his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in >> the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into >> modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: >> >> >>> I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly >>> recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of >>> his basic >>> premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO >>> had major >>> theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a >>> misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed >>> obvious >>> for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to >>> be not >>> directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his >>> lens >>> that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he >>> went into >>> the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his >>> belief system >>> into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are >>> talking >>> about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as >>> puzzled why >> said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after >>> reading this >>> book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking >>> this >>> book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it >>> gave me a >>> good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class >>> I am >>> teaching... >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Doug, I am sure that This is NOMAA, not CHA. On Sep 27, 2005, at 6:54 AM, wrote: > Are you wondering if This is our CHA group? And that the CHA is > trying to create their own > reality? Or that NOMAA is trying to create its own reality? Please > clarify to head off the > firestorm ahead. Thanks, > doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Zev, I also have great concerns with the NOMAA do to the fact that they refuse to fully disclose much of what they claim to be accrediting. There is little to no transparency and a lot of deceit. This is reminding me more and more of the way big govt is currently operating on the Republican side of the isle, which I do not think is legit. If we are to move forward and improve things in the profession we need some concept of agreement although this can be widely interpretted and implimented and this has been discussed in much more detail on previous posts. Having entertaining dialogue on integration and excercises in thinking can go a long way in providing for a better grasp of ancient and current reality. I think that what Deke did was an interesting first step in this dialogue but caution that we should look at it in that vein. What do others think about this text? Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: dao? >Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:54:39 -0700 > >With all of my respect for Deke Kendall's work, I think embedding it >as the core of a political organization is a tremendous mistake. To >force this idiosyncratic view on the rest of the profession and >educational institutions would be highly destructive indeed. > > >On Sep 27, 2005, at 5:25 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > I wonder if this has anything to do with his involvement with the > > highly > > controversial NOMAA (newly attempting accrediting group) with their > > own > > ideas about channels being the blood vessels and nerves. The NOMAA > > states > > that the rest of us were given mistranslations of the classical > > understanding. With debate over the depth of this author's Chinese > > language > > understanding it makes me wonder if the group is not trying to > > create their > > own reality. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > > > > > > >> " " <zrosenbe > >> > >> > >> Re: dao? > >> Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:48:29 -0700 > >> > >> Jason, > >> When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in > >> the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of > >> these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the > >> author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, > >> but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different > >> authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he > >> is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he > >> seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language > >> in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at > >> his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in > >> the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into > >> modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. > >> > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: > >> > >> > >>> I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly > >>> recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of > >>> his basic > >>> premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO > >>> had major > >>> theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a > >>> misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed > >>> obvious > >>> for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to > >>> be not > >>> directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his > >>> lens > >>> that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he > >>> went into > >>> the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his > >>> belief system > >>> into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are > >>> talking > >>> about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as > >>> puzzled why > >> said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after > >>> reading this > >>> book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking > >>> this > >>> book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it > >>> gave me a > >>> good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class > >>> I am > >>> teaching... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Doug, Put your mind at ease as I ask about his involvement in the NOMAA and its push to become the next accreditting agency, complete with their theory about nerve and blood vessels. This is connected with the work that Deke did as he is a part of that organization. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " > > >Re: dao? >Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:54:38 -0000 > >Are you wondering if This is our CHA group? And that the CHA is trying to >create their own >reality? Or that NOMAA is trying to create its own reality? Please clarify >to head off the >firestorm ahead. Thanks, >doug > > > , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...> >wrote: > > I wonder if this has anything to do with his involvement with the highly > > controversial NOMAA (newly attempting accrediting group) with their own > > ideas about channels being the blood vessels and nerves. The NOMAA >states > > that the rest of us were given mistranslations of the classical > > understanding. With debate over the depth of this author's Chinese >language > > understanding it makes me wonder if the group is not trying to create >their > > own reality. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > > > > > > " " <zrosenbe@s...> > > > > > > > > >Re: dao? > > >Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:48:29 -0700 > > > > > >Jason, > > > When it comes to Ling Shu and Su Wen, it seems that 'beauty is in > > >the eyes of the beholder'. Every English translation I've seen of > > >these texts seems to carry with it the lens or point of view of the > > >author, as you point out. I agree with your critique of the text, > > >but the reason I recommend it is that you can see how different > > >authors develop one-sided conclusions! I know Deke for 18 years, he > > >is a serious-minded individual who is self-taught in Chinese, but he > > >seems to have missed some of the nuance of classical Chinese language > > >in deciphering the Nei Jing. His neuro-anatomy is excellent (look at > > >his diagrams in the text), I just think that he hasn't succeeded in > > >the very difficult task in rephrasing classical Chinese medicine into > > >modern physiology. I don't know if anyone could, quite frankly. > > > > > > > > >On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:24 PM, wrote: > > > > > > > I borrowed a copy and agree with you, except the part about highly > > > > recommending it... - I not only found it one sided, but many of > > > > his basic > > > > premises just seemed unsubstantiated. Furthermore conclusions IMO > > > > had major > > > > theoretical holes in them, and some seemed to be from just a > > > > misunderstanding of Chinese language. Or a conclusion that seemed > > > > obvious > > > > for HIM (based on his interpretation of the Chinese), seemed to be >not > > > > directly supported by the Chinese language; Meaning it was more his > > > > lens > > > > that he is viewing the world through. Basically it seems like he > > > > went into > > > > the NEijing (et al) looking to prove his point and forced his > > > > belief system > > > > into it, instead of saying, lets try to see what these guys are > > > > talking > > > > about and be open to the mystery.... Oh well... I am just as > > > > puzzled why > > > said he had a resurgence in classical acupuncture after > > > > reading this > > > > book, I must of missed a chapter... I really had a hard time taking > > > > this > > > > book seriously... (maybe I will give it another chance.) But it > > > > gave me a > > > > good contrast to some translations of lingshu ch.8 for the class I >am > > > > teaching... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.