Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jason, I used the macciocia book for the first year class at AOMA...and thought it to be adequate at the time. However while translating an article on infertility i came across a few terms.. . I never had been exposed to (in english) because geovanni does not adhere to any method of connecting with the chinese. or he just didnt discuss ѪÈâÓÐÇé֮Ʒ ÐÔϲÌõ´ï or ¸ÎϲÌõ´ï Ŀϵ ӪѪ I believe i found all of them in the ellis/wiseman book. minus some of the bazarre term choices...I like this little blue book...particularly since he provides the chinese for all of the stranger (and very basic) terms.... PS for those of us who know how to enter chinese, could you please enter the chinese characters for terms we want to discuss (especially when you give a compound expression) i find all of the pinyin alphabet soup sometimes tiring on the eyes. I guess most who are interested in these term discussions can read chinese characters? schwartz Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 If I may speak for Jason for a sec here, or at least what I think he is trying to point to, he wouldn't really disagree with that and how that is a problem. Nevertheless since Maciocia is so prevalent and popular, instead of just decrying its problems and thus alienating a lot of people, there is a way we can use this to our advantage in encouraging students to think for themselves. It may indeed be the case for example (and I believe him) when Z'ev says that he has found it possible and best to teach his students Wiseman from the start. But as has often be commented here, the fundamental problem underlying this and many issues we face as a CM community is that of a gullibility and lack of critical discrimination amongst many students and practitioners. That problem cannot be solved by getting everything " perfect " , indeed that often exacerbates the seemingly unspannable gap between the authority and the learner. A flawed authority, openly shown to be useful and yet still flawed, leaves the student with little rational protection from really starting to use their own brain. Ideal situations are great, and I think must always be kept in mind. But there is no avoiding the need to convince people, building up their awareness of the issues and eventually have them independantly, with their own mind, come up with the same conclusions that you do. That is, there is no avoiding politics, which (when healthy) is basically the process of moving from the present situation to something closer and closer to that ideal with time, one sufficiently critical thinker at a time. Jason's approach seems to me the best one in that context. -Li On 3/23/06, Mark Schwartz <insighthealing wrote: > > Jason, > I used the macciocia book for the first year class at AOMA...and thought > it to be adequate at the time. However while translating an article on > infertility i came across a few terms.. . I never had been exposed to (in > english) because geovanni does not adhere to any method of connecting with > the chinese. or he just didnt discuss > ѪÈâÓÐÇé֮Ʒ > ÐÔϲÌõ´ï or ¸ÎϲÌõ´ï > Ŀϵ > ӪѪ > > I believe i found all of them in the ellis/wiseman book. minus some of > the bazarre term choices...I like this little blue book...particularly since > he provides the chinese for all of the stranger (and very basic) terms.... > > PS > for those of us who know how to enter chinese, could you please enter > the chinese characters for terms we want to discuss (especially when you > give a compound expression) i find all of the pinyin alphabet soup sometimes > tiring on the eyes. I guess most who are interested in these term > discussions can read chinese characters? > > schwartz > > > > > > Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Mark, As Li mentioned, I do not disagree with you on this issue. OF course for someone approaching translation, the Maciocia book is useless for reference. But now we are talking about a totally different issue. My point for this discussion is in understanding the best way to communicate to the masses. Most of these students will NEVER have any desire to read or translate Chinese. -Jason p.s. did you findÐÔϲÌõ´ï in the Wiseman fundamentals book - what was the context? > > > On Behalf Of Mark Schwartz > Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:46 AM > > macciocia silver stripe intro book > > Jason, > I used the macciocia book for the first year class at AOMA...and thought > it to be adequate at the time. However while translating an article on > infertility i came across a few terms.. . I never had been exposed to (in > english) because geovanni does not adhere to any method of connecting with > the chinese. or he just didnt discuss > ѪÈâÓÐÇé֮Ʒ > ÐÔϲÌõ´ï or ¸ÎϲÌõ´ï > Ŀϵ > ӪѪ > > I believe i found all of them in the ellis/wiseman book. minus some of > the bazarre term choices...I like this little blue book...particularly > since he provides the chinese for all of the stranger (and very basic) > terms.... > > PS > for those of us who know how to enter chinese, could you please enter > the chinese characters for terms we want to discuss (especially when you > give a compound expression) i find all of the pinyin alphabet soup > sometimes tiring on the eyes. I guess most who are interested in these > term discussions can read chinese characters? > > schwartz > > > > > > Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 The students will not desire to learn medical Chinese unless the teachers insist that it is important. The beginning is to teach the use of dictionaries and glossaries, and show the importance of language and philosophy in medicine, not to dumb down the subject and make it 'easy'. Communicating Chinese medicine to the 'masses' is a different issue, if you are talking about the general public. However, I never fail to be surprised at the level of knowledge of biomedicine by my average patient. The internet boom has exponentially increase the average knowledge level of the public, so we should not underestimate the layperson's ability to grasp medicine. If so the layperson, should we not have even greater expectations of our students? On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:12 AM, wrote: > Mark, > > As Li mentioned, I do not disagree with you on this issue. OF > course for > someone approaching translation, the Maciocia book is useless for > reference. > But now we are talking about a totally different issue. My point > for this > discussion is in understanding the best way to communicate Chinese > Medicine > to the masses. Most of these students will NEVER have any desire > to read or > translate Chinese. > > -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 > > > On Behalf Of > It may indeed be the case for example (and I believe him) when Z'ev says > that he has found it possible and best to teach his students Wiseman from > the start. Since Z'ev has not answered my previous email, I would like to clarify what I think is currently true at his school (PCOM) - Please correct me if things are different. 1) Z'ev is not teaching intro classes and is still probably using Bensky's texts for his herb classes. 2) PCOM is not just teaching Wiseman from the start (is any school?), but it is my impression that they are using other books and supplementing with Wiseman terms. This is a big difference then starting exclusively with Wiseman. At S.W.A.C. we INTRODUCE Wiseman terms from day 1, but other more readable texts are surely used as the core intro books. Even if 1 teacher exclusively uses Wiseman terms, there will be others that don't - IMO, students benefit from both. Therefore, I think Z'ev's statement that (he?) / PCOM is using Wiseman terminology from the 'get-go, with no confusion' can be misinterpreted. When one has these other (non-Wiseman) books to explain concepts in a more fluid-connotative style, and the teacher links those terms to the Wiseman terms, we have a great integrative system. Z'ev has mentioned that he links the Wiseman terms for Bensky's Formulas Book in his class, and has been doing so for years. This makes sense. IMO, all teachers should be familiar with the multiple words (for each concept) and use them. The Chinese seem to have the most difficulty with this. But I am pretty clear that introducing both systems from the beginning does present confusion; of course it harder to integrate additional words for a concept, rather than just have one. This is precisely what I do in my class. But as confusing as it is, it is well worth it in the long run. It not only allows the students to access more material, but more importantly how to think, and allows them to realize from day 1 that CM is not black and white, there is confusion, there are multiple systems inherent in CM, some systems may be better for some situations, and all of this translates into being more flexible in the clinic. Well that is my opinion But to assume that best scenario would be better to start off with Wiseman from day 1 with nothing else, is a theory that has just not been tested - at least to my knowledge. Maybe no one is even suggesting this, but I just wanted to get some clarity on what I think is going on with PCOM. I would, though, like to hear more from the instructors there and other schools. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jason, I've been working on a response for a few days. I had not read the latest edition of the 'silver book', and wanted to look at a copy in the PCOM library before answering. I spent some time with the text yesterday. I also want to be cautious on critiquing such a text that is a standard text in most schools to avoid untoward responses, quite frankly. On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:37 AM, wrote: > Since Z'ev has not answered my previous email, I would like to > clarify what > I think is currently true at his school (PCOM) - Please correct me > if things > are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Jason, I would never suggest that " Wiseman only " from day one is the only approach to use or being used, it is also not practically possible. I simply meant that, at least in the herb department, Wiseman terminology is introduced from the very first class (Herbs I). Of course I use the Bensky/Clavey Materia Medica and Formulas and Strategies text. I've developed charts that match prescriptions from the Formulas and Strategies with the PD corresponding patterns that I give to the students, and now I also give them Eric's comparative glossary of terms. None of the herb teachers to my knowledge are using Maciocia's texts, they are being used to some degree in the OM department courses. Therefore, my need to 'brush up' on them. I'll respond on that soon. On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:37 AM, wrote: > But to assume that best scenario would be better to start off with > Wiseman > from day 1 with nothing else, is a theory that has just not been > tested - at > least to my knowledge. Maybe no one is even suggesting this, but I > just > wanted to get some clarity on what I think is going on with PCOM. I > would, > though, like to hear more from the instructors there and other > schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Z'ev, No I was not referring to the masses as laypeople. Sorry my miscommunication. I was referring to students. I agree they should learn to use the dictionaries and glossaries, but really this does not require any Chinese Language skills. But of course, you know me, I think Chinese Language only will enhance ones' understanding and grant one more access, but I think that the majority of students can do fine without it. -Jason > > > On Behalf Of > Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:29 AM > > Re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > The students will not desire to learn medical Chinese unless the > teachers insist that it is important. The beginning is to teach the > use of dictionaries and glossaries, and show the importance of > language and philosophy in medicine, not to dumb down the subject and > make it 'easy'. > > Communicating Chinese medicine to the 'masses' is a different issue, > if you are talking about the general public. However, I never fail > to be surprised at the level of knowledge of biomedicine by my > average patient. The internet boom has exponentially increase the > average knowledge level of the public, so we should not underestimate > the layperson's ability to grasp medicine. If so the layperson, > should we not have even greater expectations of our students? > > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:12 AM, wrote: > > > Mark, > > > > As Li mentioned, I do not disagree with you on this issue. OF > > course for > > someone approaching translation, the Maciocia book is useless for > > reference. > > But now we are talking about a totally different issue. My point > > for this > > discussion is in understanding the best way to communicate Chinese > > Medicine > > to the masses. Most of these students will NEVER have any desire > > to read or > > translate Chinese. > > > > -Jason > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Zev, I was wondering if there were any texts or notes that tried to cross reference the two terminologies. If you would be willing to share it, I would be very interested in seeing your chart that matches Bensky to the PD. If you have such a chart for any other texts, that would also be extremely useful. I think other teachers might also find them to be useful. Ultimately, students will need to understand both types of terminology, so any cross references can help bridge this gap. What are you referring to when you mention Eric's comparative glossary? On another note, while I really like Giovanni's books, I agree that he needs to distinguish when he is making his own clinical observations and when he is explaining the classics. The two do tend to merge in his books. - Bill Schoenbart .................................... Bill Schoenbart, L.Ac. PO Box 8099 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 831-335-3165 plantmed >>>>I've developed charts that match prescriptions from the Formulas and Strategies with the PD corresponding patterns that I give to the students, and now I also give them Eric's comparative glossary of terms.>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2006 Report Share Posted March 23, 2006 Bill, Go to the CHA files section on the website. You'll find the comparative glossary that Eric Brand put together there. Z'ev On Mar 23, 2006, at 9:29 PM, Bill Schoenbart wrote: > Zev, > > I was wondering if there were any texts or notes that tried to cross > reference the two terminologies. If you would be willing to share > it, I > would be very interested in seeing your chart that matches Bensky > to the PD. > If you have such a chart for any other texts, that would also be > extremely > useful. I think other teachers might also find them to be useful. > Ultimately, students will need to understand both types of > terminology, so > any cross references can help bridge this gap. > > What are you referring to when you mention Eric's comparative > glossary? > > On another note, while I really like Giovanni's books, I agree that > he needs > to distinguish when he is making his own clinical observations and > when he > is explaining the classics. The two do tend to merge in his books. > > - Bill Schoenbart > > ................................... > Bill Schoenbart, L.Ac. > PO Box 8099 > Santa Cruz, CA 95061 > > 831-335-3165 > plantmed > > >>>>> I've developed charts that match prescriptions > from the Formulas and Strategies with the PD corresponding patterns > that I give to the students, and now I also give them Eric's > comparative glossary of terms.>>>> > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 > > > On Behalf Of Deb Marshall > Friday, March 24, 2006 8:16 PM > > re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > Hi All, > > An observation from one who was not so long ago a student: > > It was quite clear to me from the way they are written that Macciocia's > books are written from his own experience and not translated from a > Chinese source; his was my first text, and my teacher didn't have to state > it. It's also generally clear, from the way the books are written, when > he's referring to a source text. It's equally clear, from the way it's > written, that the Wiseman book is a translation - it's partly the > footnotes, but it's more in the style. Most native readers of English > wouldn't be confused by these texts. Agreed... I never thought otherwise when reading these texts. G.M. does quote classic texts like the NeiJing, and makes it clear when this is the case. He is sourcing many of the ideas! But you can't source everything. Do you think a fundamental Chinese Theory text sources every line of thought, of course not, not anywhere close. Actually in my experience Chinese texts do a poor job in sourcing their material. I have read whole Chinese Medical books that do contain one source. You can find studies quoted without any references... Just because it is written in Chinese does not make it any more correct than English. > > I think there is going to be a gap always between the scholar practitioner > or researcher, who needs to know the source and all the nuances of a > translated text, and the general practitioner who does not, but who does > need to know a great deal about Chinese medicine none the less - and who > needs to know where to go to discover the nuances when it actually does > affect a particular case, or when one wants to become a bit more of a > specialist or more highly skilled as a practitioner. One of the things I > see when I read all you folks have written is that most of you are the > first or second generation of TCM practitioners in the country; many of > you learned without the benefit of many translations, or particularly good > translations. Many of you are teachers, besides. You need to be the > repositories of the nuances, you need to be the standard-bearers of the > advanced study, you need to push along the scholarly translation of the > literature and the practice so that the newest generation of student will > always graduate at a slightly higher level of skill than the last did and > the rest of us can pedal hard to keep up. This is good; but what you need > isn't what the beginning student needs, necessarily. A beginning student > doesn't really need to know when the text is a source text or a factually- > correct text from a senior practitioner's personal experience - a > beginning student will learn equally well and equally voluminously from > either. A graduate student, on the other hand, or a scholar/researcher, > certainly does need to know the difference. I think this is a great point. The question I have been asking is where in G.M.'s text does he present clinically incorrect information? IMO, most of the stuff is quite legitimate. Marnae mentioned that people read his book and then talk to Chinese, and the Chinese 'look at you like you are crazy'. Well, this probably has nothing to do with the text, but more about the people involved. Meaning, Chinese Medicine is diverse. Even among the Chinese teachers at my school (PCOM) there were vastly differing opinions. This is and will always be the case. There is no 1 way in . I think it is too common of a belief that there is some simple truth, a diagnostic sign meaning XYZ, or whatever. The more one studies the more one sees that there are vast differences and approaches etc. But if you want to talk about 'looking at people like they are crazy' try speaking to the average Chinese using Wiseman terms. I have actually never met a Chinese person that relates to or uses these terms. Most despise them. I am sure some do like Wiseman, but most, IME, do not like them. Now I am not saying this is a good thing, but such generalized statements relating to how 'the Chinese' look at you for using 'Maciocia's stuff' cannot be reduced to something as simple as being correct or incorrect. It is much more complicated than that. Now back to the point, IMO, G.M. offers a valid path, he DID graduate from NanJing University (if I remember correctly). Yes maybe there may be a couple of idiosyncratic bits and pieces here in there, but by in large his stuff makes sense and is clinically relevant. To make statements that 'the Chinese' look at you 'crazy' for using 'his stuff' should be backed up by some quite serious errors that lead to clinical mistakes. If not, then one really has no real leg to stand when bashing this book. IT is what is, it may not be a translation, but serves a pretty good purpose. And all that it takes from day 1 is for the initial teacher to mention, hey this is a XYZ book, not a translation or whatever, and move on... Furthermore in my experience, Chinese and many westerners (or just all humans) like to act like they are right, and will take any opportunity to bash another's viewpoint. As sad as this may be, it does not matter if it is Maciocia, Wiseman, or Bensky I have heard Chinese (and others) make it a point to say how the text is incorrect, and you shouldn't believe it. Well we can all await their texts... Finally, I don't think G.M.'s (silver) book is the ultimate book, or even the best book out there for beginners. Personally I have never seen the new version. But I think the reasons that people don't like the book should be examined and critiqued. Sometimes they sound more emotional than if they were only coming from a desire for optimal education for the masses (students). - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Hi All, An observation from one who was not so long ago a student: It was quite clear to me from the way they are written that Macciocia's books are written from his own experience and not translated from a Chinese source; his was my first text, and my teacher didn't have to state it. It's also generally clear, from the way the books are written, when he's referring to a source text. It's equally clear, from the way it's written, that the Wiseman book is a translation - it's partly the footnotes, but it's more in the style. Most native readers of English wouldn't be confused by these texts. I think there is going to be a gap always between the scholar practitioner or researcher, who needs to know the source and all the nuances of a translated text, and the general practitioner who does not, but who does need to know a great deal about Chinese medicine none the less - and who needs to know where to go to discover the nuances when it actually does affect a particular case, or when one wants to become a bit more of a specialist or more highly skilled as a practitioner. One of the things I see when I read all you folks have written is that most of you are the first or second generation of TCM practitioners in the country; many of you learned without the benefit of many translations, or particularly good translations. Many of you are teachers, besides. You need to be the repositories of the nuances, you need to be the standard-bearers of the advanced study, you need to push along the scholarly translation of the literature and the practice so that the newest generation of student will always graduate at a slightly higher level of skill than the last did and the rest of us can pedal hard to keep up. This is good; but what you need isn't what the beginning student needs, necessarily. A beginning student doesn't really need to know when the text is a source text or a factually-correct text from a senior practitioner's personal experience - a beginning student will learn equally well and equally voluminously from either. A graduate student, on the other hand, or a scholar/researcher, certainly does need to know the difference. In my opinion, there are no really good beginner's textbooks yet. All I've seen leave too many questions unanswered, too many connections undrawn, too many explanations unelaborated. Indexes are often not accurate or complete, glossaries are missing important items, editing inconsistencies make parts of many texts difficult to follow. All seem to rely to a large extent on the teacher filling in the missing parts - and the missing parts can be very extensive! As someone who read many, many texts as a student, I can tell you that there is no way to reconcile too many of the " facts " in the various texts presented by different authors. There was a time when I had a stack of index cards 3 inches high filled with dissonant information from 5 or more respected sources. I eventually tossed the index cards out when I had enough learning and enough experience to realize that they were all correct, they were all incorrect. The same is true about the language, the terminology - it's all correct, it's all incorrect. If it leads me astray, as sometimes Wiseman's perhaps very-technically-precise translation choices do and sometimes Macciocia's perhaps less-technically-precise choices do, it doesn't matter which one was more correct technically. I've been led astray by both of them at various times for different reasons; what's important is that I've learned enough to have a pretty good idea that I've been led down a wrong path and can find my way back - something we learn to do from our teachers, not from our texts. Neither Wiseman nor Macciocia nor any other author is enough by themselves and it may be, because Chinese and English are so different in how they form the whole body of a people's perceptions and then embody those perceptions in an isolated concept, that no one translator is ever going to be enough, no one dictionary is ever going to be enough, and certainly no one text is ever going to be enough. ---Deb Marshall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 If asked to teach an intro class I would look to the Basic Theories of Traditional Chinese Medicine (isbn 7507712664) from Academy (Beijing TCM Academy). I was dubious of this series but the Basic Theories is the one I return to for questions. It doesn't ignore western concepts and it's good on ancient quotations. It's English is very good in comparison to most books coming out of China. At 300 pages, it is more comprehensive and thus would take more time than the usual basic classes usually have. However, it does attempt to answer many of the questions that students and practitioners have later on because of incomplete basic classes. doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 You can find studies quoted without any references... Just because it is written in Chinese does not make it any more correct than English. >>>>> How dare you say that Oakland, CA 94609 - Friday, March 24, 2006 7:06 PM RE: re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > > On Behalf Of Deb Marshall > Friday, March 24, 2006 8:16 PM > > re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > Hi All, > > An observation from one who was not so long ago a student: > > It was quite clear to me from the way they are written that Macciocia's > books are written from his own experience and not translated from a > Chinese source; his was my first text, and my teacher didn't have to state > it. It's also generally clear, from the way the books are written, when > he's referring to a source text. It's equally clear, from the way it's > written, that the Wiseman book is a translation - it's partly the > footnotes, but it's more in the style. Most native readers of English > wouldn't be confused by these texts. Agreed... I never thought otherwise when reading these texts. G.M. does quote classic texts like the NeiJing, and makes it clear when this is the case. He is sourcing many of the ideas! But you can't source everything. Do you think a fundamental Chinese Theory text sources every line of thought, of course not, not anywhere close. Actually in my experience Chinese texts do a poor job in sourcing their material. I have read whole Chinese Medical books that do contain one source. You can find studies quoted without any references... Just because it is written in Chinese does not make it any more correct than English. > > I think there is going to be a gap always between the scholar practitioner > or researcher, who needs to know the source and all the nuances of a > translated text, and the general practitioner who does not, but who does > need to know a great deal about Chinese medicine none the less - and who > needs to know where to go to discover the nuances when it actually does > affect a particular case, or when one wants to become a bit more of a > specialist or more highly skilled as a practitioner. One of the things I > see when I read all you folks have written is that most of you are the > first or second generation of TCM practitioners in the country; many of > you learned without the benefit of many translations, or particularly good > translations. Many of you are teachers, besides. You need to be the > repositories of the nuances, you need to be the standard-bearers of the > advanced study, you need to push along the scholarly translation of the > literature and the practice so that the newest generation of student will > always graduate at a slightly higher level of skill than the last did and > the rest of us can pedal hard to keep up. This is good; but what you need > isn't what the beginning student needs, necessarily. A beginning student > doesn't really need to know when the text is a source text or a factually- > correct text from a senior practitioner's personal experience - a > beginning student will learn equally well and equally voluminously from > either. A graduate student, on the other hand, or a scholar/researcher, > certainly does need to know the difference. I think this is a great point. The question I have been asking is where in G.M.'s text does he present clinically incorrect information? IMO, most of the stuff is quite legitimate. Marnae mentioned that people read his book and then talk to Chinese, and the Chinese 'look at you like you are crazy'. Well, this probably has nothing to do with the text, but more about the people involved. Meaning, Chinese Medicine is diverse. Even among the Chinese teachers at my school (PCOM) there were vastly differing opinions. This is and will always be the case. There is no 1 way in . I think it is too common of a belief that there is some simple truth, a diagnostic sign meaning XYZ, or whatever. The more one studies the more one sees that there are vast differences and approaches etc. But if you want to talk about 'looking at people like they are crazy' try speaking to the average Chinese using Wiseman terms. I have actually never met a Chinese person that relates to or uses these terms. Most despise them. I am sure some do like Wiseman, but most, IME, do not like them. Now I am not saying this is a good thing, but such generalized statements relating to how 'the Chinese' look at you for using 'Maciocia's stuff' cannot be reduced to something as simple as being correct or incorrect. It is much more complicated than that. Now back to the point, IMO, G.M. offers a valid path, he DID graduate from NanJing University (if I remember correctly). Yes maybe there may be a couple of idiosyncratic bits and pieces here in there, but by in large his stuff makes sense and is clinically relevant. To make statements that 'the Chinese' look at you 'crazy' for using 'his stuff' should be backed up by some quite serious errors that lead to clinical mistakes. If not, then one really has no real leg to stand when bashing this book. IT is what is, it may not be a translation, but serves a pretty good purpose. And all that it takes from day 1 is for the initial teacher to mention, hey this is a XYZ book, not a translation or whatever, and move on... Furthermore in my experience, Chinese and many westerners (or just all humans) like to act like they are right, and will take any opportunity to bash another's viewpoint. As sad as this may be, it does not matter if it is Maciocia, Wiseman, or Bensky I have heard Chinese (and others) make it a point to say how the text is incorrect, and you shouldn't believe it. Well we can all await their texts... Finally, I don't think G.M.'s (silver) book is the ultimate book, or even the best book out there for beginners. Personally I have never seen the new version. But I think the reasons that people don't like the book should be examined and critiqued. Sometimes they sound more emotional than if they were only coming from a desire for optimal education for the masses (students). - Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2006 Report Share Posted March 24, 2006 Finally, I don't think G.M.'s (silver) book is the ultimate book, or even the best book out there for beginners. Personally I have never seen the new version. But I think the reasons that people don't like the book should be examined and critiqued. Sometimes they sound more emotional than if they were only coming from a desire for optimal education for the masses (students). >>>>> They are more about values than substance. If you compare page to page, most of these books are quite similar and the small differences almost never translate to a different clinical understanding. People get their hairs rased on mostly irrelevant materials. For one person having the " right " word which lets say distinguishes between the diffrent types of " tonifying " (nourishing, moistening, etc) is important and to others the herbs that follow allow them to see the differences and they do not care if you choose to use the " correct " words to differentiate these categories. I think those that tend to need clear boxes in order to achieve understand will tend to see more importance in these linguistic nuances. Others tend to see and look between the line and would care less. I just finished reading Deng's practical dx front to back and actually found it easy to read but i do not believe it gave me any deeper understanding than most of the other basic texts i have read. It has sections with more information and other with less. I tend to look at all information only as it relates to my clinical work and if i take Deng's text as an example of a basic text using " accurate " linguistic translation, the bottom line as not really changed for me, i.e., i really do not think i understand CM more after reading it. I do not know GM and never read his books from front to back, but the sections i have read felt more like a personal approach to writing which i tend to like. The real question is do you think he has something to say. Oakland, CA 94609 - Friday, March 24, 2006 7:06 PM RE: re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > > On Behalf Of Deb Marshall > Friday, March 24, 2006 8:16 PM > > re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > Hi All, > > An observation from one who was not so long ago a student: > > It was quite clear to me from the way they are written that Macciocia's > books are written from his own experience and not translated from a > Chinese source; his was my first text, and my teacher didn't have to state > it. It's also generally clear, from the way the books are written, when > he's referring to a source text. It's equally clear, from the way it's > written, that the Wiseman book is a translation - it's partly the > footnotes, but it's more in the style. Most native readers of English > wouldn't be confused by these texts. Agreed... I never thought otherwise when reading these texts. G.M. does quote classic texts like the NeiJing, and makes it clear when this is the case. He is sourcing many of the ideas! But you can't source everything. Do you think a fundamental Chinese Theory text sources every line of thought, of course not, not anywhere close. Actually in my experience Chinese texts do a poor job in sourcing their material. I have read whole Chinese Medical books that do contain one source. You can find studies quoted without any references... Just because it is written in Chinese does not make it any more correct than English. > > I think there is going to be a gap always between the scholar practitioner > or researcher, who needs to know the source and all the nuances of a > translated text, and the general practitioner who does not, but who does > need to know a great deal about Chinese medicine none the less - and who > needs to know where to go to discover the nuances when it actually does > affect a particular case, or when one wants to become a bit more of a > specialist or more highly skilled as a practitioner. One of the things I > see when I read all you folks have written is that most of you are the > first or second generation of TCM practitioners in the country; many of > you learned without the benefit of many translations, or particularly good > translations. Many of you are teachers, besides. You need to be the > repositories of the nuances, you need to be the standard-bearers of the > advanced study, you need to push along the scholarly translation of the > literature and the practice so that the newest generation of student will > always graduate at a slightly higher level of skill than the last did and > the rest of us can pedal hard to keep up. This is good; but what you need > isn't what the beginning student needs, necessarily. A beginning student > doesn't really need to know when the text is a source text or a factually- > correct text from a senior practitioner's personal experience - a > beginning student will learn equally well and equally voluminously from > either. A graduate student, on the other hand, or a scholar/researcher, > certainly does need to know the difference. I think this is a great point. The question I have been asking is where in G.M.'s text does he present clinically incorrect information? IMO, most of the stuff is quite legitimate. Marnae mentioned that people read his book and then talk to Chinese, and the Chinese 'look at you like you are crazy'. Well, this probably has nothing to do with the text, but more about the people involved. Meaning, Chinese Medicine is diverse. Even among the Chinese teachers at my school (PCOM) there were vastly differing opinions. This is and will always be the case. There is no 1 way in . I think it is too common of a belief that there is some simple truth, a diagnostic sign meaning XYZ, or whatever. The more one studies the more one sees that there are vast differences and approaches etc. But if you want to talk about 'looking at people like they are crazy' try speaking to the average Chinese using Wiseman terms. I have actually never met a Chinese person that relates to or uses these terms. Most despise them. I am sure some do like Wiseman, but most, IME, do not like them. Now I am not saying this is a good thing, but such generalized statements relating to how 'the Chinese' look at you for using 'Maciocia's stuff' cannot be reduced to something as simple as being correct or incorrect. It is much more complicated than that. Now back to the point, IMO, G.M. offers a valid path, he DID graduate from NanJing University (if I remember correctly). Yes maybe there may be a couple of idiosyncratic bits and pieces here in there, but by in large his stuff makes sense and is clinically relevant. To make statements that 'the Chinese' look at you 'crazy' for using 'his stuff' should be backed up by some quite serious errors that lead to clinical mistakes. If not, then one really has no real leg to stand when bashing this book. IT is what is, it may not be a translation, but serves a pretty good purpose. And all that it takes from day 1 is for the initial teacher to mention, hey this is a XYZ book, not a translation or whatever, and move on... Furthermore in my experience, Chinese and many westerners (or just all humans) like to act like they are right, and will take any opportunity to bash another's viewpoint. As sad as this may be, it does not matter if it is Maciocia, Wiseman, or Bensky I have heard Chinese (and others) make it a point to say how the text is incorrect, and you shouldn't believe it. Well we can all await their texts... Finally, I don't think G.M.'s (silver) book is the ultimate book, or even the best book out there for beginners. Personally I have never seen the new version. But I think the reasons that people don't like the book should be examined and critiqued. Sometimes they sound more emotional than if they were only coming from a desire for optimal education for the masses (students). - Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 When I try to download that PD glossary file, Internet Explorer crashes. Could this be sabotage by the anti-Wiseman guerilla front? Seriously, though, I have no trouble downloading the other files. I think the link may be broken. .................................. Bill Schoenbart PO Box 8099 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 831-335-3165 plantmed >>>>>>Bill, if you go to the files section of traditional chinese herbs you will find the Eastland-PD comparative PDF chart that Eric made. I don't know how you recieve these messages but the chart can be found with your browser at http://health. doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 You can get it at my website also at: Chinese Medicine/1TranslationHP.htm -Jason > > > On Behalf Of Bill Schoenbart > Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:42 PM > > Re: macciocia silver stripe intro book > > When I try to download that PD glossary file, Internet Explorer crashes. > Could this be sabotage by the anti-Wiseman guerilla front? > Seriously, though, I have no trouble downloading the other files. I think > the link may be broken. > > .................................. > Bill Schoenbart > PO Box 8099 > Santa Cruz, CA 95061 > > 831-335-3165 > plantmed > > > >>>>>>Bill, if you go to the files section of traditional chinese herbs you > will find the Eastland-PD > comparative PDF chart that Eric made. I don't know how you recieve these > messages but > the chart can be found with your browser at > http://health. > > doug > > > 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.