Guest guest Posted June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 Has anyone checked this one out? Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine by Neeb, Gunther R. Comments? -Jason <Chinese Medicine> <Chinese Medicine> tel: <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em ail=> www.Chinese Medicine <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 June 10, 2007 Report Share Posted June 10, 2007 I thought it was a pretty good book, overall, lots of cases, both classical and modern, and a translation of Yi Lin Gai Cuo/Correction of Medical Errors by Wang Qing-ren. Interesting as well, since Blue Poppy Press has just published a translation of the Yi Lin Gai Cuo, but much more in depth with extensive commentaries, the original Chinese text, modern cases with all of the major formulas in the text. I'd get both of these texts, but if I had to choose one, it would be the Blue Poppy translation. On Jun 10, 2007, at 6:45 PM, wrote: > Has anyone checked this one out? > > Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine > > by Neeb, Gunther R. > > Comments? > > -Jason > > <Chinese Medicine> > > <Chinese Medicine> > > tel: > <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792 > +x102 & Em > ail=> > www.Chinese Medicine > > <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 June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 It's a good book which includes Wang Qing-Ren's 'Yi Lin Gai Cuo' (Corrections of mistakes in the medical world). See customer feedback comments at http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/product/152/168/blood_stasis Kind regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MBAcC Editor Times +44 (0) 1189 612512 enquiries <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com <http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php> www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/forum/index.php This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this message in error you must not disseminate, copy or take action on it; please notify sender. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free, e-mail communications are not 100% secure and the sender makes no warranty that this message is secure or virus free. Nothing in this transmission shall or shall be deemed to constitute an offer or acceptance of an offer or otherwise have the effect of forming a contract by electronic communication. Your name and address may be stored to facilitate communications. The sender is registered in England. Registered office: PO Box 3521, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG40 9DX, UK. On Behalf Of 11 June 2007 02:45 Stasis Book Has anyone checked this one out? Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine by Neeb, Gunther R. Comments? -Jason <http://www.chinesem <Chinese Medicine> edicinedoc.com> <http://www.chinesem <Chinese Medicine> edicinedoc.com> tel: <http://www.plaxo. <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em > com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em ail=@ <ail%3D%40Chinese Medicine> Chinese Medicine> www.Chinese Medicine <https://www. <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me to your address book... <http://www.plaxo. <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> com/signature> Want a signature like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 I have a copy. So far I am underwhelmed by it. But it is probably useful for a beginning practitioner. Cara O. Frank, R.Ac, Dipl Ac & Ch.H. President China Herb Company of the Chinese Herb Program Tai Sophia Institute of the Healing Arts 215-438-2977 Fax 215-849-3338 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:45:06 -0600 Stasis Book Has anyone checked this one out? Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine by Neeb, Gunther R. Comments? -Jason <Chinese Medicine> <Chinese Medicine> tel: <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & amp;To=303.545.5792+x10 2 & amp;Em> <http://www.plaxo.com/click_to_call?src=jj_signature & To=303.545.5792+x102 & Em > ail= <ail%3D%40Chinese Medicine> > www.Chinese Medicine <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621 <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & amp;v0=295000 & amp;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 June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 According to Simon Becker, one of the Blue Poppy translators of the Yi Lin Gai Cuo, Neeb's translation of this text has many errors. However, don't ask me what those are. Perhaps Simon himself can point them out. He is a CHA member, although I haven't seen him post in some time. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > According to Simon Becker, one of the Blue Poppy translators of the Yi > Lin Gai Cuo, Neeb's translation of this text has many errors. However, > don't ask me what those are. Perhaps Simon himself can point them out. > He is a CHA member, although I haven't seen him post in some time. I can't help but notice that the front cover of Neeb's translation has a Chinese-English translation error. The Chinese cover says static blood, the English cover says blood stasis. At the terminology meetings I attended in Beijing, all of the major Chinese experts were emphatic that yu xue (static blood) is distinct from xue yu (blood stasis), the former referring to the static blood itself (more like a noun), the latter referring to a condition of the body characterized by blood stasis (such as patterns of blood stasis). I think that if the authors ignore the major trends towards term accuracy on the cover, my hopes can only be so high for the body of the text. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 I agree with you, Eric. Mike L. Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote: , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > According to Simon Becker, one of the Blue Poppy translators of the Yi > Lin Gai Cuo, Neeb's translation of this text has many errors. However, > don't ask me what those are. Perhaps Simon himself can point them out. > He is a CHA member, although I haven't seen him post in some time. I can't help but notice that the front cover of Neeb's translation has a Chinese-English translation error. The Chinese cover says static blood, the English cover says blood stasis. At the terminology meetings I attended in Beijing, all of the major Chinese experts were emphatic that yu xue (static blood) is distinct from xue yu (blood stasis), the former referring to the static blood itself (more like a noun), the latter referring to a condition of the body characterized by blood stasis (such as patterns of blood stasis). I think that if the authors ignore the major trends towards term accuracy on the cover, my hopes can only be so high for the body of the text. Eric Never miss an email again! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Sounds like the difference between stagnated blood and blood stasis/stagnation. Boy, is that ever nuanced! :-) Let's take it to Beijing and see what they say to that! Well, what a difference a few years make. Maybe 5 years ago I would have snapped up the Neeb book. Now, it didn't look so neccessary for myself. Is it that there are a number of books out there to choose from or am I experienced enough to not feel the need to soak up every TCM tidbit. I did buy and am reading and enjoying the Blue Poppy book. I'm really digging the honesty of it, showing how this guy was just wrong about a number of things all the while explaining the way it really is. Doug > Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote: > , " Bob Flaws " > <pemachophel2001@> wrote: > > > > According to Simon Becker, one of the Blue Poppy translators of the Yi > > Lin Gai Cuo, Neeb's translation of this text has many errors. However, > > don't ask me what those are. Perhaps Simon himself can point them out. > > He is a CHA member, although I haven't seen him post in some time. > > I can't help but notice that the front cover of Neeb's translation has > a Chinese-English translation error. The Chinese cover says static > blood, the English cover says blood stasis. At the terminology > meetings I attended in Beijing, all of the major Chinese experts were > emphatic that yu xue (static blood) is distinct from xue yu (blood > stasis), the former referring to the static blood itself (more like a > noun), the latter referring to a condition of the body characterized > by blood stasis (such as patterns of blood stasis). I think that if > the authors ignore the major trends towards term accuracy on the > cover, my hopes can only be so high for the body of the text. > > Eric > Never miss an email again! > Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 Eric et al, You bring up an interesting point, one in which I was puzzled with in the past. I think, though that this distinction you propose is a bit contrived. I think much of the way one defines 'xue yu' or 'yu xue' depends upon how a given author uses the term(s). I have found it somewhat artificial to impose an across the board definition onto such a subtly as this. Therefore I think it is a little premature to deem another's translation as just incorrect based on such a imposed distinction. To be fair though, I have no opinion of whether Neeb's choice is correct or not, I do not have the Chinese text, but context is essential in determining the meaning. To further explain, I have definitely seen in a mainstream nei ke textbook, " yu xue " (static blood) listed as a " condition of the body characterized by blood stasis (such as patterns of blood stasis), " which you state as only for xue yu. Therefore " yu xue " is not used exclusively as " static blood itself (more like a noun). " Actually in this nei ke book the terms are used interchangeable, meaning in different sections the terms are used in the same way (to designate patterns), and visa versa. This may be because of different authors contributing to the book. But either way there is no distinction based merely on the terms that one can assume. I do not deny the comfort that we all would enjoy if whenever we saw the term " yu xue " it always meant " XYZ " , but when we see a single post-graduate level textbook not even follow this basic (suggested) distinction, one has to wonder how important it really is. Or more importantly what the reality of imposing a large scale standardization of terms for all of Chinese medicine, as some suggest. Meaning, if the Chinese books over the years (as a whole) do not follow such distinctions how can we expect to have one system that reflects all of the source texts? Furthermore, I am also looking at my zhong yi ci hai and the definitions are not clear cut in such a manner as you describe. Do others see it different? Therefore, I am not doubting that some committee has decided what each term means, people love to try to nail things down. But this is far from saying that past physicians (and even modern ones) agree with this distinction and therefore follow it. This IMO hits at the heart of the standardization debate. Real life people do not follow the rules that some committee or even some dictionary may present. Translation has to reflect the nuance of the author (especially one who is pre-modern like Wang Qing-Ren, and the book we are discussing that was written in 1830). Therefore one can conclude that such a distinction is not always reflected in the literature, and we must take it case by case. It would be curious how WQR uses the term within the text. Since I have not received my copy yet, can someone fill us in? Z'ev? Eric? - _____ On Behalf Of Eric Brand Monday, June 11, 2007 12:30 PM Re: Stasis Book @ <%40> , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > According to Simon Becker, one of the Blue Poppy translators of the Yi > Lin Gai Cuo, Neeb's translation of this text has many errors. However, > don't ask me what those are. Perhaps Simon himself can point them out. > He is a CHA member, although I haven't seen him post in some time. I can't help but notice that the front cover of Neeb's translation has a Chinese-English translation error. The Chinese cover says static blood, the English cover says blood stasis. At the terminology meetings I attended in Beijing, all of the major Chinese experts were emphatic that yu xue (static blood) is distinct from xue yu (blood stasis), the former referring to the static blood itself (more like a noun), the latter referring to a condition of the body characterized by blood stasis (such as patterns of blood stasis). I think that if the authors ignore the major trends towards term accuracy on the cover, my hopes can only be so high for the body of the text. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2007 Report Share Posted June 11, 2007 A good question, and although I do have the book, it will take me some time to deal with this question. 'Yi Lin Gai Cuo' is a very dense book, with a lot of detail, commentary and case histories. Just the type of text I'd like to sink my teeth into, but slowly over time. On Jun 11, 2007, at 8:27 PM, wrote: > Therefore one can conclude that such a distinction is not always > reflected > in the literature, and we must take it case by case. It would be > curious how > WQR uses the term within the text. Since I have not received my > copy yet, > can someone fill us in? Z'ev? Eric? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Hi Jason, I have this book and have read it pretty much through and through and I think it is a very important addition to a Chinese medical library. Most practitioners fresh out of school have quite a limited sense of blood stasis and treatment strategies for blood stasis. Many of the practitioners I teach pretty much think of Tao Hong Si Wu Tang or Xue Fu Zhu Yu Tang type formulas for blood stasis. In addition, the concept of blood stasis as a branch whose root and cause must be sought is not often understood. Mr. Neeb does a wonderful job at articulating the causative factors of blood stasis, the patho-dynamics and the treatment methods arising from the various causative factors. In addition, he also speaks clearly about the Western medical correlations, some of which are extremely useful for us. I very much appreciate the wide range of case studies he provides to illustrate the way various doctors approach blood stasis for a wide variety of woes. Finally, the discussion and photos of sub-lingual veins is great. I learned stuff I did not know. For me it is kind of the Fluid Phyisology and Pathology of blood stasis and a must. I was under the impression that Will Mclean was doing a book on blood stasis. Anyone know about that? Has anyone checked this one out? Blood Stasis: China's Classical Concept in Modern Medicine by Neeb, Gunther R. Comments? -Jason Sharon Weizenbaum 86 Henry Street Amherst, MA 01002 413-549-4021 sweiz www.whitepinehealingarts.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 He uses the term xue yu about 36 times in the text, the term yu xue about 25 times. From a cursory reading I'd say he usually uses yu xue to indicate a specific incidence of blood occupying a place like " the blood tubes are green, inside there is static blood " ( 血管é’者，内有瘀血), versus his use of xue yu as a name for the phenomena in general, like " the [cause of] profuse dreaming if blood stasis " (夜ç¡æ¢¦å¤šï¼Œæ˜¯è¡€ç˜€). Par Scott - Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:41 AM Re: Re: Stasis Book A good question, and although I do have the book, it will take me some time to deal with this question. 'Yi Lin Gai Cuo' is a very dense book, with a lot of detail, commentary and case histories. Just the type of text I'd like to sink my teeth into, but slowly over time. On Jun 11, 2007, at 8:27 PM, wrote: > Therefore one can conclude that such a distinction is not always > reflected > in the literature, and we must take it case by case. It would be > curious how > WQR uses the term within the text. Since I have not received my > copy yet, > can someone fill us in? Z'ev? Eric? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 I'm sitting here in the Emperors clinic and my colleagues Yang and Lin say that the difference between Yu xue and xue Yu is basically that of noun and verb. Makes my life much easier knowing that. doug nd my , " Par Scott " <parufus wrote: > > He uses the term xue yu about 36 times in the text, the term yu xue about 25 times. From a cursory reading I'd say he usually uses yu xue to indicate a specific incidence of blood occupying a place like " the blood tubes are green, inside there is static blood " ( è¡ €ç®¡é?'者，内有瘀血), versus his use of xue yu as a name for the phenomena in general, like " the [cause of] profuse dreaming if blood stasis " (夜ç?¡æ¢¦å¤šï¼Œæ˜¯è¡ €ç˜€). > > Par Scott > > - > > > Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:41 AM > Re: Re: Stasis Book > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2007 Report Share Posted June 12, 2007 Par, Is Neeb translating yu xue within the text as ¡°static blood¡± and on the cover as ¡°blood stasis¡±? If so, do you feel that this wrong? It is unclear to me at this moment...I assume this title is one he made up? Or is it a translation from a Chinese text? It would be interesting to hear his perspective on this¡ When I was translating part of the nei ke book I mentioned, I had to toy around with a similar issue because of the seemingly casual usages of yu xue and xue yu. Meaning since I could not find any difference in meaning when they used the terms as patterns for disease I many times would translate the terms the same (blood stasis). This forwent confusing the reader with some seemingly artificial distinction, and instead went for transparency. I went back and forth and never really came up with a good solution. Obviously I would probably footnote it if I ever decided to publish it ¡ I am wondering what others think about this? - _____ On Behalf Of Par Scott Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:55 AM Re: Re: Stasis Book He uses the term xue yu about 36 times in the text, the term yu xue about 25 times. From a cursory reading I'd say he usually uses yu xue to indicate a specific incidence of blood occupying a place like " the blood tubes are green, inside there is static blood " ( Ѫ¹ÜÇàÕߣ¬ÄÚÓÐðöѪ), versus his use of xue yu as a name for the phenomena in general, like " the [cause of] profuse dreaming if blood stasis " (ҹ˯Ãζ࣬ÊÇѪðö). Par Scott - @ <%40> Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:41 AM Re: Re: Stasis Book A good question, and although I do have the book, it will take me some time to deal with this question. 'Yi Lin Gai Cuo' is a very dense book, with a lot of detail, commentary and case histories. Just the type of text I'd like to sink my teeth into, but slowly over time. On Jun 11, 2007, at 8:27 PM, wrote: > Therefore one can conclude that such a distinction is not always > reflected > in the literature, and we must take it case by case. It would be > curious how > WQR uses the term within the text. Since I have not received my > copy yet, > can someone fill us in? Z'ev? Eric? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.