Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts aswell as oral traditions. For all members, please beware of academic `excellence'. It often leads to a condescending perspective. I would advise all members wanting to tread down that road to remember their common virtues and reflect what once they were at the spot others find themselves. Attilio " " wrote: > Chinese Medicine , " Rich " > <rfinkelstein@a...> wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > > > Can I ask you which books from PRC China - Chinese medical or > > otherwise - do you rely on for " historical facts " ? > > > > Regards, > > Rich > > I rely mainly on Unschuld, as stated previously. As you know his > sources are immense and he does not MSU. His 'facts' might be > debatable, but that is another issue. I.e. In Medicine in China he > has approx 70 (primary) Chinese sources, 29 Japanese and Chinese > secondary sources, and over 100+ secondary western sources. I would > never attempt to make historical connections or assumptions on my own, > I am just not well read enough. All I can do is mention someone that > has spent there life work doing such things. But as we all know, > history is a slippery slope in and of itself, but one can only go on > what is presented, not what one believes (IMO). > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Chinese Medicine , " Attilio DAlberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts > aswell as oral traditions. > Attilio, What is meant by traditional Chinese Texts? Does Unschuld ignore these? Also, as stated in my post, history is a slippery slope, meaning truth can be invasive, but why couldn't I rely on Unschuld (a historian) as a valid PERSPECTIVE of the past? That seems odd. What about N. Sivin (another of my sources), can I really on him? If not I am unsure what you suggest. Is word of mouth more accurate that a presentaion / compliation taken from 100's of chinese and western sources? Or you say I must read all the traditional chinese sources for myself? Puzzled, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Attilio, I am very disappointed in this posting from you. Academic excellence doesn't have to lead to arrogance, and without scholarship our field cannot hope to survive. Many people on this list are not only practitioners, but teachers as well. If teachers make specific statements than are either innovative or erroneous, it is their responsibility to own up to this, and to be challenged. Those who are in the spot of being relatively new to the practice of Chinese medicine listen to those of us who are teachers, and if we represent Chinese medicine as something it is not, we are spreading false information to our next generation of practitioners and the general public. You cannot have a situation where 'everything is right' in medicine. While certainly there are many perspectives and streams in Chinese medicine, not every idea proposed here is correct. Ideas are meant to be debated, sourced and tried in clinic. While academic and personal freedoms can be great stimuli for creativity, we are running the risk of allowing eclecticism to completely obscure the original subject of Chinese medicine in the West. This will lead to a field that is 'Chinese medicine' in name only, but becomes a grab-bag of half-formed techniques gleaned from multiple sources. What we are really talking about in this forum is what is the future of Chinese medicine in the West? On Aug 2, 2004, at 7:21 AM, wrote: > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts > aswell as oral traditions. > > For all members, please beware of academic `excellence'. It often > leads to a condescending perspective. I would advise all members > wanting to tread down that road to remember their common virtues and > reflect what once they were at the spot others find themselves. > > Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I never suggested not using Unschuld, that's a ridiculous notion. What I'm saying is, is that you can't condemn others the way you do when you only rely, as you stated, on one source. This is ludicrous. Attilio " " wrote: > Chinese Medicine , " Attilio > DAlberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts > > aswell as oral traditions. > > > Attilio, > > What is meant by traditional Chinese Texts? Does Unschuld ignore > these? Also, as stated in my post, history is a slippery slope, > meaning truth can be invasive, but why couldn't I rely on Unschuld (a > historian) as a valid PERSPECTIVE of the past? That seems odd. What > about N. Sivin (another of my sources), can I really on him? If not I > am unsure what you suggest. Is word of mouth more accurate that a > presentaion / compliation taken from 100's of chinese and western > sources? Or you say I must read all the traditional chinese sources > for myself? Puzzled, > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Jason listed both Unschuld & Sivin as sources, which is certainly not ONE source. He also didn't imply that his reading was limited to those two. I happen to know for a fact that when Jason isn't seeing patients he typically is reading & /or translating Chinese medicine. It's patently obvious through years of posts on various newsgroups that he is well read in both theory & history from english & chinese language sources. You may not like his tone, but don't question his scholarship unless you can cite unambigous evidence. I for one am always careful to check " the sources of my source " due in no small part to the repeated encouraging of Jason, Z'ev, et al. -Tim Sharpe [ Monday, August 02, 2004 10:09 AM Chinese Medicine Re: study of TCM I never suggested not using Unschuld, that's a ridiculous notion. What I'm saying is, is that you can't condemn others the way you do when you only rely, as you stated, on one source. This is ludicrous. Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I never made any comments towards Jason's academic intelligence for one thing Tim. Secondly, I've been in one of the largest bookshops in Beijing and seen the thousands of books on TCM. Therefore, to stake your views to one or even two books, as the ones stated by Jason, is nothing more than laughable in my opinion. Kind regards Attilio www.chinesedoctor.co.uk <http://www.chinesedoctor.co.uk/> Tim Sharpe [listserve] 02 August 2004 17:25 Chinese Medicine Re: study of TCM Jason listed both Unschuld & Sivin as sources, which is certainly not ONE source. He also didn't imply that his reading was limited to those two. I happen to know for a fact that when Jason isn't seeing patients he typically is reading & /or translating Chinese medicine. It's patently obvious through years of posts on various newsgroups that he is well read in both theory & history from english & chinese language sources. You may not like his tone, but don't question his scholarship unless you can cite unambigous evidence. I for one am always careful to check " the sources of my source " due in no small part to the repeated encouraging of Jason, Z'ev, et al. -Tim Sharpe [ Monday, August 02, 2004 10:09 AM Chinese Medicine Re: study of TCM I never suggested not using Unschuld, that's a ridiculous notion. What I'm saying is, is that you can't condemn others the way you do when you only rely, as you stated, on one source. This is ludicrous. Attilio Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear. http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Attilio wrote: " I've been in one of the largest bookshops in Beijing and seen the thousands of books on TCM. Therefore, to stake your views to one or even two books, as the ones stated by Jason, is nothing more than laughable in my opinion. " I guess 99% of us can stake no claim to an opinion on any TCM topic given our insufferably insufficient exposure to the thousands of available texts in BeiJing. How many on this list do you think have read more than several books on ANY single TCM topic (I wonder how many we have to read before we should consider posting in the future?) For that matter, how many single topics are covered by multiple English language books? Indeed, we all are clearly doomed to sub-mediocrity. Seems to me that you're claiming that with only a few sources on a given topic we are incapable of sharing meaningful dialogue. Sarcasm aside, perhaps you could point us to the professional level texts you have read that afford you the unique situation of actually appearing even haughtier than JB on this matter. Or, if you weren't claiming personal knowledge, perhaps you can tell us how many of those texts in BeiJing were treatises on medical history undertaken with the same level of scholarship & detail as Unschuld, otherwise we aren't comparing apples with apples. It seems to me that mentioning the quantity of info available in Chinese is a trump card to be played lightly in these discussions lest you invalidate the opinions of nearly everyone, which makes for a very elitist perch from which to stand. PS - I didn't think Jason said that his exposure to Chinese history was exclusively limited to two authors, I thought he just mentioned a couple of people that we would all be familiar with. Either I remember incorrectly, or you're jumping to conclusions. -Tim Sharpe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Chinese Medicine , " Attilio DAlberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > I never suggested not using Unschuld, that's a ridiculous notion. > What I'm saying is, is that you can't condemn others the way you do > when you only rely, as you stated, on one source. This is ludicrous. > > Attilio What are you talking about... When Did I ever say I use one source. And when did I ever condemn others based on one source??? Do have repuable historical sources that counter what I have said, if so let's see it. - > > " " wrote: > > Chinese Medicine , " Attilio > > DAlberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > > > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > > > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese > texts > > > aswell as oral traditions. > > > > > Attilio, > > > > What is meant by traditional Chinese Texts? Does Unschuld ignore > > these? Also, as stated in my post, history is a slippery slope, > > meaning truth can be invasive, but why couldn't I rely on Unschuld > (a > > historian) as a valid PERSPECTIVE of the past? That seems odd. > What > > about N. Sivin (another of my sources), can I really on him? If > not I > > am unsure what you suggest. Is word of mouth more accurate that a > > presentaion / compliation taken from 100's of chinese and western > > sources? Or you say I must read all the traditional chinese sources > > for myself? Puzzled, > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 JB as you put it, made a reference to Unschuld in his original quote. That's why I replied the way I did. I have not made any comments until now on JB's emotional intent woven into his messages, but it is laden with a condescending attitude that I do not agree. I do not, as you suggest, need to list the literature or teachers I have worked with, this is childish stupidity. All I have to say is that I am a qualified TCM practitioner willing to continue my learning in all sources and from all teachers. Trump card, please....take it elsewhere. Kind regards Attilio www.chinesedoctor.co.uk <http://www.chinesedoctor.co.uk/> Tim Sharpe [listserve] 02 August 2004 19:36 Chinese Medicine Re: study of TCM Attilio wrote: " I've been in one of the largest bookshops in Beijing and seen the thousands of books on TCM. Therefore, to stake your views to one or even two books, as the ones stated by Jason, is nothing more than laughable in my opinion. " I guess 99% of us can stake no claim to an opinion on any TCM topic given our insufferably insufficient exposure to the thousands of available texts in BeiJing. How many on this list do you think have read more than several books on ANY single TCM topic (I wonder how many we have to read before we should consider posting in the future?) For that matter, how many single topics are covered by multiple English language books? Indeed, we all are clearly doomed to sub-mediocrity. Seems to me that you're claiming that with only a few sources on a given topic we are incapable of sharing meaningful dialogue. Sarcasm aside, perhaps you could point us to the professional level texts you have read that afford you the unique situation of actually appearing even haughtier than JB on this matter. Or, if you weren't claiming personal knowledge, perhaps you can tell us how many of those texts in BeiJing were treatises on medical history undertaken with the same level of scholarship & detail as Unschuld, otherwise we aren't comparing apples with apples. It seems to me that mentioning the quantity of info available in Chinese is a trump card to be played lightly in these discussions lest you invalidate the opinions of nearly everyone, which makes for a very elitist perch from which to stand. PS - I didn't think Jason said that his exposure to Chinese history was exclusively limited to two authors, I thought he just mentioned a couple of people that we would all be familiar with. Either I remember incorrectly, or you're jumping to conclusions. -Tim Sharpe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Hi Z'ev, Pardon my butting in here. You're a dear friend to me, so I figured you might give me leave to speak here. It looked to me like Attilio was writing too quickly. If you look again at his post, the first sentence doesn't make any sense. It appears that he might be attempting to say that " you can't really rely on any one source " for English translations and that you need to use the original traditional Chinese texts as well. I might well be putting words into Attilio's mouth, but I sense that you and Attilio see eye to eye on this point. Regarding his comment on academic excellence being a problem, he may be reflecting on his recent experience in the clinical setting. I'm trying for a good interpretation on this because I sense that you and Attilio would generally see eye to eye on both academics as well as clinical practice though Attilio has many years to go to catch up with your experience. What do you think? My sense also is that Jason has been a bit strident in his presentations and that people's emotions might have peaked here. Folks might need to back off a bit to refocus on what's agreed upon and what needs fine tuning. In friendship, Emmanuel Segmen - Chinese Medicine Monday, August 02, 2004 7:57 AM Re: Re: study of TCM Attilio, I am very disappointed in this posting from you. Academic excellence doesn't have to lead to arrogance, and without scholarship our field cannot hope to survive. Many people on this list are not only practitioners, but teachers as well. If teachers make specific statements than are either innovative or erroneous, it is their responsibility to own up to this, and to be challenged. Those who are in the spot of being relatively new to the practice of Chinese medicine listen to those of us who are teachers, and if we represent Chinese medicine as something it is not, we are spreading false information to our next generation of practitioners and the general public. You cannot have a situation where 'everything is right' in medicine. While certainly there are many perspectives and streams in Chinese medicine, not every idea proposed here is correct. Ideas are meant to be debated, sourced and tried in clinic. While academic and personal freedoms can be great stimuli for creativity, we are running the risk of allowing eclecticism to completely obscure the original subject of Chinese medicine in the West. This will lead to a field that is 'Chinese medicine' in name only, but becomes a grab-bag of half-formed techniques gleaned from multiple sources. What we are really talking about in this forum is what is the future of Chinese medicine in the West? On Aug 2, 2004, at 7:21 AM, wrote: > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts > aswell as oral traditions. > > For all members, please beware of academic `excellence'. It often > leads to a condescending perspective. I would advise all members > wanting to tread down that road to remember their common virtues and > reflect what once they were at the spot others find themselves. > > Attilio Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear, religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear. http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Hi Emmanuel and Zev, Thanks for butting in Emmanuel, you portrayed my views in a clear and true manner. I'm finding in my life, that most disharmonies amongst people come about from misunderstandings. If you take a closer look at all these instances, you'll be surprised as to how many it makes up. Disagreement, we all think is the main sponsor of disharmony, but it just isn't so. It will be interesting if the relationship amongst the Zangfu is made up of misunderstandings with the mother-son's instead of disagreements. Again here, it is a misunderstanding amongst colleagues. Yes, Emmanuel I was writing to quickly, or rather I didn't re-read the message before I pressed the send button, which I usually do. My Yang was rising and hastened my typing. In these instances, its wise to take five, have a cup of tea and stroke the cat. Academic excellence shouldn't lead to arrogance as that defeats the essence of the notion of academic excellence. Aren't we all striving towards what we perceive as a purer form of the truth? In this, shouldn't we be also developing on a personal level aswell as academic? Alas, it can also lead to a condescending nature as I've seen it in my own life and others. We see this all the time in allopathic medicine, confusing the patients with their own breed of language. Again, all misunderstandings. If we all aim to be the best in our chosen academic field, then we may have less misunderstandings. Kind regards Attilio P.S. I can't seem to back-track to your original message Zev. Seems to be missing from the archives. Emmanuel Segmen [susegmen] 02 August 2004 23:00 Chinese Medicine Re: Re: study of TCM Hi Z'ev, Pardon my butting in here. You're a dear friend to me, so I figured you might give me leave to speak here. It looked to me like Attilio was writing too quickly. If you look again at his post, the first sentence doesn't make any sense. It appears that he might be attempting to say that " you can't really rely on any one source " for English translations and that you need to use the original traditional Chinese texts as well. I might well be putting words into Attilio's mouth, but I sense that you and Attilio see eye to eye on this point. Regarding his comment on academic excellence being a problem, he may be reflecting on his recent experience in the clinical setting. I'm trying for a good interpretation on this because I sense that you and Attilio would generally see eye to eye on both academics as well as clinical practice though Attilio has many years to go to catch up with your experience. What do you think? My sense also is that Jason has been a bit strident in his presentations and that people's emotions might have peaked here. Folks might need to back off a bit to refocus on what's agreed upon and what needs fine tuning. In friendship, Emmanuel Segmen - Chinese Medicine Monday, August 02, 2004 7:57 AM Re: Re: study of TCM Attilio, I am very disappointed in this posting from you. Academic excellence doesn't have to lead to arrogance, and without scholarship our field cannot hope to survive. Many people on this list are not only practitioners, but teachers as well. If teachers make specific statements than are either innovative or erroneous, it is their responsibility to own up to this, and to be challenged. Those who are in the spot of being relatively new to the practice of Chinese medicine listen to those of us who are teachers, and if we represent Chinese medicine as something it is not, we are spreading false information to our next generation of practitioners and the general public. You cannot have a situation where 'everything is right' in medicine. While certainly there are many perspectives and streams in Chinese medicine, not every idea proposed here is correct. Ideas are meant to be debated, sourced and tried in clinic. While academic and personal freedoms can be great stimuli for creativity, we are running the risk of allowing eclecticism to completely obscure the original subject of Chinese medicine in the West. This will lead to a field that is 'Chinese medicine' in name only, but becomes a grab-bag of half-formed techniques gleaned from multiple sources. What we are really talking about in this forum is what is the future of Chinese medicine in the West? On Aug 2, 2004, at 7:21 AM, wrote: > You cannot surely rely on source even though Unschuld is a well > known and respected source. You must use traditional Chinese texts > aswell as oral traditions. > > For all members, please beware of academic `excellence'. It often > leads to a condescending perspective. I would advise all members > wanting to tread down that road to remember their common virtues and > reflect what once they were at the spot others find themselves. > > Attilio 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.