Combining TCM with Western Medicine

[Guest guest]

Hi All, & Hi Avery,

 

Re TCM terminology being altered so as not to conflict with WM

knowledge, Avery wrote:

> ...there's something about a system of medicine which has as one of

> its diagnoses the condition of " running piglets " that makes me

> think to lose the terminology might also lose somewhat of the soul

> of the paradigm.

 

I agree - we must try to " keep the soul " . Therefore, we should

KEEP the TCM terminology, preferably in the Pinyin form [with

glossary meaning in the background]. For example, see:

http://tinyurl.com/5ejlp (html version) or

aompress.com/PDF/glossary.pdf (pdf version)

 

Ben Tun (running piglet): A sensation of qi rushing upwards from

the lower abdomen to the chest, epigastrium and throat. There will

generally be concurrent pain, discomfort, alternation of heat and

cold, and palpitations.

 

Why not keep the term Ben Tun, and refer to the Glossary for the

meaning?

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more.

 

 

On Sep 17, 2004, at 7:36 AM, wrote:

 

> Ben Tun (running piglet): A sensation of qi rushing upwards from

> the lower abdomen to the chest, epigastrium and throat. There will

> generally be concurrent pain, discomfort, alternation of heat and

> cold, and palpitations.

>

> Why not keep the term Ben Tun, and refer to the Glossary for the

> meaning?

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I realise what you are trying to say, you think if you change the words then you

change the context. However remember that the Westernized version of TCM is

already an alteration as it has been translated from Chinese to English, the

real problem here is the words chosen in the translation often conflict with

western terminology e.g. a TCM doctor says you have a kidney problem so you go

to a western doctor who then runs tests and says there is nothing wrong with

your kidney, this is because the TCM doctor was not actually talking about the

actual kidney. Dr Lee has changed kidney energy to the vitality system, now

there can be no mistake the two are very clearly different. He has not changed

every single word just the ones that need changing, if you read the book you

will see his new interpretation has not diminished the theory in any way. Its

amazing their is so many points to cover to explain to people how he has done

it. Has no one here read this book I want an informed discussion.

 

Manu

 

< wrote:

Hi All, & Hi Avery,

 

Re TCM terminology being altered so as not to conflict with WM

knowledge, Avery wrote:

> ...there's something about a system of medicine which has as one of

> its diagnoses the condition of " running piglets " that makes me

> think to lose the terminology might also lose somewhat of the soul

> of the paradigm.

 

I agree - we must try to " keep the soul " . Therefore, we should

KEEP the TCM terminology, preferably in the Pinyin form [with

glossary meaning in the background]. For example, see:

http://tinyurl.com/5ejlp (html version) or

aompress.com/PDF/glossary.pdf (pdf version)

 

Ben Tun (running piglet): A sensation of qi rushing upwards from

the lower abdomen to the chest, epigastrium and throat. There will

generally be concurrent pain, discomfort, alternation of heat and

cold, and palpitations.

 

Why not keep the term Ben Tun, and refer to the Glossary for the

meaning?

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin

<manuhamlin> wrote:

> Hi

>

> I realise what you are trying to say, you think if you change the

words then you change the context. However remember that the

Westernized version of TCM is already an alteration as it has been

translated from Chinese to English, the real problem here is the

words chosen in the translation often conflict with western

terminology e.g. a TCM doctor says you have a kidney problem so you

go to a western doctor who then runs tests and says there is nothing

wrong with your kidney, this is because the TCM doctor was not

actually talking about the actual kidney. Dr Lee has changed kidney

energy to the vitality system, now there can be no mistake the two

are very clearly different. He has not changed every single word just

the ones that need changing, if you read the book you will see his

new interpretation has not diminished the theory in any way. Its

amazing their is so many points to cover to explain to people how he

has done it. Has no one here read this book I want an informed

discussion.

>

> Manu

 

I am always very skeptical about the claim that someone successfully

integrate WM and TCM. I have to admit that I have never read the book

you talked about. However, I am interested to know how Zheng

diagnosis (pattern-oriented) in TCM is combined with WM (disease-

oriented) in an integrated manner.

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

Another point to ponder, if we dont change the conflicting and confusing

terminology in TCM then W.M. will never be able to accept T.C.M. The reason

this worries me so much is that eventually W.M. cannot understand the theory

there is a strong possibility that it will swallow and destroy TCM. e.g.

extracting a single ingredient from a herb and concentrating it rather than

using a mixture of un processed herbs to balance the body. This may sound like

paranoia but is already happening with the strong power of the pharmaceutical

industry trying to control its shrinking market share. The best way to prevent

this is to become understandable in Western society, thus removing any

justification.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

< wrote:

Hi All, & Hi Avery,

 

Re TCM terminology being altered so as not to conflict with WM

knowledge, Avery wrote:

> ...there's something about a system of medicine which has as one of

> its diagnoses the condition of " running piglets " that makes me

> think to lose the terminology might also lose somewhat of the soul

> of the paradigm.

 

I agree - we must try to " keep the soul " . Therefore, we should

KEEP the TCM terminology, preferably in the Pinyin form [with

glossary meaning in the background]. For example, see:

http://tinyurl.com/5ejlp (html version) or

aompress.com/PDF/glossary.pdf (pdf version)

 

Ben Tun (running piglet): A sensation of qi rushing upwards from

the lower abdomen to the chest, epigastrium and throat. There will

generally be concurrent pain, discomfort, alternation of heat and

cold, and palpitations.

 

Why not keep the term Ben Tun, and refer to the Glossary for the

meaning?

 

 

Best regards,

 

[Guest guest]

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don't find CM terminology

to be 'conflicting and confusing'. If one explains it well, as I have

at lectures in medical schools, both WM personnel and laypeople can

understand it. The argument here that CM terminology is 'conflicting

and confusing' is a red flag for me.

 

Also, one individual taking on the challenge of 'changing' the

terminology is a red flag. While I am not going to pay almost 300.00

with shipping to buy this book, I'll be glad to review a copy anytime.

 

 

On Sep 19, 2004, at 9:20 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> Another point to ponder, if we dont change the conflicting and

> confusing terminology in TCM then W.M. will never be able to accept

> T.C.M. The reason this worries me so much is that eventually W.M.

> cannot understand the theory there is a strong possibility that it

> will swallow and destroy TCM.

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

You will most likely find the book at the library, whether you buy a copy or not

is no skin off my nose I have no vested interest. However I have no plans to

post you my copy at great expense. I agree people can understand TCM with good

explanation & time, however if you want TCM to be excepted by the west you need

to remove the mystic terminology. I think we are talking different subjects

here, I am talking about combining the two medicines while you are talking about

TCM moving along as it always has. What you consider to be of little importance

regarding terminology will be a major hurdle when trying to combine.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

<zrosenbe wrote:

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don't find CM terminology

to be 'conflicting and confusing'. If one explains it well, as I have

at lectures in medical schools, both WM personnel and laypeople can

understand it. The argument here that CM terminology is 'conflicting

and confusing' is a red flag for me.

 

Also, one individual taking on the challenge of 'changing' the

terminology is a red flag. While I am not going to pay almost 300.00

with shipping to buy this book, I'll be glad to review a copy anytime.

 

 

On Sep 19, 2004, at 9:20 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> Another point to ponder, if we dont change the conflicting and

> confusing terminology in TCM then W.M. will never be able to accept

> T.C.M. The reason this worries me so much is that eventually W.M.

> cannot understand the theory there is a strong possibility that it

> will swallow and destroy TCM.

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

If you were not skeptical I would not bother talking to you, this tells me you

really have some knowledge on this subject. I will do my best to answer you

question however this is no simple answer as this took a 500 page book to

explain it. What you are relating to is that TCM and WM both use different modes

of thinking. Dr Lee explains that WM uses a linear mode of thinking e.g. very

singular in mindset. TCM uses a non-linear mode of thinking e.g. sees everything

as a group or system, if you change one aspect you effect all the others. TCM

aims to improve health, WM aims to attack the illness. Its is obvious that these

two medicines are the exact opposite to each other so would seem rather

differcult to combine.The first point I will make is that in order to combine

the two neither medicine should be altered, instead you need a new set of laws

to govern the relationship of the two medicines. This is rather hard to explain

so much in a short .

 

First law states that good health is the harmony of body, energy and

spirit(mind). This means that all three of these factors are interelated and

inseperable.The second law states that medicine should allow both linear and non

linear modes of thinking. Your questions would need about 50 pages to explain it

clearly and fully too you. I suggest you go to your library and get the book im

guessing they will have it.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Tan Jit Kiat <jitkiatt wrote:

Chinese Medicine , manu hamlin

<manuhamlin> wrote:

> Hi

>

> I realise what you are trying to say, you think if you change the

words then you change the context. However remember that the

Westernized version of TCM is already an alteration as it has been

translated from Chinese to English, the real problem here is the

words chosen in the translation often conflict with western

terminology e.g. a TCM doctor says you have a kidney problem so you

go to a western doctor who then runs tests and says there is nothing

wrong with your kidney, this is because the TCM doctor was not

actually talking about the actual kidney. Dr Lee has changed kidney

energy to the vitality system, now there can be no mistake the two

are very clearly different. He has not changed every single word just

the ones that need changing, if you read the book you will see his

new interpretation has not diminished the theory in any way. Its

amazing their is so many points to cover to explain to people how he

has done it. Has no one here read this book I want an informed

discussion.

>

> Manu

 

I am always very skeptical about the claim that someone successfully

integrate WM and TCM. I have to admit that I have never read the book

you talked about. However, I am interested to know how Zheng

diagnosis (pattern-oriented) in TCM is combined with WM (disease-

oriented) in an integrated manner.