more neat TCM terms

October 5, 2004

It is also insteresting to consider that generally (at least at my

school) we are taught Xu for defeciency, in other words, this is the

common word used. Yet for excess we do not use Shi, we know it, but it

is just not commonly used in spoken dialogue. This desire for ease is

evidence all the more when we consider the lack of use of Wiseman's

translations. It is also interesting that we are taught almost entirely

by Chinese teachers. There is always the difficulty of translation, and

there is continually felt the lack of what they are thinking (as we

intuit) and what they are saying; i can not imagine them using Wiseman's

terms, i am frankly surprised that we are not exposed to more (and

required to learn) sophisticated Chinese Terms whereby we are the ones

that must interior-translate (as we automatically do with common terms).

Personally i would prefer to be taught from foundations on the more

concrete Chinese terminology, rather than the simplified English.

Although Wiseman is certainly offering much in the way of a larger

diction, still it is just not useable and therefore somewhat extraneous

to me. I certainly respect him and the work he has done, but having to

be bilingual with Western Medicine already confounds me, more TCM

translations is just simply more work.

Tymothy

I hear what you are saying here and I myself find it difficult to use

vacuous and repletion. I think this is primarily due to spending the

first 5 years of my TCM education using deficiency and excess. I must

admit that as a undergraduate student I was very against Wiseman who I

initially viewed as using bizarre and difficult English to cover the

same concepts I was taught in class. This all changed during my

clinical internship in China which opened my eyes to the total lack of

vocabulary and the severe simplification of TCM terminology taught in

the West. I have been a convert since this time; but still find it

often awkward and unwieldy to use vocally.

IMO, I don't think it matters if you use deficiency, vacuity or xu for

this concept as long as you and who you are communicating with know

what each other is talking about. However, this does not stand for all

TCM terminology and especially so beyond the basics of xu, shi, xie and

bu. I think this is basically because before Wiseman's references came

along our vocabulary was so small and thus not sufficient to understand

as the Chinese do. Wiseman's approach simply gives us

on option to get closer to the range of terms and vocabulary and usage

beyond TCM 101, something only those who could read Chinese had access

to before his efforts.

In the end I think the difficulty of saying a word or the danger of

placing a preconceived definition upon it fades into insignificance

compared to the benefits of actually having access to the concepts in

English (or Chinese for that matter), something we in the west have

generally been sheltered from.

Best Wishes,

Steve

--

Tymothy

jellyphish

October 5, 2004

HI Tymothy,

Just simply more work? I don't believe Chinese medicine should be

simplified or the knowledge necessary to practice lessened in volume in

the English speaking world (IMO is should actually be increased) just

because it is too much work or the learning the awkward terminology

necessary is too hard.

I also struggled (and still do) with the lack of depth in detail of

terminology in most of TCM material in English. It just leaves too many

gaping holes and links in the logic inherent in TCM; especially in the

link between pattern differentiation and treatment principles.

This is especially apparent when using herbs. Xu and Shi, Bu and Xie

may cover most of acupuncture treatment principles, but they are

woefully inadequate when analysing multiple pattern differentiation and

applying subsequent complex herbal formula's in real life patients.

During my undergraduate studies I became very familiar with even the

best English speaking Chinese lecturers struggling to communicate what

they knew or wanted to explain. You could see that there was often a

relatively simply answer......they just didn't have the vocabulary to

transmit it; and often just kept repeating the same simply English term

they had been taught as if it would eventually sink-in to us. This

common problem with Chinese teachers lacking the English vocabulary to

express the TCM concepts in English to a comparable depth and accuracy

is the cause of much frustration for both teacher and student. This is

precisely the reason we need a good dictionary and terminological

glossary so in the future; our learned Chinese teachers can communicate

with us and us understand what they are trying to convey without

oversimplification and lack of depth. Teachers with EXCELLENT English

skills can use teaching tools such as analogies to explain concepts or

meanings with everyday English or examples from nature/life. However

this is fine if we then have a term to attach this meaning to for

future reference and a source we can consult when we ineviatly forget

it.

Unfortunately, pinyin is not the answer for non-chinese speakers.

Firstly we usually miss the tone in spoken pinyin, which leaves us with

less than 300 pinyin syllables (most of which are not commonly used

anyway) to convey all of TCM. Pinyin is only of very limited in

usefulness in subjects as detailed as medicine when not attached to

characters for reference. Sure, xu and shi, bu and xie are ok if we

only use pinyin for a few dozens terms...........but when we try to

cover a " reasonable " TCM vocabulary with it, we may be left with 14

xu's, 27 shi's etc.

I have come to the conclusion that the reason the majority of our

current Chinese teachers do not use a bigger vocabulary (let alone the

Wiseman one) is that THEY were taught this simplified version of TCM

for teaching native English speakers. The irony of this situation is

the prevailing belief that Westerners are " dumb " and need TCM

" simplified " for them, and even then they still have difficulty

understanding it (this is often the conversation between Chinese

doctors in hospitals and lecturers when you know enough Chinese or have

a friend translate for you). The actual problem is that the simplified

version we are taught has so many logical inadequacies and leaves out

so much vital information that an intelligent and logical understanding

of the medicine is impossible. What I mean is that we seem stupid

because we are not given all (or even most) of the pieces to put

together the puzzle. These pieces all rely on an accurate and detailed

translation system.

I believe our Chinese teachers are unaware of these gaps of logic

because they still think in Chinese, but only translate limited parts

of their complete Chinese thought process in English because they

assume this is sufficient. It just isn't so.

Of course Wiseman is " simply not useable " unless the teacher knows it

inside out and the student takes the time to learn the term

definitions. This is the same in ANY profession or specialisation. For

example, the Latin/Greek terminology of WM or botany is just as

difficult for those who do not have extensive practice studying and

using it. IMO, compared to anatomy or botany.......Wiseman is a

cakewalk. I am beginning to think that the problem many have with the

" awkwardness " of Wiseman's terminology is that it is actually too

" English " , not Latin, and therefore our cup if full so to speak when it

comes to learning new definitions for English words.

I would be interested to hear an alternative to the necessary study and

hard work to become a knowledgeable TCM practitioner. I have learnt

more every year since graduation than I did in the 5 years of

undergraduate study. The question is not if we need to learn a more

detailed and accurate TCM terminology (either in Chinese or English);

it is WHEN we knuckle down to tackle it.

Best Wishes,

Steve

On 05/10/2004, at 11:06 AM, Tymothy wrote:

>

> It is also insteresting to consider that generally (at least at my

> school) we are taught Xu for defeciency, in other words, this is the

> common word used. Yet for excess we do not use Shi, we know it, but it

> is just not commonly used in spoken dialogue. This desire for ease is

> evidence all the more when we consider the lack of use of Wiseman's

> translations. It is also interesting that we are taught almost entirely

> by Chinese teachers. There is always the difficulty of translation, and

> there is continually felt the lack of what they are thinking (as we

> intuit) and what they are saying; i can not imagine them using

> Wiseman's

> terms, i am frankly surprised that we are not exposed to more (and

> required to learn) sophisticated Chinese Terms whereby we are the ones

> that must interior-translate (as we automatically do with common

> terms).

> Personally i would prefer to be taught from foundations on the more

> concrete Chinese terminology, rather than the simplified English.

> Although Wiseman is certainly offering much in the way of a larger

> diction, still it is just not useable and therefore somewhat extraneous

> to me. I certainly respect him and the work he has done, but having to

> be bilingual with Western Medicine already confounds me, more TCM

> translations is just simply more work.

> Tymothy

>

> I hear what you are saying here and I myself find it difficult to use

> vacuous and repletion. I think this is primarily due to spending the

> first 5 years of my TCM education using deficiency and excess. I must

> admit that as a undergraduate student I was very against Wiseman who I

> initially viewed as using bizarre and difficult English to cover the

> same concepts I was taught in class. This all changed during my

> clinical internship in China which opened my eyes to the total lack of

> vocabulary and the severe simplification of TCM terminology taught in

> the West. I have been a convert since this time; but still find it

> often awkward and unwieldy to use vocally.

>

> IMO, I don't think it matters if you use deficiency, vacuity or xu for

> this concept as long as you and who you are communicating with know

> what each other is talking about. However, this does not stand for all

> TCM terminology and especially so beyond the basics of xu, shi, xie and

> bu. I think this is basically because before Wiseman's references came

> along our vocabulary was so small and thus not sufficient to understand

> as the Chinese do. Wiseman's approach simply gives us

> on option to get closer to the range of terms and vocabulary and usage

> beyond TCM 101, something only those who could read Chinese had access

> to before his efforts.

>

> In the end I think the difficulty of saying a word or the danger of

> placing a preconceived definition upon it fades into insignificance

> compared to the benefits of actually having access to the concepts in

> English (or Chinese for that matter), something we in the west have

> generally been sheltered from.

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Steve

October 5, 2004

Hi Tymothy and Steve,

>

> This is especially apparent when using herbs. Xu and Shi, Bu and Xie

> may cover most of acupuncture treatment principles, but they are

> woefully inadequate when analysing multiple pattern differentiation and

> applying subsequent complex herbal formula's in real life patients.

>

I believe that this is the crux of the issue. In many respects, the

" vocabulary " necessary to treat with herbs is a manifestation of the

modality that has been chosen to treat the patient. A similarly

complex vocabulary exists with other non-CM modalities such as

homeopathy. The reperatorization process of homeopathy is incredibly

complex. For many years my good friend who is a D.C had been trying to

reperatorize based upon " symptoms " but finally he discovered, on his

own, a technique to reperatorize based upon cranial-sacral feeling

which was far better for him.

I believe that the vocabulary of herbology is so huge because of the

permutations of possible herb formulas and their corresponding affect

on the human body is so spectacularly huge and complex. So in order to

map a given " formula " to a given " mind/body condition " (very similar

to homeopathy), requires either:

1) using very long descriptive sentences and paragraphs to describe

the condition or

2) a very large vocabularly - each word basically representing some

very long desriptive sentence or paragraph.

The reason, I believe, that other modalities such as qigong and

tuina/anmo do not require such a large vocabularly, (my teacher only

uses " cold " , " warm " , " stagnant " , " blocked " ), is because of the

modality. NO diagnosis is required.

The practitioner in this case is using his/her Mind to determine the

overall description of the body during the process of treatment and is

directly affecting the body during the process of treatment. There is

no need to " map " a " mind/body condition " to " herb formula " . In

essence, the practitioner's mind is doing all of the " mapping "

immediately during treatment. This I believe is the basic difference

between the " direct " treatment of (i.e. practitioner touching and

treating the body directly) and " indirect " treatments through herbs.

My guess is that those practitioners who practice acupuncture use more

limited vocabulary for the same reason, especially if they are

choosing points by palpating the body.

It is interersting that the reporatization process (and vocabularly)

issues are so similar between homeopathy and herbology. I think it

lies in the inherent process of matching " patterns " to remedies

(forumulas). So should there be seperate books and classes for those

who choose herbology as their modality? I doubt anyone who is using

qigong and tuina will ever need such a vocabularly. Interestingly, it

seems more clear to me now why Tom Tam mentions that within his

healing system he uses acupuncture, tuina, and qigong but not herbs.

Maybe it is the " complexity " issue.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Rich

October 5, 2004

It is interesting to me that people keep focusing on the same examples

(repletion/vacuity) instead of the vast majority of entries in the

dictionary, which do not use difficult English at all. Is is so

difficult to understand wind heart pain, fright palpitations, heat

scorching kidney yin, rib-side pain, or transport points? What is the

problem with making the small effort to learn a few more difficult

English terms? Please, don't let it distract you from exploring the

richness of this dictionary. Patients and practitioners of CM in the

West seem to have little problem learning complex biomedical terms (my

students and patients certainly don't), they spin off terms such as

thrombocytopenia with ease. Why should we have problems with strangury

or vacuity? Are they more difficult than 'fibromyalgia'?

The other problem you mention is serious, in my opinion. My experience

is the same as yours, that a large percentage of native

Chinese-speaking teachers do not effectively translate their experience

and teachings into English. Of course, this is a very controversial

subject, and one hard to touch on directly. But it does need to be

addressed.

On Oct 4, 2004, at 6:06 PM, Tymothy wrote:

> It is also insteresting to consider that generally (at least at my

> school) we are taught Xu for defeciency, in other words, this is the

> common word used. Yet for excess we do not use Shi, we know it, but it

> is just not commonly used in spoken dialogue. This desire for ease is

> evidence all the more when we consider the lack of use of Wiseman's

> translations. It is also interesting that we are taught almost entirely

> by Chinese teachers.

October 6, 2004

It's not a question of difficulty, but of accuracy.

The answer is that most biomedical terms have a structure which refers

to the part of the body involved and the nature of the pathology,

based on a Latin or Greek derivation. They are neologisms in the sense

that they are newly constructed words based on classically derived

building blocks. Therefore they are less easily confused with anything

similar in our ordinary language.

This is completely different to re-using existing English words that

already have meaning and connotations in a different context.

Taking strangury and vacuity as an example:

Use of words like vacuity is an inaccurate and misleading use of

English. My Oxford Dictionary of English (2003) says:

" Vacuous (adjective): having or showing a lack of thought or

intelligence;mindless, eg 'a vacuous smile' " The derivative noun is

" vacuity " . As a footnote it also mentions an archaic 17th century use

of the term which meant empty.

Use of obscure words like strangury just unnecessarily complicates

matters. It has a specific western medical meaning which is narrower

than the range of types of Lin syndrome. Painful urination syndrome

seems a perfectly good term which everyone understood, (I prefer just

Lin disease as its less of a mouthful): the only reason for changing

it to strangury, it seems to me, is to deliberately be different so as

to mark out territory.

The previous 'detente' solution whereby someone should write TCM

articles that use their own terminology, and then provide a

cross-refence glossary which relate their terms to Wiseman's terms,

which then someone has to look up in an English dictionary to get an

idea of what the English words mean , strikes me as a comic replay of

the Tower of Babel.

Has the world gone mad?

Godfrey Bartlett

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Patients and practitioners of CM in the

> West seem to have little problem learning complex biomedical terms

(my

> students and patients certainly don't), they spin off terms such as

> thrombocytopenia with ease.

> Why should we have problems with strangury or vacuity? Are they

more > difficult than 'fibromyalgia'?

October 6, 2004

Hi Godfrey,

> The previous 'detente' solution whereby someone should write TCM

> articles that use their own terminology, and then provide a

> cross-refence glossary which relate their terms to Wiseman's terms,

> which then someone has to look up in an English dictionary to get an

> idea of what the English words mean , strikes me as a comic replay of

> the Tower of Babel.

> Has the world gone mad?

>

> Godfrey Bartlett

>

Speaking as a student, I have probably over a hundred books (maybe

twice that many) on in my home (many safely tucked

away in storage). I can honestly say that, because of the obscure and

unnecessary complicate language (and overall presentation) of

Fundamentals of , I never go near the book - other

than to check it when someone else references it. I find Kaptchuk's

language and descriptions in " The Web That has No Weaver " far more

accessible, though I most often go to lesser known books when I want

to get different perspectives on the meaning of ideas in the Neijing

or other classics.

I was wondering what texts students use in their schools. One that I

use is a very short and concise book that is adequate for Chinese

bodywork called " Shiatsu Theory and Practice " . Another is called Amma

Therapy " . Both use very straightforward and easy to understand

language. I read once that CM was designed to be accessible to all

people - practitioners and patients alike. It would be a shame if

" language " becoomes a barrier between the practitioner and patient as

it has become in WM.

Regards,

Rich

October 6, 2004

Speaking as a teacher for the last fifteen years, not only classroom

studies as a professor at PCOM but as a seminar instructor as well, I

have to stronly disagree with you.

The Practical Dictionary of and its associated texts

have brought a clarity and detail to teaching the subject that, in my

opinion, was heretofore unavailable previously in the English language

CM literature. I have never had students complain of obscurity or

complications in understanding the material that I present. Other

teachers at Pacific College, such as Bob Damone and , report

the same feedback. Several other senior teachers in our profession

also rely on the 'Wiseman terminology', and several publishing houses

such as Paradigm Press and Blue Poppy Press.

In order to have any platform to critique the 'Wiseman terminology',

some basic proficiency in medical Chinese language is necessary, in

order to bridge the critical gap between the Chinese characters and how

they are represented in English.

There are several thousand entries in the Practical Dictionary, many

times that number in Chinese language CM dictionaries. It is a fiction

to think that a simplified presentation of Chinese medical terminology

is adequately representing the subject. . . especially if one wants to

study the classical texts, as you wish to do.

" The Web That Has No Weaver " is an excellent beginner's text, and I

read it 22 years ago when it was first released. There has been some

updating of the text, but it is not sufficient to cover the amount of

detail that is now available in our field. We now have access to

Chinese journal articles translated by Blue Poppy Press, specialties

such as dermatology and warm disease. You are right, the " Web' can be

easily read by a layperson, and can be an inspirational introduction

for a new student. However, then one must roll up one's sleeves and

tackle the vast subject with the proper tools, including dictionaries

and glossaries.

While I strongly support the Wiseman terminology, this does not mean I

am 'against' use of some other English term equivalents (such as

protective qi instead of defense qi for wei qi). I use other texts

widely in teaching, such as those from such authors as Steven Clavey

and Dan Bensky, whose Chinese language skills are impeccable. There

are varying degrees of competency in translation available elsewhere.

However, some inaccuracies of translations have 'stuck' and distorted

the actual study and practice of Chinese medicine in other instances,

such as the use of biomedical term equivalents which often lack

accuracy.

On Oct 6, 2004, at 5:46 AM, Rich wrote:

> Speaking as a student, I have probably over a hundred books (maybe

> twice that many) on in my home (many safely tucked

> away in storage). I can honestly say that, because of the obscure and

> unnecessary complicate language (and overall presentation) of

> Fundamentals of , I never go near the book - other

> than to check it when someone else references it. I find Kaptchuk's

> language and descriptions in " The Web That has No Weaver " far more

> accessible, though I most often go to lesser known books when I want

> to get different perspectives on the meaning of ideas in the Neijing

> or other classics.

>

October 6, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " Rich " <rfinkelstein@a...>

wrote:

>

> > Speaking as a student, I have probably over a hundred books (maybe

> twice that many) on in my home (many safely tucked

> away in storage). I can honestly say that, because of the obscure and

> unnecessary complicate language (and overall presentation) of

> Fundamentals of , I never go near the book - other

> than to check it when someone else references it.

<snip>

> I was wondering what texts students use in their schools. One that I

> use is a very short and concise book that is adequate for Chinese

> bodywork called " Shiatsu Theory and Practice " .

as a student at Midwest College i was taught using the first edition of Wiseman

& Ellis'

Fundamentals of CM and i have to say to this day i'm really glad about that.

When i took

over teaching all the first-year theory classes at MWC in Chicago i made sure

the book was

the basis for the classes though we also used a supplementary study guide based

on W & E

written by John Pirog. To my mind there is no better basic TCM text out there,

and the

revised edition has included point locations/indications, materia medica and a

good

selection of formulas in addition to the glossary and extensive footnotes. This

is a real-

deal first-year Chinese TCM textbook in a rigorous translation with lots of

added material

-- enough to keep most Western students busy for several years -- for less than

50

bucks. No softball, no spoonfeeding, no hefty pricetag. Thank you W & E, thank

you

Paradigm Press.

Shiatsu Theory and Practice is a fine book but it is geared toward people who

are studying

Zen Shiatsu and it's not really a TCM textbook at all.

my US$.02 on this ever-popular subject.

rh

October 6, 2004

Shiatsu is a Japanese massage method, and has some differences from tui

na/Chinese body work, so how is this text adequate for Chinese

bodywork?

On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:24 PM, kampo36 wrote:

>> I was wondering what texts students use in their schools. One that I

>> use is a very short and concise book that is adequate for Chinese

>> bodywork called " Shiatsu Theory and Practice " .

October 7, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Shiatsu is a Japanese massage method, and has some differences from tui

> na/Chinese body work, so how is this text adequate for Chinese

> bodywork?

>

Yes, there are certainly differences between Shiatsu and Tui Na - but

I find that fundamentally they are the same. However, every

practitioner that I know of has their own favorite protocols and

techniques that they adopt for their own. Mixing and matching Tui Na,

Shiatsu, Thai Massage, Western Massage techniques is quite common. So,

if I am looking for a concise prsentation of a certain element of TCM

theory or any other , I can find it in the Shiatsu books as well as

Chinese Tui Na books. My personal favorite is Tom Tam's books for

their brevity and clarity. However, a practitioner would need to adopt

the fundamental model that he presents (which is very brief and

direct), which soemthing I have done. The reason I like the model is

because:

1) It makes sense

2) It is successful in a broad number of cases

3) It is relativity easy to assimilate into any current practice

4) Clients/patients can be easily taught how to incorporate the model

into their own daily lives as a way of maintaining good health. Anyone

can learn in a short time basic breathing, stretching, self-massage

exercises daily to: 1) keep warm qi flowing and 2) store qi for future

use. In every respect it is as simple as learning how to 1) change the

oil in your car every 2500 miles (clean oil of course) to keep the car

running smoothly, and 2) fill the gas tank up before it runs out of gas.

I believe that the only way for a client/patient to maintain good help

is to have a model of health that is easy to explain, easy to teach

and easy to adopt in every day life. In everything I have ever done,

KISS seems to always work out best for me.

Regards,

Rich

October 7, 2004

You people are missing the point, the fact that people in classes can understand

TCM when explained with these terms is thinking to short sighted. Recently their

was news pasted regarding the laws tightning around natural medicines and

supplements. If TCM does not become totally compatible withj W.M. then we take

the very strong risk of being eaten and simplified to their explanation. Being

understandable is not enough the translation has to be totally compatable with

WM without any of the mystical jargon then and only then can TCM take its

rightful place as a mainstream medicine. If this this is not the case it would

have happened years ago, but results are not enough. We need to be totally

explainable according to W.M. then they can have no excuse to deny TCM.

Regards

Manu

<zrosenbe wrote: