Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I received an e-mail inviting me and everyone on this list to respond to a poll on the following: " Do you wish to discuss TCM using only Wiseman's terminology within this group " ? I would like to see this question reworded as following: " Would you like to see Wiseman terminology as a (or the) terminological standard within this group? " My reason is that even I would answer no to the original question, as I feel it is unfair, despite my strong feelings about the need for a standard English language terminology that directly references Chinese medical Chinese language. Too many people are unaware at this point of Wiseman/Feng's " Clinical Dictionary of " to demand that it be the basis of discussion at this point. Also, I am concerned that the many detractors of this terminology would bolt the group, even though much of the controversy, in my opinion, is based on misunderstandings, lack of information, or for a minority, laziness in study. Also, in discussions on such topics as Japanese schools of acupuncture, Worsley acupuncture, separate glossaries and/or dictionaries will have to be developed. On the other hand, I think our profession should be matured to the point where we can reference CM technical terms back to pinyin and preferably Chinese characters, and define what we are saying more concisely, rather than just automatically using 'fuzzy terms' from many English language textbooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' versus 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard and then people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use the standard, making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna have to explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that you put it more eloquently. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Z'ev Rosenberg 12 June 2005 19:54 Chinese Medicine New poll on Wiseman terminology I received an e-mail inviting me and everyone on this list to respond to a poll on the following: " Do you wish to discuss TCM using only Wiseman's terminology within this group " ? I would like to see this question reworded as following: " Would you like to see Wiseman terminology as a (or the) terminological standard within this group? " My reason is that even I would answer no to the original question, as I feel it is unfair, despite my strong feelings about the need for a standard English language terminology that directly references Chinese medical Chinese language. Too many people are unaware at this point of Wiseman/Feng's " Clinical Dictionary of " to demand that it be the basis of discussion at this point. Also, I am concerned that the many detractors of this terminology would bolt the group, even though much of the controversy, in my opinion, is based on misunderstandings, lack of information, or for a minority, laziness in study. Also, in discussions on such topics as Japanese schools of acupuncture, Worsley acupuncture, separate glossaries and/or dictionaries will have to be developed. On the other hand, I think our profession should be matured to the point where we can reference CM technical terms back to pinyin and preferably Chinese characters, and define what we are saying more concisely, rather than just automatically using 'fuzzy terms' from many English language textbooks. http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Standard vs. only means that when clarifying discussions, we have a standard to refer to. " Only' means that posts that do not use Wiseman terminology and are rejected otherwise. I would just like to see this clarified more, so it doesn't bias the result of the poll. On Jun 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' versus > 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard and > then > people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use the > standard, > making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna > have to > explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that you > put it > more eloquently. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 I'm sorry Zev but to repeat what I've already said, to clarify the discussions by using a standard terminology means it becomes the 'only' terminology. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a standard terminology. WM diseases around the world have the same name, why can't TCM? These are really the basics to anything from medical to plumbing. This is an important issue we all need to resolve. I understand your concern as the voting at present is going against the use of Wiseman. Please don't view this as a failure, as by bringing this to the forefront and discussing it we can sort it out and move forward. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Z'ev Rosenberg 12 June 2005 22:32 Chinese Medicine Re: New poll on Wiseman terminology Standard vs. only means that when clarifying discussions, we have a standard to refer to. " Only' means that posts that do not use Wiseman terminology and are rejected otherwise. I would just like to see this clarified more, so it doesn't bias the result of the poll. On Jun 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' versus > 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard and > then > people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use the > standard, > making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna > have to > explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that you > put it > more eloquently. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi Angelo! Thank you for raising this poll. I personally believe that the issue of terminological standard is vitally important, particularly for students. I found it soul-destroying trying to learn/memorise TCM when every source has it's own vocabulary. But I have to be honest and say that I can see where Z'ev was coming from. I thought along the same lines the moment I read the poll's question. But I think you have now clarified that for us, ie you have said (I think) that the moderator will not immediately reject postings with non-Wiseman terminology, rather it will be left to the group to comment on someone who is deemed to wander too much and then, somehow, it will get resolved. But could you please still clarify a more basic point? Your recent email exchanges with Z'ev imply to me that the poll is asking the respondent to state what they think the *policy* should be for *the group*. But to be honest, that is not the *literal* meaning of the poll's question; the question literally asks the respondent whether *she/he* (herself/himself) would like to discuss using Wiseman in the group. This might sound as if I'm drawing ridiculous distinctions. But in my view there is a massive difference between these two questions. It's like when you're going out with a group of friends. Someone says, " Well, what shall we do? " Most people have a clear idea in their head of what they want to do. The less polite people just state what they want to do. The more polite people think to themselves " I would LIKE to do x, but it might be better for group unity/experience if we do y or z " and end up either saying nothing or suggesting something that they personally *think* the group as a whole wants/needs. So what you get at the end of the day is either one individual's view dominating the group or something based on what people *think* everyone *else* is thinking. This type of second- guessing of what the rest of the group wants is in my experience often very difficult to do and often produces a dog's dinner! So one element of the voters are voting a dog's dinner based on guessing the feelings of other's. And sometimes these polite people are so polite that they refuse to say anything and all you're left with is the views of one or two (less polite) people, who thereby end up dominating the group. If only *everyone* would just start by saying what they *want* to do (personally) - then we would be in a position to ask the second question and finally arrive at a sensible consensus for what is best for the *whole group*. I'm afraid that this might be happening with our Wiseman terminology poll. Some people (I suspect a minority) are reading the question literally and stating what they would *personally* like to use when discussing CM on the group. Others (I suspect a majority) are more 'polite' and are interpreting the question as a question about policy; these latter have some sort of second-guess estimate of what the percentage of Wiseman advocates is, and then on that basis are deciding whether or not it is good for the group. I don't think this state of affairs going to produce a useful result. I feel it would be more useful if we could have two polls. First ask what we *personally prefer* to use. Let people see the result of that poll. Let's see how many of us are basically Wiseman advocates. Then vote on what should be the standard terminology (ie only terminology used by the group as a whole). Sorry if this sounds like the paralysis of analysis. It's just the way I think. All the best, David Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > I'm sorry Zev but to repeat what I've already said, to clarify the > discussions by using a standard terminology means it becomes the 'only' > terminology. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a standard terminology. WM > diseases around the world have the same name, why can't TCM? These are > really the basics to anything from medical to plumbing. This is an important > issue we all need to resolve. I understand your concern as the voting at > present is going against the use of Wiseman. Please don't view this as a > failure, as by bringing this to the forefront and discussing it we can sort > it out and move forward. > > Warm regards, > > Attilio D'Alberto > Doctor of (Beijing, China) > BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM > 07786198900 > attiliodalberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part > limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and > feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical > illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) > > > > Chinese Medicine > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Z'ev > Rosenberg > 12 June 2005 22:32 > Chinese Medicine > Re: New poll on Wiseman terminology > > > Standard vs. only means that when clarifying discussions, we have a > standard to refer to. " Only' means that posts that do not use Wiseman > terminology and are rejected otherwise. I would just like to see > this clarified more, so it doesn't bias the result of the poll. > > > On Jun 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > > I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' versus > > 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard and > > then > > people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use the > > standard, > > making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna > > have to > > explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that you > > put it > > more eloquently. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi David, See inserted comments below. Hi Angelo! Attilio: Well, got that wrong. Please try and make an effort to get people's names right David, there's nothing worse. It doesn't take much and if wrong can lessen the quality of your message. Thank you for raising this poll. I personally believe that the issue of terminological standard is vitally important, particularly for students. I found it soul-destroying trying to learn/memorise TCM when every source has it's own vocabulary. Attilio: I agree. No matter what other's think about Wiseman being good or bad its the only completed terminology out there. We need to quickly adopt a universal standard terminology to help our field grow and further bury its roots. But I have to be honest and say that I can see where Z'ev was coming from. I thought along the same lines the moment I read the poll's question. But I think you have now clarified that for us, ie you have said (I think) that the moderator will not immediately reject postings with non-Wiseman terminology, rather it will be left to the group to comment on someone who is deemed to wander too much and then, somehow, it will get resolved. Attilio: This is how is starts. Then a few months down the line with peer pressure, it will become the only accepted terminology, making is the only one used. This is only a poll and the outcome will not immediately become group policy. If you notice, the current voting illustrates (as I thought I would), that many people don't really know and need more information on it. THIS IS THE POINT I'M MAKING WITH THE POLL. We need a coherent and persistent plan to get a standard terminology into our field. Now, unfortunately for some, they know more about it than others. Sorry Zev, but your the one that knows more than we do and as you often carry the baton for the use of Wiseman's terminology, its largely up to you to push this through. This will only start to come about my informing other practitioners about the terminology and benefits of using a single vocabulary. Your gonna have to get some others on board and run with it, I.e. giving talks in conferences, writing articles on it for such places as Acupuncture Today, the group or journals, etc. But could you please still clarify a more basic point? Your recent email exchanges with Z'ev imply to me that the poll is asking the respondent to state what they think the *policy* should be for *the group*. But to be honest, that is not the *literal* meaning of the poll's question; the question literally asks the respondent whether *she/he* (herself/himself) would like to discuss using Wiseman in the group. Attilio: Just because there's a poll, doesn't mean its gonna be group policy. Its up to Mark, the group owner to decide whether a poll becomes policy. As voting is going at the moment, that won't be so. But as stated above, voting illustrates the need for education in this matter. This might sound as if I'm drawing ridiculous distinctions. But in my view there is a massive difference between these two questions. It's like when you're going out with a group of friends. Someone says, " Well, what shall we do? " Most people have a clear idea in their head of what they want to do. The less polite people just state what they want to do. The more polite people think to themselves " I would LIKE to do x, but it might be better for group unity/experience if we do y or z " and end up either saying nothing or suggesting something that they personally *think* the group as a whole wants/needs. So what you get at the end of the day is either one individual's view dominating the group or something based on what people *think* everyone *else* is thinking. This type of second- guessing of what the rest of the group wants is in my experience often very difficult to do and often produces a dog's dinner! So one element of the voters are voting a dog's dinner based on guessing the feelings of other's. And sometimes these polite people are so polite that they refuse to say anything and all you're left with is the views of one or two (less polite) people, who thereby end up dominating the group. If only *everyone* would just start by saying what they *want* to do (personally) - then we would be in a position to ask the second question and finally arrive at a sensible consensus for what is best for the *whole group*. Attilio: That's because you view yourself as separate from the group. Without getting too much into this, there is no self or individuality, you are part of the group as they are part of you. I'm afraid that this might be happening with our Wiseman terminology poll. Some people (I suspect a minority) are reading the question literally and stating what they would *personally* like to use when discussing CM on the group. Others (I suspect a majority) are more 'polite' and are interpreting the question as a question about policy; these latter have some sort of second-guess estimate of what the percentage of Wiseman advocates is, and then on that basis are deciding whether or not it is good for the group. Attilio: Set up another poll if you want. I don't think this state of affairs going to produce a useful result. Attilio: The useful result is already shown. This poll was not created to give a definite answer, but to bring this problem to the forefront of our attention and then find a way of addressing the issues. I feel it would be more useful if we could have two polls. First ask what we *personally prefer* to use. Let people see the result of that poll. Let's see how many of us are basically Wiseman advocates. Then vote on what should be the standard terminology (ie only terminology used by the group as a whole). Attilio: If it makes you happy, go for it. Warm regards, Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > I'm sorry Zev but to repeat what I've already said, to clarify the > discussions by using a standard terminology means it becomes the 'only' > terminology. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a standard terminology. WM > diseases around the world have the same name, why can't TCM? These are > really the basics to anything from medical to plumbing. This is an important > issue we all need to resolve. I understand your concern as the voting at > present is going against the use of Wiseman. Please don't view this as a > failure, as by bringing this to the forefront and discussing it we can sort > it out and move forward. > > Warm regards, > > Attilio D'Alberto > Doctor of (Beijing, China) > BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM > 07786198900 > attiliodalberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part > limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and > feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical > illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) > > > > Chinese Medicine > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Z'ev > Rosenberg > 12 June 2005 22:32 > Chinese Medicine > Re: New poll on Wiseman terminology > > > Standard vs. only means that when clarifying discussions, we have a > standard to refer to. " Only' means that posts that do not use Wiseman > terminology and are rejected otherwise. I would just like to see > this clarified more, so it doesn't bias the result of the poll. > > > On Jun 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > > I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' versus > > 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard and > > then > > people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use the > > standard, > > making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna > > have to > > explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that you > > put it > > more eloquently. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi Attilio, Sorry about the name. I did this very early in the morning. I actually re-read my message about 10 times trying to refine its clarity, but obviously was too bleary eyed! Thank you for responding to my points and clarifying some issues, in particular that the result of this poll will not *automatically* immediately change group policy and that *anyone* in the group can run a poll; I didn't know that latter bit. Incidentally, I don't agree with your point: " That's because you view yourself as separate from the group. Without getting too much into this, there is no self or individuality, you are part of the group as they are part of you. " My view of the group is that the individual is as important as the whole. Both should be in balance. Yes, the group is important; but hey, I (and every other individual in the group) is/are a *part* of that group. As such I (and every other member of the group) has the right to influence the group just as the group has the right to influence me/us individually. This huge dynamic equilibrium is, when it works harmoniously, my view of the Tao. I'm not an expert in the history of Chinese philosophy, but I read in a qigong book by Dr Yang Zwing Ming that the very early Taoist view was of man within nature flowing with nature and bending in every way with its flows and ebbs. The right of self-determination was played down. The Taoist meditators would only meditate to ensure smooth flow of qi and they tended to accept things that happened to them as 'fate'. I also read that when Taoism became more influenced by Buddhism around the end of the Eastern Han Dynasty it changed in that self- determination became more important than before. Thus the later Taoists would, during meditation, actually manipulate the subtle energies within themselves for specific purposes and try positively to extend their lives, ie *change* nature. I feel more akin to the later model of Taoism and extend this to my view of the group. So I do think there is value in asking people in this forum what they *individually* would like. And I must add that I think if *most* of us are truly honest we would say that this is how we run our lives. Very few of us are totally passive; even the most meek of us ascert our selves quite regularly. Indeed, I would venture that this is the spirit of Chinese medicine; ie working *with* the forces of nature in order to *influence* nature and restore harmony. I have no criticism of the older Taoist way; it's just not my preferred path. All the best, David Chinese Medicine , " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > Hi David, > > See inserted comments below. > > > Hi Angelo! > > Attilio: Well, got that wrong. Please try and make an effort to get people's > names right David, there's nothing worse. It doesn't take much and if wrong > can lessen the quality of your message. > > Thank you for raising this poll. I personally believe that the issue > of terminological standard is vitally important, particularly for > students. I found it soul-destroying trying to learn/memorise TCM > when every source has it's own vocabulary. > > Attilio: I agree. No matter what other's think about Wiseman being good or > bad its the only completed terminology out there. We need to quickly adopt a > universal standard terminology to help our field grow and further bury its > roots. > > But I have to be honest and say that I can see where Z'ev was coming > from. I thought along the same lines the moment I read the poll's > question. But I think you have now clarified that for us, ie you have > said (I think) that the moderator will not immediately reject > postings with non-Wiseman terminology, rather it will be left to the > group to comment on someone who is deemed to wander too much and > then, somehow, it will get resolved. > > Attilio: This is how is starts. Then a few months down the line with peer > pressure, it will become the only accepted terminology, making is the only > one used. This is only a poll and the outcome will not immediately become > group policy. If you notice, the current voting illustrates (as I thought I > would), that many people don't really know and need more information on it. > THIS IS THE POINT I'M MAKING WITH THE POLL. We need a coherent and > persistent plan to get a standard terminology into our field. Now, > unfortunately for some, they know more about it than others. Sorry Zev, but > your the one that knows more than we do and as you often carry the baton for > the use of Wiseman's terminology, its largely up to you to push this > through. This will only start to come about my informing other practitioners > about the terminology and benefits of using a single vocabulary. Your gonna > have to get some others on board and run with it, I.e. giving talks in > conferences, writing articles on it for such places as Acupuncture Today, > the group or journals, etc. > > But could you please still clarify a more basic point? Your recent > email exchanges with Z'ev imply to me that the poll is asking the > respondent to state what they think the *policy* should be for *the > group*. But to be honest, that is not the *literal* meaning of the > poll's question; the question literally asks the respondent whether > *she/he* (herself/himself) would like to discuss using Wiseman in the > group. > > Attilio: Just because there's a poll, doesn't mean its gonna be group > policy. Its up to Mark, the group owner to decide whether a poll becomes > policy. As voting is going at the moment, that won't be so. But as stated > above, voting illustrates the need for education in this matter. > > This might sound as if I'm drawing ridiculous distinctions. But in my > view there is a massive difference between these two questions. > > It's like when you're going out with a group of friends. Someone > says, " Well, what shall we do? " Most people have a clear idea in > their head of what they want to do. The less polite people just state > what they want to do. The more polite people think to themselves " I > would LIKE to do x, but it might be better for group unity/experience > if we do y or z " and end up either saying nothing or suggesting > something that they personally *think* the group as a whole > wants/needs. So what you get at the end of the day is either one > individual's view dominating the group or something based on what > people *think* everyone *else* is thinking. This type of second- > guessing of what the rest of the group wants is in my experience > often very difficult to do and often produces a dog's dinner! So one > element of the voters are voting a dog's dinner based on guessing the > feelings of other's. And sometimes these polite people are so polite > that they refuse to say anything and all you're left with is the > views of one or two (less polite) people, who thereby end up > dominating the group. > > If only *everyone* would just start by saying what they *want* to do > (personally) - then we would be in a position to ask the second > question and finally arrive at a sensible consensus for what is best > for the *whole group*. > > Attilio: That's because you view yourself as separate from the group. > Without getting too much into this, there is no self or individuality, you > are part of the group as they are part of you. > > I'm afraid that this might be happening with our Wiseman terminology > poll. Some people (I suspect a minority) are reading the question > literally and stating what they would *personally* like to use when > discussing CM on the group. Others (I suspect a majority) are > more 'polite' and are interpreting the question as a question about > policy; these latter have some sort of second-guess estimate of what > the percentage of Wiseman advocates is, and then on that basis are > deciding whether or not it is good for the group. > > Attilio: Set up another poll if you want. > > I don't think this state of affairs going to produce a useful result. > > Attilio: The useful result is already shown. This poll was not created to > give a definite answer, but to bring this problem to the forefront of our > attention and then find a way of addressing the issues. > > I feel it would be more useful if we could have two polls. First ask > what we *personally prefer* to use. Let people see the result of that > poll. Let's see how many of us are basically Wiseman advocates. Then > vote on what should be the standard terminology (ie only terminology > used by the group as a whole). > > Attilio: If it makes you happy, go for it. > > Warm regards, > > Attilio D'Alberto > Doctor of (Beijing, China) > BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM > 07786198900 > attiliodalberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a part > limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and > feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical > illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) > > > Chinese Medicine , " Attilio > D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto> wrote: > > I'm sorry Zev but to repeat what I've already said, to clarify the > > discussions by using a standard terminology means it becomes > the 'only' > > terminology. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a standard > terminology. WM > > diseases around the world have the same name, why can't TCM? These > are > > really the basics to anything from medical to plumbing. This is an > important > > issue we all need to resolve. I understand your concern as the > voting at > > present is going against the use of Wiseman. Please don't view this > as a > > failure, as by bringing this to the forefront and discussing it we > can sort > > it out and move forward. > > > > Warm regards, > > > > Attilio D'Alberto > > Doctor of (Beijing, China) > > BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM > > 07786198900 > > attiliodalberto > > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > > > " A human being is part of the whole, called by us the Universe, a > part > > limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and > > feelings, as something separated from the rest - - a kind of optical > > illusion in his consciousness. " (Albert Einstein) > > > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of > Z'ev > > Rosenberg > > 12 June 2005 22:32 > > Chinese Medicine > > Re: New poll on Wiseman terminology > > > > > > Standard vs. only means that when clarifying discussions, we have > a > > standard to refer to. " Only' means that posts that do not use > Wiseman > > terminology and are rejected otherwise. I would just like to see > > this clarified more, so it doesn't bias the result of the poll. > > > > > > On Jun 12, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > > > > I don't see any difference in your sentence from my one. 'Only' > versus > > > 'standard', what's the difference? If we decide upon a standard > and > > > then > > > people don't use it, then others will complain and ask to use > the > > > standard, > > > making it an only. I really don't see the difference. Your gonna > > > have to > > > explain it a bit more to me. The only difference I see is that > you > > > put it > > > more eloquently. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I think the main point that the poll should be addressing is whether people think that terminology is important. I think many people on this list are not even aware of the issue of terminology and its effects on the accurate transmission of CM. Many people on the list are probably not even aware of Practical Dictionary terminology, or have not had an education that would allow them to be able to use it to converse, so the phrasing of the question as it currently stands would mean that many people would be without a voice because they cannot use it. Our profession is not yet like WM; all WM doctors can use scientific/Latin terminology professionally, but many TCM practitioners are not trained in professional terminology. For example, pink eye is the common name for acute conjunctivitis. WM doctors all know the phrase acute conjunctivitis. Some TCM practitioners know the technical terms for the things that we discuss, others just know the lay terms. The fact that a minority of practitioners are able to converse with professional standards is lamentable, but it is the current state of reality in our profession. Publications should use professional language, but group discussions are less formal and may have different needs. All authentic CM comes from Chinese language sources originally. The only English term system that can link professional English discourse with the Chinese sources at this time is the terminology defined in the Practical Dictionary of . The equivalent developments from traditional Japanese and Korean medicine have not yet emerged, so they have no standards yet. While we are talking about terminology, it is far more accurate to discuss " Wiseman Terminology " as " Practical Dictionary " terminology, since it was created as a collaboration between Dr. Wiseman and Dr. Feng. Feng Ye's contributions seem to get glossed over by the use of the term " Wiseman Terminology, " but maybe that is just a problem of habit and unconscious enthnocentricity. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Chinese Medicine , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > > While we are talking about terminology, it is far more accurate to > discuss " Wiseman Terminology " as " Practical Dictionary " terminology, > since it was created as a collaboration between Dr. Wiseman and Dr. > Feng. Feng Ye's contributions seem to get glossed over by the use of > the term " Wiseman Terminology, " but maybe that is just a problem of > habit and unconscious enthnocentricity. > before the Wiseman/Feng PD was published the bulk of the terminology was listed in the Wiseman/Ellis/Zmiewski Fundamentals (1985), Wiseman/Boss Glossary (1990), and Wiseman C-E, E-C dictionary (1995). the preface to Fundamentals indicates that Wiseman had started work on the glossary sometime prior to 1981, when Feng would have been 13 years old. this is not to belittle anyone's contribution to anything, but it would seem that Wiseman has been working on this for quite some time and the habit of referring to the terminology as his seems to me understandable if imprecise. rh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Hi all, Standardization - some pros and cons… I'd just gotten thru chapter 7, " Bianzheng lunzhi: The Emergent Pivot of Contemporary " , in Volker Scheid's book " in Contemporary China - Plurality and Synthesis " , when this poll issue arose. The author surveys and analyzes the process of the genesis of the term bianzheng-lunzhi, various factors and rationales in its emergence, and some after effects. One that struck me, and I bring out as tangentially relevant here, is that many of the ming laozhongyi (illustrious old masters of CM), who over the years contributed to the formation of the concepts like this, were later taken aback and critical of the resultant " standardization " instituted by the government around such concepts. I.e., when the government (MOH - Ministry of Health) issued a series of standardization edicts in the 1990s, specifically one with some 400 or so definitive TCM pattern (disease/pattern, Sx, and treatment definitions). These were to become the practice standard, especially for the national healthcare management system. What the old guys saw was the younger generation memorizing this list and reducing their educational goals and subsequent practice to uncritically working from this basis by just match-and-pick from the list. The lao-guys criticism is that those who follow that path neglect to learn the basic art of the medicine, where any and all patterns are examples of a process of experience, reflection, diagnosis and treatment. This process is (according to one of Scheid's main theses) an emergent synthesis of everything in one's education, lineage, guanxi (network of theoretical and personal allegiances), institutional position, expectations and attitudes of patients, etc. There's an art, one manifestation of which is the generation and use of patterns, but which is not imparted by simply memorizing and applying a pattern system. How does this relate here (the poll, the issue of " standardizing " on Wiseman English terms)? As valuable as the Wiseman scheme (let's say, representatively, use of the Practical Dictionary (PD)), may be, particularly for students, and, I would say, especially and even more for beginning students, I've found that it is limiting as my study and experience grows to deeper levels of exposure to various ideas and traditions in CM. The value of the PD is fixing reference to a Chinese character/phrase with an English word/phrase. The limitation is that one at times will find a need to use other synonyms or possible English choices of translation to express a particular nuance of meaning found in a particular context (e.g. a particular writer or " school " (pai)). To (try to) put it simply, encouraging use of the PD system to clarify exactly what Chinese terms are being referenced, is a good idea. To discourage people from exploring and expressing other meanings (from the Chinese, in various different contexts - classic text, historical period, school of thought) in terms of non-PD English terminology, would be deadening to the ability to interpret and elucidate what one finds through deeper study, deadening to the life of the mind. Volker Scheid points out that in contemporary Chinese medical discourse, people (specifically among the ming laozhongyi) often use alternative (non-standard) terminology and phrasing to make subtle, i.e. essential points. A possible premise here is has to do with the back-end of the Wiseman system - that the Chinese terms are simple and standardized. This would be highly questionable in terms of the living synthesis which is the practice of CM at its highest levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Hi chris: i don't think that standardization will take away from the richness and complexity of chinese medicine... but i do think that it would be helpful in certain settings, as in educational settings where students are learning new concepts. As a student, there was TREMEMDOUS confusion on my part, switching between textbooks like ACT, CAM, and Deadman, all of which use different terminology. I definitely think it is important to know about the other terms, and i ABSOLUTELY think that knowledge of basic chinese terminology enriched my own understanding of points, and made herbs easier to memorize. A thesaurus would be helpful, or other cross references of terms. If we all used our own measurement system, how could we go to the store and buy stuff? it would be impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 shamanist1 wrote: > Hi chris: i don't think that standardization will take away from the > richness and complexity of chinese medicine... but i do think that it > would be helpful in certain settings Hi Shamanist1! Then it would be appropriate to make such a rule in those certain settings. Thus the real question is: Is the list one of those settings? Have we a list of Wiseman's terms and their equivalents anywhere handy on the web? Can anyone post the link if there is? Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Hi All, & Pete, Pete Theisen wrote: > Have we a list of Wiseman's terms and their equivalents anywhere handy > on the web? Can anyone post the link if there is? Bob Felt (Paradigm Press) probably has access to Nigel's digitised works, but the question of copyright and the need for authors to earn a living prevent the free release of those data to the public domain. That is a great pity, because NIgel has done fantastic work, especially in the PD (with Feng Ye). See reviews at: http://www.cheapesttextbooks.com/reviews/0912111542.html If any of you can track down comprehensive online sources of the Hanzi, Pinyin and English terminology, please email the URLs to me. Best regards, Email: < WORK : Teagasc, c/o 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, 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 " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Chris, I also enjoyed Volker's book very much. I took special note of the chapter on bianzheng lunzhi, especially the modern tendency to reduce zheng/patterns to xing/types, a much more simple description of biomedical diseases subdivided into four or so arbitrary zang-fu descriptions. As you say, the descriptions are over-simplified, and lose the richness, individulization and flexibility of pattern differentiation as more traditionally practiced. This system was largely designed with Western doctors in mind. However, I think the 'standardization' of medical Chinese language is a different issue. I've never seen anyone in the " Wiseman camp " suggest that one could only use one English equivalent for a technical Chinese term. One can simply use the Wiseman terminology and note one's own variances in translation, so readers and other authors could be able to trace the concept back to the Chinese language effectively. Certainly this has been done by such authors as Paul Unschuld, Bob Flaws and Steven Clavey. On Jun 14, 2005, at 4:50 AM, wrote: > > Standardization - some pros and cons… > > I'd just gotten thru chapter 7, " Bianzheng lunzhi: The Emergent > Pivot of > Contemporary " , in Volker Scheid's book " Chinese > Medicine > in Contemporary China - Plurality and Synthesis " , when this poll issue > arose. The author surveys and analyzes the process of the genesis > of the > term bianzheng-lunzhi, various factors and rationales in its > emergence, and > some after effects. One that struck me, and I bring out as > tangentially > relevant here, is that many of the ming laozhongyi (illustrious old > masters > of CM), who over the years contributed to the formation of the > concepts > like this, were later taken aback and critical of the resultant > " standardization " instituted by the government around such > concepts. I.e., > when the government (MOH - Ministry of Health) issued a series of > standardization edicts in the 1990s, specifically one with some 400 > or so > definitive TCM pattern (disease/pattern, Sx, and treatment > definitions). > These were to become the practice standard, especially for the > national > healthcare management system. > > What the old guys saw was the younger generation memorizing this > list and > reducing their educational goals and subsequent practice to > uncritically > working from this basis by just match-and-pick from the list. The > lao-guys > criticism is that those who follow that path neglect to learn the > basic art > of the medicine, where any and all patterns are examples of a > process of > experience, reflection, diagnosis and treatment. This process is > (according > to one of Scheid's main theses) an emergent synthesis of everything in > one's education, lineage, guanxi (network of theoretical and personal > allegiances), institutional position, expectations and attitudes of > patients, etc. There's an art, one manifestation of which is the > generation > and use of patterns, but which is not imparted by simply memorizing > and > applying a pattern system. > > How does this relate here (the poll, the issue of " standardizing " on > Wiseman English terms)? > > As valuable as the Wiseman scheme (let's say, representatively, use > of the > Practical Dictionary (PD)), may be, particularly for students, and, > I would > say, especially and even more for beginning students, I've found > that it is > limiting as my study and experience grows to deeper levels of > exposure to > various ideas and traditions in CM. > > The value of the PD is fixing reference to a Chinese character/ > phrase with > an English word/phrase. The limitation is that one at times will > find a > need to use other synonyms or possible English choices of > translation to > express a particular nuance of meaning found in a particular > context (e.g. > a particular writer or " school " (pai)). > > To (try to) put it simply, encouraging use of the PD system to clarify > exactly what Chinese terms are being referenced, is a good idea. To > discourage people from exploring and expressing other meanings > (from the > Chinese, in various different contexts - classic text, historical > period, > school of thought) in terms of non-PD English terminology, would be > deadening to the ability to interpret and elucidate what one finds > through > deeper study, deadening to the life of the mind. > > Volker Scheid points out that in contemporary Chinese medical > discourse, > people (specifically among the ming laozhongyi) often use alternative > (non-standard) terminology and phrasing to make subtle, i.e. essential > points. > > A possible premise here is has to do with the back-end of the Wiseman > system - that the Chinese terms are simple and standardized. This > would be > highly questionable in terms of the living synthesis which is the > practice > of CM at its highest levels. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 So the patient came in complaining of Snakeskin. I thought carefully and responded _Hmmm. Did you join a mariachi band? _ Sidesplitting laughter ensued. After the patient regained composure he stated, _No, I'm a TCM student. I've been reading Wiseman's Practical Dictionary. _ _And now you've just made me get a spontaneous case of Efflux Desertion. _ I said, _Whew, a good thing MizAllen said my insurance covers me for that because it's not western. Don't worry about the mess. When I get to the 10- Asking Song, I'll have to sniff it up close to find out what kind of Evil we're dealing with. _ _Now please tell me what is Practical about a coffee-table book that doesn't have good pictures? It keeps falling off the desk, and besides, inventing your own medical language used to be a Cardinal Sin. _ Student / Patient said, _No, you've got it all wrong. It's oversize to remind you how ponderous the system is, and to insert a hopelessly impenetrable layer of obfuscation between reality and modern medical language. You see, this way we can avoid trying to learn all that western medicine diagnosis that we don't have time for in between elementary Mandarin classes. And it's a good thing because I get the feeling doctors get some kind of attitude when they see us pad up in our black cotton slippers holding our portentous tomes. Of course the only reason for pre-med type science classes is to make us cheerleaders for stem-cells while it gets pounded into our heads why we're not real doctors. Wiseman had to co-opt all those English words no one uses to convey the Richness of the ancient Chinese that no one uses. _ I said, _I see. Utter Vacuity. They're just pulling your leg _ He said, _No, but when she bent down she sure gave me Exuberant Jing _ I said, _That's a little more information than I want to hear, but thanks for cueing me in to your need for a lifetime supply of Taoist astringent formulas! _ .. . . excerpt from _Massa Joe _ 2005 Joe Reid, MT, LAc, OMD, 98%NBAO (don't ask) http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 Hi Joe This made me laugh - it's brilliant writing. But I fear that it misses some major points ... The purpose of a definitive terminology (such as Wiseman's) and the resulting 'denotive translations' is *not* to enable someone to pick up a book, read a line, and immediately understand that line in its deepest depths. If you want *this* you should read a 'connotive' translation (see notes below). The purpose of Wiseman's glossary is to enable one to *study* a subject in depth. When a subject's vocabulary contains a lot of technical terms (ie terms that have clearly delineated meanings), a serious student of the subject needs consistent translation of those technical terms into his target language. Surely this is common sense? If there are insufficient words or word-combinations in the target language to enable one to give a translation for each technical term that is close to the original Chinese then one has to either: (1) use the same target language term for multiple Chinese words (which I would say causes obfuscation); (2) creatively introduce a new target language word (which at least is *close* to the Chinese) and use that consistently; or (3) just give the pinyin. Pre-Wiseman all you could get was a mish-mash of these three appoaches. In reality it meant that translations of Chinese texts were either: (a) unimaginably impossible to comprehend; or (b) easy to understand, but hiding all sorts of gross simplifications of the subject. Some have argued that some of Wiseman's terms are so 'bizarre' that it would be easier just to use the pinyin for technical vocabulary. I think this would be impractical because it would simply frighten off and alienate people who have no taste for linguistics. Wiseman's glossary *is* pretty close in meaning to the originals in *most* cases and I think is the best compromise. Others will say that the technical vocabulary of Chinese medicine in *in its original language* is not fixed, but there is variation in the technical meanings and that these variations have varied and continue to vary in time. Therefore, it is wrong to translate them with consistent English equivalents. I think this is a good point. But here again you have to draw the distinction between the layman and the serious student. The layman wants a quick intro into a subject; he wants an expert to unpack it for him. He doesn't have the time to spend years researching the different possible meanings of a particular technical term. He wants an expert to do all that work and then just *tell* him what meaning the technical term has on page 72 of his book. The problem with this is that one is totaly dependent on that expert. And deciding *which* meaning a technical term is carrying in one book versus another book is something that experts sometimes differ on. A serious student will want to research this himself. This means studying the use of that technical term in its various contexts to decide on the precise nuance(s) of meaning; what I personally coin as 'contextual analysis'. Before Wiseman the only way contextual analysis could be done was by studying Chinese language. But if one uses Wiseman translations, contextual analysis can be done by anyone. In my view this is brilliant!! Finally, on a more personal note I think that we have to consider our own personal situations. In my view, a practitioner who has already studied Chinese medicine in depth and has a feel for the *scope* of the subject should be able to read the most *aweful* translation of a Chinese book and pretty much understand most of what is said because she can fill in many of the gaps and make the appropriate corrections in her head - because she *knows* what all the possible *meanings* of the technical terms are; she knows the scope of the subject. It's easy for her to forget what it was like when she started out. So I think that for the sake of students, Wiseman's system is essential. And of course, we are all students to some degree - in my case particulary so. Whether it should be a requirement on this group ... I could easily comply because I already pretty much use it. But there are practical problems, like not everyone even possesses the glossary! My view is that probably we should make it policy that the group encourages it, but not jump down people's throats at the slightest infringement. With warm regards David Gordon Ps:- I conclude with a small quote from http://www.paradigm- pubs.com/refs/comp-text.html ``Connotive Translations''and ``Denotive Translations,'' are both based on a foreign source. Both have a fixed relationship to that source that other translators could replicate based on the source docu-mentation and Stylebook. Both approaches can be cross- referenced, if the appropriate glosses are freely available. What distinguishes these approaches is in the claims made by the translator. The translator of a connotive work claims to have chosen terms their readers will best understand. The guarantee of validity is the translators understanding of the information. On the other hand, the translator of a denotive work claims to have chosen terms that best represent the ideas of the original writer by following a specific philological method. The guarantee of validity is the method used. In a sense, connotive translation emphasizes qualities of the arrival language and denotive translation emphasizes qualities of the departure language. Connotive translation emphasizes the translator's under-standing. Denotive translation emphasizes the system applied, which may or may not be the creation of the trans-lator. The revised edition of ``Fundamentals of Chinese Medi-cine'' is a representative denotive translation. The map between the Chinese original and the English edition is exact, the Stylebook is known, and the glossary is freely available. The philological rational has been published and the source text's role in Chinese culture has been docu-mented. In other words, there is a map for every level of the translation and that map is precise enough that the English version and Stylebook are in fact used to recon-struct the Chinese version in language classes. In other words, given the appropriate materials any translator of appropriate skill could repeat the translation. Joe wrote:- -- Chinese Medicine , " jreidomd " <jreidomd> wrote: > So the patient came in complaining of Snakeskin. > I thought carefully and responded _Hmmm. Did you join a mariachi band? _ > Sidesplitting laughter ensued. After the patient regained composure he > stated, > _No, I'm a TCM student. I've been reading Wiseman's Practical Dictionary. _ > _And now you've just made me get a spontaneous case of Efflux Desertion. _ > I said, _Whew, a good thing MizAllen said my insurance covers me for that > because it's not western. Don't worry about the mess. When I get to the 10- > Asking Song, I'll have to sniff it up close to find out what kind of Evil we're > dealing with. _ > _Now please tell me what is Practical about a coffee-table book that doesn't > have good pictures? It keeps falling off the desk, and besides, inventing your > own medical language used to be a Cardinal Sin. _ > Student / Patient said, _No, you've got it all wrong. It's oversize to remind you > how ponderous the system is, and to insert a hopelessly impenetrable layer of > obfuscation between reality and modern medical language. You see, this > way we can avoid trying to learn all that western medicine diagnosis that we > don't have time for in between elementary Mandarin classes. And it's a good > thing because I get the feeling doctors get some kind of attitude when they > see us pad up in our black cotton slippers holding our portentous tomes. Of > course the only reason for pre-med type science classes is to make us > cheerleaders for stem-cells while it gets pounded into our heads why we're > not real doctors. Wiseman had to co-opt all those English words no one uses > to convey the Richness of the ancient Chinese that no one uses. _ > I said, _I see. Utter Vacuity. They're just pulling your leg _ > He said, _No, but when she bent down she sure gave me Exuberant Jing _ > I said, _That's a little more information than I want to hear, but thanks for > cueing me in to your need for a lifetime supply of Taoist astringent formulas! _ > > . . . excerpt from _Massa Joe _ > 2005 Joe Reid, MT, LAc, OMD, 98%NBAO (don't ask) > http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2005 Report Share Posted June 16, 2005 ;If any of you can track down comprehensive online sources of the<br> & gt;Hanzi, Pinyin and English terminology, please email the URLs to me.<br> & gt;<br> & gt;Best regards,<br> & gt; (Tom) Philippe Sionneau has a Wiseman dictionary available from his website: http://www.sionneau.com/intro/fra/intron.htm French website. Click on " Formations " , then on the flashing " NOUVEAU : téléchargement gratuit du glossaire et du dictionnaire de médecine chinoise de Nigel Wiseman " and then the link at the bottom of the page. I just wonder if Philippe's server can take so many downloads from list members...or wait, the poll shows that not too many people want the Wiselan terminology ; ) Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2005 Report Share Posted June 17, 2005 wrote: > Hi All, & Pete, > > Pete Theisen wrote: > >>Have we a list of Wiseman's terms and their equivalents anywhere handy >>on the web? Can anyone post the link if there is? Hi Phil! Thanks for the head's up on copyright, etc. In light of this it would be very impractical to insist on using Wireman terms, it would be ok to " encourage " this, however. What I would want would be a web link or a printable cheat-sheet list of the most common ones, before I would agree to always use them. While Atillio and others may have a copy of Wiseman sitting on his desk, some other list users may be working out of a car with a blackberry. We have to consider every user. Regards, Pete 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.