TCM terminology (was cross reference)

[Guest guest]

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:04:53 +0100, " Attilio

D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto wrote:

>See the paper on why Wiseman terminology shouldn't be used: …

and

Fri, 31 Mar 2006 10:48:00 000, " Alwin van Egmond "

< replied:

>… this flawed article that, as you also know by

now, doesn't represent the opinions

from Nigel [Wiseman] …

 

Reading the PubMed abstract (through Atillilio's

1st link), one might think there was a focused

attack on the Wiseman system. After reading 4

articles by Xie ZhuFan (in English, not the other

articles in Chinese thanks to Tom Verhaeghe for

forwarding the files), my impression is that Dr.

Xie's approach is more reasonable. In these

articles he doesn't attack Wiseman, and often

goes along with Wiseman & Co's choice of terms.

What Xie appears to be doing is surveying Western

TCM literature, considering the range of

translational usages and viewpoints, especially

dominant or more common ones, and then taking

into consideration actual word/character meanings

from various perspectives, English and Chinese

conventions, and proposing best choices. At times

he condones common usages, and even multiple

possible choices. The English (I assume no

translator here) is impeccable, to boot. He's

adding constructively to the general discussion,

is my impression from these articles, and comes

across as a highly knowledgeable and reasonable

person. I would venture that Xie and Wiseman

themselves could have mutually respectful and

fruitful discussions of the translation issues.

As it is, both are embedded in different

political environments, as symbolized by the

small bit of ocean separating the PRC and Taiwan.

 

Incidentally, part of Xie's methodology appears

to be close to what Pete Thiesen described:

>… tabulate the votes and report the results…

How many differences are there between the

various authorities? Compile a list of these differences…

 

On the other hand, and especially from the

" Editorial " " Study of traditional Chinese

medicine… " presented earlier by Tom Verhaeghe)

and " Book Review " article, by Chen and another

Li, it becomes apparent that Xie's overall

endeavor is part of an political push by Chinese

authorities to assert control over English

translation of CM terminology. Where Xie says

" <such and such> term is then the recommended

usage " , I read that his work might be being used

to create an official system for translation in

China, and possibly intended to be enforced

world-wide. He makes suggestions at one point,

for instance, how authors who previously used

something else, should adapt to the recommended

usages, suggesting literary mechanisms to help save face.

 

The tone and substance of the Editorial and Book

Review are clear examples of the official

attitudes shaping TCM since its origins in the

1950's, as documented in Kim Taylor's book on the

history of post-revolutionary TCM. These articles

demonstrate an attempt to appear fluent in

English, while clearly not written or reviewed by

native and literate English speakers/writers. I

find an implication here that Chinese authorities

aim to exercise control over how CM literature be

translated into other languages. I believe

scholars and practitioners in other

cultures/languages should decide how best to

express CM ideas in their own language/thought

systems (given, of course, that they have

sufficient understanding of the Chinese source material).

 

As Kim Taylor has argued (on the basis of

exhaustive original documentation), formulating

TCM was auxiliary to expanding health care on the

Western model. They had large numbers of

traditional practitioners and few competent

Western-style doctors. Later emerged the element

of national pride in their medical heritage, at

least partially in response to interest in the

West, which was a surprise to them, which

protected aspects of tradition from being

discarded. After an initial theme of " East learns

from West " (training traditional practitioners in

basic WM such as hygiene), came " West learns from

East " (training WM-style practitioners in some

TCM). Then the integrative idea was formulated,

projecting a future integrated world medicine, a

gift to mankind from the Chinese. This theme

persists into the present, marked by gradual

steps reshaping TCM closer to WM, e.g. mandating

all Dx, even by TCMers, be in ICD-9 style terms

(mid-1990's); and abandoning traditionally

formulated therapeutic functions in favor of Western style indications.

 

Tom wrote (Mon, 3 Apr 2006 21:07:10 +0200):

>. But developing pharmaceuticals is not the

only development that can happen with the

integration of Chinese and western medicine.

 

Researching DanShen or HuangQi for active

ingredients, as Z'ev pointed out, is a basic

aspect of Western pharmacology's history (and

currently continued). Similarly, a recent article

in Acupuncture Today reported on development of

an asthma treatment from a CM formula, by

reducing it to 3 active ingredients. This is

being carried out between Chinese and American

research, and has as its goal development of a

drug treatment for asthma in Western medical

practice. It's not integrative CM, though. It's

WM. Like the AIDS " cocktail " drug

formula developed by one with a Chinese

background; the idea of formulaic combination is

inspired, perhaps, by Chinese tradition, but used in a purely WM sense.

 

Finding and extracting " active " ingredients from

Chinese plants for pharmacological application

and calling it CM, " integrative " or in any sense,

is like saying that the application of aspirin is Native American medicine.

 

From Xie's English articles, and Greg

Livingston's (Wed, 5 Apr 2006 07:25:01 +0800)

estimation of Chen Ke-Ji, I don't doubt that they

are well versed in CM. While Xie's material is

straight-forward and insightful research, he

appears to be carrying out an official mandate to

counter the growing influence of the Wiseman

translation system. Chen's editorial and

book-review are more promotion of official

policy. (I would assume other writings mentioned

recently here by Chen are more substantive with respect to medicine.)