Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Hello All, I make my own liniments and I would like to bottle them in spray bottles. can anyone suggest a good company so I could order wholesale?? Thanks, Eti AcuClinic: Acupuncture and Herbs Eti Domb, L.Ac. 1281 University Ave, Suite E San Diego, CA 92103 619.543.9280 Eti, If your liniments are very clear (no specks and little gobs from the herbs), a spray bottle will work o.k. My experience with dit dah jou in spray bottles is that the sprayer gets clogged. Amber dropper bottles work better for me. Frances Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 > I don't know if you are around, I'm around. I'm in Beijing getting to work on translating this series of TV programs on Chinese medicine. but I just read > your editorial in what I > think was the most recent CAOM journal. You > were explaining why you had > devoted so much space in a " clinical " journal > to issues that some consider > " academic " and thus somehow not relevant, I > guess??? Its a neverending > quest, eh? If we're lucky, it will not come to an end. Anyway, while I completely agree > with basic assumptions about > the impossibility of accurately transmitting > chinese medicine to our > community without accurate translation and/or > access to source material as > the key, This ought not to be relegated to something that merely passes by as a prelude to a question. If you are correct that it is impossible to accurately transmit Chinese medicine to our community without accurate translation and/or access to source material, then that means that whatever happens in the absence of such is either impossible or inaccurate. I have a question about the anecdote > you present to illustrate > your point. You illuminate a meaning in > several similar words that would > not be apparent to anyone but a reader of > chinese. No translation would > ever capture the essence of what you described. > You wrote that such data > encoded in the characters informed generations > of physicians in this way. Language works in many ways. Many of these are subtle. And most of these subtle mechanisms of language have little if anything to do with " scholarship " per se. However, if you don't know the language, these mechanisms do not come into play. They are just so much noise, in the case of spoken language, or incomprehensible scribbles, in the case of written language. > > But I wonder how many physicians throughout > chinese history were really > sensitive to these nuances of their own > language. Users of a language are subject to, let alone sensitive to, the mechanisms to which I've just referred. Just because someone > reads or speaks a language does not mean they > will understand it at any > but the most superficial level. Nothing means that anyone will understand anything. Period. That's not the point. The point is that language is a critical feature of the context in which the ideas have originated and through which they have been transmitted for centuries. If you know the language you can understand layers of dynamics in the theories that if you don't know the language you can't. for instance, > I have long been interested > in latin and greek roots of english and > etymology of language in general > (ever since I read Tolkien in my youth). But I > think the average person > and even most western doctors are pretty > utilitarian about words. You are creating some sort of arbitrary categorical difference between utilitarian and, I guess non-utilitarian knowledge and use of words. I don't believe any such categories exist, and I don't think this sort of characterization is valid or useful. And > while there were a small number of scholar > doctors in ancient, How many? I can > hardly believe that most doctors in ancient > times were any less > utilitarian as a group, just because they were > chinese. You see what I mean? The implication of this remark is that scholars are not utilitarian and that utilitarians are not scholarly. I don't buy it. In fact, many of > my chinese colleagues are the most utilitarian > doctors I have ever met > (and often quite skillful in terms of success > rates). So I still maintain > that except for the rarefied few, the > importance of learning the chinese > language is mainly to get access to more data. Access to more data is an interesting phrase. Learning a language definitely gives you access to more data. It also allows you to process data and transform it into useful information. Continued study permits some, admittedly fewer, to explore realms of knowledge and even wisdom. As I've said many times, this is a personal and individual matter and not a categorical imperative. It has little if anything to do with the actual arguments that have led you and me both to understand that it's not possible to successfully transmit Chinese medicine anywhere without knowledgeable reference to the Chinese language. > while there are some who > may actually come to deeply understand the > depth you describe, I suspect > these will be few and that they were always > few, even in ancient china > herself. So what? I suspect that people who deeply understand anything will probably always be few in number. > > I know some people disagree with the importance > of this issue altogether. Do you know anyone who has learned the language who disagrees with the importance of knowing the language? Or are those who disagree with importance of knowing the language, by and large, characterized by not knowing the language? > But we must also reach a consensus amongst > those who do place importance > on this issue. Where do we set the bar, what > is it's purpose and who > needs to pass it (all, some, most)? This is a matter of policy making. Policy making should be informed by clear thinking. Clear thinking on the subject can only lead to the understanding that if one wants to understand the contents of Chinese medical literature, one should be able to read it. The > current wording in the doctoral > proposal you quote seems to allow the > possibility that all that will be > required is a study of chinese medical > terminology, not medical chinese. > While the former does elevate the knowledge of > students immensely, it is > already required at most good master's programs > and involves no actual > study of chinese characters, grammar, etc. I > definitely think the bar > needs to be higher than that. In fact, if > someone with no clinical > experience is going to be able to call > themselves doctor and I am not, I > want that bar to be real high. No one has asked me to set any bars. My comments on the subject relate to my own experience and are made for the purpose of getting folks to think about it. Along these lines, I've just finished editing a fascinating piece that will appear in the upcoming December issue on language and medicine written by two Italian doctors, Lucio Sotte and Aldo Stella. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 2003 Report Share Posted December 11, 2003 In a message dated 12/11/03 10:32:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes: > Just rambling while waiting for something to show up in me box from the > instructor for me Management class >sigh< > > > K > > Cheers! > Kathleen Petrides > The Woobey Queen > Woobeys: The Loving Touch Therapeutic Pillow > http://www.woobeyworld.com > K <AMAGE<EMT?????? Why start now? MJH " The Basil Book " http://foxhillfarm.us/FireBasil 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.