R: Herbs

May 8, 2009

Dear Angela, on the paclage should be written the ratio between Drug and

Extract. In Europe we use D:E, then the value. In example: D:E = 5:1 means

that one gram of extract coincide with five grams of the herb. So, Shu Di

Huang D:E 5:1 means that 1 gram of the powder is the same of 5 grams of the

herb. Thus the problem: raw herb or dried herb (Drug)? Since a dried extract

from raw herb at a ratio 5:1 means that 1 gram is as 5 grams of the raw

herb, is very different from a dried extract from dried herb (that is one

fifth of the raw herb): 1 gram in this case, is the same as about 25 grams

of raw herb! Hence a low or excessive dosage! Not so simple, but with a bit

of patience... Second problem: often raw vegetables has not the active

principle we wish to give. I.e.: fresh, raw tomatoes have not lycopene, but

dried or cooked tomatoes have it; Qing hao, Artemisia annua, has no

artemisine when harvested; it forms itself only dried from (6 to 20%; but

over one minute in decoction destroy it!). This is the question: we manage

raw or dried herbs? It's a really great difference. Regards and big hugs,

_____

Da: Chinese Medicine

Chinese Medicine Per conto di Angela

Pfaffenberger, PH.D.

Inviato: venerdì 8 maggio 2009 17.56

A: Chinese Medicine

Oggetto: Re: Herbs

I keep being confused if there are any real differences in quality or price

between the lines of available herbs, such as Evergreen, KCP, Sun Ten/Brion.

Someone told me that they are coming out of the same factories in Taiwan, is

that true? Anyone tried several lines and thinks they differ? I am using

Evergreen right now, and I am not happy with the results I am getting, but I

used to have a raw herb pharmacy and of course the powders won't match the

efficacy, but I thought they would come close.

Regards,

Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D.

angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa%40comcast.net> net

www.InnerhealthSalem.com

Phone: 503 364 3022

-

yehuda frischman

@ <%40>

; TCM

Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:21 PM

Re: Terminology and Etymology

My dear friend Z'ev,

In my very humble and insignifcant opinion, I believe that the approach you

are taking is dogmatic. Just because no one of stature chooses to use the

term sedate to describe the phenomenon of calming an irritable and replete

liver, doesn't mean that its use doesn't have merit. That is specifically

why I, as an English speaker, chose to delve into the etymological root of

the word, to understand as best as possible what the original intent may

have been before modern usage bastardized it. And it seems to be a very

appropriate word to describe a process that we undertake as clinicians. I

would add, though, that I think that the main problem that we have is with

action verbs. It is there that our controversy seems to be playing out.

I admire your attempt to " think " Chinese, but as with Hebrew, which I am

fluent in, it is a great leap to go from being able to read and even speak a

foreign language, while still thinking in English, to get to the point where

one actually thinks in the language. I still think in English, and sometimes

make silly mistakes in translating literally, when engaging in Hebrew

conversations. When I studied in Israel for two years, and lived in an all

Hebrew speaking environment, it took me about 3 months before I actually

realized that I was thinking in Hebrew. But that was when I was 22. As we

age, we become less resilient and its much harder to get back that thought

process now in my late 50s, though I speak to patients and family in Hebrew

nearly daily. " Ah but I was so much older than, I'm younger than that now "

The point I'm trying to make is that sure it's possible, but I would suggest

that it's very, very difficult to get yourself to think in a foreign

language, and especially, and especially for a Westerner, if that language

is Chinese which is unlike any Western language, even more so than Hebrew.

And without thinking in Chinese, I don't believe that it's possible to

develop a Chinese mindset.

That being said, I am not suggesting that it is appropriate to create a new

Bio-medically savvy, interpretive Western Chinese medicine. If that evolves

in the next 100 years, it may not be a bad thing, necessarily. But as our

sages say, " Who is the wise person, the one who learns from all people. " We

live in a world of tremendous opportunities to acquire information. There is

tremendous connectivity and many are attempting all kinds of eclectic

blendings of old and new. I feel that if we patiently are able to develop

viable theory behind successful clinical practice than we can grow a

wonderful branch onto the beautiful Chinese medical tree. But it has to be

connected to the trunk, and it has to be connected to the roots. Otherwise

it won't have the integrity or viability to survive. This is the foolishness

of the New Age movement, in my opinion. Either it is rootless, or its roots

come from paganism. I don't think it will

last any longer than its flim flam salesmen who hawk their wares at health

consciousness conventions, are around. There is much wisdom in the West as

well as the East. Let us use the method that we have acquired wisdom, to

continue to due so, but without the arrogance of claiming soemthing which we

adapt is our birthright.

Having said that, there is a lot in Chinese medicine that is

universally understandable by both layperson and practitioner, i.e.

hot, cold, supplement, drain, seasons, phases, etc. We just need to

understand it in the original context before adapting it to conditions

here in the West.

As I said to RoseAnne, I am very concerned with the laxity in which terms

are interchanged in English without precision. This is why I feel that

understanding etymology is essential in this adaptation process.

Unfortunately, we don't agree, otherwise, I don't think that you would have

a problem with my usage of sedation as a term which implies calming, and

different from anesthetizing.

The difficulty arises because of poor translation efforts at the

beginning of the transmission of Chinese medicine to the West. It

shows how easily poor translation can lead to long-term

misunderstandings of root principles in our medicine. We are still

using some of these terms and concepts today! This difficulty remains

with many mainland Chinese translators, who do not adequately

understand the target language and culture (English or other Western

languages), and non-professional Western translators. Ideal is a team

of native Chinese speakers who practice Chinese medicine who know

English well with native English-speakers who know medical Chinese

well. Lately, many texts have used this team approach to translation.

I agree with you, but being able to speak and think in English is not

enough. Language needs to be studied with precision, and, as I said earlier,

when terms connoting actions, meaning verbs are considered, it is essential

the the source of the verb be considered in order to be viable. I would

suggest that the same process needs to take place in Chinese--that the

Radicals need to be considered when understanding the characters.

Nigel Wiseman is a professional linguist, fluent in several

languages. While other term choices may be valid for technical

Chinese terms, I trust his judgment when it comes to English term

choices. He has done the hard work and research, and if one is going

to challenge his term choices, they need to have the chops to do so. .

I am not in any way questioning the wisdom of the choices that an eminent

scholar such as he may have chosen. But I am not interested in translating

terms. I am interesting in understanding what idea is being conveyed, and

what the terms mean. Looking in a dictionary to figure out arcane or

scholarly English terminology does not explain to me what a given action is

meant necessarily. That is why etymology is so important, and like I said,

both ways, and if a term cannot be translated appropriately in one word,

then it should be left with a description rather than a lame one word

proximation which helps neither scholar nor clinician.

Respectfully,

--- On Thu, 5/7/09, <zrosenbe (AT) san (DOT)

<zrosenbe%40san.rr.com> rr.com> wrote:

Re: Terminology and Etymology

@ <%40>

Thursday, May 7, 2009, 12:30 PM

Yehuda,

Not much time right now, but I must disagree with you. If we are

resigned to a 'Western mindset', we will never understand Chinese

medicine properly, but will simply end up making Chinese medicine " in

our own image " . And don't we have enough biomedicine already without

turning tranditional medicines into another form of the same? I

believe we need to create a 'virtual Chinese medicine mindset' by

studying the classical medical texts and theory, and then translate

that out clinically. There are accurate translations of terms and

functions, and I don't know one reputable source left that still uses

'sedate' for the acupuncture treatment method of xie/drainage. With

sedation there is no movement or circulation, and acupuncture/ moxa

always circulates the qi.