pi wei lun

[Guest guest]

, Stephen Bonzak <smb021169@e...> wrote:

She made

> reference to the translation of Greek medicine into Arabic, and that

> in that situation there were only a handful of " translators, " while

> the vast majority of Arabic practitioners did not speak or read

> Greek.

 

I believe that is historically correct. However there is one notable

difference.

At the time the arabs absorbed ancient greek medicine, there were relatively

few books writen on the subject. It is my understanding that virtually the

entire

corpus of greek and roman medical texts was methodically translated into

arabic. In fact, most of what we know if greek medicne is due to the arabic

texts. the greek originals were destroyed by the church over a millennium

ago. Also the fact that latin, greek and arabic are all alphabetic languages

probably made trasnlation a bit more transparent than between a character

based language (like chinese) and an alphabetic one (like english).

 

Most people agree that when we have a thorough compilation of chinese

source material translated into english using some form of standardized

translation scheme, knowing chinese will no longer be necessary. Others

insist that there is something unique about the chinese language that is lost in

any translation scheme. Since you can never argue about poetry, I would be

most curious as whether what is lost affects clinical practice. the majority of

those who read chinese seem to emphasize the data one can access rather

than anything more ephemeral. Since most people aren't scholars or poets, I

think it is the data we mainly need and good translation will suffice for this.

Personally, I think there is already enough good translation available in

english to be an effective general practitioner using the TCM style. To be a

great one, though? That is the question.

 

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

 

> For those that were at the PCOM Symposium (and anyone else who

feels

> the need to respond to this), Mary Kay Ryan, a professor at

> PCOM-Chicago made note of the fact that historically, the need for

> all practitioners to learn Chinese may not be called for. She

made

> reference to the translation of Greek medicine into Arabic, and

that

> in that situation there were only a handful of " translators, "

while

> the vast majority of Arabic practitioners did not speak or read

> Greek. The translation of the medicine was apparently very

> successful and the practitioners for the most part focused on what

> they did best, practice medicine, which they were also very

> successful at, not knowing a bit of Greek.

>

> No one, to my knowledge, has taken this proposal and explored it.

> This may be a bit off-topic for the list, but I was wondering what

> people thought about that comment? Is this an historically

accurate

> statement? Should it be accurate, does that affect how we think

> about learning Chinese to practice TCM? I for one am very

interested

> in learning Chinese, but am struck by this interesting comment.

> Anyone care to comment?

>

She made this comment during my harangue

about the illness that has the profession

of Chinese medicine in its grip: illiteracy.

 

I was more concerned at encouraging

others in the audience to speak out

in response than I was in responding

myself, and so I refrained from refuting

her argument.

 

The main point I would urge people to

consider is that there may or may not

be a good resonance between the situation

she describes and the many historical

circumstances in which we can see what

it has always taken for Chinese medicine

to be transmitted and received in cultural

settings outside of China.

 

The Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese,

to name just a few of those who have successfully

received, adopted, adapted and carried on

the lineages of traditional Chinese medicine

have all tended to do so by embracing not

only the " practice " of the medicine but

the broader context of its cultural

roots, its language, its philosophy,

among its many other characteristics

and attributes.

 

It may not be possible to conclude that

such an approach is necessary, but it

is certainly possible to observe that

such an approach works. The robust

traditions of medicine that have grown

up and flourish in those places outside

of China where the language of Chinese

medicine has been embraced testify to

this workability.

 

I can't comment on the accuracy of Mary Kay's

historical reference. I just don't know.

But I question the degree to which, even

if it is 100% accurate, it can be applied

to the situation facing the transmission

and reception of traditional Chinese medicine.

 

And I remain very interested to learn

what others think and have to say on

this topic.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

 

 

>

> Most people agree that when we have a thorough compilation of

chinese

> source material translated into english using some form of

standardized

> translation scheme, knowing chinese will no longer be necessary.

 

Well, don't tell the Chinese this. They will

certainly feel quite snubbed. Do you think

that once we have a thorough compilation

of English language materials on any given

subject that has been translated into Chinese

(or any other language) that knowing

English will no longer be necessary.

 

Take a second look at your statement.

It's really quite absurd.

 

Others

> insist that there is something unique about the chinese language

that is lost in

> any translation scheme. Since you can never argue about poetry, I

would be

> most curious as whether what is lost affects clinical practice.

the majority of

> those who read chinese seem to emphasize the data one can access

rather

> than anything more ephemeral.

 

This is an unfortunate misstatement of the

matter. It never ceases to amaze me how

valliantly you and others struggle against

the idea that it makes sense to know

the meanings of the words that one uses.

 

There is no great debate about poetry

versus clinical practice. That is a

complete red herring. If you want

to know something, you have to know it.

Everyone decides how much they need

and want to know about everything.

 

 

Since most people aren't scholars or poets, I

> think it is the data we mainly need and good translation will

suffice for this.

 

What is " the data " ?

 

> Personally, I think there is already enough good translation

available in

> english to be an effective general practitioner using the TCM

style. To be a

> great one, though? That is the question.

 

Is it?

 

Then what is the answer?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

While I am not an expert in languages, I suspect that the answer may

lie in the nature of the relationship of Arabic to Greek versus the

relationship of Chinese to English and other 'Western' languages.

Notice that it was easy to translate Chinese medical texts into similar

languages, such as Japanese and Korean. There are families of

languages, just as it is relatively easy to learn Spanish and French

for an English-speaking person.

 

I am not so certain about Mary Kay's claim. I'll have to look into it

more, since Greco-Arabic medicine is one of my interests. One

historical fact I am certain of is that there were teams of Jewish

translators translating Greek into Arabic.

 

Another factor to consider is that the body of Greek medical texts was

much smaller than the Chinese medical literature.

 

 

On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 03:40 PM, Stephen Bonzak wrote:

 

> For those that were at the PCOM Symposium (and anyone else who feels

> the need to respond to this), Mary Kay Ryan, a professor at

> PCOM-Chicago made note of the fact that historically, the need for all

> practitioners to learn Chinese may not be called for.  She made

> reference to the translation of Greek medicine into Arabic, and that

> in that situation there were only a handful of " translators, " while

> the vast majority of Arabic practitioners did not speak or read

> Greek.  The translation of the medicine was apparently very successful

> and the practitioners for the most part focused on what they did best,

> practice medicine, which they were also very successful at, not

> knowing a bit of Greek.

[Guest guest]

Dear Steven,Ken, Z'ev ....

 

 

Last year it became compulsory for the western medical students to learn English and at least on paper its a course that EVERYONE must pas.

 

This is in conjunction with objectives: Raising the standard of education in Guatemala (it is only obligatory for the western medical students to learn English - Why?)

 

Unfortunately I think that either indirectly and at times directly this whole debate is clouded by confusion as to sense of security and hence no fundamental questioning of once world view.

 

Also, there is clear difference between cultural "appropriation" and cultural acculturations the former preventing the endogenous knowing from developing, as it literary excludes the generative stimulus in the first place. Whereas the later demands constant streams and new awareness, which enhance the contemparisation (something which by definition is also in a constant interconective process).

 

 

How many times have you (the list) not heard patients immediately saying something like:

 

Yea, I know what yin yang is...

 

With out any real need for claiming ground and hence security. (nor I am saying that I fully comprehend "yin yang")

 

what Z'ev points out is paramount since due to certain cultural osmosis due to distances and shared "commonality" transmission from Greco-Arabic is "analogical" to transmission from China and its neighbours but Chinese medicine to the west due to distances (amongst other factors) does indeed share less cultural osmosis as a starting point. Hence the statement by Mary Kay Ryan does not cure the illness of illiteracy but suppress it. One could consider that a cultural "appropriation".

 

To remedy this illness. Todd what is happening with the Idea that CHA host a internet based medical Chinese language course? last I remember Rey showed interest in elaborating such course, and I certainly would be interested in participating in such a course.

 

Marco Bergh

 

By the way Z'ev this links may interest you (and others):

 

http://www.samkhya-ayurveda.org/main.asp

 

http://indianmedicine.nic.in/

 

http://www.mic.ki.se/History.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> The main point I would urge people to

> consider is that there may or may not

> be a good resonance between the situation

> she describes and the many historical

> circumstances in which we can see what

> it has always taken for Chinese medicine

> to be transmitted and received in cultural

> settings outside of China.

>

> The Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese,

> to name just a few of those who have successfully

> received, adopted, adapted and carried on

> the lineages of traditional Chinese medicine

> have all tended to do so by embracing not

> only the " practice " of the medicine but

> the broader context of its cultural

> roots, its language, its philosophy,

> among its many other characteristics

> and attributes.

>

> It may not be possible to conclude that

> such an approach is necessary, but it

> is certainly possible to observe that

> such an approach works. The robust

> traditions of medicine that have grown

> up and flourish in those places outside

> of China where the language of Chinese

> medicine has been embraced testify to

> this workability.

>

 

The problem with this argument is that K/J/V got not only their

medicine, but enormous chunks of their culture from China over a long

period of time. This is simply not going to happen here. You're

sort of inferring that we need to drop out of our lives and somehow

immerse ourselves and " become Chinese " in order to properly practice

Chinese medicine. Most L.Ac. can't afford to do this... having read

your " harangues " for many years I know your response will be that

they cannot NOT afford to do this... but with established med (MD,

DO, and,yes, DC are now established in my view) rapidly taking market

share what you're talking about is something along the lines

of " treat the illness, kill the patient " .

 

I sympathize with your views but I'm puzzled that you don't seem to

understand why people are making a " valiant effort " against your

labors. Perhaps if you offered some concrete way in which L.Ac.

would increase their earnings and survive in practice your efforts

wouldn't be so difficult to sell. Right now people have only so many

resources at their disposal... I imagine Bob Flaws could comment on

the popularity of the 100k class as opposed to the more scholarly

lanuage or classical translation titles...

 

Perhaps at some point in the future there might be a " translation

track " in OM schools for the scholarly types who might not do so well

at setting up a clinical practice but might be able to make a living

serving the hopefully growing numbers of people who are training for

clinical practice in OM.

 

Robert Hayden

http://jabinet.net

[Guest guest]

The translation of the medicine was apparently very successful and the practitioners for the most part focused on what they did best, practice medicine, which they were also very successful at, not knowing a bit of Greek.

No one, to my knowledge, has taken this proposal and explored it. This may be a bit off-topic for the list, but I was wondering what people thought about that comment? Is this an historically accurate statement? Should it be accurate, does that affect how we think about learning Chinese to practice TCM? I for one am very interested in learning Chinese, but am struck by this interesting comment. Anyone care to comment?

>>>>As every body knows this is my position as we all have a limited amount of time. I think studying the medicine would probably yield more. While I know knowing Chinese would give one more excess, and as Chip pointed out to me for example no one is going to do another serious translation of difficult issues often Unschuld, and his is not ideal for pratitioners, still the amount of good information is growing exponentially.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Others insist that there is something unique about the Chinese language that is lost in any translation scheme. Since you can never argue about poetry, I would be most curious as whether what is lost affects clinical practice. the majority of those who read Chinese seem to emphasize the data one can access rather than anything more ephemeral. Since most people aren't scholars or poets, I think it is the data we mainly need and good translation will suffice for this. Personally, I think there is already enough good translation available in English to be an effective general practitioner using the TCM style. To be a great one, though? That is the question.>>>>>And still no one has giving me a good example why knowing a character would lead to a better understanding than a good analysis of that character in English. Where is the "greatness"going to come from. Also, I have been told by several TCM MA, and PhDs from China that they do not believe one needs to know the langue and that even as we stand now there is enough translated good clinical information. If one's interest is in intellectual discourse, deep analysis and discussions one would probably benefit greatly. However, if the schools are to put out clinicians that need to make a living, and a little more than the current 30% that seem to make it. I strongly think the students are much better served by more clinics, practical biomedical training etc.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Do you thinkthat once we have a thorough compilationof English language materials on any givensubject that has been translated into Chinese(or any other language) that knowingEnglish will no longer be necessary.Take a second look at your statement.It's really quite absurd.>>>>>Ken I think this is an example on the basic differences in goals. If one is to apply clinical medicine I do not see any problem with that statement, except for perhaps keeping up with the newer literature. But again, at what point its the information that would come from the west that would be just as important?

Alon

[Guest guest]

There are families of languages, just as it is relatively easy to learn Spanish and French for an English-speaking person.

>>>That is why a good commentary is very important. Again in not about knowing the original language only, it about the quality of translation and commentary.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Most L.Ac. can't afford to do this...

>>Or want to

Alon

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

 

> > Most people agree that when we have a thorough compilation of

> chinese

> > source material translated into english using some form of

> standardized

> > translation scheme, knowing chinese will no longer be necessary.

 

>

> Take a second look at your statement.

> It's really quite absurd.

 

I am paraphrasing wiseman from a lecture I heard. Perhaps I misheard, but I

think not. He made the point of saying that the chinese no longer need to

read english to learn western medicine because they have translated the

entire corpus of western medicine into chinese. and that when we reach an

equivalent volume of translation, we will be in the same position.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how

> valliantly you and others struggle against

> the idea that it makes sense to know

> the meanings of the words that one uses.

 

Knowing the meaning of words is something quite different than being able to

read a foreign language. I know what derriere means, both anatomically and

colloquially, despite its french origin. a good translation, which is what I

was

arguing for, does indeed convey meaning. the more trasnlation we have, the

more meaning we have. If this is not true, then why bother with translation at

all.

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> Do you think

> that once we have a thorough compilation

> of English language materials on any given

> subject that has been translated into Chinese

> (or any other language) that knowing

> English will no longer be necessary.

>

> Take a second look at your statement.

> It's really quite absurd.

> >>>>>Ken I think this is an example on the basic differences in

goals. If one is to apply clinical medicine I do not see any problem

with that statement, except for perhaps keeping up with the newer

literature. But again, at what point its the information that would

come from the west that would be just as important?

 

I don't think I've ever said anything to

suggest that information coming from

the West or other non-Chinese sources

may not be just as important as information

coming from Chinese sources. I don't

doubt that important information can

and will and does come from a wide variety

of sources.

 

This, again, has nothing to do with the

central point that is so cavalierly brushed

aside by yourself and others who argue

against the inclusion of language studies

in the education and training of acupuncturists.

 

This point is utterly simple.

 

If you do not know the meaning of the words

that you are using, the mere use of those

words is futile. What struck me as absurd

about Todd's remark about it being no longer

necessary to know Chinese was that it similarly

and quite cavalierly overlooks the reality

here on earth of all the people who use

the Chinese language routinely.

 

The specific absurdity is the labeling as

unnecessary the experience of

the vast bulk of human beings who actually

use traditional Chinese medicine.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken-

 

She made this comment during my

harangue

about the illness that has the profession

of Chinese medicine in its grip: illiteracy.

 

First, I can't let you call the entire world of non-Chinese

speaking practitioners " illiterate, " and nor should they.

That is a very derogatory statement about people who have high levels

of skill in the clinical practice of Chinese medicine.

This is probably the main reason that many people find this whole

discussion elitist and not worth the effort. And furthermore, it

is not going to lead to change in the direction you seek. It is

only going to alienate people.

 

Undoubtedly, learning more about Chinese culture and the language

will influence the practice of Chinese medicine in the US. It

may even make it better. Change in that direction will never

happen, however, as long as people are being " harangued. "

Good practitioners are always open to things that improve their

practice, mainly because it will improve the outcomes for their

patients and increase their own chances of improving their bottom

line. It is up to the people who know Chinese and advocate its

learning, to convince them through demonstration that it is

worthwhile. Like Alon is always saying, " Show me how

knowing a Chinese character will improve my practice. " When

change is forced down their throats, and especially when it

invalidates their efforts, it will be rejected outright.

 

In your defense, let me say I think that learning Chinese, and

especially by having a mentor who is from the culture, is going to

contribute positively to my development as a practitioner. While

I also personally believe that it could benefit others as well, I do

not believe that someone who does not know Chinese will be

" illiterate " or " inferior. " It is up to

everyone to continually grow and learn and change, however that may

suit them, and a person can only be considered a " good " or

" great " practitioner as long as they continue to challenge

themselves and what they know. What we are trying to embrace

here is a very difficult and complex subject, and knowing Chinese is

not the only way to grow in that understanding.

 

-Steve

--

 

Stephen Bonzak

<smb021169

[Guest guest]

 

 

> I am paraphrasing wiseman from a lecture I heard. Perhaps I

misheard, but I

> think not. He made the point of saying that the chinese no longer

need to

> read english to learn western medicine because they have

translated the

> entire corpus of western medicine into chinese.

 

This may well be right. I don't dispute the

fact that the Chinese have translated the

bulk of a wide number of subjects into

Chinese. And certainly they pride themselves

on being able to comprehend such things as

Western medicine in their own language.

 

This degree of comprehensive reception of

such a subject is indeed something to be sought.

Chinese individuals not only read important

literature in western medicine as well as

a wide range of other subjects in their

native language. They also write it.

 

Are you aware of the fact that the great

bulk of Chinese students of western medicine

read English routinely?

 

Your paraphrase is not a comprehensive appraisal

of the situation to which you make reference

to support your point.

 

The actual situation is that most of the

western medical personnel at the level of

student, doctor, teacher, professor, researcher,

as well as the administrators and policy

makers who oversee the public health

system in China can read and understand

English...at least to some extent. English

is a part of school curricula here in

China and has been for many years now.

 

Even those who will answer " no " to the

question of whether they can read and

understand English have been exposed to

a course of study in the language and

have some modicum of understanding of

how it works.

 

In other words, knowledge of Engish is

widespread. There are some 150,000,000

students of the English language here

in China. This might seem a pittance

compared to the balance of the 1.3

billion folks or so who are not students

of English. But it is a strategically

important pittance. It's roughly half

of the population of the largest cities,

and demographically it tends to be

the younger half. These are the people

who will lead China into the future.

 

They have thoroughly embraced the English

language in large part out of recognition

of the very basic fact that we are trying

to establish as a fundamental agreement

in the international Chinese medical community.

What is this fact?

 

If you want to understand a people and

their ideas, learn their language.

 

The English learning craze in Beijing

today is one of the most ferocious

market phenomena I've ever witnessed.

There are young Chinese entrepreneurs

who have become billionaires catering

to this English learning market.

 

For anyone who can remember the 1977

sensation that surrounded the release

of Star Wars, what is going on with

regards to learning English in Beijing

these days is one or two orders of magnitude

more powerful than that. Everyone here

is learning English. The police are learning

English. Retirees are getting together to

study English. Public servants of all stripes

are taking English classes. Even the taxi

drivers practice their English when I

get into a cab.

 

If you want to make reference to the experience

of Chinese in the reception of foreign

influences, it is best not to abstract from

that experience isolated facts. Look at how

they behave.

 

If it is not necessary, then why do it?

 

Do not dismiss this as being too far afield

from the strictly supposed limits of the

clinic. It very much applies to doctors

and medical students here in China. The

attitudes and overall quality of the

intellectual environment matter.

 

To graduate from college in China

a student must pass an English language

exam. There is another gateway English exam

before graduate school. English majors

have even more rigorous tests.

 

 

 

and that when we reach an

> equivalent volume of translation, we will be in the same position.

 

We are in the same position right now.

And I think it's important that we assume

the position.

 

 

>

> It never ceases to amaze me how

> > valliantly you and others struggle against

> > the idea that it makes sense to know

> > the meanings of the words that one uses.

>

> Knowing the meaning of words is something quite different than

being able to

> read a foreign language.

 

Perhaps, but the two lie along a path.

It is the path of knowledge, and those

who travel on it recognize sooner or

later that it may not have a destination

and that making daily progress may be what

matters. The way, as Musashi put it, is

in practice.

 

I know what derriere means, both anatomically and

> colloquially, despite its french origin. a good translation,

which is what I was

> arguing for, does indeed convey meaning. the more trasnlation we

have, the

> more meaning we have. If this is not true, then why bother with

translation at

> all.

 

Why do you persist at creating these supposed

conflicts? There is absolutely nothing in

what I have said that argues against good

translation. Look, if I thought it was not

a good idea to have good translations, why

would I bother to try and make them?

 

Good translations do not preclude or supplant

study of the original language. In my experience,

good translations are an important part of

language study. As we develop our own

grasp of the words and the concepts, we

can compare our results with those of

students who have gone before us. That's

clearly a valuable tool.

 

What is the job?

 

Well, since this post is already so

long, I'll just throw in this quote that

my son showed me yesterday.

 

" With perseverance, the very odds and ends of time may be worked up

into results of the greatest value. An hour in every day withdrawn

from frivolous pursuits would, if profitably employed, enable a

person of ordinary capacity to go far towards mastering a science.

It would make an ignorant man a well-informed one in less than ten

years. Time should not be allowed to pass without yielding fruits,

in the form of something learnt worthy of being known, some good

principle cultivated, or some good habit strengthened. "

 

What is this argument about?

 

If you accept the fact that people have to

know the meanings of the terms that they

study and are supposed to be able to apply,

then there is a necessary body of knowledge

that has to be transmitted to students in

order to enable them to comply with this

prerequisite.

 

A member of the board of Dan Bensky's

school approached me at PCOM to make

sure that I was aware of their program

in Chinese medical language after my

talk about qi4 and Chinese medical theory.

She pointed out to me that they had

recognized the unavoidable conclusion

of the preceeding paragraph.

 

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

If you do not know the meaning of the wordsthat you are using, the mere use of thosewords is futile. What struck me as absurdabout Todd's remark about it being no longernecessary to know Chinese was that it similarlyand quite cavalierly overlooks the realityhere on earth of all the people who usethe Chinese language routinely.>>>>You missed my point, Todd is just talking about training OM practitioners in US and you are taking to place beyond this question

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> If you do not know the meaning of the words

> that you are using, the mere use of those

> words is futile. What struck me as absurd

> about Todd's remark about it being no longer

> necessary to know Chinese was that it similarly

> and quite cavalierly overlooks the reality

> here on earth of all the people who use

> the Chinese language routinely.

> >>>>You missed my point, Todd is just talking about training OM

practitioners in US and you are taking to place beyond this question

 

So are you saying that as long as we are talking

about training OM practitioners in the US then

we don't need to have people understand the

meaning of the terms they use?

 

Why should we continue to develop a set of

inadequate educational standards just because

we are talking about training OM practitioners

in the US?

 

You are constantly demanding clinical relevance.

The bulk of clinical experience in Chinese

medicine is still to be found in China.

 

What point of yours have I missed?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve,

>

> >She made this comment during my harangue

> >about the illness that has the profession

> >of Chinese medicine in its grip: illiteracy.

>

> First, I can't let you call the entire world of non-Chinese

speaking

> practitioners " illiterate, " and nor should they.

 

OK. You can see that what I wrote is that

illiteracy has the profession in its

grip. I didn't say that the entire world

of non-Chinese speaking practitioners

are illiterate. So if you're not going

to let me say something, at least you

can not let me say something that I

actually said.

 

We can certainly discuss and dispute

the fact and impact of illiteracy on

the profession, with your permission.

 

What do you make of the fact that people

argue so forcefully against inclusion

of language learning in training curricula?

Why don't schools teach their students

to understand the language of the subject?

 

That is a very

> derogatory statement about people who have high levels of skill

in

> the clinical practice of Chinese medicine. This is probably the

main

> reason that many people find this whole discussion elitist and not

> worth the effort. And furthermore, it is not going to lead to

change

> in the direction you seek. It is only going to alienate people.

 

What percentage of practicing acupuncturists

in the US could pass an examination on the

meaning of Chinese medical terms?

It is, indeed, a derogatory statement.

But it is a statement that describes a

highly derogatory situation.

 

 

>

> Undoubtedly, learning more about Chinese culture and the language

> will influence the practice of Chinese medicine in the US.

 

I would say there remains a non-trivial

fraction of the professional community

that harbors profound doubts on this

point.

 

It may

> even make it better. Change in that direction will never happen,

> however, as long as people are being " harangued. " Good

practitioners

> are always open to things that improve their practice, mainly

because

> it will improve the outcomes for their patients and increase their

> own chances of improving their bottom line. It is up to the

people

> who know Chinese and advocate its learning, to convince them

through

> demonstration that it is worthwhile. Like Alon is always saying,

> " Show me how knowing a Chinese character will improve my

practice. "

> When change is forced down their throats, and especially when it

> invalidates their efforts, it will be rejected outright.

 

Change has already been forced down their

throats. They have been forced to learn

a highly altered version of the subject;

and one of the most significant alterations

has been the virtual removal of the nomenclature.

 

It is highly questionable for any profession

to conduct its education in the absence of

a well defined terminology.

>

> In your defense, let me say I think that learning Chinese, and

> especially by having a mentor who is from the culture, is going to

> contribute positively to my development as a practitioner. While

I

> also personally believe that it could benefit others as well, I do

> not believe that someone who does not know Chinese will be

> " illiterate " or " inferior. "

 

What do you call it when someone does not

know how to read and write? I think the

term is " illiterate. " If a doctor of

Chinese medicine cannot read and write

the terms of Chinese medicine, that

individual is professionally illiterate.

 

There is widespread illiteracy with

respect to the Chinese medical literature.

This is simply a fact. Most non-Chinese

practitioners of Chinese medicine cannot

read the vast amount of medical literature

that exists on the subject.

 

It is up to everyone to continually grow

> and learn and change, however that may suit them, and a person can

> only be considered a " good " or " great " practitioner as long as

they

> continue to challenge themselves and what they know. What we are

> trying to embrace here is a very difficult and complex subject,

and

> knowing Chinese is not the only way to grow in that understanding.

 

I have never once asserted that the only way

to grow in understanding is by knowing Chinese.

But it is the only way to know the meaning of

Chinese words.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

So are you saying that as long as we are talkingabout training OM practitioners in the US thenwe don't need to have people understand themeaning of the terms they use?

>>>>I think this can be done quite effectively in English. To understand Qi one can read a book on Qi he does not need to recognize the character and its radicals. Perhaps the writer or the book should, but a student of OM in US can read a book on Qi

alon

[Guest guest]

discussion elitist and not worth the effort

>>>Done almost exclusively my none practitioners

Alon

[Guest guest]

is going to contribute positively to my development as a practitioner\>>>

>>>Or negatively we do not know. Does it make one pay more attention to the process than clinical medicine? I wander as I have seen this occur

Alon

[Guest guest]

What do you make of the fact that peopleargue so forcefully against inclusionof language learning in training curricula?Why don't schools teach their studentsto understand the language of the subject?>>May be becouse some feel strongly that time is better served doing other activities such as clinics etc

alon

[Guest guest]

What percentage of practicing acupuncturistsin the US could pass an examination on themeaning of Chinese medical terms?It is, indeed, a derogatory statement.But it is a statement that describes ahighly derogatory situation.>>>If that is correct it is too bad. But the terms would be tested in English and the learning in English

Alon

[Guest guest]

I have never once asserted that the only wayto grow in understanding is by knowing Chinese.But it is the only way to know the meaning ofChinese words.

>>>I am still waiting for an example

Alon

[Guest guest]

Alon,

I think we've already addressed this several times. In short,

Chinese medicine is as much literary and clinical, and there is no

division between clincal practice and study. Remember that quote from

Maimonides I posted last week? This idea is not unique to Chinese

medicine, but in the West as well. Read Sir William Osler's essays as

well.

 

 

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 09:18 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

>  is going to contribute positively to my development as a

> practitioner\>>>

> >>>Or negatively we do not know. Does it make one pay more attention

> to the process than clinical medicine? I wander as I have seen this

> occur

> Alon

>