Ken's review of The Web

[Guest guest]

>>And for those who continue to

either see or want to cast this as

some sort of inquisition, let me

ask you this:

 

Where is it at to perceive a series

of questions about a school and

a diploma (or doctorate) as an

inquisition?

 

Ken>>

 

Ken,

It was I who introduced the word inquisition into this thread, so I'm

honour bound to respond.

 

I've understood from your responses subsequent to my use of this word

that your working method requires you to ask these questions. If

they've got to be asked, they've got to be asked, but I hope you'll

appreciate that the questions you put to Dan Bensky could be

interpreted to have a cross-examination/inquisitorial quality. Perhaps

you didn't mean them to - I assume from you further responses that

this wasn't your intention.

 

I think the re-evaluation of the understanding of CM in the West, a la

Unschuld, is important, and I welcome this. Personally, I would

approach this in a different way, looking at TCM and its influence,

questioning the attempt to introduce standardized terminology that

possibly could convey more continuity and coherence to CM than exists,

etc.. However, each one of us has to find his/her own way into this.

 

So, Ken, you know better than I what you gotta do...

 

 

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

Wainwright,

 

We should probably take up the

question of term standards...yet again

as I believe the issues are far from

understood. The possession of

a comprehensive bilingual gloss

of a subject in no slightest way

creates any false impression to

anyone except an individual who

chooses to remain uneducated in

its use.

 

It is just remarkable to me that

people continue to portrary the

issue of term standardization as

a contest between free thinkers and

tyrants.

 

If there is a tyranny involved, it is

the tyranny of working to keep the

meanings of words obscure and

hard for people to grasp and access.

 

Worse still is tolerance of a use of

language in which words are permitted

to mean anything at all. A word that

means anything, means nothing.

 

One of the disagreements I've had

with Dan Bensky for several years

now is over his comment right here

on this list that term standards cause

more problems than they solve.

 

I asked him back in 2000 to explain

what he means by that. Problems

for whom? What problems?

 

And I am still waiting for his response

to that question.

 

How should the term set be handled?

 

I don't have the answer. There are several

people I know who are working on that

as we speak. There will be further

solutions forthcoming, and if someone

wants to have a say in the size and shape

of these solutions, all they need to do is

get involved and talk about it.

 

I know that Bob Felt welcomes input

for all sources on the subject as he

has been involved in the development

of dictionaries and other materials to

serve as tools for those who want to

develop their own access to and

understanding of the language of

Chinese medicine for decades now.

 

As to my intention in asking questions,

generally it's just so that I can find out

the answer. Often it's for the purpose of

provoking further questions.

 

I tend to err on the side of saying too much,

rather than too little. I don't think I've left

my intentions obscure. I want to know.

 

To me it matters.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Marnae, I have been wondering this too.

 

Pat

 

 

Jim -

 

Just to clarify, it was I who first brought the Web into the discussion - I

 

listed it, along with Between Heaven & Earth, Misha's into to CM and Ken's

Who Can Ride the Dragon as the books that probably most inform the public

about what CM " is " . I brought them up not necessarily to engender the

critique that Ken wrote but rather as examples of huge variety of books

that are out there representing us to the public. I do not know why Ken

chose the Web to critique over the others - except that it has probably

been more extensively read than any of the others - although Heaven is

certainly up there (and portrays a VERY different picture of CM than the

Web does.). Is one more " real " than the other? My training in the US and

China certainly was more like what was presented in the Web than in

Heaven/Earth but clearly Ted/Dan's training was very different from

Harriet/Efrem.

 

 

All of this keeps bringing me back to PU's original " challenge " to Ken et.

al. I personally find the challenge itself quite problematized. If PU

thinks that the medicine that we are representing as CM is " not that " than

what exactly is his referent when he refers to CM?

 

Is it Pre-Communist Revolution CM - well, CM was outlawed for a time and

then came back in a form that is not all that distant from " TCM "

 

Is it pre-Republican CM?

 

Is it Ming/Qing CM? - the CM of Li Dong Yuan & Zhu Dan Xi?

 

Is it Tang Dynasty CM - after all this is when education in CM began to be

formalized.

 

Is it Han Dynasty CM? Is it the CM of the Nei Jing? The Nan Jing? The

SHL?

 

Clearly CM has never been a static thing and people have been writing in

this field for 2000 years - commenting on each others work etc. Are we to

stop doing this and attempt to practice as it was practice at some other

unspecified time because that is more " real " than this? I am an

anthropologist (in response to doug's comments) as well as a practitioner,

and yet, as such, I think that the question/challenge is confused. I do

not think that it is possible for us to practice this medicine outside of

our cultural context. We make every attempt we can to learn as much about

this medicine as we can and to place it in as much of a historical context

as is appropriate but what perplexes me is how PU can pose this question in

 

light of his discussion about medical systems as cultural systems. This

is a given amongst cultural anthropologists and the most important this

about culture is that it is not static. An anthropologists work gives a

picture of a given circumstance at a given time - and the expectation is

that simply writing about that circumstance will change it and that things

will not be the same later. So how can PU expect a medical system to be

static. CM has been transplanted to a new culture. It must adapt (just as

 

'western medicine' adapted when it was transplanted). I remain puzzled by

exactly what the challenge PU presented really was.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any

computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility

of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is

accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising

in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't

think that I'd brought Web up to

begin with, but couldn't remember

back in the thread.

 

So far as your puzzing over Paul's

question, that's my fault. I knew

when I brought it up that it would

be a knotty problem and that it

would take time to work through.

 

I'm going to see Paul in a few

weeks and I'll ask him to restate

his challenge and I'll post it here.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't see

the issue as a conflict of particular

visions or definitions of " the medicine. "

 

I think that the fact of Web's status

and continued use as a basic,

introductory/foundational text in

the field compels us to examine

the fundamental impressions that

it leaves in readers' minds and

that it has long helped propagate

throughout the professional community

and the public at large.

 

Is TCM " Chinese medicine " ? Is that

really what we want to continue to

foster as the basis of understanding

Chinese medicine in our acculturation

of it?

 

By asking the question I am neither

suggesting that the answer is yes

or no. I'm saying that we should

consciously and conscientiously

ask it.

 

One of the reasons why I was so

intent on getting at the background

of Ted's training in Macau is based

on my own experience with Chinese

teachers, especially people of the

generation that Dan described as

the faculty in the Macau Institute

of .

 

I've met people who fled the cultural

revolution, people who stayed in the

PRC during the cultural revolution,

people who suffered, people who

lost loved ones, people who flourished,

people who loved it, people who hated

it...i.e., the whole spectrum.

 

It was, to say the least, a defining event

in the lives of most Chinese who were

alive in the 60's and 70's.

 

That Dan and Ted received their

education from people who saw

themselves as poltical fugitives

is significant to me. I'm not sure I

can clearly articulate why and how.

 

But I know that I've heard extremely

different renditions of TCM, Chinese

medicine, specific ideas, techniques,

etc. from teachers of different political

persuasions in various parts of the

Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, and

though very few, Macau. As I said,

I've only been in Macau once and

that was just for a couple of days.

 

Anyhow, we will continue to work to

make the whole matter clearer, and

I'd still like to talk about setting up

some kind of get together that you

could attend in order to do so.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

No offense was taken, really. Just pointing out the importance of

proper translation and transmission, and its potential consequences.

Of course, recognizing the difference between religious texts and

medical ones.

 

 

 

On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 03:03 AM, fernando b. wrote:

 

> My objective was simply a comparsion between two books which

> depending on which side of the fence one stands, receive praise or

> are condemned. It was not meant to compare content. Perhaps I've

> should've chosen " Between Heaven and Earth " . Sorry if the comparison

> offended you.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> [...] apply Ken's project to a book like the

> > Fundamentals of . Doing this would enable

> one to both

> > explore the problematics of TCM in the light of Unschuld's point

> about

> > incoherence, and simultaneously explore how this applies to

> an attempt

> > to standardize terminology.

> >

> > Wainwright

>

> Please, please, please,

> please, do this.

 

 

 

Ken,

The whole point was to get you to do this!

 

Best wishes,

Wainwright

[Guest guest]

And you, sir, are...The Riddler???

 

 

> Wainwright,

>

> Wrong again, Batman.

>

> The whole point is to get you to do it.

>

> Or someone else.

>

> I'm busy.

>

> Ken

> >

> >

> > Ken,

> > The whole point was to get you to do this!

[Guest guest]

<<< wrote: I've personally haven't wanted to get

involved in this particular discussion, because of my friendship

and/or professional involvement with all the individuals involved.

>>>

 

What! You would rather argue with complete strangers? ;-)

Friends and professional associates shouldn't be put off by these

sorts of arguments.

 

 

<<< How many years do you think it will be before a new, alternative

dictionary appears in this profession? >>>

With the Chinese Microsoft database and Wenlin databases that might

be sooner than we think.

 

 

Jim Ramholz