John Chen's glossary

[Guest guest]

I have reexamined my original opinions on the Chen text after reading

the glossary/PDF file and Ken's post. I think the Chens did a very

good job with the glossary, it is comprehensive and charts a new

direction for clinical textbooks.

 

What I don't understand is why they used an older, more confusing

terminology in the actual text material that is online.

 

 

On Nov 12, 2003, at 4:32 PM, kenrose2008 wrote:

 

> Julie,

>

> Had someone suggested that his glossary was

> invalid? If so I missed it.

>

> I'd be very interested if someone sees some

> invalidating flaw in it.

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not mistaken.

 

See Z'ev's next message, too.

 

Julie

 

-

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

 

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:32 PM

Re: John Chen's glossary

 

 

> Julie,

>

> Had someone suggested that his glossary was

> invalid? If so I missed it.

[Guest guest]

No, I hadn't seen or read the glossary at that point. So, I am

adjusting my opinion on the book. The Chens did an excellent job with

the translator, and I think it sets a new standard for texts.

 

I saw it at the Pacific Symposium and looked through it.

 

Nice layout, good printing, good organization.

 

I still don't understand why the terminology in the actual text wasn't

adjusted, and I am concerned about the drug-herb interaction section.

 

 

 

 

On Nov 12, 2003, at 4:43 PM, Julie Chambers wrote:

 

> Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not

> mistaken.

>

> See Z'ev's next message, too.

>

> Julie

>

> -

> " kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

>

> Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:32 PM

> Re: John Chen's glossary

>

>

>> Julie,

>>

>> Had someone suggested that his glossary was

>> invalid? If so I missed it.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Julie,

 

Thanks. Z'ev has clarified his take on it.

 

I'm curious to know what Todd found to

fault. I've not had time to examine the glossary

in detail or to look carefully at the bulk of

the book. But the one feature of providing

a comprehensible map between Chinese

terms and Engilsh terms seems valuable

in and of itself.

 

I remember not long ago when this kind of

artifact was villified in the abstract by people

who had little to no idea of what was actually

meant by the phrase " bilingual gloss " .

 

Well, here it is.

 

The proposition was floated here long ago

that translation standards cause more problems

than they solve, or some such. But I don't

see a single problem with the existence of

either John Chen's term list or Nigel Wiseman's

specifically because both have been carefully

pegged to the Chinese terms.

 

Note that it does not solve all problems or

answer all questions related to meaning and

interpretation of meaning.

 

But it certainly doesn't cause any trouble...

other than the flaps that generate arguing

about it...and it does provide a useful baseline

against which further discussion and progress

can proceed.

 

 

Ken

 

, Julie Chambers <info@j...>

wrote:

> Ken, yes, I think Z'ev did and I think Todd did. I hope I am not mistaken.

>

> See Z'ev's next message, too.

>

> Julie

[Guest guest]

, Julie Chambers <info@j...>

wrote:

> Dear Ken,

>

> Thanks. Last time I looked at the aompress website, I couldn't find a link

> to the glossary. I think this is a very good glossary, and the only one I

> have seen in table format presenting two different versions of English

> terms, the Chinese characters, and a detailed definition. I don't think

> anyone can say that John Chen didn't produce a valid glossary, now.

 

Julie

 

thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in that it

conforms

to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms and

characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption in such a

glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth glossing. Bensky

and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300 terms of medical

signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have clearly decided

that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is well and

good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat med must be

fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not interested.

 

P.S. If I knew Chen, I might feel different

[Guest guest]

what would you mean by " fully glossed? " What did Chen not gloss that

he should have? Are you speaking of terms like " expel " , " dispel " , " treat " ? I

don't have his book yet so cannot search for other examples.

 

Julie

 

-

" " <

 

Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:21 PM

Re: John Chen's glossary

 

 

>

> thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in that it

conforms

> to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms and

> characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption in such

a

> glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth glossing.

Bensky

> and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300 terms of

medical

> signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have clearly

decided

> that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is well

and

> good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat med

must be

> fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not interested.

>

 

>

> P.S. If I knew Chen, I might feel different

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> , Julie Chambers

<info@j...>

> wrote:

> > Dear Ken,

> >

> > Thanks. Last time I looked at the aompress website, I couldn't

find a link

> > to the glossary. I think this is a very good glossary, and the

only one I

> > have seen in table format presenting two different versions of

English

> > terms, the Chinese characters, and a detailed definition. I don't

think

> > anyone can say that John Chen didn't produce a valid glossary,

now.

>

> Julie

>

> thanks for pointing this out. His glossary is indeed excellent in

that it conforms

> to COMP standards and relates idosyncratic choices to wiseman terms

and

> characters. However, like many in the field, the tacit assumption

in such a

> glossary is that there are only about 300 characters worth

glossing. Bensky

> and Gio do the same thing. I find it hard to believe only 300

terms of medical

> signficance are used in materia medicas, so the authors have

clearly decided

> that some things are relevant to gloss and others are not. That is

well and

> good, but I have no interest in that type of tyranny. Any new mat

med must be

> fully glossed and I'll decide what's relevant or I am not

interested.

 

The question is, is it necessary to gloss every single term used. I

thought the point of glossing is only if the term is different from

some standard (which I assume is Wiseman, from default)... Otherwise

one would have to have an extra 100 page `dictionary' for each

book... Todd or Z'ev or others who are not happy with Chen's

choices, can you point out some examples that represent confusion by

not being glossed or using a standardized term? I read a few sample

chapters and did not find anything that disturbing...Let us not

forget that even within Chinese sources, different authors use

different words in different situations... I agree with Bensky that

as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language

and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's

eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is

he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical

this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak,

IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration

idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to

terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I

understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am

just confused' - Now of course there is the argument that 'hey this

is medicine, one should need a dictionary to read a paper- these are

technical terms' - I don't know how much I agree with this - and I

think there is a middle ground... Ideas are sometimes more powerful

than a specific word or `term'. This is where Bensky (and some

others) shine. He may call something liver qi blue – but he makes it

clear that within his context what this means and how it relates to x

or y.. There are not too many times that I am just dieing to know

the Chinese term that Bensky is thinking of. Although I admit with

poorly written stuff/ translations I more often ask what the hell are

they talking about, I wish I had the Chinese… But this is the

difference between good and bad authors, and usually between MSU and

CMU… ( Understood) – Finally – I am sure Bensky will

have a complete gloss of the terms he likes to use in his next book…

So I do vote for a gloss, just on every term?? Was it even necessary

for chen to gloss deficiency

?

 

-

[Guest guest]

I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well

known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in

understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem

with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu

for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text

than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and perseverance

perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel helped

create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby

encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd like

to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing or

term standardization.

 

-Tim Sharpe

 

 

 

wrote:

 

I agree with Bensky that

as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language

and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's

eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is

he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical

this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak,

IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration

idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to

terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I

understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am

just confused' -

[Guest guest]

Tim and Jason, you can tell your Chinese colleagues that at least one

American-born

feels the same way about these texts. I really agree with both of the points

below.

doug

 

 

" Tim Sharpe " <listserve@d...> wrote:

> I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well

> known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in

> understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem

> with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu

> for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text

> than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and perseverance

> perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel helped

> create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby

> encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd like

> to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing or

> term standardization.

>

> -Tim Sharpe

>

>

>

> wrote:

>

> I agree with Bensky that

> as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language

> and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's

> eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is

> he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical

> this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak,

> IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration

> idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to

> terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I

> understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am

> just confused' -

[Guest guest]

Doug, Jason, Tim, and All,

 

I think it's terribly important that we make clear

what we are talking about when we discuss

the issues related to terminology and translation.

 

First of all, whereas individuals who are experienced

clinicians are certainly qualified to comment on

the readibility and clinical appropriateness of texts,

unless someone can compare a text that purports

to discuss Chinese medicine with the Chinese

sources, if indeed the author of the text in question

cites Chinese sources, that individual is not really

in a position to speak to the fidelity of such a

text to the originals.

 

So this raises a lot of questions. Should authors

writing about Chinese medicine cite Chinese sources

or even know Chinese sources?

 

Certainly the approach of ignoring the Chinese sources

in favor of translations can lead to complete ignorance of

what the orginals actually say. Translation based materials

may or may not identify themselves clearly as translations

or even if they do may or may not be at all consistent with the

contents of the originals of which they claim to be

translations.

 

Is Chinese medicine in the West today still Chinese medicine?

Or is it already something else entirely?

 

How close a connection to the contents of the ancient

Chinese medical literature does the current profession

of Chinese medicine in the West maintain and, as we've

discussed in the past, represent itself as maintaining?

 

And in those areas where the connection has become

attenuated, why and how did this occur?

 

Before you dispense with all of this as utterly irrelevant

to the clinic and to your concerns as clinicians, there

are a couple of further points that I urge you to take

a minute or two and think over.

 

I am not challenging your opinions about term choices.

The work that results in any particular term choice

is what matters far more than the actual term chosen.

As we've discussed often, the true significance of the

bilingual gloss is that it provides a map for readers

that charts their position in the English with relative

positions in the Chinese.

 

I think this is what Tim pauses to recognize when

he tips his hat to Bob Felt and Paradigm for the

dedicated decades spent building such tools.

They are not easy tools. John Chen said it took

him an additional four years or more to deal with

the terminology related issues in his book, and

this was just a case of applying the tool set of

the Practical Dictionary to a relatively limited

set of problems related to his materia medica.

 

It took Nigel the better part of twenty years to

beat the methodology as well as the term set

itself into shape that forms the crux of the PD.

The methodology earned him a PhD from Exeter in the UK,

which is a place that plenty of people recognize

as somewhat of a leader in fields related to

cross-cultural influences in medicine. Steve

Birch got his PhD in acupuncture research there

if I'm not mistaken.

 

I'm not a big fan of PhDs or of academic

life in general, but I recognize its importance

in the general society and I mention it in the

context of our recent discussions about credentials

in this field and what they mean.

 

As John Chen demonstrates in his book, all

anyone has to do who doesn't like any given

term in the PD or every term in the PD is use

a different term. The PD can be used to supply

English terms to people who want to talk about

Chinese medicine in English.

 

It can also be used by people who have strong

feelings about individual words or words in

general to quickly and easily refer to the

Chinese originals by simply citing the term in

the English language found in the PD, while they

rely on their own favorites in this or that instance.

 

The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly

than it is a set of specific term choices.

 

My point in starting this thread was to illustrate

this assertion with John Chen's example.

 

It's fine with me that you've taken this

opportunity to voice your opinions about

the terms in the PD. I suggest that if you

value the benefits it provides, as Tim clearly

does, and continue to find faults in its

term selections, then you owe it to yourself

and to your community of fellow students

and practitioners to contribute to the

correction of the material in the PD.

 

Once you actually enter into the discussion

with an eye to improving the situation rather

than merely commenting on it or critiquing

it, you will discover that " I like " and " I don't

like " really don't serve very well beyond

registering a basal response to the material.

 

The PD forces a question:

 

Does it matter that we relate what we study

and practice to Chinese sources?

 

If it does then all the PD is is a tool that

can be used to make these relationships

clearly.

 

Why are you complaining about the tool?

 

The only way to solve the problems is to

do the work.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

> Doug, Jason, Tim, and All,

>

> I think it's terribly important that we make clear

> what we are talking about when we discuss

> the issues related to terminology and translation.>

....

> Why are you complaining about the tool?

 

Ken,

 

Yes let's get clear... I (hopefully) don't think that I, Tim, or Doug

ever said that this tool (PD) is a problem... We are not at all

complaining about it. Yes there are terms that many of us don't

agree with, but that is a serperate issue. My post revolves around

the issues of;

1) having to gloss every single term

2) sometimes an idea is more important than a term, and

3) looking for examples at how Chen has done us wrong and created

confusion,

4) and books written in straight wiseman speak vs. writing a book,

among some other ramblings...

I love the PD and use it daily, but that is not my point.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 "

<kenrose2008> wrote:

 

>

> How close a connection to the contents of the ancient

> Chinese medical literature does the current profession

> of Chinese medicine in the West maintain and, as we've

> discussed in the past, represent itself as maintaining?

>

>

Ken,

 

I see this question as completely moot. And this is one of my

problems with the whole neijing/ PU discussion. We should IMO, really

only be talking about how close our CM (in the west) is similar or

different from what is done in China as a whole, Today. (fringe sects

aside). We obviously are much different than any time period in the

past, thank Buddha. And so is China.

Also, 99.9% of us have little authority (IMO) to be interpreting

ancient texts and saying that modern CM is just wrong... CM has

developed for a reason and it is not like they don't have access to

these materials. They have in fact have had access to these texts

plus about 99% of others that we don't have. Now this is not saying

that we cannot get inspiration from these texts, and occasionally get

some greater clinical insight. But I am waiting to see the big

discovery that some westerner (PU or others) points out in the

neijing (or something else) that the Chinese have missed all these

years and can redefine the medicine. Give me an example that changes

the way I practice clinically.

It is amazing to me how much is written on topics in Chinese,

and this is not just a modern phenomena. They are not stupid, and

have thought about many issues far before us and with greater depth.

We ARE playing catch-up. Although, one may say, but our culture is

different, yes? I say yes…this is the question. Does the medicine

that modern CM is practicing fail in our culture? Generally speaking

I say no… Although the emotional considerations brought in the

Kaptchuk posts are one area that could be discussed. This is one

area that may need to be developed, but in my practice I have not

found much of a problem seeing through what people's emotional

experiences mean in CM. Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason

 

jason blalack wrote:

> We should IMO, really only be talking about how close our CM (in

> the west) is similar or different from what is done in China as a

> whole, Today.

 

Should I read this as that you don't care about what CM has been in

the past, even when CM today maybe less 'complete' than it has been

in the past or even is digressing from what is has been in the past?

 

I'm not stating that this is so, these are just hypothetical

situations trying to clarify your point of view. I'm in no position

to say whether this is so or not.

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

, " Alwin van Egmond "

<@v...> wrote:

> Hi Jason

>

> jason blalack wrote:

> > We should IMO, really only be talking about how close our CM (in

> > the west) is similar or different from what is done in China as a

> > whole, Today.

>

> Should I read this as that you don't care about what CM has been in

> the past, even when CM today maybe less 'complete' than it has been

> in the past or even is digressing from what is has been in the past?

 

Alwin,

 

To clarify... a) I do care about the past, but i care more about the

present.

b) I do not think that present day CM is less complete than the

past. IMO, it is just the opposite, because we have the past and the

present. We have the option of looking at things from a western

disease perspective; and we have the option to putting on a different

pair of glasses and viewing things through a SHL perspective. We

have it all ...

c) and yes it is digressing from the past. Now everyone breathe

because this is the reality, and learn to be okay with it.. CM has

never stood static, and why should it now in a time where we have

access to more information and communication than ever.. grow grow

grow...

 

-

 

>

> I'm not stating that this is so, these are just hypothetical

> situations trying to clarify your point of view. I'm in no position

> to say whether this is so or not.

>

> Alwin

[Guest guest]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on Wiseman terminology, but the

fact remains that only Wiseman terms have been fully glossed.

Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom?

Are we any less professional that biomedical physicians or technicians?

Do native Chinese physicians translate biomedical terms or learn the

original terms in a 'user-friendly' format? There is nothing

user-friendly about reading a typical Western medical textbook or lab

test result, unless you are trained to understand and define the

terminology. There is a lot of technical language in biomedicine, and

I've never heard anyone complain about it in the Chinese medical

universe. Would the Chinese physician that Jason mentions complain

about Western medical texts and their technical terminology?

 

 

On Nov 12, 2003, at 11:00 PM, Tim Sharpe wrote:

 

> I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well

> known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty

> in

> understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a

> problem

> with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker

> (Guohui Liu

> for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level

> text

> than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak. With luck and

> perseverance

> perhaps one day we'll be able to revise the amazing foundation Nigel

> helped

> create - eliminating some of the less user-friendly terms and thereby

> encouraging more support in the publishing world. In the meantime I'd

> like

> to thank Bob Felt and Paradigm press for insisting on either glossing

> or

> term standardization.

>

> -Tim Sharpe

>

>

>

> wrote:

>

> I agree with Bensky that

> as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language

> and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's

> eyes glossed, than we have a creation... Todd's argument (I think) is

> he doesn't want the author to decide... I am unsure how practical

> this becomes... The other solution where every word is Wiseman speak,

> IMO, is not fun or easy reading... I personally like the integration

> idea... A somewhat famous Chinese CM doctor said in reference to

> terminology, call the terms what you want, but when I read Bensky I

> understand what he is saying, and when I read Wiseman ('stuff') I am

> just confused' -

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason,

The authors of the Su Wen and Nan Jing were people just like

ourselves, apparently very intelligent ones who faced the same problems

of illness, health care systems, and how to conceptualize a system of

medicine that would work for them. In some ways we are different than

our ancestors, in some ways we are the same. This, for example, is why

the Torah and its associated literature is still so important as guides

to life for observant Jews. Human nature is still essentially the

same. I personally don't buy the view that human beings have changed

that much over the years, even though societies have, often radically.

Systematic correspondence is still the name of the game in Chinese

medicine, and the Su Wen and Nan Jing, along with the Shang Han Lun,

are the core texts from which this approach developed. I think they

deserve careful study. My experience is not only that it enriches

one's practice (I've been reading the Nan Jing over and over since

1987), but that it is a source of personal inspiration as well.

Chaque a son gout, but I find the classical literature relevant,

even more relevant than the modern literature at times. It all depends

on what you are looking for. Technical information is one area of

study, but inspiration is equally important.

 

 

On Nov 13, 2003, at 6:52 AM, wrote:

 

> I see this question as completely moot. And this is one of my

> problems with the whole neijing/ PU discussion. We should IMO, really

> only be talking about how close our CM (in the west) is similar or

> different from what is done in China as a whole, Today. (fringe sects

> aside). We obviously are much different than any time period in the

> past, thank Buddha. And so is China.

>

[Guest guest]

Todd or Z'ev or others who are not happy with Chen's

choices, can you point out some examples that represent confusion by

not being glossed or using a standardized term? I read a few sample

chapters and did not find anything that disturbing...Let us not

forget that even within Chinese sources, different authors use

different words in different situations... I agree with Bensky that

as long as the msg. can be made clear within the English language

and 'specific' terms that create confusion within in the author's

eyes glossed, than we have a creation...

>>>>Thank you, i cant believe how anal some people can get

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I fully agree with Jason on this point. I've also had a well

known/respected native Chinese doctor comment on the sheer difficulty in

understanding a fully " Wiseman compliant " text. IMO, there is a problem

with the transmission of the medicine when a non-native speaker (Guohui Liu

for example) can write a more clear and readable professional level text

than someone strictly adhering to Wiseman-speak.

>>>And that book is the best example

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Jason,

> The authors of the Su Wen and Nan Jing were people just like

> ourselves, apparently very intelligent ones who faced the same

problems

> of illness, health care systems, and how to conceptualize a system

of

> medicine that would work for them.

 

I do not agree that the illnesses of 2000 years ago are the same as

today. Our problems are much different.

 

In some ways we are different than

> our ancestors, in some ways we are the same. This, for example, is

why

> the Torah and its associated literature is still so important as

guides

> to life for observant Jews.

 

I do not see any practical correlation between medicine and religion,

although some of course choice to view ancient medical texts

religiously. (I do not)-- medicine vs. philosophy.

 

Human nature is still essentially the

> same. I personally don't buy the view that human beings have

changed

> that much over the years, even though societies have, often

radically.

 

Inherent Nature may or may not be the same... But I am sure our

lifestyles, therefore diseases are quite different than 2000 years

ago. This is not even factoring in cultural differences in regard

to disease and medicine. Obviously the medical theory of 2000 years

ago was not adequate for the changing times of Chinese history. The

SHL and wenbing clearly demonstrate that. So either human's (nature)

changed or environments (society, lifestyle, climate, etc) changed

because the medicine needed to improve to accommodate. Therefore it

is clear to me that change has occurred and is still occurring and

the medicine MUST change with it. Why would our western culture be

more similar to ancient china than the chinese?

 

 

> Systematic correspondence is still the name of the game in

Chinese

> medicine, and the Su Wen and Nan Jing, along with the Shang Han

Lun,

> are the core texts from which this approach developed. I think

they

> deserve careful study.

 

Yes… I agree, but there is far more to medicine that just basic yin

yang theory or systematic correspondences. This is precisely why it

has evolved. Again if it was enough, why would have things so

drastically expanded. These are the roots, and should be understood,

but modern discoveries are just as important if not more so because

they are directly dealing with today's issues – using these past

theories. Take yourself back 200-300 years at the start on wenbing

era. Do you think you were one of the people clutching onto SHL

theory or using the new discoveries of the time treat the ill.

Hopefully you were doing both. (without the clutching)… Again I ask

to be shown some kernel of the neijing that has been overlooked by

the Chinese and therefore not incorporated into modern understanding

of disease. This is quite possible. For example, our changing

times, that are different than the Chinese modern times, might have

something similar to the times of ancient china therefore allowing us

to pick up on some kernel that is not thought valuable by modern

Chinese practitioners… But this seems like a long shot…. These

classic texts have been sussed out over and over again…

This does not mean don't study them, but let us not overvalue the

past with disregard to the present.

 

My experience is not only that it enriches

> one's practice (I've been reading the Nan Jing over and over since

> 1987), but that it is a source of personal inspiration as well.

 

I agree 100% as my posted conceded. One CAN gain much inspiration

from such texts, as well as a text like chicken soup for the soul

(which BTW I have never read, but that is besides the point)…. but,

For this discussion I am primarily focusing on the technical side…

 

 

 

> on what you are looking for. Technical information is one area of

> study, but inspiration is equally important.

 

-

[Guest guest]

> As John Chen demonstrates in his book, all

> anyone has to do who doesn't like any given

> term in the PD or every term in the PD is use

> a different term. The PD can be used to supply

> English terms to people who want to talk about

> Chinese medicine in English.

>

> It can also be used by people who have strong

> feelings about individual words or words in

> general to quickly and easily refer to the

> Chinese originals by simply citing the term in

> the English language found in the PD, while they

> rely on their own favorites in this or that instance.

>

> The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly

> than it is a set of specific term choices.

 

IMO, absolutely correct. No whining.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Yes and no. People still suffer from rheumatic diseases, digestive

disorders, diseases of heat and cold, strokes, etc. There are new

complicating factors in modern society, as in cancer and autoimmune

diseases, but principles for dealing with complexity arise from simple

principles.

 

 

On Nov 13, 2003, at 8:58 AM, wrote:

 

> I do not agree that the illnesses of 2000 years ago are the same as

> today. Our problems are much different.

[Guest guest]

I agree.

 

 

On Nov 13, 2003, at 9:01 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>> The PD is a tool for making term choices far more importantly

>> than it is a set of specific term choices.

>

> IMO, absolutely correct. No whining.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

To clarify... a) I do care about the past, but i care more about the

present.

b) I do not think that present day CM is less complete than the

past. IMO, it is just the opposite, because we have the past and the

present. We have the option of looking at things from a western

disease perspective; and we have the option to putting on a different

pair of glasses and viewing things through a SHL perspective. We

have it all ...

>>>>>>>And putting this in perspective, reading the SHL every day i have to

question may self how does this relate to today's reality. Almost the entire

text is about damage by medical intervention. Patients are said to develop these

horrible reactions to mild formulas that in know we do not see these days. What

am to make of this? What am to make of much of the descriptions in han medicine

that have so little resemblance to any of the patients that walk into my clinic?

If my patients look much more like recent OM literatures is that what should i

pay attention to?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Furthermore, we need to ask the question, 'user-friendly' for whom?

 

Excellent question. After 10 years of working with Wiseman's terminology, I

personally find comfort with it is directly proportional to

two things:

 

1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language

 

In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/ skill/

fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents.

English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one is familiar

with those three sources, then adds a little Greek

(since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words with more than

one syllable, then there should be little/less problem

with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire teachers who

are not very literate in English (whether native or

foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better.

 

2. The reader's/listener's knowledge of Chinese

 

Given a higher than average knowledge/fluency in English, if one is able to read

Chinese, one sees the dead-on quality of most of

Nigel's term choices, e.g., quicken for huo, network vessels for luo, impediment

for bi, and limp for ruan. But, in order to understand

Nigel's choice of quicken, one has to be familiar with Shakespeare and the King

James Bible, while to grok his choice of impediment,

one probably had to read Ceasar's Gallic Wars in Latin. Even a less felicitous

term, such as glomus, is, I think, brilliant. It is related to

the same Latin root as the colloquial word " glom, " as in to glom up.

 

What I'm getting at is that Nigel-speak is not sixth grade English (what popular

magazines consider the common denominator). It

makes full use of the power, complexity, and subtlety of the wonderfully unique

English language. English has more words than any

other language in the world. To master English is no easy feat. Yet, it is my

experience that a truly Master's level of education

provided in English requires Master's level English. One of our problems has

been that, all too often, our education has been

conducted in second and third grade English.

 

It is my experience as a teacher that students with better education and higher

intelligence have less problems with Wiseman's

terminology, while students with less education and slower CPUs have more

problems with Wiseman's terminology. However, that

same second class of listeners, including not a few teachers at ACOM schools,

have just as much problem when I use English

medical and scientific terminology. As a profession, we really do need to decide

what level of intelligence and education are

necessary to enter this profession. Unfortunately, some of the people making

those decisions are themselves not the best and the

brightest.

 

IMO.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

> 1. The reader's/listener's knowledge of the English language

>

> In my experience as a teacher and writer, the higher the knowledge/

skill/ fluency in English, the less problems Nigel-speak presents.

> English comes from three sources, German, French, and Latin. If one

is familiar with those three sources, then adds a little Greek

> (since this is medicine after all), and is comfortable with words

with more than one syllable, then there should be little/less problem

> with this terminology. Part of the problem is that the schools hire

teachers who are not very literate in English (whether native or

> foreign born) and enroll students whose English is often not any better.

>

 

I am glad someone mentioned these points. They seemed obvious to me,

but I did not feel like replying to the earlier posts that warrented

your response.

 

It still amazes me that the Chinese teachers at PCOM will use the

English term stagnation for both qi and blood, when they know for a

fact that in Chinese, the words are different (zhi, yu). The Chinese

teachers do not really seem to care to get the terms correct. They

learned enough the of English Chinese Medical lingo to get buy, they

do not get questioned, and they collect their paychecks. It is sad,

because teachers with full working knowledge of the technical aspects

of Chinese Medical terminology have the potential to offer quite a bit

of understanding, and they choose not to.

 

Brian C. Allen