standards project

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

> > Can anyone tell us more about 'Zhong Yi Bing Zheng Zhen Duan Liao

> > Xiao Biao Sun (Criteria for Chinese Medical Disease & Pattern

> > Diagnosis, Treatment, & Outcomes)'

>

> Wainwright,

>

> This book was published several years ago in Beijing. It contains standard

criteria for disease diagnosis, pattern discrimination,

> treatment principles, and treatment outcomes. I have never personally seen

a copy of this book. So I don't know how many diseases it

> covers. However, it is increasingly used as the standard in Chinese RCTs for

establishing inclusion criteria, disease and pattern

> diagnosis, and treatment outcomes. Instead of each researcher having to

come up with their own criteria for each of these,

> researchers are free to simply reference this text.

 

 

It occurs to me that there has been so much controversy centered around this

issue of standards on CHA that we should starting translating some of the most

common standards and discuss them. We have already discussed kidney yang

xu somewhat in this vein. But we have not even addressed core issues such as

whether everyone agrees decresed libido is essential to this dx. I bring this

up

because these criteria are decided by committees of men, not supernatural

beings. So why not us for american version. I assume the debate includes

discussion of what classic texts and prior standards say plus clinical

experiences in the modern era. then we could even poll the group and publish

the consensus on the website. we could even put up standards one by one

rather than waiting. they would of course, be completely voluntary, because

CHA is not a public decision making organization. anyone game?

 

[Guest guest]

I bring this up

because these criteria are decided by committees of men, not supernatural

beings. So why not us for american version.

>>>>Todd i believe this is a very important point. People in china experience

and communicate somatic and emotional complaints in a very different way than we

do. There must be a reexamination of Dx criteria as they apply here. I think

that Maciocia is very correct on these points

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " ALON MARCUS " <

alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

There must be a reexamination of Dx criteria as they apply here. I think that

Maciocia is very correct on these points

 

: However I believe there also must be a direct referencing of any

standard criteria such as symptom names and tongue/pulse qualities to the

chinese characters themselves. I believe the simplest method is use a single

term for each character. I have no allegiance to wiseman's term choices, per

se, however I also do not have any interest in reinventing the wheel. For

example, the terms agitation (zao) and vexation (fan) are clearly linked to the

original characters, while irritability and restlessness have been used

differently by different authors. And these terms are no where else defined

as precisely as in the PD.

 

My assumption would be that this project would be a perfect example of the

need for fixed terminology, as numerous symptoms will be included in these

lists. And it makes no sense to explain the symptom connotatively every time

it appears, such as vexation. Or leave people guessing what the actual meaning

of restlessness is. As some authors have used it, restlessness refers to

physical

agitation, for others mental agitation. Irritability likewise is sometimes

construed as mental uneasiness, by others as the tendency to easily become

physically agitated. Neither term (irritability and restlessness) conveys the

sense of heat in the chest found in the chinese term fan (wiseman: vexation).

And since neither of the other terms is keyed to the original, one has no way

of identifying the actual meaning. So developing one set of standards will

demand another as a prerequisite. As someone else pointed out, the only way

to reliably search medline for the results of research is to have some standards

in terminology.

 

My main interest in developing such an american CM standards manual would

be at least threefold:

 

research - in order for research of the type I would propose to be considered

valid, their must be inclusion criteria to the study. studies cannot be

designed

to examine whatever any individual physican's conception of a disease and a

pattern are. There must be well defined parameters. No one would be bound

to use the manual, but it would be freely available.

 

education - educational institutes, especially large ones, have a tremendous

burden in insuring that students receive the classroom education that properly

prepares them for their clinical experiences as interns. It makes no sense to

train worsley style and then put students in a TCM clinic or vice-versa. and as

Will Morris and others have pointed out, the interrater reliability necessary to

both educate students and do research is dependent upon calibration. this is

not to suggest that one style is better than any other. Just that one must

calibrate to reliably interrate.

 

examination - many would agree that current national/state examination

standards and required reference books do not reflect current educational

standards and textbook choices. A document on such standards would form a

basis for revising the current exam standards.

 

Finally, something I have always said about such projects is that such a

manual in america should also include standard agreements on eight extra, 5

phase, hara, divergent, luo and sinew channel patterns. See one of the articles

that was posted on my website back in 1999 for more verbosity on this:

 

http://www..org/open.html

 

Now would it be legitimate for a private organization with a mission such as

CHA to initiate such a project. Private organizations are not unknown to

participate in creating voluntary standards in medicine - consider the Merck

Manual. Perhaps the forum could be used as a vehicle to conference under the

auspices of the final approval by the AAOM or some other professional org. I

definitely think the matter should be decided by practitioners, not just

scholars, though.

 

[Guest guest]

Finally, something I have always said about such projects is that such a

manual in america should also include standard agreements on eight extra, 5

phase, hara, divergent, luo and sinew channel patterns. See one of the articles

that was posted on my website back in 1999 for more verbosity on this:

 

>>>>>My main interest is to see what patterns western's see and do they

correspond to what we see in Chinese literature

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> , " ALON MARCUS " <

> alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>

> There must be a reexamination of Dx criteria as they apply here. I

think that

> Maciocia is very correct on these points

>

>

: However I believe there also must be a direct referencing of

any

> standard criteria such as symptom names and tongue/pulse qualities

to the

> chinese characters themselves. I believe the simplest method is

use a single

> term for each character. I have no allegiance to wiseman's term

choices, per

> se, however I also do not have any interest in reinventing the

wheel. For

> example, the terms agitation (zao) and vexation (fan) are clearly

linked to the

> original characters, while irritability and restlessness have been

used

> differently by different authors. And these terms are no where

else defined

> as precisely as in the PD.

 

Until now…??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has anyone

seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

industry standard… if not with this dictionary, in the near future

with other authors who are not satisfied with Wisemanspeak.

Furthermore, I am unsure that Wiseman speak will ever be the industry

standard for the profession as a whole. Why? Well, since Bob's dream

of firing 50% of the profession, which probably wouldn't be a bad

idea, will not happen in the near future, we are stuck with a

profession of non-elitist, mediocrely educated, who do not fully

embrace/ understand his term choices. To put things into

perspective, how many written in the redwing catalog actually embrace

Wisemanspeak??? only a handful... My point being, things are not yet

set in stone, and the number of books being produced in non-wiseman

speak far out number the one's that do. Getting to some standard is

important (IMO) and I like Todd's idea of using the PD, possibly this

dictionary, and other glossaries such as Chen or Bensky's, with

practitioners as well as scholars, to start to come up with a

standard terminology that is suited for everyone, not just the ivory

tower elitists. The question becomes, how do we coordinate this with

what is going on in China with their standardization projects?

Comments,

 

-

 

 

> Now would it be legitimate for a private organization with a

mission such as

> CHA to initiate such a project. Private organizations are not

unknown to

> participate in creating voluntary standards in medicine - consider

the Merck

> Manual. Perhaps the forum could be used as a vehicle to conference

under the

> auspices of the final approval by the AAOM or some other

professional org. I

> definitely think the matter should be decided by practitioners, not

just

> scholars, though.

>

 

[Guest guest]

This may another version of Wiseman in another form. I'm not quite sure wha=

t Todd's

proposal is... how and why would our standards be different from Chinese on=

es? And

did we ever resolve if these standards are in Chinese?

But I'm way in favor of a terminology standard that is more evolved than W=

iseman is

that what this project implies.

doug

 

 

>

> Until now…??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

> Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has anyone

> seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

> industry standard… if not with this dictionary, in the near future

> with other authors who are not satisfied with Wisemanspeak.

> Furthermore, I am unsure that Wiseman speak will ever be the industry

> standard for the profession as a whole. Why? Well, since Bob's dream

> of firing 50% of the profession, which probably wouldn't be a bad

> idea, will not happen in the near future, we are stuck with a

> profession of non-elitist, mediocrely educated, who do not fully

> embrace/ understand his term choices. To put things into

> perspective, how many written in the redwing catalog actually embrace

> Wisemanspeak??? only a handful... My point being, things are not yet

> set in stone, and the number of books being produced in non-wiseman

> speak far out number the one's that do. Getting to some standard is

> important (IMO) and I like Todd's idea of using the PD, possibly this

> dictionary, and other glossaries such as Chen or Bensky's, with

> practitioners as well as scholars, to start to come up with a

> standard terminology that is suited for everyone, not just the ivory

> tower elitists. The question becomes, how do we coordinate this with

> what is going on in China with their standardization projects?

> Comments,

>

> -

>

>

> > Now would it be legitimate for a private organization with a

> mission such as

> > CHA to initiate such a project. Private organizations are not

> unknown to

> > participate in creating voluntary standards in medicine - consider

> the Merck

> > Manual. Perhaps the forum could be used as a vehicle to conference

> under the

> > auspices of the final approval by the AAOM or some other

> professional org. I

> > definitely think the matter should be decided by practitioners, not

> just

> > scholars, though.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Until now…??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

> Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has anyone

> seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

 

Wiseman's " English-Chinese Chinese-English Distionary of Chinese

Medicine " has about 15,000 terms in about 800 pages, much more than

his Practical Dictionary.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " "

> <@h...> wrote:

>

> > Until now…??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

> > Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has

anyone

> > seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

>

> Wiseman's " English-Chinese Chinese-English Distionary of Chinese

> Medicine " has about 15,000 terms in about 800 pages, much more than

> his Practical Dictionary.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

Brian,

 

I don't think this was your point, but it is not about sheer numbers,

it is about quality. (BTW- there are only about 10,000 terms in that

book)... One will also note in the above mentioned book there are no

definitions. So even though this new book has less terms (6600 terms

in 1057) it definitely covers more information (definitions) and more

importantly now gives an option to Wiseman. Even if it only had 1000

terms, it is still usable.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Intresting have you seen it?

 

Marco

-

" " <

 

Saturday, November 29, 2003 8:22 AM

Re: standards project

 

 

> , " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

> wrote:

> > , " "

> > <@h...> wrote:

> >

> > > Until now.??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

> > > Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has

> anyone

> > > seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

> >

> > Wiseman's " English-Chinese Chinese-English Distionary of Chinese

> > Medicine " has about 15,000 terms in about 800 pages, much more than

> > his Practical Dictionary.

> >

> > Brian C. Allen

>

> Brian,

>

> I don't think this was your point, but it is not about sheer numbers,

> it is about quality. (BTW- there are only about 10,000 terms in that

> book)... One will also note in the above mentioned book there are no

> definitions. So even though this new book has less terms (6600 terms

> in 1057) it definitely covers more information (definitions) and more

> importantly now gives an option to Wiseman. Even if it only had 1000

> terms, it is still usable.

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " <

@h...> wrote:

 

So even though this new book has less terms (6600 terms

> in 1057) it definitely covers more information (definitions) and more

> importantly now gives an option to Wiseman. Even if it only had 1000

> terms, it is still usable.

 

 

I have not seen this book and we do not know anything about it. its mere

existence is meaningless if the authors did not follow standard rules of

technical translation. this typically requires that at least one of the lead

translator being a native speaker of the target language, not the source

language. In addition, the book is organized so:

 

" Each entry is ordered by Chinese characters and contains a pinyin

transcription and English definition. "

 

It appears that this book may be less useful to those whose main need is to

quickly access the english terms they are reading if it is not just a single

alphabetical list. It is cheap, but is it practical, too? The PD also contains

a lot

of useful clinical infomation. But in any event, we all need to remember the

true industry standard is not wiseman, but COMP.

 

COMP standards define the nature of functional, connotative and denotative

translations, the latter being wiseman. COMP standards also give any author

the option to substitute any other term they want for a wiseman term as long

as they footnote their choice. Why is wiseman the standard. Because it has

been the only comprehensive denotative dictionary available. If the current

one is truly competitive, then Jason is correct, we have a basis for alternate

term selections or differences in definition for said terms. But since

wiseman's

definitions were culled from 100 modern sources, including the zhong yi da ci

dian, it would be surprising if this new dictionary varied much in definitions.

 

As for translation terms and how widespread they are, while more books may

be written in non-wiseman than those that are, many of the books that are

advanced material at PCOM in both the doctoral program and the masters are

wiseman. This includes Ellis, Sionneau, Flaws, Mitchell, Siefert, Chace,

Wiseman. Bensky still dominates the study of herbology, but not the practice

of it. I believe the books from BP and paradigm now dominate class and clinic

at PCOM. However there have been some concerns raised about this amongst

students as Maciocia is a major board exam source, yet no one really uses any

of his three books to create lectures at PCOM anymore. So there has been a

call to rectify this. Luckily several of us pointed out that we could also use

ACT (the shanghai text), which is also a board text. Yet we still felt

hamstrung

by this. So this matter is not closed yet, as pressure builds to reinstate GM's

work more into the curriculum at a time when his influence was waning.

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> As for translation terms and how widespread they are, while more

books may

> be written in non-wiseman than those that are, many of the books

that are

> advanced material at PCOM in both the doctoral program and the

masters are

> wiseman. This includes Ellis, Sionneau, Flaws, Mitchell, Siefert,

Chace,

> Wiseman. Bensky still dominates the study of herbology, but not the

practice

> of it. I believe the books from BP and paradigm now dominate class

and clinic

> at PCOM. However there have been some concerns raised about this

amongst

> students as Maciocia is a major board exam source, yet no one really

uses any

> of his three books to create lectures at PCOM anymore. So there has

been a

> call to rectify this. Luckily several of us pointed out that we

could also use

> ACT (the shanghai text), which is also a board text. Yet we still

felt hamstrung

> by this. So this matter is not closed yet, as pressure builds to

reinstate GM's

> work more into the curriculum at a time when his influence was waning.

 

My reply here is straying from the original thread, but I want to go

on record as saying that I am glad to see GM out of the PCOM

curriculum. It would be sad, and a disservice to the students, to see

these books regain a high status at PCOM.

 

I wonder if other California schools have made similar changes. If

PCOM and the other schools have any weight at all with the CA Exam

writers, they should present their case and get the exams changed to

reflect the better texts / sources that we use and to use standardized

terminology along with pinyin and hanzi for the technical terms. If

they insist on using Bensky or Giovanni terminology, then the Wiseman

term, along with pinyin and hanzi should be along side of it. Not

only should the terminology be standardized, but the information

should be standardized as well, not peculiar to an individual author.

 

I do not know what their motivations are, but I would hope that the

people who write the CA exam are interested in having good

practitioners rather than Giovanni robots who memorize phrases (often

along with the exact page numbers) just so they can pass a test. From

the outside, it seems like they are just too lazy to update the test.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> I don't think this was your point, but it is not about sheer numbers,

> it is about quality. (BTW- there are only about 10,000 terms in that

> book)... One will also note in the above mentioned book there are no

> definitions. So even though this new book has less terms (6600 terms

> in 1057) it definitely covers more information (definitions) and more

> importantly now gives an option to Wiseman. Even if it only had 1000

> terms, it is still usable.

 

I get your point regarding definitions, but I have no idea what the

authors of the new book consider to be a definitions. Many of

Wiseman's definitions in the PD are extensive and give useful clinic

information as well.

 

Also, according to Unschuld's foreward in Wiseman's E-C C-E Dictionary

of CM, the books contains " an unparalleled list of most innovating

translations of about 10,000 Chinese terms, and the names of 2,000

formulas and 1,700 drugs, as well as of 1,500 needle insertion

points. " So unless formulas, herbs, and points are not terms, then

the book does have about 15,000 terms as I stated.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " wrote:

Not only should the terminology be standardized, but the information

should be standardized as well, not peculiar to an individual

author. >>>

 

 

Brian:

 

Since the Chinese never standardized their literature, this process

is something new. Isn't Wiseman just another " individual author? " Or

has he achieved some sort of iconigraphic status? It can easily be

argued that Wiseman is simply another one of those " individual

authors " like Macioca and Bensky, to people like myself. Especially

when I muddle through the Chinese on my own.

 

If we standardize the information, we will need to reduce things to

their most general and remedial forms. All the varient meanings,

nuances, and subtlety of the context will be lost. What Bensky calls

a " flattening " of the literature. It is a strong Western sensibility

that even the Chinese now have a hard time resisting. It might be

practical for first year students and standardized testing; but once

students are in clinic it will give them a false sense of assurity

when examining patients (IMO). It reminds me of Orwell's " 1984 "

where the English dictionary was being standardized by their

bureacracy. Superlatives were all reduced to " double plus good. "

 

I have no problem with someone using Wiseman if they say so up

front. It lets me know their limitations or perspective on the

material. The only " honest " way to translate is to include the

Chinese characters. The personality of the author moves to the

background for the reader and no longer stands between the reader

and the subject. Unfortunatley, even when other glossaries are

offered by authors like Chen, they don't seem to be welcome by the

Wiseman supporters.

 

I have heard that Birch, a supporter of Wiseman for Chinese, does

not think Wiseman applies to Japanese literature. I would add that

Wiseman is not always practical for advanced pulse diagnosis. There

are too many pheonomena that don't quite fit into his glossary. The

past discussions on the topic seemed more an infomercial for Wiseman

than any real discussion of translation.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

 

> If we standardize the information, we will need to reduce things to

> their most general and remedial forms. All the varient meanings,

> nuances, and subtlety of the context will be lost. What Bensky calls

> a " flattening " of the literature. It is a strong Western sensibility

 

I do not believe this is true. Furthermore, shouldn't applicants for

licensure be knowledgable of the basics of CM? Is it even tested? Or

are the tests geared more towards " trivia " attributed to specific

authors - such as the former test question about whether Bensky calls

Wen Dan Tang a " modification " of or an " adaptation " of er chen tang.

This is the type of question that does not belong on the CA exam and

has no bearing at all on the use of Wen Dan Tang and does test if the

student knows what Wen Dan Tang is or what its ingredients are, etc.

 

How about Giovanni's use of " bitter taste " to differentiate between

heart fire and liver fire. The Chinese teachers I have talked to have

never heard of this, and I have found this in no other source. This

is clearly non-standard information, peculiar to GM texts. Why should

I be tested on this? How does my knowledge of that tidbit mean that I

am a safe, competent practitioner of CM who deserves to be licensed in

the state of CA?

 

Licensure exams should reflect a " standard " core of required

information for the safe, effective practice of the CM. By standard,

I mean something along the lines of what Todd has recently been

posting about. This is something that the Chinese do as well with

their publications of standards. This will not flatten the medicine.

More advanced texts, translations of Classics, compilations of case

studies, etc. will still exist and be available and can even be

included in school's curriculum to advance the knowledge base and

clinic efficacy of its students, but why would that information need

to be on a licensure exam? Furthermore, when an author such as GM

spouts a tidbit which cannot be found in other common sources and in

not concurred by our Chinese teachers (and at times, even laughed at),

why should that tidbit find it's way onto a licensure exam?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

The PD also contains a lot

> of useful clinical infomation. But in any event, we all need to

remember the

> true industry standard is not wiseman, but COMP.

>

> COMP standards define the nature of functional, connotative and

denotative

> translations, the latter being wiseman. COMP standards also give

any author

> the option to substitute any other term they want for a wiseman

term as long

> as they footnote their choice. Why is wiseman the standard.

Because it has

> been the only comprehensive denotative dictionary available. If

the current

> one is truly competitive, then Jason is correct, we have a basis

for alternate

> term selections or differences in definition for said terms. But

since wiseman's

> definitions were culled from 100 modern sources, including the

zhong yi da ci

> dian, it would be surprising if this new dictionary varied much in

definitions.

 

The definitions are not the whole issue, but also the term choices.

The term choice is linked to the character and pinyin and therefore

one can cross reference in any other English or Chinese dictionary.

As far as the definitions in the PD are concerned, they are just a

start… The whole problem here, that Jim, Dan, and myself are

stressing is that just because you see some translated term that you

cannot actually assume that the author is using the term that is

defined in such a way in the PD (or any other dictionary.) Author's

use terms differently, many times not in a standard way, this is a

fact. IF one looks at a Chinese dictionary, there are definitions

that are not included in the PD.

I can also only assume that there must be something different with

the book, or else it would have never been published.

I just think that we should welcome other's opinions into the ocean

of ideas. Wiseman, may have had a cornered market, because of no

other competition in the past, but this will not last forever. For

me it is just another tool on the shelf, and not some bible to look

up `exactness' for any author, Chinese or English. It is a start…

Maybe COMP needs to reevaluated.

It is clear that people clutch onto Wiseman and look down on anything

else by the immediate dislike for Chen's book, without reading it,

and criticism for Dan's work, and not even knowing there was a

glossary in the back. There are many other valid ideas, and I do not

worship any of them… Yes someday there might be a standard coming out

of China, but the fact remains, that the past in nothing that

resembles standardization. I think term choices are important, but

just as important is the clarity of the idea coming from the original

author. Let us not let the words get in the way…

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " "

> <@h...> wrote:

>

> > I don't think this was your point, but it is not about sheer

numbers,

> > it is about quality. (BTW- there are only about 10,000 terms in

that

> > book)... One will also note in the above mentioned book there are

no

> > definitions. So even though this new book has less terms (6600

terms

> > in 1057) it definitely covers more information (definitions) and

more

> > importantly now gives an option to Wiseman. Even if it only had

1000

> > terms, it is still usable.

>

> I get your point regarding definitions, but I have no idea what the

> authors of the new book consider to be a definitions. Many of

> Wiseman's definitions in the PD are extensive and give useful clinic

> information as well.

 

Clinical information is nice, but moot IMO. The new book's

definitions will be definitions that at least some group of people

agrees with, therefore it is useful. There is no right or wrong

definitions, just different opinions. I like how people are already

looking for reasons not to like this book (Just like with Chen),

without even reading it…. To me I say wow, another book, more

information to widen my understanding, not .. well it must be bad

because of this or that…

 

>

> Also, according to Unschuld's foreward in Wiseman's E-C C-E

Dictionary

> of CM, the books contains " an unparalleled list of most innovating

> translations of about 10,000 Chinese terms, and the names of 2,000

> formulas and 1,700 drugs, as well as of 1,500 needle insertion

> points. " So unless formulas, herbs, and points are not terms, then

> the book does have about 15,000 terms as I stated.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

I think you answered you own question... it clearly says 10,000

Chinese TERMS... acupoint/ herbs etc are not terms IMO, and not in

Unschuld's opinion either,

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> definitions, just different opinions. I like how people are already

> looking for reasons not to like this book (Just like with Chen),

> without even reading it…. To me I say wow, another book, more

> information to widen my understanding, not .. well it must be bad

> because of this or that…

 

Maybe you are assuming that people are looking for reasons not to like

the book because they do not completely agree with you? I noticed it

a few weeks ago and was interested in it. There is a more in-depth

review of the book on Amazon.com which I found interesting.

 

However, I do not want to buy the book without seeing it first. If

you get it, let me know so I can have a look.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

B,

 

I didn't see it that way (not agreeing with me – because I stated

little), maybe I misinterpreted Todd's and your response, i.e. you

said - " but I have no idea what the

authors of the new book consider to be a definitions. Many of

Wiseman's definitions in the PD are extensive and give useful clinic

information as well. "

 

This (IMO) sounds like you don't have any idea where they got these

definitions (therefore) the definitions are not relevant... ??? or

something??? You have not even seen the book and are already worrying

about where the definitions came from... Do you think that the author

just made them up out of thin air with no regard to Chinese sources

or Chinese history,... Of course not… Even if they are not

mainstream, then they are useful… Therefore your statement seems to

look for reasons to not like it, and it is not disagreeing with me...

(especially since I just mentioned the book as a possible new

resource and alternative to Wiseman) – If you disagree with that then

you are disagreeing with me and would be quite premature without

reading the book… Furthermore is your last statement above, proof

that the PD is somehow superior...? It just seems odd in context and

maybe slightly defensive towards an alternative… Maybe you could

clarify what your statement above it supposed to mean in relation to

this new book…?

 

> However, I do not want to buy the book without seeing it first. If

> you get it, let me know so I can have a look.

>

 

This makes sense, and this was my original post… Has anybody checked

it out yet…?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Author's

use terms differently, many times not in a standard way, this is a

fact. IF one looks at a Chinese dictionary, there are definitions

that are not included in the PD.

>>>>>This is the main point and for example just because Dan xi used the same

term for the 6 " depressions " does not mean that this use of the term has any

relation to using the term as far as Liver disorders, emotional disorder or

anything else. If one is caught in standard use of terms related to a Chinese

character one can easily miss the entire point An author is trying to

communicate.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Clinical information is nice, but moot IMO. The new book's

definitions will be definitions that at least some group of people

agrees with, therefore it is useful. There is no right or wrong

definitions, just different opinions. I like how people are already

looking for reasons not to like this book (Just like with Chen),

without even reading it.. To me I say wow, another book, more

information to widen my understanding, not .. well it must be bad

because of this or that.

>>>And it is a very useful book. Very well done and clinically oriented in

structure

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> I didn't see it that way (not agreeing with me – because I stated

> little), maybe I misinterpreted Todd's and your response, i.e. you

> said - " but I have no idea what the

> authors of the new book consider to be a definitions. Many of

> Wiseman's definitions in the PD are extensive and give useful clinic

> information as well. "

 

My concern was not so much where the definitions came from, but rather

the extent of the content. Wiseman's C-E E-C Dictionary of CM, for

instance is a dictionary that gives an English equiv. (narrow sense of

the word definition) of a Chinese term, whereas his PD goes on to

explain in much more depth. I was just wondering how much was being

explained in this new book.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

The dictionary you mention is simply an update of an earlier dictionary

by Xie Zhu-fan, which I've had an earlier copy for several years now.

I haven't looked through the new one, but I think I can safely say that

the earlier version was no competition for the Wiseman dictionary.

 

 

On Nov 28, 2003, at 8:42 PM, wrote:

 

> Until now…??? I just noticed the new redwing catalog, on page 1 -

> Classified Dictionary of TCM (1057 pages, 6630 terms)... Has anyone

> seen this? it looks like there will be some competition for the

> industry standard… if not with this dictionary, in the near future

> with other authors who are not satisfied with Wisemanspeak.

[Guest guest]

Brian,

It is typical of bureaucracies to respond more slowly to change than

smaller institutions or groups of people. I seriously doubt that

teachers at PCOM are going to change their teaching texts if they feel

they are doing a less efficient job. In the herb department, we've had

several meetings about this, and have pretty much decided the direction

that teaching and source texts should take.

As your generation of students become licensed practitioners, the

onus is on your group, who were trained with the Blue Poppy/Paradigm

and Eastland Press texts primarily, to lobby state and national

licensing boards and commissions to make the necessary changes in the

lists of required texts.

As Todd mentioned earlier, the COMP standards should be resurrected

and applied, so that students and teachers can know the difference

between source-related and connotative translations, and choose and use

texts accordingly.

 

 

On Nov 29, 2003, at 10:39 AM, bcataiji wrote:

 

> My reply here is straying from the original thread, but I want to go

> on record as saying that I am glad to see GM out of the PCOM

> curriculum. It would be sad, and a disservice to the students, to see

> these books regain a high status at PCOM.

>

> I wonder if other California schools have made similar changes. If

> PCOM and the other schools have any weight at all with the CA Exam

> writers, they should present their case and get the exams changed to

> reflect the better texts / sources that we use and to use standardized

> terminology along with pinyin and hanzi for the technical terms. If

> they insist on using Bensky or Giovanni terminology, then the Wiseman

> term, along with pinyin and hanzi should be along side of it. Not

> only should the terminology be standardized, but the information

> should be standardized as well, not peculiar to an individual author.

>

> I do not know what their motivations are, but I would hope that the

> people who write the CA exam are interested in having good

> practitioners rather than Giovanni robots who memorize phrases (often

> along with the exact page numbers) just so they can pass a test. From

> the outside, it seems like they are just too lazy to update the test.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

I think you are misreading so-called " Wiseman supporters " in this

post.

Dr. Chen apparently worked with Bob Felt on producing his glossary, and

I applaud his efforts in doing so. It is an interesting comparison of

what is basically 'industry standard' pre-Wiseman terminology with

Wiseman terms, really the first attempt at doing so. Unfortunately, in

reading the actual text, many of his term choices did not make it into

the glossary. For example, in the ma huang/ephedra section, he uses

terms such as diaphoresis, antipyretic, yin sores, or painful

obstruction for bi which cannot be found in the glossary. Therefore,

many of the terms remain unexplained, and there is no pinyin or Chinese

characters used to help anyone find the definitions. Again, this

aspect of the text compares unfavorably with, say, the translation

given to Jiao Shude's " Ten Lectures on Medicinals " , where every term is

carefully explained and referenced.

 

I would like to here Stephen Birch go into more detail about his

views on Wiseman terminology and Japanese medicine. I assume he is

correct that an additional glossary would be necessary to cover much of

the material used in Japanese medicine, and I, for one, would be glad

to see it. Paul Unschuld has produced a substantial glossary for his

Su Wen project, with many terms not in the Wiseman dictionary. He also

uses different term choices than Wiseman in some places, such as camp

qi for ying qi (instead of construction or nutritive qi). However,

Paul has had several collaborative meetings with Nigel along the way,

so this is not an 'opposition move', simply one scholar choosing a

different translation than another. One text, no matter how well-done,

can cover everything. You and I agree that putting Chinese, and

possibly pinyin, side by side with translations is the best idea, but

dictionaries are still necessary. I would love to see other

Chinese-English CM dictionaries and glossaries, but they would have to

be at least at the level of Wiseman to be useful in my own work.

 

 

On Nov 29, 2003, at 11:21 AM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Unfortunatley, even when other glossaries are

> offered by authors like Chen, they don't seem to be welcome by the

> Wiseman supporters.

>

> I have heard that Birch, a supporter of Wiseman for Chinese, does

> not think Wiseman applies to Japanese literature. I would add that

> Wiseman is not always practical for advanced pulse diagnosis. There

> are too many pheonomena that don't quite fit into his glossary. The

> past discussions on the topic seemed more an infomercial for Wiseman

> than any real discussion of translation.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I have no problem with anyone writing a dictionary or glossary, as

long as it is as good or better than Wiseman's. However, fifteen years

of work went into producing that text, so it may be awhile before

something of that stature develops. Look, the Formulas and Strategies

book has been out for 13 years, and nothing else has come along to

replace or better it yet.

I've been using the Wiseman dictionary side by side with the Bensky

herbal texts in teaching my herb classes for years now, without any

difficulty. In fact, I've had little protest about Wiseman terms,

because I explain what they mean, and compare Wiseman's and Bensky's

definitions. In fact, several terms choices are similar between them,

so it is not as big a problem as some may think.

I have been looking through the Chen text. Please see my comments

in response to Jim Ramholz' post.

 

 

On Nov 29, 2003, at 12:54 PM, wrote:

 

> It is clear that people clutch onto Wiseman and look down on anything

> else by the immediate dislike for Chen's book, without reading it,

> and criticism for Dan's work, and not even knowing there was a

> glossary in the back. There are many other valid ideas, and I do not

> worship any of them… Yes someday there might be a standard coming out

> of China, but the fact remains, that the past in nothing that

> resembles standardization. I think term choices are important, but

> just as important is the clarity of the idea coming from the original

> author. Let us not let the words get in the way…