standards project

[Guest guest]

believe me it's not that they are " too lazy " . In fact it is the opposite, that

because of

the ineveitable lawsuits, every question is indeed tied to a page number.

Giovanni

provides a theory and a practical book thus the two can be tied together. It

becomes

problematic when you " invent " cases.

I agree that things need changing. The last 5 years have seemed to brought

things

under control some what. I can see that the Deng theory book would be the next

step

to add to the books.

Although it's easy to say after passing the exam, the acupuncture test is one of

the

easiest of the California professional exams. Most others require many more

retests.

doug

 

> >

> > 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]

, " " wrote:

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. >>>

 

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Is he translating a particular text, like Jiao Shude's " Ten Lectures

on Medicinals " , or is he doing a survey of the literature?

 

There is a different demand for each writer.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Is he translating a particular text, like Jiao Shude's " Ten Lectures

on Medicinals " , or is he doing a survey of the literature?

 

>>>Not only its a survey of lots of sources not all chinese, he tries to make

the material clinically and easily accessible. If terms such as diaphoresis are

not clear enough i think the need to cling to terms is excessive, but again what

do i know

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> 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.

 

When you say " hara " , which is a Japanese term, i assume you are

intending inclusion of Japanese medicine into this standardization

plan. This would prove even more knotty than so-called TCM standards

since the Japanese government has no hand in standardizing Toyo Igaku

(East Asian Medicine) beyond approval of herb formulae and licensing

standards (which are based largely on biomedicine). The acumoxa

profession itself is full of competing models and intepretations of

classical theory. In most cases, the abdominal patterns most commonly

taught in the West are familiar to us only because of the presence of

a popular and vocal advocate for that particular model (Birch, Kiiko,

Shima, et al). IMO, the Japanese themselves would likely reject such

standards coming from our side.

 

robert hayden

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

>

> 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.

 

i would like to hear this too. It is interesting that his wife

helped to coordinate Japanese terms with the Chinese terms in the

original glossary -- a book on which i continue to rely to this day.

Seems to me, however, that his position would indicate that he feels

the Wiseman gloss is unsuitable for anything but translating PRC

materials since for example in classical texts we have no idea

whether the various authors meant precisely the same thing in using a

given term as they would in modern times. While it is true that many

Japanese author-practitioners have a sometimes highly personalized

interpretation of classical CM materials, i can't believe this is

unique to Japan vs Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, etc., and perhaps even in

the PRC itself. So either the Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not.

 

robert hayden

[Guest guest]

Dear Jason,

 

 

I think you find more people then less agreeing with your view points about

these books and all the shades inbewteen...

 

Jason Robertson explianes all this in a recent letter...

 

Anyway I try to think of books as " personalities " some books have more

agreaiabble then others and each have thier merit most of the time...

 

 

The PDCM is a great start which has been said many times but I am also quite

hopefull that Spanish and or say Mexican schollars will try to do something

similiar to the Wiseman dictionary in not to distant futuer.

 

The reaseon for this is that there are many books that need to be transmited

into the spanish language and altough the source i.e. Chinese or an Asian

language would be the ideal. First " steep " would be to translate some books

from the English language to Spanish of which the most " transperent " once

might be the " most " usefull for the time being....

 

 

 

Marco

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 " wrote:

While it is true that many Japanese author-practitioners have a

sometimes highly personalized interpretation of classical CM

materials, i can't believe this is unique to Japan vs Korea, Taiwan,

Vietnam, etc., and perhaps even in the PRC itself. So either the

Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not. >>>

 

 

 

robert:

 

I don't know if being so black or white about Wiseman---or anything--

is practical. Perhaps the real question should be " when? " does

Wiseman work. If not for more personalized interpretations, or even

Qin-bo Wei now, maybe it would be useful to organize the first few

years of study as a foundation and starting off point.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " James Ramholz "

<jramholz> wrote:

> So either the

> Wiseman gloss is useful or it's not. >>>

>

>

>

> robert:

>

> I don't know if being so black or white about Wiseman---or anything-

-

> is practical. Perhaps the real question should be " when? " does

> Wiseman work.

 

perhaps i should have said " broadly useful " ; Birch's apparent

argument is that it is not.

 

rh

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 " wrote:

> perhaps i should have said " broadly useful " ; Birch's apparent

> argument is that it is not.

 

 

robert:

 

Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo

Wei may not translate well using it!

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

I think you are right, Marco. Other target languages must be chosen,

and dictionaries developed based on those target languages.

 

I am still planning to obtain the Larre dictionary, which is in French.

 

I've seen the difficulty of having the source language 'twice removed'

in Israeli schools, where there are attempts to teach in Hebrew from

translated English texts (except, of course, for those Israelis with

excellent English skills). Many of these English texts are themselves

somewhat removed from Chinese source texts. It leads to chaos.

 

Any Israelis on the list who care to comment?

 

 

On Nov 30, 2003, at 7:10 AM, Marco wrote:

 

> The reaseon for this is that there are many books that need to be

> transmited

> into the spanish language and altough the source i.e. Chinese or an

> Asian

> language would be the ideal. First " steep " would be to translate some

> books

> from the English language to Spanish of which the most " transperent "

> once

> might be the " most " usefull for the time being....

[Guest guest]

The Qin Bowei anthology, which I think you are referring to, was

translated before the Wiseman dictionary was published. While the

author had access to Wiseman terminology, it was an earlier,

pre-publication version of it. I don't want to speak for the authors,

but I have a feeling if they updated the text, some things would be

different.

 

Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. Translation is a

difficult job, and we do the best with the tools we have. There are a

lot more tools available now than eight years ago.

 

 

On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:03 AM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> robert:

>

> Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo

> Wei may not translate well using it!

>

>

> Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Does anybody know Macioca well? While the only book of his i read carefully is

his basic theory text, which is very basic but so is the other Fundamentals, i

wander if he likes to write from his experience treating in the west or more

" translating " chinese texts and thus transmitting what could be called standard

CM. From the few conditions i have seen in his practice of CM it looks like he

often uses formula modifications that can easily look like what i see at my

clinic (as apposed to many texts i read from china), although the categorization

is still quite artificial. Does anybody know what his style is or as anybody

studied his newer books in depth and tell if he uses ? As anybody studied his

product lines? do they seem to be reflecting what people see in their clinics?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I want to agree with Zev here with reservations.

 

I want to make it clear that for the last few days (and years) I've been

thinking out

loud on the depression/stagnation issue. With the help of the Deng diagnosis

book

(thank you Marnae) I've been able to, I think, at last to sort this out. My

colleagues

comments notwithstanding with three books cross-referenced I am clear about what

zhi means...

 

The Qin Bo-Wei book is consistent it would seem with the Wiseman dictionary. The

key was talking to colleagues who studied the material in the original. (The key

was

that Wiseman spent precious little time on the stagnation definition, not

providing the

delineation that I needed.)

 

Am I now a Wise-head :-) ? I still think depression is a lousy word choice,

but wish

him luck in finding a word-for-word translation glossary. Should use it as the

standard for the practitioners of Chinese medicine in English? I think it is

Alon that

says that it still takes someone to explain these terms and still think we

should reach

a flexible and descriptive language for everyday discourse.

 

doug

 

 

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> The Qin Bowei anthology, which I think you are referring to, was

> translated before the Wiseman dictionary was published. While the

> author had access to Wiseman terminology, it was an earlier,

> pre-publication version of it. I don't want to speak for the authors,

> but I have a feeling if they updated the text, some things would be

> different.

>

> Let's not just blame the dictionary outright. Translation is a

> difficult job, and we do the best with the tools we have. There are a

> lot more tools available now than eight years ago.

>

>

> On Nov 30, 2003, at 8:03 AM, James Ramholz wrote:

>

> > robert:

> >

> > Interesting point. Especially now that we're finding out that Qin-bo

> > Wei may not translate well using it!

> >

> >

> > Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

The Qin Bo-Wei book is consistent it would seem with the Wiseman

dictionary. The key was talking to colleagues who studied the

material in the original. (The key was that Wiseman spent precious

little time on the stagnation definition, not providing the

delineation that I needed.) >>>

 

 

 

 

doug:

 

The only real question here is not whether Chip's translation is

consistent with Wiseman---that's a separate issue. This kind of

consistancy is not a guarentee of accuracy and meaning.

 

The real question is whether that is what Qin-bo Wei actually said

and/or meant. If he did use it the way Wiseman did, then fine. If he

didn't, then there is a problem imposing a standard that changes the

original meanings.

 

This will be a very educational test case. Fortunately, many of the

Chinese authors have been dead quite a while and don't have anyone

with living memory or first and second generation students to raise

this issue.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Any Israelis on the list who care to comment?

>>>I have never seen the Hebrew texts on CM

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think it is Alon that

says that it still takes someone to explain these terms and still think we

should reach

a flexible and descriptive language for everyday discourse.

 

>>>>I will continue to say liver congestion qi stagnation

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

The real question is whether that is what Qin-bo Wei actually said

and/or meant. If he did use it the way Wiseman did, then fine. If he

didn't, then there is a problem imposing a standard that changes the

original meanings.

 

This will be a very educational test case. Fortunately, many of the

Chinese authors have been dead quite a while and don't have anyone

with living memory or first and second generation students to raise

this issue.

 

>>>>Well it would only apply to Qin-bo and he is one that likes standards and a

strong advocate of TCM

Alon