More on a disorder of qi

February 19, 2005

Well said, Jonah.

Eric

, " hershowitz " <jonah@e...>

wrote:

>

> Alon,

>

> Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional Western medical

> systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize precisely the

> subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study Western medical

> terminology not because patients use terms like " pruritus "

> or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's gaze rather than

> the patient's—but because standardized professional language allows

> us to limit the subjectivity of our differentiations, treatments,

> and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese medical terminology

is

> not used by Chinese patients to describe their complaints: that is

> why it is medical terminology.

>

> I strongly disagree with your statement that " the most important

> aspect when dealing with translating related to medical care is to

> consider how patients in the other culture experience and

> communicate what we hope are similar experiences. " This is indeed a

> very important and undervalued aspect of our education, and should

> accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical terminology. We

> hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes experiences that

> are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should give due

> attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and pathologies, and

the

> correlations between `patient-speak' and `physician-speak'. But

this

> does not strengthen the argument to interpret Chinese medical

> writings through the lens of our patients' clinical language when

> rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient descriptions vary not

> only between China and `the West', but regionally, and locally,

down

> to the personal level. Just because my patient feels " swollen, "

> or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in Naples) doesn't make

> those any less accurate as textual translations for zhang4, any

more

> than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach

> ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should be taken at

> their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in clinic for

> these descriptions and should be able to understand the

> discrepancies between texts, including those translated from

Chinese

> that linguistically respect their sources, and clinical realities.

>

> Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't work, you

> misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for plug-in

> translation? The philological issues raised by the transmission of

> traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are challenging and

deserve

> careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes Wisemanology or any

> other gloss will lead to robotic translation. Rather, we hope that

> using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the subtleties of

> Chinese medical language, theory and practice, resisting and

> reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce concepts for the

> tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Jonah Hershowitz

>

> , " "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just right'

> > >>>And the most important aspect when dealing with translating

> related to medical care is to consider how patients in the other

> culture experience and communicate what we hope are similar

> experiences. This whole argument about distension just highlights

> this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have ever heard a

> patient say he feels distended, so unless we can truly understand

> what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then translate it to

> what western patients experience and communicates, we are back to

> talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the clinician a

> clinical translation is much more important (which to a SMALL

extent

> Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at patient care

> academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical text should be

> relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric makes is important

> if one is to truly understand another language and then translate

> meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English (which is a

> closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which words are often

used

> differently within different contexts) when I just covert words the

> meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A standard plugged-in

> translation just cant do the job for anything that has

> depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like to see more

> Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not just

> translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to have a clearer

> separation between the so-called academic translators and medical

> writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems in TCM

> education in the west.

> >

February 19, 2005

Holly,

A few loose threads....

You were discussing the treatments of qi stagnation and dampness. In

treatment, it is essentially a gradation of different signs and a

variance in the presciption to reflect the relative levels of qi

stagnation and dampness. Dampness is treated by moving qi while

transforming dampness, drying dampness, or disinhibiting dampness

(largely dependent on whether the dampness is in the upper, middle,

or lower burner respectively). Pure qi stagnation doesn't necessarily

involve herbs to treat dampness, but dampness virtually always

requires moving qi. In the textbook, they appear to be very distinct

and black and white, but in reality, there is a wide range of

prominent signs. Treatment varies depending on how severe each

component is.

Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult,

because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if

it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several

Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in

his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort.

> I have always wondered why we as beginners are not

> taught directly from translations of the classics.

The classics are too difficult for the very initial stages of

education. The classics are used at the advanced levels of study to

allow students to think through complex scenarios and gain a deeper

understanding of theory. The basic information is the most common

part of general practice, and a sound knowledge of the basics will

allow the classics to make much more sense than if you just go

straight to the classics. Modern Chinese students also focus on the

basics and then later on the classics, even though there is no issue

with terminology and language for them. Archaic Chinese is difficult

for everyone, because it is very vague.

Eric

, holly mead <flwfree>

wrote:

>

> I believe that this is a very big problem for new

> students.

>

> Did you know that most students will not read

> different sources of information simply because of the

> vast variations of medical terms described by each

> book?

>

> Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and

> we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of

> the others I speak with, will not learn from books,

> they study and learn strictly from the instructors

> notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance

> grade.

>

> I was instructed for my next exam to answer only from

> the terms as described by Maciocia's, The Foundation

> of , and disregard the knowledge

> gained from my other sources.

>

> Maybe that is the right way to do things, since there

> seems to be nothing to help new students catch the

> " nuances " which was described in the previous e-mail.

>

> I have always wondered why we as beginners are not

> taught directly from translations of the classics.

>

> Holly

>

--- hershowitz <jonah@e...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Alon,

> >

> > Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional

> > Western medical

> > systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize

> > precisely the

> > subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study

> > Western medical

> > terminology not because patients use terms like

> > " pruritus "

> > or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's

> > gaze rather than

> > the patient's—but because standardized professional

> > language allows

> > us to limit the subjectivity of our

> > differentiations, treatments,

> > and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese

> > medical terminology is

> > not used by Chinese patients to describe their

> > complaints: that is

> > why it is medical terminology.

> >

> > I strongly disagree with your statement that " the

> > most important

> > aspect when dealing with translating related to

> > medical care is to

> > consider how patients in the other culture

> > experience and

> > communicate what we hope are similar experiences. "

> > This is indeed a

> > very important and undervalued aspect of our

> > education, and should

> > accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical

> > terminology. We

> > hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes

> > experiences that

> > are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should

> > give due

> > attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and

> > pathologies, and the

> > correlations between `patient-speak' and

> > `physician-speak'. But this

> > does not strengthen the argument to interpret

> > Chinese medical

> > writings through the lens of our patients' clinical

> > language when

> > rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient

> > descriptions vary not

> > only between China and `the West', but regionally,

> > and locally, down

> > to the personal level. Just because my patient feels

> > " swollen, "

> > or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in

> > Naples) doesn't make

> > those any less accurate as textual translations for

> > zhang4, any more

> > than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach

> > ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should

> > be taken at

> > their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in

> > clinic for

> > these descriptions and should be able to understand

> > the

> > discrepancies between texts, including those

> > translated from Chinese

> > that linguistically respect their sources, and

> > clinical realities.

> >

> > Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't

> > work, you

> > misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for

> > plug-in

> > translation? The philological issues raised by the

> > transmission of

> > traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are

> > challenging and deserve

> > careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes

> > Wisemanology or any

> > other gloss will lead to robotic translation.

> > Rather, we hope that

> > using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the

> > subtleties of

> > Chinese medical language, theory and practice,

> > resisting and

> > reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce

> > concepts for the

> > tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> >

> > Jonah Hershowitz

> >

> > , " Alon

> > Marcus DOM "

> > <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > > I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just

> > right'

> > > >>>And the most important aspect when dealing with

> > translating

> > related to medical care is to consider how patients

> > in the other

> > culture experience and communicate what we hope are

> > similar

> > experiences. This whole argument about distension

> > just highlights

> > this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have

> > ever heard a

> > patient say he feels distended, so unless we can

> > truly understand

> > what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then

> > translate it to

> > what western patients experience and communicates,

> > we are back to

> > talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the

> > clinician a

> > clinical translation is much more important (which

> > to a SMALL extent

> > Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at

> > patient care

> > academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical

> > text should be

> > relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric

> > makes is important

> > if one is to truly understand another language and

> > then translate

> > meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English

> > (which is a

> > closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which

> > words are often used

> > differently within different contexts) when I just

> > covert words the

> > meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A

> > standard plugged-in

> > translation just cant do the job for anything that

> > has

> > depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like

> > to see more

> > Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not

> > just

> > translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to

> > have a clearer

> > separation between the so-called academic

> > translators and medical

> > writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems

> > in TCM

> > education in the west.

> > >

> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

February 19, 2005

To the degree

> that Wiseman is " Caucasian " (why that term is in current use I'm

not

> sure) and a non-clinician, he will need the council of those who

have

> native fluency in Chinese and who understand at least to his level

of

> competence the clinical context of the text, if needed. And to the

> degree that Feng is Chinese and a clinician, he would be well-

advised

> to work with (and I think also to leave the final translation

> decisions to) a native English speaker who specializes in Chinese

> medical translation.

Yes, this is the pivotal reason that Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye work

as a team. Nigel background is as a PhD in applied linguists, and he

has a very sound knowledge of both languages, as well as translation

theory, and experience from translating a wide range of texts. There

are things that require a clinician like Feng Ye to provide clarity.

So they have the exact process that you are discussing- a native

English speaker who specializes in CM translation making the final

translation decisions, and a clinician making sure that those

decisions are correct. They have the best of both worlds.

I agree that being a clinician does not guarantee being a good

translator. In fact, it oftens gets in the way, because clinicians

have a hard time resisting the tempation to keep their own opinions

out of it. Language ability is the most important factor in

translation, and one needs to have familiarity with the specific

technical language in the target subject. So while my previous post

pointed out that clinicians were available in the production of those

books, it is also worth noting that an experienced expert translator

was involved as well- Nigel Wiseman.

Eric

, " hershowitz " <jonah@e...>

wrote:

>

> Alon,

>

> I very much appreciate your comments and am heartened by your level-

> headed and practical approach. I can't agree more that

the /authors/

> (is there a standard substitute for italics or emphasis in e-

> writing?) should be the most informed, intelligent, experienced

> people possible. We all want great books written by great folks who

> know what they're talking about, using the language that suits

them,

> including technical terminologies and so-called lay terms. I look

> very much to purchasing your book when I return to the Bay Area in

> April, and it is indeed your well-evidenced clinical scholarship as

> an author that interests me.

>

> A translator working with a Chinese author's work on Chinese

> medicine, on the other hand, is best served with at least a

glossary

> in hand in addition to standard dictionaries and so on. Which leads

> me to:

>

> Eric,

>

> While the clinical credentials of the individuals you mention are

> undeniable merits which can only credit their translation skills,

> they are not in my opinion the bottom-line measure for the quality

of

> a translator. I place far more value in a translator's linguistic

> abilities, and expect that clinicians be consulted as editors when

> necessary. Clinicians may make better or worse translators, and for

> that matter, use of standardized terminology is no guarantee for

good

> translation, as so many have previously pointed out in this

> discussion. But it sure helps, and those equipped with such tools

are

> better prepared to face the difficulties of transmission. I would

> prefer a bad translator use the PD rather than not. To the degree

> that Wiseman is " Caucasian " (why that term is in current use I'm

not

> sure) and a non-clinician, he will need the council of those who

have

> native fluency in Chinese and who understand at least to his level

of

> competence the clinical context of the text, if needed. And to the

> degree that Feng is Chinese and a clinician, he would be well-

advised

> to work with (and I think also to leave the final translation

> decisions to) a native English speaker who specializes in Chinese

> medical translation. All the better if that specialist is an

> experienced clinician.

>

> What do you think?

>

> Jonah Hershowitz

>

> , " "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Jonah

> > I have no problem with technical terminology and i believe CM

> practitioners must study the depth of the medicine, including all

its

> technical terms. I also do not have any problem using such terms

> especially when translating some texts (when the original authors

> have all used the same terms to have similar meanings). I have

> enjoyed and have learned form several WT texts. I think when

> translating classical works a standard translation has many

> advantages but also weaknesses (and we should also remember that we

> often do not really know what many of the terms mean and therefor

> should still be open to many varying interpretation). On the other

> hand i do have problems with books that are more clinically

oriented

> if the terms do not conform, make sense, or translate culturally. A

> book written for use in a western clinical setting should relate

> terms to the reality of western patients (and still be as accurate

> regarding the Chinese experience as possible, a tall order).When

> additional explanation beyond standard stated terms, and i think

is

> needed often, it must be provided. Relying on standard technical

> terminology is often less ideal. When one writes or translates

modern

> clinical manuals i think one MUST struggle with issues that are not

> always best dealt with standardized terms.That is also why i

believe

> if one is to write a modern clinical manual one should only write

> about areas in which he/she have extensive clinical experience. It

is

> some of these books that i have referred to as having the feeling

of

> almost being computer generated(obviously many of the texts we have

> have been written by practitioners with vast experience in the

> particular field they have written on, but many have not). Again,

as

> a profession i believe we are better served by having

flexibility.

> >

February 20, 2005

Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult,

because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if

it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several

Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in

his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort.

>>>I may be mistaken but i was under the impression that Macioccia does not

" translate. " but writes on CM topics. Am i wrong?

February 20, 2005

I look

> very much to purchasing your book when I return to the Bay Area in

> April, and it is indeed your well-evidenced clinical scholarship as

> an author that interests me.

>>>>>>>Please contact me i would love to visit

February 20, 2005

I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges

the input of

quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are

heavily

" influenced " by translators whom he had employed.

> >>>I may be mistaken but i was under the impression that Macioccia does not

" translate. " but writes on CM topics. Am i wrong?

>

, " " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> Using Macioccia to figure out a technical nuance is difficult,

> because no one knows what he means by distention. We don't know if

> it is consistently translated from one Chinese term, from several

> Chinese terms, or whether it is just the most natural expression in

> his common vocabulary to summarize the sensation of discomfort.

>

February 20, 2005

I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges

the input of

quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are

heavily

" influenced " by translators whom he had employed.

>>>>So are they basically based on translated texts? I have never read his work

in-depth but the few section i have read seemed like he includes opinions and

interpretations

February 20, 2005

I wouldn't say that they are " basically based on translated texts " and they

certainly contain

alot of his opinions and interpretations which I think is great. However, will

all the books

and especially with this latest Diagnosis book it's hard to distinquish between

his opinions

and (Chinese) concensus. This is what I find rather frustrating... for example

we have the

idea of the outer shu points which so far has seemed to only to have come from

his books.

Read Deadman and you get a lot of comments about how this or that idea (not all

Giovanni's) has no basis in the classic texts. It would be nice to get a fully

footnoted

Foundations copy. He does tend to more freely admit the influence of Dr. Shen

in the new

Diagnosis book.

doug

> >>>>So are they basically based on translated texts? I have never read his

work in-

depth but the few section i have read seemed like he includes opinions and

interpretations

>

, " " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> I think this is a point of contention. In his latest Diagnosis he aknowledges

the input of

> quite of few Chinese translators. In the past I have heard that his books are

heavily

> " influenced " by translators whom he had employed.

February 20, 2005

However, will all the books

and especially with this latest Diagnosis book it's hard to distinquish between

his opinions

and (Chinese) concensus.

>>>>That is why in my book i try to add a foot note any time something is not

traditionally based

February 20, 2005

Holly,

This may be controversial, but it would seem that it would be

difficult to use the terms only from the Maciocia text for an exam,

since there are few terms defined. Depending on the text, for example,

" The Practice of " which is a huge text, the glossary

is only a few pages and a relative handful of terms.

In my own herb classes, I use classical texts such as the Shang Han

Lun for all relevant references, along with Wen Bing Xue, among others.

However, in order to do this, I must be able to define the important

terms, which are only available in the Practical Dictionary of CM. I

then will reference relevant terms to the Bensky use or other authors

if necessary. But the only standardized terminology available is the

Wiseman/Ye, therefore there is no other competing standard.

On Feb 19, 2005, at 2:09 PM, holly mead wrote:

>

> I believe that this is a very big problem for new

> students.

>

> Did you know that most students will not read

> different sources of information simply because of the

> vast variations of medical terms described by each

> book?

>

> Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and

> we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of

> the others I speak with, will not learn from books,

> they study and learn strictly from the instructors

> notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance

> grade.

>

> I was instructed for my next exam to answer only from

> the terms as described by Maciocia's, The Foundation

> of , and disregard the knowledge

> gained from my other sources.

>

> Maybe that is the right way to do things, since there

> seems to be nothing to help new students catch the

> " nuances " which was described in the previous e-mail.

>

> I have always wondered why we as beginners are not

> taught directly from translations of the classics.

>

> Holly

>

--- hershowitz <jonah wrote:

>

>>

>> Alon,

>>

>> Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional

>> Western medical

>> systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize

>> precisely the

>> subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study

>> Western medical

>> terminology not because patients use terms like

>> " pruritus "

>> or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's

>> gaze rather than

>> the patient's—but because standardized professional

>> language allows

>> us to limit the subjectivity of our

>> differentiations, treatments,

>> and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese

>> medical terminology is

>> not used by Chinese patients to describe their

>> complaints: that is

>> why it is medical terminology.

>>

>> I strongly disagree with your statement that " the

>> most important

>> aspect when dealing with translating related to

>> medical care is to

>> consider how patients in the other culture

>> experience and

>> communicate what we hope are similar experiences. "

>> This is indeed a

>> very important and undervalued aspect of our

>> education, and should

>> accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical

>> terminology. We

>> hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes

>> experiences that

>> are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should

>> give due

>> attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and

>> pathologies, and the

>> correlations between `patient-speak' and

>> `physician-speak'. But this

>> does not strengthen the argument to interpret

>> Chinese medical

>> writings through the lens of our patients' clinical

>> language when

>> rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient

>> descriptions vary not

>> only between China and `the West', but regionally,

>> and locally, down

>> to the personal level. Just because my patient feels

>> " swollen, "

>> or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in

>> Naples) doesn't make

>> those any less accurate as textual translations for

>> zhang4, any more

>> than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach

>> ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should

>> be taken at

>> their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in

>> clinic for

>> these descriptions and should be able to understand

>> the

>> discrepancies between texts, including those

>> translated from Chinese

>> that linguistically respect their sources, and

>> clinical realities.

>>

>> Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't

>> work, you

>> misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for

>> plug-in

>> translation? The philological issues raised by the

>> transmission of

>> traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are

>> challenging and deserve

>> careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes

>> Wisemanology or any

>> other gloss will lead to robotic translation.

>> Rather, we hope that

>> using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the

>> subtleties of

>> Chinese medical language, theory and practice,

>> resisting and

>> reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce

>> concepts for the

>> tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation.

>>

>> Sincerely,

>>

>> Jonah Hershowitz

>>

>> , " Alon

>> Marcus DOM "

>> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>>> I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just

>> right'

>>>>>> And the most important aspect when dealing with

>> translating

>> related to medical care is to consider how patients

>> in the other

>> culture experience and communicate what we hope are

>> similar

>> experiences. This whole argument about distension

>> just highlights

>> this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have

>> ever heard a

>> patient say he feels distended, so unless we can

>> truly understand

>> what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then

>> translate it to

>> what western patients experience and communicates,

>> we are back to

>> talking about linguistics and not medicine. For the

>> clinician a

>> clinical translation is much more important (which

>> to a SMALL extent

>> Maciocia attempts) then for those that look at

>> patient care

>> academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical

>> text should be

>> relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric

>> makes is important

>> if one is to truly understand another language and

>> then translate

>> meanings.Even in translating from Hebrew to English

>> (which is a

>> closer grammatically than Chinese, but in which

>> words are often used

>> differently within different contexts) when I just

>> covert words the

>> meaning is more often than not, inaccurate.A

>> standard plugged-in

>> translation just cant do the job for anything that

>> has

>> depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like

>> to see more

>> Western authors write about Chinese medicine and not

>> just

>> translating texts, articles etc.I believe we need to

>> have a clearer

>> separation between the so-called academic

>> translators and medical

>> writers.This to me has been one the biggest problems

>> in TCM

>> education in the west.

>>>

>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been

>> removed]

>>

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

February 20, 2005

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> " The Practice of " which is a huge text, the

glossary

> is only a few pages and a relative handful of terms.

Also of note is that Foundations of has a 2 page

glossary that has mistakes in the Chinese that were not corrected in

subsequent editions. Most authors who read Chinese would instantly

notice this mistake and hastily correct it for the second edition.

Eric

February 21, 2005

Also of note is that Foundations of has a 2 page

glossary that has mistakes in the Chinese that were not corrected in

subsequent editions. Most authors who read Chinese would instantly

notice this mistake and hastily correct it for the second edition.

>>>>Eric at the same time when looking at many of the texts that have used WT

the amounts of technical terms that are not easily transferable is truly

minimal, most are terms like vacuity Vs deficiency or emptiness etc. Some that

refer to treatment principles while are consistent in WT when looking at other

texts the term becomes clear as soon as the herbs are written. I truly think we

are making more of this than it deserves

February 22, 2005

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>It would be nice to see more books by Feng Ye

I would also love to see more books by Feng Ye. Fortunately, he is

involved with three more books that are coming out within the next

few years. His contributions are very valuable. If you look at

Paradigm's Shang Han Lun, his influence is very obvious because he

provided so much clarity in the commentary. Since the Shang Han Lun

has had so much commentary over the years, having someone like Feng

Ye to steer one towards the best sources for commentary alone is

important, and his ability to discern the meaning in the various

ambiguities really brings a lot of clarity to what would otherwise be

a very difficult classical work.

Unfortunately, we have a very difficult time convincing Feng Ye that

it is worthwhile to be involved in the Western TCM world. Even

though his total page count of English works is basically equal to

the total page count of all of Bensky's English works, people still

are hardly aware of him. People have made comments for years about

the supposed absence of clinicians in the development of PD

terminology as though he didn't even exist. Feng Ye is far from a

household name even though his total page count in English is

currently about equal to Bensky's and will far surpass Bensky's and

even Macioccia's total page count within the next year or two.

Sadly, Feng Ye is unfortunately becoming convinced that Westerners

are color-blind and only pay attention to other Westerners, so he

doesn't really see much point in working on book projects, even

though he likes to teach. We do our best to try to keep him on-board

because he gives us invaluable feedback, but we would really like to

get him to write more for us. Much of his work is done in Chinese

for the Chinese world, but we keep courting him to try to keep him

involved in the Western arena as well. He has a series of DVDs from

his hospital and university lectures in Chinese and several

publications in Chinese, but it takes all the effort that we can

exert to convince him not to give up on the English-speaking world.

His concerns that we are color-blind aside, Feng Ye truly loves

Western society and wants to contribute to the transmission of CM,

but he suffers from a similar problem that many clinicians face:

Being a good clinician keeps one very busy and makes book production

difficult. Since doctors make very good money and TCM

authors/translators make probably less than 25 cents per hour for

their efforts, it is no great surprise that many clinicians are too

busy earning a living to produce many books. Bensky's new book would

have taken a collosal amount of work to complete, all the longer

because he was probably maintaining a practice as well as his other

duties with his school, etc. Z'ev has been working on his

translation projects for years but he has many patients to take care

of and many classes to teach, so the book production seems to take a

very long time. Bob Damone tirelessly continues to produce

translated texts, but again, it takes a long time because he has

patients to treat and classes to teach. Craig Mitchell similarly has

his efforts spread between patients, classes, and Chinese texts.

Everyone suffers from the same problem. Translation is something

that people enjoy and become passionate about, and people like to

contribute to the literature of the field. But it is essentially

like doing charity work because it earns virtually no money in

comparison to the other options available to bilinguals or TCM

professionals.

So in short, I am grateful that we have so many books with Feng Ye

already, and I look forward to the new ones to come. I know that the

CM community is one of the most internationally appreciative and

cultural respectful subgroups in Western society, so hopefully we can

ensure that the Asian members of our community feel the appreciation

that they so richly deserve so that we get more and more publications

with their input.

On a similar vein, I hope that more PRC publishing houses get the

clue that their books need to have the input of Westerners to be

successful works in English. There are many books that are produced

in the PRC in English that are virtually worthless because they don't

understand the need for native speakers and sensible translation

methods. If both cultures were working together more and

appreciating what each has to offer, we would experience a vast

proliferation of wonderful literature.

The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all appreciate the value of

learning English, so we have the raw material for excellent

translation teams if everyone works together. We have native

speakers of each language with increasingly sophisticated TCM

educations, we have an endless quantity of Chinese source books, a

blossoming professional audience in the West, and a sensible and

inclusive translation methodology. The next hundred years in the

West will see incredible growth in the world of TCM. Most young and

motivated Chinese students of WM appreciate the need to learn

English. Now more and more young and motivated CM students are

realizing that learning Chinese can revolutionize their career

options to an equal degree. The world is growing closer very

quickly, and it is a great time to be involved in CM.

Studying Chinese, Japanese, or Korean may not be the best use of time

for some of the more experienced and established practitioners on

this list, but all the students who read this list should be aware

that it will completely transform their options for the rest of their

life. Language opens many doors and Asian nations have options to

gain clinical experience that far surpasses what most of us have

access to in the West. And savory meats in various dough-like

wrappers with tasty dipping sauces.

Eric

February 22, 2005

Z'ev has been working on his