wiseman standards

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:35 AM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> Jason -

>

> Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your

> questions cannot be completely answered. I don't know how standardized it

> is because I cannot check - If I had the gloss and could re-translate into

> Chinese then I could tell you if it were the same as the original or

> not.

 

Marnae,

I am unsure what you mean. The Gloss contains the Chinese in it.. It is

pinyin - Chinese character - definition.

Could you please define what you mean by standardized.

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

but I do

> know that the PD terms have been carefully researched by a team (Nigel and

> Feng Ye) one of whom is a linguist who has better Chinese than any other

> non-chinese I know and also a very good understanding of English and

> Romance languages (thus understands many of the rules of language) and a

> native speaker of Chinese who is a highly knowledgeable practitioner of

> Chinese medicine. Does the EP standard make reference to the different

> dictionaries or texts where terms are found? Does it give

> definitions/discussions of terms as well as a gloss for translation?

 

1st - Yes Wiseman has done a tremendous amount of research and we all

appreciate this. But I do not see why we need to look at these systems as

polar opposites existing in some vacuum. I am unsure why EP standard needs

to make reference to anything but the Chinese - pinyin - and English???

For example, now that Wiseman's dictionary is out why should others recreate

this? If a student comes across the word 'deficiency' in the new MM and

says " hhhmmm I am unsure what that REALLY mean? He/She can then find out

the pinyin and Chinese character (from the gloss) and then look it up in the

Practical dictionary (PD). EP should NOT have to supply definitions unless

it does not appear in the PD and is confusing, that is only common

sense...That is how most terms in almost every book are. That is, if you

don't know what it means you look it up in a dictionary. I do not understand

what you refer to does the EP make use of different dictionaries etc. Could

you explain?

 

 

Has

> there been a systematic, open discussion about EP terms as there has been

> for PD terms? Have the EP terms undergone the same scrutiny from

> translators, linguists, academics and practitioners?

 

Your other issue seems to revolve around the term choice itself. You are

acknowledging the fact that Wiseman et al as spent much time figuring out

what term is the BEST. Ok... But is there a reason that we can't have

options? Is it possible that some don't like some of his terms, even though

many believe they are the BEST researched? Do we think there is one right

way in the realm of language?

But really we have a few ways to translate a term. One may be more

academic, one may be more readable. The argument in the past has been, do

we know what the Chinese is? Well if we do I do not see the problem. One

can always cross reference with the PD and insert that word (into their

head) anytime they want... I really don't see the big brewhahaa... Can you

please explain more?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

These are the

> questions that are important to me because I believe that correct

> terminology, does, in fact, make a clinical difference. It makes a

> difference because the reader is able to make fine discriminations and is

> able to stop and look up whatever they don't understand, thus leading to

> greater understanding - and, eventually to better clinical practice. I

> also believe that the individual who is precise about language is also

> going to be more precise about diagnosis and treatment -- and this will

> lead to a more appropriate, less generalized treatment.

>

 

Finally...

(BTW thanx Marnae for this post it is helpful to think about these

issues)...

 

Hhhmmm. Correct terminology = clinical difference... Something that I am not

100% sure of. Firstly - I have already asked for 1 instance from the new MM

that could mislead someone to make a clinical error.

Secondly - I would agree that wrong terms or misunderstood terms could

easily mislead someone in the clinic. This is obvious. But really do you

think the discrepancies that everyone is fighting over (i.e. vacuity vs.

deficiency -or whatever) really has any clinical significance? I don't

think so... I think GHL's Warm Disease book is one of the best clinical

books out and does not use Wiseman terms. I would like to see 1 example from

there that would lead someone to make a clinical error due to a 'wrong'

term. Maybe that is not what you are saying, if not please explain. But

IMO I had Chinese teachers that said some pretty bizarre terms, but if they

could explain them well it did not matter. I feel it is more about the

context or presentation than some fixed term... But more important it seems

if a term is used and it can be referenced (i.e. to the PD) then that is all

it matters. Then it is really up to the translator and if he or she used

the word correctly. Would anyone disagree?

 

I agree that nailing terms and definitions probably ultimately makes one a

better practitioner. But I also have to say with by nature

being a flexible fluid medicine, that also cultivating this flexibility in

language is much better for your mind than adhering to some rigid standard

and not allowing for other possibilities...One may argue for preciseness and

one may argue for flexibility... To each their own...

 

-

[Guest guest]

On 14/07/2005, at 10:52 PM, wrote:

> I am unsure why EP standard needs

> to make reference to anything but the Chinese - pinyin - and

> English???

 

The EP " standard " does not have to reference anything more than the

chinese-pinyin-english in a gloss if it wishes the reader to have to

reference other works that do supply a definition such as a basic

text or dictionary to allow the reader to access this information.

However, due to the simple fact that the new MM only glosses 57

terms, they do not give the reader the opportunity to even access

this most basic information.

 

The authors of the New MM assume the reader knows what they mean by

most TCM terms already and only includes what they feel are terms

which readers will be more unfamiliar with in the glossary (total 57)

to allow cross-reference to pinyin/chinese. (see gloss intro in the

new MM).

 

> For example, now that Wiseman's dictionary is out why should others

> recreate

> this? If a student comes across the word 'deficiency' in the new

> MM and

> says " hhhmmm I am unsure what that REALLY mean? He/She can then

> find out

> the pinyin and Chinese character (from the gloss) and then look it

> up in the

> Practical dictionary (PD).

 

This is what I believe we ALL wish to see possible and and this is

the crux of the debate. However, the EP approach makes this difficult

due to them not supplying the reader with a suitable glossary for

their in-house terminology to allow tracing of their terms to pinyin/

chinese and thus enable access to these terms in the PD.

 

Actually, the example you give is not possible using the New MM and

this is the real issue and why we are asking the EP gloss to be made

publicly available. Although the process you explain here is correct

in theory, the actual example you give is incorrect due to the fact

that terms such as " deficiency " do NOT appear in the new MM gloss to

allow this cross-refernce to the pinyin/chinese.

 

So using the simple example of the term " deficiency " when they see it

in the New MM, if the reader would like to be sure of what the author

means by this term or wishes to know what the pinyin/chinese is for

this term, what can they do? It is not in the MM glossary, it is not

found using the index, if you use the PD you will not find this

term.............

 

We need the EP gloss to be made freely available to allow this

process to occur in practice and not just theory. If it is made

available, the term choice is no longer such an issue as we can more

easily cross-reference terms and find definitions and meanings when

we need to and thus allow us all to read and write using the

terminology we choose and still be able to have a sound idea of what

those that use a different terminology to our own are talking about.

 

> EP should NOT have to supply definitions unless

> it does not appear in the PD and is confusing, that is only common

> sense...That is how most terms in almost every book are. That is,

> if you

> don't know what it means you look it up in a dictionary. I do not

> understand

> what you refer to does the EP make use of different dictionaries

> etc. Could

> you explain?

 

Sure, the EP does not have to supply a definition, but it would be

nice to be able to find the pinyin/chinese for their term choice to

allow us to " look it up in a dictionary " . At the moment, this is not

possible for many of the TCM terms used in their publications unless

their term choice is actually identical to the PD and they also use

it in the exact same manner as another reference or supply the pinyin/

Chinese is some easily accessed manner. As it now stands, it is not

so simple to " look it up in a dictionary " at all as the terms are not

easily cross-referenced.

 

I totally agree with Marnae, and I believe that until EP releases

their gloss you are asking questions that can not be answered.

 

Perhaps you personally have access to the EP in-house glossary or are

using your accumulated knowledge from many efforts at translation and

cross-referencing and forget how you came across this knowledge and

therefore find it difficult to appreciate the difficulties

experienced by those who simply wish to read the new MM and be able

to look up definition or cross reference its terms on the fly

without such knowledge.

 

As a personal example, I was exposed to Wiseman terminology late in

my TCM undergraduate education. Before that I was taught via the

status quo terminologies of chinese texts, Maciocia and Bensky et al.

When I started reading texts using Wisemanese it was very slow going

as I did not know what many of the Wiseman terms were compared to the

status quo. Sure, I could find the chinese and pinyin of the Wiseman

terms and use the PD to get clear understanding of them. However, I

could not then easily relate what I had learned from Wiseman texts

back to that which I learned using the status quo terminology because

the status quo lacks complete or thorough glossaries.

 

All this re-inventing the wheel that each serious student of TCM must

personally battle through could be greatly reduced if EP simply

supplied a complete term list that they use in their publications

with english-pinyin-chinese.

 

To me, the real question is why doesn't EP release this mysterious

" standard " in some public way?. They could easily release the 300+

terms as a pdf on their website and give us all a invaluable tool and

a chance move forward with this discussion. I have asked this before,

but nobody answers of course........are they hiding or afraid of

something?

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 14/07/2005, at 10:32 PM, wrote:

 

>

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

>> Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:35 AM

>>

>> RE: wiseman standards

>>

>> Jason -

>>

>> Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology

>> public your

>> questions cannot be completely answered. I don't know how

>> standardized it

>> is because I cannot check - If I had the gloss and could re-

>> translate into

>> Chinese then I could tell you if it were the same as the original or

>> not.

>>

>

> Marnae,

> I am unsure what you mean. The Gloss contains the Chinese in it..

> It is

> pinyin - Chinese character - definition.

> Could you please define what you mean by standardized.

>

> -Jason

>

 

The Gloss of the New MM has only 57 less common terms. The EP gloss

is supposedly over 300+ terms and I think this is what Marnae may be

referring to when she says " Gloss " .

 

Even this larger 300+ gloss pales in comparison to what the recent

WHO meetings feel is necessary to translate and communicate TCM

effectively across languages.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> Slater

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:30 AM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

>

> On 14/07/2005, at 10:52 PM, wrote:

> > I am unsure why EP standard needs

> > to make reference to anything but the Chinese - pinyin - and

> > English???

>

> The EP " standard " does not have to reference anything more than the

> chinese-pinyin-english in a gloss if it wishes the reader to have to

> reference other works that do supply a definition such as a basic

> text or dictionary to allow the reader to access this information.

> However, due to the simple fact that the new MM only glosses 57

> terms, they do not give the reader the opportunity to even access

> this most basic information.

 

I agree, but the premise of this conversation is if and when(?) EP releases

their gloss...

 

-

[Guest guest]

Dear Heiko,

Nice to have you on board again.

 

 

On Jul 13, 2005, at 4:49 PM, Heiko Lade wrote:

 

> I have just re- joined the group after a long absence.

> Can someone tell me what is EP style

> Heiko Lade

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I would like to see 1 example from

there that would lead someone to make a clinical error due to a 'wrong'

term.

>>>>Me too

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree that nailing terms and definitions probably ultimately makes one a

better practitioner.

>>>But they all need to be taken in context anyway, especially when one is

talking about choosing herbs for a real patient.When dealing with literature

searches it is much more important.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sedation for xie4.

 

Too many students think that putting needles in points when

'sedating' is designed to put them to sleep or numb pain as if they

were giving an anaesthetic.

 

 

On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:06 AM, wrote:

 

> I would like to see 1 example from

> there that would lead someone to make a clinical error due to a

> 'wrong'

> term.

>

>>>>> Me too

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Good example - or that giving " sedating " herbs will cause sedation rather

than drain evil.

 

marnae

 

At 11:15 AM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

>Sedation for xie4.

>

>Too many students think that putting needles in points when

>'sedating' is designed to put them to sleep or numb pain as if they

>were giving an anaesthetic.

>

>

>On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:06 AM, wrote:

>

> > I would like to see 1 example from

> > there that would lead someone to make a clinical error due to a

> > 'wrong'

> > term.

> >

> >>>>> Me too

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

 

Also, I did not say clinical error, I said clinical difference. If you use

the appropriate terms (eg all of the various terms that are subsets of

drain or supplement) then you get a much different idea of what is being

done and to what. (Support, nourish, foster, enrich, increase, engender,

moisten, boost, strengthen, invigorate, emolliate, return, fortify, upbear,

raise) All different terms that have been commonly translated just as

tonify (which is not an English word) but each has a specific meaning and

refers to a specific entity. When I read a book that does not use a

standard that I can refer back to the Chinese, I don't necessarily know

what they mean when they say tonify. Can i figure it out - yes. But, if

you read Chinese, you know that they can simply use a term and the reader

will know what they are referring to without having to second guess. Does

EP do this - they certainly seem to distinguish different types of

supplementing or draining, but, without the gloss I cannot know what

Chinese they are referring to, so I have to stop and figure it out, and

quite honestly, I have not done the work to go through the entire MM and

see if they are using terms consistently or if they use a different term in

a different context for the same meaning that an earlier term had. If

someone wants to do that - more power to them!

 

Marnae

 

At 09:04 AM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

>These are the

> > questions that are important to me because I believe that correct

> > terminology, does, in fact, make a clinical difference. It makes a

> > difference because the reader is able to make fine discriminations and is

> > able to stop and look up whatever they don't understand, thus leading to

> > greater understanding - and, eventually to better clinical practice. I

> > also believe that the individual who is precise about language is also

> > going to be more precise about diagnosis and treatment -- and this will

> > lead to a more appropriate, less generalized treatment.

> >

>

>Finally...

>(BTW thanx Marnae for this post it is helpful to think about these

>issues)...

>

>Hhhmmm. Correct terminology = clinical difference... Something that I am not

>100% sure of. Firstly - I have already asked for 1 instance from the new MM

>that could mislead someone to make a clinical error.

>Secondly - I would agree that wrong terms or misunderstood terms could

>easily mislead someone in the clinic. This is obvious. But really do you

>think the discrepancies that everyone is fighting over (i.e. vacuity vs.

>deficiency -or whatever) really has any clinical significance? I don't

>think so... I think GHL's Warm Disease book is one of the best clinical

>books out and does not use Wiseman terms. I would like to see 1 example from

>there that would lead someone to make a clinical error due to a 'wrong'

>term. Maybe that is not what you are saying, if not please explain. But

>IMO I had Chinese teachers that said some pretty bizarre terms, but if they

>could explain them well it did not matter. I feel it is more about the

>context or presentation than some fixed term... But more important it seems

>if a term is used and it can be referenced (i.e. to the PD) then that is all

>it matters. Then it is really up to the translator and if he or she used

>the word correctly. Would anyone disagree?

>

>I agree that nailing terms and definitions probably ultimately makes one a

>better practitioner. But I also have to say with by nature

>being a flexible fluid medicine, that also cultivating this flexibility in

>language is much better for your mind than adhering to some rigid standard

>and not allowing for other possibilities...One may argue for preciseness and

>one may argue for flexibility... To each their own...

>

>-

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

When I use the term methodology I am also referring to how the term was

chosen. Was it simply because the translator felt it was going to be the

term most easily accepted by the readership or was the term chosen because

it was closest in meaning to the original term. What research was done to

determine the best term - as we all know, many Chinese terms may have

slightly different meanings in different contexts or at different times in

history. Was this taken into account when determining which word was the

closest in meaning. Words do not have to be comfortable. It is more

important that they be correct. As Stephen Slater said, while the initial

process is a slog, once one becomes familiar with the PD terminology itis

quite easy to use and really does give the reader the ability to better

understand theory. We keep arguing about what is clinically relevant, but

is not understanding theory clinically relevant? ANd a theory that has

been dumbed down so that it is easier to read is not what I am interested

in. Stopping every now and then to look up a word and gain greater

understanding is going to create practitioners who understand theory and

who also are willing to do the work to learn more - an important clinical

skill. So, does language really matter? I guess it depends upon how you

practice. If understanding the etiology and pathology that is in front of

you is less important to you than giving them the formula that you have

learned is the right formula for x, y or z condition then maybe it

doesn't. But if understanding the nuances of what is presenting is

important, then understanding theory is important, and therefore, using

careful and precise language is important - and clinically relevant.

 

marnae

 

At 08:27 AM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:35 AM

> >

> > RE: wiseman standards

> >

> > Jason -

> >

> > Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your

> > questions cannot be completely answered.

>

>My first question, we have talked much about methodology, but what are we

>really talking about? Once the gloss is in place how does EP or BP /

>paradigm/ Wiseman differ in methodology. If one group likes one word i.e.

>vacuity and the other another i.e. deficiency then this is just a difference

>in term choice. Could someone explain what they feel the difference in

>methodology is? What does one mean by standardized then? I would say EP is

>just as standardized (They use the same English word for the Chinese when it

>is applicable and change it when it doesn't fit) - I would assume this is

>the same thing that Eric is talking about..... am I missing something?

>

>-Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:16 AM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> Sedation for xie4.

>

> Too many students think that putting needles in points when

> 'sedating' is designed to put them to sleep or numb pain as if they

> were giving an anaesthetic.

 

Just for the record Bensky translates xie4 as drains, drains out. But my

request, from my post, is specific to asking for a clinical error due to a

'wrong' terminological choice from GHL's warm disease book - Or from the new

MM. Surely one can find very bad translations, hence completely wrong term

choices, all over the place from second rate books. This is a different

issue...

But to play devil's advocate on this one, does it really matter what they

call it? Call it the caterpillar technique. One still has to understand

what that means either through the discussion of the book or cross

referencing it to the Chinese and further to the PD...One learns a technique

and how to use it... It is just a bad explanation if they believe that

sedating technique puts someone to sleep. It is just as dubious to blindly

believe that 'searching for the turtle's cave technique' makes one slow as a

turtle. One still has to have a solid understanding of CM. One of the

stances from the terminology discussions is that students SHOULD not blindly

think they know what a term means on the English word, but reference it in a

book or i.e. PD. I blame the student / teacher / not the term. It would be

just as wrong to think that xie4 drain means to drain someone's source qi...

That is not the terms fault but the student's understanding...Furthermore,

if one learns the proper technique for sedation and can apply it, and knows

when to use it, does it really matter what the practitioner thinks of the

term? But maybe that gets into the whole realm of our thoughts influencing

out technique, so let us not go there... More important is where they got

this idea and how...

 

-

 

>

[Guest guest]

Jason -

 

One could read this and think that you were arguing for the other

side. For, if a book uses a term and gives a bad explanation and the

reader of the book misunderstands, then indeed, the problem was with the

language! It is to be hoped that they will have a teacher who can help

them to understand, but that is not always the case - or the student does

not ask but simply assumes that they understand - because they understand

the words that were used and did not have to question any of their

pre-existing definitions of terms. This, as we have said, is one of the

reasons that some of the PD terms appear cumbersome - because they are not

terms that are in everyday usage and so the reader has to stop and look

them up, rather than assuming that their understanding of a word covers all

of the possible meanings that it might carry. Words carry meaning - they

are symbols (both English and Chinese words), and it is by understanding

the breadth of their meaning that one gains knowledge (and knowledge is

power!). So to use the word deficiency and assume that the way in which

you understand deficiency is the same as the way the chinese understand the

term xu1 leaves the reader lacking in knowledge. And how many of you out

there stop to look up deficiency when you are reading a fundamental theory

textbook in your first year? But you might stop to look up vacuity because

it is less familiar and then you might learn that xu1 actually means more

that in found in the meaning of deficiency. Clinically useful? I think so.

 

marnae

 

At 01:59 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of

> > Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:16 AM

> >

> > Re: wiseman standards

> >

> > Sedation for xie4.

> >

> > Too many students think that putting needles in points when

> > 'sedating' is designed to put them to sleep or numb pain as if they

> > were giving an anaesthetic.

>

>Just for the record Bensky translates xie4 as drains, drains out. But my

>request, from my post, is specific to asking for a clinical error due to a

>'wrong' terminological choice from GHL's warm disease book - Or from the new

>MM. Surely one can find very bad translations, hence completely wrong term

>choices, all over the place from second rate books. This is a different

>issue...

>But to play devil's advocate on this one, does it really matter what they

>call it? Call it the caterpillar technique. One still has to understand

>what that means either through the discussion of the book or cross

>referencing it to the Chinese and further to the PD...One learns a technique

>and how to use it... It is just a bad explanation if they believe that

>sedating technique puts someone to sleep. It is just as dubious to blindly

>believe that 'searching for the turtle's cave technique' makes one slow as a

>turtle. One still has to have a solid understanding of CM. One of the

>stances from the terminology discussions is that students SHOULD not blindly

>think they know what a term means on the English word, but reference it in a

>book or i.e. PD. I blame the student / teacher / not the term. It would be

>just as wrong to think that xie4 drain means to drain someone's source qi...

>That is not the terms fault but the student's understanding...Furthermore,

>if one learns the proper technique for sedation and can apply it, and knows

>when to use it, does it really matter what the practitioner thinks of the

>term? But maybe that gets into the whole realm of our thoughts influencing

>out technique, so let us not go there... More important is where they got

>this idea and how...

>

>-

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:59 AM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> Good example - or that giving " sedating " herbs will cause sedation rather

> than drain evil.

>

> marnae

 

Marnae,

 

I am unsure what you are getting at... Are you referring to zhen4 = 'settle'

(Wiseman) and 'sedate, pacify, suppress, hold down, settle???' (Bensky) -

Same character zhen4... I would say that these herbs definitely can sedate

someone or settle the spirit... If you don't believe me take 120 grams of

zhen zhu (or whatever else) and let me know if you are sedated??? But again

we have a language issue what do you mean 'will cause sedation' I know that

zhen zhu will i.e. (Old Bensky) sedate the heart and settle tremors and

palpitations: for palpitations, childhood convulsions, and seizures... I

have no problem with the word, and the paragraph explains exactly what it is

treating... Anything outside of the texts and PD are the students / teachers

MSUing, I would assume....Can you elaborate?

 

Again this is a minor semantical issue that I see zero clinical relevance

what word you use... The proof is in the condition and the herbs used... If

one can look up the word and get to the Chinese or PD that is all that

matters.

 

Maybe I am missing your point so I would like to see a specific example

(page #) from one of the mentioned books.. Then we can discuss this more

specifically if there is a clinical issue or not...

 

Am I missing something?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 AM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

> the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

> such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

> qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

> have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

> on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

 

Again you are arguing " my term is better than your term " .. that IS NOT the

point nor the ISSUE... I could care less about this overplayed my term is

better argument. The point is this...

IF the gloss is released or a teacher tells the student that deficiency and

vacuity is the same Chinese Character then the student can read the

definition (in the PD) for him or herself. Obviously there are people that

like vacuity and others that like deficiency - and that is that - That is

the fundamental premise for the discussion at hand... I find this whole post

a red herring.

 

 

>

> Also, I did not say clinical error, I said clinical difference.

 

Well please show from the new MM or GHL's book a clinical difference...

 

 

If you

> use

> the appropriate terms (eg all of the various terms that are subsets of

> drain or supplement) then you get a much different idea of what is being

> done and to what. (Support, nourish, foster, enrich, increase, engender,

> moisten, boost, strengthen, invigorate, emolliate, return, fortify,

upbear,

> raise) All different terms that have been commonly translated just as

> tonify (which is not an English word) but each has a specific meaning and

> refers to a specific entity.

 

Yes we have heard all this before, again not the issue... So please show an

example from the books mentioned...

 

 

When I read a book that does not use a

> standard that I can refer back to the Chinese, I don't necessarily know

> what they mean when they say tonify. Can i figure it out - yes. But, if

> you read Chinese, you know that they can simply use a term and the reader

> will know what they are referring to without having to second guess. Does

> EP do this - they certainly seem to distinguish different types of

> supplementing or draining, but, without the gloss I cannot know what

> Chinese they are referring to, so I have to stop and figure it out, and

> quite honestly, I have not done the work to go through the entire MM and

> see if they are using terms consistently or if they use a different term

> in

> a different context for the same meaning that an earlier term had.

 

Well I think until someone finds an example from EP that demonstrates these

arguments then these general statements should be taken with a grain of

salt... I agree, as well as most people involved in terminology (I would

assume), that there are many questionable authors that leave a lot to be

desired. And many do oversimplify. But I would like to keep this

discussion to its original intention, discussing EP & Wiseman.

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 AM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

> the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

> such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

> qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

> have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

> on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

 

I always thought that a major translational Wiseman argument against people

using common terms is so that people DO NOT get the wrong idea from just

assuming they understand the term from the 'word'; therefore they have to

look it up and be precise. Obviously there are many Wiseman words that

people have no idea what they mean, hence the backlash from some. But the

response has always been said, just look it up...I agree... but it is the

same thing here.

 

Ask 100 people what comes to mind if you say to them " The impaired

depurative downbearing function of the lung is due to lung vacuity. " Does

that invoke clarity without a CM dictionary??? Well maybe to .001% of the

population that are linguists...

 

Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:14 PM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> Jason -

>

> One could read this and think that you were arguing for the other

> side. For, if a book uses a term and gives a bad explanation and the

> reader of the book misunderstands, then indeed, the problem was with the

> language! It is to be hoped that they will have a teacher who can help

> them to understand, but that is not always the case - or the student does

> not ask but simply assumes that they understand - because they understand

> the words that were used and did not have to question any of their

> pre-existing definitions of terms. This, as we have said, is one of the

> reasons that some of the PD terms appear cumbersome - because they are not

> terms that are in everyday usage and so the reader has to stop and look

> them up, rather than assuming that their understanding of a word covers

> all

> of the possible meanings that it might carry. Words carry meaning - they

> are symbols (both English and Chinese words), and it is by understanding

> the breadth of their meaning that one gains knowledge (and knowledge is

> power!).

 

So are you saying Wiseman specifically picks words that are strange and odd

so that people do not assume anything from them??? That is an interesting

idea, and odd since Chinese Medical terminology (in Chinese) mostly uses

common place words for their terms...

 

Furthermore I don't believe that Wiseman's words are somehow exempt from

people assuming they know what they mean. Does depurate (su4) in CM have

anything to do with the English definition " to cleanse or purify something,

especially by removing toxins " - One could easily assume that based on the

English word..One must go to the dictionary!

 

I don't think you can have it both ways here... Furthermore there are a

whole host of CM 'terms' that are very common and one must understand and

study CM (though something like the PD) to get a grasp of the true

understanding of what it means, i.e. break, reduce, sloppy, greater abdomen

etc etc...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:14 PM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> Jason -

>

> One could read this and think that you were arguing for the other

> side. For, if a book uses a term and gives a bad explanation and the

> reader of the book misunderstands, then indeed, the problem was with the

> language!

 

Yes, or just a bad author / translator who doesn't understand the language

and communicated things wrong... Yes I agree, but missed the point...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

So to use the word deficiency and assume that the way in which

> you understand deficiency is the same as the way the chinese understand

> the

> term xu1 leaves the reader lacking in knowledge. And how many of you out

> there stop to look up deficiency when you are reading a fundamental theory

> textbook in your first year? But you might stop to look up vacuity

> because

> it is less familiar and then you might learn that xu1 actually means more

> that in found in the meaning of deficiency. Clinically useful? I think

> so.

 

Maybe maybe not (clinically useful that is) - I am sure there are plenty of

people out there that could care less about this vacuity nuance that are

VERY clinically effective... Now could they be better by reading the

definition of the PD - Maybe or maybe not!! Do we really understand qi? Can

we be effective without reading Ken Rose's book ? Will it make us more

effective... Good question... interesting discussion...

 

Let's look at this: if one knows the s/s of xu1 and the herbs / treatments

that treat these s/s (xu1)- but the practitioner uses the term deficiency

instead of vacuity do you think he / she is less clinically effective? I

don't by this nuance at all - If one is unclear about any term (i.e. xu1)

one can ask a teacher or look in a book... It is one's folly for just making

assumptions, just like in the term 'depurative'...

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

On 15/07/2005, at 4:40 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

>

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

>> Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 AM

>>

>> RE: wiseman standards

>>

>> If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up

>> vacuity in

>> the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be

>> due to

>> such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where

>> essential

>> qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most

>> people

>> have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency

>> implies

>> on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

>>

>

> I always thought that a major translational Wiseman argument

> against people

> using common terms is so that people DO NOT get the wrong idea from

> just

> assuming they understand the term from the 'word'; therefore they

> have to

> look it up and be precise. Obviously there are many Wiseman words

> that

> people have no idea what they mean, hence the backlash from some.

> But the

> response has always been said, just look it up...I agree... but it

> is the

> same thing here.

>

 

Right and this is exactly what Marnae said according to my reading of

her posts today. She talked about the danger of a common word like

" deficiency " versus a more unusual term such as " vacuity " which would

require one to actually look it up and get an accurate understanding

rather than assume a common everyday meaning for a technical term in

TCM. See below....

 

On 15/07/2005, at 4:13 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote:

> This, as we have said, is one of the

> reasons that some of the PD terms appear cumbersome - because they

> are not

> terms that are in everyday usage and so the reader has to stop and

> look

> them up, rather than assuming that their understanding of a word

> covers all

> of the possible meanings that it might carry. Words carry meaning

> - they

> are symbols (both English and Chinese words), and it is by

> understanding

> the breadth of their meaning that one gains knowledge (and

> knowledge is

> power!). So to use the word deficiency and assume that the way in

> which

> you understand deficiency is the same as the way the chinese

> understand the

> term xu1 leaves the reader lacking in knowledge. And how many of

> you out

> there stop to look up deficiency when you are reading a fundamental

> theory

> textbook in your first year? But you might stop to look up vacuity

> because

> it is less familiar and then you might learn that xu1 actually

> means more

> that in found in the meaning of deficiency. Clinically useful? I

> think so.

>

> marnae

 

 

> Ask 100 people what comes to mind if you say to them " The impaired

> depurative downbearing function of the lung is due to lung

> vacuity. " Does

> that invoke clarity without a CM dictionary??? Well maybe to .001%

> of the

> population that are linguists...

>

> Comments?

>

> -

 

This would be clear to anyone who has studied TCM using Wiseman

terminology and not to the general population or those who use an

alternative terminology. THis is all good. At least they can look it

up. If they come accross the equivalent in a EP book, they won't find

it in a gloss, or dictionary to access the pinyin or chinese and they

would place a layman's understanding of the word " deficiency " in

" .....lung deficiency " on a medical term and miss the boat for years.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 15/07/2005, at 3:59 AM, wrote:

> One still has to understand

> what that means either through the discussion of the book or cross

> referencing it to the Chinese and further to the PD...

 

To me this is the issue.........where is it clear what terms Bensky

is referring to when he says sedate, drain, deficiency etc that you

have been talking about today? They are not in the glossaries of

either edition of the MM.

 

How can we know what pinyin and chinese is of these terms if there is

not an easy way of looking it up so we can then reference the PD or

another text? Sure you may know or assume you know what they are

after long study, but I think the point is that things can't be so

easily cross-referenced as you keep saying. And if they can't be

cross-referenced they can't be clearly argued for or against at all.

 

Sure, if we can simply look in the MM glossary and find the pinyin

and chinese for a term we can then go elsewhere to investigate it

further......but we can't do this for the vast majority of terms

becasue they are NOT given.

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

On 15/07/2005, at 4:31 AM, wrote:

>

>

> Well I think until someone finds an example from EP that

> demonstrates these

> arguments then these general statements should be taken with a

> grain of

> salt... I agree, as well as most people involved in terminology (I

> would

> assume), that there are many questionable authors that leave a lot

> to be

> desired. And many do oversimplify. But I would like to keep this

> discussion to its original intention, discussing EP & Wiseman.

>

> -

>

 

In the past Eric has given examples of EP simplifying types of

spermatorrhea and concepts of supplementation (which Marnae also did

today). These are real examples and have not been refuted or

addressed to the contrary. Perhaps you believe they are not

clinically important, and you are free to believe that, but I think

if this were really the case, they would not be so clearly separated

in chinese. At the very least using more specific subtypes of these

terms drives us more accurately from signs/symptoms to patterns to

treatment principle to treatment than does lumping them all together.

 

Why do you keep asking for evidence of mistakes or simplification

from EP terminology when the simple fact is that they don't even give

us the opportunity to know what the original terms are they are

referring to most of the time?

 

Perhaps when and if the glossary is released people can actually

assess this.

 

You keep saying we can just look the term up or cross-reference it

when we are unsure.........but we can't because there is no large

glossary to allow this.

 

You keep aksing for examples where the term is not sufficient or

misleading......again, examples have been given, and we don't even

know what all the original terms they are referring to and can not

therefore be sure of others.

 

For me, I give up this discussion as much of it is based on a EP

glossary that simply doesn't exist as yet and the subsequent ability

to simply cross-reference to the PD after finding the pinyin/chinese

is this imaginary glossary. I have better things to do than waste

time discussing something that doesn't exist and how it does or

doesn't allow you to do other things.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 02:18 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:59 AM

> >

> > Re: wiseman standards

> >

> > Good example - or that giving " sedating " herbs will cause sedation rather

> > than drain evil.

> >

> > marnae

>

>Marnae,

>

>I am unsure what you are getting at... Are you referring to zhen4 = 'settle'

>(Wiseman) and 'sedate, pacify, suppress, hold down, settle???' (Bensky) -

 

 

Jason -

 

Here is the problem - you listed 5 words from Bensky for a single Chinese

character. Do these all refer to the same word? How does the reader

know? He/She CAN'T look it up - the glossary supplied is insufficient

(deficient but not necessarily vacuous). You keep referring to the EP

gloss but where is it? 57 terms is not enough.

 

 

>Same character zhen4... I would say that these herbs definitely can sedate

>someone or settle the spirit...

 

I don't think that settling the spirit is the same as sedating - have you

ever been sedated? It can really disturb the spirit.

 

>If you don't believe me take 120 grams of

>zhen zhu (or whatever else) and let me know if you are sedated???

 

Why? That is not generally a clinical dosage.

 

 

>But again

>we have a language issue what do you mean 'will cause sedation' I know that

>zhen zhu will i.e. (Old Bensky) sedate the heart and settle tremors and

>palpitations: for palpitations, childhood convulsions, and seizures... I

>have no problem with the word, and the paragraph explains exactly what it is

>treating...

 

Well, I have a problem with the word and I don't want to tell my patients

that I am giving them herbs to sedate them. That is what Paxil or Clonopin

do, not zhen zhu. And I bet that your average student is not able to make

the distinction beween what Bensky means by sedate and what their

pre-existing notion of sedation is.

 

 

>Anything outside of the texts and PD are the students / teachers

>MSUing, I would assume....Can you elaborate?

 

But why? Because they are reading the books and not getting a full

understanding.

 

 

>Again this is a minor semantical issue that I see zero clinical relevance

>what word you use... The proof is in the condition and the herbs used... If

>one can look up the word and get to the Chinese or PD that is all that

>matters.

 

But if you use the wrong herb or the wrong dose because you don't

understand that they are settling and not sedating

 

>Maybe I am missing your point so I would like to see a specific example

>(page #) from one of the mentioned books.. Then we can discuss this more

>specifically if there is a clinical issue or not...

>

>Am I missing something?

 

Well - I guess that I am trying to make a larger point about language in

general giving the individual greater access to knowledge instead of one

specific place where a given term makes a difference. And, again, until

EP's full gloss is freely available and the methodology used for

determining the correctness of terms is made clear, I don't believe the

discussion can continue. It is like fencing with ghosts!

 

Marnae

 

 

>-Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>