wiseman standards

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> Slater

>

> Not to mention that your question are illogical as nobody can comment

> on something that does not exist.

 

Well Marnae thought it was logical enough to make a very intelligent reply

which further spearheaded this whole debate.. you, steven, have not added

anything except, it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist etc

etc etc... She is familiar with the issues well enough to understand what

that would mean when (and if) it is released.. There is a definite reality

to its (potential) release.. That is a student will be able to look up the

words in the MM and cross reference them to PD... This is the reality.. IT

is not some phantom ghost... It shouldn't take someone with 3/4 of brain to

further interpret what this would mean... People can whine that deficiency

is not defined.. But it is obvious to anyone that has studidies for more

than 1 month... There are many terms from Bensky that have been cross

referenced already (Z'ev said earlier that he has done this with most).. I

just hoped that people could step out of are defensive stance and analyze

what this would mean and the potential problems that could exist.. Many

potential problems have been discussed and are valid, some (minor ones)

cannot until the whole gloss is available.. But as a tester one can start

with the 57 terms that are released and think about the issues that way...

Just step out of the box..

 

I am curious steven do you translate?

 

-jason

 

>

> Steve

>

> On 15/07/2005, at 8:50 AM, wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> >>

> >>

> >> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> >> Slater

> >> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:09 PM

> >>

> >> Re: wiseman standards

> >>

> >>

> >> 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.

> >>

> >

> > Please listen.. this discussion is a based on the premise that the EP

> > glossary is public... We are not discussing issues about whether

> > you can

> > look up a word or not. Please re-read my posts if you are unclear,

> > this was

> > stated from post #1 and beyond... you are missing the discussion

> > points and

> > issues...

> >

> > -

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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 Eric Brand

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:09 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> The translation methodology used by Paradigm and Blue Poppy has been

> explicitly spelled out for years. Many many papers have been written

> about their methodology and their reasons for their methods.

 

Can you direct me to the latest paper on Paradigm & BP / Wiseman(?)'s

methodology. Do these publishing houses train their translators in such a

methodology? is it required to publish with them?

 

Thanx,

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:09 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> The translation methodology used by Paradigm and Blue Poppy has been

> explicitly spelled out for years. Many many papers have been written

> about their methodology and their reasons for their methods.

 

Eric,

 

Can one take paradigm's methodology and apply it to the EP gloss? I see no

fundamental problem here...

So I see two separate issues:

1) term list

2) methodology

 

Agreed?

 

-Jason

>

> The big question is what is Eastland's methodology? There is more to

> translation than coming up with a list of terms. There is linguistic

> theory, there is an academic foundation from other disciplines to

> integrate, there are definitions to be contended with, etc. It isn't

> just a matter of using terms consistently.

>

> You speak as though Eastland has some established and published

> methodology. What is it? Where can we read about it?

>

> One camp has been printing articles for decades on how different types

> of works should be translated, how to use Language for Specific

> Purposes vs Language for General Purposes, comparing translation

> approaches with philology, with Western medicine, etc. The other camp

> has been saying that there are only a few hundred technical terms

> total and that is all we hear from them. If there is a methodology,

> present it. If there is a term list, present it. But don't try to

> hold an argument without bringing anything of substance to the table.

>

> Eric

>

> , " "

> <@c...> 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 15/07/2005, at 10:35 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

>

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

>> Slater

>>

>> Not to mention that your question are illogical as nobody can comment

>> on something that does not exist.

>>

>

> Well Marnae thought it was logical enough to make a very

> intelligent reply

> which further spearheaded this whole debate.. you, steven, have not

> added

> anything except, it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, it doesn't

> exist etc

> etc etc... She is familiar with the issues well enough to

> understand what

> that would mean when (and if) it is released.. There is a definite

> reality

> to its (potential) release.. That is a student will be able to look

> up the

> words in the MM and cross reference them to PD... This is the

> reality.. IT

> is not some phantom ghost... It shouldn't take someone with 3/4 of

> brain to

> further interpret what this would mean... People can whine that

> deficiency

> is not defined.. But it is obvious to anyone that has studidies for

> more

> than 1 month... There are many terms from Bensky that have been cross

> referenced already (Z'ev said earlier that he has done this with

> most).. I

> just hoped that people could step out of are defensive stance and

> analyze

> what this would mean and the potential problems that could exist..

> Many

> potential problems have been discussed and are valid, some (minor

> ones)

> cannot until the whole gloss is available.. But as a tester one can

> start

> with the 57 terms that are released and think about the issues that

> way...

> Just step out of the box..

>

> I am curious steven do you translate?

>

> -jason

>

>

 

I can see you are going to lose control and get personal with your

machine gun postings so I shall take my leave from this thread and

allow you to continually ask people to evealuate something that does

not exist, dismiss everything they offer and then argue against them

like your life depends upon it.

 

Enjoy,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

>

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

> ever been sedated? It can really disturb the spirit.

 

More Info on sedate: Straight from Wiseman's 'Rationale for terminology for

Fundamentals'... " 'Sedate' implies a calming or settling action...(p.20) " He

further says that sedate is directly related to the English word settle...

 

So I think Wiseman supports the term choice of sedating to have a settling

effect(on the spirit)... Unless I am missing something...

 

Therefore I see no real linguistic difference which further solidifies that

there should be no clinical one either.

 

-Jason " Machine-Gun "

[Guest guest]

Wow,

 

I checked my email and found it loaded with many responses to this one

dialogue. I think this started as constructive but somehow evolved into an

ego fest over a language that none of us really knows and this frustrates us

all.

 

As I understand it, the Chinese pictographs contain concepts and ideas much

like sentences not individual words, I know words exist.

 

It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately decide upon one usage for

a character(s) given that some usages were cryptic and others overt. Not

one of us can say that we were there and positively know what this or that

means so in the interest of moving forward peacefully, I would like to see

us move on. Thanks

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

>RE: wiseman standards

>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:48:07 -0600

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

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

> > 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.

>

>Whatever... this is a sematical 'no win' game. You can like your word and

>hate the others.. But the fact remains the clinical picture is presented

>accurately and one knows how to prescribe the herb and get results. I do

>not have a problem with sedation, and other obviously don't either...

>

> >

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

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

>

>Slightly incorrect on my part It was supposed to basically say zhen zhu and

>whatever else.. Referring in mind to the Rx I posted a couple of weeks ago,

>which was about 180 grams of shells for 2 days. So it is not far off, is

>it?

>

>

> > 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.

>

>Again the students / teacher fault. That is why there is discussion in

>class and in the book explaining exactly what the herb treats and how... If

>one wants to believe that the herbs will sedate tremors or settle tremors,

>fine... whatever.. But the reality is the clinical usage is intact!

>

> >

> >

> > >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

>

>How is this going to happen? This is a perfect example where you can prove

>your point based on the linguistic nuance that you claim so important. I

>don't see any problem and actually never thought about this issue prior and

>never had any problems prescribing the herb... Go figure... You are

>looking

>at some nuance you believe inherently important in the word, I am looking

>at

>the whole picture, meaning the paragraph, and herb information on the whole

>page... The term becomes alive with its surrounding words and context. One

>cannot analyze it individually. This is IMO the typical western way to

>view

>things (due to the western mind) - meaning, to look at things in isolation

>and pick it apart. The typical Asian mind will look at things and evaluate

>it meaning with the context around... I will stick with the later and be

>satisfied...

>

>Just as your classmates and teachers (from the same school) all use terms

>slightly differently describing the same phenomenon, this also exists in

>the

>HUGE PRC, and has for 2000 years... Language is a flexible entity that will

>never be pinned down to 1 book... People conceptualize things differently

>(and cultures do also) and therefore use terms slightly differently.. They

>mean different things to different people. I think it is arrogant to just

>KNOW that this word is just better, when there are great minds that see it

>differently. IMO, one should try to see flexibility in this and allow some

>wiggle room. I personally see both and have no problem either way...

>

>Furthermore, as the premise of this conversation is that there is an EP

>Gloss, then one could, in theory, just look up the word and read about

>it...

>Problem solved...

>

>-

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

" Can we be effective without reading Ken Rose's book ? "

 

Which one of his books were you referring to?

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

[Guest guest]

How can one communicate 'lingo' in professional medicine? It may be

ok face to face with a colleague, but certainly not in clinical

reports, on charts, in professional journals, or especially in

internet databases and search engines.

 

 

 

 

On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:15 PM, wrote:

 

> Look it up in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.

>

>>>> Is that important? to me its lingo\

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's not what I teach (herb classes), it is what is taught in

acupuncture classes. Whenever I ask students what it means to

'tonify' or 'sedate', no one can explain what the terms mean or what

they are doing.

 

Alon, to me there is no excuse that students cannot explain terms

such as " qi " , " jing/luo " (channels and network vessels), clear yang

in any focused way. You cannot separate the proper use of language

with clinical expertise.

 

 

On Jul 14, 2005, at 2:34 PM, wrote:

 

> 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.

>

>>>>>> Really? When doing four needle technique and using 2 point

>>>>>> with tonifying technique andn two points with sedation

>>>>>> technique does not wake their mind up. Interesting, what do

>>>>>> you guys teach them in class when using these words?

>>>>>>

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alon, to me there is no excuse that students cannot explain terms

such as " qi " , " jing/luo " (channels and network vessels), clear yang

in any focused way. You cannot separate the proper use of language

with clinical expertise.

>>>>>>That just shows very poor education nothing to do with the term tonify. If

a student says to sedate a point is to make one sleepy then we are with failure

of the school.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

'lingo'

>>>What are professional terms if not lingo.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon, please give us at the schools more credit than that! I don't know any

student who thinks " sedate " means to make one " sleepy " -- even students in

their first trimester know better! I for one am tired of all the school

put-downs on this list by people who aren't even involved in the schools.

Everyone is always blaming the schools. Enough already.

 

Julie Chambers

 

 

 

-

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:56 PM

Re: wiseman standards

 

 

Alon, to me there is no excuse that students cannot explain terms

such as " qi " , " jing/luo " (channels and network vessels), clear yang

in any focused way. You cannot separate the proper use of language

with clinical expertise.

>>>>>>That just shows very poor education nothing to do with the term tonify.

If a student says to sedate a point is to make one sleepy then we are with

failure of the school.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think the proper term now is " tou tong " ... ?? :-)

I'll reinerate what Alon has said at various times, whether it's PD or EP, that

the terms and

concepts have to be explained in an understandable manner. Deficiency has to

explored in

the same way vacuity would. I don't mean that each author has to but that we are

lacking

texts that are beyond basic and I don't think its as if one word or one entry in

a glossary

can do it. Yes, the PD gives a more of a description than many texts but we will

need to

explore the nature of each of the terms to go ahead. As for me I think the

schools/basic

books will have the same job whether it's PD or whatever... " Deficiency/vacuity

is

this:____________ " Often I feel like I'm missing a lot of this medicine but I

don't think its a

matter of terminology. To me the argument of terms in the PD being deliberately

obscure

is a shallow way to proceed. The question then becomes if the PD is the

standard, are his

definitions therefore now the standard? And then we have to ask as to who is he

to define

them? Are the words in themselves adaquate to explain it? (Then as Jason points

out why

not use as " common " a vocabulary in English?) In other words, we should be

exploring

what is the nature of deficiency/vacuity of stagnation/depression etc...rather

than this

linguistic quandry? And in doing so we will soon go past our superficial

obsession with

terminology and the words will matter less. My involvement with the medicine

does not

end with translations, it only touchs it. If I have misconceptions then they

should be

explained without obfuscation. (Today I happened to look at the glossary of Will

Mcclean's

Patent Book and the " gloss " was laid out pretty well in a concise manner,

especially

considering the scope of such a modest book. )

 

If translators want to work back and forth from text to text language to

language, fine.

Mitchell's Shan Han Lun is great but at what a price, 3 languages! As for me,

and with

apologies to Marnae, I've learned more about from those texts

without

the PD: Clavey, Warm Diseases, Cancer Management and yes, the Bensky texts.

 

time for sleep...

doug

 

 

 

, " " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> Alon, to me there is no excuse that students cannot explain terms

> such as " qi " , " jing/luo " (channels and network vessels), clear yang

> in any focused way. You cannot separate the proper use of language

> with clinical expertise.

> >>>>>>That just shows very poor education nothing to do with the term tonify.

If a

student says to sedate a point is to make one sleepy then we are with failure of

the school.

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I believe the word you're looking for is " jargon " .

 

Par

-

" " <alonmarcus

 

Friday, July 15, 2005 12:57 AM

Re: wiseman standards

 

 

> 'lingo'

>>>>What are professional terms if not lingo.

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:10 PM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> Jason,

>

> " Can we be effective without reading Ken Rose's book ? "

>

> Which one of his books were you referring to?

 

It is A Brief History of Qi...

 

-Jason

 

 

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

>

>

> 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]

Both of you are right. Schools are a very important part of our history and

our future. Many on this list have touched on some great ideas to improve

the quality of our education in the schools and I happen to believe that the

schools should be more open minded and willing to discuss feedback from

those of us out there in the real world. Parts of our educational system

need desperate re-vamping if we intend to be competitive (rote learning

continues). There has been a negative trend to allow anyone into the

programs without batting an eye.

 

On the other hand, bashing of our schools does not really improve them as

those who should be listening are not.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

>JulieJ8 <Juliej8

>

>

>Re: wiseman standards

>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:14:58 -0600

>

>Alon, please give us at the schools more credit than that! I don't know any

>student who thinks " sedate " means to make one " sleepy " -- even students in

>their first trimester know better! I for one am tired of all the school

>put-downs on this list by people who aren't even involved in the schools.

>Everyone is always blaming the schools. Enough already.

>

>Julie Chambers

>

>

>

> -

>

>

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:56 PM

> Re: wiseman standards

>

>

> Alon, to me there is no excuse that students cannot explain terms

> such as " qi " , " jing/luo " (channels and network vessels), clear yang

> in any focused way. You cannot separate the proper use of language

> with clinical expertise.

> >>>>>>That just shows very poor education nothing to do with the term

>tonify. If a student says to sedate a point is to make one sleepy then we

>are with failure of the school.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " "

>

>

>RE: wiseman standards

>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 07:13:28 -0600

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of mike Bowser

> > Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:10 PM

> >

> > RE: wiseman standards

> >

> > Jason,

> >

> > " Can we be effective without reading Ken Rose's book ? "

> >

> > Which one of his books were you referring to?

>

>It is A Brief History of Qi...

>

>-Jason

>

>

> >

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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]

Alon, please give us at the schools more credit than that! I don't know any

>student who thinks " sedate " means to make one " sleepy " -- even students in

>their first trimester know better! I for one am tired of all the school

>put-downs on this list by people who aren't even involved in the schools.

>Everyone is always blaming the schools. Enough already.

>>>>>>>>>>>Julie its not me tell that to Zev

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The whole point of what I was trying to say was that since five years

ago, when specific teachers added the Wiseman dictionary to the

required texts, there was a vast improvement in student understanding

of terminology. I remember one M.D. ten years ago asking a class of

students what a du2/toxin was, and not one could answer. We now

drill students on terms, ask them to explain concepts, so the

situation is much better. However, in the recent past there has been

a casual laziness in teaching Chinese medical terminology, using

fuzzy English terms without defining them. The previously 'required

texts' did not do so for them, and neither did the teachers. This

left students in the dark in terms of their understanding of key

Chinese medical concepts.

 

I am certain that there are many schools out there that still have

this problem. We've built the foundations of the subject matter on

shaky ground by not using glossaries and dictionaries. It's a no

brainer. What technical subject can be taught without terminology?

 

 

On Jul 15, 2005, at 8:12 AM, wrote:

 

> Alon, please give us at the schools more credit than that! I don't

> know any

>

>> student who thinks " sedate " means to make one " sleepy " -- even

>> students in

>> their first trimester know better! I for one am tired of all the

>> school

>> put-downs on this list by people who aren't even involved in the

>> schools.

>> Everyone is always blaming the schools. Enough already.

>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Julie its not me tell that to Zev

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The name that can be named is not The Name - tao te ching

All terms limit our knowing - it is perhaps more fun to be curious as to

what is being pointed to by any particular term. As soon as we understand

its meaning, we can drop the term and its definition. Why hold on to it? The

words have served their purpose.

There is no conflict.

Jimmy

[Guest guest]

Z'ev -

 

Amen to this - and with that I too take my leave of this conversation for now.

 

Marnae

 

At 11:19 AM 7/15/2005, you wrote:

>The whole point of what I was trying to say was that since five years

>ago, when specific teachers added the Wiseman dictionary to the

>required texts, there was a vast improvement in student understanding

>of terminology. I remember one M.D. ten years ago asking a class of

>students what a du2/toxin was, and not one could answer. We now

>drill students on terms, ask them to explain concepts, so the

>situation is much better. However, in the recent past there has been

>a casual laziness in teaching Chinese medical terminology, using

>fuzzy English terms without defining them. The previously 'required

>texts' did not do so for them, and neither did the teachers. This

>left students in the dark in terms of their understanding of key

>Chinese medical concepts.

>

>I am certain that there are many schools out there that still have

>this problem. We've built the foundations of the subject matter on

>shaky ground by not using glossaries and dictionaries. It's a no

>brainer. What technical subject can be taught without terminology?

>

>

>On Jul 15, 2005, at 8:12 AM, wrote:

>

> > Alon, please give us at the schools more credit than that! I don't

> > know any

> >

> >> student who thinks " sedate " means to make one " sleepy " -- even

> >> students in

> >> their first trimester know better! I for one am tired of all the

> >> school

> >> put-downs on this list by people who aren't even involved in the

> >> schools.

> >> Everyone is always blaming the schools. Enough already.

> >>

> >>>>>>>>>>>> Julie its not me tell that to Zev

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>> [Jason] I am unsure what you are getting at... Are you referring

to zhen4 = 'settle'

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

 

 

[Eric] Is there somewhere that tells us that 'sedate, pacify,

suppress, hold down, and settle' are all translations of the same

single word in Bensky? If there is a term list that everyone can use,

we can understand what the original text said and thus the exact

nuance, the exact words. If there is no way of preserving the

original data in a transparent way, we just have to trust each author

personally to know whether their work is valid.

 

 

>[Jason] 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???

 

[Eric] Zhen zhu is true pearl. People have never been eating 120 g of

pearls. The dose range is 0.3-1.0 g. Terms are important, even if

the terms are simple drug names that separate mother-of-pearl from

true pearl.

 

Heavy settling medicinals are not sedatives. Sedatives are a distinct

class of Western drugs. Heavy settling medicinals are things like

oyster shell and fossilized mammal bones. There is an important

theoretical, clinical, and chemical difference. You say that " these

herbs definitely can sedate someone or settle the spirit " as though

sedating someone or settling the spirit is an indication of the same

action.

 

In Chinese medicinal theory, substances are combined with others to

bring out their effects, and they do not necessarily exert a given

effect in the absence of disease. For example, fu ling will

disinhibit dampness more strongly in an individual suffering from damp

evil, a property which is brought out particularly when it is combined

appropriately. If one translates " disinhibits dampness " as " promotes

urination, " it is an easier notion for the Western student. But the

student then assumes that they understand the effect of the medicinal

because it matches their known concept of diuretic substances.

However, not all " damp-disinhibiting " substances actually promote

diuresis when examined in research. Does Bensky even put " promotes

urination " in the glossary in the first place? Simplifying such

concepts minimizes the degree to which students really understand and

use Chinese medical theory.

 

>[Jason] 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...

 

[Eric] Fright wind is a more accurate term than childhood convulsions.

Fright wind is a disease of infants and children, characterized by

convulsions and loss of consciousness. It is equivalent to " tetany "

in adults. It has both acute and chronic forms. The name " fright

wind " is related to the Chinese term, whereas the name " childhood

convulsions " is assumed to be familiar to the reader yet is not

distinct from " epilepsy " (translated by Benksy above as " seizures "

presumably). Pearl is indicated for both fright wind and epilepsy,

but these concepts should be distinct in the student's mind.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> >>>>Except that the word sedate is used in the context of tonify vs

sedate.I thought we are talking about professional terms not patient

communication.

 

 

Actually, Jason was using the word " sedate " in this instance to refer

to zhen4 (settling, as done with heavy medicinals), not draining (the

opposite of " tonify " ). How can tonify and sedate even be thought of

as professional terms when they are completely inaccurate to the

professional-level concept?

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:02 AM, wrote:

 

> I think the proper term now is " tou tong " ... ?? :-)

> I'll reinerate what Alon has said at various times, whether it's

> PD or EP, that the terms and

> concepts have to be explained in an understandable manner.

> Deficiency has to explored in

> the same way vacuity would. I don't mean that each author has to

> but that we are lacking

> texts that are beyond basic and I don't think its as if one word or

> one entry in a glossary

> can do it. Yes, the PD gives a more of a description than many

> texts but we will need to

> explore the nature of each of the terms to go ahead. As for me I

> think the schools/basic

> books will have the same job whether it's PD or whatever...

> " Deficiency/vacuity is

> this:____________ " Often I feel like I'm missing a lot of this

> medicine but I don't think its a

> matter of terminology. To me the argument of terms in the PD being

> deliberately obscure

> is a shallow way to proceed. The question then becomes if the PD is

> the standard, are his

> definitions therefore now the standard? And then we have to ask as

> to who is he to define

> them? Are the words in themselves adaquate to explain it?

 

I am sorry, but this is an absurd argument in my mind. No one is

suggesting that terms be deliberately obscure. A vast majority of

terms in the PD are not in any sense obscure. Is " defense (PD) " for

wei more obscure than " protective " ? " Constructive " (PD) for ying

more obscure than " nutritive " ? It just takes a bit of intellectual

effort. Of course the PD gives more of a description, it's a

dictionary, after all. You must have missed the last several months

of posts by Eric Brand to ask " who is he to define them? " The

dictionary is a product of a linguist/Chinese scholar, a Chinese

physician, and quite a bit of consensus.

 

>

> If translators want to work back and forth from text to text

> language to language, fine.

> Mitchell's Shan Han Lun is great but at what a price, 3 languages!

> As for me, and with

> apologies to Marnae, I've learned more about from

> those texts without

> the PD: Clavey, Warm Diseases, Cancer Management and yes, the

> Bensky texts.

 

One of the purposes of the Mitchell/Wiseman SHL is to teach medical

Chinese to the reader. It is difficult to present classical texts

without Chinese, pinyin and English together. That is what makes

this such a great translation. The other books you mention are

excellent, but because they lack definitive glossaries, I need to use

the PD to explain specific terms, by giving the Chinese character,

pinyin, and choice of English term when I teach from them.

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> I don't think Eric, Marnae, yourself, or anyone else has shown in

the new MM

> where he lumps terms together... Please give us a page number and

reference

> and I will investigate.. I have yet to find what people are talking

about...

> Hey I am just curious, and specifically looking for these type of

weaknesses

> because I investigating translation from both sides, trying to assess to

> pluses and minuses... But without references with some specific

example I am

> at a loss..

 

Jason, we've been through this all months ago. Spermatorrhea is used

in Bensky for 4 different Chinese disease names, which have different

treatments, different causes, different pathomechanisms, and different

gradations. This is a simplification. It doesn't expand students

understanding of theory. It obscures the issue of concretely

different diseases with concretely different treatments.

 

You keep telling Marnae that she is missing the point. I think she

sounds like she knows exactly what she is talking about. You keep

asking for examples and ignore examples given months ago on the exact

same topic. It is pointless to try to discuss something with someone

who doesn't listen to what is being said.

 

> But BTW, niao4 jing1 is translated by Wiseman as Spermaturia...

 

Yes, because semen in the urine is a different condition that the four

types of " spermatorrhea " already discussed. It has nothing to do with

the four diseases simplified by Bensky.

 

Eric