Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " " <zrosenbe wrote: >> > Doug, Xie Zhu-fan's work is old news. I have earlier versions of his > dictionary published in the 80's, not much different from the new > one. Comparing his work to the Wiseman dictionary is like comparing > an old Edsel to a Prius. Even then, I found his dictionary to be > useless and difficult to understand. I only suggest that this man still has influence, he obviously isn't old news, that you get his book to read what he says. I personally think his dictionary is crap but in " On the Standard Nomenclature " he does take you through word for word his choices. It's one thing to be dismissive it's another to know what you are up against and why. I found the book very interesting and instructional. > The problems in our profession are so many and so great. I agree > with Herman that adaption of the Chinese cirriculum, with > modifications wouldn't be a bad idea. It's their proposed > terminology standards I think would be disastrous. > As I understood it, was that they think TCM should follow the educational Western model they now have in China, what Eric was talking about MD institutions integrating CM into their schools. Which would be great if done in the " right " way. But I'm pessimistic. The other debate that may play in, is in China as to the, perhaps small, movement away from the very integrated model. Certainly we see TCM practitioners from China now " discovering " while practicing in the West. doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 " On the Standard Nomenclature " he does take you through word for word his choices. >>>> Doug Is that a new book? Oakland, CA 94609 - Tuesday, February 21, 2006 5:17 PM Re: another article on Wiseman , " " <zrosenbe wrote: >> > Doug, Xie Zhu-fan's work is old news. I have earlier versions of his > dictionary published in the 80's, not much different from the new > one. Comparing his work to the Wiseman dictionary is like comparing > an old Edsel to a Prius. Even then, I found his dictionary to be > useless and difficult to understand. I only suggest that this man still has influence, he obviously isn't old news, that you get his book to read what he says. I personally think his dictionary is crap but in " On the Standard Nomenclature " he does take you through word for word his choices. It's one thing to be dismissive it's another to know what you are up against and why. I found the book very interesting and instructional. > The problems in our profession are so many and so great. I agree > with Herman that adaption of the Chinese cirriculum, with > modifications wouldn't be a bad idea. It's their proposed > terminology standards I think would be disastrous. > As I understood it, was that they think TCM should follow the educational Western model they now have in China, what Eric was talking about MD institutions integrating CM into their schools. Which would be great if done in the " right " way. But I'm pessimistic. The other debate that may play in, is in China as to the, perhaps small, movement away from the very integrated model. Certainly we see TCM practitioners from China now " discovering " while practicing in the West. doug 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I read a good bit of this as well, and I'm not impressed. The arguments seem very forced, and use poor examples from Wiseman, such as zi gong as child palace, when that translation is only used for the name of an acupuncture point/hole, not the uterus itself. But we've already discussed this. The only other competing 'terminology' in my book is the Eastland Press version, and until it is published openly and freely, there is not too much to say about it. On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:17 PM, wrote: > I only suggest that this man still has influence, he obviously > isn't old news, that you get > his book to read what he says. I personally think his dictionary is > crap but in " On the > Standard Nomenclature " he does take you through word for word his > choices. It's one > thing to be dismissive it's another to know what you are up against > and why. I found the > book very interesting and instructional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Sorry, to take so long on this... Alon: " On the Standard Nomenclature " is dated 2003. Z'ev: Sorry you didn't appreciate this book as much as I did. I got a lot out of it. I'm not familiar with the Zi Gong reference but in other parts of the book he supports some Wiseman terms as well as being familiar with other English writers. doug , " " <zrosenbe wrote: > > I read a good bit of this as well, and I'm not impressed. The > arguments seem very forced, and use poor examples from Wiseman, such > as zi gong as child palace, when that translation is only used for > the name of an acupuncture point/hole, not the uterus itself. But > we've already discussed this. > > The only other competing 'terminology' in my book is the Eastland > Press version, and until it is published openly and freely, there is > not too much to say about it. > > > On Feb 21, 2006, at 5:17 PM, wrote: > > > I only suggest that this man still has influence, he obviously > > isn't old news, that you get > > his book to read what he says. I personally think his dictionary is > > crap but in " On the > > Standard Nomenclature " he does take you through word for word his > > choices. It's one > > thing to be dismissive it's another to know what you are up against > > and why. I found the > > book very interesting and instructional. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm going to answer you, Doug, beginning with a quote from Bob Felt: " If we look at what we are trying to do, to install in the west a medicine that is rooted in different ideas of what constitutes evidence, of what we can be observed, of what can be altered, in human health and illness, it is easy to understand the urge to conform CM to biomedicine. The underlying assumption is that " conjunctivitis " is true, and " wind fire eye " is not. And, that assumption is unavailable to change based on contrary evidence. So, it does not occur to Xie, who has admitted that wind fire eye includes both sceleritis and convjunctivitis, that anything is lost by reducing it to conjunctivitis. In other words, his own clinical experience is not enough to overwhelm his epistemological assumptions. " In other words, Xie Xu-fan, as an instructor at an integrative biomedicine/Chinese medicine school, does not acknowledge much if any value to pre-modern assumptions of Chinese medical metaphors. It doesn't fit his belief system, so he concludes that Westerners must also feel this way. There is still a lack of comprehension in China that there is an 'alternative' medical audience in the West to biomedicine that wants those metaphors to remain intact, so that we may discover for ourselves how Chinese medicine works with itself as reference point. On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:20 PM, wrote: > Sorry, to take so long on this... Alon: " On the Standard > Nomenclature " is dated 2003. > Z'ev: Sorry you didn't appreciate this book as much as I did. I got > a lot out of it. I'm not > familiar with the Zi Gong reference but in other parts of the book > he supports some > Wiseman terms as well as being familiar with other English writers. > doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm not saying this guy's terminology is right. I've just suggested that others, since you've said you've looked at it, read this book because much of it is interesting. When I first brought this up in May I got jumped on by those fully supporting Wiseman like Xie was the devil incarnate. If you want to build concensus then you have to come down from the mountain a little bit more often. doug , " " <zrosenbe wrote: > > I'm going to answer you, Doug, beginning with a quote from Bob Felt: > > " If we look at what we are trying to do, to install in the west a > medicine that is rooted in > different ideas of what constitutes evidence, of what we can be > observed, of what can be > altered, in human health and illness, it is easy to understand the > urge to conform CM to > biomedicine. The underlying assumption is that " conjunctivitis " is > true, and " wind fire > eye " is not. And, that assumption is unavailable to change based on > contrary evidence. > So, it does not occur to Xie, who has admitted that wind fire eye > includes both > sceleritis and convjunctivitis, that anything is lost by reducing it > to conjunctivitis. In > other words, his own clinical experience is not enough to overwhelm > his epistemological > assumptions. " > > In other words, Xie Xu-fan, as an instructor at an integrative > biomedicine/Chinese medicine school, does not acknowledge much if any > value to pre-modern assumptions of Chinese medical metaphors. It > doesn't fit his belief system, so he concludes that Westerners must > also feel this way. There is still a lack of comprehension in China > that there is an 'alternative' medical audience in the West to > biomedicine that wants those metaphors to remain intact, so that we > may discover for ourselves how Chinese medicine works with itself as > reference point. > > > > > > On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:20 PM, wrote: > > > Sorry, to take so long on this... Alon: " On the Standard > > Nomenclature " is dated 2003. > > Z'ev: Sorry you didn't appreciate this book as much as I did. I got > > a lot out of it. I'm not > > familiar with the Zi Gong reference but in other parts of the book > > he supports some > > Wiseman terms as well as being familiar with other English writers. > > doug > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 The AAOM will be conducting a panel discussion in Phoenix on the Thursday before their AGM in October on the issue of the adoption of a standard terminology for our profession. To date, the following have agreed to be on the panel: Bob Felt Bob Flaws Dan Bensky Marnae Ergil Chip Chace Miki Shima Jake Fratkin Craig Mitchell is a possibility, and a few others have been invited (don't know who these are). Each person on the panel has been asked to write a position paper on the topic. We will see what we will see. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 VERY interesting. . . .. On Feb 24, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Bob Flaws wrote: > The AAOM will be conducting a panel discussion in Phoenix on the > Thursday before their AGM in October on the issue of the adoption of a > standard terminology for our profession. To date, the following have > agreed to be on the panel: > > Bob Felt > Bob Flaws > Dan Bensky > Marnae Ergil > Chip Chace > Miki Shima > Jake Fratkin > > Craig Mitchell is a possibility, and a few others have been invited > (don't know who these are). Each person on the panel has been asked to > write a position paper on the topic. > > We will see what we will see. > > Bob 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 , " " wrote: > > I'm not saying this guy's terminology is right. I've just suggested that others, since you've > said you've looked at it, read this book because much of it is interesting. When I first > brought this up in May I got jumped on by those fully supporting Wiseman like Xie was the > devil incarnate. If you want to build concensus then you have to come down from the > mountain a little bit more often. Xie has some interesting points throughout the book, and anyone who is interested in Chinese medical language should be familiar with his approach and opinions. After all, we need to read widely on all perspectives in topics that interest us. The main thing that makes Xie's work unable to suffice on its own is the lack of a system to implement it and to study it. Wiseman's terminology has a certain influence just because it is the main medium of study materials that people have when learning medical Chinese. Learning medical Chinese is a monumental task, and the language books by Wiseman and Feng (one focused of grammar and one on vocabulary) are the only CM Chinese 101-301 textbooks that exist. A small terms list like Xie's doesn't have enough consistency and scope to solve the language students problems. Of course, students can develop a more sophisticated understanding of the use of particular words over time, but everyone needs a starting point when picking up the language. There are very few translators in the older generation, and many of these individuals are teachers, scholars, or practitioners who do not have the time to put out many publications. Thus, the next generation of people producing publications will be the people who are currently studying medical Chinese, and these people are exposed to a lot of Wiseman's language materials when they learn. At this point, there is enough advanced literature available that people are familiar with a variety of expression styles already. If more people published different term sets and different approaches, everyone would read it and draw from it the ideas that they liked. People already do this with Bensky's work, Chen's work, Clavey's, etc. We just have a limited amount to work with right now, that's all. People try to build on what is available, and these are the best tools we have. Terminology is a naturally evolving thing, it doesn't come about by an implemented standard, it comes about by a gradual prevalence in use. People use whatever terminology helps them learn and solves their problems. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't have a lot of feeling one way or another about the terms. I think I like 80 % of the terms which is about the same with Wiseman/Ye. The book has a terminology list for diseases which he describes as English to Chinese and not a Chinese to English terminology. The very exsistence of this concept may be a large part of the contentiousness of the issue. doug , " " <alonmarcus wrote: > > Doug > what are your criticism of the book or terms? I saw a page online and it looked like a discussion on principles and difficulties in translation > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > - > > > Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:50 PM > Re: another article on Wiseman > > > I'm not saying this guy's terminology is right. I've just suggested that others, since you've > said you've looked at it, read this book because much of it is interesting. When I first > brought this up in May I got jumped on by those fully supporting Wiseman like Xie was the > devil incarnate. If you want to build concensus then you have to come down from the > mountain a little bit more often. > doug > > > , " " <zrosenbe@> wrote: > > > > I'm going to answer you, Doug, beginning with a quote from Bob Felt: > > > > " If we look at what we are trying to do, to install in the west a > > medicine that is rooted in > > different ideas of what constitutes evidence, of what we can be > > observed, of what can be > > altered, in human health and illness, it is easy to understand the > > urge to conform CM to > > biomedicine. The underlying assumption is that " conjunctivitis " is > > true, and " wind fire > > eye " is not. And, that assumption is unavailable to change based on > > contrary evidence. > > So, it does not occur to Xie, who has admitted that wind fire eye > > includes both > > sceleritis and convjunctivitis, that anything is lost by reducing it > > to conjunctivitis. In > > other words, his own clinical experience is not enough to overwhelm > > his epistemological > > assumptions. " > > > > In other words, Xie Xu-fan, as an instructor at an integrative > > biomedicine/Chinese medicine school, does not acknowledge much if any > > value to pre-modern assumptions of Chinese medical metaphors. It > > doesn't fit his belief system, so he concludes that Westerners must > > also feel this way. There is still a lack of comprehension in China > > that there is an 'alternative' medical audience in the West to > > biomedicine that wants those metaphors to remain intact, so that we > > may discover for ourselves how Chinese medicine works with itself as > > reference point. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:20 PM, wrote: > > > > > Sorry, to take so long on this... Alon: " On the Standard > > > Nomenclature " is dated 2003. > > > Z'ev: Sorry you didn't appreciate this book as much as I did. I got > > > a lot out of it. I'm not > > > familiar with the Zi Gong reference but in other parts of the book > > > he supports some > > > Wiseman terms as well as being familiar with other English writers. > > > doug > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Eric, thank you for your response. doug , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > > , " " <taiqi@> > wrote: > > > > I'm not saying this guy's terminology is right. I've just suggested > that others, since you've > > said you've looked at it, read this book because much of it is > interesting. When I first > > brought this up in May I got jumped on by those fully supporting > Wiseman like Xie was the > > devil incarnate. If you want to build concensus then you have to > come down from the > > mountain a little bit more often. > > Xie has some interesting points throughout the book, and anyone who is > interested in Chinese medical language should be familiar with his > approach and opinions. After all, we need to read widely on all > perspectives in topics that interest us. The main thing that makes > Xie's work unable to suffice on its own is the lack of a system to > implement it and to study it. Wiseman's terminology has a certain > influence just because it is the main medium of study materials that > people have when learning medical Chinese. Learning medical Chinese > is a monumental task, and the language books by Wiseman and Feng (one > focused of grammar and one on vocabulary) are the only CM Chinese > 101-301 textbooks that exist. > > A small terms list like Xie's doesn't have enough consistency and > scope to solve the language students problems. Of course, students > can develop a more sophisticated understanding of the use of > particular words over time, but everyone needs a starting point when > picking up the language. There are very few translators in the older > generation, and many of these individuals are teachers, scholars, or > practitioners who do not have the time to put out many publications. > Thus, the next generation of people producing publications will be the > people who are currently studying medical Chinese, and these people > are exposed to a lot of Wiseman's language materials when they learn. > > At this point, there is enough advanced literature available that > people are familiar with a variety of expression styles already. If > more people published different term sets and different approaches, > everyone would read it and draw from it the ideas that they liked. > People already do this with Bensky's work, Chen's work, Clavey's, etc. > We just have a limited amount to work with right now, that's all. > People try to build on what is available, and these are the best tools > we have. Terminology is a naturally evolving thing, it doesn't come > about by an implemented standard, it comes about by a gradual > prevalence in use. People use whatever terminology helps them learn > and solves their problems. > > Eric > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I think more important than which terms get chosen, or agreement on terminology, is the ability to look things up. If someone chooses a particular translation for the word, but does not indicate which Chinese word it came from, that is where the confusion begins and the ability to learn more about a particular concept fades away. I am happy with Wiseman because even though I do not always like the words he choses (mostly because they are such peculiar choices from a spoken English perspective), I do like the fact that when I come across something I have not yet learned I can go to a dictionary and look it up rather than having to make up something to fit a term that has not been overtly linked to a Chinese term. -Steve On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:52 AM, wrote: > Doug > what are your criticism of the book or terms? I saw a page online and > it looked like a discussion on principles and difficulties in > translation > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > - > > > Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:50 PM > Re: another article on Wiseman > > > I'm not saying this guy's terminology is right. I've just suggested > that others, since you've > said you've looked at it, read this book because much of it is > interesting. When I first > brought this up in May I got jumped on by those fully supporting > Wiseman like Xie was the > devil incarnate. If you want to build concensus then you have to > come down from the > mountain a little bit more often. > doug > > > , " " > <zrosenbe wrote: >> >> I'm going to answer you, Doug, beginning with a quote from Bob Felt: >> >> " If we look at what we are trying to do, to install in the west a >> medicine that is rooted in >> different ideas of what constitutes evidence, of what we can be >> observed, of what can be >> altered, in human health and illness, it is easy to understand the >> urge to conform CM to >> biomedicine. The underlying assumption is that " conjunctivitis " is >> true, and " wind fire >> eye " is not. And, that assumption is unavailable to change based on >> contrary evidence. >> So, it does not occur to Xie, who has admitted that wind fire eye >> includes both >> sceleritis and convjunctivitis, that anything is lost by reducing it >> to conjunctivitis. In >> other words, his own clinical experience is not enough to overwhelm >> his epistemological >> assumptions. " >> >> In other words, Xie Xu-fan, as an instructor at an integrative >> biomedicine/Chinese medicine school, does not acknowledge much if any >> value to pre-modern assumptions of Chinese medical metaphors. It >> doesn't fit his belief system, so he concludes that Westerners must >> also feel this way. There is still a lack of comprehension in China >> that there is an 'alternative' medical audience in the West to >> biomedicine that wants those metaphors to remain intact, so that we >> may discover for ourselves how Chinese medicine works with itself as >> reference point. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 23, 2006, at 6:20 PM, wrote: >> >>> Sorry, to take so long on this... Alon: " On the Standard >>> Nomenclature " is dated 2003. >>> Z'ev: Sorry you didn't appreciate this book as much as I did. I got >>> a lot out of it. I'm not >>> familiar with the Zi Gong reference but in other parts of the book >>> he supports some >>> Wiseman terms as well as being familiar with other English writers. >>> doug >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.