filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

March 16, 2006

>

Alwin, Marnae, Zev,

Thanks for the recommendation for the Practical Dictionary. I'll pick up a

copy.

Marnae, to address your points, when I mentioned a text being needed to

accompany Deng's book, I meant a reference like the PD, not an additional

textbook. Regarding Wiseman's Fundamentals of CM, if I recall, he doesn't

really define a lot of those terms in that book, so it may be that the PD

would be the best way to go. I think it has been a problem to start students

on TCM terminology and then make an abrupt shift to the terminology of

Deng's book. This has been poorly planned by the California board, since

they still require CAM and Giovanni as basic theory texts, which are both in

the TCM terminology. This forces the students to switch terminology before

they have a complete grasp on the basic theory.

- Bill Schoenbart

, " Bill Schoenbart "

> <plantmed2 wrote:

> >

> > Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

> terminology

> > dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a

> TCM

> > Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

> excess,

> > etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the

> Califorrnia

> > boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

> the

> > terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

> Blood " but

> > fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

> discussion be the

> > best sources for defining this type of terminology?

> >

> > My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good

> idea to

> > more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been

> done

> > well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is

> forced to

> > translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand

> a new

> > concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

> >

> > That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to

> introduce

> > a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

> > Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

> >

>

March 16, 2006

Bill,

Perhaps then it is a mistake to rely solely on on CAM and/or

Giovanni as basic theoretical texts. Nigel is working on a new core

theory text that should be out in the near future to complement them,

so that students can learn PD terminology without such a perceived

radical shift. At PCOM, we are starting with the PD early in the

program.

Ultimately, the schools will have to require medical Chinese

classes in order to soundly educate future practitioners. I see no

other way out of the present scenario.

On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

>>

>

> Alwin, Marnae, Zev,

>

> Thanks for the recommendation for the Practical Dictionary. I'll

> pick up a

> copy.

>

> Marnae, to address your points, when I mentioned a text being

> needed to

> accompany Deng's book, I meant a reference like the PD, not an

> additional

> textbook. Regarding Wiseman's Fundamentals of CM, if I recall, he

> doesn't

> really define a lot of those terms in that book, so it may be that

> the PD

> would be the best way to go. I think it has been a problem to start

> students

> on TCM terminology and then make an abrupt shift to the terminology of

> Deng's book. This has been poorly planned by the California board,

> since

> they still require CAM and Giovanni as basic theory texts, which

> are both in

> the TCM terminology. This forces the students to switch terminology

> before

> they have a complete grasp on the basic theory.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

>

> , " Bill Schoenbart "

>> <plantmed2 wrote:

>>>

>>> Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

>> terminology

>>> dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a

>> TCM

>>> Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

>> excess,

>>> etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the

>> Califorrnia

>>> boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

>> the

>>> terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

>> Blood " but

>>> fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

>> discussion be the

>>> best sources for defining this type of terminology?

>>>

>>> My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good

>> idea to

>>> more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been

>> done

>>> well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is

>> forced to

>>> translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand

>> a new

>>> concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

>>>

>>> That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to

>> introduce

>>> a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

>>> Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

>>>

>>

>

March 17, 2006

>

> On Behalf Of

> Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:34 PM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> Bill,

> Perhaps then it is a mistake to rely solely on on CAM and/or

> Giovanni as basic theoretical texts. Nigel is working on a new core

> theory text that should be out in the near future to complement them,

> so that students can learn PD terminology without such a perceived

> radical shift. At PCOM, we are starting with the PD early in the

> program.

>

> Ultimately, the schools will have to require medical Chinese

> classes in order to soundly educate future practitioners. I see no

> other way out of the present scenario.

I agree with Z'ev, for example at S.W.A.C, in Boulder, I teach a Chinese

Language and Terminology class to 1st semester students. This is its second

semester running. It will be interesting to see the difference this will

make when running up against more difficult texts like fundaments and Deng's

Dx book, as well with just general understanding of the medicine. In this

class I no only teach basic Chinese characters, grammar, and get them

reading some basic stuff, we spend a great deal with Wiseman terminology.

That's right, you heard it, I primarily teach Wiseman terminology, and the

required text is Wiseman's. This is BTW not from a requirement from the

school, but what I think is most useful. This is because 1) it is just so

difficult to read the texts produced with this terminology, students need to

know how to navigate this terrain. 2) Many of the texts written with WT are

invaluable, and many students just don't approach them, because of the

difficulty. I can tell you this, even with a dictionary (PD) in hand, when

I compare terms with others, students still have much difficulty. Clearly

some terms are just not user-friendly (even with a dictionary). But many of

the terms as I point out represent the clearest meaning for the original

concept. Like I have said before, the knife cuts both ways, some choices

rock, some are questionable. But ultimately I think WTs are very useful and

students can learn a lot about CM from working this angle.

Anyway, in the class, we also look at many of the potential synonyms for a

given term, referencing the character and pinyin. I think it is a very

difficult, confusing, but essential class for a modern TCM education.

Furthermore, the debate seems to always fall into something like, well what

if the all the core books were Wiseman then there would be no problem. I.e.

Wiseman will have an upcoming book to replace the basic theory. Will this

just eliminate the confusion? Well, without getting into my ideas of

dominance or politics or whatever, I think we should think very carefully

about we are suggesting. I am quite convinced that WT represents a good way

to learn to read Chinese. Obviously he has the most extensive tools. But

that is not the debate. The debate has to do with what is best for the

students to learn CM. Most students never will read Chinese, nor care too,

for better or worse. Everyone knows one can practice good CM without

Chinese Languange.

But, is it best to have all the core texts, MM, etc. using WT, as some

perceive, and have suggested? I want to comment, from my experience

watching 1st year students learn. There is something very nice about

reading a Maciocia book. I don't think it is ultimately presenting

incorrect information. Hey I did fine, and I started with it. Although it

may be slightly simplified, it gives a great fast boost to get people moving

quickly. I think there would be a huge problem if all core books were in

WT. Wiseman's 'precise' language represents detail that IS inherit in the

Chinese Language. His choice of words, DOES force people to have a

Dictionary in front of them, for better or worse. Even with that

dictionary, students have a hard time understanding things, because they do

not have enough CM, to sometimes make sense of the definition. Maybe this

is the caliber of student? But it is a weight that should be slowly

introduced.

But anyway, I think that exposure to all systems in the beginning is useful.

I think we should start students using the PD from day 1 (as I do). I think

we should embrace as many types of texts available. Even more simplified,

or more connotative texts.

I believe that the struggle that goes on in the students mind trying to

understand the differences between the various terms is very useful. (i.e.

Why one term is better in one situation, or that all 4 terms are equal to

the same Chinese character) It gives the student's mind a jolt. The jolt

says, THINK and use your BRAIN. Chinese medicine is not a single track

system. There is no one way. The terminology debate IMO, exemplifies this

idea of plurality in . To think otherwise or to teach

otherwise IMO is a disservice to the medicine. Anyone who spends hours in

the clinic a day, finds exception after exception to the rules. Finds

patient's that don't fit into the basic TCM framework, and may find the

answer in some idea that is outdated (from a modern TCM perspective) and

expressed in different terminology than what one perceives as the correct

way.

Here is a question: There is Maciocia's new DX book and the Deng DX Book.

Most people comment that Maciocia's is easier to understand. Do you think

that a student reading this will incorrectly treat and dx a patient because

of some fine-tuned terminology issue? Even if in Maciocia's book he DID

lump all words for tonify together (I don't know if he does this), would

someone dx incorrectly. {Note: Even in the Chinese medical dictionary we see

these distinctions blurred, i.e. yi4 (augment / boost) is equivalent to bu3

(supplement / tonify) I would and am curious to see some tangible examples

of how clinical reality is changed using such a book. Let me be clear, I am

not saying don't use Deng's book- I personally like it. But I think both are

useful. But too many times I think the terminology debate gets way too ivory

towerish (and I do respect this perspective, because I too engage at this

level many times), but really, we are training doctors. The question is, is

the clinical reality changed? Does the treatment differ? I don't have an

answer in regard to Maciocia - I don't know enough about the text, but I

think it is clear the EP offers no deficiency when it comes to clinical

truth. - Even without their newly updated gloss (3/13/06), which BTW is out

on their and my website.

So to answer anyway questions from people like Marnae, I am not anti-Wiseman

Terminology- not in the least bit - I am pro-Wiseman, Pro-Eastland press,

Pro- Maciocia, Pro- Claude Laree, Pro-Deke Kendall, & Pro anyone who wants

to express in their way...All bring something too the table

and all can improve in their transmission.

Anyway, my 2 cents for the moment.

Regards,

-Jason

>

> On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

>

> >>

> >

> > Alwin, Marnae, Zev,

> >

> > Thanks for the recommendation for the Practical Dictionary. I'll

> > pick up a

> > copy.

> >

> > Marnae, to address your points, when I mentioned a text being

> > needed to

> > accompany Deng's book, I meant a reference like the PD, not an

> > additional

> > textbook. Regarding Wiseman's Fundamentals of CM, if I recall, he

> > doesn't

> > really define a lot of those terms in that book, so it may be that

> > the PD

> > would be the best way to go. I think it has been a problem to start

> > students

> > on TCM terminology and then make an abrupt shift to the terminology of

> > Deng's book. This has been poorly planned by the California board,

> > since

> > they still require CAM and Giovanni as basic theory texts, which

> > are both in

> > the TCM terminology. This forces the students to switch terminology

> > before

> > they have a complete grasp on the basic theory.

> >

> > - Bill Schoenbart

> >

> > , " Bill Schoenbart "

> >> <plantmed2 wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

> >> terminology

> >>> dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a

> >> TCM

> >>> Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

> >> excess,

> >>> etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the

> >> Califorrnia

> >>> boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

> >> the

> >>> terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

> >> Blood " but

> >>> fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

> >> discussion be the

> >>> best sources for defining this type of terminology?

> >>>

> >>> My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good

> >> idea to

> >>> more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been

> >> done

> >>> well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is

> >> forced to

> >>> translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand

> >> a new

> >>> concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

> >>>

> >>> That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to

> >> introduce

> >>> a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

> >>> Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

> >>>

> >>

> >

March 18, 2006

Sounds very sane (and integral, ie. honouring all levels whilst realising

there ARE levels) to me. Nice one Jason.

On 3/18/06, wrote:

>

> >

> > On Behalf Of

> > Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:34 PM

> >

> > Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> > deficiency

> >

> > Bill,

> > Perhaps then it is a mistake to rely solely on on CAM and/or

> > Giovanni as basic theoretical texts. Nigel is working on a new core

> > theory text that should be out in the near future to complement them,

> > so that students can learn PD terminology without such a perceived

> > radical shift. At PCOM, we are starting with the PD early in the

> > program.

> >

> > Ultimately, the schools will have to require medical Chinese

> > classes in order to soundly educate future practitioners. I see no

> > other way out of the present scenario.

>

> I agree with Z'ev, for example at S.W.A.C, in Boulder, I teach a Chinese

> Language and Terminology class to 1st semester students. This is its

> second

> semester running. It will be interesting to see the difference this will

> make when running up against more difficult texts like fundaments and

> Deng's

> Dx book, as well with just general understanding of the medicine. In this

> class I no only teach basic Chinese characters, grammar, and get them

> reading some basic stuff, we spend a great deal with Wiseman terminology.

> That's right, you heard it, I primarily teach Wiseman terminology, and the

> required text is Wiseman's. This is BTW not from a requirement from the

> school, but what I think is most useful. This is because 1) it is just so

> difficult to read the texts produced with this terminology, students need

> to

> know how to navigate this terrain. 2) Many of the texts written with WT

> are

> invaluable, and many students just don't approach them, because of the

> difficulty. I can tell you this, even with a dictionary (PD) in hand,

> when

> I compare terms with others, students still have much difficulty. Clearly

> some terms are just not user-friendly (even with a dictionary). But many

> of

> the terms as I point out represent the clearest meaning for the original

> concept. Like I have said before, the knife cuts both ways, some choices

> rock, some are questionable. But ultimately I think WTs are very useful

> and

> students can learn a lot about CM from working this angle.

>

> Anyway, in the class, we also look at many of the potential synonyms for a

> given term, referencing the character and pinyin. I think it is a very

> difficult, confusing, but essential class for a modern TCM education.

>

> Furthermore, the debate seems to always fall into something like, well

> what

> if the all the core books were Wiseman then there would be no problem.

> I.e.

> Wiseman will have an upcoming book to replace the basic theory. Will this

> just eliminate the confusion? Well, without getting into my ideas of

> dominance or politics or whatever, I think we should think very carefully

> about we are suggesting. I am quite convinced that WT represents a good

> way

> to learn to read Chinese. Obviously he has the most extensive tools. But

> that is not the debate. The debate has to do with what is best for the

> students to learn CM. Most students never will read Chinese, nor care

> too,

> for better or worse. Everyone knows one can practice good CM without

> Chinese Languange.

>

> But, is it best to have all the core texts, MM, etc. using WT, as some

> perceive, and have suggested? I want to comment, from my experience

> watching 1st year students learn. There is something very nice about

> reading a Maciocia book. I don't think it is ultimately presenting

> incorrect information. Hey I did fine, and I started with it. Although it

> may be slightly simplified, it gives a great fast boost to get people

> moving

> quickly. I think there would be a huge problem if all core books were in

> WT. Wiseman's 'precise' language represents detail that IS inherit in the

> Chinese Language. His choice of words, DOES force people to have a

> Dictionary in front of them, for better or worse. Even with that

> dictionary, students have a hard time understanding things, because they

> do

> not have enough CM, to sometimes make sense of the definition. Maybe this

> is the caliber of student? But it is a weight that should be slowly

> introduced.

>

> But anyway, I think that exposure to all systems in the beginning is

> useful.

> I think we should start students using the PD from day 1 (as I do). I

> think

> we should embrace as many types of texts available. Even more simplified,

> or more connotative texts.

>

> I believe that the struggle that goes on in the students mind trying to

> understand the differences between the various terms is very useful. (i.e.

> Why one term is better in one situation, or that all 4 terms are equal to

> the same Chinese character) It gives the student's mind a jolt. The jolt

> says, THINK and use your BRAIN. Chinese medicine is not a single track

> system. There is no one way. The terminology debate IMO, exemplifies

> this

> idea of plurality in . To think otherwise or to teach

> otherwise IMO is a disservice to the medicine. Anyone who spends hours in

> the clinic a day, finds exception after exception to the rules. Finds

> patient's that don't fit into the basic TCM framework, and may find the

> answer in some idea that is outdated (from a modern TCM perspective) and

> expressed in different terminology than what one perceives as the correct

> way.

>

> Here is a question: There is Maciocia's new DX book and the Deng DX Book.

> Most people comment that Maciocia's is easier to understand. Do you think

> that a student reading this will incorrectly treat and dx a patient

> because

> of some fine-tuned terminology issue? Even if in Maciocia's book he DID

> lump all words for tonify together (I don't know if he does this), would

> someone dx incorrectly. {Note: Even in the Chinese medical dictionary we

> see

> these distinctions blurred, i.e. yi4 (augment / boost) is equivalent to

> bu3

> (supplement / tonify) I would and am curious to see some tangible examples

> of how clinical reality is changed using such a book. Let me be clear, I

> am

> not saying don't use Deng's book- I personally like it. But I think both

> are

> useful. But too many times I think the terminology debate gets way too

> ivory

> towerish (and I do respect this perspective, because I too engage at this

> level many times), but really, we are training doctors. The question is,

> is

> the clinical reality changed? Does the treatment differ? I don't have an

> answer in regard to Maciocia - I don't know enough about the text, but I

> think it is clear the EP offers no deficiency when it comes to clinical

> truth. - Even without their newly updated gloss (3/13/06), which BTW is

> out

> on their and my website.

>

> So to answer anyway questions from people like Marnae, I am not

> anti-Wiseman

> Terminology- not in the least bit - I am pro-Wiseman, Pro-Eastland press,

> Pro- Maciocia, Pro- Claude Laree, Pro-Deke Kendall, & Pro anyone who wants

> to express in their way...All bring something too the

> table

> and all can improve in their transmission.

>

> Anyway, my 2 cents for the moment.

>

> Regards,

>

> -Jason

>

> <Chinese Medicine/>

>

> >

> > On Mar 16, 2006, at 8:08 PM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

> >

> > >>

> > >

> > > Alwin, Marnae, Zev,

> > >

> > > Thanks for the recommendation for the Practical Dictionary. I'll

> > > pick up a

> > > copy.

> > >

> > > Marnae, to address your points, when I mentioned a text being

> > > needed to

> > > accompany Deng's book, I meant a reference like the PD, not an

> > > additional

> > > textbook. Regarding Wiseman's Fundamentals of CM, if I recall, he

> > > doesn't

> > > really define a lot of those terms in that book, so it may be that

> > > the PD

> > > would be the best way to go. I think it has been a problem to start

> > > students

> > > on TCM terminology and then make an abrupt shift to the terminology of

> > > Deng's book. This has been poorly planned by the California board,

> > > since

> > > they still require CAM and Giovanni as basic theory texts, which

> > > are both in

> > > the TCM terminology. This forces the students to switch terminology

> > > before

> > > they have a complete grasp on the basic theory.

> > >

> > > - Bill Schoenbart

> > >

> > > , " Bill Schoenbart "

> > >> <plantmed2 wrote:

> > >>>

> > >>> Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

> > >> terminology

> > >>> dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a

> > >> TCM

> > >>> Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

> > >> excess,

> > >>> etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the

> > >> Califorrnia

> > >>> boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

> > >> the

> > >>> terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

> > >> Blood " but

> > >>> fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

> > >> discussion be the

> > >>> best sources for defining this type of terminology?

> > >>>

> > >>> My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good

> > >> idea to

> > >>> more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been

> > >> done

> > >>> well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is

> > >> forced to

> > >>> translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand

> > >> a new

> > >>> concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

> > >>>

> > >>> That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to

> > >> introduce

> > >>> a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

> > >>> Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

> > >>>

> > >>

> > >

March 20, 2006

Hopefully I'm not re-opening an old can of worms here. Personally, I think

the texts with the older TCM-type terminology are better for new students. I

would be extremely reluctant to teach a beginner's course with Wiseman's

terminology. The older terminoogy is more intuitive and natural. Also, all

of the herb texts and all of the Chinese teachers use the TCM terminology. I

would prefer to use TCM terminology for the first few semesters, and then

add classes with Wiseman's terminology later.

- Bill Schoenbart

..........................................

Bill Schoenbart, L.Ac.

PO Box 8099

Santa Cruz, CA 95061

831-335-3165

plantmed

> > > Bill,

> > > Perhaps then it is a mistake to rely solely on on CAM and/or

> > > Giovanni as basic theoretical texts. Nigel is working on a new core

> > > theory text that should be out in the near future to complement them,

> > > so that students can learn PD terminology without such a perceived

> > > radical shift. At PCOM, we are starting with the PD early in the

> > > program.

> > >

> > > Ultimately, the schools will have to require medical Chinese

> > > classes in order to soundly educate future practitioners. I see no

> > > other way out of the present scenario.

>

March 20, 2006

In my opinion, this just creates more confusion, learning newer

terminology later on. In addition, it gives students the false

comfort that the 'older-TCM type' terminology is sufficient and

approved of for the practice of professional Chinese medicine.

Bob Damone, Warren Sheir, and until recently have used

Wiseman terminology at PCOM from the get-go, with no confusion. In

fact, after fifteen years of teaching at PCOM, I can safely say that

the depth of knowledge of students is much better in the Herbal

Medicine department, and that their grasp of the terminology presents

few if any problems.

While you are generalizing as to what the older texts are (perhaps we

can be more specific for a more in-depth discussion, none of these

texts really give the students a grasp on terms, definitions, or tie

the English translations to specific pinyin and Chinese characters,

excepting the new Eastland glossary available on line.

On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

> Hopefully I'm not re-opening an old can of worms here. Personally,

> I think

> the texts with the older TCM-type terminology are better for new

> students. I

> would be extremely reluctant to teach a beginner's course with

> Wiseman's

> terminology. The older terminoogy is more intuitive and natural.

> Also, all

> of the herb texts and all of the Chinese teachers use the TCM

> terminology. I

> would prefer to use TCM terminology for the first few semesters,

> and then

> add classes with Wiseman's terminology later.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

March 21, 2006

>

> On Behalf Of

> Monday, March 20, 2006 3:47 PM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> In my opinion, this just creates more confusion, learning newer

> terminology later on. In addition, it gives students the false

> comfort that the 'older-TCM type' terminology is sufficient and

> approved of for the practice of professional Chinese medicine.

Z'ev,

I was wondering if you (and Warren / other teachers) could expand on this a

bit...

1) Are Warren & Bob D. using Wiseman exclusively to teach their intro

classes? Or are they teaching multiple words (systems) for one term /

concept?

2) Are you advocating just using Wiseman terminology from day one because it

creates too much confusion to use multiple systems? Or are you saying it is

just too confusing learning Wiseman terms after one has already learned

theory from something like Maciocia.

3) What are the intro texts that PCOM is now using?

Although, I agree that using the Wiseman terminology / PD greatly increases

one's knowledge, I can not say that students do not have " few if any

problems " - IT is difficult for many. I am curious what % of students

actually own the PD. I do think all schools should require it in the 1st

semester.

On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book) really that bad to start

with? I personally now like other books instead, but let's look at this.

Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do not give a grasp of the

terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would say they precisely do. For

example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M. spends time explaining the

terms within the text. When he talks about jing / essence, he explains it.

When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right there. Yes it may be

flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but the ideas stick. The intro

student can absorb the ideas quickly without having a dictionary right in

front of them (which they don't own anyway) to look up what the words mean.

I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver book of terms that are

unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are not going to be able to

know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense definition in the PD (although

they can with a little help from the teacher), but in exchange they are

going to start understanding . I do believe that from day 1

teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents. And I do think any

serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang / terminology class from

the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are best for more advanced

texts.

Does any school use Wiseman's Fundaments as an intro text? I understand this

is an intro text in China.

Thoughts?

-Jason

>

> Bob Damone, Warren Sheir, and until recently have used

> Wiseman terminology at PCOM from the get-go, with no confusion. In

> fact, after fifteen years of teaching at PCOM, I can safely say that

> the depth of knowledge of students is much better in the Herbal

> Medicine department, and that their grasp of the terminology presents

> few if any problems.

>

> While you are generalizing as to what the older texts are (perhaps we

> can be more specific for a more in-depth discussion, none of these

> texts really give the students a grasp on terms, definitions, or tie

> the English translations to specific pinyin and Chinese characters,

> excepting the new Eastland glossary available on line.

>

> On Mar 20, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

>

> > Hopefully I'm not re-opening an old can of worms here. Personally,

> > I think

> > the texts with the older TCM-type terminology are better for new

> > students. I

> > would be extremely reluctant to teach a beginner's course with

> > Wiseman's

> > terminology. The older terminoogy is more intuitive and natural.

> > Also, all

> > of the herb texts and all of the Chinese teachers use the TCM

> > terminology. I

> > would prefer to use TCM terminology for the first few semesters,

> > and then

> > add classes with Wiseman's terminology later.

> >

> > - Bill Schoenbart

>

March 21, 2006

To claim that the older TCM terminology is not " sufficient or approved " is

quite a stretch. Thousands of practitioners get along just fine on that

terminology. I understand the value of Wiseman's terminology, but it also

has its limitations. Similarly, the TCM terminology has advantages and

limitations that are unique to it. It's a matter of personal preference, not

superiority.

- Bill Schoenbart

.............................................

Bill Schoenbart, L.Ac.

P.O. Box 8099

Santa Cruz, CA 95061

office: 831-335-3165

fax: 831-335-3025

email: plantmed

> " " <zrosenbe

> Re: In my opinion, this just creates more confusion, learning

> newer

> terminology later on. In addition, it gives students the false

> comfort that the 'older-TCM type' terminology is sufficient and

> approved of for the practice of professional Chinese medicine.

>

> Bob Damone, Warren Sheir, and until recently have used

> Wiseman terminology at PCOM from the get-go, with no confusion. In

> fact, after fifteen years of teaching at PCOM, I can safely say that

> the depth of knowledge of students is much better in the Herbal

> Medicine department, and that their grasp of the terminology presents

> few if any problems.

>

> While you are generalizing as to what the older texts are (perhaps we

> can be more specific for a more in-depth discussion, none of these

> texts really give the students a grasp on terms, definitions, or tie

> the English translations to specific pinyin and Chinese characters,

> excepting the new Eastland glossary available on line.

>

March 21, 2006

I strongly disagree. How do you determine what 'getting along just

fine' is? Too many students and practitioners I've come across in my

years as a teacher of both school-level and seminar courses don't

have a good grasp of even core concepts, and cannot do pattern

differentiation effectively.

What do you see as the limitations of " Wiseman terminology " ?

What do you consider to be " TCM terminology " ?

On Mar 21, 2006, at 9:45 AM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

> To claim that the older TCM terminology is not " sufficient or

> approved " is

> quite a stretch. Thousands of practitioners get along just fine on

> that

> terminology. I understand the value of Wiseman's terminology, but

> it also

> has its limitations. Similarly, the TCM terminology has advantages and

> limitations that are unique to it. It's a matter of personal

> preference, not

> superiority.

> - Bill Schoenbart

March 22, 2006

Zev,

By TCM terminology, I mean the terminology that is used in all of the herb

books and the texts by Maciocia and others. This terminology is also used by

virtually all of the Chinese teachers I have met in the U.S. You know,

deficiency versus vacuity, etc.

I understand your point about students needing to learn more about basic

theory and pattern discrimination. I agree that more can be learned from

Wiseman-style terminology and the PD. I just don't agree that this is a good

idea in the beginning. Also, Giovanni explains things in his book, while the

students complain bitterly about Deng's diagnosis book not only using

Wiseman terminology, but also not explaining what is being described. I

agree with Jason that this is better learned in more advanced classes.

However, I agree with you and Thomas that this terminology should be

introduced in the beginning (a class in the PD?) so it doesn't catch the

students by surprise later on. My main point of departure is that I don't

agree that the textbooks with Wiseman terminiology are better right from the

beginning. Of course, it can be done, as you and Thomas and others are

doing. I just personally find it to be less accessible to new students. As

long as students are exposed to the terminology and the related texts (Deng,

Wiseman) at some point in their education, the end result will be the same.

As you can tell, I personally don't care for most of the Wiseman

terminology. However, when it breaks down theory into new detail, I am very

interested in it. Since I like to read Bob Flaws' books and listen to his

tapes, I have been forced to learn it. No problem. I may not always like the

terminology, I may not like his use of cumbersome pharmaceutical names, but

I love his books anyway. I am very grateful that I learned TCM with the

older terminology. With that foundation, it is easy to learn Wiseman's

terminology later in my career.

No doubt this discussion will go on for a long time. Like religion and

politics, there may never be universal agreement. Both sides will tend to

stick with their preference. As long as the debate stays respectful, I have

no problem with that.

- Bill Schoenbart

.....................................

Bill Schoenbart, L.Ac.

PO Box 8099

Santa Cruz, CA 95061

831-335-3165

plantmed

> Re: Re:

>

> I strongly disagree. How do you determine what 'getting along just

> fine' is? Too many students and practitioners I've come across in my

> years as a teacher of both school-level and seminar courses don't

> have a good grasp of even core concepts, and cannot do pattern

> differentiation effectively.

>

> What do you see as the limitations of " Wiseman terminology " ?

>

> What do you consider to be " TCM terminology " ?

>

March 22, 2006

Dear CHA,

With over a year left until I even graduate from CM school, I feel

like I am jumping in WAY over my head here to join this discussion,

but a few questions have come up for me re: terminology and TCM

education and clinical practice.

Background: Instructors at my school are pretty clearly divided on

their terms - old school teachers who can't stand Wiseman-ese, and

others who relish in it. I started first semester with Maciocia's

silver foundations book, as well as CAM and the Web. Second semester

we moved into Deng's diagnosis book, and I did have a difficult time

with the language transition. Instead of exploring the terms, I think

most of us learned to 'translate' - e.g., " 'vacuity' just means

'deficiency' " and " 'repletion' just means 'excess.' " We weren't really

encouraged to examine the nuances of the chosen English terms; we just

accepted them and further reinforced our limited understanding of the

concepts.

On the other hand, I feel that during an early clinic observation

shift, one instructor did a great service by encouraging us to come up

with our own descriptions of the pulses we felt - if it felt " mushy "

or " syrupy " or " pushy " or any other non-standard description, she had

us write that down with other observations instead of trying to pin it

to 'wiry' or 'choppy,' etc. Over time, we have of course learned the

'standard' pulses, and I have better sense of appropriate pulse

descriptions, as well as of appropriate terms to use to describe

things in TCM. However, I think it is important that within the

frameworks (of which there seem to be so many: standard pulse

descriptions, diagnoses, terms, etc.) to encourage students to focus

on what they actually perceive, to observe and explore and to

gradually integrate all of this experience and understanding into

their practice. While I'm not saying that students should be

encouraged to just make up terms throughout their education, this

'exercise' was really beneficial to me as a beginning student.

In essence, learning TCM feels like learning 2 new languages at once

which have to be integrated - one full of concepts (clinical/

practical), and the other just of 'appropriate' descriptions of those

concepts (academic). I think navigating this integration is the crux

of it, at least as far as choosing terminology for TCM education goes.

But so my question regarding the terminology debate is this: How does

the terminology we choose affect the way we ultimately treat patients?

I feel that ultimately, no matter what words we choose, a good

practitioner depends on her integrated experience over time to

understand what is actually going on with the patient and to choose

the most appropriate treatment and prescription. Language and

terminology give us better or worse 'hooks' into our experience, but

ultimately, we have to find our own way in approaching each and every

patient who shows up in front of us, right?

Maybe the above is obvious, or naive, but I am curious: Do those of

you with more clinical experience than I have find that this is true?

How much does terminology ultimately play into things when you are

treating patients? Is this purely an academic/ political debate?? Or

maybe just more for those involved in translation or advanced

practice, rather than basic TCM education?

I don't read Chinese (yet) and neither do most, if any, of my

classmates. So I guess my point is that, as a student, I feel that the

broader the English terminology we are exposed to (including required

texts), the better. This is the time that we are most open to and

actively exploring the depth and breadth of the medicine. I feel that

as many ways as we can be exposed to _possible_ meanings and nuances

(along with historical and contemporary use, etc.) of different terms,

the better chance we have of really resonating with a concept, and

therefore integrating it into our understanding and practice. At the

same time, I feel that classes like the ones that Jason and Thomas

have described are hugely beneficial to beginning students, in that

they encourage/ force students to actually examine the diversity in

the language, and therefore concepts, that form the foundations of CM.

Thanks for hearing me out,

Kate

March 23, 2006

Bill,

On Mar 22, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

> Zev,

>

> By TCM terminology, I mean the terminology that is used in all of

> the herb

> books and the texts by Maciocia and others. This terminology is

> also used by

> virtually all of the Chinese teachers I have met in the U.S. You

> know,

> deficiency versus vacuity, etc.

I see this as terminology by default. Very few, if any of the

Chinese teachers in the U.S. to my knowledge have ever written in

depth on this subject, and just use what is convenient and

available. The so-called terminology just appeared in the books that

hit the marketplace first, without any explanation or analysis. And

none of the translation originally was source-oriented, except for

Manfred Porkert's work.

>

> I understand your point about students needing to learn more about

> basic

> theory and pattern discrimination. I agree that more can be learned

> from

> Wiseman-style terminology and the PD. I just don't agree that this

> is a good

> idea in the beginning.

As I said to Jason, any subject deserves dictionaries and glossaries

from the beginning, and source-oriented translation, so that the

students know where the concepts are coming from.

> Also, Giovanni explains things in his book, while the

> students complain bitterly about Deng's diagnosis book not only using

> Wiseman terminology, but also not explaining what is being described.

I agree that the Deng text needs an update. I am sure Marnae, for

one, would agree. Part of the problem I have with that text is the

layout and design.

> I

> agree with Jason that this is better learned in more advanced classes.

> However, I agree with you and Thomas that this terminology should be

> introduced in the beginning (a class in the PD?) so it doesn't

> catch the

> students by surprise later on. My main point of departure is that I

> don't

> agree that the textbooks with Wiseman terminiology are better right

> from the

> beginning. Of course, it can be done, as you and Thomas and others are

> doing. I just personally find it to be less accessible to new

> students. As

> long as students are exposed to the terminology and the related

> texts (Deng,

> Wiseman) at some point in their education, the end result will be

> the same.\

I think your issues will be addressed as new, more basic Wiseman

terminology texts are released in the coming year.

>

> No doubt this discussion will go on for a long time. Like religion and

> politics, there may never be universal agreement. Both sides will

> tend to

> stick with their preference. As long as the debate stays

> respectful, I have

> no problem with that.

Sounds good to me. Thank you for your thoughts, Bill.

>

March 23, 2006

Jason wrote:

>

> On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book) really that bad to

> start

> with? I personally now like other books instead, but let's look at

> this.

> Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do not give a grasp of

> the

> terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would say they precisely

> do. For

> example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M. spends time

> explaining the

> terms within the text. When he talks about jing / essence, he

> explains it.

> When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right there. Yes it

> may be

> flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but the ideas stick.

> The intro

> student can absorb the ideas quickly without having a dictionary

> right in

> front of them (which they don't own anyway) to look up what the

> words mean.

> I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver book of terms that

> are

> unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they were represented as

individualized, interpretive texts. In other words, the distilled

experience and view of a senior Western practitioner of Chinese

medicine. There is an important place for such texts, and I hope to

offer my own in the future. The author draws from several sources,

such as John Shen, as well as his own experience (especially in the

acupuncture techniques section). However, none of this would be in a

Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture text to my

knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his books what are

his own observations and ideas and those that are from the knowledge

base of China or other Asian countries. In one or more of his

books, he even uses his own self-designed prescriptions to illustrate

treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't have a problem with

this except for one thing. When you are using a book like this as a

primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a new student has no

way of knowing if this is the standard data on the subject or not.

For that, you must have source-oriented translations with extensive

footnoting.

Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On Medicinals " and

" Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical insights and

personal modifications of formulas, are extensively footnoted so that

one is always clear about which material is standard Chinese

medicine, and which is innovative.

So I have the opposite view. I think other books should be used as

beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on when student and

practitioners' critical discernment is more fully developed.

>

> I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are not going to be

> able to

> know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense definition in the PD

> (although

> they can with a little help from the teacher), but in exchange they

> are

> going to start understanding . I do believe that

> from day 1

> teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents. And I do think any

> serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang / terminology

> class from

> the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are best for more

> advanced

> texts.

I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and learning the PD,

they are accessing a rich database of information on Chinese medicine

that grows over time. In other words, it provides cumulative

knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by Nigel will address

some of the issues of providing entry-level material to those new to

" Wiseman terminology " .

>

March 23, 2006

Z'ev,

Thank you for your input; I will contemplate your response. In the meantime

I will look foreword to the New Wiseman text, I guess it all really rests on

how readable this one really is...

-Jason

>

> On Behalf Of

> Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:04 PM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> Jason wrote:

> >

> > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book) really that bad to

> > start

> > with? I personally now like other books instead, but let's look at

> > this.

> > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do not give a grasp of

> > the

> > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would say they precisely

> > do. For

> > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M. spends time

> > explaining the

> > terms within the text. When he talks about jing / essence, he

> > explains it.

> > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right there. Yes it

> > may be

> > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but the ideas stick.

> > The intro

> > student can absorb the ideas quickly without having a dictionary

> > right in

> > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to look up what the

> > words mean.

> > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver book of terms that

> > are

> > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

>

> Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they were represented as

> individualized, interpretive texts. In other words, the distilled

> experience and view of a senior Western practitioner of Chinese

> medicine. There is an important place for such texts, and I hope to

> offer my own in the future. The author draws from several sources,

> such as John Shen, as well as his own experience (especially in the

> acupuncture techniques section). However, none of this would be in a

> Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture text to my

> knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his books what are

> his own observations and ideas and those that are from the knowledge

> base of China or other Asian countries. In one or more of his

> books, he even uses his own self-designed prescriptions to illustrate

> treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't have a problem with

> this except for one thing. When you are using a book like this as a

> primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a new student has no

> way of knowing if this is the standard data on the subject or not.

> For that, you must have source-oriented translations with extensive

> footnoting.

>

> Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On Medicinals " and

> " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical insights and

> personal modifications of formulas, are extensively footnoted so that

> one is always clear about which material is standard Chinese

> medicine, and which is innovative.

>

> So I have the opposite view. I think other books should be used as

> beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on when student and

> practitioners' critical discernment is more fully developed.

> >

> > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are not going to be

> > able to

> > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense definition in the PD

> > (although

> > they can with a little help from the teacher), but in exchange they

> > are

> > going to start understanding . I do believe that

> > from day 1

> > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents. And I do think any

> > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang / terminology

> > class from

> > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are best for more

> > advanced

> > texts.

>

> I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and learning the PD,

> they are accessing a rich database of information on Chinese medicine

> that grows over time. In other words, it provides cumulative

> knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by Nigel will address

> some of the issues of providing entry-level material to those new to

> " Wiseman terminology " .

> >

>

> 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.

>

March 24, 2006

Z'ev -

You are absolutely correct - I would love to be able

to do a revision of the Deng text, but at the moment

that seems to be of little interest to Churchill

(especially now that it is competing with Maciocia's

book and that is a BIG money maker for them). I have

discussed it with other publishers but since I do not

own the copywrite I don't have much say in the matter

(I don't even get royalties from it now!)

Jason -

I do know of at least one school that does not use the

Giovanni texts at all and that in the OM Theory

sequence starts students out from Day 1 with Wiseman.

They also teach a Chinese language class that works

primarily with Wiseman and in the Points sequence they

also work primarily with Wiseman terms. As far as

herbs, they use Bensky as Z'ev does but are looking

forward to the new text by Eric Brand. Does it

confuse students? Absolutely not - it makes them think

and broaden their minds and then, later they can

understand more. And why can't they own the PD from

day one? It is a requirement for their Fundamental

Theory class and they have assigned reading from the

PD for the first class (to be read before beginning

the program.)

I absolutely agree with Z'ev that the problem with

Giovanni's books is that they do not tell the student

what is his " informed " thought and what is more

standard theory. And boy, does this ever confuse

students later on when they try to use his stuff as

standard and their Chinese teachers look at them like

they are crazy. I also have a real problem with

writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

market your own prepared products without letting the

reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

Marnae

--- <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason wrote:

> >

> > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book)

> really that bad to

> > start

> > with? I personally now like other books instead,

> but let's look at

> > this.

> > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do

> not give a grasp of

> > the

> > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would

> say they precisely

> > do. For

> > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M.

> spends time

> > explaining the

> > terms within the text. When he talks about jing /

> essence, he

> > explains it.

> > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right

> there. Yes it

> > may be

> > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but

> the ideas stick.

> > The intro

> > student can absorb the ideas quickly without

> having a dictionary

> > right in

> > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to

> look up what the

> > words mean.

> > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver

> book of terms that

> > are

> > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

>

> Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they

> were represented as

> individualized, interpretive texts. In other words,

> the distilled

> experience and view of a senior Western practitioner

> of Chinese

> medicine. There is an important place for such

> texts, and I hope to

> offer my own in the future. The author draws from

> several sources,

> such as John Shen, as well as his own experience

> (especially in the

> acupuncture techniques section). However, none of

> this would be in a

> Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture

> text to my

> knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his

> books what are

> his own observations and ideas and those that are

> from the knowledge

> base of China or other Asian countries. In one or

> more of his

> books, he even uses his own self-designed

> prescriptions to illustrate

> treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't

> have a problem with

> this except for one thing. When you are using a

> book like this as a

> primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a

> new student has no

> way of knowing if this is the standard data on the

> subject or not.

> For that, you must have source-oriented translations

> with extensive

> footnoting.

>

> Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On

> Medicinals " and

> " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical

> insights and

> personal modifications of formulas, are extensively

> footnoted so that

> one is always clear about which material is standard

> Chinese

> medicine, and which is innovative.

>

> So I have the opposite view. I think other books

> should be used as

> beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on

> when student and

> practitioners' critical discernment is more fully

> developed.

> >

> > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are

> not going to be

> > able to

> > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense

> definition in the PD

> > (although

> > they can with a little help from the teacher), but

> in exchange they

> > are

> > going to start understanding . I

> do believe that

> > from day 1

> > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents.

> And I do think any

> > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang

> / terminology

> > class from

> > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are

> best for more

> > advanced

> > texts.

>

> I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and

> learning the PD,

> they are accessing a rich database of information on

> Chinese medicine

> that grows over time. In other words, it provides

> cumulative

> knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by

> Nigel will address

> some of the issues of providing entry-level material

> to those new to

> " Wiseman terminology " .

> >

>

> 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.

>

March 24, 2006

I also have a real problem with

writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

market your own prepared products without letting the

reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>>>>>>>

I agree

Oakland, CA 94609

-

marnae ergil

Friday, March 24, 2006 7:36 AM

Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

Z'ev -

You are absolutely correct - I would love to be able

to do a revision of the Deng text, but at the moment

that seems to be of little interest to Churchill

(especially now that it is competing with Maciocia's

book and that is a BIG money maker for them). I have

discussed it with other publishers but since I do not

own the copywrite I don't have much say in the matter

(I don't even get royalties from it now!)

Jason -

I do know of at least one school that does not use the

Giovanni texts at all and that in the OM Theory

sequence starts students out from Day 1 with Wiseman.

They also teach a Chinese language class that works

primarily with Wiseman and in the Points sequence they

also work primarily with Wiseman terms. As far as

herbs, they use Bensky as Z'ev does but are looking

forward to the new text by Eric Brand. Does it

confuse students? Absolutely not - it makes them think

and broaden their minds and then, later they can

understand more. And why can't they own the PD from

day one? It is a requirement for their Fundamental

Theory class and they have assigned reading from the

PD for the first class (to be read before beginning

the program.)

I absolutely agree with Z'ev that the problem with

Giovanni's books is that they do not tell the student

what is his " informed " thought and what is more

standard theory. And boy, does this ever confuse

students later on when they try to use his stuff as

standard and their Chinese teachers look at them like

they are crazy. I also have a real problem with

writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

market your own prepared products without letting the

reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

Marnae

--- <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason wrote:

> >

> > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book)

> really that bad to

> > start

> > with? I personally now like other books instead,

> but let's look at

> > this.

> > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do

> not give a grasp of

> > the

> > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would

> say they precisely

> > do. For

> > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M.

> spends time

> > explaining the

> > terms within the text. When he talks about jing /

> essence, he

> > explains it.

> > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right

> there. Yes it

> > may be

> > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but

> the ideas stick.

> > The intro

> > student can absorb the ideas quickly without

> having a dictionary

> > right in

> > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to

> look up what the

> > words mean.

> > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver

> book of terms that

> > are

> > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

>

> Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they

> were represented as

> individualized, interpretive texts. In other words,

> the distilled

> experience and view of a senior Western practitioner

> of Chinese

> medicine. There is an important place for such

> texts, and I hope to

> offer my own in the future. The author draws from

> several sources,

> such as John Shen, as well as his own experience

> (especially in the

> acupuncture techniques section). However, none of

> this would be in a

> Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture

> text to my

> knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his

> books what are

> his own observations and ideas and those that are

> from the knowledge

> base of China or other Asian countries. In one or

> more of his

> books, he even uses his own self-designed

> prescriptions to illustrate

> treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't

> have a problem with

> this except for one thing. When you are using a

> book like this as a

> primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a

> new student has no

> way of knowing if this is the standard data on the

> subject or not.

> For that, you must have source-oriented translations

> with extensive

> footnoting.

>

> Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On

> Medicinals " and

> " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical

> insights and

> personal modifications of formulas, are extensively

> footnoted so that

> one is always clear about which material is standard

> Chinese

> medicine, and which is innovative.

>

> So I have the opposite view. I think other books

> should be used as

> beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on

> when student and

> practitioners' critical discernment is more fully

> developed.

> >

> > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are

> not going to be

> > able to

> > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense

> definition in the PD

> > (although

> > they can with a little help from the teacher), but

> in exchange they

> > are

> > going to start understanding . I

> do believe that

> > from day 1

> > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents.

> And I do think any

> > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang

> / terminology

> > class from

> > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are

> best for more

> > advanced

> > texts.

>

> I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and

> learning the PD,

> they are accessing a rich database of information on

> Chinese medicine

> that grows over time. In other words, it provides

> cumulative

> knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by

> Nigel will address

> some of the issues of providing entry-level material

> to those new to

> " Wiseman terminology " .

> >

>

> 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.

>

March 24, 2006

Marnae,

So you think it is a good thing to start with Wiseman Exclusively? Also

what school are you referring to>?

-Jason

>

> On Behalf Of marnae ergil

> Friday, March 24, 2006 8:36 AM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> Z'ev -

>

> You are absolutely correct - I would love to be able

> to do a revision of the Deng text, but at the moment

> that seems to be of little interest to Churchill

> (especially now that it is competing with Maciocia's

> book and that is a BIG money maker for them). I have

> discussed it with other publishers but since I do not

> own the copywrite I don't have much say in the matter

> (I don't even get royalties from it now!)

>

> Jason -

>

> I do know of at least one school that does not use the

> Giovanni texts at all and that in the OM Theory

> sequence starts students out from Day 1 with Wiseman.

> They also teach a Chinese language class that works

> primarily with Wiseman and in the Points sequence they

> also work primarily with Wiseman terms. As far as

> herbs, they use Bensky as Z'ev does but are looking

> forward to the new text by Eric Brand. Does it

> confuse students? Absolutely not - it makes them think

> and broaden their minds and then, later they can

> understand more. And why can't they own the PD from

> day one? It is a requirement for their Fundamental

> Theory class and they have assigned reading from the

> PD for the first class (to be read before beginning

> the program.)

>

> I absolutely agree with Z'ev that the problem with

> Giovanni's books is that they do not tell the student

> what is his " informed " thought and what is more

> standard theory. And boy, does this ever confuse

> students later on when they try to use his stuff as

> standard and their Chinese teachers look at them like

> they are crazy. I also have a real problem with

> writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

> market your own prepared products without letting the

> reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

> that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>

> Marnae

>

> --- <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> >

> > Jason wrote:

> > >

> > > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book)

> > really that bad to

> > > start

> > > with? I personally now like other books instead,

> > but let's look at

> > > this.

> > > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do

> > not give a grasp of

> > > the

> > > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would

> > say they precisely

> > > do. For

> > > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M.

> > spends time

> > > explaining the

> > > terms within the text. When he talks about jing /

> > essence, he

> > > explains it.

> > > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right

> > there. Yes it

> > > may be

> > > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but

> > the ideas stick.

> > > The intro

> > > student can absorb the ideas quickly without

> > having a dictionary

> > > right in

> > > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to

> > look up what the

> > > words mean.

> > > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver

> > book of terms that

> > > are

> > > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

> >

> > Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they

> > were represented as

> > individualized, interpretive texts. In other words,

> > the distilled

> > experience and view of a senior Western practitioner

> > of Chinese

> > medicine. There is an important place for such

> > texts, and I hope to

> > offer my own in the future. The author draws from

> > several sources,

> > such as John Shen, as well as his own experience

> > (especially in the

> > acupuncture techniques section). However, none of

> > this would be in a

> > Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture

> > text to my

> > knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his

> > books what are

> > his own observations and ideas and those that are

> > from the knowledge

> > base of China or other Asian countries. In one or

> > more of his

> > books, he even uses his own self-designed

> > prescriptions to illustrate

> > treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't

> > have a problem with

> > this except for one thing. When you are using a

> > book like this as a

> > primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a

> > new student has no

> > way of knowing if this is the standard data on the

> > subject or not.

> > For that, you must have source-oriented translations

> > with extensive

> > footnoting.

> >

> > Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On

> > Medicinals " and

> > " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical

> > insights and

> > personal modifications of formulas, are extensively

> > footnoted so that

> > one is always clear about which material is standard

> > Chinese

> > medicine, and which is innovative.

> >

> > So I have the opposite view. I think other books

> > should be used as

> > beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on

> > when student and

> > practitioners' critical discernment is more fully

> > developed.

> > >

> > > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are

> > not going to be

> > > able to

> > > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense

> > definition in the PD

> > > (although

> > > they can with a little help from the teacher), but

> > in exchange they

> > > are

> > > going to start understanding . I

> > do believe that

> > > from day 1

> > > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents.

> > And I do think any

> > > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang

> > / terminology

> > > class from

> > > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are

> > best for more

> > > advanced

> > > texts.

> >

> > I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and

> > learning the PD,

> > they are accessing a rich database of information on

> > Chinese medicine

> > that grows over time. In other words, it provides

> > cumulative

> > knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by

> > Nigel will address

> > some of the issues of providing entry-level material

> > to those new to

> > " Wiseman terminology " .

> > >

> >

> > 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.

> >

March 24, 2006

>

> On Behalf Of

> Friday, March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> I also have a real problem with

> writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

> market your own prepared products without letting the

> reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

> that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>

What book are we referring to here? I don't remember any of this in the old

Fundamentals (Silver) Book. Does the new Fundamentals contain this stuff?

-Jason

> >>>>>>>

> I agree

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

> -

> marnae ergil

>

> Friday, March 24, 2006 7:36 AM

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> Z'ev -

>

> You are absolutely correct - I would love to be able

> to do a revision of the Deng text, but at the moment

> that seems to be of little interest to Churchill

> (especially now that it is competing with Maciocia's

> book and that is a BIG money maker for them). I have

> discussed it with other publishers but since I do not

> own the copywrite I don't have much say in the matter

> (I don't even get royalties from it now!)

>

> Jason -

>

> I do know of at least one school that does not use the

> Giovanni texts at all and that in the OM Theory

> sequence starts students out from Day 1 with Wiseman.

> They also teach a Chinese language class that works

> primarily with Wiseman and in the Points sequence they

> also work primarily with Wiseman terms. As far as

> herbs, they use Bensky as Z'ev does but are looking

> forward to the new text by Eric Brand. Does it

> confuse students? Absolutely not - it makes them think

> and broaden their minds and then, later they can

> understand more. And why can't they own the PD from

> day one? It is a requirement for their Fundamental

> Theory class and they have assigned reading from the

> PD for the first class (to be read before beginning

> the program.)

>

> I absolutely agree with Z'ev that the problem with

> Giovanni's books is that they do not tell the student

> what is his " informed " thought and what is more

> standard theory. And boy, does this ever confuse

> students later on when they try to use his stuff as

> standard and their Chinese teachers look at them like

> they are crazy. I also have a real problem with

> writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

> market your own prepared products without letting the

> reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

> that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>

> Marnae

>

> --- <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> >

> > Jason wrote:

> > >

> > > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book)

> > really that bad to

> > > start

> > > with? I personally now like other books instead,

> > but let's look at

> > > this.

> > > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do

> > not give a grasp of

> > > the

> > > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would

> > say they precisely

> > > do. For

> > > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M.

> > spends time

> > > explaining the

> > > terms within the text. When he talks about jing /

> > essence, he

> > > explains it.

> > > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right

> > there. Yes it

> > > may be

> > > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but

> > the ideas stick.

> > > The intro

> > > student can absorb the ideas quickly without

> > having a dictionary

> > > right in

> > > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to

> > look up what the

> > > words mean.

> > > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver

> > book of terms that

> > > are

> > > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

> >

> > Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they

> > were represented as

> > individualized, interpretive texts. In other words,

> > the distilled

> > experience and view of a senior Western practitioner

> > of Chinese

> > medicine. There is an important place for such

> > texts, and I hope to

> > offer my own in the future. The author draws from

> > several sources,

> > such as John Shen, as well as his own experience

> > (especially in the

> > acupuncture techniques section). However, none of

> > this would be in a

> > Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture

> > text to my

> > knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his

> > books what are

> > his own observations and ideas and those that are

> > from the knowledge

> > base of China or other Asian countries. In one or

> > more of his

> > books, he even uses his own self-designed

> > prescriptions to illustrate

> > treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't

> > have a problem with

> > this except for one thing. When you are using a

> > book like this as a

> > primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a

> > new student has no

> > way of knowing if this is the standard data on the

> > subject or not.

> > For that, you must have source-oriented translations

> > with extensive

> > footnoting.

> >

> > Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On

> > Medicinals " and

> > " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical

> > insights and

> > personal modifications of formulas, are extensively

> > footnoted so that

> > one is always clear about which material is standard

> > Chinese

> > medicine, and which is innovative.

> >

> > So I have the opposite view. I think other books

> > should be used as

> > beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on

> > when student and

> > practitioners' critical discernment is more fully

> > developed.

> > >

> > > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are

> > not going to be

> > > able to

> > > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense

> > definition in the PD

> > > (although

> > > they can with a little help from the teacher), but

> > in exchange they

> > > are

> > > going to start understanding . I

> > do believe that

> > > from day 1

> > > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents.

> > And I do think any

> > > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang

> > / terminology

> > > class from

> > > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are

> > best for more

> > > advanced

> > > texts.

> >

> > I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and

> > learning the PD,

> > they are accessing a rich database of information on

> > Chinese medicine

> > that grows over time. In other words, it provides

> > cumulative

> > knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by

> > Nigel will address

> > some of the issues of providing entry-level material

> > to those new to

> > " Wiseman terminology " .

> > >

> >

> > 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.

> >

March 24, 2006

Jason

I saw some in his GYN book. I cant give examples as i do not own it.

Oakland, CA 94609

-

Friday, March 24, 2006 6:16 PM

RE: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> On Behalf Of

> Friday, March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

>

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> I also have a real problem with

> writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

> market your own prepared products without letting the

> reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

> that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>

What book are we referring to here? I don't remember any of this in the old

Fundamentals (Silver) Book. Does the new Fundamentals contain this stuff?

-Jason

> >>>>>>>

> I agree

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

> -

> marnae ergil

>

> Friday, March 24, 2006 7:36 AM

> Re: Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

> deficiency

>

> Z'ev -

>

> You are absolutely correct - I would love to be able

> to do a revision of the Deng text, but at the moment

> that seems to be of little interest to Churchill

> (especially now that it is competing with Maciocia's

> book and that is a BIG money maker for them). I have

> discussed it with other publishers but since I do not

> own the copywrite I don't have much say in the matter

> (I don't even get royalties from it now!)

>

> Jason -

>

> I do know of at least one school that does not use the

> Giovanni texts at all and that in the OM Theory

> sequence starts students out from Day 1 with Wiseman.

> They also teach a Chinese language class that works

> primarily with Wiseman and in the Points sequence they

> also work primarily with Wiseman terms. As far as

> herbs, they use Bensky as Z'ev does but are looking

> forward to the new text by Eric Brand. Does it

> confuse students? Absolutely not - it makes them think

> and broaden their minds and then, later they can

> understand more. And why can't they own the PD from

> day one? It is a requirement for their Fundamental

> Theory class and they have assigned reading from the

> PD for the first class (to be read before beginning

> the program.)

>

> I absolutely agree with Z'ev that the problem with

> Giovanni's books is that they do not tell the student

> what is his " informed " thought and what is more

> standard theory. And boy, does this ever confuse

> students later on when they try to use his stuff as

> standard and their Chinese teachers look at them like

> they are crazy. I also have a real problem with

> writing a textbook on a given topic and using it to

> market your own prepared products without letting the

> reader know what you are doing. It bacically means

> that the book is a catalog masquerading as a text.

>

> Marnae

>

> --- <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> >

> > Jason wrote:

> > >

> > > On a side note: Is Maciocia (i.e. silver book)

> > really that bad to

> > > start

> > > with? I personally now like other books instead,

> > but let's look at

> > > this.

> > > Z'ev, and many others, claim that such texts do

> > not give a grasp of

> > > the

> > > terms. Well, in defense of such texts, I would

> > say they precisely

> > > do. For

> > > example, because it is NOT a translation, G.M.

> > spends time

> > > explaining the

> > > terms within the text. When he talks about jing /

> > essence, he

> > > explains it.

> > > When he talks about ying qi - HE explains it right

> > there. Yes it

> > > may be

> > > flowery and not read like a Chinese textbook, but

> > the ideas stick.

> > > The intro

> > > student can absorb the ideas quickly without

> > having a dictionary

> > > right in

> > > front of them (which they don't own anyway) to

> > look up what the

> > > words mean.

> > > I would like to hear examples from G.M.'s silver

> > book of terms that

> > > are

> > > unclear and not grasped. What is a better text?

> >

> > Giovanni's book(s) would be fine with me if they

> > were represented as

> > individualized, interpretive texts. In other words,

> > the distilled

> > experience and view of a senior Western practitioner

> > of Chinese

> > medicine. There is an important place for such

> > texts, and I hope to

> > offer my own in the future. The author draws from

> > several sources,

> > such as John Shen, as well as his own experience

> > (especially in the

> > acupuncture techniques section). However, none of

> > this would be in a

> > Chinese language internal medicine or acupuncture

> > text to my

> > knowledge. It is impossible for me to tell from his

> > books what are

> > his own observations and ideas and those that are

> > from the knowledge

> > base of China or other Asian countries. In one or

> > more of his

> > books, he even uses his own self-designed

> > prescriptions to illustrate

> > treatment of specific conditions. Again, I don't

> > have a problem with

> > this except for one thing. When you are using a

> > book like this as a

> > primary source of knowledge, a primary textbook, a

> > new student has no

> > way of knowing if this is the standard data on the

> > subject or not.

> > For that, you must have source-oriented translations

> > with extensive

> > footnoting.

> >

> > Even texts such as Jiao Shu-de's " Ten Lectures On

> > Medicinals " and

> > " Ten Lectures on Formulas " , which share his clinical

> > insights and

> > personal modifications of formulas, are extensively

> > footnoted so that

> > one is always clear about which material is standard

> > Chinese

> > medicine, and which is innovative.

> >

> > So I have the opposite view. I think other books

> > should be used as

> > beginner's texts, and Giovanni texts used later on

> > when student and

> > practitioners' critical discernment is more fully

> > developed.

> > >

> > > I see it as a trade-off - Granted the students are

> > not going to be

> > > able to

> > > know the pinyin and read the sometimes dense

> > definition in the PD

> > > (although

> > > they can with a little help from the teacher), but

> > in exchange they

> > > are

> > > going to start understanding . I

> > do believe that

> > > from day 1

> > > teachers should point out the Wiseman equivalents.

> > And I do think any

> > > serious school should have a Chinese Medical Lang

> > / terminology

> > > class from

> > > the get go. I currently think Wiseman texts are

> > best for more

> > > advanced

> > > texts.

> >

> > I disagree. As soon as a student starts using and

> > learning the PD,

> > they are accessing a rich database of information on

> > Chinese medicine

> > that grows over time. In other words, it provides

> > cumulative

> > knowledge. The new 'beginner's text' prepared by

> > Nigel will address

> > some of the issues of providing entry-level material

> > to those new to

> > " Wiseman terminology " .

> > >

> >

> > 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.

> >

Sign In

filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Join the conversation